Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Science; Room for concern

  1. #1 Science; Room for concern 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4
    Okay well right now I feel science has left plenty of room for concern in the discussion of God or a Creator. I don't understand why there is an increasing number of atheists completely closed minded on the fact there may be a Creator. Isn't it the mission of science to investigate unknown issues with a completely open mind whilst you gather the evidence? yet the door remains firmly shut for some on this one. I know science has concluded that finding an all powerful bearded man etc etc in an non-findable realm of space or time is a complete negative, non-issue, fairytale or whatever you like to call it but is that really what God is or has to be and does it definitely prove the non-existence of God or a Creator?

    Here is why I think there is still room for discussion on wither God or a creator exists...

    We all know or should now know that all matter and the atoms within it are made up of nothing but energy, now think! If everything around us that seems solid in this universe is nothing but energy there must be a whole lot of precise undiscovered presently supernatural forces working together to shape the world as we see it, if this was not true then why are we not living in a quantum realm rather than perceiving this world in all it's beauty.

    Now think about this... if the human body is also nothing but matter and atoms (i.e. energy just like everything else) then our thoughts and our very life and existence must also be some form of energy in reality... it can never be anything more than that unless your contradicting proven quantum mechanics. Accepted by the 1st Law of thermodynamics energy can never die or be created it can only be transferred from and to an existing source, doesn't this then mean that it's only possible kill the human body but the actual energy that makes it can only be transferred to some place else? if this was the case then isn't life after death possible if our consciousness energy existed after clinical death? The very fact consciousness exists now means that the energy used by your thoughts had to be transferred from somewhere. Do your thoughts seem non-intelligent or natural in their production? They shouldn't because nothing in nature is structured so precisely like our rational thought process and how we as humans look at things. Nature causes chaos, randomness and the disorderly... Why assume that the energy source providing your thoughts is some naturally occurring phenomena which is also non-intelligent in it's origin, it doesn't make sense if you yourself can clearly make sense of those same thoughts!

    The next important point is this... energy attracts the same type of energy so if it was true and the energy that makes YOU can only be transferred into the universe, then in theory all that energy would be attracting and incorporating itself into the same type of energy available in it's current environment, Now think about that! a whole environment made of energy that has has the thoughts of every human being, doesn't this sound like as close to God as you will ever get yet perfectly plausible? You cannot say for sure that energy can't think for itself just the same as we do every day, it would only make sense if it did because the universe is energy, we are energy and we think, I am pretty sure science would be inclined to say in all probability there is a chance it can, for it is.

    As we look at the world around us now the same energy that creates matter (physical things) is some how taking many forms at the same time, we have plastics, metals, liquids etc... The energy that is part of a solid item is the same as the energy that makes our brain therefore, mind, thought, consciousness etc... must be the same! Now imagine this connected energy of mind and matter in it's purest universal form... it could surely become or create anything physical known to man from it's grouped experience and universal consciousness.

    If the energy at one consciously decides that there is a divide between good and bad (remember Newtons 2nd law, every action has an equal and opposing force) by defining certain rules, consequences and actions for what is right and wrong, good or bad, then it is totally plausible this was brought about in a way similar to how the religions of today are describing it. For the benefit of humanity... it would make things simple and totally possible. Regardless of how unlikely a theory, it should not just simply be disposed of, you can't do that with no solid observation.

    The fact people have actually related to God for this long should lead you to be at least curious, they can't all be imagining these things, there has to be some underlying truth in what people have observed for thousands of years. I just feel that as we get further away from the beginning the harder it's going to be to learn anything about the beginning from religions, it's clear for all to see the possibility of a religion being set up for one's personal gain or motivations however using the numbers it's highly unlikely all were started in that way. It could be that all the religions of the present are that way and we never get to know the real answer through these religions, I personally think that is true because we have science now and rather than saying "science is here, religion and therefore god is false" I believe we are close to saying "science is here and so is God".


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Science; Room for concern 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Okay well right now I feel science has left plenty of room for concern in the discussion of God or a Creator. I don't understand why there is an increasing number of atheists completely closed minded on the fact there may be a Creator.
    Closed-minded is not correct. What you mean is, "why won't we accept a hypothesis with no evidence to support it and a fair amount that disagrees with it?"

    In terms of open-mindedness, it is more open minded to favour no hypothesis over another due to lack of evidence, than to constantly maintain that your hypothesis is correct despite no evidence to support it, and not even considering alternative hypotheses.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Isn't it the mission of science to investigate unknown issues with a completely open mind whilst you gather the evidence? yet the door remains firmly shut for some on this one.
    Because no evidence has been found. The instant evidence is found, I expect the majority of atheists to reconsider their beliefs. Note: I say the majority; there are some atheists who are as stubborn as theists regarding evidence against their beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    I know science has concluded that finding an all powerful bearded man etc etc in an non-findable realm of space or time is a complete negative, non-issue, fairytale or whatever you like to call it but is that really what God is or has to be and does it definitely prove the non-existence of God or a Creator?
    That depends. It excludes the majority of the main world religions, anyway, particularly the abrahamic religions.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Here is why I think there is still room for discussion on wither God or a creator exists...

    We all know or should now know that all matter and the atoms within it are made up of nothing but energy, now think! If everything around us that seems solid in this universe is nothing but energy there must be a whole lot of precise undiscovered presently supernatural forces working together to shape the world as we see it, if this was not true then why are we not living in a quantum realm rather than perceiving this world in all it's beauty.
    Question: what is energy?

    Question: why do the forces need to be supernatural?

    Question: what is beauty?

    Question: how can you prove we are not living in a quantum realm and completely created the concept of beauty?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Now think about this... if the human body is also nothing but matter and atoms (i.e. energy just like everything else) then our thoughts and our very life and existence must also be some form of energy in reality... it can never be anything more than that unless your contradicting proven quantum mechanics. Accepted by the 1st Law of thermodynamics energy can never die or be created it can only be transferred from and to an existing source, doesn't this then mean that it's only possible kill the human body but the actual energy that makes it can only be transferred to some place else?
    Generally, the energy goes to heat. This is (one reason) why 30% of your body heat is lost through your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    if this was the case then isn't life after death possible if our consciousness energy existed after clinical death? The very fact consciousness exists now means that the energy used by your thoughts had to be transferred from somewhere.
    True, but it can and does change form. Like, when you turn the light bulb off, where does the light go? It's exactly the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Do your thoughts seem non-intelligent or natural in their production? They shouldn't because nothing in nature is structured so precisely like our rational thought process and how we as humans look at things.
    Our thoughts are nto structured. The human brain functions best when verging on chaos (self-organised criticality).

    On this basis, your thoughts resemble nature more than precise, rational processes.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Why assume that the energy source providing your thoughts is some naturally occurring phenomena which is also non-intelligent in it's origin
    Because that is the logical answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    it doesn't make sense if you yourself can clearly make sense of those same thoughts!
    Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    The next important point is this... energy attracts the same type of energy
    Does it? Sources?

    Think of convection currents...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    so if it was true and the energy that makes YOU can only be transferred into the universe, then in theory all that energy would be attracting and incorporating itself into the same type of energy available in it's current environment, Now think about that! a whole environment made of energy that has has the thoughts of every human being, doesn't this sound like as close to God as you will ever get yet perfectly plausible?
    It sounds completely made up to me... And completely implausible, by the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    You cannot say for sure that energy can't think for itself just the same as we do every day
    True, I can't, but I'm fairly confident it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    it would only make sense if it did because the universe is energy, we are energy and we think
    Logical fallicy.

    I have a cat, and my cat has fleas, therefore I have fleas?

    Can't just assume there is a link; still have to provide evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    I am pretty sure science would be inclined to say in all probability there is a chance it can
    Yes, simply on the basis that nothing can ever be completely proven/disproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    As we look at the world around us now the same energy that creates matter (physical things)
    matter=energy=matter

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    The energy that is part of a solid item is the same as the energy that makes our brain therefore, mind, thought, consciousness etc... must be the same!
    Correct. You have just demonstrated that energy is energy. Well done.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Now imagine this connected energy of mind and matter in it's purest universal form... it could surely become or create anything physical known to man from it's grouped experience and universal consciousness.
    Um.... to an extent. As long as it is inkeeping with the laws of thermodaynamics, and so on. I don't see why experience is relevant, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    If the energy at one consciously decides
    It is one thing to say that your consciousness is constructed of energy. It is quite another to say that energy is conscious. No, sorry, I'm not taking that on faith; you're going to have to prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Regardless of how unlikely a theory, it should not just simply be disposed of, you can't do that with no solid observation.
    Nor should it be believed, untill supported by verifiable evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    The fact people have actually related to God for this long should lead you to be at least curious, they can't all be imagining these things, there has to be some underlying truth in what people have observed for thousands of years.
    No there doesn't. For hundreds of years, the theory of spontaneous generation was fact to everyone, for example.

    These things survive, because the ideas are passed down the generations by word-of-mouth, just like religion. The religion could equally survive, whether the words are true or completely made up.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    it's clear for all to see the possibility of a religion being set up for one's personal gain or motivations however using the numbers it's highly unlikely all were started in that way.
    They're mutually exclusive, so at least 50% of the worlds population is wrong. You can't be Jewish and Hindu, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    It could be that all the religions of the present are that way and we never get to know the real answer through these religions, I personally think that is true because we have science now and rather than saying "science is here, religion and therefore god is false" I believe we are close to saying "science is here and so is God".
    I disagree. I don't think the natural and the supernatural can ever explain one another. But this is only a matter of opinion.


    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    22
    "i don't believe the natural and the supernatural will ever explain one another"

    i don't know about the supernatural explaining the natural but i can say that what human beings used to call "magic" in the ancient past has been turned to "science" upon responsible investigation. for example, some used to believe that the sun was pulled across the sky by a god-driven chariot but have since learned about the mechanics of our solar system. medecine used to be governed by the spirit world until we learned about bio-chemistry. all "supernatural" things (if you can even claim them to exist) have as yet unknown natural explanations. either that or they simply did not exist to begin with (loved the example of spontaneous generation).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Science; Room for concern 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Okay well right now I feel science has left plenty of room for concern in the discussion of God or a Creator.
    This is incorrect, and there is one solid reason for that. Science is based on testing hypotheses by attempting to falsify them. If it is impossible to falsify an idea then science cannot test it. If I say, "All leaves are green," you can falsify that hypothesis by finding just one leaf that isn't green. If you say, "God exists" what evidence from the natural world could possibly exist that would falsify that statement? There isn't any. Science is limited to the natural knowable world. Thus science can say nothing about religion, neither in support nor in disproof. If atheists choose in their own minds to rule out the possibility of a creator that is their personal decision, not a scientific one.

    If everything around us that seems solid in this universe is nothing but energy there must be a whole lot of precise undiscovered presently supernatural forces working together to shape the world as we see it, if this was not true then why are we not living in a quantum realm rather than perceiving this world in all it's beauty.
    A lack of a current scientific explanation does not equal a supernatural explanation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A lack of scientific evidence means just that - science can't say anything about it. If you personally choose to say it makes the most sense to me that a creator was involved, then that's your opinion and not a scientific one.


    In my opinion this thread should be closed.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Science; Room for concern 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    If everything around us that seems solid in this universe is nothing but energy there must be a whole lot of precise undiscovered presently supernatural forces working together to shape the world as we see it, if this was not true then why are we not living in a quantum realm rather than perceiving this world in all it's beauty.
    Your concept 'supernatural' is a profoundly religious one, and therein lies your first and major hurdle. There are NO supernatural forces at work anywhere, for they all emanate from the same source - ancient myth. Genuine scientific investigation has been for centuries proving what John Lennon wrote about with; "You had better (first) free your mind instead", then perhaps you will commence upon viewing and appreciating the natural - which exists everywhere, rather than hanging about looking for something, which exists - nowhere.

    Sure it all sounds confrontational, dismissive and opinionated, yet there is sound reasoning behind the above observation.

    As mentioned, it is my contention that your term 'supernatural' is a religious manipulation - a careless attempt to combine the true (invisible) facts of our existence with the ancient (mainly physical) myth mentioned above - the result being more in line with myth than reality.

    What is well understood in 2009, as to our natural environment is;

    A. Visible - physical matter, and;
    B. That which is non-physical, which I firmly believe was the original intention of the term we have today, as derived from the Hebrew script;'spiritual'.

    Religion has ever since; managed to entwine our collective mentality in all manner of myth and indefinable wonder, thereby downgrading this (above) obvious explanation, which is clearly based purely upon the - natural, and entirely definable.


    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Okay well right now I feel science has left plenty of room for concern in the discussion of God or a Creator.
    This is incorrect, and there is one solid reason for that. Science is based on testing hypotheses by attempting to falsify them. If it is impossible to falsify an idea then science cannot test it. If I say, "All leaves are green," you can falsify that hypothesis by finding just one leaf that isn't green. If you say, "God exists" what evidence from the natural world could possibly exist that would falsify that statement? There isn't any. Science is limited to the natural knowable world. Thus science can say nothing about religion, neither in support nor in disproof. If atheists choose in their own minds to rule out the possibility of a creator that is their personal decision, not a scientific one.
    And that has to be by far the most concise and erudite explanation I have ever come across. Sure wish I had written it.

    Now please, if you will explore with me; which came first - the chicken or the egg?

    If everything (including the most infinitesimal) we ever do, is accomplished ONLY via the use of (our) garnered intelligence, how can it be that we also accept our intelligence, as being an outcome of some awkward happenstance? I hope you don't perceive this, by means of contention.

    It would seem apparent to me that we cannot rightly expect to be placing ourselves at both ends of the equation - being both master and the servant - at the same time.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Science; Room for concern 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    And that has to be by far the most concise and erudite explanation I have ever come across. Sure wish I had written it.
    Thanks very much for the compliment. It's rather a case of practice makes perfect - thank you, internet.

    Now please, if you will explore with me; which came first - the chicken or the egg?
    Neither; they both emerged at the same time. (Though if you want to get technical, it's the egg - egg laying animals existed long before chickens ever came on the scene.)

    If everything (including the most infinitesimal) we ever do, is accomplished ONLY via the use of (our) garnered intelligence, how can it be that we also accept our intelligence, as being an outcome of some awkward happenstance? I hope you don't perceive this, by means of contention.

    It would seem apparent to me that we cannot rightly expect to be placing ourselves at both ends of the equation - being both master and the servant - at the same time.
    If you'd like to discuss this more, I think we need to start a thread in Biology - number one, our bodies accomplish plenty of things without much conscious intelligence, and number two, describing the evolution of human intelligence as "awkward happenstance" is a misrepresentation at best. And I don't understand that master and servant remark at all.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Science; Room for concern 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Now please, if you will explore with me; which came first - the chicken or the egg?
    Neither; they both emerged at the same time. (Though if you want to get technical, it's the egg - egg laying animals existed long before chickens ever came on the scene.)
    My apologies, as the above query was by way of rhetorical antecedent, certainly not intended for any level of squabbling.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    If everything (including the most infinitesimal) we ever do, is accomplished ONLY via the use of (our) garnered intelligence, how can it be that we also accept our intelligence, as being an outcome of some awkward happenstance? I hope you don't perceive this, by means of contention.

    It would seem apparent to me that we cannot rightly expect to be placing ourselves at both ends of the equation - being both master and the servant - at the same time.
    If you'd like to discuss this more, I think we need to start a thread in Biology - number one, our bodies accomplish plenty of things without much conscious intelligence,
    I would thoroughly concur with you - on one of your double barreled observations – regarding ‘conscious’, yet would argue the ‘intelligent’ angle, which may become a little more evident shortly.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    and number two, describing the evolution of human intelligence as "awkward happenstance" is a misrepresentation at best.
    Yes I quite understand it would appear so, until (perhaps) you better hear me out on the following ‘remark’;

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It would seem apparent to me that we cannot rightly expect to be placing ourselves at both ends of the equation - being both master and the servant - at the same time.
    I don't understand that master and servant remark at all.
    Without being at this early stage; overly long winded about it, I would argue that we have naturally arrived at the basic general understanding of our existence, such; My intelligence is my property/servant! Therefore; I naturally view and understand my existence from such a vantage point.

    However, it is my sincere contention that perhaps whilst we indulge ourselves in this manner; we may in fact be missing out on the most exquisite slice of the existence pie, such that we are all currently enjoying – to whatever extent.

    So my friend; what if ‘intelligence’ is not 'my' servant after all? What if the converse is a far more recondite acknowledgement – that ‘I’ am (or could be by choice) a willing servant of ‘intelligence’?

    I’m happy to discuss this further – wherever/should you so choose.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I will certainly agree that there are influences on our behavior that are beyond our conscious awareness, and perhaps even beyond our conscious control, due to genetically determined components of our brains etc. But other elements of our behavior are very much under our conscious control, and I see no problem with both facts coexisting.

    Mitchell, if you'd like to move these posts to Biology or Behavior, whichever you see fit, feel free.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4
    Closed-minded is not correct. What you mean is, "why won't we accept a hypothesis with no evidence to support it and a fair amount that disagrees with it?"

    In terms of open-mindedness, it is more open minded to favour no hypothesis over another due to lack of evidence, than to constantly maintain that your hypothesis is correct despite no evidence to support it, and not even considering alternative hypotheses.
    I don't understand how you came to the conclusion there is no evidence... all the information available on phenomena that has not yet been understood must remain as evidence and open to suggestion until fully proven and understood. The fact science simply disposes much of the evidence labeling it as supernatural without thoroughly investigating the claims is severely closed minded in my opinion.

    The people who have written these holy books never had science to rely upon and they could only describe phenomena using the descriptions that were available to them at that time, expecting scientific answers, formulas or even accurate descriptions from them is extremely arrogant.

    Question: what is energy?

    Question: why do the forces need to be supernatural?

    Question: what is beauty?

    Question: how can you prove we are not living in a quantum realm and completely created the concept of beauty?
    ANSWER:
    Well you tell me about what energy is supposed to be because to me it's EVERYTHING, funnily enough exactly as God was described to me!

    ANSWER:
    Okay wrong choice of words on my behalf, it could just as easily be spontaneous naturally occurring phenomena if you choose to believe in that...

    ANSWER:
    I used beauty here to describe the general look and feel of the all the things we encounter in our lives, the people, plants and environment etc etc... all these things are beautiful because energy alone simply doesn't take form of the beautiful things we see and experience, if it did then why hasn't anyone ever looked at this quantum energy under a microscope to find a nice view of the sun rise or the formation of some new or even existing animal or plant life???

    ANSWER:
    If that was the case then why would everyone have the same physical experience? The world and everything in it would surely look and react differently for everyone, it obviously doesn't do this because we all know that everything looks the same to each and every one of us, the perceptions of the human experience is truly universal.

    Generally, the energy goes to heat. This is (one reason) why 30% of your body heat is lost through your head.
    Well out of the many descriptions of God two of the most common are loving and warm, these same attributes or feelings are also often expressed by people undergo a near death experience, to me it makes sense that the explanation behind this could quite easily be the energy joining it's natural/pure environment and traveling towards some sort of warmth (heat source) like you said.

    True, but it can and does change form. Like, when you turn the light bulb off, where does the light go? It's exactly the same.
    The light from a bulb is a characteristic produced by the actual activity of the bulb itself, this would mean our thoughts are nothing more than the characteristics of our brain in the same sense, so yes what does happen when the light is off? Obviously that energy is transferred into somewhere else but that is not the main point, the main point is it can still come back the same regardless of the interference caused by turning it off. If you die and the human brain cannot function then it's obvious we will never be able to produce thoughts using that brain but what is stopping the same energy from being transferred into a new undamaged brain in the same way it would if an old broken bulb was replaced.

    Our thoughts are nto structured. The human brain functions best when verging on chaos (self-organised criticality).

    On this basis, your thoughts resemble nature more than precise, rational processes.
    Self-organized... don't you agree that anything organized needs to be intelligent to actually figure out how it must organize something? it's not natural or seen anywhere in nature for things to organize themselves, for example falling leaves don't organize themselves into nice little piles where they are then easily swept up and a rock rolling down a hill never has the option to choose or organize which route it would like to take.

    Because that is the logical answer.
    How so?

    It sounds completely made up to me... And completely implausible, by the way.
    It seems completely made up because it has been, it's a theory of mine that is only true if proven to be true, unfortunately it hasn't been yet... does that make it COMPLETELY implausible? No and I have to disagree because nobody knows what actually happens to consciousness or the memory properties of that energy.

    True, I can't, but I'm fairly confident it doesn't.
    Being fairly confident in something doesn't give way to a definitely true answer, your confidence in it not doing so is just as equal as me saying it does until proven one way or the other, perhaps you could give some reasons as to why you think it doesn't though!


    Logical fallicy.

    I have a cat, and my cat has fleas, therefore I have fleas?

    Can't just assume there is a link; still have to provide evidence.
    You have a cat you are NOT actually your cat, something ("supposedly natural") defines you as different from it even though you are made up from the exact same substances. In any case probability reveals the chances of you having fleas from the cat is very high...

    Yes, simply on the basis that nothing can ever be completely proven/disproven.
    How do you know this will never be proven or disproved? again I think this is very closed minded and focused only on what the present time and technology is telling you, but lets face it, you can't even have considered what the science of the
    future will reveal about this subject, do you just have faith in NOTHINGNESS? heck I must have more faith in the very side you are on than you do.

    matter=energy=matter
    Correct. You have just demonstrated that energy is energy. Well done
    Exactly... I was only ever trying to explain that all the items I mentioned were the same in their make up, I was never trying to demonstrate anything else other than that with those statements, Well done for figuring it out though!

    Um.... to an extent. As long as it is inkeeping with the laws of thermodaynamics, and so on. I don't see why experience is relevant, though.
    If we learn from experience then it must also be a property of energy somewhere down the line.

    It is one thing to say that your consciousness is constructed of energy. It is quite another to say that energy is conscious. No, sorry, I'm not taking that on faith; you're going to have to prove it.
    I just don't see how it's possible to have consciousness without the actual energy providing those signals being conscious itself, it would never make sense...

    Nor should it be believed, untill supported by verifiable evidence.
    That's true, I don't disagree with that and I don't ask you to believe everything here from what I have been saying alone, I would prefer you take this information and try to conclude solid answers through observations and experiments rather than trying to just disprove the words I speak.

    No there doesn't. For hundreds of years, the theory of spontaneous generation was fact to everyone, for example.

    These things survive, because the ideas are passed down the generations by word-of-mouth, just like religion. The religion could equally survive, whether the words are true or completely made up.
    Science maintains belief in spontaneous generation just as much as anyone else did back then because is it not true science is stating that life must have originated from non-living organisms. How on earth is non-living organisms turning into living things not spontaneous? if that isn't then I don't know what is!

    They're mutually exclusive, so at least 50% of the worlds population is wrong. You can't be Jewish and Hindu, for example.
    That is still an awful lot of room left for people to be correct and like I said it's expected some of them are bound to be wrong or fraudulent...

    I disagree. I don't think the natural and the supernatural can ever explain one another. But this is only a matter of opinion.
    Again I will refer back to non-living organisms as an example because I would like to know which part of a non-living organism makes it natural for it to become a living organism? surely once it becomes living it can only be defined as supernatural seeing as it's not in it's natural non-living state. Take for example the concepts of all our senses, if how evolution stands today is correct then the actual concept of each sense must have existed before the actual feature of our bodies that enables that sense, if this wasn't the case then why would these particular parts of the body have ever formed, it's impossible in evolution if there was no underlying reason behind it.

    Now think further, is it natural or supernatural for something to want to see when it had never seen or to hear things when sounds were unheard? The fact is that the supernatural can exist only problem with it is it's totally dependent and defined on the basis of time, the supernatural of today can just as easily be seen as natural tomorrow...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    It seems completely made up because it has been, it's a theory of mine
    Someone beat you to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    imagine this connected energy of mind and matter in it's purest universal form... it could surely become or create anything
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Kenobi
    The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    the energy at one consciously decides that there is a divide between good and bad
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda
    A Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paralith
    If I say, "All leaves are green," you can falsify that hypothesis by finding just one leaf that isn't green. If you say, "God exists" what evidence from the natural world could possibly exist that would falsify that statement? There isn't any. Science is limited to the natural knowable world. Thus science can say nothing about religion, neither in support nor in disproof.
    Uh, science can say much about religion, insofar as religion touches the natural world. For example science might say the human brain is predisposed to certain religious patterns of thought, like epiphany or fanaticism. It can explain why we think something. Better yet, science might say (find) that humans see through green-tinted lenses... so all leaves appear green. The first concern of science must be to map and cancel human subjectivity.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Incoming Dessert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne

    I just don't see how it's possible to have consciousness without the actual energy providing those signals being conscious itself, it would never make sense...

    Yes it would. You put lots of circuits and clever wiring together, and you get a computer powered by electrical energy. Taking pure electrical energy would not allow you to process information.


    Incidentally, I love the way that atheists are close-minded for not valuing theists' theories, and theists are open minded despite not valuing atheists' theories. What a wonderful world we live in
    The wise man believes half of what he reads. If he knew which half to believe, he'd be a much wiser man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Uh, science can say much about religion, insofar as religion touches the natural world. For example science might say the human brain is predisposed to certain religious patterns of thought, like epiphany or fanaticism. It can explain why we think something. Better yet, science might say (find) that humans see through green-tinted lenses... so all leaves appear green. The first concern of science must be to map and cancel human subjectivity.
    I meant the content of religion, Pong. The existence of supernatural forces of any kind. That's what the OP was talking about and that's what my comment was on. You are taking it out of context.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4


    Yes it would. You put lots of circuits and clever wiring together, and you get a computer powered by electrical energy. Taking pure electrical energy would not allow you to process information.


    Incidentally, I love the way that atheists are close-minded for not valuing theists' theories, and theists are open minded despite not valuing atheists' theories. What a wonderful world we live in
    and where has all this circuitry and clever wiring supposed to have appeared from? I can't imagine to think about how this is possible... you mention computers but don't recognize that a computer is useless without the operating system software (Microsoft Windows etc..) and software needs a programmer or the at the very least something that thinks about problems before hand and ones that may arise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Closed-minded is not correct. What you mean is, "why won't we accept a hypothesis with no evidence to support it and a fair amount that disagrees with it?"

    In terms of open-mindedness, it is more open minded to favour no hypothesis over another due to lack of evidence, than to constantly maintain that your hypothesis is correct despite no evidence to support it, and not even considering alternative hypotheses.
    I don't understand how you came to the conclusion there is no evidence... all the information available on phenomena that has not yet been understood must remain as evidence and open to suggestion until fully proven and understood.
    This would be evidence, but evidence for what? Certainly, it does not pertain specifically to a god/creator.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    The fact science simply disposes much of the evidence labeling it as supernatural without thoroughly investigating the claims is severely closed minded in my opinion.
    Such as what evidence? You mean the bible and other holy books? They are written accounts, but are not scientific evidence; they are far too unreliable and vague. I would call the bible a hypothesis; not evidence. A hpothesis' existance is not proof that it is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    The people who have written these holy books never had science to rely upon and they could only describe phenomena using the descriptions that were available to them at that time, expecting scientific answers, formulas or even accurate descriptions from them is extremely arrogant.
    As I say above, the books can be comsidered hypothesese. Evidence should be accumulated by observation and experiment; not from the hypothesis itself.

    Like, if I said the moon is made of cheese and you asked me to provide evidence, this is like me responding: 'because I say so'.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    ANSWER:
    Well you tell me about what energy is supposed to be because to me it's EVERYTHING, funnily enough exactly as God was described to me!
    Energy is the capacity to do work.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    ANSWER:
    Okay wrong choice of words on my behalf, it could just as easily be spontaneous naturally occurring phenomena if you choose to believe in that...
    Indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    ANSWER:
    I used beauty here to describe the general look and feel of the all the things we encounter in our lives, the people, plants and environment etc etc...
    OK, but please don't refer to 'beauty' as if it is scientifically quantifyable; it is just your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    all these things are beautiful because energy alone simply doesn't take form of the beautiful things we see and experience
    Enough of it the right conditions does.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    if it did then why hasn't anyone ever looked at this quantum energy under a microscope to find a nice view of the sun rise or the formation of some new or even existing animal or plant life???
    Because the amount of energy required would be huge, and the probability of it forming something recognisable in a short period of time would be tiny.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    ANSWER:
    If that was the case then why would everyone have the same physical experience?
    How do you know we are? I assume we are, because of empathy, but for all I know you could see things entirely differently to me. In fact, I'm fairly sure you do, if I think about it rather than go by instinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    The world and everything in it would surely look and react differently for everyone, it obviously doesn't do this because we all know that everything looks the same to each and every one of us, the perceptions of the human experience is truly universal.
    How do you know? How we describe our experiences is governed by our language, which is developed to relate experiences between people. It is therefore difficult to compare how different people experience things.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Generally, the energy goes to heat. This is (one reason) why 30% of your body heat is lost through your head.
    Well out of the many descriptions of God two of the most common are loving and warm
    You haven't given me any evidence to support the existance of god, yet. Now you are telling me about his personality?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    these same attributes or feelings are also often expressed by people undergo a near death experience
    Not me. A little of the "life flashing before my eyes" stuff, in a way, then darkness, then waking up again.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    to me it makes sense that the explanation behind this could quite easily be the energy joining it's natural/pure environment and traveling towards some sort of warmth (heat source) like you said.
    When did I say anything about consciousness travelling to hot places? I meant only that the electrical and potential energies that constitute your thoughts are converted into thermal energy eventually.

    Plus, making sense is irrelevant. I can make any theory you like make sense, but I can't necessarily prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    True, but it can and does change form. Like, when you turn the light bulb off, where does the light go? It's exactly the same.
    The light from a bulb is a characteristic produced by the actual activity of the bulb itself, this would mean our thoughts are nothing more than the characteristics of our brain in the same sense, so yes what does happen when the light is off? Obviously that energy is transferred into somewhere else but that is not the main point, the main point is it can still come back the same regardless of the interference caused by turning it off.
    Well, yes, but it's not the same energy...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    If you die and the human brain cannot function then it's obvious we will never be able to produce thoughts using that brain but what is stopping the same energy from being transferred into a new undamaged brain in the same way it would if an old broken bulb was replaced.
    Once the electrical activity in your brain has died out, the patterns and so on that constitute your thoughts (I admit, I don't fully understand it and neither does anyone, that I am aware) become heat energy, which will spread out into the surroundings, without being replaced. So even if you put energy back into the brain, the memories and thoughts have already been lost, and you are just warming up a piece of tissue.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Self-organized... don't you agree that anything organized needs to be intelligent to actually figure out how it must organize something? it's not natural or seen anywhere in nature for things to organize themselves, for example falling leaves don't organize themselves into nice little piles where they are then easily swept up and a rock rolling down a hill never has the option to choose or organize which route it would like to take.
    You are asking me if humans are inteligent? I will answer yes.


    I'll get back to you on the rest later, if you're likely to read it, I have things to do right now
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    and all the circuits and clever wiring is just supposed to have appeared naturally from? I can't imagine to think about how this is possible...
    Awe is not a valid scientific contradiction. It's not a surprise that any one person would find it difficult to conceptualize in their minds the entire process of billions of years of evolution that eventually resulted in the human brain (and the brains of many other animals). That doesn't mean it isn't possible. I'm not very experienced with physics, but I don't call doubt on relativity simply because I'm ignorant of how it works.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4
    Yes get back to me,

    I will read it because I'm especially interested in what you've got to say about the next part. I am basically investigating this myself, although I practically believe some form of God exists the conversation is good for thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Because that is the logical answer.
    How so?
    There is no reason to assume it is intelligent, that is why. Why make things more complicated without evidence to support it?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    It sounds completely made up to me... And completely implausible, by the way.
    It seems completely made up because it has been, it's a theory of mine that is only true if proven to be true, unfortunately it hasn't been yet... does that make it COMPLETELY implausible?
    No, I was just stating my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    No and I have to disagree because nobody knows what actually happens to consciousness or the memory properties of that energy.
    The energy doesn't have memories. The memories are energy. I told you what happens to it: it is converted into heat and spreads out into the atmosphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    True, I can't, but I'm fairly confident it doesn't.
    Being fairly confident in something doesn't give way to a definitely true answer, your confidence in it not doing so is just as equal as me saying it does until proven one way or the other, perhaps you could give some reasons as to why you think it doesn't though!
    OK, sure. Because pure energy in any form does not show any signs of inteligence: it reacts in a known way, and never 'chooses' to act differently. This leads me to doubt energy can think for itself, although evidence to suggest otherwise may change my belief.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Logical fallicy.

    I have a cat, and my cat has fleas, therefore I have fleas?

    Can't just assume there is a link; still have to provide evidence.
    You have a cat you are NOT actually your cat, something ("supposedly natural") defines you as different from it even though you are made up from the exact same substances. In any case probability reveals the chances of you having fleas from the cat is very high...
    You're missing the point. The cat was just an analogy to show the fallicy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Yes, simply on the basis that nothing can ever be completely proven/disproven.
    How do you know this will never be proven or disproved?
    Because nothing can ever be scientifically proven or disproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    again I think this is very closed minded and focused only on what the present time and technology is telling you
    Why? I am saying I am always willing to change what I believe, because no belief I have is set in stone.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    but lets face it, you can't even have considered what the science of the
    future will reveal about this subject, do you just have faith in NOTHINGNESS?
    I have no faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    heck I must have more faith in the very side you are on than you do.
    Absolutely. I deal in evidence and theories, not in faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Um.... to an extent. As long as it is inkeeping with the laws of thermodaynamics, and so on. I don't see why experience is relevant, though.
    If we learn from experience then it must also be a property of energy somewhere down the line.
    Not really. What we learn is stored as a certain arrangement of energy which is lost when we die, or forget. Energy is not composed of individual parts, so to speak, and cannot store information in an arrangement like this.

    If you can demonstrate how onformation can be stored in energy, I will be happy to take it seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    It is one thing to say that your consciousness is constructed of energy. It is quite another to say that energy is conscious. No, sorry, I'm not taking that on faith; you're going to have to prove it.
    I just don't see how it's possible to have consciousness without the actual energy providing those signals being conscious itself, it would never make sense...
    Whether or not it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant. It's going to take real evidence to convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Nor should it be believed, untill supported by verifiable evidence.
    That's true, I don't disagree with that and I don't ask you to believe everything here from what I have been saying alone
    Good, I respect you for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    I would prefer you take this information and try to conclude solid answers through observations and experiments rather than trying to just disprove the words I speak.
    Unfortunately, I have made no observations nor performed any experiments which support what you are saying. Nor can I think of any experiment that would show clearly one way or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Science maintains belief in spontaneous generation just as much as anyone else did back then because is it not true science is stating that life must have originated from non-living organisms. How on earth is non-living organisms turning into living things not spontaneous? if that isn't then I don't know what is!
    I can't answer that one. I have no theories, nor evidence, on this matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    That is still an awful lot of room left for people to be correct and like I said it's expected some of them are bound to be wrong or fraudulent...
    Oh, absolutely...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Again I will refer back to non-living organisms as an example because I would like to know which part of a non-living organism makes it natural for it to become a living organism? surely once it becomes living it can only be defined as supernatural seeing as it's not in it's natural non-living state.
    You're just playing on my words. When I say natural, I mean rational and quantifyable, as opposed to supernatural.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Take for example the concepts of all our senses, if how evolution stands today is correct then the actual concept of each sense must have existed before the actual feature of our bodies that enables that sense, if this wasn't the case then why would these particular parts of the body have ever formed, it's impossible in evolution if there was no underlying reason behind it.
    Yes, meaning light existed, vibrations existed, various chemicals existed, gravity existed and so on. Our senses are just biological instruments for measuring a number of factors. Taste and smell measure concentrations of different molecules.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    Now think further, is it natural or supernatural for something to want to see when it had never seen or to hear things when sounds were unheard?
    You misunderstand evolution; it is not a conscious choice. Over time, the ability to detect light arose at random, and hapened to be benefitial and so was continued.

    A similar scenario for the other senses.

    The sensativity of these senses, in specialised cells, then improved over time, with organisms with more sensative senses outcompeting those with inept senses.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCuriousOne
    The fact is that the supernatural can exist only problem with it is it's totally dependent and defined on the basis of time, the supernatural of today can just as easily be seen as natural tomorrow...
    I don't believe the supernatural exists, is my point.

    -The supernatural being something which cannot be explained by natural/rational means, or cannot be objectively quantified. Basically; gods, magic, superstition, etc.

    Please don't try and challenge me on what I mean by the supernatural, because then the discussion won't go anywhere.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I meant the content of religion, Pong. The existence of supernatural forces of any kind. That's what the OP was talking about and that's what my comment was on. You are taking it out of context.
    Sorry. I meant that for TheCuriousOne and should have made my point directly.

    TheCuriousOne, you're asking science to disprove God, and I say science has and does disprove God indirectly but thoroughly. Analogy: Let's equate the proposition of God with "all leaves are green". Science has shown that people, including scientists, see with green tinted glasses. We can see a little green in anything. Science refuses to accept subjective observation as fact, even if there may be objective truth in it. For good reason don't you think? Furthermore science has shown that the world functions smoothly and according to all other observations if non-green leaves do exist, while an all-green-leaves world raises huge contradictions that have not been resolved since the first farmer remarked, "My garden's greener than yours."

    We shouldn't revolt from religion and seek to demean it just because it's an illusion. Another analogy: Jane's hubby is attractive. That's subjective, of course. A good scientist won't say BS to that and labour the stance that he's objectively unattractive. Rather, a good scientist admits "Yeah, I feel it too" and wants to understand why. But she won't get to the heart of the matter without acknowledging her subjectivity... in fact the object of study is her own rosy vision. Finally, a whole person appreciates either view: the cold one for objectivity, and the rosy one because she's human after all. I guess religion is a part of what we are.

    What I'm hearing from you, TheCuriousOne, is a raft of stuff I know you'd like to believe. God, I'd also love to be a Jedi! I'm not hearing why you'd like to believe any of this.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •