I'm bringing this thread back, by saying:
Science can and has investigated the supernatural, stars used to be supernatural?nd again.
I pointed out that, (apart from having zero evidence of the "supernatural") IF science could investigate THEN it wouldn't be "supernatural".
and what if god is a spiritual colllective of all of us all of our intentions, everything wound up into a network, similiar to what would be described as the law of attraction, together humans with the collective of all living things are god. Guess it just depends on how you see god.
speaking of god, god I really need some sleep so I stop talking crazy ^.
It's generally not a good idea to try to "explain" unsupported claims by comparing it to outright bunk.Originally Posted by jakesyl
I think you have misunderstood what was said.
I will try and making clear for you. For a thing to be supernatural it can have no effect on the natural, least it become natural.
So it is irrelevant whether science investigated stars, they could see them, therefore they were a natural phenomena.
If they could not see them, then they could be claimed as supernatural, but there is no such thing as the supernatural. So it is moot to even suggest it.
We are now taking off for Woo Woo land!
You said it!
How so, in this case you've proved every religion wrong, for instance in catholicism "God" is supernatural, but in instances like the great flood he affected the natural, by supposedly moving land masses and such and affecting the ecological balance so immensily it would be idiotic to say otherwiseFor a thing to be supernatural it can have no effect on the natural, least it become natural.
You failed to understand my point supernaturality is simply what we interperet it to be in that case I agree with you when you saySo it is irrelevant whether science investigated stars, they could see them, therefore they were a natural phenomena.
If they could not see them, then they could be claimed as supernatural, but there is no such thing as the supernatural. So it is moot to even suggest it.However we can interperet things as such. To be clear I'm saying wether something is supernatural or not is determined by popular culture, and hence can not be defined in scientific terms.but there is no such thing as the supernatural
Wrong. The supernatural is that which can effect the physical world in contradiction to the laws of physics which govern the physical universe.To be clear I'm saying wether something is supernatural or not is determined by popular culture, and hence can not be defined in scientific terms.
but as soon as something is a contradiction to the laws of physics the laws change, from a texbook perspective that is still, int that case the actual laws that dictate movement would've remained the same. I sense a flaw in my logic, however I can't seem to find it...
As a side note, isn't it interesting how popular this discussion has been despite the fact that the name is completely wrong in every sense of grammer
Last edited by jakesyl; July 23rd, 2013 at 11:52 PM. Reason: Boredom, had to add a side note, and I think I'm spelling boredom wrong, idk
You spelled "boredom" correctly but you did not spell "grammar" correctly.
I might also point out that your sentence was ungrammatical.
Yes, It is interesting.. that's why we keep popping in to see what's new..
As a child I learned that tree climbing could be hazardous. If you climbed out on a limb.
If the limb was unsupported by sufficient strength of structure... crashing to the ground was a entirely unpleasant outcome..
My view of religious belief has matured into this ;" Nothing of the spiritual realm has been proven as real."
But just as the tree could be supportive so to can religious faith.. and I am not being a hypocrite. Just tolerant.
It does concern me that some education is miss representing religion as factual historic record.. It should not be tolerated.
A grandson tells me his teacher was talking of 'Noah's flood' as a historic event. I now want to talk with the dept., head...
What do you think ?
Good idea.
That would be correct!
Correct! An imagined concept.This is just a story and therefore not relevant. Can you prove there was a great flood?
An imagined concept cannot effect another imagined idea. So my statement remains unchallenged. And do please think about it before replying again.
The world is not governed by popular culture, it is governed by facts, popular culture does not play a part.
FIFU. Please provide one single instance of the supernatural that has been demonstrated to exist, otherwise your argument will always fail.
Agreed to last sentence. Most can be explained, with science, but there are times when something occurs that is not able to be explained by science.
FIFU. That doesn't mean we should bring the Woo Woo into it, does it?
What is the woo woo and why not?FIFU. That doesn't mean we should bring the Woo Woo into it, does it?
That you keep asserting this conclusion in so many threads makes it very clear you wish to debate it.
In my years on earth which are 60, I find it useless to debate what life experience has proven to me. I cannot speak to others *chuckle*, or for others. JustThat you keep asserting this conclusion in so many threads makes it very clear you wish to debate it.
I find science works in some areas of life, but it fails and is useless in other....sometimes home remedies (concocted by moi, and not a comp; correct a problem ...I make my own glass wash.....very effective and cost pennies comared to WINDEX...
I have garden stuff I do..organically...no scientist taught me that...just common sense did..
so yes
Science has a wonderful place in life. It creates such a wonderful field of knowledge, however, ...if you REALLY think about it....a lot of the knowledge came from talking to non scientist folks along the way that did some things, that were scientific,...and they didn't even know it!
But so does normal common sense..
I don't put any person on a pedestal scientist, IT expert genius, attorney, musiclal, genius, fab actor, dancer, doctor or scientist.
None of what you just said supports the claim that Science is incapable of examining all of nature. Making homemade windex does not "prove" that science is a failure. I really cannot make heads or tails of it.In my years on earth which are 60, I find it useless to debate what life experience has proven to me. I cannot speak to others *chuckle*, or for others. JustThat you keep asserting this conclusion in so many threads makes it very clear you wish to debate it.
I find science works in some areas of life, but it fails and is useless in other....sometimes home remedies (concocted by moi, and not a comp; correct a problem ...I make my own glass wash.....very effective and cost pennies comared to WINDEX...
I have garden stuff I do..organically...no scientist taught me that...just common sense did..
so yes
Science has a wonderful place in life. It creates such a wonderful field of knowledge, however, ...if you REALLY think about it....a lot of the knowledge came from talking to non scientist folks along the way that did some things, that were scientific,...and they didn't even know it!
But so does normal common sense..
I don't put any person on a pedestal scientist, IT expert genius, attorney, musiclal, genius, fab actor, dancer, doctor or scientist.
You asked why I keep making an example of God at one point: As an atheist, yourself, I thought that if I showed the claims you are making next to the claims that support belief in God (Life experience, etc) you might see that they are equal in their absurdity and be more willing to examine them.
While you may have your own lifestyle, that does not mean you cannot benefit from further learning. And again, you say you don't want to debate it yet you make it a point to assert your claim in several threads. I've counted Four Threads you have done so in so far...
I make my observatons..take them with the grain of salt they are given and goodnight...None of what you just said supports the claim that Science is incapable of examining all of nature. Making homemade windex does not "prove" that science is a failure. I really cannot make heads or tails of it.In my years on earth which are 60, I find it useless to debate what life experience has proven to me. I cannot speak to others *chuckle*, or for others. JustThat you keep asserting this conclusion in so many threads makes it very clear you wish to debate it.
I find science works in some areas of life, but it fails and is useless in other....sometimes home remedies (concocted by moi, and not a comp; correct a problem ...I make my own glass wash.....very effective and cost pennies comared to WINDEX...
I have garden stuff I do..organically...no scientist taught me that...just common sense did..
so yes
Science has a wonderful place in life. It creates such a wonderful field of knowledge, however, ...if you REALLY think about it....a lot of the knowledge came from talking to non scientist folks along the way that did some things, that were scientific,...and they didn't even know it!
But so does normal common sense..
I don't put any person on a pedestal scientist, IT expert genius, attorney, musiclal, genius, fab actor, dancer, doctor or scientist.
You asked why I keep making an example of God at one point: As an atheist, yourself, I thought that if I showed the claims you are making next to the claims that support belief in God (Life experience, etc) you might see that they are equal in their absurdity and be more willing to examine them.
While you may have your own lifestyle, that does not mean you cannot benefit from further learning. And again, you say you don't want to debate it yet you make it a point to assert your claim in several threads. I've counted Four Threads you have done so in so far...
Woo Woo = cloud cuckoo land, the imagination, the subjective, It's Ok to use your imagination as an aid to learning but not to accept it as fact without testing it, especially when it sounds like fairy tales you would tell a child.What is the woo woo and why not?FIFU. That doesn't mean we should bring the Woo Woo into it, does it?
If science cant explain a thing, then we say we don't know, and wait till it can or does.
We don't do the childish thing and evoke a supernatural woo woo cause, that is nonsensical. If we did then knowledge would be mere opinion and nothing more.
Last edited by pavlos; July 24th, 2013 at 07:11 AM.
Isn't that the whole point. If that happens then what was once thought of as supernatural becomes natural.
For example, if someone were to build a "ghost-detector" and show that ghosts exist and have objective, measurable attributes then they would no longer be supernatural but part of the physical, scientific world. Ditto god, telepathy, homoeopathy, etc.
Ah, but that IS science. You approached a problem (Windex is too expensive, innefective, etc). You tested, I assume, variations of a forumla based upon previous knowledge or information gathered from a Windex label. Eventually, you found one that met your expectations best. Perhaps, since then, you have even modified it to correct shortcomings.
Who is suggesting common sense and scientific application have to be mutual exclusive? We all have common sense and, at some point in our lives, I'm sure all of us have utilized the scientific method to solve a problem. The reason it has become the creed of the scientist is BECAUSE it is so related to common sense.
I think we should dispell this notion that science is only something done in a lab or with advanced equipment or by trained professionals. Science pervades every aspect of life.
Although, it must be pointed out that many things which are "obviously true" by common snese may not be when looked at more objectively (Aristotle thinking men and women having different numbers of teeth, for example. All he had to do was look but no, he "knew" he was right.)
Absolutely. Here is an everyday example:I think we should dispell this notion that science is only something done in a lab or with advanced equipment or by trained professionals. Science pervades every aspect of life.
Quite a few people think that spiders come up out of the plug hole in the bath because whn you put the plug in you don't find spiders trapped in the bath. That is a good observation and a valid scientific hypothesis.
But hang on .... the drain has water in it? Can spiders swim? Is there something else going on here? ... this is the beginning of more rigorous scientific thinking.
We can try some experiments. What are the other variables that could be having an effect: water ... plug ..,. chain ... Well, removing the water from the drain is tricky, we can put that aside for the moment. The chain might be important. Maybe spiders can climb ...
So here is the experiment. For a number of nights we will put a plug with no chain in the bath drain. And then for a number of nights we will leave the chain but no plug in the bath ... lets see which affects the number of spiders we find trapped...
Last edited by Strange; July 24th, 2013 at 08:02 AM. Reason: spelling
Defining common sense is a lot harder than defining science. I'll let you tackle that one.
I think I'll pass.Defining common sense is a lot harder than defining science. I'll let you tackle that one.
After all, we all know what it means don't we ...
Apparently not, if this video is any indication.I think I'll pass.Defining common sense is a lot harder than defining science. I'll let you tackle that one.
After all, we all know what it means don't we ...
Cult Cartoon - Jehovah Witness OBEY Part3 Fear and Guilt Indoctrination - YouTube
So the real question for you is will it be proven as real
'You spelled "boredom" correctly but you did not spell "grammar" correctly.
I might also point out that your sentence was ungrammatical.
woops
I too fail to see how this is relevant...
Agreed to last sentence. Most can be explained, with science, but there are times when something occurs that is not able to be explained by science.
That you keep asserting this conclusion in so many threads makes it very clear you wish to debate it.
In my years on earth which are 60, I find it useless to debate what life experience has proven to me. I cannot speak to others *chuckle*, or for others. Just
I find science works in some areas of life, but it fails and is useless in other....sometimes home remedies (concocted by moi, and not a comp; correct a problem ...I make my own glass wash.....very effective and cost pennies comared to WINDEX...
I have garden stuff I do..organically...no scientist taught me that...just common sense did..
so yes
Science has a wonderful place in life. It creates such a wonderful field of knowledge, however, ...if you REALLY think about it....a lot of the knowledge came from talking to non scientist folks along the way that did some things, that were scientific,...and they didn't even know it!
But so does normal common sense..
I don't put any person on a pedestal scientist, IT expert genius, attorney, musiclal, genius, fab actor, dancer, doctor or scientist.
None of what you just said supports the claim that Science is incapable of examining all of nature. Making homemade windex does not "prove" that science is a failure. I really cannot make heads or tails of it.
You asked why I keep making an example of God at one point: As an atheist, yourself, I thought that if I showed the claims you are making next to the claims that support belief in God (Life experience, etc) you might see that they are equal in their absurdity and be more willing to examine them.
While you may have your own lifestyle, that does not mean you cannot benefit from further learning. And again, you say you don't want to debate it yet you make it a point to assert your claim in several threads. I've counted Four Threads you have done so in so far...
I make my observatons..take them with the grain of salt they are given and goodnight...
Defining common sense is a lot harder than defining science. I'll let you tackle that one.
Common sense is nothing more than practical judement as interpereted by the judge.
Last edited by jakesyl; July 24th, 2013 at 11:32 AM. Reason: More stuff
If the definition of "common sense" involves the word "interpretation", I'm not touching it with a 39 and a half foot pole.
Well practical judgement is determined by the judge correct?If the definition of "common sense" involves the word "interpretation", I'm not touching it with a 39 and a half foot pole.
~ 'Common sense' is always open to interpretation and miss understanding.. and is hardly common.
and when it crosses swards with religious doctrines seems to get forgotten.
Spiritualism is a myth.
That is common sense. Until it's shown as fiction. Waiting...
Common sense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is wiki's...mine is a bit different.
I live in the country. Don't go out of the house when you see a bear and say, "OH LOOK AT YOU, you cute bear." They stink and they aren't all that cute, though awesome.
Do not threaten a group of deer. If they feel threatened, you might feel the "HORNS OF ANXIETY".
When Mountain Lions are present, don't leave your small children or pets alone in the yard.....(we don't have fences).
When canning, if the lid doesn'do a "POP" sound, you'd best not eat it. It might kill you.
DO NOT DRIVE through flooded areas. Flash flooding is nothing to fool around with.
In case of earthquake, DO NOT STAND IN THE DOORWAY!!! Lie on the long side of a bed or couch.
Ok...I am being facetious, but I DO believe in COMMON SENSE! Rules to live by which scientifically may keep you alive.
I prefer the term "good sense" because common sense is not always good nor sensible.
Common sense means everybody will think, and act the same, which is just not the case.
As we have already noted the question's got some issues..
and common sense helps us see the question for what we imagine it's intention was.. " Does God really exist ?"
According to 'My own' set of rigorous criteria's I answer NO., but I do wish to share a point.
I lay claim to being a solid atheist but yet even I can not with ABSOLUTE certainty describe by what mechanism
was there a Big Bang.. and no I do not question that there was one.
I do not ask for proof of a God.. any god.
Just as I do not except as real or true any spiritual entity. Working under the simple logic that if a 'thing' has no form,
or has no mater or mass. Chances are a proof of existence is not possible. Not real.
Back to the question of proving a god could or might be a real possible explanation of creation.
Unfortunately some greater minds than mine have looked at this question and brushed it aside.
What creation ? Regardless of the size of the subject. Be it the whole Universe or just a microbial life form.
No such creation is or was required.. It seems like the physics of sub atomic particles does what it does without prompting.
Just as the test tube cell is alive. and before the argument of 'Unproven' rears it's ugly face..
Show me some proof of any God. I will listen.. that's odd... just up the middle of this post I said I do not ask for proof..
and now I am a hypocrite .. Oh well, so be it. So where beside just having faith is this proof I do not see... ?
To be honest I do question whether there was one big bang. For all we know there may have been trillions of them, or none. Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.
So do scientists. And come to similar conclusions (as hypotheses). More evidence required ...
I wish I could question the Big Bang, but I'm not nearly literate enough in physics to make an argument either way. It's beyond my comprehension both mathematically and descriptively. I just can't fathom it.
I have a mental drawer of things/concepts that I have yet to find a use for, or an understanding thereof.
It has a lable---imponderable.
I had thought the drawer full long ago, but I was wrong. The drawer seems to be of almost limitless capacity. When I ain't willing to throw something out, but do not understand it, it goes there.
Every once in awhile, I shuffle through the drawer and pull out a phrase or concept and mull it over. Sometimes the observed thing/concept/phrase gets a different catagorization.
A few years ago, I took out "There is no accounting for tastes." (probably around tax time when I was looking for a mental diversion). Contemplating the phrase for a moment, it became obvious--------taste is a qualitative judgement, not a quantative one, so of course there is no accounting for it.
Simple?
And yet, it languished in the imponderable drawer for quite awhile.
I feel a great satisfaction when I don't gotta stuff stuff back in the drawer-------little things, but important nonetheless.
God, and big bang, and millions(?) of other stuff is still in the imponderable drawer. I still dig into the drawer and play with the stuff on occasion, and find that my ignorance of the stuff, invigorates my mind------then i get distracted, and hurriedly stuff the stuff back in the drawer and do that which had distracted me.
c'est la vie for thee also?
My drawer of imponderables consists of anything in the Physics subforum and/or all posts by Markus Hanke.
~ Now is a appropriate moment to describe 'most' contributors as miss informed easily led and extremely gullible old fools..
That seem to be easy to wind up... and that I must be included in this same delusional world of fools.. " Thats better..."
Does God exist. Can it be shown, proved, resolved.. That any 'no' answer leads me to a atheist view.. is that fair ? No.
but it's true. Yes.
That drawer of imponderables should be just thrown away.. it's cluttering your storage capacity .. Which is not infinite.
Excess stored information slows your ability to sort and resolve.. clean out your hard drive..
I can pretty much guarantee that any "GOD" that you can imagine exists in your imagination.
An imagination seems a strange thing to pray to or to worship.
I sculpt and design and build so that I may take some things from my imagination and share them.
So too, these words.
Spiritualism is not a myth or so many people would not engage in it,~ 'Common sense' is always open to interpretation and miss understanding.. and is hardly common.
and when it crosses swards with religious doctrines seems to get forgotten.
Spiritualism is a myth.
That is common sense. Until it's shown as fiction. Waiting...
and I take what I said back about common sense, common, I think is among people so the sense among most people.
Whut?
Spiritualism as a practice or belief is not a myth (i.e. it's real the way religion is), but the underpinnings of spiritualism is as much mythology (or outright woo) as many other ridiculous things.
The fact that large numbers of people engage in something says nothing whatsoever about the factual validity of said thing.
String theory says there were an infinite amount.... in different universes however.
I will behave.
I will behave.
I will behave.
gawd exists!!! an so duss jebus, muhamin, hoeses, oh i almost forgot white jebus, jepovah, lunur exclipse glod, thunder god
scientific prooven by countless number religulous scientistnesses, who sturdy the parabnormal
Not quite, no. And String is a Hypothesis, not a theory.String theory says there were an infinite amount.... in different universes however.
Oh!
Do behave!
What are women for if they behave themselves?!Oh!
Do behave!
I'd switch to men if every woman started behaving herself. :P
why do I doubt this?
Trust me, it won't happen.What are women for if they behave themselves?!Oh!
Do behave!
I'd switch to men if every woman started behaving herself. :P
Cause you are wise.why do I doubt this?
Way off topic, I want to go back to something dwydr said a while ago, he said science doesn't consider god, may I note for 100's of years science was based around god, think about observations made, for instance about thunder produced hypothesis, mythology, and although they did not have the means to test said hypothesis, it was still science
science and god have no conflicts
science and religion, however have had quite a few
Nope.
Not really.think about observations made, for instance about thunder produced hypothesis, mythology, and although they did not have the means to test said hypothesis, it was still science
Science is a distinct methodology.
Merely making up "explanations" is not science.
Exactly.
In the same way that there's no conflict between science and the unicorn that lives in my garage.
Theory's not explanations, you fail to understand the sophistication of our ancestors
Across many posts, you've made it clear that you do not understand what a "theory" is.
And to point out the flaw in the above, religious people making vague or even educated guesses were not following the scientific method.
So you also do not understand history.
And you, apparently, fail to understand what a theory is.
What they had, with "god/s" as an explanation, was untestable, incapable of providing predictions and, ultimately, devoid of any explanative power beyond "well it just happens".
In short there were no theories involving god/s.
well, in Buddhism what if exist or no exist are no so very important, (must warning the difinition of God in Buddhism maybe diffrent than the rest of other religion, because we know there 31 realm of existence, when a God still under the 31 realms what ever this being it still a sentient so could not be call as god but as deity).
Buddha only reveal to us the law of nature exist in the universe (law of kamma (kamma niyama), law of minds (citta niyama), law nature (uttu niyama, this weather, earthquake, cosmos and physical law), law of the plants (bija niyama), law of dhamma (dhamma niyama, I regular call this as law of Miracle)).
I'll accept that you believe this, but I deny, emphatically, that you know it.
I dispute this too.Buddha only reveal to us the law of nature exist in the universe (law of kamma (kamma niyama), law of minds (citta niyama), law nature (uttu niyama, this weather, earthquake, cosmos and physical law), law of the plants (bija niyama), law of dhamma (dhamma niyama, I regular call this as law of Miracle)).
in our life did you fell suffer if you hold urine call for long times but not go to toilet, you would fell free from that kind suffer if you go to toilet in this earth we could feel already hell and heaven in our daily life.
And how exactly is holding your pee relevant to the question whether or not (a) god(s) exist(s)?
To say science doesn't consider God is not entirely true. I think religious earth-based Gods dependent on the foibles of man are nothing but poetic explanations to things science explained better, but that doesn't rule out that there is a superintelligence behind the universe. In fact, we could be living in our very own matrix designed by some intelligence. Correction codes funnily enough, the same kind found in your computer where found hidden within the deep equations of string theory - and some scientists today are open minded about such subjects.
No it doesn't quite say that, there are predictedString theory says there were an infinite amount.... in different universes however.landscapes in string theory which is equivalent to
was even enough universes. Infinite numbers of universes are found in the traditional interpretation of the many worlds, or parallel universes.
reality, however, is significantly different
If science does not exclude the notion of a superintelligence (or a deity), then how is the presence of this notion testable and falsifiable?
Yes it is. As a god concept expands the question base, not reduce it. ( Occams razor.)Yes it does. Because you are assigning a superintelligence, without assigning another superintelligence to create that one, and again and again ad infinitum. You are assigning an uncaused cause as the cause of the universe. Which is nonsensical.And into woo woo land we go.Some names and links would be handy. IOW, back up your assertions.
If science does not exclude the notion of a superintelligence (or a deity), then how is the presence of this notion testable and falsifiable?
There could be a number of indirect consequences of a superintelligence. I have mentioned already, that correction codes have been found in string theory. One may consider that as a type of evidence for the universe having some kind of design (do not mistake this statement supporting intelligent design). Some scientists already make the argument a superintellect might exist since the constants of nature seem strangely tuned into this universe we measure - if you changed these constant even slightly, the universe would actually be drastically different leading to Anthropic fine tuning arguments. So loosely-speaking, the evidence might be there in some shape or form.
I have extracted this particular fine tuning case from wiki
''Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis observes "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[3]''
Yes it is. As a god concept expands the question base, not reduce it. ( Occams razor.)Yes it does. Because you are assigning a superintelligence, without assigning another superintelligence to create that one, and again and again ad infinitum. You are assigning an uncaused cause as the cause of the universe. Which is nonsensical.And into woo woo land we go.Some names and links would be handy. IOW, back up your assertions.
Well actually, Occams Razor is completely in the favour of something complex behind the world. The equations describe a universe which is particularly fine tuned in a number of respects and cannot be ignored. The simplest explanation is that it was all by coincidence, but some consider this to be lazy and without real recognition into the extremely complicated issues involving fine tuning of particular constants in nature. This must mean we cannot rule out a superintelligence (I don't like the noun ''God'').
''Yes it does. Because you are assigning a superintelligence, without assigning another superintelligence to create that one, and again and again ad infinitum. ''
This is more philosophy now than science. If we are to believe that the universe came into existence without a precursor (existing models of the universe exist which come from nothing) then the same can be applied to intellect I speak of. This intellect may not even be sentient, unaware of it's ultimate birth but continues to be part of the information contained within the vacuum of space and time.
''Some names and links would be handy. IOW, back up your assertions''
I can back them up quite fine. Fred Hoyle was a massive supporter of a superintellect, even though some of his methods had been questioned. But if you really want to learn more on it, you should read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
I quote, ''there are is a broad agreement between physicists and cosmologists that the universe appears to finely tuned.''
This statement is made in reference of life in general, but there are much more intricate details such as when inflation began, the fine structure constant ect.
Although I support the existence of the Multiverse, it is not directly observable (as indicated by a scientist in your wiki quote) due to obvious reasons.
However, if one explains the values of certain constants in our universe with the presence of a superintelligent entity, then is this not just replacing one mystery with another? Are we not raising more questions by evoking a supernatural entity? Does it accurately explain the values of our cosmos?
Besides, why would one assume that there is just one superintelligence?
The word ''God'' is so wish-washy today, it's like when someone says a UFO we immediately think we are talking about aliens, as such, when the word ''God'' is heard one immediately thinks about religion, which is nonsense.
Really?
What other context do you have for "god"?
Although I support the existence of the Multiverse, it is not directly observable (as indicated by a scientist in your wiki quote) due to obvious reasons.
However, if one explains the values of certain constants in our universe with the presence of a superintelligent entity, then is this not just replacing one mystery with another? Are we not raising more questions by evoking a supernatural entity? Does it accurately explain the values of our cosmos?
Besides, why would one assume that there is just one superintelligence?
Indian cultures have many ''gods.'' The Bible actually considers angels as the ''sons of gods,'' but let's focus on one ''god'' or superintellect. I think it would be better to think of physics being about unity rather than other existing parts. One of the reasons I say this is because of the hypothetical unification of nature into a single framework, we'd perhaps first expect there to be only one intelligence for simplicity of the subject.
As for does it raise more questions? That depends. I think right now, there are not enough existing questions, many scientists are still stuck on the notion that the universe simply is and that is all there is to it, so the question is completely relative.
The word God to me, is attributed to religion. I don't believe a scientific definition of God is religious in that context.
God was originally created because people wanted a meaning in life and about themselves in general. I think Einstein's God was the correct way to think of a ''superintelligence'' that is he is most likely not to be caring about the doings of mankind. Which isn't a religion as we know it.
Thus, your stance on the subject is this:
"There is at least one superintelligent (non-)sentient entity of whom the presence is detectable via indirect consequences (e.g. the correction codes in string theory) and that designed the cosmological constants of our universe, resulting into the possibility of life."
Einstein's god wasn't actually a "god", it was nature.
Nor was it a "superintelligence".
A "scientific definition of god"?I don't believe a scientific definition of God is religious in that context.
Come again?
No, but I was using string theory correction codes as an example. I don't support the idea that particles are strings in the slightest.
Thus, your stance on the subject is this:
"There is at least one superintelligent (non-)sentient entity of whom the presence is detectable via indirect consequences (e.g. the correction codes in string theory) and that designed the cosmological constants of our universe, resulting into the possibility of life."
Spinoza's God is about nature, but it is the idea that God is non-sentient. Einstein referred to it as God, because for him there was no other way to describe it.
Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, not one which was concerned with our doings. But he did call it a God - he never called it a superintellect, but there is effectively no difference in my opinion. A superintellect is collection of sophisticated information. Hawking has said that not only is the vacuum made of energy, space, time and matter, but also information. It's this information which is the ground of the superintelligence.
Hoyle believed that there was a sophisticated computer located in our future horizon sending signals back in the same way retarded wave function operate in the Cramer Transactional Interpretation. That is very possible as well.
Yeah?
as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken
Baruch Spinoza
Because it invoked awe in him.Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, not one which was concerned with our doings. But he did call it a God
Riiight.he never called it a superintellect, but there is effectively no difference in my opinion.
That would be wrong.A superintellect is collection of sophisticated information
Pure, unsupported speculation.It's this information which is the ground of the superintelligence.
What! what happened to "keep it simple" You not doing occam's razor right me thinks.Rubbish! Wrong! Where is the evidence for this "superintelligence" who " Fine Tuned " the universe for life? Of course the universe we live in will be right for us, otherwise we wouldn't be here. That is in no way a proof of it being designed for us by a superintelligence. The fine-tuning argument is an even dumber version of the intelligent design argument. It's puddle thinking.
Yet we don't. I don't know of anybody who says the universe came into existence without a precursor, we simple don't know.
Hoyle was a nut.Which physicists and cosmologists, name names.
I suggest you read "the Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" by Victor J Stenger or the Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument By Jonathan M.S. Pearce and the Fine-Tuned Universe Argument Debunked
And how exactly is holding your pee relevant to the question whether or not (a) god(s) exist(s)?
simple if you god realy exist and love you (as many statments), He would never give you daily pain or suffer like you holding you pee.
you suppose free from any pain and suffernes.
Heh... I think I could have come up with a better example than bladder pressure.:P Our knees, for instance...
What is wrong with our knees?
Quick question: what are these "string theory correction codes"?
Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; August 16th, 2013 at 09:30 AM.
What! what happened to "keep it simple" You not doing occam's razor right me thinks.Rubbish! Wrong! Where is the evidence for this "superintelligence" who " Fine Tuned " the universe for life? Of course the universe we live in will be right for us, otherwise we wouldn't be here. That is in no way a proof of it being designed for us by a superintelligence. The fine-tuning argument is an even dumber version of the intelligent design argument. It's puddle thinking.
Yet we don't. I don't know of anybody who says the universe came into existence without a precursor, we simple don't know.
Hoyle was a nut.Which physicists and cosmologists, name names.
I suggest you read "the Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" by Victor J Stenger or the Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument By Jonathan M.S. Pearce and the Fine-Tuned Universe Argument Debunked
Hoyle was a fantastic scientist. He was renowned for his intelligence. He was a bit out there in his idea's at times, but he was still a brilliant scientist.
And while occams razor is about keeping it simple, I am yet to find a scientist who thinks the universe is simple in any form.
''Which physicists and cosmologists, name names.
I suggest you read "the Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" by Victor J Stenger or the Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument By Jonathan M.S. Pearce and the Fine-Tuned Universe Argument Debunked''
The books you recite probably talk about debunking the life explanation of fine tuning. I know some of them exist. But as for finely tuned constants in nature, there is really no disagreement, only people who don't understand the implications of the situation.
There are of course problems with anything which is a ''theory.'' But I can assure you, you cannot freely adjust the parameters like the fine structure constant and expect the same universe we live in, or if inflation happened much later, it would never have led to a pretty much uniform flat space and time universe. There are loads of uncertainties in physics. But you cannot rule out a superintelligence and any scientist that does would be dishonest to do so.
What is wrong with our knees?
Quick question: what are these "string theory correction codes"?
They where equations discovered by Bill... someone or another. A black scientist who has worked in string theory for a number of years now. He stumbled across the equations and realized they where correction codes, similar to the binary codes found in a computer.
Let me explain something. Say you changed the fine structure constant by an amount, it would have led to a universe where the forces would have not been quite the same. In fact, if you change the constants of nature in any kind of way, you cannot even be assured this universe would have came about.
A scientist said, there is one way we can test to see if we are in a computer program. And that is by creating one ourselves...
...well guess what. What you called woo woo, a couple of scientists did this. The simulation turned into pretty much the universe we see today.
Sylvester James Gates?
(cf. Sylvester James Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
[citation needed]
That doesn't test if we are in a simulation, it merely tests if we could be in a simulation.
So what you're saying is if the hole the puddle was in was slightly larger it would not have been cosy. there would have been an unknown area or if it was smaller the puddle would be too big to exist. Ok got it. Or put another way if goldilocks had only mummy or daddy bears porridge, she wouldn't be happy, lol.
Citation needed.
Did they have any different universes to make a fair comparison. Or did they only have the one we live in. That's like saying they came to the right conclusion because they started from the point they finished at.
Continue the woo you are amusing me.
That would be James (Jim, to his friends) Gates, who was famously denied tenure at MIT. And just as you exaggerated the support for Zitterbewegung (I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation for a peer-reviewed experimental result), you exaggerate the significance of Gates' observation. An alternative -- and far more likely -- hypothesis to Gates' musings is that he is simply guilty of confirmation bias. He starts with as-yet unconfirmed string theory, then homes in on some SUSY description of spinor structures and their corresponding binary graph representations. He looks at the graphs and finds something that he is calling an error-correction code. But his graphs are so complex that you can find many other binary strings, too. His "method" is essentially the equivalent of taking a random list of binary numbers and searching for a string that is a snippet of compiled code from Windows 98, and then claiming that this is evidence for Microsoft being the Lord of the Matrix.
What is wrong with our knees?
Quick question: what are these "string theory correction codes"?
They where equations discovered by Bill... someone or another. A black scientist who has worked in string theory for a number of years now. He stumbled across the equations and realized they where correction codes, similar to the binary codes found in a computer.
Yes, of course, we could be living in the Matrix, but the extraordinary proof demanded of such a claim is not yet there.
Last edited by tk421; August 16th, 2013 at 11:41 AM.
That would be James (Jim, to his friends) Gates, who was famously denied tenure at MIT. And just as you exaggerated the support for Zitterbewegung (I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation for a peer-reviewed experimental result),....
What is wrong with our knees?
Quick question: what are these "string theory correction codes"?
They where equations discovered by Bill... someone or another. A black scientist who has worked in string theory for a number of years now. He stumbled across the equations and realized they where correction codes, similar to the binary codes found in a computer.
I'm not here for a great amount of time, but I haven't exaggareted the zitter support, it was experimentally varified in a channeling experiment. It's even in the abstract of Hestenes paper
''de Broglie’s original idea that the electron has an internal clock has recentlyreceived experimental confirmation by measuring the period of the clock in an electron
channeling experiment...''
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371cc dae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.3227.pdf
I some times don't think you bother to actually read a thing I write.
May I ask you what the link is between these papers and the simulations you were talking about in post #810?
I have faith that he exists, but I can't prove it with certainty. Mankind has long been fascinated by the possibility of the supernatural world, or spirituality. Dating back to the Paleolithic era was the‘pre’ religion known as Shamanism. I’m not a fan of organized religion, asoften organized religion turns into legalism. But, yes, I have faith in something beyond us. But, again, I can’t prove the existence of my ‘belief.’ Just my meager two cents worth.
No, I'm afraid that it is you who fails to read carefully. I have been very specific throughout: Read my words above, in which I specify a peer-reviewed experimental report.
Hestene's essay references an experiment that he acknowledges was rejected from a peer-reviewed journal. Thus my explicitly and clearly stated criteria are not satisfied. I have asked before, and now am stimulated to ask again, if you have a citation that meets those stated requirements.
Please read carefully.
Absolutely none. Symptom of a disordered mind? I don't know.
Allow me to recapitulate the recent posts (in order to have a clearer image of the discussion):
After I asked him why he assumes that there is at least superintelligence, he states:
He identifies his notion of superintelligence (which is manifested by information) is similar to the God of Albert Einstein:
After member pavlos pointed out with several links that the arguments for the design of our universe can be reduced to puddle thinking, we read:
One of the arguments he proposed to convince us that there is a superintelligence, is via string theory correction codes (allegedly proposed by S. James Gates).
However, before member tk421 could point out that these correction codes are the result of human errors, we go off topic:
Member pavlos and I asked for the sources, but then he continues to defend the Zitterbewegung with articles that are not peer-reviewed.
In retrospect, one can (hopefully) understand that I do not know where this debate will lead us.
In fact, I do not even know if my arguments are right.
I bear responsibility for creating the opening for a thread de-rail, so I apologize. I was endeavouring to point out that Geo has a bit of a habit of making assertions with a certitude that is not supported by the evidence. I worry about leaving such statements unchallenged, so I gave him another chance to point me to supporting literature. Zitterbewegung, as far as I know, remains an unsupported speculation, as does the "we live in a matrix because we find what looks like a doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code buried in untested string theory" musings of James Gates et al. Geo is a bit too quick to make the transition from "here's something that could be a fact" to "here's a fact," in his zeal to convince. I don't find that habit to be a good one in science.
I do not blame you for that.
I would have challenged and corrected his statements if I knew what it meant and what its relevance was to the supposed existence of a superintelligence.
| « Abiogenesis - theology doesn't work either. | Volcanoes vs young earthers » |
| Tags for this Thread |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
322Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
