Originally posted by dataBURNIf space-time is a property of the universe and only the universe, then it is nonsense to talk about anything 'beyond' or 'before' it in a literal sense. The only way anything external could exist is if it does so in a non-spatial, non-temporal way.
Its fine to say that something is in a recurring/recursive loop.
But doesn't something have to be in place before the loop can start ?
Therefore how can you quantify God as nonsense ?
Originally posted by Acolyte
If space-time is a property of the universe and only the universe, then it is nonsense to talk about anything 'beyond' or 'before' it in a literal sense. The only way anything external could exist is if it does so in a non-spatial, non-temporal way.
Good grief, another ding-dong trying to define the bounds of the universe.
-f
Originally posted by Danger MouseAlso have seen the movie a while ago and thought it was fair to good. If I may be so bold to suggest an excelent movie it must be "John Q" in which Denzil Washington play's a role I consider as heart touching. Also a good movie to entertain your significant other with...:'(
So who has seen K-Pax?
I saw it for the first time yesterday and thought it was a great film.
Any opinions on whether he was a strange deluded individual or whether he was an alien?
Well this is the thing....
In faith terms christians do believe that God exists outside of temporal space. A creator does not live inside the creation.
But science doesnt have the capacity for this understanding. It believes only that which it can prove and see. If science can't prove it, then to them it can't be real.
Originally posted by dataBURNEr, science doesn't really prove anything in a mathematical sense, and AFAIK most scientists aren't nihilists. Science relies on the acculumation of evidence, much like a criminal trial. If a hypothesis seems to fit the available evidence better than competing hypotheses then it is accepted. Science is heuristic in that any 'current' model is simply the best one people have come up with so far - if a better model comes along then it will replace the current model.
But science doesnt have the capacity for this understanding. It believes only that which it can prove and see. If science can't prove it, then to them it can't be real.
It is best if science avoids questions concerning absolute truth, as they are indeed beyond its remit. Science doesn't 'believe' anything, in the sense that a Christian believes in God. It is simply a set of working assumptions, which may be changed at any time.
Originally posted by dataBURNIf God exists outside of temporal space, then he is ethereal and atemporal. This means that he cannot physically interact with or alter anything within the universe.
Well this is the thing....
In faith terms christians do believe that God exists outside of temporal space. A creator does not live inside the creation.
But science doesnt have the capacity for this understanding. It believes only that which it can prove and see. If science can't prove it, then to them it can't be real.
Thus he is completely impotent.
This is not science, but basic logic and common sense.
Given that most Christians hold that God is omnipotent, then he must be capable of physical interaction with our existence. Thus he cannot be ethereal.
This is another example of the contradictions contained within the concept of God. He cannot be both omnipotent whilst existing outside of temporal space.
Acolyte, you state that:
"science doesn't really prove anything in a mathematical sense".
Correct, because maths is a tool used by science. Science is based upon empiricism and observation wheras Mathematical truths are derived a priori. As such science has predictive properties relating to the real world, whilst mathematical truths are purely conceptual.
You also state that:
"It is best if science avoids questions concerning absolute truth, as they are indeed beyond its remit. Science doesn't 'believe' anything, in the sense that a Christian believes in God. It is simply a set of working assumptions, which may be changed at any time."
You really get your knickers in a twist here! You cannot compare Science to Christians, no more than you can compare Scientists to religion. Christians and scientist have beliefs. Science and Religion ARE belief systems.
I think I understand your point though. And you get it completely arse about face!
Religion is the set of working assumptions, with only anecdotal evidence at best.
Science is based upon empirical observation and has predictive powers which religion lacks entirely.
Moreover, as Karl Popper so crucially argued; any scientific theory must be capable of being disproven. Religion lacks this important property as it is simply a blind wall of faith. Any evidence to disprove the theory of God is simply washed away by this blind faith:
Dinosaur bones: "God put them there"
Evil: "God is testing us"
Free will: "God gave us freewill"!?!?
Ask any true believer what it would take to prove that God does not exist, and they cannot answer. As Popper stated: "Any theory which is not capable of being disproven, is a non-theory".
K-Pax is a cracking film though.
Originally posted by howardgeeI agree with the rest of your post; I should have compared Science to Christianity, but I was trying to incorporate 'believes' as used by an earlier poster (which obviously is a bit meaningless if the subject is something abstract, hence the quotes).
You really get your knickers in a twist here! You cannot compare Science to Christians, no more than you can compare Scientists to religion. Christians and scientist have beliefs. Science and Religion ARE belief systems.
I think I understand your point though. And you get it completely arse about face!
Religion is the set of working assumptions, with only anecdotal evidence at best.
You may think that Christianity is false, but it is NOT a set of working (ie temporary) assumptions, because a Christian has faith in it and believes it to be unquestionably true - there is no scope for even considering alternatives. Saying 'Assume X does Y' is not the same as simply saying 'X does Y'. In a scientific context we may opine that things are probably true, but if you believe in relativity or string theory as articles of faith, you're missing the point.
Science is NOT a belief system. Religon is.
Science proves a theory and its understood. Untill its dissproven, or proven false. There is not faith, no belief, just understanding. Its not the same as belief.
Religon is a faith system. Believing in God. Believing his word. We admit we dont understand everything, and why God has put it in such a way. But we also say we we're never ment to. If we could prove it - it wouldn't be faith.
How do you know what something is outside of temporal time. Your scientists dont even know the full extent of the universe. By saying that he created the temporal universe means he is not etherial and does involve himself in his creation.
Originally posted by howardgee
Fierce,
instead of merely insulting people, why don't you try to put forward a constructive argument?
Is it because this concept is far beyond your understanding? If so, then listen and learn.
GREAT film though!
Hey, I'm not the one claiming to know how it works. It's ridiculous for an insignificant little human stuck on this ball of rock, who has probably never seen much outside their own nation -- much less galactic neighborhood -- to categorically state that others are wrong. Pride should be put aside in such matters, and a humble idea presented as a possibility rather than a fact -- especially in the case of such abstract reasoning. Yes, I tend to insult when others act omniscient and put the beliefs of others into the proverbial garbage disposal.
-f
Originally posted by howardgee
If God exists outside of temporal space, then he is ethereal and atemporal. This means that he cannot physically interact with or alter anything within the universe.
Thus he is completely impotent.
This is not science, but basic logic and common sense.
Given that most Christians hold that God is omnipotent, then he must be capable of physical inter ...[text shortened]... hin the concept of God. He cannot be both omnipotent whilst existing outside of temporal space.
Really? And you have an innate understanding in regards to both the nature and fabric of space, and what may lie beyond the edge of the known universe? You're employing an awful lot of assumption here.
Either break down your argument for us and show empirical data, or cease thy endless babbling.
-f
Whoa there guys and girls. I was quite excited to see so many posts on this thread but it seems to have ended up a bit serious tallking about religion etc. I was hoping for a bit more discussion regarding the film and why people thought this fictional character was alien or human.
Never mind. I still can't make my mind up...
Prot was alien....
The escape from the mental institution.
The deal with the space scientists in the observatory.
The answers he gave to the test he wrote for the therapists brother.
The way he got through to the other patients.
And for goodness sake - the way he ate the banana.... thats gotta clinch it.