Sorry, but I have to speak up
-
I find the biggest puzzle in where do you think? Ok, we think in our brains. Fine. But why does that have a sense of self? Why does that exists? You know your alive. Fine. But why? Nishant S wrote: It’s a sad reflection on the irrational nature of human beings that despite so much advances in our awareness of the universe, the majority of people on this planet believe in some kind of all powerful god or gods. No, I think it's just a constant search, and no matter what science comes up with there will always be more questions. The universe in some ways appears to be fractal like, the closer you look the more detail you get. Ok, we knew of atoms, and then we knew of protons, neutrons, electrons and then we knew of quarks and other sub-atomic particles... Maybe we can get to the bottom of it; maybe we can't. A belief in a god makes a lot of people happy (ok, it makes some people crazy and do stupid things, but I think in general it creates more peace and solace for people). I still puzzle most about where do you think? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
the closer you look the more detail you get. Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Christopher Lord wrote: so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same Doesn't this lead to a little recursion? Somewhere there is a starting point. From what I gather, there are two choices...1: The big bang and evolution or 2: God. Taking the Big Bang theory: Who ignited it? What was there before that? Considering the odds...the next time someone piles some junk into the city junkyard you should expect a fully functional jumbo jet to emerge, fueled up, with a runway! Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. What choice is left: God! And I don't choose God solely on the fact that other options verge on the ridiculus either. We all have the right to accept God or reject God. Acceptance results in an eternity in His presence while rejection results in an eternity in His absence. I'm not going to hang around waiting on that jumbo jet! ed
Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. No. The evidence IS there. Creationists just like to shut their eyes, cover their ears and say, "I can't hear you". I know because I was once a creationist and a Christian, but there is a lot of evidence for evolution. You just can't see it because creationists make a lot of noise and you get tied up in their arguments. As the latest issue of SciAm accurately put it, "massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination." 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense Yes, life has been tracked from simple cells (3.5 billion years ago) to the first multi-cellular organisms (600 million years ago) to homo sapiens (100,000 years ago). And if humans did not evolve from apes, why do we find humanlike-apelike creatures who become pregressively more human in the hundreds of thousands of years leading upto the emergence of homo sapiens? Yet, we never find these fossils anywhere else in the fossil record? If God's intention was to create humans, why does 83% of the history of life on earth contain only single-celled organisms, and why only the last 0.0028% of the history of life on earth contain ANY humans at all? Maybe a god somewhere created the Big Bang, but he certainly didn't seem to have in mind the creation of humans.
-
Christopher Lord wrote: so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same Doesn't this lead to a little recursion? Somewhere there is a starting point. From what I gather, there are two choices...1: The big bang and evolution or 2: God. Taking the Big Bang theory: Who ignited it? What was there before that? Considering the odds...the next time someone piles some junk into the city junkyard you should expect a fully functional jumbo jet to emerge, fueled up, with a runway! Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. What choice is left: God! And I don't choose God solely on the fact that other options verge on the ridiculus either. We all have the right to accept God or reject God. Acceptance results in an eternity in His presence while rejection results in an eternity in His absence. I'm not going to hang around waiting on that jumbo jet! ed
Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. Surely you are joking ! Right. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
the closer you look the more detail you get. Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? I mean I'm not saying that we should give up trying, but just that the edges might get fuzzier and fuzzier... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... What I said about it being fractal just seems to have a ring of truth in my mind (but it might just be a warped mind!) Like looking at the mandlebrot set from a distance you have a nice easy to understand shape (like Neutons laws) but drill down and then you find that you have more pattern there than you thought (Relativity, Quantum...) As I said, it should disuade us from trying to understand it all, but I do think its impossible. But the search is the fun part... Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: With out those definitions right and wrong are relative and the acts of Sept 11 and the Nazis government are no more wrong than caring for the homeless and sick. This is just to give an example. That's ridiculous! I don't share your beliefs but still I do have some definitions of what is right or wrong. It's called common sense! And because I'm not a believer I do not have a problem deciding if caring for a homeless is a better thing than joining some Nazi party or some suicide bomber sect. All your commandments can pretty much be summed up as Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. I don't need an imaginary god to figure that out.. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: That's ridiculous! I don't share your beliefs but still I do have some definitions of what is right or wrong. It's called common sense! But they are your definitions and relative (My point). Now my example just shows someone else disagrees with you on what is right. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
A fall out of my belief is I also believe in absolute definitions of right and wrong. If you do not believe in a god then you have no such definitions to guide your life. I believe in right and wrong, but stand somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real.
Brit wrote: I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real. I did not say your definition of right and wrong was not real. I said it was relative. My example just shows that once your definition of right and wrong is not fixed it opens up the case for others to have different standards. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Michael P Butler wrote: How can a being with these kind of powers let people go hungry, let children be abused by priests, cause death and destruction with earthquakes and floods etc Some people argue that these victims are not true christians and will thus not recieve the love of god. I argue that there are too many people arguing the argument above.. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Some people argue that these victims are not true christians and will thus not recieve the love of god. Ah so it's a protection racket, be a Christian otherwise you may have an "accident" :-D LOL, I've love. I now know where the term GodFather originates ;-) Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If not, we could always do some POKE's in order to straighten this mess out.. LOL. It's not easy though, one bad POKE and another black hole is created. :-D Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? I mean I'm not saying that we should give up trying, but just that the edges might get fuzzier and fuzzier... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... What I said about it being fractal just seems to have a ring of truth in my mind (but it might just be a warped mind!) Like looking at the mandlebrot set from a distance you have a nice easy to understand shape (like Neutons laws) but drill down and then you find that you have more pattern there than you thought (Relativity, Quantum...) As I said, it should disuade us from trying to understand it all, but I do think its impossible. But the search is the fun part... Have fun, Paul Westcott.
But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? We won't know that till we find it :) Can't prove a negative.Etc... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... And all those particles are composed of quarks. So now the atom can be explained not in terms of protons etc.. but the fundemental particles. Life is simpiler that way. Besides that the beauty of something like E=MC^2 is that it demonstrates the fact that matter ( atoms etc.. ) and energy are one and the same thus balancing the whole universe to a determination of its energy state without considering matter and energy as seperate entities. Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... In reality Newtons laws were not simplier - they were wrong. And the faster you went the more wrong they got. Uncle Alberts little theory is, at its heart, much simplier than Sir Issacs . Its just that the math is rather esoteric and scary but the math is not the theory - its a definition - and as such is specialized. Even AE had to get help with the math. Anyone who has ever had to wrestle with tensor calculus will give a big AMEN here. A system that is fractal in nature can be explored in terms of chaos and/or game theory. I don't think that physics at the level of the Grand Unified Theory will behave like this. I think what we are missing is something so fundemental that when and if we ever find it its gonna be almost comical. You know one of them "Why didn't i think of that" things. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? We won't know that till we find it :) Can't prove a negative.Etc... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... And all those particles are composed of quarks. So now the atom can be explained not in terms of protons etc.. but the fundemental particles. Life is simpiler that way. Besides that the beauty of something like E=MC^2 is that it demonstrates the fact that matter ( atoms etc.. ) and energy are one and the same thus balancing the whole universe to a determination of its energy state without considering matter and energy as seperate entities. Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... In reality Newtons laws were not simplier - they were wrong. And the faster you went the more wrong they got. Uncle Alberts little theory is, at its heart, much simplier than Sir Issacs . Its just that the math is rather esoteric and scary but the math is not the theory - its a definition - and as such is specialized. Even AE had to get help with the math. Anyone who has ever had to wrestle with tensor calculus will give a big AMEN here. A system that is fractal in nature can be explored in terms of chaos and/or game theory. I don't think that physics at the level of the Grand Unified Theory will behave like this. I think what we are missing is something so fundemental that when and if we ever find it its gonna be almost comical. You know one of them "Why didn't i think of that" things. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
But weren't there all kinds of problems (as in not nice like e=mc^2) when quantum and relativity were attempted to be reconciled with each other? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
But weren't there all kinds of problems (as in not nice like e=mc^2) when quantum and relativity were attempted to be reconciled with each other? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
As far as I know ( I am far removed from the field ) the reconciliation of relativistic and quantum physics is still an ongoing process. More and more however the problems are being seen not as disproving realativity but as proving Hiesenberg. With a bit of the strange quark being thrown in for flavor :). Things like fractional spin and charge, strings ,super strings, multiple demensions, make it seem esoteric but in many cases are just devices used to visualize the problem. Kinda like the diagrams you see of a black hole or a 4 demensional box. We can visualize a one,two or three dem. object pretty well as say a point, a line, a cube. But throw in a fourth and our mind has nothing to relate it too and then we come up with something a tesseract in order to "see" it. But it has no real validity other than conceptual. Any attempt to visualize a singularity ( black hole ) is of course silly as it has no shape or form but the human part of us wants it to have one so we give it one. Richard There is nothing in fiction as strange as what Mother Nature has put together Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
The universe is so big because God used a char[] array and forgot the NULL terminator. So most of the universe is just any old junk found in memory :-D Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
:laugh: But, if that's true, then we can really mess things up in other places by changing things in our universe. For example, if I clean my room, I've changed the state of the universe, which might lockup the universal computer. Maybe I shouldn't clean my room afterall.
-
Christian Graus wrote: The Bible says there are specific gifts that every Christian recieves from God, the first and foremost being the ability to speak in tongues, because in the Bible, that is what happens when someone becomes a Christian. Que? I thought speaking in tongues was an evil thingTM. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I thought speaking in tongues was an evil thing Did you ? I guess you've been exposed to a traditional church 'having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof'. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
-
Christian Graus wrote: I can't prove a thing. HE can. He never does though does he? In fact, aliens offer more proof they exist than "He" does. In fact, as time goes on, the lack of proof is more evidence that he probably doesn't exist, because the loving God we have heard of, couldn't possibly be ignorant to the suffering of his "children"? Yet suffer we do. Are we to believe he is simply biding his time in order to save the righteous and punish the wicked? How can anyone truly believe this? It's time mankind took responsibility for itself and stopped using religion as a crutch in times of need and an excuse for violence and persecution. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
phykell wrote: He never does though does he? Yes, He does. He says 'these signs shall follow them that believe', and they do. Do not confuse the deadness of traditional churches who are far from God, with the absence of God Himself. phykell wrote: because the loving God we have heard of, couldn't possibly be ignorant to the suffering of his "children"? In fact His children are those who follow Him, not all mankind. It is mans choice to walk alone, or to follow Him. It's not His fault if you make bad choices. phykell wrote: Are we to believe he is simply biding his time in order to save the righteous and punish the wicked? The righteous are cared for NOW. The proof is to the individual and it is both tangible and rigidly defined in the Bible. That traditional religion does not teach this is itself a fulfilment of what the Bible says, and so no surprise, but that is what the Bible *does* say. phykell wrote: It's time mankind took responsibility for itself and stopped using religion as a crutch in times of need and an excuse for violence and persecution. Now this I agree with. Christianity is about taking responsibility of ones own actions an aligning them with what God says. It's not about feeling sorry for yourself, being inactive or inflicting hurt on people who disagree. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
-
But in order to believe you have to be convinced.. right? And what is required to convince you? I'd say you'd have to spell out a theorem which you'd have to prove yourself. The theorem is basically "Do I believe in God?" and may perhaps depend on lemmas such as "Does god exist?", etc. This theorem makes perfect sense in your system (i.e., your mind), but not neccesarily in any other system (enclosing and neighbouring). So I'd say it is a conclusion, because you have to make one in order to prove your own theorem. I'm not saying that you come to the conclusion based on external information, but you do indeed conclude whether you believe before you believe. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: you'd have to spell out a theorem which you'd have to prove yourself * When you fall in love, do you need an explanation to know you are in love with this person ? Don't you know deep in your heart how your feelings are real and how you believe in this love ? Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: "Does god exist?" * My question would be less "Does God exist ?" than "Does Man exist ?" Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: you do indeed conclude whether you believe before you believe. I just know what I feel, I don't need an explanation on everything. There's no conclusion, always the quest. :rose: Y'a cool jouer avec Maradona qui fait tourner gratos dans les vestiaires - Merci Maradona ! - Y'a pas d'quoi ! Ludwig Von 88, "Goal Di Pele"
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Not entirely nude. They usually come with a leaf strategically attached. Oh! That's sad! Blasted leaves!!!
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win]
-
Brit wrote: I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real. I did not say your definition of right and wrong was not real. I said it was relative. My example just shows that once your definition of right and wrong is not fixed it opens up the case for others to have different standards. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I did not say your definition of right and wrong was not real. I said it was relative. My example just shows that once your definition of right and wrong is not fixed it opens up the case for others to have different standards. Well...anyone who doesn't believe in God (or interprets God differently) can have different standards from you. The more fundamental problem with your position is this. Supposing God to exist, it does not follow that his moral standards are correct. Why do you think otherwise? Possibilities: 1. Because you believe that God, by virtue of his role as the creator of the universe, has the right to set moral standards. But why is that? If God had created unthinking robots, that would be one thing. But if he created beings with feelings and a will, what gives him to right to walk all over them, without regard to their opinions and wishes? This view treats human beings as worthless playthings of God. 2. Because you believe that following God's teachings will yield rewards and disobeying them will lead to punishment. In this case, your behaviour is self-interested and people who, say, show kindness without thought of reward are your moral superiors. Moroeover, accepting a morality because of the way it is enforced is a "might is right" philosophy, i.e., morally bankrupt. Of course, faced with an omnipotent being, one might judge that following his dictates is prudent. But this has nothing to do with morality and makes your sense of moral superiority vis a vis the Nazis rather empty. 3. Because you believe that God is all-wise and all-loving and hence his moral rules are the best. Well, if the word "loving" is to have anything like its ordinary meaning, then it is clear that conditions here on earth (and the Bible's predicted conditions for much of the population after death) are not consistent with such a belief. Of course, if one doesn't believe that God exists, then one can do better than these three unappealing choices. John Carson
-
CString s[6][12] char* buff[12][12]; Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I thought speaking in tongues was an evil thing Did you ? I guess you've been exposed to a traditional church 'having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof'. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
Christian Graus wrote: Did you ? I guess you've been exposed to a traditional church 'having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof'. Actually, I think I've been exposed to movies where at least one of the characters have been speaking in tongues while begin possessed by the devil. And I have also heard the expression "You speak in tongues" in a derogative way (as if the subject was under the influence of something bad). Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: you'd have to spell out a theorem which you'd have to prove yourself * When you fall in love, do you need an explanation to know you are in love with this person ? Don't you know deep in your heart how your feelings are real and how you believe in this love ? Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: "Does god exist?" * My question would be less "Does God exist ?" than "Does Man exist ?" Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: you do indeed conclude whether you believe before you believe. I just know what I feel, I don't need an explanation on everything. There's no conclusion, always the quest. :rose: Y'a cool jouer avec Maradona qui fait tourner gratos dans les vestiaires - Merci Maradona ! - Y'a pas d'quoi ! Ludwig Von 88, "Goal Di Pele"
Karl wrote: * When you fall in love, do you need an explanation to know you are in love with this person ? Don't you know deep in your heart how your feelings are real and how you believe in this love ? I would not need an external explanation to why I feel the way I feel. The symptoms are not obvious at first, but you'll come to the conclusion that it is in fact love. Remember falling in love for the first time - it's a wild ride and you have no clue what the heck is going on. But sooner or later you come to the conclusion that it is in fact love. Karl wrote: * My question would be less "Does God exist ?" than "Does Man exist ?" Why? If you doubt your own existence, then surely the doubt of gods excistence must be bigger? If there is a god who created man, then doubting the existence of man must surely mean doubting god creating man. Karl wrote: I just know what I feel, I don't need an explanation on everything. There's no conclusion, always the quest. Yes. The Quest! You are infact seeking to conclude! You don't want loose ends, for your brain does not want it. I guess that the belief in a higher existence is to shortcircuit a handful of neurons - you don't have to look for the truth yourself - you rely on god. But aren't you just a little bit curious of god? Is he a man with special powers? If not, can he be perceieved as a man with special powers? Is he a man or is god a she? When I die, can I talk to him face-to-face? What does he look like? You have to admit that you have thought something along these lines.. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.