24 Sep 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkThen you're ascribing to something more along the lines of what I described earlier as open, or flexible, MN... not a rigid, closed one. I have no issue with such an approach.
[b]So is it fair to say that your version of MN would not necessarily preclude the supernatural in the event of direct interaction with such an agent and/or logic left no other option?
As I have said, it is possible that the evidence and logic might lead reasonable people to conclude that a supernatural explanation like god is required. MN does not r ...[text shortened]... w that some philosophers take a more Platonist view of logic and mathematics, but I don't.[/b]
Please, if you're not opposed, flesh out your take on logic, mathematics, with an eye on why you consider them naturally occurring, as opposed to transcendent. And, do you see anything as transcendent?
24 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerIs it “faith” to believe there is NO tooth fairy?
[b]You will understand that what you believe now is in fact a form of faith. You have faith that there is no God, yet you cannot prove otherwise.
It is nevertheless not faith. You cannot prove that there are no flying toasters on the far side of the moon, but you would not call it 'a form of faith' to deny their existence. It is just common sense.[/i ...[text shortened]... here is no God takes as much faith (in your belief system) as it does to say there is one.[/b]
If I am reading you correctly, you would answer “yes”?
If so, then you must have an eccentric definition of “faith” that most people wouldn’t agree with.
If not, then it is not “faith” to believe there is NO God.
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltoncan you prove there is no god?
Is it “faith” to believe there is NO tooth fairy?
If I am reading you correctly, you would answer “yes”?
If so, then you must have an eccentric definition of “faith” that most people wouldn’t agree with.
If not, then it is not “faith” to believe there is NO God.
24 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerNo, and that doesn’t answer my question;
can you prove there is no god?
Is it “faith” to believe there is NO tooth fairy?
But I now add another question since you erroneously think your last one was relevant;
Can you prove that there is no tooth fairy?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease, if you're not opposed, flesh out your take on logic, mathematics, with an eye on why you consider them naturally occurring, as opposed to transcendent. And, do you see anything as transcendent?
Then you're ascribing to something more along the lines of what I described earlier as open, or flexible, MN... not a rigid, closed one. I have no issue with such an approach.
Please, if you're not opposed, flesh out your take on logic, mathematics, with an eye on why you consider them naturally occurring, as opposed to transcendent. And, do you see anything as transcendent?
I think that logic and mathematics are human activities and so, insofar as humans themselves are naturally occurring, so are they. It might well be that these tools are so useful precisely because they capture aspects of how we relate to the way the world actually behaves, or perhaps they even express constraints on how a world could possibly behave. But that is speculative.
The map is not the territory.
I don't know if anything is transcendent, how would I be able to tell?
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by pink floyd123I find modern scientific discoveries quite exciting in terms of spirituality, even if I find personifying the Source of Everything as a He/She/It imposes limits on the Limitless. . Quantum science can sound HEAVY and I am no mathematician or physicist and there are sites that explain some of the weird discoveries reasonably simply, thankfully.
dose any one think or feel that sci will one day uncover the fact that there is a god and that the universe was created by him or will it find that there is no god what are your thoughts
These discoveries include:
- light that has two states (wave/particle) that are quite contradictory and how they appear seems to rest on how our human minds decide to observe it. Consciousness acts in the story in some way, effecting the outcome.
Related to this, a number of religion and philosophies refer to an understanding that consciousness may not be AFTER the fact of evolution but PRIOR, and is a principle reason evolution has some amazing outcomes, or works at all, even with Darwin's discoveries. It "happens", it does itself so to speak, it is not "designed", and that makes it even more wonderful to me! What is this that does Itself so?
Why the anti-evolutionists get so stuck against the marvel of evolution mystifies me because here there are serious indicators that the reductionist attitude of old science is increasingly being left behind for another more transcendent understanding of the nature of reality, call it "God" if you like but that is a human sort of limiting of "Something" far greater than we are able to conceive and it is not away from us, It is part of us and we are part of It,... well as far as I have been able to think it through, with the ever informative web. (You can learn a bit about "human anatomy" too, lol. Oh, I really am too libertarian..behave!)
- Two related sub atomic particles that always react together as one system - if one turns one way the other turns the other way at the same time. This is not so strange, and known, but it has now been proven repeatedly that the reaction is instant and happens if the particles are close, or on the other side of the bleeding Universe! Its called non locality. Speed of light and billions of light years of apparent distance has nothing to do with it!
Time and space in quantum physics where they study the basest nature of matter appears to arise from beyond the time and space world we live in. That means that the most basic nature of matter arises from some dimension that is to all definitions "transcendent". I find that immensely exciting.
In this "realm", time and space dependent proof/disproof are unable to be applied however. It appears encountering it requires another "less physical, less reasoning" approach, but NOT disrespecting the other sound knowledge that has been established. Science is good. Spirituality is good. Numerous esteemed physicists have been quite spiritual.
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by Taoman“...light that has two states (wave/particle)that are quite contradictory and how they appear SEEMS to rest on how our human minds decide to observe it....”
I find modern scientific discoveries quite exciting in terms of spirituality, even if I find personifying the Source of Everything as a He/She/It imposes limits on the Limitless. . Quantum science can sound HEAVY and I am no mathematician or physicist and there are sites that explain some of the weird discoveries reasonably simply, thankfully.
These discove ...[text shortened]... . Spirituality is good. Numerous esteemed physicists have been quite spiritual.
Err, no; there is absolutely no evidence that the human mind (or any sort of “mind” or “observer&rdquo😉 determines quantum outcomes and the mathematics of quantum physics does not imply that it does. In fact, it would be impossible to scientifically prove that the human mind determines quantum outcomes even if this was true! -this is because that hypothesis is a metaphysical interpretation of quantum physics made by the likes of Neils Bohr despite the fact it leads to what is called the “measurement problem”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
This philosophical problem is a flaw in that interpretation and the only known way to resolve this problem is to have a “realist” interpretation of quantum physics which says that quantum outcomes are NOT dependent on mind nor on them being “observed”.
Personally, I am a “realist”.
There is no doubt quantum physics is correct. But it is a common misconception that the Neils Bohr's interpretation of quantum physics is PART of quantum physics -it is not. Unfortunately the news media continually propagate this common misconception. In my view, the Neils Bohr's interpretation is just a very badly flawed piece of metaphysics. It is a strange phenomenon that good scientists (like Neils Bohr ) are often terrible at philosophy! -it is not known why this is.
26 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by pink floyd123I suggest you dive into this book and experience God and who you really are..
dose any one think or feel that sci will one day uncover the fact that there is a god and that the universe was created by him or will it find that there is no god what are your thoughts
http://www.spirituality.com/dt/book_search.jhtml#jumpto
Chapter 6: Science, Theology, Medicine
Chapter 10: Science of Being
Chapter 18: Fruitage
26 Sep 10
1 edit
Andrew Hamilton
Nothing is evolving into anything,....theres always been a dog and theres always been an elephant, but there have been some species that lived long ago on earth and have ceased to remain.
If you link these extinct species to the present ones, and say that thats proof of evolution, then you are in error...
Any evidence that the cheating scientists are putting forward to support evolution, is either misunderstood, or has not been misunderstood but has been misrepresented deliberately.
Any hard evidence that the evolutionists are putting forward, have probably been manufactured in the same special affects factory as the Star Wars.
The evolution therory is suggesting that life is a random accident, and that accident is still perpetuating itself to the present day.
Iam sorry sir, but I wont be teaching this to my children.
As I will NOT teach them the Bible account of creation either.
vishva
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYes, there are differing and strongly argued interpretations of what is happening at the quantum level, including the "observer" effect" take. They are all interpretions that remain unresolved after almost a century, and I suspect won't be because of such things as the "measurement problem", which is more than just physical limitations of process.
This philosophical problem is a flaw in that interpretation and the only known way to resolve this problem is to have a “realist” interpretation of quantum physics which says that quantum outcomes are NOT dependent on mind nor on them being “observed”.
I am not qualified enough to argue in detail, and thanks for the reminder that there is a lot of unwarranted simplification around. But for me it is the "flavour" of the whole scenerio that gets me, that goes beyond single issues. The nature of time and space as Einstein opened up, the strange contradictory dual aspects of light, non-locality and the strong arguing at least from some very respected in the qualified science community that consciousness appears to be impacting.
For me, (not a "realist" in the sense you mean), the very "coincidental" alignment of ancient takes on metaphysics, particularly found in the East, but also in other Wetern mystical traditions, with that of ONE of the major interpretations of modern quantum scientific findings is telling too.
I may mention the physicists that I know who have made spiritual statements and/or explorations arising from their work. This is not a valid argument for truth of the matter, but that the stance on another view of "reality" is definitely not a place for the misguided or unreasoning, (which stands for the other side of course too) ....
Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, Eddington.
No doubt you could line up an equally solid front line!
Cheers Andrew.
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkMy rule of thumb, is that if it remains true--- regardless of the usual ravages: space, time, cultural--- it is transcendent. Pi's a good example.
[b]Please, if you're not opposed, flesh out your take on logic, mathematics, with an eye on why you consider them naturally occurring, as opposed to transcendent. And, do you see anything as transcendent?
I think that logic and mathematics are human activities and so, insofar as humans themselves are naturally occurring, so are they. It might well b ...[text shortened]... s not the territory.
I don't know if anything is transcendent, how would I be able to tell?[/b]
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuI find your whole post an appalling display of ignorance.
Andrew Hamilton
Nothing is evolving into anything,....theres always been a dog and theres always been an elephant, but there have been some species that lived long ago on earth and have ceased to remain.
If you link these extinct species to the present ones, and say that thats proof of evolution, then you are in error...
Any evidence that the che ...[text shortened]... this to my children.
As I will NOT teach them the Bible account of creation either.
vishva
There is a huge mountain of evolution that is just irrefutable.
Why would all the scientists in the whole world just “make up” such evidence? -this is not how science works. Science is based on reason and evidence. When a reasonable scientist first makes a hypothesis, the first thing he does is look at how it could be wrong. Only after a great deal of careful scrutiny does he come to his conclusion. The theory of evolution has been revised countless times with this brutal scrutiny and has always not only survived but has been verified by ever-more evidence.
You also try and misrepresent evolution with:
“...The evolution therory is suggesting that life is a random accident...”
Although there is a random element to the evolution process (mutations ), a major part of it is natrual selection which is NOT random. It is often a tactic used by those who attempt to rubbish the theory to claim it just says everything living today just came into existence by pure random “accident” -that is NOT what evolution says.
“...and that accident is still perpetuating itself to the present day...”
Are you referring here to random mutations or natrual selection?
If you are referring to random mutations then random mutation DO occur in the present day -right? -and therefore must have occurred in the past -right?
If you are referring to natrual selection then natrual selection is not an “accident” as you imply.