Science ‘versus’ God.

It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
"People have attacked me because I do only one thing. But that one thing is to try to figure how the world is put together. The world is incredible, just the fact that you and I are here, and that the atoms of your body were once part of stars. They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. Anyway," he laughed,"I’m a nut, you know. Crazy."

The poster of the above message added:
Few agree with Carl Sandage, he admits this with his own words. He attempted to theologize science.

If you are making the point that unanimous agreement does not exist, you are correct but this has been known for some time. Astrophysics is a relative new field and theoretical. Attempts to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE) continue much at the contempt of theists who oppose this.

Intelligent Design will not replace science.
_______________________________

K B Robertson (RascalPuff) wrote:
Your invocation of Carl Sandage and theism launches the endemic rhubarb between theology and science - as though the two issues were stringently antithetical.

Whereas, 'god' is routinely considered as the intelligent designer of the universe since the times preceding and including Pythagoras, to the present; where mathematicians and heuristic scientists daily and openly proclaim to prove the existence of a supreme being. In contrast to your direct implication that it is tantamount to scientific heresy to do so. It is a long and widely known fact that the exemplary Einstein not infrequently - and openly - said that his endeavors included an inquiry as to 'how God thinks'. Due to the nature of what scientists preoccupy themselves with, many are not only non-atheistic, but closer to God than many avid church-goers and pulpit pounders.

The posturing of contemporary practitioners of science is certainly not in league with the 'creationist' schools of thought who glibly speak of a time when an anthropomorphically assembled 'god' snapped 'his' prototypically unimprovable fingers and 'made' a universe and earth, oh, say, several thousand years ago. Thereafter, inhabiting the earth with people, perhaps at a time not long before the Monkey Trials.

Such organized beguilements do not at all parallel the endeavors of men and women in science who are in search of the parameters of the final frontier, aiming to go where no man or woman has gone before. In these circles, the - perhaps inevitable - issue of god emerges only inadvertantly and until further notice in such company, it is regimentally understood that:
God is on sabbatical.
Perhaps after stubbing 'his' irreproachable metatarsal over scientific expeditions in search of a Theory of Everything (TOE).

The debate over the Biblical presentation of the original creation of humanity and Darwin’s Origin of the Species - the adventures of the Bible (many of which continue to prove out as true) and the contrary facts of life - is an argument that may never end. Speaking for myself and no small number of others I find it no less divine or miraculous - no less an ‘act of God’ - that mankind exists and arrived in the here and now (on its way to a future of there and then), by way of an evolutionary process approximately or precisely as Darwinism reveals. The transition from a fertilized mammal egg to embryo to a recognizable human fetus, includes an intermission of the entire process of evolution, not excluding the reptilian feature of gill slits - this is a powerful station for Darwinism, which, in 1950, was pronounced by Pope Pius XII (and other popes since then), as non contrary to Christianity.

Of course these considerations are not unusual in discussions relating to the mystery of human existence and the despair that may accompany an unanswered existential question of whether or not there is a God. A major grist of devout atheism is that ‘believers’ are afraid not to believe in God... That the burden of human consciousness is unbearable without the comfort of a supernatural reason for being.
Whereas, the inescapable fact that inanimate matter organized itself not only to become animate, but to become sentiently self aware is manifest proof of ‘higher power’; a so called ‘intelligent designer’, aka ‘supreme being’. ‘Nature’ by any other name.

Such considerations tend to reverse the question of whether there is or not a God, to a question of how could there not be...

Anti-theism is marooned with the manifest self and others who came into being ‘inadvertently’; without any guidance from a higher power. It would seem in such contemplations that it is much more difficult to be an an atheist, or anti-theist, than to yield to what is apparently the inevitability of intelligent design, so far, beyond the mortal human ability to fully accommodate.
There is the issue of ‘divine intervention’; reasoning that if there is a God, why are terrible events - large and small - allowed to occur in the course of human existence. This question and the disappointment that accompanies it, is based, a priori, on the existence of a ‘personal God’ - a power which insures justice - per individual - in the corporeal world of mortality. Clearly, such expectations of God intersect with superstition.

That perspective leads to what is called ‘victimology’. Where it is reasoned that those who suffer - especially extreme - misfortune, are (invariably) slated to do so by ‘the will of God’, who metes out punishments for trespasses committed in this life, or, in cases applying to the suffering of very young children, those who have sinned in a (reincarnated) life preceding this one (Granted that life is inherently a struggle, and that some suffering is inevitable...). In other words, those who suffer severe misfortune are unsympathetically perceived as being pronounced guilty - with a sentence of punishment passed - by God. Such reasoning is commonplace (and a misapplication of the word, ‘karma’) as it is applied to the destitute masses in the country of India, for example.

In Western culture, these and other dilemmas led to the separation of church from state. The schizoid argument continues, with routine stories of religious ritual and regalia being prohibited and removed from government institutions, for example. While the federal government continues to mint certificates of currency bearing the inscription, ‘In God We Trust’.

Vigilant awareness and defense of scientific method and its practitioners does not go without appreciation in this discussion.

What two religions are you comparing?

Comparative Religion does not necessarily mean comparing two or more religions, because modern science shares traits with mythologies, the difference is that the cosmology of the scientific mythology tends to be more accurate.
That's just in response to your post, I don't really get Kaiduorkhon's post.

i got a bit lost,


science VS god cant happen, you can pit science Vs religion and religious books.

but modern science does not conflict with "god" in the slightest, people usualy over look this,

modern science in my opinion does the exact opposite, and actualy backs up the claim of a god in my opinion.

to say the universe and existence as a whole may have just sprung up at some point in time, is like saying god said "let there be light" and the universe just came forth, scientific facts do not collide with the idea of a god, it may be said that scientists "study and try to uncover and explain everything that was created"

peace.

Comparative Religion does not necessarily mean comparing two or more religions, because modern science shares traits with mythologies, the difference is that the cosmology of the scientific mythology tends to be more accurate.
That's just in response to your post, I don't really get Kaiduorkhon's post.

I sort of agree. But I don't think Kaiduorkhon's is comparing anything yet, though I also have trouble understanding the post.
If we are dealing with Science as a mythology or as having one then we should find parts of that mythology lined up in some way with facets of a religion's (or some religions') mythologies. Or epistemologies or areas of reference or assumptions. I don't think that is happening above, but who knows.

If we are dealing with Science as a mythology or as having one then we should find parts of that mythology lined up in some way with facets of a religion's (or some religions') mythologies.
I have just the information for your request, but first I need to get one book I gave to a friend. She already promised to bring it to me tomorrow,
then I will reply to your question.

Khaiduorkhon ,

I find it interesting , that you start a thread about: science versus god ........
It is true, that many religious people see it this way ( because science often shows that some parts of religious texts or beliefs are , should we say "difficult" to be held true ) .........

However science is based on rationally thinking (objective) and religions are often more emotionally based (subjective), and sometimes ( at least to me ) seems irrational , at least untill you go back to the roots , when you find that many religions tries to answer
fundamental questions about origin of man and everything else - and the answers must be seen in context of the knowledge of man in those days .....
I think most of the answers in old days were made by guestimating
( estimate by guessing without certain knowledge)

The only problem is that the knowledge of man is increasing , and answers that seemed rationally in old days are now sometimes considered less rational and more emotional ..... since many religions are static with traditions and texts , there sometimes are dissagreements between religion and science of today ..........it was easier in older days , a scientist could be banned by the church .........

Anyway , I do not see science neither as a religion nor as a myth ......science is based on observations and rationally thinking ....at least it should be - there is allways some bad scientists or even religious people (who wants god to be a part of science ) that tries to rock the boat .........

Anyway to answer your question : science versus god ....... I will simply give you a link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

Dear Sputnik:
Please take note of the quotation marks around 'versus' in the title at the beginning of this thread. I should have included a question mark (?), because many of the questions being asked about my post here are also my questions. No. I don't think there really is such a thing as science versus God. I suppose it's a 'man made' conceptual context.
One could say 'Science versus Religion' - but that wouldn't be exactly the same thing as the chosen title. It could be called 'Science versus Theology', and again, that imparts a different nuance - a different spin, on what a title says or implies. I am learning a lot about this thread from the people who are responding to - and often clarifying - it, furthermore. Thank you for your contributions; which readers are certainly invited to offer.

Here's the text I promised, It's from a book by Simon Danser "The Myths of Reality",
Chapter 7 - Myths of Science (sorry for the bad quality).

page 80 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth1.jpg)
page 81 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth2.jpg)
page 82 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth3.jpg)
page 83 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth4.jpg)
page 84 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth5.jpg)
page 85 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth6.jpg)
page 86 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth7.jpg)
page 87 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth8.jpg)
page 88 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth9.jpg)
page 89 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth10.jpg)

p.s. Just as additional information, I don't completely agree everywhere with this author, but he has some good points.

Perhaps better stated, the conflict referenced above seems to be something like this:

Virulent Antitheistic Dogmatists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) vs Evangelical Religious Nitwits

As is so often the case, media trains its attention on the extremes, ignoring almost entirely the (admitedly rather boring, but) ultimately more influential and important middle.

This is the case with regards to the "War on Terror" - Muslims are so often portrayed as backwards super-theists, some kind of modern-day medievel transplant of what might be called a Barbarian, whose core belief is basically to declare Jihad on everyone he doesn't like, screaming "ALALALALALALALA" in characteristically incoherent Arabic (because they are all Arabs, too) before detonating a suicide bomb among the innocent Christians or Jews, who happen to own the networks.

Hmm..

Well, in our current debate, regarding "religion 'vs' science" we have been handed the same kind of polarized portrayal of this "battleground," on one side you have backwoods zealots - just a hair's-breadth from believing in witches and that adulteresses should be stoned - versus self-righteous, overly pompous blowhards like Richard Dawkins, who do little to advance actually scientific thinking and much to make the rest of us start to feel we are very, very alone in being somewhat moderate.

And as is always the case with extremists, the greatest sin of all is moderation.

See, an outright sinner like an atheist is just misguided, and with just an ounce of good, old-fashioned Alabama preaching they can be converted to good christians, too.

Halelujah!

But a moderate, oh, the blind scum! They will never see the error of their ways for they attempt to do the unthinkable - go about their lives with a healthy dose of scientific reason while also making some attempt to give it meaning by attending a local church, perhaps.

*GASP!!*


...well in reality this kind of thinking is quite rare and (excuse me) rather retarded. I'm sorry if I have insulted actual retarded people, but I could not think of a better description of this type of thinking.

Let's take science first...

The accepted model works exceedingly well for us today in this world and will continue to work indefinitely. That is to say that superstring theories and biological investigations at the brink of the unthinkable are controversial "big ideas" that also get a lot of press, but what's really important?

In Physics it is appropriately producing and rationing out energy to the consumer.

In Biology it is tempering the almost hapless (even ecologically dangerous) advances in medicine with a social and environmental commitment to sustainablity.

Hence the two scientific communities have the same goal, and it's all very possible - indeed absolutely necessary for our survival - and it won't cost us our comfort or our freedom, in fact it can all proceed very much without the average consumer noticing a difference.

A car running on batteries (assuming that's possible) vs a car running on fossil fuel - what's the difference?

It's a car.

So science itself is advancing in all of these areas CONSTANTLY, and there is no threat to our morals or even religion. Building a better car, a more efficient power plant, an effective plan for sustainably feeding the human population are not only possible given perhaps another 5 to 10 years of development of CURRENT technology, but they are also in line with virtually every religious moral conceivable...


On Religion...

As with science, what gets the press is the controversial stuff - blasting gays, banning abortion (even for rape victims) and the like.

Nobody (including the vast majority of Christians) likes this stuff, it's baloney. It's just crazy talk from a select group of nuts but because it is controversial people like to talk about it.

What really needs to happen (indeed is happening) is that the Big Three - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism - need to sit down and figure out how to actually live with and respect one another.

We interact more and more with different cultures, the more globalized we become and the more influential countries like China become, the more we are going to have to accept that not everybody believes in a Messiah who died for our sins on a Cross.

And that's okay.

But what do we hear on TBN, on Bible talk radio and so on? The end is near because the gays are getting the rights they deserve, and our embrace of a once-isolated community of people whose genders are in ambiguous to whatever degree means that we are falling into the pit of hell and darkness from which there is no return.

Conclusion? We need to get down to business and accept the fact that we have our differences. But we do share these common and increasingly pressing problems: energy and resource allocation in a world whose human populatoin is expanding exponentially. The US and Japan and China and a host of other "modernized" countries are wealthy enough to do it.

If our scientists can be allowed to work, and actually get some attention for the good work they have been doing (instead of hot topics like sheep cloning, which is neat and creepy and interesting and USELESS) then we can get down to solving this energy crisis before it wipes us out of existence.

And our religious leaders need to state publicly "you know what? These (Muslims or Jews or Zoroastrians or Buddhists) over here are not going to Hell. In fact, I just killed a six pack with my freind Achmed over here and we both think all this fighting is kind of stupid."

What really needs to happen (indeed is happening) is that the Big Three - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism - need to sit down and figure out not how to incorporate all their religions into one that works and is fuzzy and wonderful for everyone, but how to actually live with and respect one another.
I don't really agree that Buddhism is a religion, it's more akin to philosophy and very different from nowaday Christianity or Islam,
but that's besides the point.

I don't really agree that Buddhism is a religion, it's more akin to philosophy and very different from nowaday Christianity or Islam,
but that's besides the point.

I agree. I was referring to efforts of Risho Kosei Kai (a Japanese Buddhist sect) to get prominent members of various religions in a room all talking about resolving these long-standing conflicts.

Bottom line, it's got to happen. The days of launching Crusades/Jihads (or whatever you choose to call them) have got to be laid to rest.

Respect, that's all I'm saying.

There are various degrees of religiosity in Buddhism, however, and popular Buddhism often appears very much like any other religious faith - that is to say there is a centralized building, a temple, in which followers gather to practice a ritual. There are altars, offerings, prayers, etc.

But you're right, Buddhism is not fundamentally religious. It's just that certain groups of people have made a religion out of it...

Perhaps this could be said of Christianity, though too. :shrug:

However science is based on rationally thinking (objective) and religions are often more emotionally based (subjective), and sometimes ( at least to me ) seems irrational , at least untill you go back to the roots , when you find that many religions tries to answer
fundamental questions about origin of man and everything else - and the answers must be seen in context of the knowledge of man in those days .....


Could it be that religion's limited understanding of fact is the real problem? It is not "emotive" or "irrational" to make conclusions on the information you have at the time. It's totally possible to be rational, and come up with the wrong answer.

I don't think that it's a problem of religion only. You can not know for sure that your understanding is limited, until you know better.
Any way, one of religion's functions is to teach cosmology. But it's only one of the functions.

I'd argue that our understanding of the objective reality will always be limited because our mind is subjective.
What was that phrase by the Greek philosopher: "I know that I know nothing".

The only thing fundamentally different about the two camps is that the Scientific Method assumes everything is false - it basically throws all notions and assumptions out the window and starts from scratch.

It's an excersise, if you will, in solving specific problems in a highly controlled manner. That is to say Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Publication is the only means of arriving at a result.

Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a host of conclusions and assumptions are true based upon accepted "wisdom."

Here lies the fundamental rift.

The same was true when Galileo made the absolutely preposterous claim that a grape and an apple dropped from precisely the same height would strike a table at precisely the same time.

That can't possibly be true, that preposterous, for Aristotle said...

It doesn't matter what Aristotle said, the two fruits struck the table at the same time and probably hundreds of astounded dinner guests learned a valuable lesson -

Learning through observation and experience is more valuable than automatically accepting prevailing wisdom.

But over time science has consistently fallen short of answering "everything," so there is always a realm of undrestanding in which religion provides the only answer - science simple says "we don't know...yet."

Not being satisfied with the scientific non-answer the public at large often accepts the religious answer, because at least it's an answer.

But the more science discovers, the less ground religion has to claim exclusive rights to its "truths."

Ultimately there will probably always be some gap to which religious answers can be applied, as the scientific method is limited:

It can't tell you, for instance, if you are in a capsule being accelerated or if you are at rest on a planetary body exerting gravitational force on you.

Traditional religious type thinking says, well of course, stupid, you're on Earth.

Science says "we don't know that."

But the gaps close and religion loses ground. Of course they battle against this loss of territory! Evolution represents the single greatest loss for the religious establishment - here is a mechanism by which new species emerge simply by virtue of being subjected to the environment.

But of course science can't tell us where the "first cell" came from. It only proves quite conclusively that every cell that we have ever observed absolutely had to have come from another cell.

Religion says God created the first cell.

Science says "we don't know...yet."

...but if you are facing a question like "should I sleep with my neighbor's wife?" then go with the religious answer.

;)

I think the problem with many religions is that they stick to their outdated understanding of cosmology. As Joseph Campbell once said: "There is no conflict between science and mysticism, but there is aconflict between the science of 2000AD and 2000BC".

And because they stick to it, they become ineffective, because it's harder for anyone to believe in them. Of course many religions can't part with their cosmology, because it forms such a crucial part of them. An error in design. :D

Any way, I don't see that religion is always as negative as many think because of too much religious moronity in the world. Religion can hold a culture together, and when religion diminishes, the culture disintegrates, thus adding to the overall chaos and instability of the world.

Any way, to end my rant, I think that the most suitable candidates for world views that can hold our societies together, educate young people on how to become good members of their communities, promote peace and development, and keep up with the advances of science are Buddhism and to a lesser degree Upanishadic (if I may say so) Hinduism.

Hello, this looks an interesting debate....


The only thing fundamentally different about the two camps is that the Scientific Method assumes everything is false - it basically throws all notions and assumptions out the window and starts from scratch.

That's the rather triumphalist version of progress scientists tell themselves! Kuhn showed us otherwise in "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions". Scientists are very resistant to throwing out their existing beliefs. They will always prefer to invent auxilliary hypotheses to account for anomalies/counterevidence.


It's an excersise, if you will, in solving specific problems in a highly controlled manner. That is to say Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Publication is the only means of arriving at a result. Again, scientists often fall victim to their own propaganda. Feyerabend showed the "scientific method" is nowhere like as methodical a process as scientists make out. "Anything goes!" was his famous quote.

Don't get me wrong... I too believe in science as a good way to model our universe. However, it's not as squeaky clean as it's often made out!


Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a host of conclusions and assumptions are true based upon accepted "wisdom." So does science! It takes a genius (e.g. Einstein, Newton, Copernicus or even Gallileo) to challenge the accepted assumptions of the day and think about a scientific problem differently.


Learning through observation and experience is more valuable than automatically accepting prevailing wisdom.

I agree, however, religion suffers from the difficulty that each person must make the journey of discovery about "God" individually for themselves. There is no archive of objective evidence to draw on - only the 'accepted wisdom' compiled from previous people's experiences. In this, religion is much more an art than a science.

However, progressive theology is all about challenging old assumptions, in the light of experience and current knowledge. There is progress. Perhaps it is akin to philosophy.


But the more science discovers, the less ground religion has to claim exclusive rights to its "truths."

They address different questions. Religion is about discovering depth of meaning in our lives. Science is about discovering the nature of the physical universe. There is some overlap but generally NOMA.


Religion says God created the first cell.Only bad religion. It's a scientific question.


...but if you are facing a question like "should I sleep with my neighbor's wife?" then go with the religious answer.

;) Ah, but why... if you can get away with it? :shrug:

That's the rather triumphalist version of progress scientists tell themselves! Kuhn showed us otherwise in "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions". Scientists are very resistant to throwing out their existing beliefs. They will always prefer to invent auxilliary hypotheses to account for anomalies/counterevidence.

Hence science tends to flounder around for decades at a time - or centuries as it was in the past - and suddenly lurch forward when some virtual unknown, and Einstein is a perfect example, steps forward with proof that some of the fringe ideas established thinkers were afraid to explore actually have merit.

Then there is this period of tremendous progress until the potential of whatever idea it was that started the revolution is exhausted, and then it becomes dogma that must one day be rejected by a better theory and so on.

Scientists like to keep their jobs. Also they are generally paid to do rather specific research - financed by the government (military) or corporate interests. So it's not that science is directly biased by its financial basis to any great extent (to a certain degree sure,) but the types of questions being seriously investigated are limited to what there is funding for.

Hey, Gently Passing and Diogenes...
Can I use your (Bravo) quotes in a note I'm publishing?

Hey, Gently Passing and Diogenes...
Can I use your (Bravo) quotes in a note I'm publishing?
You'd be very welcome Kaiduorkhon! :)

Hence science tends to flounder around for decades at a time - or centuries as it was in the past - and suddenly lurch forward when some virtual unknown, and Einstein is a perfect example, steps forward with proof that some of the fringe ideas established thinkers were afraid to explore actually have merit.

Then there is this period of tremendous progress until the potential of whatever idea it was that started the revolution is exhausted, and then it becomes dogma that must one day be rejected by a better theory and so on.

Scientists like to keep their jobs. Also they are generally paid to do rather specific research - financed by the government (military) or corporate interests. So it's not that science is directly biased by its financial basis to any great extent (to a certain degree sure,) but the types of questions being seriously investigated are limited to what there is funding for.

"Blasphemy is what an old dogma screams at a new truth."
:splat: (Robert Ingersoll)

Science ‘versus’ God.

It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
"People have attacked me because I do only one thing. But that one thing is to try to figure how the world is put together. The world is incredible, just the fact that you and I are here, and that the atoms of your body were once part of stars. They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. Anyway," he laughed,"I’m a nut, you know. Crazy."

The above statement is enough to describe how humans feel about LIFE. In fact, it is true that every scientist who believes firmly in his own theory, wonders all the time, about the origins of LIFE. Just an accident or some probability could not explain the complex nature of life. There is definitely more to it. I would not ascribe the unknown to GOD, but defintiely our scientific explanation is very limited to explain this complex nature of GOD.
Think about it and you will understand what i mean here..

It's an excersise, if you will, in solving specific problems in a highly controlled manner. That is to say Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Publication is the only means of arriving at a result.

Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a host of conclusions and assumptions are true based upon accepted "wisdom."

Here lies the fundamental rift.



If by religion you are referring to one of those big organizations with attendant unquestionable texts, I agree with you.

But there are many of us out here who base our not (yet) scientifically verified beliefs on experience.

There are the extremes and there is the boring middle and then there are people who are actually learning and who from this know that scientists confidence about assuming the unliklihood of a whole host of phenomena is based on hubris.

Science vs God DEBATE

Science has a body of H2o that is not excited by electromagnetic waves inferred as Ice as per in your face evidence..


God in Genesis has a body of H2o inferred as water even with out Light and or electromagnetic waves exciting it and despite the above in your face evidence..

Does anyone understand the above post?

Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - neither science nor "faith" are able to explain world around us.

Does anyone understand the above post?

That's all that's left after I deleted two posts by LaidBack and asked him not to repeat stuff that was against CR and Sciforums guidelines.

Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - neither science nor "faith" are able to explain world around us.

I think you should make that kind of reversed: Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - both science and "faith" try to explain world around us.

I think you should make that kind of reversed: Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - both science and "faith" try to explain world around us.

Today, I've tried to lift a tractor-trailer with my bare hands:) You may guess the height.

I think you should make that kind of reversed: Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - both science and "faith" try to explain world around us.

They both have ideas about the 'only' ways to achieve knowledge. Both traditional religions and science are extremely critical and afraid of intuition and emotions.

Does anyone understand the above post?

The differences between science and religion are clear..

Science consists with explanations that comply strictly to truth and or facts..
Religion consists with explanations that don't strictly conform to truth and or facts..

And an excellent example is the following..

Scientific "in ones face" Facts..

.
During winter via less sunlight and or longer periods of darkness H2o returns to its natural state, "it freezes!" that means it should be referred to as a solid, which is best explained or inferred as Ice rather than Water

.
.
.
.


Religion and in particular the bible states...

.
1 First God made heaven & earth

2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

My opinion has religion does not conform and or comply to real truth, whilst science does conform and comply to truth, if you read the above religious quote and note that water existed rather than a body of ice before the sun was created, it should be obvious the writer is not with sound knowledge of its own implied creation!

Now tell me which individuals would accept scientific facts over their religious points of view? OY! :mad: Moderator please don't delete this post, all I am doing is asking a question.. with my opinion and or reasoning as per below..

Perhaps someone who has been brain washed would prefer to ignore "in ones face facts" by rather accepting previous indoctrinated religious statements?

And perhaps even may defend what I consider lies, with more lies!

i got a bit lost,


science VS god cant happen, you can pit science Vs religion and religious books.

but modern science does not conflict with "god" in the slightest, people usualy over look this,

modern science in my opinion does the exact opposite, and actualy backs up the claim of a god in my opinion.

to say the universe and existence as a whole may have just sprung up at some point in time, is like saying god said "let there be light" and the universe just came forth, scientific facts do not collide with the idea of a god, it may be said that scientists "study and try to uncover and explain everything that was created"

peace.

I don't think it is a matter of a god interefering with science. It is a matter of what kind of god is believed. Even Einstein would agree that a Divine Force or abstract deity should not bother science. He played with the idea himself. He delighted with it. What is dangerous to science is the concept of a god that plays around with natural cause and effect---especially in such petty things as in response to prayer! That is the type of thing that the many so-called "miracles" are made of and which makes a mockery of scientific natural cause and effect.

Of all the old religion obstacles to science, the worst is "creationism." Genesis was a magnificant chapter 2,000 years ago---even 12 centuries ago or less. Now it is totally obsolete and a drag on human scientific progress.
It is killing to a society for everyone to be fighting over our own origins. It is no wonder that our present age is in decline and we feel adrift. We cannot agree on even the most fundamental thing. Our old religions are that divisive now. . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Religion provides some comforting notions relating to our mortality. Aside from that it does not seem to result in any useful results.

BTW: I envy the theist for his smug belief that he will be able to say "I told you so" to atheists.

For almost all of our recorded history, religion condoned slavery and seldom spoke against the outrageous activities of despotic rulers. Science in the last 200-300 years has brought all sorts of benefits.

There is just no need for or useful purpose to be gained by religioious beliefs. To a large extent it is holding back science due to its tendency to encourage the use of faith and emotion as a substitute for critical analysis and rationality.

Religion is hindering many from being able to deal with and contribute to our technological culture. I wonder how many potentially great medical researchers have been turned away from biology and a medical career by creationist/ID parents.

Science should start being more critical and intolerant in its view of religion. I am hoping for but not expecting the eventual defeat of the theist viewpoint.

The problem with hard line atheists is that usually they haven't researched the anthropology part of religions and therefore dismiss them as useless, but there is more to religion than just the everyday visible and most annoying aspects of it.

Religion is not holding back science. As J.Campbell (a CR scientist) has said "there is no conflict between mysticism and science, but there is a conflict between the science of 2000 CE and 2000 BCE". The outdated cosmology and biology that some of the world's religions still cling to is the problem, not the religion in itself.
Hinduism, for example, has no problems with science, neither has Buddhism (that is more a philosophy).

Religion and ritual has the important role in making every day conceptual conventions (peace, freedom, redemption) and social contracts a part of the natural world of the humanity. There are inherit problems in this as well, but the important thing is that without religion and ritual human society disintegrates, because important corner stones of how we see the world are not there any more. I'm not talking about Christianity or any particular religion here.

We already are more technologically advanced than our ethics and psychology is, we are like cave men with chainsaws (pollution, accelerated climate change, etc), and it is dangerous. By taking out the safe guards that religion can provide, its function to make conceptual conventions a part of the natural (the semi-subjective) world of humanity, our society becomes disoriented and unpredictable, more dangerous to itself.

As I said, the problem with some of the religions nowadays is the outdated science that those religions use, but the problem is not in the function of religion that has been with us since the invention of language.

Religion is not holding back science. As J.Campbell (a CR scientist) has said "
Well he was and is wrong!
Religion instills very backward ideas based on religious text written to imply ones concepts and or constructs to ones morality..

And no where is there a better example on how much religion is retarding science when we point out the Asian provinces, where they are decades ahead in the research in genetics, especially when one compares areas and or localities that are mainly influenced by the christian religions mentality such as it is in America, where even their leader must concede to its influence..

Another arena where religion is retarding science is that America and other localities could have been world leaders in just about all technologies had they not allowed religions to run educational institutes..

Need I point out these institutes are omitting much critical data that conflicts with their religious ideas and ideals therefore their students are wanting for more acurate data and whats more these institutes are attempting time and time again to replace more and more good sound science with a load of more and more rubbish, Can you imagine how many directors are religiously driven and because of their backward views introduce a decline rather than incline in knowledge..

America is not the only locality infected with religion and the deceit and underhanded tactics that come with it, and as long as these localities allow religions to take precedence those localities can only recede and or revert back to the dark ages, whilst those localities that disband and disallow foolish and childish religious notions will result with leading edge technology...

Therefore Religion IS holding back Science and whats more is holding back the rest of the population who are smart enough not to allow deception to over rule facts..

Religion instills very backward ideas based on religious text written to imply ones concepts and or constructs to ones morality..
Again, you are talking about Christianity, not religion in general. The three abrahamic religions are in no way representation of the whole picture, rather they are a special and an unfortunate case of how a religion can go wrong.
I am speaking of religion in general and the benefits on a society a good religion can have.
I shall elaborate on it further when I have more time.

Again, you are talking about Christianity, not religion in general. The three abrahamic religions are in no way representation of the whole picture, rather they are a special and an unfortunate case of how a religion can go wrong.
I am speaking of religion in general and the benefits on a society a good religion can have.
I shall elaborate on it further when I have more time.

Well excuse me and my locality for being infected mainly with Abrahamic religions! Gee I wonder if an apology from you is in order? :D what with your assumptions of what religions may be based in my locality..:p

Besides my locality being blessed with less Riff Raf than most other localities, Can you mention any religion at all that sticks to the facts and nothing but the facts as science does? And if so? How can one infer it as a religion then?

My guess would be that ALL religions are with some sort of deception and or hidden agendas just as all the religions operate, and therefore via whatever deceptions they rely upon that's what is holding back their flock.

No good has EVER come from religion and or deceit, even though most lay claim they are responsible for what ever good may have eventuated, which could have occurred with or with out implied religious influence anyway..

This must've been asked 100,000 times by now on the forum, god does not win it :p

Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - neither science nor "faith" are able to explain world around us.

I meant to answer this post much earlier, but was limited with time..


Science for the most has and can explain the world and or our Universe.

The real problem why science in some localities may not, is via available institutes who are providing ones knowledge, these institutes - if religiously backed and or funded must consider what the truth will do to their religious agenda..

And if ones education is provided via Lectures that are them selves wanting for more accurate data via being infected with some religious brainwashing and or indoctrination, of course the students are going to end up wanting for truthful data, and this simply is not possible as long as Lectures are infected with a whole lot of religious garbage rather than with truth and or proper Science, the result is graduating scientists will be unemployable compared to those that have been availed a good sound education, but this leaves those rather lacking to become Lecturers and their is our backward slide..

The only way Science can progress and be able to explain anything in a completely truthful manner ~ is if all religious constructs are not allowed to take precedence over REAL truth and or REAL facts, but how can REAL truth take precedence when the religious educational institutes are over run with backward reasoning or worse religious Lectures and Directors who mandate omissions to the truth to be replaced with deceit that allows their religious constructs with the same luxury of credibility that science has..

This is one of the main reasons why powerful nations are brought to their knees! and I mean "knees" in all respects including being forced onto their knees bowing before ones dictator who may have been lucky enough to be in power at the right time.

One can only hope there is always enough intelligent individuals that over ride the illogical and religious minority by keeping them in check from destroying their Nation!..

Can you mention any religion at all that sticks to the facts and nothing but the facts as science does? And if so? How can one infer it as a religion then?


There are many believers in what might be characterized as pagan, or nature based religions with pantheistic tendencies that have no problem with the scientific method or most of the specific conclusions of scientific research. On the other hand these people do not assume that the scientific method is the only way of ascertaining truth and further believe that scientists and their worshipers often overestimate their ability to judge the liklihood of certain phenomena that seem (or would seem) supernatural to them. This myopia on the science based believer group is further complicated by their sense that scientific explanation (which tend, for example, to assume things are dead or non-sentient) are the deepest or only possible explanations of phenomena.

Religion is not holding back science. As J.Campbell (a CR scientist) has said "there is no conflict between mysticism and science, but there is a conflict between the science of 2000 CE and 2000 BCE".
Look, simply making up explanations for things doesn't qualify as "doing science." The entire point of science is that you make empirical observations in order to check to make sure that your made-up ideas actually correspond to reality. I could explain the sun by proposing that it's a giant firefly that buzzes across the sky every day, but the mere fact that this theory explains something about the world doesn't make it scientific. Now, I could be a scientist if I try to verify my firefly idea with empirical observation; I could try to find the giant firefly’s nest, or I could try to make a special camera that would let me photograph the firefly’s body through his enormous glare, or I could try to detect the beating of his wings as he buzzed through the sky. But of course my firefly theory isn’t likely to withstand that sort of investigation.

Some guy sitting around a fire 4000 years ago making up bullshit explanations for things without making any attempt to verify the factual accuracy of his ideas wasn’t doing science.

Religion and ritual has the important role in making every day conceptual conventions (peace, freedom, redemption) and social contracts a part of the natural world of the humanity.
The problem is that religion is incapable of doing any of that without also making claims about objective reality. Almost by definition a religion has to make some sort of claim about supernatural deities, forces, or realities. Any objective claim of that natural will be susceptible to scientific investigation. It would be fine if religion only provided the sorts of philosophical insights that you seem to want from it, but it seems to invariably go on to justify those insights with claims about objective reality that can be investigated scientifically.

There are many believers in what might be characterized as pagan, or nature based religions with pantheistic tendencies that have no problem with the scientific method or most of the specific conclusions of scientific research. On the other hand these people do not assume that the scientific method is the only way of ascertaining truth and further believe that scientists and their worshipers often overestimate their ability to judge the likelihood of certain phenomena that seem (or would seem) supernatural to them. This myopia on the science based believer group is further complicated by their sense that scientific explanation (which tend, for example, to assume things are dead or non-sentient) are the deepest or only possible explanations of phenomena.

Well now?~? I have heard of ignorant individuals being worshippers of concerns they don't understand? As in natives grovelling on their knees worshipping angry gods (air-crafts, volcanoes etc) around over 75 years ago, but an individual with ones knowledge of today who is an advocate to facts and truth bowing down and worshipping?????? what the fer~ark would one be worshipping?

That simply is not an all together logical statement.. REALLY! what in the universe would one be worshipping if one is empowered with real facts and truth?

Lets put it this way... with all the basic facts that you know what would be a prime candidate for worship? I would hazard to say nothing!

Facts are facts truth is truth, and by commanding knowledge of our universe, it empowers one with logical behaviour where the only fear would be the fear of losing the right to the knowledge one holds..

As for paganism I am quite aware of it and let me remind you many of the constructs are the basis for many of the religions that still infect the feeble and or illogical today..

Granted paganism has evolved in another direction from main stream religions somewhat, but as long as it relies on mythical entities and or events that are not fully explainable to their flock, it is hindering their flocks intellect from gaining their full potential..

The deceit and or omissions of details may or may not be intentional, but never the less important details have and are being twisted via some hidden agenda leading ones flock away from real truth to ensure ones income gleaned from them remains lucrative and sustainable enough..

Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist..

One is generally concrete, the other is completely abstract. That said, to put it bluntly the existence of god is but a concept made long ago by us human. Then again in some religion it could possibly be just us glorifying ourselves to be god-like. Today though it's no hypothesis as there's no evidence at all in this omnipotent being's existence. Politically the concept of god is an ingenious propaganda. I don't have much to say other than that. I'd rather believe in something that has plausible explaination than something that doesn't. It's a shame that one has enough influence in politic to halt the advance of another. *sigh*

Lets put it this way... with all the basic facts that you know what would be a prime candidate for worship? I would hazard to say nothing!

Worship is a word I associate more with the monotheisms, also all that bowing down, making yourself small in relation to something. Gods, etc. do not have to be dictators whose asses neeed to be kissed. I feel great reverence for nature both specific places and the earth as a whole. As one example.




As for paganism I am quite aware of it and let me remind you many of the constructs are the basis for many of the religions that still infect the feeble and or illogical today..

I am quite capable of logic and rationality. Your assumption is that you know the liklihood of there being gods, spirits, ghosts, etc. based on current scientific knowledge. This is irrational on your part.


Granted paganism has evolved in another direction from main stream religions somewhat, but as long as it relies on mythical entities and or events that are not fully explainable to their flock, it is hindering their flocks intellect from gaining their full potential..

Well, that's a theory. But my experience is that many pagans are just as intelligent, capable of logic AND intuitive mental skills as your run of the mill rationalist athiest. Why not test your theory out? I also notice pagans tend to be less likely to fall for the BS of someone like Bush, for example.


The deceit and or omissions of details may or may not be intentional, but never the less important details have and are being twisted via some hidden agenda leading ones flock away from real truth to ensure ones income gleaned from them remains lucrative and sustainable enough..

I see athiest happily supporting all sorts of ludicrous ventures with their tax monies, for example. They seem quite capable of being manipulated.


Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist.

You are making more unscientific claims. I don't think you know very much or have had much personal contact with pagans, wiccans, indigenous religious leaders. Pure speculation.

But this is OK because you think that since you are arguing in favor of what you think rationality is it's OK for you to just hypothesize in the guise of stating facts.

Worship is a word I associate more with the monotheism, also all that bowing down, making yourself small in relation to something. Gods, etc. do not have to be dictators whose asses need to be kissed. I feel great reverence for nature both specific places and the earth as a whole. As one example.





I am quite capable of logic and rationality. Your assumption is that you know the likelihood of there being gods, spirits, ghosts, etc. based on current scientific knowledge. This is irrational on your part.

Well, that's a theory. But my experience is that many pagans are just as intelligent, capable of logic AND intuitive mental skills as your run of the mill rationalist atheist. Why not test your theory out? I also notice pagans tend to be less likely to fall for the BS of someone like Bush, for example.


I see atheist happily supporting all sorts of ludicrous ventures with their tax monies, for example. They seem quite capable of being manipulated.

You are making more unscientific claims. I don't think you know very much or have had much personal contact with pagans, wiccans, indigenous religious leaders. Pure speculation.

But this is OK because you think that since you are arguing in favor of what you think rationality is it's OK for you to just hypothesize in the guise of stating facts.

So its agreed then!?? its pointless to worship what or whomever ~ Be-it fact and or some fictitious deity.

As for your inference to a gawd being possible and or highly likely, I don't see it that way at all, specially if truth and facts must conform to what is implied by its conformance to all else..

I am not sure how adept and or astute you are in physics but the facts are if a gawd was possible, its dynamics and or constructs by way of interactions as part of the "possible universe" must itself comply to some basic laws that can not be overlooked... And it is these simple Laws if broken by the inference to magic and or some miracle rendering all of the universe as impossible hence the exercise of intended magical and or miraculous interactions as null and void, and it so happens it is these very laws that every religion I have come across seem to over look this fact..

And yes I agree I know squat about the pagan religion, but the facts are if it is a religion then to me it simply is a cult and or sect that is advocating to anything other than to facts and or truth.. but going by you they don't dispute to facts and truth..

So if paganism advocate them selves as being religious then I have to ask why?...

If they don't worship a and or gawd/s and they don't worship inanimate objects and they don't dispute facts and or truth then really they don't need to degrade themselves as being religious..

I am not sure how adept and or astute you are in physics but the facts are if a gawd was possible, its dynamics and or constructs by way of interactions as part of the "possible universe" must itself comply to some basic laws that can not be overlooked... And it is these simple Laws if broken by the inference to magic and or some miracle rendering all of the universe as impossible hence the exercise of intended magical and or miraculous interactions as null and void, and it so happens it is these very laws that every religion I have come across seem to over look this fact..

You are assuming that magic is something that goes against the laws of the universe rather than being something as yet unproven by science. An understanding of QM should put a little humility into your position since much of what has been discovered to be true (light being both waves and particles somehow at the same time, particles moving backwards through time, instantaneous influence over vast distances - in other words faster than the speed of light - and so on) and that were/are very hard for some scientists to accept. Even Einstein who cracked some paradigms himself could not accept some of the ideas (that have been validated over and over) of QM because they contradicted his sense of what was possible and what was known before.


And yes I agree I know squat about the pagan religion, but the facts are if it is a religion then to me it simply is a cult and or sect that is advocating to anything other than to facts and or truth.. but going by you they don't dispute to facts and truth..

Notice the pattern. You don't know much about....then statements of 'fact'. Let's just say if you are trying to role model rationality you are not doing very well for us irrational savages.



If they don't worship a and or gawd/s and they don't worship inanimate objects and they don't dispute facts and or truth then really they don't need to degrade themselves as being religious

You have made a number of assumptions here.
1) you are assuming that magic cannot be phenomena AS YET untested verified by science.
2) the existance of a God must contradict current scientific knowledge
3) There cannot be different explanations for the same phenomenon that do not contradict each other. (as an example, for years scientists viewed animals as machines. They assumed that animals did not have emotions or intentions. They described their behavior in mechanical terms. Other people saw animals as 'like us' with emotions and motivations. Scientists have in recent decades stopped denying the obvious. They see animals now as subjects and not just objects. However much of their observations about animal behavior and physiology was correct. Two different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, both accurate in their own ways.)
4) scientists can determine the liklihood of phenomena despite current restrictions on technology and paradgmatic influence on their thinking. (a concrete example - Rogue waves. Large 'lone wolf' waves that sailors reported seeing. Scientists (oceanographers and fluid scientists) said these sailors were wrong, their emotions were getting the better of them as these rogue waves could not possibly be as big as reported. Oops. Technology improved: video cameras were installed in the bridges of ships and satellite tech. made it easier to 'see' waves. The sailors were right. Then KNOWING that these waves existed oceanographers and fluid scientists (with their little wave machines and computers) came up with the math and physics to explain them. note the pattern: 'strange' phenomenon, scientist denial of its reality and claims that experiencers are 'irrational and emotional', technological change, verification of the phenomenon.

A little humility is in order when ASSUMING ONE CAN KNOW THE LIKLIHOOD OF EXCEPTIONAL PHENOMENA.

Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist..

And again, I can only stress that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what can loosely be called pagan leaders. I am thinking of nature-based believers in the west, many of whom identify themselves as Wiccan or pagans and also many indigenous religious leaders and shamans.

As someone who is advocating the scientific method and rational arguements with proof, etc, such generalizing should be embarrassing to you.

My problem with this entire business is that the argumentation is usually based on the assumption that religion is on the side of God.

I am inclined to suspect that if there is a God then HE/SHE/IT has a lower opinion of religion than I do.

If this God entity is responsible for originating the universe and life then this God entity has to know everything there is to know about physics including what we haven't figured out yet. The same goes for mathematics and chemistry and biology, etc. etc. etc.

So if science is the pursuit of truth about reality then there cannot be a conflict between God and science, if there is a God. So it should just be a matter of time before science tracks God's silly ass down.

I think religion is nothing but a mind control game played by some human beings pretending they know more about God than everybody else. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of them are actually cynical atheists leading dummies around by the nose. So a lot of this quasi-pseudo-intellectual bullsh!t argumentation about religion is nothing but that, BULLSH!T!

Studying a physics book is a higher form of worship than studying the Bible.

psik

So if science is the pursuit of truth about reality then there cannot be a conflict between God and science, if there is a God.

Ipsik

I would agree, if God exists under most definitions it will encompass science. Even a distinct creator being type god would have created the laws of nature and physics as well....let alone a pantheistic type definition

So there cannot be God vs Science; but can there be religion vs science?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, science means knowledge, but it does not imply what sort of knowledge, just knowledge; omniscience = knowledge of everything; nescience = lack of knowledge, or ignorance.

The pursuit of knowledge of God, self or the spiritual is still science (by its original definitions). There is nothing in the word science that dictates empirical science only!... although the vernacular has come to mean that.


I think as somone else said earlier in this thread, religion contains the science of two thousand years ago. It is the canonnistaion of this old science that renders religion an ineffective tool for going forward. But that is not to say evertying that is found in religion should be automatically discarded. There is much in the old writing still of interst and value.

The pursuit of knowledge of God, self or the spiritual is still science (by its original definitions).
Only if by "original definition" you mean the original ancient Greek. “Science” has implied empiricism for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I think as somone else said earlier in this thread, religion contains the science of two thousand years ago.
As has already been pointed out, simply making up explanations for things does not constitute science.

Seriously now, the amount of BS being thrown around in this thread is almost beyond belief. Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation. Stop trying to solve the conflict between science and religion by redefining science to mean "any belief about the world that was arrived at by any method." It's not productive, and it only serves to divert the discussion.

Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation. Stop trying to solve the conflict between science and religion by redefining science to mean "any belief about the world that was arrived at by any method." It's not productive, and it only serves to divert the discussion.


My idea of science includes not letting other people tell me what I do or don't know.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

And even when I admit I don't know I may have suspicions about some things. Life is short and filled with annoying responsibilities so no one has the time to investigate everything.

psik

My idea of science includes not letting other people tell me what I do or don't know.

psik

too true


Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation..

Then say what you mean and talk about empiricism vs. beliefs. Not science vs god…

Some religious systems such as Buddhism, Taoism and Certain Hindu systems rely on the Science of meditation to support their doctrines, so belief is limited as one can ‘see for themselves’ by undertaking the necessary meditation disciplines required.

If you say that meditation is not objective. I say only to those who have not disciplined themselves in its practice. The same way science cannot be understood by the uneducated.

Okay, I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were educated enough to know the definition of science that's been in use for hundreds of years, and by further assuming that you would realize that when someone starts a discussion today, in 2007, they probably don't intend for people to revert to the medieval definitions of the words in their opening post.

You are assuming that magic is something that goes against the laws of the universe rather than being something as yet unproven by science. Sorry but you are wrong! I treat Magic and Miracles as violations to the basics Laws pertaining to Force and Momentum.
An understanding of QM should put a little humility into your position since much of what has been discovered to be true (light being both waves and particles somehow at the same time, particles moving backwards through time, instantaneous influence over vast distances - in other words faster than the speed of light - and so on) and that were/are very hard for some scientists to accept. Even Einstein who cracked some paradigms himself could not accept some of the ideas (that have been validated over and over) of QM because they contradicted his sense of what was possible and what was known before.



Notice the pattern. You don't know much about....then statements of 'fact'. Let's just say if you are trying to role model rationality you are not doing very well for us irrational savages.


You have made a number of assumptions here.
1) you are assuming that magic cannot be phenomena AS YET untested verified by science.
2) the existence of a God must contradict current scientific knowledge
3) There cannot be different explanations for the same phenomenon that do not contradict each other. (as an example, for years scientists viewed animals as machines. They assumed that animals did not have emotions or intentions. They described their behavior in mechanical terms. Other people saw animals as 'like us' with emotions and motivations. Scientists have in recent decades stopped denying the obvious. They see animals now as subjects and not just objects. However much of their observations about animal behavior and physiology was correct. Two different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, both accurate in their own ways.)
4) scientists can determine the likelihood of phenomena despite current restrictions on technology and paradigmatic influence on their thinking. (a concrete example - Rogue waves. Large 'lone wolf' waves that sailors reported seeing. Scientists (oceanographers and fluid scientists) said these sailors were wrong, their emotions were getting the better of them as these rogue waves could not possibly be as big as reported. Oops. Technology improved: video cameras were installed in the bridges of ships and satellite tech. made it easier to 'see' waves. The sailors were right. Then KNOWING that these waves existed oceanographers and fluid scientists (with their little wave machines and computers) came up with the math and physics to explain them. note the pattern: 'strange' phenomenon, scientist denial of its reality and claims that experience's are 'irrational and emotional', technological change, verification of the phenomenon.

A little humility is in order when ASSUMING ONE CAN KNOW THE LIKLIHOOD OF EXCEPTIONAL PHENOMENA.


The key here is ones understanding of reality and whether the reality is a conforming one to at least another individuals reality or not..

Another key is ones interpretation of what magic and or miracles are..
My reasoning has the inference to magic and miracles being used by those with lacking data on the laws of Physics, and in particular to Force and Motion and or how changes are possible if you will..

My experience in the Electronics Industry during my working days has me with certain advantages over those that have been availed an education recently, as my experience has had me correcting all of my lectures {YES ALL of THEM!} not their fault they don't have access to Industries models..

Never the less here are some key facts to consider when one refers to QM, QED and much to the Standard Models constructs, in particular pertaining to the postulated Particles which may I remind you they don't fully conform to the basics..

But first how familiar are you with Newtons Laws on FORCE and Motion?

Dare I say if one does not fully understand the basic laws that explain proper reality one will more than likely end up advocating to magic and or models and or even some religion, and unless one is adept in the skills of calculus which is a the only way to expose many of the failings in science and physics today..

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..

Change is only possible by way of momentum and momentum is only possible by way of force, but force can only ever exert by way of momentum (velocities)... and if we consider any physics, and if the force and or the velocities don't conform with all other velocities by considering beyond ones models, and or if the numbers don't add up, then ones theory and or Postulations would more than likely be WRONG! and or imply magic and or a miracle..

"The Standard Model, QM, and QED all have their lion share of problems because of the lacking above considerations, due from the fact of not considering proper velocities for our forces, in particular when one should consider the the particles form and what and how velocities are apparent for them.

To put this as simply as possible for others reading this - Imagine our universe is one massive 3 Dimensional Jigsaw puzzle of all that is possible and how it would be destroyed if any piece was removed..

Therefore if a change to any area in our Universe occurs, all else must confirm and conform to this change so the possible remains as possible..

Now magic and miracles infers violations to the above simple physics, such as suggesting an object, a form and or entity one moment can appear in an area where their was a given amount of Energy to the areas mass and or something can magically create something else from nothing and or zero.. Do you agree how absurd that is!?

Perhaps one should consider the velocities for ones postulated particles if I am not making any sense..

Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs

If you want to define science as empiricism.....

And if you want to talk about empiricism vs belief, then I would say that a belief system is fundamental to the functioning of individuals and societies. Why? Because empiricism has no morals. It is unable to make moral judgements.

To have morals one must have a belief system. Now I am not saying by any means that that belief system has to be a religion, it may be a philosophy or simply a set of personal beliefs but nevertheless belief system is required for individuals and societies to function.


SO again there is no vs, no contradiction .we need both

Sorry but you are wrong! I treat Magic and Miracles as violations to the basics Laws pertaining to Force and Momentum.
I know that you do. But there is no reason to. That was my point.


Another key is ones interpretation of what magic and or miracles are..
My reasoning has the inference to magic and miracles being used by those with lacking data on the laws of Physics, and in particular to Force and Motion and or how changes are possible if you will..

Each generation finds causal relationships that were denied by former generations (and that is within the history of Science).



Never the less here are some key facts to consider when one refers to QM, QED and much to the Standard Models constructs, in particular pertaining to the postulated Particles which may I remind you they don't fully conform to the basics..

This is not a clear sentence. 'Basics' is not clearly used here, for example.



But first how familiar are you with Newtons Laws on FORCE and Motion?

You want a number? I am very familiar with Newton's laws.


Dare I say if one does not fully understand the basic laws that explain proper reality one will more than likely end up advocating to magic and or models and or even some religion, and unless one is adept in the skills of calculus which is a the only way to expose many of the failings in science and physics today..

you are saying the same thing over and over in different ways. yes, I took calculas and physics and quite a bit of both. You are missing the point.

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..


Change is only possible by way of momentum and momentum is only possible by way of force,

This is not correct. And since you are looking down on those who you think know less physics than you, you should know better.



Now magic and miracles infers violations to the above simple physics, such as suggesting an object, a form and or entity one moment can appear in an area where their was a given amount of Energy to the areas mass and or something can magically create something else from nothing and or zero.. Do you agree how absurd that is!?

you are again assuming what magic must be and then saying it is not possible. There are phenomena which seemed impossible because of arguments similar to the one you just made that were later confirmed by scientists to exist. The energy and matter and momentum issues were solved because of new technology or new ways of looking at the problem or phenomena - or simply because the stubborness of the scientists became more flexible.

I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe. I do not think that WE KNOW EVERYTHING YET about all the possible causal relationships, energies, interconnections etc. possible in the universe. I also know that at various periods in history science lacked the tools and the paradigmatics vantage to judge the validity of experiences people were having and so scientists decided these experiences were not real. many many times, in fact on a regular basis, scientists later discovered - with new tools or greater flexibility, that these experiences were not hallucinations.

We are still in that situation. We do not have all possible technology or measuring devices. The transition from Newtonian P. to QM should make scientists (and has in many cases) a bit more humble when postulating the liklihood of certain chains of causality or certain phenomena. Others, like you, assume they know what is possible, period.




Perhaps one should consider the velocities for ones postulated particles if I am not making any sense

Even if I considered the velocities of paired particles, you would still not make any sense. We have non-local causality over vast distances. This does not prove certain magical phenomena are possible. It does show that non-local causation is possible, because it is an example of that.

I don't think you really understand what i am saying, nor do I get the sense you will if I continue, so I am going to break off here.

Okay, I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were educated enough to know the definition of science that's been in use for hundreds of years, and by further assuming that you would realize that when someone starts a discussion today, in 2007, they probably don't intend for people to revert to the medieval definitions of the words in their opening post.


Definitions are very curious things.

You may notice that REALITY doesn't give a damn about them.

Take the definition of CONTINENT for instance. Have you noticed there is no water separating the land area of Europe from the land area of Asia. They say the Ural Mountains separate Europe from Asia? But the Himalayan Mountains separate India from the rest of Asia. Why isn't India a continent? I pointed this out to some nitwits I was arguing with on the internet. They said it was because the Himalayas run east and west.

ROFLMAO

Another peculiar thing about the definition of continents. Have you noticed that dictionaries are usually in alphabetical order? Most dictionaries list the continents. For some reason they usually list Europe first. How is it that books that are notorious for being in alphabetical order can't list the continents that way?

Definitions are created by human beings, therefore the assumptions and biases can be built into the definitions. If you want to let other people's definitions control your thinking that is your business.

psik

PS - And we must learn to distinguish between educated and indoctrinated. Another one of those definition things. If people are indoctrinated into thinking in the proper scientific manner then science has just been turned into another religion.

I know that you do. But there is no reason to. That was my point.



Each generation finds causal relationships that were denied by former generations (and that is within the history of Science).




This is not a clear sentence. 'Basics' is not clearly used here, for example.




You want a number? I am very familiar with Newton's laws.



you are saying the same thing over and over in different ways. yes, I took calculus and physics and quite a bit of both. You are missing the point.

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..



This is not correct. And since you are looking down on those who you think know less physics than you, you should know better.




you are again assuming what magic must be and then saying it is not possible. There are phenomena which seemed impossible because of arguments similar to the one you just made that were later confirmed by scientists to exist. The energy and matter and momentum issues were solved because of new technology or new ways of looking at the problem or phenomena - or simply because the stubbornness of the scientists became more flexible.

I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe. I do not think that WE KNOW EVERYTHING YET about all the possible causal relationships, energies, interconnections etc. possible in the universe. I also know that at various periods in history science lacked the tools and the paradigmatic vantage to judge the validity of experiences people were having and so scientists decided these experiences were not real. many many times, in fact on a regular basis, scientists later discovered - with new tools or greater flexibility, that these experiences were not hallucinations.

We are still in that situation. We do not have all possible technology or measuring devices. The transition from Newtonian P. to QM should make scientists (and has in many cases) a bit more humble when postulating the likelihood of certain chains of causality or certain phenomena. Others, like you, assume they know what is possible, period.




Even if I considered the velocities of paired particles, you would still not make any sense. We have non-local causality over vast distances. This does not prove certain magical phenomena are possible. It does show that non-local causation is possible, because it is an example of that.

I don't think you really understand what i am saying, nor do I get the sense you will if I continue, so I am going to break off here.

Good Idea..

But before you do - Consider the Particles form with respects to the rest of the universe, consider the forces and in particular the velocities that infer where your particle ends to where the rest of the Universe begins, and does your model "which I have no doubt is based on The standard Models Particles" treat areas of the Universe as pure void between each Particle?

Think about that, and then ask your self what crazy and illogical person would formulate a model that does NOT consider the need for a greater environmental interaction, Interactions which simply cant be possible if there is nothing to interact with such as that space and or pure void implied by the Standard model, Not very good science, because an area of nothing simply is impossible anyway!

The utmost best is a near Vacuum such as beyond our atmosphere where each mass has the luxury of occupying C^2 of an area..

Let me remind you the utilisation of the electromagnetic spectrum has led the electronics industry with this advanced model which disbanded the quirky particles, oh sure we quanta-size areas with given quanta's that may infer to the uninitiated we are dealing with particles, but the point is Particles are not the proper reality...

The reality is the UNIVERSE is a single medium where areas are with meeting velocities, these meeting velocities imply relativity, compression, Potential Kinetic Energy, and in electronics one area to another imply positive and negative charges.. Electronics infers to The Theory Of Everything "TOE" if anything is observable and then some and it occurs in the universe, science can apply the appropriate forces and or velocities to the event..

Well that is as long as one discards the very old and tired Model of our universe constructed via particles!..

So where does newtons laws come into it?

Well all events in the universe adheres to these BASIC Laws! EVEN in the field of electronics every event complies to it..

The only area where there is non compliance is when one refers to a Model introduced by religiously corrupted scientists with an insane desire for magic and or the impossible to be highly likely..



I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe. As for your statement above!

I am sorry but change is dependent on force and force is dependent on momentum, and they are both dependent on each other for them to be possible!

And as much as it pains for you to hear that magic is simply not possible, its a fact, simply because everything that is possible MUST conform to what ever force and the velocities that imply it and the placement and or replacement for our given areas, do you understand this?

Here's a thought experiment to separate the intelligent from the morons..

Imagine if you will - EVERYTHING that is something via its forces and or the velocities that imply the forces and then define it as part of the universe, the only exclusion is No-Thing and or absolute zero "void" "space" because it is not something.

Now if we go anywhere within the UNIVERSE what we are doing is moving around the velocities that define and redefine us and the area that we now occupy which has been moved elsewhere.. notice how if one fully understands ALL of newtons Laws on force and motion, how "No-thing or void" is possible?

This means "No magic!" Everything that leads to change is via the basic laws on force and motion.. EVEN LIGHT and or radio waves "Electromagnetic waves" which means NO MIRACLES IETHER!

which also means no Angels, Spirits, Demons, Gawds and or other realms and or dimensions.. and if they do exist and don't conform and comply to the basic laws on force and motion they simply are null and void anyway to what complies to all else as a truth statement and or our three dimensional puzzle if you will.. A puzzle may I remind you that SHOULD already consist of everything that is possible!

Our UNIVERSE is our reality to which is dependent on force and motion laws..
So how are we to get nothing to do something?

force is dependent on momentum

momentum = mass * velocity

So if you are locked in a small closet then you can't put your hands against the door and apply force to it with your muscles because your hands don't have any velocity relative to the door?

psik

momentum = mass * velocity This is correct but as per below you are overlooking what mass is!

Mass is Potential Kinetic Energy... and when we state this we are referring to the force that an area of mass exerts and or exudes as its density and or the elevated Potential, and therefore we need to consider mass to consist with force.. with force we need to imply a direction and with a direction we have our inferred velocity and or Kinetics... And if we refer to E=MC^2 we have a means to convert the two dimensional area implied as C^2 into a three dimensional area by summing C^2 and then dividing The areas Energy "E" into three dimensions..

But as the formula stands I think it is the best way to imply the two velocities that imply what Potential Kinetic Energy and or mass is..

The c^2 can represent the two meeting velocities where one "c" can represent a velocity to the left and the other the velocity to the right and if we postulate them meeting, the sum of the two stored and or opposing velocities is our area of mass and or implied compression and or increase in density where the velocities remain at "c" to each other, but to the rest of the universe they cancel each other out, hence our storage and or conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy and I would suggest one may need to know what Relativity implies and if one doesn't understand it to how we are are familiar with Newtons Laws on Force and Motion the next few statements may be a little hard to understand..

Here's the most simple model I can come up with of three key moments anyway..
I have uses the symbols ">" for our velocity to the Right.
I have used the symbols "<" for our velocity to the Left.

I have used the symbols "-" as an area implied to be a relative near vacuum..

-><- here is the moment before velocities meet
<=> here is the moment of meeting velocities experience in an area
<--> and here is our repulsive moment, where if there are no more RELATIVE meeting velocities, the area will return to a near vacuum where I should point out the near vacuum areas are really areas with a relative ongoing meeting velocities..

Note the mid moment of relative compression where two velocities ocupy an area inferring compression and or increased potential where an area is double the density. And if we consider another velocity into that moment note how the area must increases in mass and or Potential Kinetic Energy..


So if you are locked in a small closet then you can't put your hands against the door and apply force to it with your muscles because your hands don't have any velocity relative to the door?

psik
Wrong!
Muscles are mass and when the muscles exert their implied exertion it is possible via momentum of Potential energy being exchanged into Kinetic Energy and back again to potential energy but the energy is transposed to another area, in this case the fuel and or food we have consumed is converted to energy for our muscles possible functions..

All changes and or exchanges are only possible via Force and when we consider what and how force is possible in that it is - Via kinetics and or force and the direction of exertion which if considered correctly are basically velocities at "c" which meet other velocities at "c"..

If we consider this momentum in a basic format such as two breezes meeting in our atmosphere we should get a general idea of how an area of our atmosphere can be with a compression when compared to the rest of our atmosphere that is more kinetic, much like when two or more velocities at "c" meet to imply our Potential and or <Stored Energy> which if allowed can become Kinetic Energy, to which if one refers to E=MC^2 we can calculate what energy we may expect via meeting velocities that imply our various densities and or as to how solid an area exudes itself from being a compressed area such as a solid where there are many meeting velocities to consider, right up to an area that is highly kinetic via hardly any meeting velocities such as our relative near vacuum and or space..

"E=1" = "M=1" and "C^2"="cxc" which equals our two dimensional area and or velocities..
2=2xcxc
3=3xcxc
note how if the area remains the same and the more mass that is compressed into the area of cxc the higher the potential energy?

Think about why the propagation of light in a solid takes longer via having to traverse a vast area which in reality is still with the same distances only they are compressed within an area that if uncompressed such as it is when we refer to a near vacuum would ocupy, to which if one considers relativity correctly should know about the Space-Time I am referring to..

ROFL

I'm not even taking the time to read that bullsh!t.

The chemical energy to power your muscles isn't coming from momentum. Your statement was incorrect.

psik

ROFL

I'm not even taking the time to read that bullsh!t.

The chemical energy to power your muscles isn't coming from momentum. Your statement was incorrect.

psik
Really! So what you are trying to imply is that with chemical reactions their is no change, and or momentum what so ever?

My Dawg! Are you serious!

OK ~ Perhaps you are very young so I will grant you some reprieve, but let me insist chemical changes and or reactions are only possible via motion and or momentum and in all cases the reactions one observes entails the potential differences between the postulated areas of protons and electrons(Atoms and or Molecules) in close proximity to each other, I should also point out that the electromagnetic spectrum in all cases need to be considered in all aspects..

Let me suggest you attend at least some physics classes before you remark further on physics..

Good Idea..

But before you do - Consider the Particles form with respects to the rest of the universe, consider the forces and in particular the velocities that infer where your particle ends to where the rest of the Universe begins, and does your model "which I have no doubt is based on The standard Models Particles" treat areas of the Universe as pure void between each Particle?

Think about that, and then ask your self what crazy and illogical person would formulate a model that does NOT consider the need for a greater environmental interaction, Interactions which simply cant be possible if there is nothing to interact with such as that space and or pure void implied by the Standard model, Not very good science, because an area of nothing simply is impossible anyway!

The utmost best is a near Vacuum such as beyond our atmosphere where each mass has the luxury of occupying C^2 of an area..

Let me remind you the utilisation of the electromagnetic spectrum has led the electronics industry with this advanced model which disbanded the quirky particles, oh sure we quanta-size areas with given quanta's that may infer to the uninitiated we are dealing with particles, but the point is Particles are not the proper reality...

The reality is the UNIVERSE is a single medium where areas are with meeting velocities, these meeting velocities imply relativity, compression, Potential Kinetic Energy, and in electronics one area to another imply positive and negative charges.. Electronics infers to The Theory Of Everything "TOE" if anything is observable and then some and it occurs in the universe, science can apply the appropriate forces and or velocities to the event..

Well that is as long as one discards the very old and tired Model of our universe constructed via particles!..

So where does newtons laws come into it?

Well all events in the universe adheres to these BASIC Laws! EVEN in the field of electronics every event complies to it..

The only area where there is non compliance is when one refers to a Model introduced by religiously corrupted scientists with an insane desire for magic and or the impossible to be highly likely..


As for your statement above!

I am sorry but change is dependent on force and force is dependent on momentum, and they are both dependent on each other for them to be possible!

And as much as it pains for you to hear that magic is simply not possible, its a fact, simply because everything that is possible MUST conform to what ever force and the velocities that imply it and the placement and or replacement for our given areas, do you understand this?

Here's a thought experiment to separate the intelligent from the morons..

Imagine if you will - EVERYTHING that is something via its forces and or the velocities that imply the forces and then define it as part of the universe, the only exclusion is No-Thing and or absolute zero "void" "space" because it is not something.

Now if we go anywhere within the UNIVERSE what we are doing is moving around the velocities that define and redefine us and the area that we now occupy which has been moved elsewhere.. notice how if one fully understands ALL of newtons Laws on force and motion, how "No-thing or void" is possible?

This means "No magic!" Everything that leads to change is via the basic laws on force and motion.. EVEN LIGHT and or radio waves "Electromagnetic waves" which means NO MIRACLES IETHER!

which also means no Angels, Spirits, Demons, Gawds and or other realms and or dimensions.. and if they do exist and don't conform and comply to the basic laws on force and motion they simply are null and void anyway to what complies to all else as a truth statement and or our three dimensional puzzle if you will.. A puzzle may I remind you that SHOULD already consist of everything that is possible!

Our UNIVERSE is our reality to which is dependent on force and motion laws..
So how are we to get nothing to do something?

You make the same assumptions over and over and your interpretation of physics is limited. Try your ideas on physicists, who will show you your limitations. Perhaps you will listen to them, but I doubt it.

You make the same assumptions over and over and your interpretation of physics is limited. Try your ideas on physicists, who will show you your limitations. Perhaps you will listen to them, but I doubt it.
First let me apologise for my arrogant demeanor, but there is no other way, other than to point out as efficiently as possible, when one observes a failure, misunderstanding and or misinformation being propagated via someones lacking knowledge..

Let me remind you it was not I who laid down physical laws, I only have come to agree with the laws via my education, observations and referral to them during my working years..

I hope this makes it perfectly clear that I do in most concerns agree with Peer Physicists and or Leading Physics Lecturers who are keeping themselves up-to date with the Industries latest models and or findings..

Have you considered that you may be in error?

To discover "if this is"- "or not the case" How about considering how magical events are to end up complying from a non complying to a complying and or conforming Physical state, and working your way back as to what forces and or changes have made implied magical and or miraculous event possible?

My guess is, You're in for one mother of a reality wake-up call!

Because all realities must conform to all else if the reality is a truth statement and or an actual fact, put simply there is no room for assumptions such as there is in magic and or miraculous events.

In fact "Physics" and science exposes the details of all implied magic and or miracles of ones given observations and or interactions confirming a repeatable exercise via the referral to proper forces via our physical laws..

And no where is there a better analogy of science having an advantage over magic and or some miracle than when one refers to electron flow and or the propagation of the electromagnetic spectrum via mass and its various states of Potential Kinetic Energy which our magical and or miraculous consumables rely upon to do their implied magic to those that are ignorant to the details.

Really! So what you are trying to imply is that with chemical reactions their is no change, and or momentum what so ever?

You are trying to say the energy your muscles get to apply force comes from the momentum of the chemicals involved? ROFL

psik

You are trying to say the energy your muscles get to apply force comes from the momentum of the chemicals involved? ROFL

psik


Well not exactly as per most laymen would imagine it to be..

You see what one needs to consider is that ones muscles are a bunch of Cells and these cells are themselves a mixture of chemicals and or molecules which if considered and or elaborated over, are structured and postulated to be made up of Atoms..

And by considering the Atoms and their interactions with each other we need to understand them at the Potential Kinetic Energy level, and if we convert the energy to forces we need to consider the velocities direction..

Err~ that's the directions said forces is exerting upon whatever forces are being exerted upon its velocities and or forces..

I don't expect the average schmo to fully understand all of the complexities, but that's the truth, and in fact can be proven via calculus!

And you and anyone else may also come to the same conclusion simply by understanding solid facts written about force.. Do a search on Newton's Laws and read ALL of them until it is absolutely clear, that everything is only possible via considering the changes resulting from force and the velocities that imply the force.

mod note: I kindly request you both take any further discussion in Physics to the appropriate forum.
Thanks

mod note: I kindly request you both take any further discussion in Physics to the appropriate forum.
Thanks

And In closing...

The last few Posts are a good example of two individuals debating and utilising points a little out of this threads intended subject, but sometimes this may be necessary!

One Poster holds much accurate data via Science, The other poster may or may not be an easy target by religious sects by taking advantage of ones limited data base as an easy target to infect, if not yet already infected with religious data!

This discussion and or debate has indeed side tracked, but in doing so an important point has been made, a point that points out the difference to what is possible if one holds scientific facts, to an individual who is limited with truthful and factual data, this limitation is what keeps most religious virus's ongoing with easy victims to infect.

One now needs to ask two questions, how much side stepping to prove a point is allowed in this forum?

And what is the real agenda of the moderator?

I am concerned whether the moderator is going to remain impartial and fair!

Or are the views of the moderator going to attempt to quash and or sway the outcome of this debate in favour of their own ideals.

To LATE! There should be no doubt now why religions and the constructs of a gawd are detrimental to the human race!

Science is the pursuit to truth and facts, whilst advocating to a sect, religion and whatever the religious text implies is an acceptance of statements as truth even if they are not the truth!

mod note: I kindly request you both take any further discussion in Physics to the appropriate forum.
Thanks

I don't think LaidBack's pretense of understanding physics qualifies. ROFL

psik

My agenda is to keep this discussion on topic.

I have heard, oh Avatar, respect and obey. (playful, not snide, irony intended; we were off topic)

I think that to understand this long-term conflict of science verses religion, (which constantly motivates the opposing factions to pointlessly beat each other in the face) we should first go back to their origins and define their intents and purposes. Religion being the first philosophical tool used by sentient life tries to accommodate three things. First it is an attempt to define the origins and purpose of this evolving sentient life and all of his surroundings. Secondly and most importantly it is an attempt to establish forms of common morality to help stabilize growing societies. Thirdly it attempts to satisfy the curiosity of sentient life about its future with various forms of prophecy.
As the knowledge base of sentient life began to grow science began to emerge as the new tool for defining what is and what is not. While it is rarely used to measure our morality it is greatly utilized to define our past and present conditions on this planet.
Being a more analytically minded person I feel that in spite of the emotional grip that the applied moral values of my religion have on stabilizing my personal life, I should still find the courage to accept, that which has become black and white through science when it comes to defining my past and present surroundings. Likewise however my open acceptance of science should not be allowed to stifle the possibility that my religion might yet still have some intrinsic value in defining the past the present and the future

I don't think LaidBack's pretense of understanding physics qualifies. ROFL

psik
REALLY!
Please point out my error/s, by starting a physics thread and then private message me with the link..

I noticed, again, the title of this thread: Science vs. God.
Those are not really the words to contrast, science being a set of processes, assumptions of procedure and verification and God being a posited being.

I think the real contrast is between modes of experiencing and gaining knowledge. There are people who feel that scientific methods (note the plural) are the only valid methods of gaining knowledge about the universe. There are other people who feel Religious practices are the only way to gain knowledge. This second group includes those who simply believe a certain text is the right one (the Bible, for example) and follow that, or they follow a certain authoritarian figure (a priest, an imam) and 'learn' about the universe that way. I think most scientists/rationalists and people like me agree that this second set of methods is very limited.
Then there are people who have experiences and practices that have led them to believe that while science is very effective in certain ways, it is not yet capable of registering or helping one understand very real portions of reality. Some of these people follow traditional religious practice: prayer, meditation, shamanic work, etc. Some have developed other routes to gaining knowledge that are effective and through these have found out about reality in ways science does not or where science and scientists seem not to realize how impoverished their metaphysics is of the assumptions they make about starting points.
Scientists and rationalists have no idea have fast the mind is in cutting off experiences that would lead them to question their assumptions about the nature of reality. They also tend not to be interested in exploring practices or methods of exploration that might lead them to experiencing portions of the world they are currently unaware of. They do not realize how much their bias and pre-judgements have restricted their experience. Which is fine. But their continual battle to prioritize only one way of gaining knowledge is problematic. They form a rather odd tag team with the monotheisms who treat alternate practices as evil or the work of satan, while the scientists mock, insult and assume there is nothing new under the sun and that new technologies will not later verify some or many of the beliefs of 'religious' people - this has happened many times, but for some reason, rationalists/scientists have not registered this as a pattern and assume that current technology and scientific focus covers all bases, not really noticing the radical changes in paradigm and knowledge EVEN WITHIN THEIR OWN WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS. 'Religious' people have turned out to be right about a wide range of things that scientists poo pooed originally.

Ah, well. It is literally, their loss.

I think it ironic that they often view themselves as braver, not understanding 1) the difference between religious poeple who simply follow authority and those who are deeply immersed in experiences and technologies the scientists know nothing about 2) the way their own minds control their experiences and their need to be right and EXCLUSIVELY right about what is real is based on fear TO THE PRECISE DEGREE they project this fear on believers of all kinds.

I noticed, again, the title of this thread: Science vs. God.
Those are not really the words to contrast, science being a set of processes, assumptions of procedure and verification and God being a posited being.

I think the real contrast is between modes of experiencing and gaining knowledge. There are people who feel that scientific methods (note the plural) are the only valid methods of gaining knowledge about the universe. There are other people who feel Religious practices are the only way to gain knowledge. This second group includes those who simply believe a certain text is the right one (the Bible, for example) and follow that, or they follow a certain authoritarian figure (a priest, an imam) and 'learn' about the universe that way. I think most scientists/rationalists and people like me agree that this second set of methods is very limited.
Then there are people who have experiences and practices that have led them to believe that while science is very effective in certain ways, it is not yet capable of registering or helping one understand very real portions of reality. Some of these people follow traditional religious practice: prayer, meditation, shamanic work, etc. Some have developed other routes to gaining knowledge that are effective and through these have found out about reality in ways science does not or where science and scientists seem not to realize how impoverished their metaphysics is of the assumptions they make about starting points.
Scientists and rationalists have no idea have fast the mind is in cutting off experiences that would lead them to question their assumptions about the nature of reality. They also tend not to be interested in exploring practices or methods of exploration that might lead them to experiencing portions of the world they are currently unaware of. They do not realize how much their bias and pre-judgements have restricted their experience. Which is fine. But their continual battle to prioritize only one way of gaining knowledge is problematic. They form a rather odd tag team with the monotheism's who treat alternate practices as evil or the work of Satan, while the scientists mock, insult and assume there is nothing new under the sun and that new technologies will not later verify some or many of the beliefs of 'religious' people - this has happened many times, but for some reason, rationalists/scientists have not registered this as a pattern and assume that current technology and scientific focus covers all bases, not really noticing the radical changes in paradigm and knowledge EVEN WITHIN THEIR OWN WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS. 'Religious' people have turned out to be right about a wide range of things that scientists poo pooed originally.

Ah, well. It is literally, their loss.

I think it ironic that they often view themselves as braver, not understanding 1) the difference between religious people who simply follow authority and those who are deeply immersed in experiences and technologies the scientists know nothing about 2) the way their own minds control their experiences and their need to be right and EXCLUSIVELY right about what is real is based on fear TO THE PRECISE DEGREE they project this fear on believers of all kinds.

Put the above as simple as one can, there are realities, where only one reality can be the correct one..

This is fine by me because truth and facts are self evident and by pointing out any contradictions to those who rely on a reality that is not the proper reality are confronted with a decision, continue on in a deluded or extremely limited reality, or disband the flawed reality in favour of a reality that insists on facts..

Science is the pursuit for truth, facts and absolute conformance.
which I point out is the most reliable reality one can obtain - No matter how limited the reality is and will be in the future..

Given time - all NON conformance's to truth and facts will destroy all those other flawed and false realities and in Australia those that are clinging to a false reality have dropped to around 20%..

My reasoning has Christianity is one of those flawed realities via its own contradictions inferred in its references, which I have attempted to point out earlier in this thread, although the post may have been deleted...

And yeah~ I guess you could say my reality just doesn't get it :p what else can one expect when realities clash :D ;)

It's hard to say god doesn't exist when you compare it to "science." Big deal, no difference at all really, we're talking about the exact same subject! God will forever be impossible to disprove, or at least it will remain like this for a long while to come... So why are we comparing science to God anyway?

It's hard to say god doesn't exist when you compare it to "science."Damn straight its hard to disprove a gawd that thus far hasn't been proven to exist! But that's what the impossible is!

Unproven! and therefore no need to disprove it!

If a claim is made of a gawd, its up to those that advocate to a gawd to come up with some REAL evidence, so far all I have seen is literature that contradicts REAL facts and whats more most of the text even contradicts itself, hardly a good source for sound evidence, don't you think?

Big deal, no difference at all really, we're talking about the exact same subject! God will forever be impossible to disprove, or at least it will remain like this for a long while to come... So why are we comparing science to God anyway? because science is a threat to what is not the truth! And for those that refer to a gawd, it points out failures in ones reasoning.. Most are doomed and left with a delusion of a gawd via the brainwashing which has been ingrained from an early age and onward..

Science and or the REAL truth is a threat to all the effort put in by the brain-washers and their brainwashed victims life styles, because all of their actions are based on deceit, which uncannily is what most of them advocate against!

And as you so clearly state, I agree why bother? Its a no win situation for those that advocate to a gawd as there simply is no evidence provided for and or by science to dis-prove it, and this is only possible when something simply doesn't exist at all in the first place!

But one really feels sorry for all those individuals that have been deceived, and I think every one deserves the REAL truth!

GrantyWanty: Can you give some examples?
'Religious' people have turned out to be right about a wide range of things that scientists poo pooed originally.Wide range implies many instances. How about 5-10 examples?

1) interconnectedness between species. Native American concern that damaging seemingly insignificant life form or smaller ecological niches and systems would affect humans was denied until it bit us in the ass
2) There are a number of Eastern Religious beliefs about time that fit rather well with Einstein's ideas about Time being a dimension and that change is essentially illusory: we are simply shifting vantage.
3) Pharmacology companies have for many years known that shamans and other folk healers were right about a wide variety of plant medicines. These medicines in many many cases were not found via empirical study or random sampling but via trance communication with the plants themselves. If you do not believe this check out some of the preparation practices used by indigenous poeple's involved in removing poisons and highlighting medically active compounds. It's like believing they won the lottery over and over to think they just ran around eating plants and noticed the healing patterns.
4) Acupunture which came out of folk religious practices and is based on 'energies' not recognized by western science and meridians, also not recognized by Western science, which were 'perceived' (western quotes) by people who western science considered to be making magical claims, has also proven to be effective in the treatment of a wide range of illnesses.
5) claims by fakirs, yoga masters, buddhist meditators about their relationships with their bodies adn their ability to control all sorts or organ functions, endocrine release and suppression, the brain and so on were poo pooed and later turned out to be in systematically regular instances correct. (I could split this one up in to a number of different examples, but I will keep it as 1) I could add other numbers to include the health benefits that were attributed to these practices that have also turned out to be true despite denial by scientists in the beginning that this was not possible.
6) Dream interpretation and use in determing mental health issues and as non-random events. A standard shamanic practice not taken up (again) by Western authority figures until Freud got on the scene. I assume this will get poo pooed by everyone who thinks Freud is dead. But actually the followers of Freud who uses his ideas about dreams, defense mechanisms, the unconscious are doing very well out there; many of them have merged techniques with the cognitive psychologists and TEST THEIR IDEAS WITH SCIENTIFIC RIGOR and are having very high rates of success with clients. government grants, university positions, hospital positions and so on.
6)nature as healing. Indigenous predictions about the problems of city living and how nature 'heals' us has been and continues to be solidly documented by all sorts of studies relating to mental illness, stress, recovery from physical illness, sense of well being in healthy individuals and many, many programs are now in place in hospitals and communities where ill and recovered and burned out people are put in gardens or in other more natural setting AS A PLANNED PART OF THEIR RECOVERY. The 'need' and 'healing power' of nature and more fundamentally our interconnectedness with it was heartily poo pooed by scientists until their hippie brethren in the ranks began actually testing.
7) there are numerous instances where indigenous people attibuted communicative or sensory abilities to animals that were beyond current technology to test and were poo pooed but later turned out to be true. Check elephant communication as one example. These beliefs of course are on the boundary between communal knowledge and religious knowledge, these facets of society not separated out so much amongst we pagans.

I think most of the examples given above illustrate the need to understand our connectedness to nature. I don't think many biologists would poo poo that.

how can u Expain science( I mean, what are your views).

Some people says modern science, Is there any science called old science
Let me know the difference please.

the new science came after the old science

1) interconnectedness between species. Native American concern that damaging seemingly insignificant life form or smaller ecological niches and systems would affect humans was denied until it bit us in the ass
2) There are a number of Eastern Religious beliefs about time that fit rather well with Einstein's ideas about Time being a dimension and that change is essentially illusory: we are simply shifting vantage.
3) Pharmacology companies have for many years known that shamans and other folk healers were right about a wide variety of plant medicines. These medicines in many many cases were not found via empirical study or random sampling but via trance communication with the plants themselves. If you do not believe this check out some of the preparation practices used by indigenous persons involved in removing poisons and highlighting medically active compounds. It's like believing they won the lottery over and over to think they just ran around eating plants and noticed the healing patterns.
4) Acupuncture which came out of folk religious practices and is based on 'energies' not recognized by western science and meridians, also not recognized by Western science, which were 'perceived' (western quotes) by people who western science considered to be making magical claims, has also proven to be effective in the treatment of a wide range of illnesses.
5) claims by fakirs, yoga masters, Buddhist meditates about their relationships with their bodies and their ability to control all sorts or organ functions, endocrine release and suppression, the brain and so on were poo pooed and later turned out to be in systematically regular instances correct. (I could split this one up in to a number of different examples, but I will keep it as 1) I could add other numbers to include the health benefits that were attributed to these practices that have also turned out to be true despite denial by scientists in the beginning that this was not possible.
6) Dream interpretation and use in determining mental health issues and as non-random events. A standard shamanic practice not taken up (again) by Western authority figures until Freud got on the scene. I assume this will get poo pooed by everyone who thinks Freud is dead. But actually the followers of Freud who uses his ideas about dreams, defense mechanisms, the unconscious are doing very well out there; many of them have merged techniques with the cognitive psychologists and TEST THEIR IDEAS WITH SCIENTIFIC RIGOR and are having very high rates of success with clients. government grants, university positions, hospital positions and so on.
6)nature as healing. Indigenous predictions about the problems of city living and how nature 'heals' us has been and continues to be solidly documented by all sorts of studies relating to mental illness, stress, recovery from physical illness, sense of well being in healthy individuals and many, many programs are now in place in hospitals and communities where ill and recovered and burned out people are put in gardens or in other more natural setting AS A PLANNED PART OF THEIR RECOVERY. The 'need' and 'healing power' of nature and more fundamentally our interconnectedness with it was heartily poo pooed by scientists until their hippie brethren in the ranks began actually testing.
7) there are numerous instances where indigenous people attributed communicative or sensory abilities to animals that were beyond current technology to test and were poo pooed but later turned out to be true. Check elephant communication as one example. These beliefs of course are on the boundary between communal knowledge and religious knowledge, these facets of society not separated out so much amongst we pagans.

Seems to me most of the claims and or outcomes would have been possible with or without religious influences..

In fact if we consider that Science is the result of confirmed observations, for answer one the Natives who depended directly upon the ongoing resources of their environment simply would have failed themselves if they ignored what was available, so my reasoning has with or with out religion number one is not a strong enough case..

For number two.. Are you really serious? What a load of crock! well OK lets bite and hear what you have to say by elaborating on your claims in a little more details?

Anyway for your third answer... yet again, you have twisted what can only be availed by scientific methods rather than some some religious method of believing a plant will do this and or the ad hoc ramblings whilst mixing herbal ingredients will do what one intends it to do without really knowing which and what herbs one must use, if you consider what herbs are used again the results intended are from previous observations which is a scientific method..
if it really were a religious method it wouldn't matter what herbs were used and it really wouldn't matter what words were uttered if gawds and or REAL magic was involved, are you with me on this now or are you going to insist magic and miracles and religious gawds have the ultimate power!????

For your fourth answer... Acupuncture has not been developed via religion! Let me suggest you research more in depth! In fact if you go over your whole list and research further you will discover how rituals via religions have pilfered "discovered scientific facts" as a tool to enhance credibility for ones own personal gains in wealth and or status..

I am serious here, with or with out religions all the above are not really from the result of blind faith and or haphazard beliefs, but rather the result of an observation that can be confirmed as a fact..

Perhaps you are not familiar to what the words Religious and or religion really means?

Let alone that scientific and or science infers to confirmed facts and or truths rather than religious belief and or blind faith that one advocates to as if they advocate to facts, even if they are not confirmed as facts! Such as the claim of a gawd!

It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
..They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together.

HOW does he know it was god and not NATURE?

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
..They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. ”
_____________________________

HOW does he know it was god and not NATURE?
____________________________

Dear Scorpius. Good question.
Maybe Sandage implies they're both the same.
Apparently you're on to that, and I certainly think so.

Best Regards,
- KO

how can u Expain science( I mean, what are your views).

Some people says modern science, Is there any science called old science
Let me know the difference please.
___________________________

Dear Srikar:
To the best of my knowledge, the line between old and new science is usually drawn at the chronological line of about 1900, when Max Planck's Quantum Mechanics emerged upon the scientific scenario. Before then it was called 'Classical Mechanics', whereas, since, it's 'wave mechanics' and 'field theory' - two different schools of thought, entailing the discontinuous wave mechanics of quantum theory, and the continuous field (peaked out by J.C. Maxwell in the late 1800's) and popularized by Einstein. There's been a 'fork in the road' on continuity and discontinuity, ever since...

Best regards,
- KO

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
..They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. ”
_____________________________

HOW does he know it was god and not NATURE?
____________________________

Dear Scorpius. Good question.
Maybe Sandage implies they're both the same.
Apparently you're on to that, and I certainly think so.

Best Regards,
- KOFor all religions that last statement is as good as it gets..

Nothing can dispute current reality, and to imply the Universe as "Gawd" is just the same as implying "Gawd" as the Universe..

But that's only if the Big Bang theory is wrong! unless gawd {the Universe} was Born and or created via a big bang!...:shrug: hey I never advocated to the big bang anyway! As it infers an increasing creation of energy from nothing...

My reasoning has the Universe simply always existed..

If all the religions stuck to the truth then no one could have disputed whatever factual statements were made by it, and in fact science could have provided further evidence to support its claims..

Therefore science is only a threat to religions that are with contradiction and non compliance to proper reality.. Scientology included!

I think most of the examples given above illustrate the need to understand our connectedness to nature. I don't think many biologists would poo poo that.

This is incorrect. Current biologists - those not tied in with industry - recognize this to varying degrees. What was pointing out were ideas that WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY SCIENTISTS BEFORE who poo pood irrational pagans - for t he most part - who believed these things. Givent hat this has happened before, and we are not talking about a long time ago with many of the ideas, I think a little humility or better said, reality awareness, would lead scientists to believe this might continue to happen with certain ideas they poo poo now.

In addition a number of the post have to with health, human bodies, mind/body relationships.

The one relating mystical ideas to Einstein could have been broadened out to include many other ideas that have found support pre-QM and post-QM.

scientists and rationalists often assume that they know enough and have access to the appropriate technology to judge the existence of certain phenomena. They may use very restricted scientific methodology on the job and in the ways they carry out research, but when it comes to discussions they speculate and in ways that are not scientific about phenomena they know little about. A look at the changes in the history of science should create a more humble and open attitude. A more agnostic position (I am not thinking about the belief in God specifically) but they poo poo.

They should be embarrassed.

1) interconnectedness between species. Native American concern that damaging seemingly insignificant life form or smaller ecological niches and systems would affect humans was denied until it bit us in the ass
2) There are a number of Eastern Religious beliefs about time that fit rather well with Einstein's ideas about Time being a dimension and that change is essentially illusory: we are simply shifting vantage.
3) Pharmacology companies have for many years known that shamans and other folk healers were right about a wide variety of plant medicines. These medicines in many many cases were not found via empirical study or random sampling but via trance communication with the plants themselves. If you do not believe this check out some of the preparation practices used by indigenous poeple's involved in removing poisons and highlighting medically active compounds. It's like believing they won the lottery over and over to think they just ran around eating plants and noticed the healing patterns.
4) Acupunture which came out of folk religious practices and is based on 'energies' not recognized by western science and meridians, also not recognized by Western science, which were 'perceived' (western quotes) by people who western science considered to be making magical claims, has also proven to be effective in the treatment of a wide range of illnesses.
5) claims by fakirs, yoga masters, buddhist meditators about their relationships with their bodies adn their ability to control all sorts or organ functions, endocrine release and suppression, the brain and so on were poo pooed and later turned out to be in systematically regular instances correct. (I could split this one up in to a number of different examples, but I will keep it as 1) I could add other numbers to include the health benefits that were attributed to these practices that have also turned out to be true despite denial by scientists in the beginning that this was not possible.
6) Dream interpretation and use in determing mental health issues and as non-random events. A standard shamanic practice not taken up (again) by Western authority figures until Freud got on the scene. I assume this will get poo pooed by everyone who thinks Freud is dead. But actually the followers of Freud who uses his ideas about dreams, defense mechanisms, the unconscious are doing very well out there; many of them have merged techniques with the cognitive psychologists and TEST THEIR IDEAS WITH SCIENTIFIC RIGOR and are having very high rates of success with clients. government grants, university positions, hospital positions and so on.
6)nature as healing. Indigenous predictions about the problems of city living and how nature 'heals' us has been and continues to be solidly documented by all sorts of studies relating to mental illness, stress, recovery from physical illness, sense of well being in healthy individuals and many, many programs are now in place in hospitals and communities where ill and recovered and burned out people are put in gardens or in other more natural setting AS A PLANNED PART OF THEIR RECOVERY. The 'need' and 'healing power' of nature and more fundamentally our interconnectedness with it was heartily poo pooed by scientists until their hippie brethren in the ranks began actually testing.
7) there are numerous instances where indigenous people attibuted communicative or sensory abilities to animals that were beyond current technology to test and were poo pooed but later turned out to be true. Check elephant communication as one example. These beliefs of course are on the boundary between communal knowledge and religious knowledge, these facets of society not separated out so much amongst we pagans.You seem confused between scientists and "science".
Most of these things you mention have been understood and followed by their followers/believers because at some stage those matters underwent some form of scientific method - e.g. observation led to formulation of informal theory led to prediction which was later confirmed by observation.

E.g. Elephant communication...
Those living in proximity to elephants would have noticed how they appeared to communicate with each other. They might not have been able to explain how - but constant observation, constant accumulation of evidence led them to their conclusions.

In fact ALL your examples can be seen as having undergone some similar process - of accumulation of evidence - despite not being able to understand the exact detailed chain of cause-effect.

This knowledge might have been passed down through religious texts or through religious rituals etc - but the foundation of that knowledge would have been the same.

Your point about pharmacology and plants... you will have been unaware of the vast swathe of trial-and-error that goes on in discovering new foods. Medicinal properties of plants will also have been learnt from watching other animals... How do dogs know to eat certain types of grass when they're ill? Is it knowledge given to them by God?


Your issue seems to be with people called "scientists" in the modern understanding of the term - the white-coated people in labs. These people generally have specific agendas - and will poo-poo things as a result where their true scientific stance will actually be one of no opinion. They should be agnostic on any element of science that they have not directly examined.

So don't confuse science with scientists.
Science (specifically the scientific method) is merely the methodology of reaching rational conclusions through collection of evidence, generating theories for prediction, and testing predictions.

This is incorrect. Current biologists - those not tied in with industry - recognize this to varying degrees. What was pointing out were ideas that WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY SCIENTISTS BEFORE who poo pooed irrational pagans - for the most part - who believed these things. There is a big difference in simply accepting a statement - Especially with no evidence backing said statement up! my reasoning has this as blind Faith!
In the above case if the statements based observations are based on sound facts, Science at first will challenge the statements but by deciphering the evidence may provide further evidence in support of it, But...

Science and or Scientists insists to know all the details and whats more, all the details MUST conform with all other factual details, while the above religious reasoning simply may have piggybacked on another individuals limited knowledge on the premise the information and or data held must be based on facts and is absolutely complete, a faith if you will that the information was gained objectively.. which if one considers how an observation has led to the statement and then confirmed as fact long long ago where sparse details may have been quite adequate, the point is if its a fact it is under no threat..

Don't you think we as a race have progressed past the point of needing to relying on non existing gawds and vague religious explanations lacking much conforming details?

Most good scientists are sceptics and or are objective by nature- Way before they even obtain their final recognition as a Scientist (Via ones Education)..
And let me point out - A scientist is only as good as the institute and or the Lecturers the institute employs, and let me say one learns very quickly which institutes produce viable and productive or the Unproductive "Religiously infected" scientists and or physicists...

Anyway by being objective all bases are covered so that what ever is being objectively scrutinized, any deceit and or non conformance's patched into a statement will be exposed, this is how the truth is eek-ed out!
Given that this has happened before, and we are not talking about a long time ago with many of the ideas, I think a little humility or better said, reality awareness, would lead scientists to believe this might continue to happen with certain ideas they poo poo now.

In addition a number of the post have to with health, human bodies, mind/body relationships.

The one relating mystical ideas to Einstein could have been broadened out to include many other ideas that have found support pre-QM and post-QM. Good Scientists via poo pooing "objection-ally" will always eventually eek out the facts... No matter how many religiously infected scientists dispute or defend whatever is inferred, The truth and facts always wins the day, simply because truth is conformance... The Pagans observed long ago nature and in today's climate science has the capacity to elaborate on those details, and here is the problem, Pagans insist on a magical nature, while science insists on all of the details which points out why its not magic!.

Need it be said.. "Religions will always resist facts if the facts threaten their Sect and or Flocks numbers"

Evolution is a prime example of where Science and the inference to a gawd clashes where the more evidence that is uncovered and correlated with past discovered evidence, the more the religions end up being exposed as being fraudulent.

There is no doubt in my mind as to why most religions choose to provide an education for its infected victims new born and or Chill~N, its the only way their backward ideals and misinformation can eek out their ongoing deceit!

[QUOTE]In fact ALL your examples can be seen as having undergone some similar process - of accumulation of evidence - despite not being able to understand the exact detailed chain of cause-effect.

This is a very good argument. And you are right, I am being critical of scientists and not science. Scientists have tended to assume that a non-participartory experimental outsider vantage is the way to learn. They have been wrong to limit things like this. Nevertheless, beliefs based or exploratory methods once or currently considered dead ends, irrational by scientists DID PROVE to be valid ways of gathering knowledge. I think the process was often vastly more intuitive than you are making it sound. I do not think there were tremendous amounts of double blind tests and that solutions were found less by trial and error but by intuitive guesses. On the other hand I am not upset by your version. Your version would have shocked and been mocked by scientists at the time first encountering these beliefs and the practices that led to them.



Your point about pharmacology and plants... you will have been unaware of the vast swathe of trial-and-error that goes on in discovering new foods.

Sorry. I have come to this conclusion through my own experiences in nature, with healers from other cultures and through talks with a relative of mine who is an ethnobotonist who works for the pharmaceutical industry. I don't think you are aware of how complicated the preparation processes are for a wide range of 'folk cures'. Trial and error would have ABSOLUTELY DISCOURAGED the use of many cures because 1) the plants are extremely poisonous untreated 2) the required steps: heating, cooling, mixing with other plants or minerals at various stages required either consistant lottery winning miracles by tribes. Further these plants would have been avoided by animals.

It's a dirty little pharmaceutical industry secret: many of their people in the field are dumbfounded by the finds indigenous healers have discovered. Trial and error and watching animals just can't cover it.



Your issue seems to be with people called "scientists" in the modern understanding of the term - the white-coated people in labs. These people generally have specific agendas - and will poo-poo things as a result where their true scientific stance will actually be one of no opinion. They should be agnostic on any element of science that they have not directly examined.

I agree 100&#37;. The poo pooing and speculating on the liklihood of certain hitherto unproven phenomena is not scientific. Look at the short post i made directly above yours, the one I am quoting here. That is precisely what I meant when I said they should be embarrassed and agnostic. Hell, we are even using the same 'metaphor'.


So don't confuse science with scientists.
Science (specifically the scientific method) is merely the methodology of reaching rational conclusions through collection of evidence, generating theories for prediction, and testing predictions.

you might be surprised to hear it, but I agree very much with what you are saying here.

And to be clear. I have a great deal of trust in the scientific method. I do think there are other ways of gaining knowledge.

It's a bit unfair as an example because I think many scientists would have problems with his theories, but the pattern of response on LAIDBACK'S part follows the pattern of many scientists and rationalists to a variety of phenomena.

Laidback is saying that magic is impossible because of the conservation of force and momentum. He does not know what certain phenomena referred to as magic are. He does not know if these might IN WAYS NOT CURRENTLY measurable or known EVEN adhere to his limitations. He assumes that he can determine the liklihood of phenomena given his knowledge of science (primarily Newtonian when it comes to physics) and the technology we have available. He thinks he knows WHAT MAGIC MUST BE and therefore can rule it out.

He clearly would have been one of the scientists saying that atom bombs were impossible, that light MUST BE either a wave or a particle, that one could not possibly learn to control certain automatic processes in the body via meditative techniques and so on.

The presumption being that the unknown can always be judged because one's own knowledge (culture) is somehow complete.

Science itself is not the problem here, but I would like to suggest that there are tempermental tendencies within those persons making up the scientific community that makes them more likely to be open to certain kinds of approaches to gaining knowledge and to judging others out of hand.

As per usual, I must point out the tag team efforts of the monotheisms and rationalists when it comes to indigenous or pagan beliefs.

Laidback is saying that magic is impossible because of the conservation of force and momentum. He does not know what certain phenomena referred to as magic are. He does not know if these might IN WAYS NOT CURRENTLY measurable or known EVEN adhere to his limitations. He assumes that he can determine the likelihood of phenomena given his knowledge of science (primarily Newtonian when it comes to physics) and the technology we have available. He thinks he knows WHAT MAGIC MUST BE and therefore can rule it out.

And here is my reasoning why magic and miracles are Impossible..

And feel free to correct me where ever you want Grantywanty..

Everything possible is due from change, and change is only possible via momentum, but to achieve momentum an interaction between forces is necessary and for a force to be possible a momentum is needed.

The above is a conformance statement "A Truth if you will"

Its referred to as Cause and Effect! where no matter what! There is always a cause via a force via its velocities via a cause resulting from an effect, so on and so on.. its a logical truth statement..

The above information and or data can be obtained via a basics Physics course.

And in a well educated region the above information should have been availed as early in a Elementary or State School.

Magic simply implies to a change without considering the details, and when one insists in knowing the details one must confide in what changes has taken place and what forces were relied upon and further more what velocities implied inferred forces.

More than likely before and after the event, all physics must still comply within the boundaries of what we are able to observe and experience as our reality, to which I point out our Physical Laws are based upon this reality..

This means the event of inferred magic to some would indeed be magic!, but to those that have the knowledge of how the event is possible, and is simply an exercise that relies on "a previous state of conformity" ending up conforming to another state of reality but I point out via the use of known forces and momentum bound by actual physical laws of conformance.

To those that are unaware of whatever physics in reality was involved, cant explain it all in minute details as to how and why the event simply is not magic.. To them it indeed was magic, but in fact with enough research, and I insist in proper research "which is not infected with a religious mumbo jumbo mentality" EVERYTHING can be explainable, even as to why science and or scientists today are still referring to theoretical particles as if they are the actual reality!..

Anyway I don't expect everyone here to fully comprehend all the details so here's a simple example!

We all should know a light bulb is not a mini sun, And in a darkened room when we flick the switch on and shout out "let there be light" its not magic!

But consider this if one was a native who has never encountered our technology and who is not in the know?

Such an individual would more than likely drop on their knees thinking s/he was before a gawd who has just demonstrated a gawd damn miracle!

And if we try and explain all the details to the ignoramus it simply would be over their heads.. Far easier to state to them it was a magical trick.. but given the right information we cant really infer to magic but to the details..

Its all in how much correct data one has been availed which BTW exudes ones intelligence, and the only question that remains now is " How badly is religion and or the inference of a gawd infecting and limiting your regions average intelligence?

I am also wondering how many religious institutes are corrupting your regions education?

I am guessing if magic and miracles are often referred to, it must be as high as 40% or more of the population is still infected with a construct of a gawd and the religions that usually come with it..

The subject would appear to have become, in part, Science ‘versus’ Religion.

The problem is that religion is a man-made invention to try and explain what he sees around him using subjective criteria. Science is the same, but using objective criteria.

The difference would appear to be that the religious believe that there is more than meets the eye, whilst the scientific believe that, potentially, there is not.

Here are a few snippets that I have gathered over the years which would, to me at least, appear to have some bearing on the debate.

1 Man was not just sitting round his camp-fire 4,000 (or 40,000) years ago, he was consuming hallucinogenic substances which gave him a very clear view of other realities that he perceived to be just as real. He drew interpretations of same in caves all around the world. Probably elsewhere too but these have failed to survive.

2 That, I would suggest is the origin of all religion. All that follows is homo sapiens frail attempts to make sense of it.

3 Science is beginning to find particles that, apparently, pop in and out of existence. For want of another word, could these particles be merely changing ‘dimension’. As an analogy, or model, which science works with all the time; take an infinitely thin circle on a sheet of paper. If you flip it through 90 degrees to ‘end on’ it apparently vanishes, but it is no less real for being invisible.

4 I can’t remember the name of the experiment, but if you send two particles of in different directions and, at some distance, measure their properties they are always identical; different every time you do the experiment but always identical to each other, no matter what the distance. This implies instantaneous communication, the speed of light not withstanding.

Both religion and science are only, after all, trying to make sense of what they perceive, what may exist that they don’t perceive is, at present, only speculation. The above points would hint at that limitation on our sense of perception.

Science versus God is however another question entirely and I may add something on that in time.

The difference would appear to be that the religious believe that there is more than meets the eye, whilst the scientific believe that, potentially, there is not.


This is not correct. The scientists believe that the right eye is the only eye. They have the left eye closed and think no one should believe what that eye sees. Everyone assumes that religious is based on faith because the monotheists make so much noise about that stupid concept. There are many of us, pagans the monotheists would call us, who base our beliefs on experience.

Science

Assumptions:

1)Distance is primary/isolation is primary - you must prove connections, whatever your intution tells you. It is best to assume things are disconnected.

2)Non-life/non-intelligence is primary - you must prove that something is alive and intelligent, whatever your intuition tells you. It is best to assume things are not alive and not intelligent.

'paganism'

Experiences

1) interconnection is primary
2) everything is alive and has its own form of intelligence

Scietists thinks they do not have to prove its assumptions. They just seem obvious to them - in part because they have cut off a lot of their own intuitions, in part because they have other skills. There are psychological reasons also why they are more comfortable with a dead universe with isolated monads AS THE BASIC POSTION.

In the long run Science is discovering that interconnection is vastly more the case then they realized. They have also shifted from a position where non-westerners are considered fully sentient, animals are considered to have consciousness and emotions, so one can hope that they will begin to notice other forms of life and intelligence that some of us already recognize and interact with.

Note that second issue carefully: science now recognizes life and intelliegence where once it did not. Give them another thousand years they will sound like mystics to this generations scientists. Unfortunately I can't wait for them to figure these things out and but then I don't need to.

3 Science is beginning to find particles that, apparently, pop in and out of existence. For want of another word, could these particles be merely changing ‘dimension’. As an analogy, or model, which science works with all the time; take an infinitely thin circle on a sheet of paper. If you flip it through 90 degrees to ‘end on’ it apparently vanishes, but it is no less real for being invisible.

4 I can’t remember the name of the experiment, but if you send two particles of in different directions and, at some distance, measure their properties they are always identical; different every time you do the experiment but always identical to each other, no matter what the distance. This implies instantaneous communication, the speed of light not withstanding.Wrong! Instant communication implies magic and or a miracle that conforms to religious like reasoning.. No doubt about those religious Institutes with their dumb lecturers!

So lets think about this and consider the Particles structure and elaborate as to what velocities imply its structure, and then consider the other particles form and or structure..

Now before we move on with respects of their ongoing separation, lets think a little more in-depth with respects to the WHOLE universes structure keeping in mind the fact that when an air-crafts higher potential with respects to our upper atmospheres lower pressure (potential) is allowed to return to the lower Potential.. Say a window or door is opened! This simple fact provides proof that a void simply is not possible.. In fact even Space and or Deep space consists of mass and if it didn't the electromagnetic waves via implied meeting velocities which also implies how mass is possible simply would not be possible! And for this reason Space really is referred to as a NEAR vacuum..

NOW~ When we deal with the theoretical particles, the above over sight by treating the environment as mass-less is what causes problems, because most assume the area implied as a particle is with momentum, when the facts are the area implied as a particle is actually experiencing meeting velocities which increases the areas potential to which is propagated to where there is a lower potential in mass, just like the above aircraft analogy... Another good experiment that points out why particle theory is a flawed model is by doing "Young's" Double slit experiment..

Anyway the point is everything in reality must conform to Newtons Laws - No ifs! and No buts! And if any theory doesn't conform to it, even the average schmo can expose what is implied by the theory as the lie and or deceit it is..

There is no communication between the two higher potentials (theoretical particles) being propagated, and I would suggest a more critical and objective stance to ensure you don't rely on bad data and or information..


Both religion and science are only, after all, trying to make sense of what they perceive, what may exist that they don’t perceive is, at present, only speculation. The above points would hint at that limitation on our sense of perception.

Science versus God is however another question entirely and I may add something on that in time.In today's climate this IS not the case!

Science indeed for the most is in the pursuit for the truth, but currently Science is also grossly hindered by religions, and in particular, one that I have reason to believe is the most backward of the whole Damn Lot!..

Current Religions are relying on incorrect data and if this bad data is exposed to their infected victims, it could rob the Sects Income and or finally put an end to their deceit, the solution for these sects was to provide an education to their current flocks chill~n and from there it became obvious to keep these student under their wings they needed to provide a higher education as well..

I have no problems with this but what I do have problems with is, these institutes have introduced a very serious problem where misinformation has been introduced over and above correct information..

The result in just two decades has been absolute KAOS!

Take a gander at any good forum and it becomes obvious the world is over run with half R's-ed educated individuals that don't have a real clue..:shrug:

Wow!
Laidback seems to know very little about about anything.

Wrong! Instant communication implies magic and or a miracle that conforms to religious like reasoning.. No doubt about those religious Institutes with their dumb lecturers!
But it happens.


Now before we move on with respects of their ongoing separation, lets think a little more in-depth with respects to the WHOLE universes structure keeping in mind the fact that when an air-crafts higher potential with respects to our upper atmospheres lower pressure (potential) is allowed to return to the lower Potential.. Say a window or door is opened! This simple fact provides proof that a void simply is not possible.. In fact even Space and or Deep space consists of mass and if it didn't the electromagnetic waves via implied meeting velocities which also implies how mass is possible simply would not be possible! And for this reason Space really is referred to as a NEAR vacuum..

NOW~ When we deal with the theoretical particles, the above over sight by treating the environment as mass-less is what causes problems, because most assume the area implied as a particle is with momentum, when the facts are the area implied as a particle is actually experiencing meeting velocities which increases the areas potential to which is propagated to where there is a lower potential in mass, just like the above aircraft analogy... Another good experiment that points out why particle theory is a flawed model is by doing "Young's" Double slit experiment..
Any chance of putting that into English so that it's comprehensible?


Anyway the point is everything in reality must conform to Newtons Laws - No ifs! and No buts!
So relativity doesn't count?


Science indeed for the most is in the pursuit for the truth, but currently Science is also grossly hindered by religions, and in particular, one that I have reason to believe is the most backward of the whole Damn Lot!..
Science is hindered by religion?
Care to provide evidence?


Take a gander at any good forum and it becomes obvious the world is over run with half R's-ed educated individuals that don't have a real clue..
Well you got that bit right.

Ah its about time someone with some knowledge has come up with a reasonably challenging question!

Hi Oli, Nice start!

And I simply Love your Avatar, its a shame I am forced to point out I really do know what I have been rambling on about, I blame my failings on my grammar! And I insist! I do know my sheet!
So with your opening remark implying as per

Wow!
Laidback seems to know very little about about anything.

But it happens.I am going to point out with a question.. which is going to have your sorry rz sorry you ever stated it!

Err~ other than that lets say you've got a head on your shoulder and you're OK by me! Pay attention now!..

To business!

Give me one example where time is not a critical component for any REAL communications? in other words I am not referring to some religious nuts attempt of implying magical phenomenon where its implied particles communicate with each other..<ROFLOL>

My guess is unless you do refer to magic and or some miracle all communications must utilize a quanta of time
Any chance of putting that into English so that it's comprehensible?No! and let me apologise yet again for my ramblings, but if you really want to Know what I was on about, perhaps you should research Electronics..

There is no easy way to explain that particles are only theoretical, and further more the only way to point out flaws on its theories is by challenging the particles structure and demanding an explanation in detail of its implied form and further more how the form and or its structure interacts with the rest of the universe, eg (the velocities that implies ones forces for said particle correlated with the forces implied to be the Universes and by insisting they conform to strict Physical constructs just as Electronic theory does..
So relativity doesn't count?Of course Relativity counts! In fact relativity is a critical component in all Physics!
Without the relative meeting velocities at "c" we wouldn't even have mass!

Science is hindered by religion?
Care to provide evidence?

Well you got that bit right. Then why do I need to provide further evidence?

<LOL> But seeing you asked... Do you remember when a US of A court was with proceedings that ended a teachers career because some religious institute felt the truth expressed by the teacher with respects to evolution was threatening its religious constructs? Man! Did the Americans image really suffer on that one!

Well that school is not the only school hell bent in providing rubbish over the real truth just in order its religious propaganda has full effect on its infected victims!

In fact its because of these religious institutes physics and science is in all sorts of bother!

Hi Oli, Nice start!
Hi, thanks.


Give me one example where time is not a critical component for any REAL communications? in other words I am not referring to some religious nuts attempt of implying magical phenomenon where its implied particles communicate with each other..<ROFLOL>
Depends what you mean by "real communication".
Non-locality? Action-at-a-distance is religious nuttery/ magic?


There is no easy way to explain that particles are only theoretical,
Only theoretical?
But they have effects in the real world...


and further more the only way to point out flaws on its theories is by challenging the particles structure and demanding an explanation in detail of its implied form and further more how the form and or its structure interacts with the rest of the universe, eg (the velocities that implies ones forces for said particle correlated with the forces implied to be the Universes and by insisting they conform to strict Physical constructs just as Electronic theory does..
Flaws in its theories?
Which flaws?
You can demand explanations - you'll get what we know.
We're still looking at things, trying to find out more.


Of course Relativity counts! In fact relativity is a critical component in all Physics!
Then why the comment:

Anyway the point is everything in reality must conform to Newtons Laws
Newton was incomplete.


But seeing you asked... Do you remember when a US of A court was with proceedings that ended a teachers career because some religious institute felt the truth expressed by the teacher with respects to evolution was threatening its religious constructs? Man! Did the Americans image really suffer on that one!
No, didn't know about it.
Teaching of science to kids is sometimes hindered in some countries, science qua science isn't hindered.

Then why do I need to provide further evidence?
Because the hindrances are localised, not universal.


Well that school is not the only school hell bent in providing rubbish over the real truth just in order its religious propaganda has full effect on its infected victims!
Locally - not globally.


In fact its because of these religious institutes physics and science is in all sorts of bother!
Not here.

Okay I'll try this one:

Now before we move on with respects of their ongoing separation, lets think a little more in-depth with respects to the WHOLE universes structure keeping in mind the fact that when an air-crafts higher potential with respects to our upper atmospheres lower pressure (potential) is allowed to return to the lower Potential.. Say a window or door is opened! This simple fact provides proof that a void simply is not possible..
No it doesn't, it merely shows that where the pressure is unequal it will equalise at the first opportunity.
Otherwise (your example) every planet that had an atmosphere would be spewing it out into space to get rid of the void.
Get rid of gravity and it might happen.


In fact even Space and or Deep space consists of mass
What mass, where?
1 hydrogen atom per ~30 cubic metres or whatever?


and if it didn't the electromagnetic waves via implied meeting velocities which also implies how mass is possible simply would not be possible!
WTF is a "meeting velocity", please explain.


And for this reason Space really is referred to as a NEAR vacuum..
Because of the 1 atom per....


NOW~ When we deal with the theoretical particles, the above over sight by treating the environment as mass-less is what causes problems, because most assume the area implied as a particle is with momentum, when the facts are the area implied as a particle is actually experiencing meeting velocities which increases the areas potential to which is propagated to where there is a lower potential in mass, just like the above aircraft analogy...
Okay, you're losing me now:
What areas?
What's an "area's potential"?
How do you have a "lower potential in mass"?
Potential what?

how many of you say that science is discovered by humans and only belongs to humans.

how many of you say that science is discovered by humans and only belongs to humans.

You're quite correct.
My hamster (now dead) has had dozens of papers published.

WTF are you talking about?

Hi, thanks.

"Particles" Only theoretical?
But they have effects in the real world...


Flaws in its theories?
Which flaws?
You can demand explanations - you'll get what we know.
We're still looking at things, trying to find out more.

The flaws for a theoretical Particle is that the model for it works perfectly on its own, but when one needs to consider the area which includes more than just the Particle in question, problems are brought to the forefront, and I insist don't take my word for it, just research ALL the material you can find on..
"The Standard Model"

Then why the comment:

Newton was incomplete.Agreed!.. Some of Sir Isac Newtons work was incomplete, such as Gravity where his theory is implying an impossible force as being possible, and to prove how impossible one must refer to his very own theory on Force and Motion, which BTW is the basis for all sound Physics, these laws provide all Scientists and Physicists the tools to decipher truth from a whole lot of rubbish!
Okay I'll try this one:

No it doesn't, it merely shows that where the pressure is unequal it will equalise at the first opportunity.
Otherwise (your example) every planet that had an atmosphere would be spewing it out into space to get rid of the void.
Get rid of gravity and it might happen.


What mass, where?
1 hydrogen atom per ~30 cubic metres or whatever?Close! but no Cigar! but keep your truth statement as per..
where the pressure is unequal it will equalise at the first opportunity always in mind..

To understand the universes Physics one needs to fully understand how Force and Momentum are dependent on each other in order they be possible..

By simple self observation, of push and shove, just as Sir Isaac Newton would have done when he developed our strict guidelines in Physics, we should come to much the same conclusions..

Where for a given force we must consider the forces momentum in implying said force, and for that momentum we need to consider the forces that are responsible for implied momentum, everything that is possible is dependent on this force and what ever momentum (velocities) implies and or results from it..

And if we consider Einstein's mathematical Gem to explain mass the above information and or data should make hopefully a little more sense to us..

Try this....

If a two dimensional "c^2" area of Energy equals a mere joule because it consists with a single mass? via E=MC^2 as in E=1 and the area "C^2" consists with a single mass! what is the area equal to?

Not very close to your above figure is it?

But what if the same two dimensional area was with a greater force and or energy to it? would that not imply the mass therein has been compressed?

If one was inquisitive one would ask how is this possible, and indeed not an easy question to answer unless one refers to force and the velocities that imply our forces...

we can do this by referring and considering "c" in our inference to mass, by considering "c" and how it also represents the speed of light in a NEAR vacuum.. why not do a search on "c" and see for your self how it is equal to 299 792 458 m/s and note "m/s" implies {metres a second" Pay attention here as this is critical data!

Lets go back to our two dimensional area of C^2 where in one direction for one second we measured out 299 792 458 metres, but to complete the area so it conforms to a truth statement, we must return to our starting point, anyway it turns out we are referring to two opposing velocities, which further implies for one second we have two meeting velocities in an area, imagine if we only had one momentum and or velocity? we would only have half the Kinetic energy in the area, {take careful note of the inference only to Kinetic energy) if we had two opposing momentum's the result would be an increase in kinetic AND Potential Energy for the area of c^2. I know that last statement may be hard to understand and one may need to understand relativity considerably, because the velocities remain unchanged, but to the rest of the Universe they cancel each other out!

An easier way to imagine two velocities meeting is when two opposing breezes meet and where they meet and experience each other their velocities cancel each other out as far as the rest of the atmosphere is concerned but with respects to each other they remain at the same velocities, such an area is what we refer to as a compression.. and or an increase in potential kinetic energy by way of changes in relative velocities, and what I just described happens with all possible changes throughout the universe where if a higher potential is availed the luxury of momentum to a lower potential lower force (via less opposing velocities) just as you described its outward force and or velocities would continue in a relative manner..




WTF is a "meeting velocity", please explain.Please re read the above again and keep in mind as to what implies force and or energy



Because of the 1 atom per....

Think of the atom as a compressed area that is exerting in all directions outward, in electronics the core is defined as a theoretical Proton where its positive charge and or potential is implied as a force exerting in all directions outward, the electron being opposite in charge is with a negative force via its respective velocities, and the neutrons are the areas that result with no force and or charge (a relative compression point), To better explain this one needs to involve field theory, but don't worry I wont!

I should point out here and now how important it is to consider at all times what velocities one would expect for all of our forces, and if we do this religiously?? Huh! What the! :eek: MY DAWG! did I just state that!????? where was I???

Err~ we should understand mass and how all changes are possible..
therefore to over come the very crude Particle theory,
I stress! We keep in mind at all times how Two forces that meet - Create compression, but also keep in mind for every force what velocities imply the force!



Okay, you're losing me now:
What areas?
What's an "area's potential"?
How do you have a "lower potential in mass"?
Potential what?
If you don't understand my ramblings then I suggest you research In all aspects of Electronics..

I know physics seems hard to understand at first but hang in there!

Just make sure you fully understand the basics that Sir Isaac Newton availed to us in respects of Force and Motion..

Cheers,

Now let me apologies for this Posts wandering of subject in the establishment of my credibility and lets now return to why a non existing gawd can never win this debate..

The Implied gawd does not exist!
So who ever claims of a gawd needs to provide evidence for it..
And need I remind them it must be based on truth in every way..

The simple, (also) scientifically verified fact is that religious people were right about a number of things in AREAS OF EXPERIENCE they tended to focus on more than those with jobs in the scientific community.

I'll use the example I brought up before about the many ways meditators could control supposidely impossible to control bodily functions. Scientists poo pooed these abilities and then later verified them.

A little humility should raise a question in the scientists' minds (and of course it has in some of them, Rupert Sheldrake, for example).

Perhaps focusing on certain areas of experience DOES in fact give religious people expertise in areas we do not have. This expertise may have led them to understand and have insights about AREAS OF EXPERIENCE AND FACETS OF REALITY we do not have and our methods are not likely to lead us to SO QUICKLY.

Unfortunately most scientists and worse most rationalists assume that they can make educated guesses about phenomena WHOSE POSSIBLE WORKINGS they know nothign about and whose existence they are not likely to experience because of their judgements about what is possilble and what exists.

They make statements about it not being possible because of ____________ some scientific law, without knowing considering that the mechanics of that phenomenon may in fact fit with that law but along lines not hitherto known. Or that the law (such as newton's laws) work well on certain levels but not on others.

Hubris and psychological need.

The simple, (also) scientifically verified fact is that religious people were right about a number of things in AREAS OF EXPERIENCE they tended to focus on more than those with jobs in the scientific community.

I'll use the example I brought up before about the many ways mediators could control supposedly impossible to control bodily functions. Scientists poo pooed these abilities and then later verified them.

A little humility should raise a question in the scientists' minds (and of course it has in some of them, Rupert Sheldrake, for example).

Perhaps focusing on certain areas of experience DOES in fact give religious people expertise in areas we do not have. This expertise may have led them to understand and have insights about AREAS OF EXPERIENCE AND FACETS OF REALITY we do not have and our methods are not likely to lead us to SO QUICKLY.

Unfortunately most scientists and worse most rationalists assume that they can make educated guesses about phenomena WHOSE POSSIBLE WORKINGS they know nothing about and whose existence they are not likely to experience because of their judgements about what is possible and what exists.

They make statements about it not being possible because of ____________ some scientific law, without knowing considering that the mechanics of that phenomenon may in fact fit with that law but along lines not hitherto known. Or that the law (such as newton's laws) work well on certain levels but not on others.

Hubris and psychological need.

Well stated..

And indeed the unknown or impossible will remain unknown and impossible, and this may be hard to comprehend but as soon as anything conforms to our reality and becomes known or possible it then MUST be conforming to Newtons Laws, because Newtons Laws are Laws that imply to an agreed reality of conformance to truth, this implies there is no avenue for the impossible to become possible unless it fully conforms to a reality of truth...

I guess that leaves two states of minds..

One that does not conform with reality, to those that do..

Its all in ones reality (evidence) and whether the evidence fully conforms to all else via truth and or all facts.

Cheers all,

Peter J ?????,

Although many would agree that religion and science are difficult to reconcile, this does not mean they are totally incompatible. A scientific version of God that is accurate and comprehensive would suffice, yet we may still have difficulty accepting this due to our own individual bias. The metaphorical stories of the Bible have always remained separate and distinct from science and thought to provide fulfillment only to that minds that another individual might deem "inferior".
From the earliest origins of Christianity to modern times, politicians have underhandedly achieved positions of power by appealing to religion. The cult effect occurs among humans, but the blame goes to a higher power. There is no indication that the existence of religion has lead to political abuse and the cult effect. Consider that without religion, other means of acquiring power would be employed, so religion could be wrongly accused.
It is irrational to form a God concept based on individual bias, but the same may be said about the disbeliever's (I wish to avoid the label "atheist") concept. The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization. With that, it becomes clear that religion, though a manipulative tool, is not necessarily the manipulator. So we see that the means to spiritual salvation (religion) might have aspects of "purity" but can become meddled with. Although, it may have been intended that this purity remain metaphorical to prevent logical refutation, making it subject to personal questioning.

The scientist who believes in God might view human behavior as falling under three general categories: determinism, free will and self-actualization.

A Scientist Believing in a gawd? <ROFLOL>

Come on!

Are you serious!?

Let me suggest Such a flawed Scientist will never EVER be employable!
I know I would never employ any one with such a scientifically flawed reasoning and I am sure any one in the Industry will agree with me on that one!

Nope! Once one learns REAL truth, A gawd concept simply is shot to pieces simply from all the facts one has to work with!..

I am seriously questioning how such an intelligent individual could have made it past the first month of his scientific education and left still clinging to an overly flawed and inconsistent gawd concept..

WOW!

How in the Universe is that ever possible!????
Surely NO-ONE is that intelligent and yet so Stupid that they are comfortable in contradicting truth in favour of gaining deception as the truth..
why would any one resort to such religious like reasoning?

Oh! :bugeye:

Oh my!:eek:
:shrug:

A Scientist Believing in a gawd?
Let me suggest Such a flawed Scientist will never EVER be employable!
There have been many great scientists believing in god and in their search for god through experiment made many scientific discoveries.
I'll name just Newton here, but there are many others.

A Scientist Believing in a gawd? <ROFLOL>

Come on!

Are you serious!?

Let me suggest Such a flawed Scientist will never EVER be employable!
I know I would never employ any one with such a scientifically flawed reasoning and I am sure any one in the Industry will agree with me on that one!
Yeah, if Newton, Descartes, or Pascal applied for a job with my firm I would definitely tell them to take a hike.

See this ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVEscMOalnc

There have been many great scientists believing in god and in their search for god through experiment made many scientific discoveries.
I'll name just Newton here, but there are many others.
Need we go there? I don't think it will provide any evidence for ones delusion of a gawd over Science and or Facts..

Agreed, In the past many scientists had no choice, other than to advocate what the religious Mobs mentality dictated, and if we go back far enough, the truth if exposed could even have seen ones precious life permanently snuffed out by the very mob who advocate to a gawd!

That has changed, Well at least in localities that have a low percentage of a religiously infected populous!

FEAR of the religious Mobs repercussions does not influence real scientists to pussy foot around the religious ideals and deception today as it did back then...

Truth & Facts are simply much more powerful and convincing than the unsubstantiated inference to a delusion-ally created gawd.

The only real problem left in the world with respects to this religious infection is their hold and influence in backward localities where their religiously infected leaders have allowed religious Sects to provide a religiously infected University education, those infected students may never know proper truth, unless they seek work as a scientist elsewhere in the world, which is highly unlikely, as such personnel simply have extremely flawed reasoning, and let me say I still cringe to this day over the employment of such an infected individual! {{{shudder}}}

In today's environment away from these failing localities that are heading back to the dark ages via religiously infected education, to be a scientist you MUST advocate and comply to truth!.. if one doesn't, one simply will never experience a successful career as there simply is no room for ANY contradiction.

2~Duh~Loo!

Peter J Schoen.

Rationalists who have no deep experience of other cultures, for example, tend to assume that their common sense makes sense. They are unaware of their own irrational (not necessarily false) assumptions of reality. They assume that anyone with a significantly different metaphysical idea could not do their jobs. This is because they are not aware of their own metaphysical ideas. They also tend to picture Bible thumping fundamentalists when they think of a theist. If they had courage they might look at the use of this image in their own psychology.

In today's environment away from these failing localities that are heading back to the dark ages via religiously infected education, to be a scientist you MUST advocate and comply to truth!.
What is this truth you so zelously speak of?
Human mind is subjective and our understanding of what is truth changes.
Newtons laws were absolutely true a hundred or more years ago. Now we have general relativity and quantum mechanics which postulate their own truth. In a hundred years we may have another truth.
To be a scientist means to search for the truth using scientific method.
To advocate and comply with something postulated by humans as "the truth" means that that person is arrogant and irrational, if simply for the fact that the human mind is subjective and it interprets reality, same as religious fundamentalists.


“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

(Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.)


“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.”

(Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.)

Mod note: I renamed this thread " Science 'versus' God and Religion" by adding "and Religion" to better suit the path this discussion has taken.
If anyone is against, let me know.

Mod note: I renamed this thread " Science 'versus' God and Religion" by adding "and Religion" to better suit the path this discussion has taken.
If anyone is against, let me know.

First of all let me know Science Or god

What is this truth you so zealously speak of? Inferences, Statements and intricate details that fully comply to the majorities constructs and or concepts, where even the maths simply reaffirms the physics is implied as a truth statement

Human mind is subjective and our understanding of what is truth changes.
Newtons laws were absolutely true a hundred or more years ago. Indeed Newtons Laws no thanks to religion was up to only 20 years ago questioned, BUT much of it still is the bases for PROPER Physics, and as we progress, Models that don't fully comply to truth yes indeed are replaced with models that do work in reality as well as in theory, which suits me as all those religious Universities don't stand a chance with their rubbish!
Now we have general relativity and quantum mechanics which postulate their own truth. In a hundred years we may have another truth.Yes I agree as I have worked with such a model which was kept under lock and key (contract) via its massive edge over ones competition who may be still referring to the extremely flawed "Standard Model" what with its magical graviton and other whimsical Particles that don't need to comply to proper physics, and yes Relativity at first seems to contradict much of Newtons Laws, and let me point out Quantum Mechanics "QM" with its inference to uncertainty and unexplainable and or over looked details is in its final days because of those lacking details and non compliance to some of the basic Physical laws.

As mentioned earlier, there is already an advanced model used in the Electronics Industry which does fully comply to all of Newtons Laws on force and motion and whats more it had to, that and both of General and Special Relativity so that our calculus for the velocities for Gravity and Mass with respects to the Electromagnetic spectrum we were working with gave us accurate results

To be a scientist means to search for the truth using scientific method.
To advocate and comply with something postulated by humans as "the truth" means that that person is arrogant and irrational, if simply for the fact that the human mind is subjective and it interprets reality, same as religious fundamentalists.

And with that last remark you have pointed out how religion is able to infect those who are not capable of sound reasoning..

Here's a simple test to separate two realities, one who is with sound reasoning the rest well what more is there to be said, Insist on the details and on the truth!

This leaves one who is either simply referring to truth, or the other is twisting the truth to some delusion, what is your reality? a twisted delusion or a sound one, where there is no need for twisted reasoning and or addition of deception?

OK here's the Test..

At one of the Poles where it is Winter and before you have a bucket half full with water, what would be before you the following 24 hours if there was no sunlight for at least 23 hours?

A body of water or a body of ICE?

My reality has water with out seeing the light of day not as a body of water but rather as a body of Ice.. do you agree with this truth statement?

An individual with a twisted reasoning will disagree with me and insist just like it is implied in the first page of the Bible in Genesis where the gawd is shimming over a body of water, not ice mind you! but water! keep in mind all heat is only possible via mass and its interactions via the electromagnetic spectrum, (Light)

Now is my reasoning based on truth and facts or is the Bible based on truth and facts?

Someones reality is not adhering to what is REAL truth, who's reality do you think is the deluded one?

The gawd and or Author of the bible, or the facts backed by decades, nay! centuries of observations which I rely upon? facts that any-one's own sensors can provide the proof for them selves, that is what truth is!

who's reality is from the dark ages? who's is closer to a real reality?

So whats the REAL truth? What would you see before "YOU" every winter with only a few hours of lacking sunlight or does your reality have what the Bibles gawd has insisted and or declared as truth?

There are the two realities!

And guess what? I am aware of both of those realities! so who's reality is more limited and or narrow minded? :D

one with all realities in mind or one that stubbornly refers to a twisted reality and gross oversights!

Avatar please dont take my post specifically to you, but rather withrespects to reasoning...

Mod note: I renamed this thread " Science 'versus' God and Religion" by adding "and Religion" to better suit the path this discussion has taken.
If anyone is against, let me know.

I can see why you did this, though I don't see my position as 'versus' (however polemic and antagonistic I may occasionally be). I certainly do think that Science has its place and is very good at determining and explaining certain things. I see no problem believing in many scientific models and especially their application in certain situations, for certain types of problems etc and as having an effective methodology (however vastly more varied than most scientists want to admit (see Arthur Danto). I also believe in certain phenomena hitherto not explained by science and believe that there are other ways of getting knowledge that also work. So for me, as with many past and present scientists it can be Science and God, or Science and ________ (any of a number of phenomena or beings or processes now generally poo pooed by some members of the scientific community and those who I have been calling rationalists, for want of a better term.)

Fundamentalists also assume that they must discard things like evolution to maintain their belief in God (or the Bible, which they unfortunately assume is error free and not culturally biased adn worse).

This is not an either/or situation.

I experience phenomena predicted and explained by science.
I experience phenomena predicted and explained by INTUITIVES. I prefer that
term to religious people or leaders since we tend to think of the big monotheisms and organized 'churches' when we think of religions and they are at least as problematic for those they consider us pagans or worse as the scientists are (who tend to think of us as irrational, too emotional, afraid, projecting, stupid and so on.)

Mod note: I renamed this thread " Science 'versus' God and Religion" by adding "and Religion" to better suit the path this discussion has taken.
If anyone is against, let me know.


yeah yeah stealing my ideas :), i suggested that it must be science VS religion and not "god" in post #4.


peace.

I can see why you did this, though I don't see my position as 'versus' (however polemic and antagonistic I may occasionally be). I certainly do think that Science has its place and is very good at determining and explaining certain things. I see no problem believing in many scientific models and especially their application in certain situations, for certain types of problems etc and as having an effective methodology (however vastly more varied than most scientists want to admit (see Arthur Danto). I also believe in certain phenomena hitherto not explained by science and believe that there are other ways of getting knowledge that also work.keep in mind if you choose to ignore certain facts, this may limit your reality..

For example since around the 70's Universities have introduce into the educational curriculum "The Standard Model" this model refers to THEORETCAL Particles that don't fully comply to Newtons Laws, the results today is that many post graduates hold a view that these THEORETICAL particles adhere to what we should expect in reality they honestly believe a theoretical particle is REAL rather than just theoretical, anyway the most brilliant students are offered research projects funded by these Institutes who advocate to this model, the rest of the students who complete their course enter into the work force and quickly learn the THEORETCAL Particles although they work in quantum Theory, in reality the theoretical particles are not the proper reality, The electronic Industry is aware of two models where one does not consider beyond the theoretical particles area via "The Standard Model" whilst the other considers beyond the theoretical Particle and further more insists all of the Area comply to Newtons Laws..

Anyway there again I point out two realities, both are close to the others reality but one is over looking details in one direction while the other is ignoring details that don't concern production and engineering challenges and or problems..

So what has this to do with your above statement?

Well you inferred to some unexplainable, and your choice is to refer to what a Peer Pagan has to say about it.. now if your unexplainable observation has been addressed scientifically would you still prefer the pagans explanation? or would the details simply be way over your head? No matter what reality you decide upon, have you considered that some realities actually twist truth in order to benefit the sect much like the Religiously funded Educational institutes have done via their introduction of concepts and or theoretical constructs that conform to a reality infected with concepts of magic and or miracles such as "Gravitons" and "uncertainty principles" and how about the sneaky injection of Strong and Weak forces via over looking relativity's explanations are just some of the prime examples of differing realities..

Its for this fact science has still many inconsistencies, and this suits religious deception just fine..

So for me, as with many past and present scientists it can be Science and God, or Science and ________ (any of a number of phenomena or beings or processes now generally poo pooed by some members of the scientific community and those who I have been calling rationalists, for want of a better term.)

Fundamentalists also assume that they must discard things like evolution to maintain their belief in God (or the Bible, which they unfortunately assume is error free and not culturally biased and worse).

This is not an either/or situation.

I experience phenomena predicted and explained by science.
I experience phenomena predicted and explained by INTUITIVES. I prefer that
term to religious people or leaders since we tend to think of the big monotheism's and organized 'churches' when we think of religions and they are at least as problematic for those they consider us pagans or worse as the scientists are (who tend to think of us as irrational, too emotional, afraid, projecting, stupid and so on.)

That's wrong!

In most species there are genes that simply wire some of the species with different ways of reasoning, in a Pack or a herd these highly intelligent end up being leaders and or Problem solvers, and the rest of the Herd are wired without this burden or perhaps they are wired with other redundant functions and or instruction sets, and they simply follow the leaders and or the one who has reasoned the grass is sweeter and greener where I have just been so therefore, I better amber on back there and graze there a little longer, the rest simply follow via their wiring, if they ALL had this reasoning, each would go their own way, which can introduce problems that outweigh the benefits of a single leader and or problem solver, just take a look at any physics forum and what happens with the clashing of realities, so just because one is stupid in one aspect doesn't mean one is totally stupid every which way!