zuluguy 0
RonD1120 62
QuoteQuote
Scripture or the Holy Bible is best understood as a wonderful love letter explaining the relationship of God to His children. You are seeing it as something else.
So apprently, the folks who wrote Bible/religious scriptures from other religions should perhaps have read the mind of god to have reproduced books that describe his relationship to humans, why not bacteria, dogs, chimpanzees, apes, etc. So merely the fact that you have conscienceness does not mean you have a direct hotline to god. Evolution has put humans at the top of the food chain and we happen to assume we are the byproducts of a masterpiece by god. Much to the contrary, if you understand evolutionary biology, you would see the evidence screaming on your face that human bodies are filled with "design flaws"
The scriptures of all religion have been morphed since ages to current times to accomodate current views and somehow relate them to present times and make them look relevent.
Start out by assuming all of science/cosmology is wrong and start doubting it and you can work yourself to all the laws governing the universe again and come back to the current knowledge.
Now apply the same test to religion by doubting everything is wrong and you get onto a slippery slope whereby you could never recover to come to the present blind faith without reason.
Human minds can easily be made to believe in scriptures cause it can be comforting, but would someone want to be comforted in falsehood or would you rather live perhaps without knowing things.
Well anyways, I can understand its hard to wrap your minds around it, certainly background in Science will help to get off the ground.
What constantly comes up in these threads, science and theology are separate but not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I am a Christian after investigating several spiritual paths with disappointing results. That investigation started when I was around 14 and lasted until I was 39.
I believe in scientific exploration and development. Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean that I have to rule it out. I had a professor in grad school that taught some things make sense, some things make no sense and, just because something makes no sense does not automatically make it nonsense.
Your point of view appears myopic compared to mine.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
jakee 1,564
QuoteYa Bv...those answers suck and you know it.
An answer is not faulty just because you do not understand it.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
zuluguy 0
Quote
am a Christian after investigating several spiritual paths with disappointing results
***
what you call mypoic could be construed as mypoic to others on your findings about several spiritual paths and your acceptance of one of them.
Sorry to put out some of the facts that govern the universe and disappoint you.
***
Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean that I have to rule it out. I had a professor in grad school that taught some things make sense, some things make no sense and, just because something makes no sense does not automatically make it nonsense.
glad you say this cause all this while I've been trying to make this point.
Science teaches us to be humble and continue to explore
kallend 2,108
RonD1120 62
I believe when the last scientist satisfies the last hypothesis and reaches the last solution he will proclaim, "Aha, that's how God did it."
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
billvon 3,079
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>the anti-entropic force that produces life and the order we see in the universe.
That would be the laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. They are pretty well known.
>So are you saying the laws of physics have always existed but our
>consciousness is a new transitory development by a quirk of random
>chance. Or that all things, the laws and physics and consciousness, have
>always existed and more than likely will continue to exist.
There are no "laws of consciousness."
That would be the laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. They are pretty well known.
>So are you saying the laws of physics have always existed but our
>consciousness is a new transitory development by a quirk of random
>chance. Or that all things, the laws and physics and consciousness, have
>always existed and more than likely will continue to exist.
There are no "laws of consciousness."
Coreece 190
QuoteAn answer is not faulty just because you do not understand it.
I never said anything about being faulty, or not understanding...
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
kallend 2,108
QuoteI believe when the last scientist satisfies the last hypothesis and reaches the last solution he will proclaim, "Aha, that's how God did it."
"Eureka" is the traditional exclamation. He will then head off for a pasta meal in honor of the FSM.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Coreece 190
I like that the words create, created, or creation are used rather frequently in the article...
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
maadmax 0
Quote
Nice article, I love particle physics. Wasn't exactly out of nothing, since the energy of the two colliding protons traveling at near light speed was converted into mass of the anti-bottom beauty quark. Of course with quantum physics you never know what will pop up.
maadmax 0
--That would be the laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. They are pretty well known.
OK, but those reactions follow the law of entropy. They can't re-prime the universe for a creative singularity.
OK, but those reactions follow the law of entropy. They can't re-prime the universe for a creative singularity.
--There are no "laws of consciousness".
What does that mean ? Possibly an unknown force, or maybe it just doesn't exist.
...
billvon 3,079
>OK, but those reactions follow the law of entropy. They can't re-prime the
>universe for a creative singularity.
Gravity can (provided there's enough mass.)
>>There are no "laws of consciousness".
>What does that mean ?
Just what it says. A scientific law is something that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like the Law of Gravity. There are no such laws for consciousness, since we cannot easily quantify much of what goes in to defining someone's consciousness. It's an emergent rather than a fundamental property of the universe.
>universe for a creative singularity.
Gravity can (provided there's enough mass.)
>>There are no "laws of consciousness".
>What does that mean ?
Just what it says. A scientific law is something that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like the Law of Gravity. There are no such laws for consciousness, since we cannot easily quantify much of what goes in to defining someone's consciousness. It's an emergent rather than a fundamental property of the universe.
maadmax 0
It's an emergent rather than a fundamental property of the universe.
Interesting, so when science fails you put your faith in an intellectual construct and trust it to provide for your salvation.
RackJR 0
-billvonQuoteJust what it says. A scientific law is something that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like the Law of Gravity. There are no such laws for consciousness, since we cannot easily quantify much of what goes in to defining someone's consciousness. It's an emergent rather than a fundamental property of the universe.
-maadmaxQuoteInteresting, so when science fails you put your faith in an intellectual construct and trust it to provide for your salvation.
Your statement (maadmax) makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you expand it a little bit please? How is Bill saying science has failed? What is the construct, and how is he saying he has placed his trust about salvation in it? Wouldn't his post need to include something about science failing, and trusting a construct to provide for his salvation, for you to represent his post as saying that?
Say what you mean. Do what you say.
billvon 3,079
>Interesting, so when science fails you put your faith in an intellectual
>construct and trust it to provide for your salvation.
Were you answering someone else? I said nothing of the sort.
>construct and trust it to provide for your salvation.
Were you answering someone else? I said nothing of the sort.
maadmax 0
Just what it says. A scientific law is something that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like the Law of Gravity. There are no such laws for consciousness, since we cannot easily quantify much of what goes in to defining someone's consciousness. It's an emergent rather than a fundamental property of the universe.
As you say, science explains a lot of the phenomena that has mystified our species for millennia. But as far as our most important asset, consciousness, science has no explanation. Whether we see an eternal consciousness as the source of the universe or the inanimate universe as the source of consciousness, faith is required in an intellectual/spiritual construct. Whether the good or evil of our personal actions have any consequence is also a matter of faith in a belief system. At some point our conscious existence on earth will end. If the salvation preached by atheists is true, then there will be nothing. We are saved from being responsible for our actions. If on the other hand consciousness is not emergent but eternal, we my need to assume responsibility for how we used the gift of consciousness we were given. And if eternal consciousness has a value system, we will need a saviour.
...
is that all you got pal to make such outlandish claims that "he got away with bullshit"
I could understand that Frank Borman might have felt with his experience@Cornell. People can disagree with other people. Sometimes your favourite theories have to be discarded simly because they are wrong.
There is no other community that is put through stringint of tests than scientific community. I'm yet to hear a group of scientists, Engineers, and astrobiologists, modern philosophers who have summed up all the work of Sagan as bullshit or got away with Bullshit.
In case you are not clear, science is not theory, theory, bullshit, theory, bullshit.....
it does not work that way.
Science is facts, facts, facts and more facts. Yes sometimes those facts are corrected upon and refined with more observation since we improve the understanding with better aids such as technology, theories and instrumentation.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites