Notices
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 701 to 799 of 799
Like Tree322Likes

Thread: Is god really exist or not? !! i know its very common question.

  1. #701  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    I'm bringing this thread back, by saying:
    nd again.
    I pointed out that, (apart from having zero evidence of the "supernatural") IF science could investigate THEN it wouldn't be "supernatural".
    Science can and has investigated the supernatural, stars used to be supernatural?
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #702  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    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 ^.
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #703  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    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
    It's generally not a good idea to try to "explain" unsupported claims by comparing it to outright bunk.
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #704  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Science can and has investigated the supernatural, stars used to be supernatural?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    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.
    We are now taking off for Woo Woo land!

    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    speaking of god, god I really need some sleep so I stop talking crazy
    You said it!
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #705  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    For a thing to be supernatural it can have no effect on the natural, least it become natural.
    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 otherwise
    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.
    You failed to understand my point supernaturality is simply what we interperet it to be in that case I agree with you when you say
    but there is no such thing as the supernatural
    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.
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #706  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    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.
    Wrong. The supernatural is that which can effect the physical world in contradiction to the laws of physics which govern the physical universe.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #707  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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.
    Wrong. The supernatural is that which can effect the physical world in contradiction to the laws of physics which govern the physical universe.
    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
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #708  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #709  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    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 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #710  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    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.
    pavlos and stonecutter like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #711  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    For a thing to be supernatural it can have no effect on the natural, least it become natural.
    How so, in this case you've proved every religion wrong
    That would be correct!
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl
    for instance in catholicism "God" is supernatural,
    Correct! An imagined concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl
    but in instances like the great flood
    This is just a story and therefore not relevant. Can you prove there was a great flood?
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl
    he affected the natural, by supposedly moving land masses and such and affecting the ecological balance so immensily it would be idiotic to say otherwise
    An imagined concept cannot effect another imagined idea. So my statement remains unchallenged. And do please think about it before replying again.
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl
    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.
    The world is not governed by popular culture, it is governed by facts, popular culture does not play a part.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Wrong. The supernatural is that which can cannot effect the physical world in because it contradicts ion to the laws of physics which govern the physical universe.
    FIFU. Please provide one single instance of the supernatural that has been demonstrated to exist, otherwise your argument will always fail.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #712  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    For a thing to be supernatural it can have no effect on the natural, least it become natural.
    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 otherwise
    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.
    You failed to understand my point supernaturality is simply what we interperet it to be in that case I agree with you when you say
    but there is no such thing as the supernatural
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #713  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    there are times when something occurs that is not able yet to be explained by science.
    FIFU. That doesn't mean we should bring the Woo Woo into it, does it?
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #714  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    there are times when something occurs that is not able yet 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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #715  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #716  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #717  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #718  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #719  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    there are times when something occurs that is not able yet 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?
    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.
    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.
    Neverfly likes this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #720  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    but as soon as something is a contradiction to the laws of physics the laws change
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #721  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I find science works in some areas of life, but it fails and is useless in other ... I make my own glass wash.....very effective and cost pennies comared to WINDEX...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I have garden stuff I do..organically...no scientist taught me that...just common sense did..
    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.
    pavlos and Neverfly like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #722  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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.
    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.)

    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.
    Absolutely. Here is an everyday example:

    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
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #723  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    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 think men and women having different numbers of teeth, for example. All he had to do was look but no, he "knew" he was right.)
    Defining common sense is a lot harder than defining science. I'll let you tackle that one.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #724  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Defining common sense is a lot harder than defining science. I'll let you tackle that one.
    I think I'll pass.

    After all, we all know what it means don't we ...
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #725  
    Forum Senior MoonCanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Defining common sense is a lot harder than defining science. I'll let you tackle that one.
    I think I'll pass.

