If what I think is correct (That all energy is interconnected) then the universe / multiverse might act as a 'brain'....just the stuff in our universe would have *10^90 to the power of 10^90 connections.
*10^90 is merely an arbitary figure as it's around what's predicted for particles in our universe.
there is no god behing the universe
universe itself is god
universe itself is god
amrit
I believe that is what fivedoughnut just said!
I believe that is what fivedoughnut just said!
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Oct 22 2006, 09:32 AM)
...10^90 is merely an arbitrary figure as it's around what's predicted for particles in our universe...
The AWT supposes, the Universe existence can be explained by elastic foam, composed from density gradients recursively. Nevertheless each the wave requires some inertial environment for its spreading, each the gradient requires some another environments for its formation, to be able exist at all. By such way, such model is infinitesimally recursive, albeit it doesn't mean, it needs to be infinitely large. The Universe can have closed or even cyclic topology, although it appears a quite improbable.
The AWT supposes, the Universe existence can be explained by elastic foam, composed from density gradients recursively. Nevertheless each the wave requires some inertial environment for its spreading, each the gradient requires some another environments for its formation, to be able exist at all. By such way, such model is infinitesimally recursive, albeit it doesn't mean, it needs to be infinitely large. The Universe can have closed or even cyclic topology, although it appears a quite improbable.
Q: Is The Universe conscious and self aware?
Q: No. It only thinks it is.
But seriously folks, can we keep the God stuff separate from the Physics please?
Q: No. It only thinks it is.
But seriously folks, can we keep the God stuff separate from the Physics please?
there is no god out of the universe
we can forget about god
universe is enough
we can forget about god
universe is enough
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 22 2006, 03:26 PM)
But seriously folks, can we keep the God stuff separate from the Physics please?
Of course, by using the causality as the criterion.
Of course, by using the causality as the criterion.
Amrit,
Who cares....I'm just musing.
Another 'picture' is of a progenitor wavicle brane (wavefront) with all dimensionally collapsed offspring 'stuck in it' .......Yes if there is a god...it's the smallest wavicle ever.....information overload and growing
Conclusion: God is a wave combo.
p.s, you repeat more than my *** after a shockingly hot phal ( no rice...served on a bed of black chillies).
Who cares....I'm just musing.
Another 'picture' is of a progenitor wavicle brane (wavefront) with all dimensionally collapsed offspring 'stuck in it' .......Yes if there is a god...it's the smallest wavicle ever.....information overload and growing
Conclusion: God is a wave combo.
p.s, you repeat more than my *** after a shockingly hot phal ( no rice...served on a bed of black chillies).
QUOTE
But seriously folks, can we keep the God stuff separate from the Physics please?
Unless you know what God is, how can you say separate it?
Thats like saying leave eggs out of chicken soup.
No eggs no chicken soup
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Oct 22 2006, 09:32 AM)
Particles perhaps 'neurons'?
By my observations the elementary particles are small living creatures: the bosons are males, whereas the fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure inside body like other living organisms, they're tactile and sensitive to heat and mechanical stimulation like other animals.
In general, the she-fermions are more communicative, usually rather attractive having mass, they love company and most of all they prefer to exchange the energy with bosons (...you know, womens..).
Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents.
Both types of particles have appeared briefly after universe inflation like eukaryota due to spontaneous symmetry breaking of genetic information density with the close analogy of Precambrian species explosion as the result of sexual dimorphism evolution..
Until this time, just a single type of tiny particles have occurred, rather primitive one (so called "gravitons") which has behaved both as male, both as female, having breded just by division like bacterias and procaryota with exact biological evolution analogy.
From this point of view it seems, the atom nuclei are rather globular colonies of such small creatures, like Globe animalcule (Volvox globator).
By my observations the elementary particles are small living creatures: the bosons are males, whereas the fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure inside body like other living organisms, they're tactile and sensitive to heat and mechanical stimulation like other animals.
In general, the she-fermions are more communicative, usually rather attractive having mass, they love company and most of all they prefer to exchange the energy with bosons (...you know, womens..).
Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents.
Both types of particles have appeared briefly after universe inflation like eukaryota due to spontaneous symmetry breaking of genetic information density with the close analogy of Precambrian species explosion as the result of sexual dimorphism evolution..
Until this time, just a single type of tiny particles have occurred, rather primitive one (so called "gravitons") which has behaved both as male, both as female, having breded just by division like bacterias and procaryota with exact biological evolution analogy.
From this point of view it seems, the atom nuclei are rather globular colonies of such small creatures, like Globe animalcule (Volvox globator).
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 22 2006, 11:02 PM)
By my observations the elementary particles are small living creatures: the bosons are males, whereas the fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure inside body like other living organisms, they're tactile and sensitive to heat and mechanical stimulation like other animals.
In general, the she-fermions are more communicative, usually rather attractive having mass, they love company and most of all they prefer to exchange the energy with bosons (...you know, womens..).
Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents.
Both types of particles have appeared briefly after universe inflation like eukaryota due to spontaneous symmetry breaking of genetic information density with the close analogy of Precambrian species explosion as the result of sexual dimorphism evolution..
Until this time, just a single type of tiny particles have occurred, rather primitive one (so called "gravitons") which has behaved both as male, both as female, having breded just by division like bacterias and procaryota with exact biological evolution analogy.
From this point of view it seems, the atom nuclei are rather globular colonies of such small creatures, like Globe animalcule (Volvox globator).
Larry Harmon the Boson of Bozon the Clown fame was a male charachter. He was a two timer his whole life, who lead a double life. He had two wives in two separate towns and concealed his two timing with the story that he was travelling to Hollywood to tape shows. His wife in Wichta belived it her whole life.
In general, the she-fermions are more communicative, usually rather attractive having mass, they love company and most of all they prefer to exchange the energy with bosons (...you know, womens..).
Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents.
Both types of particles have appeared briefly after universe inflation like eukaryota due to spontaneous symmetry breaking of genetic information density with the close analogy of Precambrian species explosion as the result of sexual dimorphism evolution..
Until this time, just a single type of tiny particles have occurred, rather primitive one (so called "gravitons") which has behaved both as male, both as female, having breded just by division like bacterias and procaryota with exact biological evolution analogy.
From this point of view it seems, the atom nuclei are rather globular colonies of such small creatures, like Globe animalcule (Volvox globator).
Larry Harmon the Boson of Bozon the Clown fame was a male charachter. He was a two timer his whole life, who lead a double life. He had two wives in two separate towns and concealed his two timing with the story that he was travelling to Hollywood to tape shows. His wife in Wichta belived it her whole life.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Oct 22 2006, 11:12 PM)
Larry Harmon the Boson of Bozon the Clown fame was a male charachter. He was a two timer his whole life, who lead a double life. He had two wives in two separate towns and concealed his two timing with the story that he was travelling to Hollywood to tape shows. His wife in Wichta belived it her whole life.
Great volvox picture! Where did you get ti? Can I use it on my Vulvox inc. webpage? Do you have others?
Great volvox picture! Where did you get ti? Can I use it on my Vulvox inc. webpage? Do you have others?
Considering there is no other document that passes the accepted tests of historical accuracy to the degree that the bible does (I believe Homer is second),[Moderator: Citation needed with full explanation of methodology.] I have to ask how anyone claiming to use logic to attempt to understand the creation and our existence could disregard the scriptures prior to or in the midst of their quest. [Moderator: Easy: if you trust logic more than religious authority, then you test the claims of scripture with logical consistency and by comparing with other reliable ways of knowing. Some of the Bible has historically verifiable fact (Romans occupied Palestine), and outright untruths.] It is logical to disregard myths, religious writings, faith, etc in our quest of logical analysis. But when presented with the ancient manuscripts that speak of these things, consider the level of accuracy when logical and accepted historical tests are applied, and add to this the voluminous prophecies fulfilled with detailed accuracy, what degree of intellectual dishonesty must we employ to simply disregard this evidence without first employing the same degree of logical investigation and analysis that we claim is the foundation of our reasoning? [Moderator: Citation needed with full explanation of methodology. The question is how do you know what parts of the Bible to trust, and how do you expect to communicate that to other people. Further, if X% is proven to be true and Y% is proven to be false, then do you trust the 100% - X% - Y% to be true or false? No -- that remainder may be true or false. Just like any claim from a source, because claims are not automatically facts no matter their source.]
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 01:27 PM)
Considering there is no other document that passes the accepted tests of historical accuracy to the degree that the bible does (I believe Homer is second), I have to ask how anyone claiming to use logic to attempt to understand the creation and our existence could disregard the scriptures prior to or in the midst of their quest. It is logical to disregard myths, religious writings, faith, etc in our quest of logical analysis. But when presented with the ancient manuscripts that speak of these things, consider the level of accuracy when logical and accepted historical tests are applied, and add to this the voluminous prophecies fulfilled with detailed accuracy, what degree of intellectual dishonesty must we employ to simply disregard this evidence without first employing the same degree of logical investigation and analysis that we claim is the foundation of our reasoning?
While some biblical accounts have been found to be historically accurate, others have been shown to be in error. Any claims to prophetic legitimacy can be ascribed to generalized prediction, or outright statement after the fact. As for authenticating supernatural events of the Bible, there are no grounds at all.
There are many contemporary accounts of extraordinary events that contain accurate descriptions of time and place, such as eyewitness accounts of the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs and alien abductions, yet the vast majority of such accounts can be explained as something other than what the witnesses claimed. The further you go back into history, the harder it is was to rationally explain such claims, thus the accuracy must also be suspect with the passage of time.
When logic is not present in myth, manuscript, or religious foundation, it is logical to disregard such sources in respect to present day reality.
While some biblical accounts have been found to be historically accurate, others have been shown to be in error. Any claims to prophetic legitimacy can be ascribed to generalized prediction, or outright statement after the fact. As for authenticating supernatural events of the Bible, there are no grounds at all.
There are many contemporary accounts of extraordinary events that contain accurate descriptions of time and place, such as eyewitness accounts of the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs and alien abductions, yet the vast majority of such accounts can be explained as something other than what the witnesses claimed. The further you go back into history, the harder it is was to rationally explain such claims, thus the accuracy must also be suspect with the passage of time.
When logic is not present in myth, manuscript, or religious foundation, it is logical to disregard such sources in respect to present day reality.
The historical tests for accuracy concerning the character of Jesus could hardly compare with that of the loch ness monster. If logic concludes that we cannot confirm the character of Jesus, then neither can we confirm Caesar, Alexander, etc.... If he was here and made the claims he did, then what logical conclusion can we make, as CS Lewis stated so well?
If we are to claim logic as our basis for understanding the universe, do we not have to acknowledge that the 'beginning' simply defies our understanding? How does logic lead one to conclude that we can understand all things? Our insistence that "it cannot be God" is not logical, particularly that we all know we cannot prove the non-existence of God. We cannot begin with the premise that the 'god of scripture' is not the creator without solidly examining the evidence.
If there is an 'intelligent design', why would we expect mathematics, which describes the workings of the universe, to explain its beginning?
Paul Davies seems to contradict himself. He seems to acknowledge the existence of some "thing" behind it all, but this "thing" cannot be the god that scripture speaks of. With the overwhelming historical accuracy (the manuscripts pass the historical tests with more accuracy than any other documents know to man) - one has to provide the argument for the omission of the god of the scriptures before one can simply dismiss the evidence.
If we are to claim logic as our basis for understanding the universe, do we not have to acknowledge that the 'beginning' simply defies our understanding? How does logic lead one to conclude that we can understand all things? Our insistence that "it cannot be God" is not logical, particularly that we all know we cannot prove the non-existence of God. We cannot begin with the premise that the 'god of scripture' is not the creator without solidly examining the evidence.
If there is an 'intelligent design', why would we expect mathematics, which describes the workings of the universe, to explain its beginning?
Paul Davies seems to contradict himself. He seems to acknowledge the existence of some "thing" behind it all, but this "thing" cannot be the god that scripture speaks of. With the overwhelming historical accuracy (the manuscripts pass the historical tests with more accuracy than any other documents know to man) - one has to provide the argument for the omission of the god of the scriptures before one can simply dismiss the evidence.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 04:26 PM)
The historical tests for accuracy concerning the character of Jesus could hardly compare with that of the loch ness monster. If logic concludes that we cannot confirm the character of Jesus, then neither can we confirm Caesar, Alexander, etc.... If he was here and made the claims he did, then what logical conclusion can we make, as CS Lewis stated so well?
I don't necessarily doubt that a rabbi by the name of Jesus existed, no more than I doubt that conditions exist at Loch Ness that are the root of unusual sightings. In both of these examples, accuracy becomes an issue when misunderstood behavior becomes fodder for exaggeration.
QUOTE
If we are to claim logic as our basis for understanding the universe, do we not have to acknowledge that the 'beginning' simply defies our understanding? How does logic lead one to conclude that we can understand all things? Our insistence that "it cannot be God" is not logical, particularly that we all know we cannot prove the non-existence of God. We cannot begin with the premise that the 'god of scripture' is not the creator without solidly examining the evidence.
I agree, the beginning does defy our understanding, in fact the idea of a beginning itself would seem to defy logic. I can see a scenario that could involve gods at some point in the sequence of universal events, but there is simply no logical reason to include the god of the Bible in that order.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we are to claim logic as our basis for understanding the universe, do we not have to acknowledge that the 'beginning' simply defies our understanding? How does logic lead one to conclude that we can understand all things? Our insistence that "it cannot be God" is not logical, particularly that we all know we cannot prove the non-existence of God. We cannot begin with the premise that the 'god of scripture' is not the creator without solidly examining the evidence. |
I agree, the beginning does defy our understanding, in fact the idea of a beginning itself would seem to defy logic. I can see a scenario that could involve gods at some point in the sequence of universal events, but there is simply no logical reason to include the god of the Bible in that order.
If there is an 'intelligent design', why would we expect mathematics, which describes the workings of the universe, to explain its beginning?
Paul Davies seems to contradict himself. He seems to acknowledge the existence of some "thing" behind it all, but this "thing" cannot be the god that scripture speaks of. With the overwhelming historical accuracy (the manuscripts pass the historical tests with more accuracy than any other documents know to man) - one has to provide the argument for the omission of the god of the scriptures before one can simply dismiss the evidence.
If there is an 'intelligent design', why would we expect mathematics, which describes the workings of the universe, to explain its beginning?
Paul Davies seems to contradict himself. He seems to acknowledge the existence of some "thing" behind it all, but this "thing" cannot be the god that scripture speaks of. With the overwhelming historical accuracy (the manuscripts pass the historical tests with more accuracy than any other documents know to man) - one has to provide the argument for the omission of the god of the scriptures before one can simply dismiss the evidence.
Mathematics is to test, model, and extrapolate from what is observable, the god of you scriptures doesn't fit that criteria.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 12:26 PM)
The historical tests for accuracy concerning the character of Jesus could hardly compare with that of the loch ness monster. If logic concludes that we cannot confirm the character of Jesus, then neither can we confirm Caesar, Alexander, etc.... If he was here and made the claims he did, then what logical conclusion can we make, as CS Lewis stated so well?
Do we hang the meaning of our lives on the words of Caesar and Alexander? No. C.S. Lewis' apologetics are known for their flawed logic, don't bring him into this.
God hasn't explained anything yet, why should its existence explain anything at all? Where did god begin? You explain a complex problem by injecting an even more complex solution.
God hasn't explained anything yet, why should its existence explain anything at all? Where did god begin? You explain a complex problem by injecting an even more complex solution.
If there is an 'intelligent design', why would we expect mathematics, which describes the workings of the universe, to explain its beginning?
Paul Davies seems to contradict himself. He seems to acknowledge the existence of some "thing" behind it all, but this "thing" cannot be the god that scripture speaks of. With the overwhelming historical accuracy (the manuscripts pass the historical tests with more accuracy than any other documents know to man) - one has to provide the argument for the omission of the god of the scriptures before one can simply dismiss the evidence.
Again, the bible is NOT known to be historically accurate 100% of the time. It gets the more recent details right, but the further it goes back, the less accurate it becomes. For example, there is no historical evidence of an Israelite conquest of Palestine. It is much more likely that the nations of Israel and Judah were native to the region and merely invented their own glorious history.
Again, the bible is NOT known to be historically accurate 100% of the time. It gets the more recent details right, but the further it goes back, the less accurate it becomes. For example, there is no historical evidence of an Israelite conquest of Palestine. It is much more likely that the nations of Israel and Judah were native to the region and merely invented their own glorious history.
gee, I see your point. The nonexistence of the evidence of the invasion of palestine proves the inaccuracy of the bible.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomena
wow, is intelligence a phenomena?? is it material?? does it exist??
what the heck is it anyway??
I want the proof, or at least the equation it follows.
no, seriously. anyone who seriously delves into science (hard science that is supported by the mathematical equations that govern the behavior) has to, at SOME point, realize that there is more to this universe than we can comprehend. come on, is there anyone with the "material" "phenomena", "not called intelligence", that disagrees with this???
But seriously folks, can we keep the God stuff separate from the Physics please?
you'll have to change the title of the post, or forum, or whatever you call it.
no, seriously. anyone who seriously delves into science (hard science that is supported by the mathematical equations that govern the behavior) has to, at SOME point, realize that there is more to this universe than we can comprehend. come on, is there anyone with the "material" "phenomena", "not called intelligence", that disagrees with this???
The only subject - who clearly have stated disagreement - have demonstrated a certain lack of "material" "phenomena", "not called intelligence" - so I tend to believe it is a correct assumption.
A source for all the attributes that exist in the universe is by definition God.
could not agree more -
Do we hang the meaning of our lives on the words of Caesar and Alexander? No. C.S. Lewis' apologetics are known for their flawed logic, don't bring him into this.
QUOTE
If we are to claim logic as our basis for understanding the universe, do we not have to acknowledge that the 'beginning' simply defies our understanding? How does logic lead one to conclude that we can understand all things? Our insistence that "it cannot be God" is not logical, particularly that we all know we cannot prove the non-existence of God. We cannot begin with the premise that the 'god of scripture' is not the creator without solidly examining the evidence.
God hasn't explained anything yet, why should its existence explain anything at all? Where did god begin? You explain a complex problem by injecting an even more complex solution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we are to claim logic as our basis for understanding the universe, do we not have to acknowledge that the 'beginning' simply defies our understanding? How does logic lead one to conclude that we can understand all things? Our insistence that "it cannot be God" is not logical, particularly that we all know we cannot prove the non-existence of God. We cannot begin with the premise that the 'god of scripture' is not the creator without solidly examining the evidence. |
God hasn't explained anything yet, why should its existence explain anything at all? Where did god begin? You explain a complex problem by injecting an even more complex solution.
If there is an 'intelligent design', why would we expect mathematics, which describes the workings of the universe, to explain its beginning?
Paul Davies seems to contradict himself. He seems to acknowledge the existence of some "thing" behind it all, but this "thing" cannot be the god that scripture speaks of. With the overwhelming historical accuracy (the manuscripts pass the historical tests with more accuracy than any other documents know to man) - one has to provide the argument for the omission of the god of the scriptures before one can simply dismiss the evidence.
Again, the bible is NOT known to be historically accurate 100% of the time. It gets the more recent details right, but the further it goes back, the less accurate it becomes. For example, there is no historical evidence of an Israelite conquest of Palestine. It is much more likely that the nations of Israel and Judah were native to the region and merely invented their own glorious history.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 01:27 PM)
Considering there is no other document that passes the accepted tests of historical accuracy to the degree that the bible does (I believe Homer is second),[Moderator: Citation needed with full explanation of methodology.] I have to ask how anyone claiming to use logic to attempt to understand the creation and our existence could disregard the scriptures prior to or in the midst of their quest. [Moderator: Easy: if you trust logic more than religious authority, then you test the claims of scripture with logical consistency and by comparing with other reliable ways of knowing. Some of the Bible has historically verifiable fact (Romans occupied Palestine), and outright untruths.] It is logical to disregard myths, religious writings, faith, etc in our quest of logical analysis. But when presented with the ancient manuscripts that speak of these things, consider the level of accuracy when logical and accepted historical tests are applied, and add to this the voluminous prophecies fulfilled with detailed accuracy, what degree of intellectual dishonesty must we employ to simply disregard this evidence without first employing the same degree of logical investigation and analysis that we claim is the foundation of our reasoning? [Moderator: Citation needed with full explanation of methodology. The question is how do you know what parts of the Bible to trust, and how do you expect to communicate that to other people. Further, if X% is proven to be true and Y% is proven to be false, then do you trust the 100% - X% - Y% to be true or false? No -- that remainder may be true or false. Just like any claim from a source, because claims are not automatically facts no matter their source.]
tried to add a link for the citation and methodology (Bibliographical Test, Internal Evidence Test, External Evidence Test), sorry.
I have found what seem to be contradictions in the bible but the more I read the more are found to be seeming contradictions. The more I understand the bible from it's entirety, the more I realize the contradictions seem to be lack of understanding on my part.
Would you provide citations concerning the outright lies you mention?
I don't believe we can pick parts of the bible to trust. If there are serious flaws, particularly flaws in the basic premises, then all must be suspect. But this is true for all writings.
The fact that the bible is logically absurd is not a problem for me. Man,s logic and ability to reason, comprehend, analyze, and explain is so incredibly limited that it is not logical to assume that only that which we can understand is allowable.
tried to add a link for the citation and methodology (Bibliographical Test, Internal Evidence Test, External Evidence Test), sorry.
I have found what seem to be contradictions in the bible but the more I read the more are found to be seeming contradictions. The more I understand the bible from it's entirety, the more I realize the contradictions seem to be lack of understanding on my part.
Would you provide citations concerning the outright lies you mention?
I don't believe we can pick parts of the bible to trust. If there are serious flaws, particularly flaws in the basic premises, then all must be suspect. But this is true for all writings.
The fact that the bible is logically absurd is not a problem for me. Man,s logic and ability to reason, comprehend, analyze, and explain is so incredibly limited that it is not logical to assume that only that which we can understand is allowable.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 04:49 PM)
Again, the bible is NOT known to be historically accurate 100% of the time. It gets the more recent details right, but the further it goes back, the less accurate it becomes. For example, there is no historical evidence of an Israelite conquest of Palestine. It is much more likely that the nations of Israel and Judah were native to the region and merely invented their own glorious history.
gee, I see your point. The nonexistence of the evidence of the invasion of palestine proves the inaccuracy of the bible.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 01:46 PM)
gee, I see your point. The nonexistence of the evidence of the invasion of palestine proves the inaccuracy of the bible.
If you really want to get into it, let's start with Genesis shall we?
TalkOrigins.org: Problems with a Global Flood
If you really want to get into it, let's start with Genesis shall we?
TalkOrigins.org: Problems with a Global Flood
[QUOTE=flyingbuttressman,Sep 27 2009, 05:57 PM]If you really want to get into it, let's start with Genesis shall we?
[]
There is a fundamental difference between us. I do not omit the possibility of miracles. I do not omit that which our limited intelligence cannot comprehend. I do not omit that which defies logic. Logic dictates that there may exist that which I cannot comprehend and that which defies what is within my ability to grasp. I do not propose to prove the existence of God with mathematics, nor would I presume to assume the non existence of God with mathematics or logic.
my point was not to argue the existence of god, but that reason cannot exclude it either. The evidence of something so far beyond our comprehension is too great to be ignored without delving into intellectual dishonesty.
sorry, i had to remove the link in your quote. apparantly including links is also beyond my grasp at the moment.
[]
There is a fundamental difference between us. I do not omit the possibility of miracles. I do not omit that which our limited intelligence cannot comprehend. I do not omit that which defies logic. Logic dictates that there may exist that which I cannot comprehend and that which defies what is within my ability to grasp. I do not propose to prove the existence of God with mathematics, nor would I presume to assume the non existence of God with mathematics or logic.
my point was not to argue the existence of god, but that reason cannot exclude it either. The evidence of something so far beyond our comprehension is too great to be ignored without delving into intellectual dishonesty.
sorry, i had to remove the link in your quote. apparantly including links is also beyond my grasp at the moment.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 02:22 PM)
The evidence of something so far beyond our comprehension is too great to be ignored without delving into intellectual dishonesty.
What evidence?
What evidence?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 05:57 PM)
If you really want to get into it, let's start with Genesis shall we?
TalkOrigins.org: Problems with a Global Flood
or start with the 'begining' of Genesis? god "spoke" it into existence?? If we want to disregard the bible, there is much more than the lack of evidence of a worldwide flood and all the animals getting on board some ship built by some man when it had never before rained.
One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.
I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians. (Richard Feynman 1918-1988)
TalkOrigins.org: Problems with a Global Flood
or start with the 'begining' of Genesis? god "spoke" it into existence?? If we want to disregard the bible, there is much more than the lack of evidence of a worldwide flood and all the animals getting on board some ship built by some man when it had never before rained.
One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.
I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians. (Richard Feynman 1918-1988)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 06:24 PM)
What evidence?
not to be sarcastic, but are you implying that there is nothing out there which defies your comprehension?
not to be sarcastic, but are you implying that there is nothing out there which defies your comprehension?
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 02:30 PM)
not to be sarcastic, but are you implying that there is nothing out there which defies your comprehension?
I am saying that there is nothing that defies eventual scientific comprehension.
I am saying that there is nothing that defies eventual scientific comprehension.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 06:44 PM)
I am saying that there is nothing that defies eventual scientific comprehension.
nothing that defies 'eventual' scientific comprehension?
we can't even prove nor even test the evolution hypotheses as we cannot replicate any of it to test, now we are going to cite things that haven't even come into existence as evidence??
nothing that defies 'eventual' scientific comprehension?
we can't even prove nor even test the evolution hypotheses as we cannot replicate any of it to test, now we are going to cite things that haven't even come into existence as evidence??
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 03:01 PM)
we can't even prove nor even test the evolution hypotheses as we cannot replicate any of it to test
Talk Origins: Evidence for Evolution
That's how science works. It explains phenomena. If it can't explain something now, it will explain it eventually.
Talk Origins: Evidence for Evolution
QUOTE
now we are going to cite things that haven't even come into existence as evidence??
That's how science works. It explains phenomena. If it can't explain something now, it will explain it eventually.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 07:07 PM)
Talk Origins: Evidence for Evolution
That's how science works. It explains phenomena. If it can't explain something now, it will explain it eventually.
Yes, science explains that which we observe. How does this logically lead to the assumption that science will explain everything? I see not the logic in the statement. Don't we need a hypothesis - "science will explain everything". where are the tests? where is the theory? on what is it based? what is the evidence?
I thought we were talking about science and logic.
That's how science works. It explains phenomena. If it can't explain something now, it will explain it eventually.
Yes, science explains that which we observe. How does this logically lead to the assumption that science will explain everything? I see not the logic in the statement. Don't we need a hypothesis - "science will explain everything". where are the tests? where is the theory? on what is it based? what is the evidence?
I thought we were talking about science and logic.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 03:49 PM)
Yes, science explains that which we observe. How does this logically lead to the assumption that science will explain everything? I see not the logic in the statement. Don't we need a hypothesis - "science will explain everything". where are the tests? where is the theory? on what is it based? what is the evidence?
Theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a given phenomenon will be explained given an undefined amount of time.
Theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a given phenomenon will be explained given an undefined amount of time.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 08:06 PM)
Theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a given phenomenon will be explained given an undefined amount of time.
What is the explanation for being material ?
What is the explanation for being material ?
QUOTE (bukh+Sep 27 2009, 04:33 PM)
What is the explanation for being material ?
Seriously?
Seriously?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 08:38 PM)
Seriously?
Of course
Your alternative would be to limit theory of science to materialized world - and yet having no answer regarding "What is material"
I only express my taste - and I fully accept that this point can be discussed from now on and probably in all future.
Of course
Your alternative would be to limit theory of science to materialized world - and yet having no answer regarding "What is material"
I only express my taste - and I fully accept that this point can be discussed from now on and probably in all future.
QUOTE (bukh+Sep 27 2009, 04:50 PM)
Your alternative would be to limit theory of science to materialized world - and yet having no answer regarding "What is material"
I only express my taste - and I fully accept that this point can be discussed from now on and probably in all future.
Everything that exists is material. If it can be observed and documented, it is material.
You are purposefully being vague and unclear. Whatever your agenda is, it is neither helpful nor wanted.
I only express my taste - and I fully accept that this point can be discussed from now on and probably in all future.
Everything that exists is material. If it can be observed and documented, it is material.
You are purposefully being vague and unclear. Whatever your agenda is, it is neither helpful nor wanted.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 08:06 PM)
Theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a given phenomenon will be explained given an undefined amount of time.
I am not understanding "theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation". can you explain? Is this an accepted 'theory' amongst mathematicians and physicists?
I suppose we first need to make sure we are communicating. What is a theory? what is a "material explanation"? I don't think I quite understand the statement.
I am not understanding "theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation". can you explain? Is this an accepted 'theory' amongst mathematicians and physicists?
I suppose we first need to make sure we are communicating. What is a theory? what is a "material explanation"? I don't think I quite understand the statement.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 05:00 PM)
I am not understanding "theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation". can you explain? Is this an accepted 'theory' amongst mathematicians and physicists?
I suppose we first need to make sure we are communicating. What is a theory? what is a "material explanation"? I don't think I quite understand the statement.
Simplified: According to scientists, supernatural beings and events do not exist.
A material explanation is an explanation that does not rely on the supernatural or "god."
I suppose we first need to make sure we are communicating. What is a theory? what is a "material explanation"? I don't think I quite understand the statement.
Simplified: According to scientists, supernatural beings and events do not exist.
A material explanation is an explanation that does not rely on the supernatural or "god."
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 08:55 PM)
Everything that exists is material. If it can be observed and documented, it is material.
You are purposefully being vague and unclear. Whatever your agenda is, it is neither helpful nor wanted.
I think that you are taking a bit too lightly on the very concept of being into "existence".
Observed and documented - this have to be strictly defined if you want to stick to absolutes - science is not black or white.
I have no intention to be neither vague nor unclear - and I see no reason why my agenda should be less good than yours.
"Helpful - Wanted" - to whom ? - to you ?
You are purposefully being vague and unclear. Whatever your agenda is, it is neither helpful nor wanted.
I think that you are taking a bit too lightly on the very concept of being into "existence".
Observed and documented - this have to be strictly defined if you want to stick to absolutes - science is not black or white.
I have no intention to be neither vague nor unclear - and I see no reason why my agenda should be less good than yours.
"Helpful - Wanted" - to whom ? - to you ?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 08:55 PM)
Everything that exists is material. If it can be observed and documented, it is material.
You are purposefully being vague and unclear. Whatever your agenda is, it is neither helpful nor wanted.
OK, observed and documented.
please provide your observation and documentation of 'intelligence'.
please provide the mathematics if we are still speaking of science.
You are purposefully being vague and unclear. Whatever your agenda is, it is neither helpful nor wanted.
OK, observed and documented.
please provide your observation and documentation of 'intelligence'.
please provide the mathematics if we are still speaking of science.
will someone provide the name of a physicist, who has contributed to the understanding of a "law" or an accepted "theory", or has contributed to the advancement of science in some form that has contributed to furthering our understanding of 'hard physics' (ie, Einstein, Feynman, Pascal, Tesla, Hertz, Higgs, etc... ) that agrees with all this stuff about "the theory of science.... explains everything" or that only that which we understand can possibly be true, or specifically that "science can ultimatley explain everything and that which it canno explain does not exist.... ad infnitum.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 05:04 PM)
OK, observed and documented.
please provide your observation and documentation of 'intelligence'.
please provide the mathematics if we are still speaking of science.
Intelligence is a vague term. There is no real definition. In other words, the word "intelligence" is not scientific.
please provide your observation and documentation of 'intelligence'.
please provide the mathematics if we are still speaking of science.
Intelligence is a vague term. There is no real definition. In other words, the word "intelligence" is not scientific.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 09:17 PM)
Intelligence is a vague term. There is no real definition. In other words, the word "intelligence" is not scientific.
does it exist?
does it exist?
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 09:30 PM)
does it exist?
Fortunately we just have to ask a real scientist to get the answer -
Fortunately we just have to ask a real scientist to get the answer -
QUOTE (bukh+Sep 27 2009, 09:38 PM)
Fortunately we just have to ask a real scientist to get the answer -
no, there are more than ample physicists in our history. grab one and post.
you are not suggesting this has never been addressed amongst physisists??
no, there are more than ample physicists in our history. grab one and post.
you are not suggesting this has never been addressed amongst physisists??
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 09:02 PM)
Simplified: According to scientists, supernatural beings and events do not exist.
A material explanation is an explanation that does not rely on the supernatural or "god."
please reference the scientists who espouse this "theory". Please include those who have contributed "materialistically" to the advancement of the laws and "theories" of physics.
A material explanation is an explanation that does not rely on the supernatural or "god."
good enough. Now provide the material explanation (including the mathematics, please) for intelligence. (while your at it, the "material explanation" of the existence of the universe, including the metamorphosis of a pupa into a butterfly)
A material explanation is an explanation that does not rely on the supernatural or "god."
please reference the scientists who espouse this "theory". Please include those who have contributed "materialistically" to the advancement of the laws and "theories" of physics.
A material explanation is an explanation that does not rely on the supernatural or "god."
good enough. Now provide the material explanation (including the mathematics, please) for intelligence. (while your at it, the "material explanation" of the existence of the universe, including the metamorphosis of a pupa into a butterfly)
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 09:43 PM)
no, there are more than ample physicists in our history. grab one and post.
you are not suggesting this has never been addressed amongst physisists??
Ahh - now I am really disappointed - I thought that FBM had the answer - huuh -perhaps it is more complex than FBM had thought - and I have always had these high expectations for FBM - am I being misled ?
you are not suggesting this has never been addressed amongst physisists??
Ahh - now I am really disappointed - I thought that FBM had the answer - huuh -perhaps it is more complex than FBM had thought - and I have always had these high expectations for FBM - am I being misled ?
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 05:50 PM)
good enough. Now provide the material explanation (including the mathematics, please) for intelligence. (while your at it, the "material explanation" of the existence of the universe, including the metamorphosis of a pupa into a butterfly)
Evolution. Look it up.
Evolution. Look it up.
QUOTE (bukh+Sep 27 2009, 05:50 PM)
Ahh - now I am really disappointed - I thought that FBM had the answer - huuh -perhaps it is more complex than FBM had thought - and I have always had these high expectations for FBM - am I being misled ?
You are expecting a clear answer to an unclear question. Either you are attempting to be philosophical, or you really don't know how to ask a scientific question. As I said before, intelligence is an attribute that we arbitrarily defined. The only "intelligent" species that we know of is humanity, because we invented that term to describe ourselves.
You are expecting a clear answer to an unclear question. Either you are attempting to be philosophical, or you really don't know how to ask a scientific question. As I said before, intelligence is an attribute that we arbitrarily defined. The only "intelligent" species that we know of is humanity, because we invented that term to describe ourselves.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 09:59 PM)
Evolution. Look it up.
unfortunately the educational institution of the US has fallen. I would have hoped to continue along the lines of hard science rather than the statements and hypotheses of cosmologists and biologists.
sorry, i was looking for actual science backed by mathematics. and maybe some straight line logical reasoning.
again, if you can cite any physicists who have contributed to "hard science" (theories, understanding of laws, etc.... ) please reply. I would love to read more on them. for clarity, I am not speaking of "philosophers of physics", metaphysicists, etc... only those who have the actual science (theories... ) to back it up. Please don't call evolution hypotheses theories. it is an insult to science.
unfortunately the educational institution of the US has fallen. I would have hoped to continue along the lines of hard science rather than the statements and hypotheses of cosmologists and biologists.
sorry, i was looking for actual science backed by mathematics. and maybe some straight line logical reasoning.
again, if you can cite any physicists who have contributed to "hard science" (theories, understanding of laws, etc.... ) please reply. I would love to read more on them. for clarity, I am not speaking of "philosophers of physics", metaphysicists, etc... only those who have the actual science (theories... ) to back it up. Please don't call evolution hypotheses theories. it is an insult to science.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 06:11 PM)
unfortunately the educational institution of the US has fallen. I would have hoped to continue along the lines of hard science rather than the statements and hypotheses of cosmologists and biologists.
In other words, you're a religious fundamentalist troll who doesn't know imagination from fact.
I'm not going to answer any of your questions until you read that article that I linked to about evolution and report back with your thoughts.
In other words, you're a religious fundamentalist troll who doesn't know imagination from fact.
I'm not going to answer any of your questions until you read that article that I linked to about evolution and report back with your thoughts.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 10:06 PM)
You are expecting a clear answer to an unclear question. Either you are attempting to be philosophical, or you really don't know how to ask a scientific question. As I said before, intelligence is an attribute that we arbitrarily defined. The only "intelligent" species that we know of is humanity, because we invented that term to describe ourselves.
Quote FBM: Theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a given phenomenon will be explained given an undefined amount of time.
No - I am not expecting a clear answer to an unclear question - just reminding you what you started saying.
Perhaps you want to define "phenomenon" or do you prefer to stop this discussion - because I am afraid that it will run out into the sand - because you are constantly drifting.
Quote FBM: Theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a given phenomenon will be explained given an undefined amount of time.
No - I am not expecting a clear answer to an unclear question - just reminding you what you started saying.
Perhaps you want to define "phenomenon" or do you prefer to stop this discussion - because I am afraid that it will run out into the sand - because you are constantly drifting.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 10:13 PM)
In other words, you're a religious fundamentalist troll who doesn't know imagination from fact.
I'm not going to answer any of your questions until you read that article that I linked to about evolution and report back with your thoughts.
troll? I despise religion, i am not sure what a fundamentalist is. i do have some understanding of imagination, but I prefer to keep "hard science" separate from philosophy and imaginings of 'what I would like it to be' or 'what I don't want it to be', which can lead dangerously close to intellectual dishonesty.
again, please cite some of the physicists who have contributed 'hard science' to support your 'cause'.
I don't particularly have a 'cause'. I appreciate the beauty of science (which obviously needs to be defined) but I also recognize the limitations of the human intellegence (which acutally doesn't exist because it is not material.... lol)
I'm not going to answer any of your questions until you read that article that I linked to about evolution and report back with your thoughts.
troll? I despise religion, i am not sure what a fundamentalist is. i do have some understanding of imagination, but I prefer to keep "hard science" separate from philosophy and imaginings of 'what I would like it to be' or 'what I don't want it to be', which can lead dangerously close to intellectual dishonesty.
again, please cite some of the physicists who have contributed 'hard science' to support your 'cause'.
I don't particularly have a 'cause'. I appreciate the beauty of science (which obviously needs to be defined) but I also recognize the limitations of the human intellegence (which acutally doesn't exist because it is not material.... lol)
QUOTE (bukh+Sep 27 2009, 09:50 PM)
Ahh - now I am really disappointed - I thought that FBM had the answer - huuh -perhaps it is more complex than FBM had thought - and I have always had these high expectations for FBM - am I being misled ?
give FBM time. an open mind seeking truth for the sake of truth will.... well, maybe not. after all, intellegence is not defined.
give FBM time. an open mind seeking truth for the sake of truth will.... well, maybe not. after all, intellegence is not defined.
QUOTE (bukh+Sep 27 2009, 06:23 PM)
Quote FBM: Theory of science is that every phenomenon has a material explanation. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a given phenomenon will be explained given an undefined amount of time.
No - I am not expecting a clear answer to an unclear question - just reminding you what you started saying.
Perhaps you want to define "phenomenon" or do you prefer to stop this discussion - because I am afraid that it will run out into the sand - because you are constantly drifting.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomena
No - I am not expecting a clear answer to an unclear question - just reminding you what you started saying.
Perhaps you want to define "phenomenon" or do you prefer to stop this discussion - because I am afraid that it will run out into the sand - because you are constantly drifting.
QUOTE
phe·nom·e·non:
1: an observable fact or event
2: a: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition b: a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon c: a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation
1: an observable fact or event
2: a: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition b: a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon c: a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomena
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 10:47 PM)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomena
wow, is intelligence a phenomena?? is it material?? does it exist??
what the heck is it anyway??
I want the proof, or at least the equation it follows.
no, seriously. anyone who seriously delves into science (hard science that is supported by the mathematical equations that govern the behavior) has to, at SOME point, realize that there is more to this universe than we can comprehend. come on, is there anyone with the "material" "phenomena", "not called intelligence", that disagrees with this???
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 06:54 PM)
wow, is intelligence a phenomena?? is it material?? does it exist??
what the heck is it anyway??
I want the proof, or at least the equation it follows.
no, seriously. anyone who seriously delves into science (hard science that is supported by the mathematical equations that govern the behavior) has to, at SOME point, realize that there is more to this universe than we can comprehend. come on, is there anyone with the "material" "phenomena", "not called intelligence", that disagrees with this???
Since you persist in refusing to define what you think intelligence means, I will have to work from assumption. I assume that you are defining intelligence as that innate human quality that all other animal species lack. It's not a good definition, but it seems to be the one you are working from.
Intelligence is the illusion that humans are somehow a level above other animals. Humans are among the "smartest" animals on Earth, and our "smarts" allow us to use technology. Otherwise, we are just like ordinary primates.
By the way, you aren't hiding your religious prejudices very well.
what the heck is it anyway??
I want the proof, or at least the equation it follows.
no, seriously. anyone who seriously delves into science (hard science that is supported by the mathematical equations that govern the behavior) has to, at SOME point, realize that there is more to this universe than we can comprehend. come on, is there anyone with the "material" "phenomena", "not called intelligence", that disagrees with this???
Since you persist in refusing to define what you think intelligence means, I will have to work from assumption. I assume that you are defining intelligence as that innate human quality that all other animal species lack. It's not a good definition, but it seems to be the one you are working from.
Intelligence is the illusion that humans are somehow a level above other animals. Humans are among the "smartest" animals on Earth, and our "smarts" allow us to use technology. Otherwise, we are just like ordinary primates.
By the way, you aren't hiding your religious prejudices very well.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 11:05 PM)
Since you persist in refusing to define what you think intelligence means, I will have to work from assumption. I assume that you are defining intelligence as that innate human quality that all other animal species lack. It's not a good definition, but it seems to be the one you are working from.
Intelligence is the illusion that humans are somehow a level above other animals. Humans are among the "smartest" animals on Earth, and our "smarts" allow us to use technology. Otherwise, we are just like ordinary primates.
By the way, you aren't hiding your religious prejudices very well.
i did not intend to hide anything, but i do despise religion.
you still have failed to cite these "scientists" from whose works you provide answers.
PS I did not intend to define intelligence. I think I asked if it exists, which of course we now know it does not.
PSS 'assumption' is, in part, the basis of my original discourse.
I think we are way too far apart to begin, much less continue, a worthwhile discussion.
glad we could meet for these brief moments. I wish you the best.
bye
Intelligence is the illusion that humans are somehow a level above other animals. Humans are among the "smartest" animals on Earth, and our "smarts" allow us to use technology. Otherwise, we are just like ordinary primates.
By the way, you aren't hiding your religious prejudices very well.
i did not intend to hide anything, but i do despise religion.
you still have failed to cite these "scientists" from whose works you provide answers.
PS I did not intend to define intelligence. I think I asked if it exists, which of course we now know it does not.
PSS 'assumption' is, in part, the basis of my original discourse.
I think we are way too far apart to begin, much less continue, a worthwhile discussion.
glad we could meet for these brief moments. I wish you the best.
bye
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 07:25 PM)
glad we could meet for these brief moments. I wish you the best.
bye
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
bye
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 22 2006, 12:26 PM)
But seriously folks, can we keep the God stuff separate from the Physics please?
you'll have to change the title of the post, or forum, or whatever you call it.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 10:54 PM)
no, seriously. anyone who seriously delves into science (hard science that is supported by the mathematical equations that govern the behavior) has to, at SOME point, realize that there is more to this universe than we can comprehend. come on, is there anyone with the "material" "phenomena", "not called intelligence", that disagrees with this???
The only subject - who clearly have stated disagreement - have demonstrated a certain lack of "material" "phenomena", "not called intelligence" - so I tend to believe it is a correct assumption.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 27 2009, 11:25 PM)
i did not intend to hide anything, but i do despise religion.
you still have failed to cite these "scientists" from whose works you provide answers.
PS I did not intend to define intelligence. I think I asked if it exists, which of course we now know it does not.
PSS 'assumption' is, in part, the basis of my original discourse.
I think we are way too far apart to begin, much less continue, a worthwhile discussion.
glad we could meet for these brief moments. I wish you the best.
bye
You delving into some fairly esoteric questions. Such questions are by their nature in the philosophical realm as opposed to science. That being the case, your demand for scientist's names is specious.
Yes. Science cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the things that it can prove point (in overwhelming ways) that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The old saying that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear supernatural to us applies (albeit slightly out of context) here.
A brane-oriented multiverse in which some ultimate masters of physics created our slice would be akin to any god(s) that we can envision. But this particular issue is essentially unsolvable by humans at this time. Give our "intelligence" (even if it is as you suggest not "material") a couple of million years to evolve and then perhaps we can explain it. At that point we'd be much more like the imagined "ultimate masters of physics". Perhaps at that point some intelligence in some other slice could imagine we are the god(s).
you still have failed to cite these "scientists" from whose works you provide answers.
PS I did not intend to define intelligence. I think I asked if it exists, which of course we now know it does not.
PSS 'assumption' is, in part, the basis of my original discourse.
I think we are way too far apart to begin, much less continue, a worthwhile discussion.
glad we could meet for these brief moments. I wish you the best.
bye
You delving into some fairly esoteric questions. Such questions are by their nature in the philosophical realm as opposed to science. That being the case, your demand for scientist's names is specious.
Yes. Science cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the things that it can prove point (in overwhelming ways) that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The old saying that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear supernatural to us applies (albeit slightly out of context) here.
A brane-oriented multiverse in which some ultimate masters of physics created our slice would be akin to any god(s) that we can envision. But this particular issue is essentially unsolvable by humans at this time. Give our "intelligence" (even if it is as you suggest not "material") a couple of million years to evolve and then perhaps we can explain it. At that point we'd be much more like the imagined "ultimate masters of physics". Perhaps at that point some intelligence in some other slice could imagine we are the god(s).
Can we really claim it as our intelligence while we dont have total control of ourselfs?
Science is the study of all that exists. The purpose of science is to gain knowledge and obtain an understanding of all that exists.
Why would anyone wish to put a limit on any area or subject that the mind may understand? Most of the history of science starts with a study of what we do not see and what is not at first recognized as material. Science is about truth and is no different then religion.
The most advances in science have been made when there was no separation between those seeking truth. As has been shown throughout the ages, God is always the basis of all that exists. There is not and has not and can never be any proof in science that the source of all things is not God.
The source must have the attributes of the result. A source for all the attributes that exist in the universe is by definition God.
Why would anyone wish to put a limit on any area or subject that the mind may understand? Most of the history of science starts with a study of what we do not see and what is not at first recognized as material. Science is about truth and is no different then religion.
The most advances in science have been made when there was no separation between those seeking truth. As has been shown throughout the ages, God is always the basis of all that exists. There is not and has not and can never be any proof in science that the source of all things is not God.
The source must have the attributes of the result. A source for all the attributes that exist in the universe is by definition God.
I thought this was actually going to be a decent cosmology discussion
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 28 2009, 08:09 AM)
A source for all the attributes that exist in the universe is by definition God.
could not agree more -
a safe bet 
OK but our universe is only a neuron.
So God is the source of utter evil, total maliciousness, chocolate flavoring, fluorescent midnight blue and deviant sexual partnering when you two say He is the source of all attributes? Or is some other co-equal god the source of these attributes, which clearly are not merely the absence of good?
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 28 2009, 09:41 AM)
So God is the source of utter evil, total maliciousness, chocolate flavoring, fluorescent midnight blue and deviant sexual partnering when you two say He is the source of all attributes? Or is some other co-equal god the source of these attributes, which clearly are not merely the absence of good?
Win
Win
rpenner,
So God is the source of utter evil, total maliciousness, chocolate flavoring, fluorescent midnight blue and deviant sexual partnering when you two say He is the source of all attributes? Or is some other co-equal god the source of these attributes, which clearly are not merely the absence of good?
Should you ban your self for making statements about God that are unsupportable? The second sentence is a statement not a question.
I'm not sure who or what this is directed towards, but as far as I know, the ID hypothesis is and always has been creationism in disguise.
Thank you for the statement. Don't know much about it but I would also assume ID is 'creationism' in disguise. But then is creationism limited only to the 'creationists' of Christianity? Surely they don't have a monopoly and, as such, the very use of the word implies a belief in Christianity (another word that would need some qualification. It appears to me to have changed meaning as the modern institutions of Christianity.... never mine, I ramble)
OK, now another rabbit trail... why should the creation "scientists" be allowed to coin a phrase so that the very use of the word implies the God of the Bible?
Do we allow ourselves to use 'creationism' outside of Christianity? Or by it's very use are we assumed to speak of the Christian God?
my original post was in response to my reading of, i think the introduction, of the book The Mind of God by Davies. (how do you underline?? in a post??). He used ID while simultaneously omitting the God of Christianity.
rambling ended - my original post was on the subject of 'intellectual dishonesty' of Davies. If you are going to include ID, then how can you casually omit the God of the Bible without even so much as an explanation of how you arrived at such a conclusion? My thoughts came after observing some rather 'deep thinking' young people searching for "truth". My thoughts were directed toward them really. but i do not desire to tear down the 'theory' before they have had a chance to chew on it. I am afraid I took my emotional desire to tear down his 'theory' on total strangers rather than insert my logical analysis into their quest. I really didn't want my bias to interfere with their quest of logical analysis. My confidence in their ability forbids it.
QUOTE
wcelliott,
More than likely protons and neutrons are made up of geometrically stable negatrons and positrons. So the anti-matter is locked up with the matter.
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for unsupported and unsupportable statements about the constients of nucleons. You may address complains to the Complaints Clerk of Sainsbury's in Leeds.]
More than likely protons and neutrons are made up of geometrically stable negatrons and positrons. So the anti-matter is locked up with the matter.
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for unsupported and unsupportable statements about the constients of nucleons. You may address complains to the Complaints Clerk of Sainsbury's in Leeds.]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| wcelliott, More than likely protons and neutrons are made up of geometrically stable negatrons and positrons. So the anti-matter is locked up with the matter. [Moderator: Banned 15 days for unsupported and unsupportable statements about the constients of nucleons. You may address complains to the Complaints Clerk of Sainsbury's in Leeds.] |
So God is the source of utter evil, total maliciousness, chocolate flavoring, fluorescent midnight blue and deviant sexual partnering when you two say He is the source of all attributes? Or is some other co-equal god the source of these attributes, which clearly are not merely the absence of good?
Should you ban your self for making statements about God that are unsupportable? The second sentence is a statement not a question.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 28 2009, 09:59 AM)
Should you ban your self for making statements about God that are unsupportable? The second sentence is a statement not a question.
He was replying to tlocity's comments regarding the attributes of god. In case you couldn't tell.
He was replying to tlocity's comments regarding the attributes of god. In case you couldn't tell.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 28 2009, 01:41 PM)
So God is the source of utter evil, total maliciousness, chocolate flavoring, fluorescent midnight blue and deviant sexual partnering when you two say He is the source of all attributes? Or is some other co-equal god the source of these attributes, which clearly are not merely the absence of good?
Yes - as I feel - God is the metaphor for The EVERYTHING - (we are dealing with strictly personal opinions)
Human and physical universe - what we perceive as "reality" is a part of The Everything - reality can probably best be seen as a human construct -
fluorescent midnight blue is a source of God and turned into physical existence by human mind.
Human is a part of the everything with a certain and limited capability of de-coding The Everything - (reality is about how information perceive / de-code information) and human will never be able to grasp everything about The Everything.
In order for human to get an understanding of physical world - human need and construct metaphors - such as language - pictures - mathematics and so on, and each and every metaphor is being used as appropriate in this process of understanding - and it would be difficult to make a hierarchy of importance and relevance of each metaphor - each metaphor is useful in its context. For example mathematics is very stringent and therefore useful as a very accurate mean of communication, but at the same time this accuracy limits nuances. One cannot express flavor taste feeling and so on and so on, by means of mathematics - and my postulate is that one cannot express mechanical spacetime exclusively by using mathematics as metaphor. Mathematics is an add to - not crucial but useful. This morning I received a mail with a beautiful excerpt of Plato's description of spacetime - not a single math term and still it gave a lot of inspiration.
Yes - as I feel - God is the metaphor for The EVERYTHING - (we are dealing with strictly personal opinions)
Human and physical universe - what we perceive as "reality" is a part of The Everything - reality can probably best be seen as a human construct -
fluorescent midnight blue is a source of God and turned into physical existence by human mind.
Human is a part of the everything with a certain and limited capability of de-coding The Everything - (reality is about how information perceive / de-code information) and human will never be able to grasp everything about The Everything.
In order for human to get an understanding of physical world - human need and construct metaphors - such as language - pictures - mathematics and so on, and each and every metaphor is being used as appropriate in this process of understanding - and it would be difficult to make a hierarchy of importance and relevance of each metaphor - each metaphor is useful in its context. For example mathematics is very stringent and therefore useful as a very accurate mean of communication, but at the same time this accuracy limits nuances. One cannot express flavor taste feeling and so on and so on, by means of mathematics - and my postulate is that one cannot express mechanical spacetime exclusively by using mathematics as metaphor. Mathematics is an add to - not crucial but useful. This morning I received a mail with a beautiful excerpt of Plato's description of spacetime - not a single math term and still it gave a lot of inspiration.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Oct 22 2006, 06:32 AM)
If what I think is correct (That all energy is interconnected) then the universe / multiverse might act as a 'brain'....just the stuff in our universe would have *10^90 to the power of 10^90 connections.
*10^90 is merely an arbitary figure as it's around what's predicted for particles in our universe.
Bollocks 5-D ....... if there's approx' 10^90 particles in our universe. Surely, this figure should be around 10^8100 interconnections?
*10^90 is merely an arbitary figure as it's around what's predicted for particles in our universe.
Bollocks 5-D ....... if there's approx' 10^90 particles in our universe. Surely, this figure should be around 10^8100 interconnections?
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Sep 28 2009, 05:09 PM)
Bollocks 5-D ....... if there's approx' 10^90 particles in our universe. Surely, this figure should be around 10^8100 interconnections?
Quite correct, most esteemed Doctor.
Quite correct, most esteemed Doctor.
I concur sir.
N_{Edd} = 2.136 x 2^256 particles, if Sir Arthur was correct. [1] 
Why U(1), SU(2), SU(3) and O(3,1) ?
Why does α(0) have a particular value?
Why do the ratios of masses of the leptons and quarks cover the range that they do?
Why aren't the eigenstates of mass also eigenstates of flavor?
And somewhat less fundamental:
What are all the biochemistries which can support intelligent biological life?
How many intelligent systems be designed which painlessly coevolve with humanity in ways which are beneficial and not morally repungant (as Asimov's Laws seem to be)?
How does one obtain world peace and good government?
Why does α(0) have a particular value?
Why do the ratios of masses of the leptons and quarks cover the range that they do?
Why aren't the eigenstates of mass also eigenstates of flavor?
And somewhat less fundamental:
What are all the biochemistries which can support intelligent biological life?
How many intelligent systems be designed which painlessly coevolve with humanity in ways which are beneficial and not morally repungant (as Asimov's Laws seem to be)?
How does one obtain world peace and good government?
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 28 2009, 01:41 PM)
So God is the source of utter evil, total maliciousness, chocolate flavoring, fluorescent midnight blue and deviant sexual partnering when you two say He is the source of all attributes? Or is some other co-equal god the source of these attributes, which clearly are not merely the absence of good?
I suppose you could look at it that way, even if indirectly the source. If he created angels, they rebelled, led by Satan... then ultimately God was the source. Does that make Him a perpetrator of evil? according to scripture Satan can do nothing outside of what God allows. At the very least, He allows it.
I suppose you could look at it that way, even if indirectly the source. If he created angels, they rebelled, led by Satan... then ultimately God was the source. Does that make Him a perpetrator of evil? according to scripture Satan can do nothing outside of what God allows. At the very least, He allows it.
That is what tlocity and bukh seem to agree on. I think it smacks of ridiculousness.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 28 2009, 07:09 AM)
You delving into some fairly esoteric questions. Such questions are by their nature in the philosophical realm as opposed to science. That being the case, your demand for scientist's names is specious.
Yes. Science cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the things that it can prove point (in overwhelming ways) that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The old saying that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear supernatural to us applies (albeit slightly out of context) here.
A brane-oriented multiverse in which some ultimate masters of physics created our slice would be akin to any god(s) that we can envision. But this particular issue is essentially unsolvable by humans at this time. Give our "intelligence" (even if it is as you suggest not "material") a couple of million years to evolve and then perhaps we can explain it. At that point we'd be much more like the imagined "ultimate masters of physics". Perhaps at that point some intelligence in some other slice could imagine we are the god(s).
I wasn't looking for a physics explanation for intelligence, beginning of the universe, etc... Nor was I looking to define 'intelligence' - I think you got the middle of the conversation.
the point is that physics cannot explain everything. If it can in the future, great. But I was attempting to deal with the reality of the present. What science can provide us tomorrow is hypothetical. To state that it WILL explain ALL is simply not a logical statement, it is based on emotion.
My criticism is for the folks who use philosophy, emotions (what I want or don't want it to be) and vague statements about evolution and unsubstantiated "theories" (we use that word rather loosely) and THEN claim it as science. Mixing philosophy, science, evolution, and emotions is fine, but call it what it is please.
I suppose my main grip is the loose use of the word science, particularly the use of the word 'scientific theories' that we have yet been able to test, much less be able to put the math to.
I have always had a high degree of respect for scientists who separate their philosophy from their science. I have respect for both, but lets acknowledge when we combine the two and call it what it is.
I think the sloppiest science I have ever witnessed on an organized level is amongst the 'creation scientists' and I have personally told some of them as much.
Sorry if I was a jerk, I just went back to teaching (one class for some high school kids) and my emotional outcry at what passes for science got the best of me. if it can't be backed up, that is fine, but please acknowledge such.
Yes. Science cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the things that it can prove point (in overwhelming ways) that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The old saying that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear supernatural to us applies (albeit slightly out of context) here.
A brane-oriented multiverse in which some ultimate masters of physics created our slice would be akin to any god(s) that we can envision. But this particular issue is essentially unsolvable by humans at this time. Give our "intelligence" (even if it is as you suggest not "material") a couple of million years to evolve and then perhaps we can explain it. At that point we'd be much more like the imagined "ultimate masters of physics". Perhaps at that point some intelligence in some other slice could imagine we are the god(s).
I wasn't looking for a physics explanation for intelligence, beginning of the universe, etc... Nor was I looking to define 'intelligence' - I think you got the middle of the conversation.
the point is that physics cannot explain everything. If it can in the future, great. But I was attempting to deal with the reality of the present. What science can provide us tomorrow is hypothetical. To state that it WILL explain ALL is simply not a logical statement, it is based on emotion.
My criticism is for the folks who use philosophy, emotions (what I want or don't want it to be) and vague statements about evolution and unsubstantiated "theories" (we use that word rather loosely) and THEN claim it as science. Mixing philosophy, science, evolution, and emotions is fine, but call it what it is please.
I suppose my main grip is the loose use of the word science, particularly the use of the word 'scientific theories' that we have yet been able to test, much less be able to put the math to.
I have always had a high degree of respect for scientists who separate their philosophy from their science. I have respect for both, but lets acknowledge when we combine the two and call it what it is.
I think the sloppiest science I have ever witnessed on an organized level is amongst the 'creation scientists' and I have personally told some of them as much.
Sorry if I was a jerk, I just went back to teaching (one class for some high school kids) and my emotional outcry at what passes for science got the best of me. if it can't be backed up, that is fine, but please acknowledge such.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 28 2009, 11:14 PM)
That is what tlocity and bukh seem to agree on. I think it smacks of ridiculousness.
what is the source of evil, rebellion?
what is the source of evil, rebellion?
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 28 2009, 07:26 PM)
My criticism is for the folks who use philosophy, emotions (what I want or don't want it to be) and vague statements about evolution and unsubstantiated "theories" (we use that word rather loosely) and THEN claim it as science. Mixing philosophy, science, evolution, and emotions is fine, but call it what it is please.
If my earlier reaction was too much along the lines of "YOU HERETIC!!!" I apologize.
I would like to know what your beef is with evolution. Your earlier posts gave me the impression that you didn't think that evolution was scientific. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If you think that evolution is flat-out wrong, then say so, and we will enlighten you.
This is obviously because shouting loudly != science
If my earlier reaction was too much along the lines of "YOU HERETIC!!!" I apologize.
I would like to know what your beef is with evolution. Your earlier posts gave me the impression that you didn't think that evolution was scientific. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If you think that evolution is flat-out wrong, then say so, and we will enlighten you.
QUOTE
I think the sloppiest science I have ever witnessed on an organized level is amongst the 'creation scientists' and I have personally told some of them as much.
This is obviously because shouting loudly != science
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 28 2009, 08:09 AM)
The source must have the attributes of the result.
for sure??
for sure??
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 28 2009, 11:48 PM)
If my earlier reaction was too much along the lines of "YOU HERETIC!!!" I apologize.
I would like to know what your beef is with evolution. Your earlier posts gave me the impression that you didn't think that evolution was scientific. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If you think that evolution is flat-out wrong, then say so, and we will enlighten you.
This is obviously because shouting loudly != science
no, it was probably more "you troll"
i don't believe the 'theories' of evolution because there are too many holes to even mention here. (replicating and testing, contradictions with the "laws" - if it 'seems' to contradict thermodynamics, then at least address the seeming contradiction)
I have no problem with teaching evolution, believing evolution, studying evolution, etc.... but i do have a problem with teaching our youth that this is "hard science" and it IS "how we got here". teach it and state what it is - our best explanation thus far of how we got here.
At our present time our best is limited, at best. Thankfully it is or we would have reached our limit and I certainly don't want to assume that!!
I think i started the post with a comment about "the mind of god" (the book by Davies) because some of the youth in my life are using it as their basis for seeking truth. My original statement, i think, was about intellectual dishonesty concerning Davies. If you acknowledge "intelligent design", but casually dismiss that this "intelligence" could possibly be 'the God of scripture" without addressing the basis of the dismissal then you are omitting what too many over too many years have considered substantial to casually dismiss it. Dismiss it based on pure science, fine. But to include 'intelligent design' in your 'theories' without substantiating your dismissal of such historically documented beliefs in such is --- well, intellectually dishonest.
I would like to know what your beef is with evolution. Your earlier posts gave me the impression that you didn't think that evolution was scientific. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If you think that evolution is flat-out wrong, then say so, and we will enlighten you.
This is obviously because shouting loudly != science
no, it was probably more "you troll"
i don't believe the 'theories' of evolution because there are too many holes to even mention here. (replicating and testing, contradictions with the "laws" - if it 'seems' to contradict thermodynamics, then at least address the seeming contradiction)
I have no problem with teaching evolution, believing evolution, studying evolution, etc.... but i do have a problem with teaching our youth that this is "hard science" and it IS "how we got here". teach it and state what it is - our best explanation thus far of how we got here.
At our present time our best is limited, at best. Thankfully it is or we would have reached our limit and I certainly don't want to assume that!!
I think i started the post with a comment about "the mind of god" (the book by Davies) because some of the youth in my life are using it as their basis for seeking truth. My original statement, i think, was about intellectual dishonesty concerning Davies. If you acknowledge "intelligent design", but casually dismiss that this "intelligence" could possibly be 'the God of scripture" without addressing the basis of the dismissal then you are omitting what too many over too many years have considered substantial to casually dismiss it. Dismiss it based on pure science, fine. But to include 'intelligent design' in your 'theories' without substantiating your dismissal of such historically documented beliefs in such is --- well, intellectually dishonest.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 28 2009, 08:07 PM)
i don't believe the 'theories' of evolution because there are too many holes to even mention here. (replicating and testing, contradictions with the "laws" - if it 'seems' to contradict thermodynamics, then at least address the seeming contradiction)
I have no problem with teaching evolution, believing evolution, studying evolution, etc.... but i do have a problem with teaching our youth that this is "hard science" and it IS "how we got here". teach it and state what it is - our best explanation thus far of how we got here.
There are "gaps" but they don't compromise the theory as a hole. At this point, it would be almost impossible to explain the facts with any theory that did not at least rely on evolution by natural selection.
From what I understand, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the complexity of living things.
I'm not sure who or what this is directed towards, but as far as I know, the ID hypothesis is and always has been creationism in disguise.
I have no problem with teaching evolution, believing evolution, studying evolution, etc.... but i do have a problem with teaching our youth that this is "hard science" and it IS "how we got here". teach it and state what it is - our best explanation thus far of how we got here.
There are "gaps" but they don't compromise the theory as a hole. At this point, it would be almost impossible to explain the facts with any theory that did not at least rely on evolution by natural selection.
From what I understand, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the complexity of living things.
QUOTE
If you acknowledge "intelligent design", but casually dismiss that this "intelligence" could possibly be 'the God of scripture" without addressing the basis of the dismissal then you are omitting what too many over too many years have considered substantial to casually dismiss it. Dismiss it based on pure science, fine. But to include 'intelligent design' in your 'theories' without substantiating your dismissal of such historically documented beliefs in such is --- well, intellectually dishonest.
I'm not sure who or what this is directed towards, but as far as I know, the ID hypothesis is and always has been creationism in disguise.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 12:23 AM)
I'm not sure who or what this is directed towards, but as far as I know, the ID hypothesis is and always has been creationism in disguise.
Thank you for the statement. Don't know much about it but I would also assume ID is 'creationism' in disguise. But then is creationism limited only to the 'creationists' of Christianity? Surely they don't have a monopoly and, as such, the very use of the word implies a belief in Christianity (another word that would need some qualification. It appears to me to have changed meaning as the modern institutions of Christianity.... never mine, I ramble)
OK, now another rabbit trail... why should the creation "scientists" be allowed to coin a phrase so that the very use of the word implies the God of the Bible?
Do we allow ourselves to use 'creationism' outside of Christianity? Or by it's very use are we assumed to speak of the Christian God?
my original post was in response to my reading of, i think the introduction, of the book The Mind of God by Davies. (how do you underline?? in a post??). He used ID while simultaneously omitting the God of Christianity.
rambling ended - my original post was on the subject of 'intellectual dishonesty' of Davies. If you are going to include ID, then how can you casually omit the God of the Bible without even so much as an explanation of how you arrived at such a conclusion? My thoughts came after observing some rather 'deep thinking' young people searching for "truth". My thoughts were directed toward them really. but i do not desire to tear down the 'theory' before they have had a chance to chew on it. I am afraid I took my emotional desire to tear down his 'theory' on total strangers rather than insert my logical analysis into their quest. I really didn't want my bias to interfere with their quest of logical analysis. My confidence in their ability forbids it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 12:23 AM)
At this point, it would be almost impossible to explain the facts with any theory that did not at least rely on evolution by natural selection.
You intimate my point succinctly. It is impossible to explain the facts at this point without evolution.
and since evolution is itself not proven and has many holes..... it is our best at this time, and very lacking at that.
I just don't have a problem with "I don't know", "we don't know". I cannot stand telling these kids that we know something when we don't. we loose our credibility as scientists and as intellegent people.
You intimate my point succinctly. It is impossible to explain the facts at this point without evolution.
and since evolution is itself not proven and has many holes..... it is our best at this time, and very lacking at that.
I just don't have a problem with "I don't know", "we don't know". I cannot stand telling these kids that we know something when we don't. we loose our credibility as scientists and as intellegent people.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 28 2009, 09:00 PM)
Thank you for the statement. Don't know much about it but I would also assume ID is 'creationism' in disguise. But then is creationism limited only to the 'creationists' of Christianity? Surely they don't have a monopoly and, as such, the very use of the word implies a belief in Christianity (another word that would need some qualification. It appears to me to have changed meaning as the modern institutions of Christianity.... never mine, I ramble)
I believe that creationism has quite a bit of traction with conservative Muslims in Europe. Luckily, Christians and Muslims joining forces is about as likely as hell freezing over.
They're not allowed, that's why they are a joke to any real scientist.
A horrible, unfunny joke...
They're not allowed, that's why they are a joke to any real scientist.
A horrible, unfunny joke...
Do we allow ourselves to use 'creationism' outside of Christianity? Or by it's very use are we assumed to speak of the Christian God?
I guess it could refer to any faith that demands adherence to a creation myth.
I guess it's possible, given that the individual is a devoted theist.
I guess it's possible, given that the individual is a devoted theist.
rambling ended - my original post was on the subject of 'intellectual dishonesty' of Davies. If you are going to include ID, then how can you casually omit the God of the Bible without even so much as an explanation of how you arrived at such a conclusion? My thoughts came after observing some rather 'deep thinking' young people searching for "truth". My thoughts were directed toward them really. but i do not desire to tear down the 'theory' before they have had a chance to chew on it. I am afraid I took my emotional desire to tear down his 'theory' on total strangers rather than insert my logical analysis into their quest. I really didn't want my bias to interfere with their quest of logical analysis. My confidence in their ability forbids it.
Around here, you basically need a disclaimer to say that you're not a crank before you can actually discuss science in any meaningful way. There are dozens of wanna-be physicists on this site who spend their time preaching the validity of their crank theories.
Around here, you basically need a disclaimer to say that you're not a crank before you can actually discuss science in any meaningful way. There are dozens of wanna-be physicists on this site who spend their time preaching the validity of their crank theories.
I had to look that up. Don't know that I could disclaim that which I do not understand.
I suppose it depends on my "contemporaries". I fear I have two distinct sets.
I will be blunt. I hold hard to science and mathematics and its ability, with such beautiful simplicity, to describe the workings of the universe in which we find ourselves. But I also acknowledge that our limitations may be such that we may never, regardless of the time allotted, be able to grasp, identify, quantify, or discover the equations governing (or describing as I prefer) the ultimate workings of the universe, particularly it's beginnings. For one, you cannot replicate a 'one time event' in order to test the hypotheses. Basically I hold hard to the belief that we, our minds, our ability to comprehend, etc.. are most likely so incredibly limited in comparison to the 'whole of existence', particularly its beginning, that i believe it will likely remain beyond our comprehension regardless of the time allotted.
I believe that creationism has quite a bit of traction with conservative Muslims in Europe. Luckily, Christians and Muslims joining forces is about as likely as hell freezing over.
QUOTE
OK, now another rabbit trail... why should the creation "scientists" be allowed to coin a phrase so that the very use of the word implies the God of the Bible?
They're not allowed, that's why they are a joke to any real scientist.
A horrible, unfunny joke...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OK, now another rabbit trail... why should the creation "scientists" be allowed to coin a phrase so that the very use of the word implies the God of the Bible? |
They're not allowed, that's why they are a joke to any real scientist.
A horrible, unfunny joke...
Do we allow ourselves to use 'creationism' outside of Christianity? Or by it's very use are we assumed to speak of the Christian God?
I guess it could refer to any faith that demands adherence to a creation myth.
QUOTE
my original post was in response to my reading of, i think the introduction, of the book The Mind of God by Davies. (how do you underline?? in a post??). He used ID while simultaneously omitting the God of Christianity.
I guess it's possible, given that the individual is a devoted theist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| my original post was in response to my reading of, i think the introduction, of the book The Mind of God by Davies. (how do you underline?? in a post??). He used ID while simultaneously omitting the God of Christianity. |
I guess it's possible, given that the individual is a devoted theist.
rambling ended - my original post was on the subject of 'intellectual dishonesty' of Davies. If you are going to include ID, then how can you casually omit the God of the Bible without even so much as an explanation of how you arrived at such a conclusion? My thoughts came after observing some rather 'deep thinking' young people searching for "truth". My thoughts were directed toward them really. but i do not desire to tear down the 'theory' before they have had a chance to chew on it. I am afraid I took my emotional desire to tear down his 'theory' on total strangers rather than insert my logical analysis into their quest. I really didn't want my bias to interfere with their quest of logical analysis. My confidence in their ability forbids it.
Around here, you basically need a disclaimer to say that you're not a crank before you can actually discuss science in any meaningful way. There are dozens of wanna-be physicists on this site who spend their time preaching the validity of their crank theories.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 01:22 AM)
Around here, you basically need a disclaimer to say that you're not a crank before you can actually discuss science in any meaningful way. There are dozens of wanna-be physicists on this site who spend their time preaching the validity of their crank theories.
I had to look that up. Don't know that I could disclaim that which I do not understand.
I suppose it depends on my "contemporaries". I fear I have two distinct sets.
I will be blunt. I hold hard to science and mathematics and its ability, with such beautiful simplicity, to describe the workings of the universe in which we find ourselves. But I also acknowledge that our limitations may be such that we may never, regardless of the time allotted, be able to grasp, identify, quantify, or discover the equations governing (or describing as I prefer) the ultimate workings of the universe, particularly it's beginnings. For one, you cannot replicate a 'one time event' in order to test the hypotheses. Basically I hold hard to the belief that we, our minds, our ability to comprehend, etc.. are most likely so incredibly limited in comparison to the 'whole of existence', particularly its beginning, that i believe it will likely remain beyond our comprehension regardless of the time allotted.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 28 2009, 09:46 PM)
I will be blunt. I hold hard to science and mathematics and its ability, with such beautiful simplicity, to describe the workings of the universe in which we find ourselves. But I also acknowledge that our limitations may be such that we may never, regardless of the time allotted, be able to grasp, identify, quantify, or discover the equations governing (or describing as I prefer) the ultimate workings of the universe, particularly it's beginnings. For one, you cannot replicate a 'one time event' in order to test the hypotheses. Basically I hold hard to the belief that we, our minds, our ability to comprehend, etc.. are most likely so incredibly limited in comparison to the 'whole of existence', particularly its beginning, that i believe it will likely remain beyond our comprehension regardless of the time allotted.
It might be possible to replicate the big bang on a smaller scale, given that we would need to understand the nature of the universe a lot better. For all we know, universes could be recursive, with one forming inside another. I think that it would be better to say that "depending on what the nature of the universe is, there is a chance that we will never fully understand it." Of course, our understanding is limited by the span of our civilization. At some point, humanity will once again lose its accumulated knowledge and start from square one, or we could simply go extinct. I only hope that we will expand our influence beyond the planet Earth before that day comes.
It might be possible to replicate the big bang on a smaller scale, given that we would need to understand the nature of the universe a lot better. For all we know, universes could be recursive, with one forming inside another. I think that it would be better to say that "depending on what the nature of the universe is, there is a chance that we will never fully understand it." Of course, our understanding is limited by the span of our civilization. At some point, humanity will once again lose its accumulated knowledge and start from square one, or we could simply go extinct. I only hope that we will expand our influence beyond the planet Earth before that day comes.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 01:54 AM)
It might be possible to replicate the big bang on a smaller scale, given that we would need to understand the nature of the universe a lot better. For all we know, universes could be recursive, with one forming inside another. I think that it would be better to say that "depending on what the nature of the universe is, there is a chance that we will never fully understand it." Of course, our understanding is limited by the span of our civilization. At some point, humanity will once again lose its accumulated knowledge and start from square one, or we could simply go extinct. I only hope that we will expand our influence beyond the planet Earth before that day comes.
Sadly, we would never know with certainty if we replicated it. We would be back to 'assumptions' which is where I think I started. Even if we 'replicated the big bang', we would first have to assume the big bang is the correct hypothesis. There are too many assumptions to call it hard science.
I think we must acknowledge the possibility that our understanding could be limited by more than just the span of our civilization. One point I made was that our understanding may be limited regardless of the amount of time allotted. That flies in the face of our desire to believe that, given enough time, we can understand all.
Sadly, we would never know with certainty if we replicated it. We would be back to 'assumptions' which is where I think I started. Even if we 'replicated the big bang', we would first have to assume the big bang is the correct hypothesis. There are too many assumptions to call it hard science.
I think we must acknowledge the possibility that our understanding could be limited by more than just the span of our civilization. One point I made was that our understanding may be limited regardless of the amount of time allotted. That flies in the face of our desire to believe that, given enough time, we can understand all.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 28 2009, 10:04 PM)
Sadly, we would never know with certainty if we replicated it. We would be back to 'assumptions' which is where I think I started. Even if we 'replicated the big bang', we would first have to assume the big bang is the correct hypothesis. There are too many assumptions to call it hard science.
I think we must acknowledge the possibility that our understanding could be limited by more than just the span of our civilization. One point I made was that our understanding may be limited regardless of the amount of time allotted. That flies in the face of our desire to believe that, given enough time, we can understand all.
The benefit of time is that technologies will exist that do not exist today. If we someday figure out how to travel faster than light, then maybe someday we can travel to the edge of the universe and watch it all begin.
I think we must acknowledge the possibility that our understanding could be limited by more than just the span of our civilization. One point I made was that our understanding may be limited regardless of the amount of time allotted. That flies in the face of our desire to believe that, given enough time, we can understand all.
The benefit of time is that technologies will exist that do not exist today. If we someday figure out how to travel faster than light, then maybe someday we can travel to the edge of the universe and watch it all begin.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 02:17 AM)
The benefit of time is that technologies will exist that do not exist today. If we someday figure out how to travel faster than light, then maybe someday we can travel to the edge of the universe and watch it all begin.
I'll hop on that ship. Slow down the aging process anyway.
PS I do believe in, and in fact worship, the "God of the Bible". But I do not claim a place amongst that modern day institution we call the church. If you think my criticism of 'evolution' was harsh.....
by the way..... if 'god' 'scattered' the stars from a localized point in space, and 'flung' them at a velocity greater than the speed of light, what would be our observation of the 'trail'?
not seriously moving into a topic..... just a fleeting thought.
I'll hop on that ship. Slow down the aging process anyway.
PS I do believe in, and in fact worship, the "God of the Bible". But I do not claim a place amongst that modern day institution we call the church. If you think my criticism of 'evolution' was harsh.....
by the way..... if 'god' 'scattered' the stars from a localized point in space, and 'flung' them at a velocity greater than the speed of light, what would be our observation of the 'trail'?
not seriously moving into a topic..... just a fleeting thought.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 28 2009, 10:35 PM)
I'll hop on that ship. Slow down the aging process anyway.
PS I do believe in, and in fact worship, the "God of the Bible". But I do not claim a place amongst that modern day institution we call the church. If you think my criticism of 'evolution' was harsh.....
by the way..... if 'god' 'scattered' the stars from a localized point in space, and 'flung' them at a velocity greater than the speed of light, what would be our observation of the 'trail'?
not seriously moving into a topic..... just a fleeting thought.
I used to be a Christian, but I became an atheist after studying science with an open mind. I don't have a problem with faith in general, but I take issue with those who would muddy the scientific waters with assertions of faith.
PS I do believe in, and in fact worship, the "God of the Bible". But I do not claim a place amongst that modern day institution we call the church. If you think my criticism of 'evolution' was harsh.....
by the way..... if 'god' 'scattered' the stars from a localized point in space, and 'flung' them at a velocity greater than the speed of light, what would be our observation of the 'trail'?
not seriously moving into a topic..... just a fleeting thought.
I used to be a Christian, but I became an atheist after studying science with an open mind. I don't have a problem with faith in general, but I take issue with those who would muddy the scientific waters with assertions of faith.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 02:49 AM)
I used to be a Christian, but I became an atheist after studying science with an open mind. I don't have a problem with faith in general, but I take issue with those who would muddy the scientific waters with assertions of faith.
I hope I am not guilty of muddying the waters of science with assertions of faith. I am attempting to make some semblance of separation to say the least.
But also, let us not muddy the waters of science with philosophy, emotion, or desire either. I prefer calling a spade a spade. If we interject that which we 'wish to be true', lets call it what it is.
I do not attempt to interject "god" into science, but I have always acknowledged that our grasp of hard science is, at this point in time, incredibly limited in its ability to provide comprehension of what is, much less what its beginning were. I could scream at the observation that "when science proves inadequate to explain.... the alternative is "the god of 'christianity'". In other words, it seems to me that ... i cannot put it into words... when science is lacking.... why must we reject the shortcomings because the ONLY alternative is "religion". Why can't science fall short - without the immediate interjection of 'religion crammed down the think hole'
I simply do not think it logical to begin with the assumption that there is nothing beyond the grasp of science and mathematics. That is an illogical assumption and one I believe to be based in emotion.
We simply do not have all the parts necessary to put the whole together. Or if we do, it is well beyond our recognition at this time. To assume otherwise is not good science. We must acknowledge that, at the present time, it is beyond our grasp. What may lie ahead cannot be assumed at the present time.
methinks i may be near on the same page with my atheist friend????
i was never an atheist, but not from lack of effort. no, seriously, I did not mean for that to come out sarcastic. it really was an attempt to describe my earlier years. I suppose I am the antithesis of your statement - I was not a Christian but the pull was too great. If what it says is true - that no one comes to the father but those he draws... then i got sucked into a black hole. LOL .
I hope I am not guilty of muddying the waters of science with assertions of faith. I am attempting to make some semblance of separation to say the least.
But also, let us not muddy the waters of science with philosophy, emotion, or desire either. I prefer calling a spade a spade. If we interject that which we 'wish to be true', lets call it what it is.
I do not attempt to interject "god" into science, but I have always acknowledged that our grasp of hard science is, at this point in time, incredibly limited in its ability to provide comprehension of what is, much less what its beginning were. I could scream at the observation that "when science proves inadequate to explain.... the alternative is "the god of 'christianity'". In other words, it seems to me that ... i cannot put it into words... when science is lacking.... why must we reject the shortcomings because the ONLY alternative is "religion". Why can't science fall short - without the immediate interjection of 'religion crammed down the think hole'
I simply do not think it logical to begin with the assumption that there is nothing beyond the grasp of science and mathematics. That is an illogical assumption and one I believe to be based in emotion.
We simply do not have all the parts necessary to put the whole together. Or if we do, it is well beyond our recognition at this time. To assume otherwise is not good science. We must acknowledge that, at the present time, it is beyond our grasp. What may lie ahead cannot be assumed at the present time.
methinks i may be near on the same page with my atheist friend????
i was never an atheist, but not from lack of effort. no, seriously, I did not mean for that to come out sarcastic. it really was an attempt to describe my earlier years. I suppose I am the antithesis of your statement - I was not a Christian but the pull was too great. If what it says is true - that no one comes to the father but those he draws... then i got sucked into a black hole. LOL .
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 28 2009, 11:30 PM)
I am attempting to make some semblance of separation to say the least.
For that, I salute you!
I might agree with you there, but I can't without specific examples.
I might agree with you there, but I can't without specific examples.
I simply do not think it logical to begin with the assumption that there is nothing beyond the grasp of science and mathematics. That is an illogical assumption and one I believe to be based in emotion.
This is probably true, but science is obviously the best solution, especially when given the alternatives.
I will recommend a book that I read somewhat recently:
Finding Darwin's God
by Kenneth R. Miller
The main point of the book is basically that god and science are not in conflict. The problem is when religious people put themselves in a corner when they try to "stuff the gaps" with god. When that gap is finally explained through science, they have damaged the case that they were trying to present. Miller paints god as a much more fundamental force that acts with nature to achieve his goals. Miller believes that god did not create Homo Sapiens specifically, but instead chose them as a product of evolution. The book makes an excellent case for evolution, complete with evidence.
I myself am looking forward to reading Dawkins' new book: "The Greatest Show on Earth"
I might agree with you there, but I can't without specific examples.
philosophy, emotion, or desire either.
philosophy - “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman
cannot one-up him, so won't try
emotion - example - we are so caught up in our faith or belief in our religion that we simply cannot extract it from science. Or we are so fiercely defiant in our refusal to believe that there could be something beyond our material existence that we will not acknowledge that this particular variable could possibly interject something into the equation.
desire - we want so desperately to believe that we can understand all that we refuse to accept the alternative - that we actually may be limited regardless of the time allotted. (ie, science will, given enough time, explain all) our refusal to acknowledge the possibility that it will not.
I'm curious though, who are you accusing of injecting philosophy
materialism.... i believe you introduced that early on in the conversation.
For that, I salute you!
QUOTE
But also, let us not muddy the waters of science with philosophy, emotion, or desire either. I prefer calling a spade a spade. If we interject that which we 'wish to be true', lets call it what it is.
I might agree with you there, but I can't without specific examples.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But also, let us not muddy the waters of science with philosophy, emotion, or desire either. I prefer calling a spade a spade. If we interject that which we 'wish to be true', lets call it what it is. |
I might agree with you there, but I can't without specific examples.
I simply do not think it logical to begin with the assumption that there is nothing beyond the grasp of science and mathematics. That is an illogical assumption and one I believe to be based in emotion.
This is probably true, but science is obviously the best solution, especially when given the alternatives.
I will recommend a book that I read somewhat recently:
Finding Darwin's God
by Kenneth R. Miller
The main point of the book is basically that god and science are not in conflict. The problem is when religious people put themselves in a corner when they try to "stuff the gaps" with god. When that gap is finally explained through science, they have damaged the case that they were trying to present. Miller paints god as a much more fundamental force that acts with nature to achieve his goals. Miller believes that god did not create Homo Sapiens specifically, but instead chose them as a product of evolution. The book makes an excellent case for evolution, complete with evidence.
I myself am looking forward to reading Dawkins' new book: "The Greatest Show on Earth"
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 03:49 AM)
I might agree with you there, but I can't without specific examples.
philosophy, emotion, or desire either.
philosophy - “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman
cannot one-up him, so won't try
emotion - example - we are so caught up in our faith or belief in our religion that we simply cannot extract it from science. Or we are so fiercely defiant in our refusal to believe that there could be something beyond our material existence that we will not acknowledge that this particular variable could possibly interject something into the equation.
desire - we want so desperately to believe that we can understand all that we refuse to accept the alternative - that we actually may be limited regardless of the time allotted. (ie, science will, given enough time, explain all) our refusal to acknowledge the possibility that it will not.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 03:49 AM)
This is probably true, but science is obviously the best solution, especially when given the alternatives.
YES, science is the solution!!!! but only when we use our scientific minds to delve into science. not our emotions, not our prejudices, and the hardest of all may be to erase from the chalkboard of our minds that which is not true.
YES, science is the solution!!!! but only when we use our scientific minds to delve into science. not our emotions, not our prejudices, and the hardest of all may be to erase from the chalkboard of our minds that which is not true.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 03:49 AM)
I will recommend a book that I read somewhat recently:
Finding Darwin's God
by Kenneth R. Miller
The main point of the book is basically that god and science are not in conflict. The problem is when religious people put themselves in a corner when they try to "stuff the gaps" with god. When that gap is finally explained through science, they have damaged the case that they were trying to present. Miller paints god as a much more fundamental force that acts with nature to achieve his goals. Miller believes that god did not create Homo Sapiens specifically, but instead chose them as a product of evolution. The book makes an excellent case for evolution, complete with evidence.
I myself am looking forward to reading Dawkins' new book: "The Greatest Show on Earth"
I may actually order it.
you are quite persuasive for someone who called me a troll.
got to go to bed.
it has been interesting.
didn't answer my question though, are we not somewhat on the same page?
Finding Darwin's God
by Kenneth R. Miller
The main point of the book is basically that god and science are not in conflict. The problem is when religious people put themselves in a corner when they try to "stuff the gaps" with god. When that gap is finally explained through science, they have damaged the case that they were trying to present. Miller paints god as a much more fundamental force that acts with nature to achieve his goals. Miller believes that god did not create Homo Sapiens specifically, but instead chose them as a product of evolution. The book makes an excellent case for evolution, complete with evidence.
I myself am looking forward to reading Dawkins' new book: "The Greatest Show on Earth"
I may actually order it.
you are quite persuasive for someone who called me a troll.
got to go to bed.
it has been interesting.
didn't answer my question though, are we not somewhat on the same page?
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 12:07 AM)
YES, science is the solution!!!! but only when we use our scientific minds to delve into science. not our emotions, not our prejudices, and the hardest of all may be to erase from the chalkboard of our minds that which is not true.
I'm curious though, who are you accusing of injecting philosophy, emotion and desire into science? I am not aware of any professional scientists who do this, aside from the ones who go on TV.
On a personal note, given your insistence on focusing only on facts, what fuels your faith in god?
I'm curious though, who are you accusing of injecting philosophy, emotion and desire into science? I am not aware of any professional scientists who do this, aside from the ones who go on TV.
On a personal note, given your insistence on focusing only on facts, what fuels your faith in god?
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 12:13 AM)
I may actually order it.
you are quite persuasive for someone who called me a troll.
got to go to bed.
it has been interesting.
didn't answer my question though, are we not somewhat on the same page?
I would say that we are definitely close (given that my current mental picture of you is accurate).
I must say, given our recent discussion, this makes no sense: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=430249.
Care to explain what was going on there?
you are quite persuasive for someone who called me a troll.
got to go to bed.
it has been interesting.
didn't answer my question though, are we not somewhat on the same page?
I would say that we are definitely close (given that my current mental picture of you is accurate).
I must say, given our recent discussion, this makes no sense: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=430249.
Care to explain what was going on there?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 04:14 AM)
I'm curious though, who are you accusing of injecting philosophy
materialism.... i believe you introduced that early on in the conversation.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.