    After all, we all know what it means don't we ...
    Apparently not, if this video is any indication.
    Cult Cartoon - Jehovah Witness OBEY Part3 Fear and Guilt Indoctrination - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #726  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    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.
    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


    Originally Posted by Neverfly
    Originally Posted by babe

    Originally Posted by Neverfly

    Originally Posted by babe
    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...
    I too fail to see how this is relevant...
    Originally Posted by Flick Montana
    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
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #727  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    If the definition of "common sense" involves the word "interpretation", I'm not touching it with a 39 and a half foot pole.
    jakesyl likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #728  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    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?
    babe likes this.
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #729  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ '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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #730  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    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.
    KALSTER and astromark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #731  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    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.
    KALSTER, seagypsy and jakesyl like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #732  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    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... ?
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #733  
    Forum Senior MoonCanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    363
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #734  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by MoonCanvas View Post
    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.
    So do scientists. And come to similar conclusions (as hypotheses). More evidence required ...
    astromark and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #735  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by MoonCanvas View Post
    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.
    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.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #736  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #737  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    My drawer of imponderables consists of anything in the Physics subforum and/or all posts by Markus Hanke.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #738  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ 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.. sort resolve delete..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #739  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    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.
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #740  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ '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...
    Spiritualism is not a myth or so many people would not engage in it,
    and I take what I said back about common sense, common, I think is among people so the sense among most people.
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #741  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Spiritualism is not a myth or so many people would not engage in it
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #742  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by MoonCanvas View Post
    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.
    String theory says there were an infinite amount.... in different universes however.
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #743  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    I will behave.

    I will behave.

    I will behave.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #744  
    Forum Senior MoonCanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    363
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #745  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MoonCanvas View Post
    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.
    String theory says there were an infinite amount.... in different universes however.
    Not quite, no. And String is a Hypothesis, not a theory.
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #746  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I will behave.

    I will behave.

    I will behave.
    Oh!
    Do behave!
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #747  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I will behave.

    I will behave.

    I will behave.
    Oh!
    Do behave!
    What are women for if they behave themselves?!
    I'd switch to men if every woman started behaving herself. :P
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #748  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I will behave.

    I will behave.

    I will behave.
    why do I doubt this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #749  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I will behave.

    I will behave.

    I will behave.
    Oh!
    Do behave!
    What are women for if they behave themselves?!
    I'd switch to men if every woman started behaving herself. :P
    Trust me, it won't happen.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #750  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I will behave.

    I will behave.

    I will behave.
    why do I doubt this?
    Cause you are wise.
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #751  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    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
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #752  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    science and god have no conflicts
    science and religion, however have had quite a few
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #753  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    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
    Nope.

    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
    Not really.

    Science is a distinct methodology.
    Merely making up "explanations" is not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor
    science and god have no conflicts
    Exactly.
    In the same way that there's no conflict between science and the unicorn that lives in my garage.
    pavlos, Neverfly and babe like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #754  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Theory's not explanations, you fail to understand the sophistication of our ancestors
    sculptor likes this.
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #755  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    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.
    pavlos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #756  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Theory's not explanations, you fail to understand the sophistication of our ancestors
    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.
    pavlos and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #757  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11
    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)).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #758  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by daimond View Post
    difinition of God in Buddhism maybe diffrent than the rest of other religion, because we know there 31 realm of existence
    I'll accept that you believe this, but I deny, emphatically, that you know it.

    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 dispute this too.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #759  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #760  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by daimond View Post
    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)?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #761  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    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
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #762  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MoonCanvas View Post
    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.
    String theory says there were an infinite amount.... in different universes however.
    No it doesn't quite say that, there are predicted landscapes in string theory which is equivalent to universe possibilities. Bryce de Witt also stated that was even enough universes. Infinite numbers of universes are found in the traditional interpretation of the many worlds, or parallel universes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #763  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    reality, however, is significantly different
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #764  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    If science does not exclude the notion of a superintelligence (or a deity), then how is the presence of this notion testable and falsifiable?
    pavlos likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #765  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    To say science doesn't consider God is not entirely true.
    Yes it is. As a god concept expands the question base, not reduce it. ( Occams razor.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    that doesn't rule out that there is a superintelligence behind the universe,
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    In fact, we could be living in our very own matrix designed by some intelligence.
    And into woo woo land we go.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    some scientists today are open minded about such subjects.
    Some names and links would be handy. IOW, back up your assertions.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #766  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.



    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #767  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    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]''
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #768  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    To say science doesn't consider God is not entirely true.
    Yes it is. As a god concept expands the question base, not reduce it. ( Occams razor.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    that doesn't rule out that there is a superintelligence behind the universe,
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    In fact, we could be living in our very own matrix designed by some intelligence.
    And into woo woo land we go.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    some scientists today are open minded about such subjects.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #769  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    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?
    pavlos and babe like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #770  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #771  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Really?
    What other context do you have for "god"?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #772  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.



    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #773  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Really?
    What other context do you have for "god"?
    The word God to me, is attributed to religion. I don't believe a scientific definition of God is religious in that context.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #774  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #775  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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 then 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.

    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."
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #776  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Einstein's god wasn't actually a "god", it was nature.
    Nor was it a "superintelligence".

    I don't believe a scientific definition of God is religious in that context.
    A "scientific definition of god"?
    Come again?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #777  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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 then 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.

    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."
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #778  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Einstein's god wasn't actually a "god", it was nature.
    Nor was it a "superintelligence".

    I don't believe a scientific definition of God is religious in that context.
    A "scientific definition of god"?
    Come again?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #779  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #780  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Spinoza's God is about nature
    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

    Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, not one which was concerned with our doings. But he did call it a God
    Because it invoked awe in him.

    he never called it a superintellect, but there is effectively no difference in my opinion.
    Riiight.

    A superintellect is collection of sophisticated information
    That would be wrong.

    It's this information which is the ground of the superintelligence.
    Pure, unsupported speculation.
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #781  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Well actually, Occams Razor is completely in the favour of something complex behind the world.
    What! what happened to "keep it simple" You not doing occam's razor right me thinks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    The equations describe a universe which is particularly fine tuned in a number of respects and cannot be ignored.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    Hoyle was a nut.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    But if you really want to learn more on it, you should read this

    Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I quote, ''there are is a broad agreement between physicists and cosmologists that the universe appears to finely tuned.''
    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
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #782  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by daimond View Post
    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)?

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #783  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Heh... I think I could have come up with a better example than bladder pressure.:P Our knees, for instance...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #784  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    No, but I was using string theory correction codes as an example.

    Quick question: what are these "string theory correction codes"?
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; August 16th, 2013 at 09:30 AM.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #785  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Well actually, Occams Razor is completely in the favour of something complex behind the world.
    What! what happened to "keep it simple" You not doing occam's razor right me thinks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    The equations describe a universe which is particularly fine tuned in a number of respects and cannot be ignored.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    Hoyle was a nut.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    But if you really want to learn more on it, you should read this

    Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I quote, ''there are is a broad agreement between physicists and cosmologists that the universe appears to finely tuned.''
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #786  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    No, but I was using string theory correction codes as an example.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #787  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #788  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    Sylvester James Gates?
    (cf. Sylvester James Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    [citation needed]
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #789  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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...
    That doesn't test if we are in a simulation, it merely tests if we could be in a simulation.
    pavlos and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #790  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    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.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #791  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    No, but I was using string theory correction codes as an example.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    pavlos and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #792  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    No, but I was using string theory correction codes as an example.

    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.
    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),....

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #793  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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?
    pavlos likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #794  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #795  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    pavlos and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #796  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    May I ask you what the link is between these papers and the simulations you were talking about in post #810?
    Absolutely none. Symptom of a disordered mind? I don't know.
    pavlos likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #797  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Allow me to recapitulate the recent posts (in order to have a clearer image of the discussion):

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    After I asked him why he assumes that there is at least superintelligence, he states:

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    He identifies his notion of superintelligence (which is manifested by information) is similar to the God of Albert Einstein:

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.

    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.
    pavlos likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #798  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Member pavlos and I asked for the sources, but then he continues to defend the Zitterbewegung with articles that are not peer-reviewed.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #799  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    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.
    tk421 likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Similar Threads

  1. Is this function of writings common among all god-scripture-religions?
    By RamenNoodles in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 8th, 2013, 05:19 PM
  2. Common question now?
    By Brandon in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: September 21st, 2011, 09:36 AM
  3. Common ancestor question
    By KennyX in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 25th, 2010, 02:21 PM
  4. Does God exist?
    By Jim Colyer in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2007, 02:33 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •