my science says that the solena is at least as good as the best red i've had.
the muse thing . . . what kind of 'junk science' are you using?
1) Hmmmm....weird science...but I'll give ya the fact that it COULD be true...
2) You wouldn;t understand as science is mathematics based, and your just a girl...now, when I need to knwo where to find the perfect bag to match my steve madden shoes, then I'll pm ya.
1) Hmmmm....weird science...but I'll give ya the fact that it COULD be true...
2) You wouldn;t understand as science is mathematics based, and your just a girl...now, when I need to knwo where to find the perfect bag to match my steve madden shoes, then I'll pm ya.
"math is hard."
not only will i find you a nice bag, but i'll get you out of those steve maddens as well (and into different shoes i mean).
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
A) Perform a scientific analysis of unexplained phenomena to postulate a hypothesis which can be validated through prediction and control.
Blind belief in an ancient text.
Personally I choose A. Ancient texts do have some value, given of course that they are the explanations for existance from a primative version of humanity. The Mesapotamians, Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.. all had some kind of spiritual text or doctrine which has since fallen out of favor.
God does exist conceptually, but is it really important to agree God's phsyical realness?
Just consider for a moment: This is the year 2006 A.D., or Ano Domini (In the year of [Our] Lord), in some Chinese, African and other records it's actually almost the year 5000. According to carbon dating and DNA analysis of human fossils we are about 200,000 years old. So if we were measuring time in years from the birth of our species, it should be more like 200,006. For the first 198,000 years human kind worshipped idols that are deemed false by Biblical texts. Even considering the possibility that human kind never worshipped idols for the first 100,000 years of evolutionary change, that is still 98,000 years God wasn't around. Instead, according to the Sumers, Mesapotamians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc.. etc.. there were multiple Gods, some of which were Aliens from Outerspace. I believe Scientology has more to add about that.
Typically a highly Christian person denies any possible existance of Alien life. In fact, they laugh at believers of Scientology or self-proclaimed Abductees. However, given that the basis for both Christianity and Scientology is ancient texts, what is the difference?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You don't have to pick A or B as a blanket system of belief. However, even on a individualized level, I can't fathom an experience solely explainable by unexplainable explanations.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You don't have to pick A or B as a blanket system of belief. However, even on a individualized level, I can't fathom an experience solely explainable by unexplainable explanations.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no. i dont feel like spreading my personal life all over the moving train. and you wouldnt accept them anyway.
I would accept them as personal experiences.
There is a particular way of looking at things scientifically...
A gentleman I work with says that "evidence of sulfur balls was found at the site of Soddam and Gamorrah which proves God".
Scientifically speaking, that proves sulfur balls exist in a particular geographic area, it gives creedance to the historical account in the Bible, but is a long way from scientifically proving God.
He asked me "How else could it have happened?"
Without any real knowledge of "Sulfur Balls" I expect it could be debris from a meteorite that is primarily Sulfur based that could have been large enough to enter the earths atmosphere, break apart and ingite before raining down on the earth.
So, we have two possible explanations, no proofs. However, I can further explain my explanation: Where do meteorites come from? What are they made out of? How do they break apart in the atmosphere? How do they ignite in the atmosphere? etc... all these questions can be answered right down to the sub-atomic structure.
What about God: Where does God come from? What is God made out of? How did God create the universe? How old is God? What does God look like? Answers?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"A new study of Martian meteorites adds one more complication to how scientists will study rocks that may one day be scooped up on the Red Planet and, possibly, returned to Earth.
Only a handful of meteorites thought to have come from Mars have been found. James Farquhar and colleagues at the University of California at San Diego studied compounds of sulfur from these rocks, finding that the sulfur originated in the Martian atmosphere, not from biological processes.
Sulfur, abundant on the surface of Mars, can exist in different forms, known as isotopes. Some scientists have previously suggested that the relative abundance of sulfur isotopes could provide signals of biological activity." http://www.space.com/searchforlife/mars_life_000301.html
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There is a particular way of looking at things scientifically...
A gentleman I work with says that "evidence of sulfur balls was found at the site of Soddam and Gamorrah which proves God".
Scientifically speaking, that proves sulfur balls exist in a particular geographic area, it gives creedance to the historical account in the Bible, but is a long way from scientifically proving God.
He asked me "How else could it have happened?"
Without any real knowledge of "Sulfur Balls" I expect it could be debris from a meteorite that is primarily Sulfur based that could have been large enough to enter the earths atmosphere, break apart and ingite before raining down on the earth.
So, we have two possible explanations, no proofs. However, I can further explain my explanation: Where do meteorites come from? What are they made out of? How do they break apart in the atmosphere? How do they ignite in the atmosphere? etc... all these questions can be answered right down to the sub-atomic structure.
What about God: Where does God come from? What is God made out of? How did God create the universe? How old is God? What does God look like? Answers?
The most simple test would be to see how old those sulphur balls are. You can use scientific dating techniques, and I'd bet those sulphur balls predate the biblical story by, oh about 50 million years.
In fact, the story was probably created to explain the sulphur balls.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Great discussion, one of my favorite topics, but so rarely do I find the people to indulge me...
To me science is an issue of probability- Many scientists have moved on from the absolutes of the early and mid 20th century and moved into a world accepting quantum uncertainty. In this world you cannot confirm or deny anything with 100% certainty, instead must present everything in probability.
And science is the tool that gives us answers that, based on the observations and evidence available, have the highest probability of holding true. Going hand in hand with quantum uncertainty though is the inability to technically ever rule anything out- so there is a loop hole that allows god- it is just very unlikely- as likely perhaps as me turning out to in fact be a giant chicken...
It does get tiring living in a world where you have to clarify every statement to include the probability, eg- "let's watch the sun rise tomorrow, although bear in mind that there is a one in seventeen squibillion chance that it won't ". So we communicate as though things with a very high or low probability are certain, even though there is always a tiny chance they are not. And every time evidence contradicts a scientific theory that evidence is factored into a new theory, which has a slightly higher probability of holding true because it has a little more evidence to support it. So science actually improves with time- a reason why the 'science has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future' argument, whilst true, is not a criticism of science.
Something else to consider is also the difference between 'faith' and 'blind faith'. Everybody, scientists included, have faith in something. But this is faith based on observation:
A man and a woman have faith in their marriage because of what they have observed and experienced over the duration of their relationship. We go on a plane with faith that it will land safely, because in our experience that is what has happened in the past, and based on our observations we know that the chance of the plane crashing is very low. So while there is no proof for this faith, there are observations that support a likely outcome.
Religion is the most common example of blind faith- faith in something without any observational evidence. It is also one of the few parts of our lives where we accept blind faith- nobody would seriously try and cross a road by themselves if their eyes were closed and they had ear plugs in - yet that is the same blind faith that is accepted when people say they believe in god.
Anyway, so now that I have offended all religious people by comparing the belief in god to oversized poultry and getting flattened by a truck I will say that this was not meant to be an anti-religion post, instead just meant to reflect the arguments as to why I cannot believe in god. I am fascinated by beliefs and as long as you can justify your beliefs and they don't harm anyone else, all power to you.
Besides- I have already figured all of this out:
WHY THERE IS NO GOD
IF AN ATHEIST IS ONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A HIGHER POWER,
AND GOD IS THE ULTIMATE HIGHER POWER, THE ALL KNOWING SUPREME BEING,
THEN GOD MUST KNOW OF NO HIGHER POWER,
AND IF GOD KNOWS OF NO HIGHER POWER, GOD MUST BE AN ATHEIST,
AND IF GOD IS ALL KNOWING AND AN ATHEIST,
THEN GOD HAS JUST PROVEN THAT HE/SHE DOES NOT EXIST...
I do think that balance is important. Science is not our only resource and shouldn't be thought of as such. But I'm curious as to what value you find that is unique to structured, organized religion.
I remember recounting to you a little over a month ago that I have not stepped foot in a church for my own purposes since I was about 14, which is about 28 years ago. That was the truth. I have found immense spirituality naturally, and without the need of a middle man.
I've travelled through levels of personal awareness enough to learn a few things. And the few things I've learned are also understood philosophically at this time, and documented from outside of me, scientifically. Humans, whether personally in our individual lives, or collectively through past eras, have evolved through specific stages of awareness. Whether personally, or collectively, in order to transcend from one level to the next successfully, we need to transcend AND integrate the past level. If we do not integrate the past level, we dissociate from it--become unconscious of it where it wreaks havoc all around us.
We are currently moving onward through and past the deeply-felt downside to the effects of the "Enlightenment" or rational period where scientism has reigned as dictator. Due to the imbalanced overtaking of science, we have much scientific advancement, and yet as humans we are dramatically crippled and imbalanced. Most of our systems are set up so that we think it is neutral to rape and pillage ourselves, each other, and the earth. This is because we have stripped our lives of meaning and value with the neutrality and imbalance of the dictatorship of scientism these hundreds of years. We have allowed an unnatural hierarchy of scientism-rule to fuel us through the industrial age, to the great risk and detriment to humans. And yet many consider most the progress aspects. While we have had much progress, we have little idea what we've lopped off in terms of balance/health/community by utilizing such imbalance for so long.
We are in the process of transcending the old dying stage. If we attempt to transcend this phase by lopping off aspects from the basis of who we are and of our past, it will be to our detriment. We will continue to perpetuate this imbalance. We will continue to have a pathological hierarchical dictatorial system, rather than a natural and balanced one. So, just like a cell embraces and integrates molecules, and like molecules embrace and integrate atoms, in order for us to move into healthier more-whole ways of living, we must integrate ourselves with what has come before.
The problem is that most of us don't know what it means to be integrated. We don't realize that when we come to terms with that which we oppose, the issues all but disappear! There never was a bad guy outside of us! When we resolve our own issues, our issues disappear!
Integrating an awareness of science with traditional religion does not entail agreeing with what we don't agree with. Embracing something does not mean being inauthentic to what we see and believe. It merely means accepting it, and treating it with acceptance and therefore the chance to understand and IMPROVE, rather than adopting a rigid blanket generalized stance for one way and against another. Realistic and actual intellectual discernment happens on a point to point basis. This discernment only happens when we are open to learn, rather than being quick to judge based on emotional bias we don't allow ourselves to see. Prejudice and bias is about blanket statements and prejudgment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It does get tiring living in a world where you have to clarify every statement to include the probability, eg- "let's watch the sun rise tomorrow, although bear in mind that there is a one in seventeen squibillion chance that it won't ". So we communicate as though things with a very high or low probability are certain, even though there is always a tiny chance they are not. And every time evidence contradicts a scientific theory that evidence is factored into a new theory, which has a slightly higher probability of holding true because it has a little more evidence to support it. So science actually improves with time- a reason why the 'science has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future' argument, whilst true, is not a criticism of science.
A commonly misunderstood principle is that for a scientific theory to be a good scientific theory it must be falsifiable. In other words there must be a chance it can be proven wrong. Religious theories are not good scientific theories for that reason.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, we have two possible explanations, no proofs. However, I can further explain my explanation: Where do meteorites come from? What are they made out of? How do they break apart in the atmosphere? How do they ignite in the atmosphere? etc... all these questions can be answered right down to the sub-atomic structure.
and none of those questions explains the particular existence of those particular sulfur balls on that particular location. your explanation simply explains the existence of some sulfur balls beings on earth. it might be a better explanation, but it does not exclude the existence of another one.
im well aware of the process of scientific thought. there have been things that have happened in my life that the only way to adequately explain them is some sort of higher being behind all the science. ive considered every imaginable alternative, and some sort of greater force propelling the occurrences is the only one that makes sense. they defy any scientific explanation i've ever heard.
IF AN ATHEIST IS ONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A HIGHER POWER,
AND GOD IS THE ULTIMATE HIGHER POWER, THE ALL KNOWING SUPREME BEING,
THEN GOD MUST KNOW OF NO HIGHER POWER,
AND IF GOD KNOWS OF NO HIGHER POWER, GOD MUST BE AN ATHEIST,
AND IF GOD IS ALL KNOWING AND AN ATHEIST,
THEN GOD HAS JUST PROVEN THAT HE/SHE DOES NOT EXIST...
A commonly misunderstood principle is that for a scientific theory to be a good scientific theory it must be falsifiable. In other words there must be a chance it can be proven wrong. Religious theories are not good scientific theories for that reason.
I always laugh when anti-science people try to discredit science by saying "it doesn't prove anything". The way I look at, science does proves things, we don't accept anything as 100 percent, but not because science isn't perfect but because we are imperfect.
Science is infalible, we are not. We are subject to bias, human error and falsification. Also, we are limited by our own brain size. Some things are just too darn big for us to wrap our head around. Science itself is designed to compensate for this by being elastic enough to change when a human error is discovered.
For some reason, religionists see this as a weakness.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
and none of those questions explains the particular existence of those particular sulfur balls on that particular location. your explanation simply explains the existence of some sulfur balls beings on earth. it might be a better explanation, but it does not exclude the existence of another one.
im well aware of the process of scientific thought. there have been things that have happened in my life that the only way to adequately explain them is some sort of higher being behind all the science. ive considered every imaginable alternative, and some sort of greater force propelling the occurrences is the only one that makes sense. they defy any scientific explanation i've ever heard.
I did not purport that my theory disproves alternate theories, or that my theory was absolute. Simply that alternate theories can exist to explain phenomena of which other observers can not see. The same may explain your conclusions of a higher propulsion force in the universe. There are many things about the universe we are unaware of that could drastically alter our perceptions. Such as dark matter, string theory, etc.. perhaps Newtonian law or Einstein's theory of general relativity are completely wrong.
If all things incomprehensible must be explained by the existance of an incomprehensible being, then how do you explain the incomprehinsible being?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
and none of those questions explains the particular existence of those particular sulfur balls on that particular location. your explanation simply explains the existence of some sulfur balls beings on earth. it might be a better explanation, but it does not exclude the existence of another one.
im well aware of the process of scientific thought. there have been things that have happened in my life that the only way to adequately explain them is some sort of higher being behind all the science. ive considered every imaginable alternative, and some sort of greater force propelling the occurrences is the only one that makes sense. they defy any scientific explanation i've ever heard.
Like I said, those sulfar balls probably predate the biblical story by millions of years. Someone says where did those sulfar balls come from? Someone else makes up a story, it gets told, retold, eventually ends up in the bible.
I think whenever we get into this debate, you talk about your experiences, yet you never tell us what they are?
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Religion is the most common example of blind faith- faith in something without any observational evidence. It is also one of the few parts of our lives where we accept blind faith- nobody would seriously try and cross a road by themselves if their eyes were closed and they had ear plugs in - yet that is the same blind faith that is accepted when people say they believe in god.
Why do accept the unproveable bond between people as when you accept the faith involved in a marriage, but then rule out peoples experiences and how they relate to God?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Not actually meant to be a serious argument- just a fun play on words- in fact you will find no definition of atheist as one who does not believe in a higher power.
Why do accept the unproveable bond between people as when you accept the faith involved in a marriage, but then rule out peoples experiences and how they relate to God?
My point is the difference in the type of faith- Faith in a person is based on what you see and experience with that person- If you see them in bed with somone else that faith is changed by a real world observation.
Faith in god is rarely shaped by what is observed.
I always laugh when anti-science people try to discredit science by saying "it doesn't prove anything". The way I look at, science does proves things, we don't accept anything as 100 percent, but not because science isn't perfect but because we are imperfect.
Science is infalible, we are not. We are subject to bias, human error and falsification. Also, we are limited by our own brain size. Some things are just too darn big for us to wrap our head around. Science itself is designed to compensate for this by being elastic enough to change when a human error is discovered.
For some reason, religionists see this as a weakness.
well said. There is a limit to what we can understand using science, but this reflects our own inabilities to use science to its absolute potential rather then any inbuilt failing of science.
I remember recounting to you a little over a month ago that I have not stepped foot in a church for my own purposes since I was about 14, which is about 28 years ago. That was the truth. I have found immense spirituality naturally, and without the need of a middle man.
I've travelled through levels of personal awareness enough to learn a few things. And the few things I've learned are also understood philosophically at this time, and documented from outside of me, scientifically. Humans, whether personally in our individual lives, or collectively through past eras, have evolved through specific stages of awareness. Whether personally, or collectively, in order to transcend from one level to the next successfully, we need to transcend AND integrate the past level. If we do not integrate the past level, we dissociate from it--become unconscious of it where it wreaks havoc all around us.
We are currently moving onward through and past the deeply-felt downside to the effects of the "Enlightenment" or rational period where scientism has reigned as dictator. Due to the imbalanced overtaking of science, we have much scientific advancement, and yet as humans we are dramatically crippled and imbalanced. Most of our systems are set up so that we think it is neutral to rape and pillage ourselves, each other, and the earth. This is because we have stripped our lives of meaning and value with the neutrality and imbalance of the dictatorship of scientism these hundreds of years. We have allowed an unnatural hierarchy of scientism-rule to fuel us through the industrial age, to the great risk and detriment to humans. And yet many consider most the progress aspects. While we have had much progress, we have little idea what we've lopped off in terms of balance/health/community by utilizing such imbalance for so long.
I would argue that the imbalanced overtakings of science are largely due to the culture in which modern scientific thought has arisen, namely one in which humans are thought to have dominion over the entire earth. That is not a scientific idea, but a religious one. The unnatural hierarchy was not brought to us by science. We have certainly used science to exert that dominion, but it was Genesis, not a scientist, that introduced the idea that the world is ours to do with as we please. That is what we need to move through and past, and move towards an understanding of our own place in an inter-connected universe.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I did not purport that my theory disproves alternate theories, or that my theory was absolute. Simply that alternate theories can exist to explain phenomena of which other observers can not see. The same may explain your conclusions of a higher propulsion force in the universe. There are many things about the universe we are unaware of that could drastically alter our perceptions. Such as dark matter, string theory, etc.. perhaps Newtonian law or Einstein's theory of general relativity are completely wrong.
If all things incomprehensible must be explained by the existance of an incomprehensible being, then how do you explain the incomprehinsible being?
all things incomprehensible do not HAVE to be explained by an unexplainable being, they just can be. take the big bang. science offers no sensible theory as to why or how the universe would go from utterly empty to a sudden and vast explosion of matter in no time at all. the very idea is ridiculous. until science gives me a better answer, i will simply ascribe it to some unknown creative force driving the way our universe works. we dont know why atoms spin round or where they get there charge. every time we make a discovery like that, we have more questions. we learn more and more about how things work, but little about why they work or how they came to work that way as opposed to another way.
i dont explain the incomprehensible being as you put it. i just find that there is more order to life than chaos and that there must be a reason for that. i dont believe in religion, or in "god" setting down 10 rules to follow and handing them to humans in stone tablet form. i look to nature and science to reveal "god's plan" to me.
the point of an incomprehensible being is to make sense of that which cannot be explained. i dont believe anything in the bible and im sure your explanation of the sulfur balls is spot on. my point is solely that science has limits from time to time. there are things as of yet that it cannot explain. until it explains them, i ascribe some sort of driving creative force to be that explanation. why does math work? why do cells stay together? there is a lot science hasn't explained yet.
take the big bang. what caused it? where did all that matter come from? a sudden spontaneous explosion of vast amounts of matter from nothing makes even less sense than some sort of god to my thinking. if science one day comes up with a plausible explanation for it, then i will accept it. but until then, there's no reason not to accept the unexplainable as being the work of something greater.
BAM! Put that in your public school curriculum and smoke it.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Like I said, those sulfar balls probably predate the biblical story by millions of years. Someone says where did those sulfar balls come from? Someone else makes up a story, it gets told, retold, eventually ends up in the bible.
I think whenever we get into this debate, you talk about your experiences, yet you never tell us what they are?
like i said, im sure you're right. i dont believe anything in the bible to be true. doesn't mean i believe you have any definitive prove that god does not exist. god, to me, is little more than a creative force of direction. the reason life has more order than chaos.
i have spoken about my experiences before. i do not feel like reiterating them here becos they are deeply personal to me and i dont feel like having you and ahnimus going at me with your bullshit pop culture psychological analysis of me.
Comments
1) Hmmmm....weird science...but I'll give ya the fact that it COULD be true...
2) You wouldn;t understand as science is mathematics based, and your just a girl...now, when I need to knwo where to find the perfect bag to match my steve madden shoes, then I'll pm ya.
DOn;t know amnesia...I know of some others though. Yes Oregon has some good beers, but to be honest, you can find some good stuff almost anywhere.
I'm looking up amnesia first thing so I can be more enlightened.
"math is hard."
not only will i find you a nice bag, but i'll get you out of those steve maddens as well (and into different shoes i mean).
cross the river to the eastside
my opinion may also be colored by my love for the place/neighborhood. but the beer was still good.
cross the river to the eastside
So in summary...
We have two options:
A) Perform a scientific analysis of unexplained phenomena to postulate a hypothesis which can be validated through prediction and control.
Personally I choose A. Ancient texts do have some value, given of course that they are the explanations for existance from a primative version of humanity. The Mesapotamians, Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.. all had some kind of spiritual text or doctrine which has since fallen out of favor.
God does exist conceptually, but is it really important to agree God's phsyical realness?
Just consider for a moment: This is the year 2006 A.D., or Ano Domini (In the year of [Our] Lord), in some Chinese, African and other records it's actually almost the year 5000. According to carbon dating and DNA analysis of human fossils we are about 200,000 years old. So if we were measuring time in years from the birth of our species, it should be more like 200,006. For the first 198,000 years human kind worshipped idols that are deemed false by Biblical texts. Even considering the possibility that human kind never worshipped idols for the first 100,000 years of evolutionary change, that is still 98,000 years God wasn't around. Instead, according to the Sumers, Mesapotamians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc.. etc.. there were multiple Gods, some of which were Aliens from Outerspace. I believe Scientology has more to add about that.
Typically a highly Christian person denies any possible existance of Alien life. In fact, they laugh at believers of Scientology or self-proclaimed Abductees. However, given that the basis for both Christianity and Scientology is ancient texts, what is the difference?
Is
Why do you have ot pick either A) or
You don't have to pick A or B as a blanket system of belief. However, even on a individualized level, I can't fathom an experience solely explainable by unexplainable explanations.
i have several.
May I be honored with an example or two?
no. i dont feel like spreading my personal life all over the moving train. and you wouldnt accept them anyway.
I would accept them as personal experiences.
There is a particular way of looking at things scientifically...
A gentleman I work with says that "evidence of sulfur balls was found at the site of Soddam and Gamorrah which proves God".
Scientifically speaking, that proves sulfur balls exist in a particular geographic area, it gives creedance to the historical account in the Bible, but is a long way from scientifically proving God.
He asked me "How else could it have happened?"
Without any real knowledge of "Sulfur Balls" I expect it could be debris from a meteorite that is primarily Sulfur based that could have been large enough to enter the earths atmosphere, break apart and ingite before raining down on the earth.
So, we have two possible explanations, no proofs. However, I can further explain my explanation: Where do meteorites come from? What are they made out of? How do they break apart in the atmosphere? How do they ignite in the atmosphere? etc... all these questions can be answered right down to the sub-atomic structure.
What about God: Where does God come from? What is God made out of? How did God create the universe? How old is God? What does God look like? Answers?
"A new study of Martian meteorites adds one more complication to how scientists will study rocks that may one day be scooped up on the Red Planet and, possibly, returned to Earth.
Only a handful of meteorites thought to have come from Mars have been found. James Farquhar and colleagues at the University of California at San Diego studied compounds of sulfur from these rocks, finding that the sulfur originated in the Martian atmosphere, not from biological processes.
Sulfur, abundant on the surface of Mars, can exist in different forms, known as isotopes. Some scientists have previously suggested that the relative abundance of sulfur isotopes could provide signals of biological activity."
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/mars_life_000301.html
The most simple test would be to see how old those sulphur balls are. You can use scientific dating techniques, and I'd bet those sulphur balls predate the biblical story by, oh about 50 million years.
In fact, the story was probably created to explain the sulphur balls.
-Ashley Montagu
To me science is an issue of probability- Many scientists have moved on from the absolutes of the early and mid 20th century and moved into a world accepting quantum uncertainty. In this world you cannot confirm or deny anything with 100% certainty, instead must present everything in probability.
And science is the tool that gives us answers that, based on the observations and evidence available, have the highest probability of holding true. Going hand in hand with quantum uncertainty though is the inability to technically ever rule anything out- so there is a loop hole that allows god- it is just very unlikely- as likely perhaps as me turning out to in fact be a giant chicken...
It does get tiring living in a world where you have to clarify every statement to include the probability, eg- "let's watch the sun rise tomorrow, although bear in mind that there is a one in seventeen squibillion chance that it won't ". So we communicate as though things with a very high or low probability are certain, even though there is always a tiny chance they are not. And every time evidence contradicts a scientific theory that evidence is factored into a new theory, which has a slightly higher probability of holding true because it has a little more evidence to support it. So science actually improves with time- a reason why the 'science has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future' argument, whilst true, is not a criticism of science.
Something else to consider is also the difference between 'faith' and 'blind faith'. Everybody, scientists included, have faith in something. But this is faith based on observation:
A man and a woman have faith in their marriage because of what they have observed and experienced over the duration of their relationship. We go on a plane with faith that it will land safely, because in our experience that is what has happened in the past, and based on our observations we know that the chance of the plane crashing is very low. So while there is no proof for this faith, there are observations that support a likely outcome.
Religion is the most common example of blind faith- faith in something without any observational evidence. It is also one of the few parts of our lives where we accept blind faith- nobody would seriously try and cross a road by themselves if their eyes were closed and they had ear plugs in - yet that is the same blind faith that is accepted when people say they believe in god.
Anyway, so now that I have offended all religious people by comparing the belief in god to oversized poultry and getting flattened by a truck I will say that this was not meant to be an anti-religion post, instead just meant to reflect the arguments as to why I cannot believe in god. I am fascinated by beliefs and as long as you can justify your beliefs and they don't harm anyone else, all power to you.
Besides- I have already figured all of this out:
WHY THERE IS NO GOD
IF AN ATHEIST IS ONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A HIGHER POWER,
AND GOD IS THE ULTIMATE HIGHER POWER, THE ALL KNOWING SUPREME BEING,
THEN GOD MUST KNOW OF NO HIGHER POWER,
AND IF GOD KNOWS OF NO HIGHER POWER, GOD MUST BE AN ATHEIST,
AND IF GOD IS ALL KNOWING AND AN ATHEIST,
THEN GOD HAS JUST PROVEN THAT HE/SHE DOES NOT EXIST...
I remember recounting to you a little over a month ago that I have not stepped foot in a church for my own purposes since I was about 14, which is about 28 years ago. That was the truth. I have found immense spirituality naturally, and without the need of a middle man.
I've travelled through levels of personal awareness enough to learn a few things. And the few things I've learned are also understood philosophically at this time, and documented from outside of me, scientifically. Humans, whether personally in our individual lives, or collectively through past eras, have evolved through specific stages of awareness. Whether personally, or collectively, in order to transcend from one level to the next successfully, we need to transcend AND integrate the past level. If we do not integrate the past level, we dissociate from it--become unconscious of it where it wreaks havoc all around us.
We are currently moving onward through and past the deeply-felt downside to the effects of the "Enlightenment" or rational period where scientism has reigned as dictator. Due to the imbalanced overtaking of science, we have much scientific advancement, and yet as humans we are dramatically crippled and imbalanced. Most of our systems are set up so that we think it is neutral to rape and pillage ourselves, each other, and the earth. This is because we have stripped our lives of meaning and value with the neutrality and imbalance of the dictatorship of scientism these hundreds of years. We have allowed an unnatural hierarchy of scientism-rule to fuel us through the industrial age, to the great risk and detriment to humans. And yet many consider most the progress aspects. While we have had much progress, we have little idea what we've lopped off in terms of balance/health/community by utilizing such imbalance for so long.
We are in the process of transcending the old dying stage. If we attempt to transcend this phase by lopping off aspects from the basis of who we are and of our past, it will be to our detriment. We will continue to perpetuate this imbalance. We will continue to have a pathological hierarchical dictatorial system, rather than a natural and balanced one. So, just like a cell embraces and integrates molecules, and like molecules embrace and integrate atoms, in order for us to move into healthier more-whole ways of living, we must integrate ourselves with what has come before.
The problem is that most of us don't know what it means to be integrated. We don't realize that when we come to terms with that which we oppose, the issues all but disappear! There never was a bad guy outside of us! When we resolve our own issues, our issues disappear!
Integrating an awareness of science with traditional religion does not entail agreeing with what we don't agree with. Embracing something does not mean being inauthentic to what we see and believe. It merely means accepting it, and treating it with acceptance and therefore the chance to understand and IMPROVE, rather than adopting a rigid blanket generalized stance for one way and against another. Realistic and actual intellectual discernment happens on a point to point basis. This discernment only happens when we are open to learn, rather than being quick to judge based on emotional bias we don't allow ourselves to see. Prejudice and bias is about blanket statements and prejudgment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
A commonly misunderstood principle is that for a scientific theory to be a good scientific theory it must be falsifiable. In other words there must be a chance it can be proven wrong. Religious theories are not good scientific theories for that reason.
and none of those questions explains the particular existence of those particular sulfur balls on that particular location. your explanation simply explains the existence of some sulfur balls beings on earth. it might be a better explanation, but it does not exclude the existence of another one.
im well aware of the process of scientific thought. there have been things that have happened in my life that the only way to adequately explain them is some sort of higher being behind all the science. ive considered every imaginable alternative, and some sort of greater force propelling the occurrences is the only one that makes sense. they defy any scientific explanation i've ever heard.
this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I always laugh when anti-science people try to discredit science by saying "it doesn't prove anything". The way I look at, science does proves things, we don't accept anything as 100 percent, but not because science isn't perfect but because we are imperfect.
Science is infalible, we are not. We are subject to bias, human error and falsification. Also, we are limited by our own brain size. Some things are just too darn big for us to wrap our head around. Science itself is designed to compensate for this by being elastic enough to change when a human error is discovered.
For some reason, religionists see this as a weakness.
-Ashley Montagu
I did not purport that my theory disproves alternate theories, or that my theory was absolute. Simply that alternate theories can exist to explain phenomena of which other observers can not see. The same may explain your conclusions of a higher propulsion force in the universe. There are many things about the universe we are unaware of that could drastically alter our perceptions. Such as dark matter, string theory, etc.. perhaps Newtonian law or Einstein's theory of general relativity are completely wrong.
If all things incomprehensible must be explained by the existance of an incomprehensible being, then how do you explain the incomprehinsible being?
Like I said, those sulfar balls probably predate the biblical story by millions of years. Someone says where did those sulfar balls come from? Someone else makes up a story, it gets told, retold, eventually ends up in the bible.
I think whenever we get into this debate, you talk about your experiences, yet you never tell us what they are?
-Ashley Montagu
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Not actually meant to be a serious argument- just a fun play on words- in fact you will find no definition of atheist as one who does not believe in a higher power.
My point is the difference in the type of faith- Faith in a person is based on what you see and experience with that person- If you see them in bed with somone else that faith is changed by a real world observation.
Faith in god is rarely shaped by what is observed.
well said. There is a limit to what we can understand using science, but this reflects our own inabilities to use science to its absolute potential rather then any inbuilt failing of science.
I would argue that the imbalanced overtakings of science are largely due to the culture in which modern scientific thought has arisen, namely one in which humans are thought to have dominion over the entire earth. That is not a scientific idea, but a religious one. The unnatural hierarchy was not brought to us by science. We have certainly used science to exert that dominion, but it was Genesis, not a scientist, that introduced the idea that the world is ours to do with as we please. That is what we need to move through and past, and move towards an understanding of our own place in an inter-connected universe.
all things incomprehensible do not HAVE to be explained by an unexplainable being, they just can be. take the big bang. science offers no sensible theory as to why or how the universe would go from utterly empty to a sudden and vast explosion of matter in no time at all. the very idea is ridiculous. until science gives me a better answer, i will simply ascribe it to some unknown creative force driving the way our universe works. we dont know why atoms spin round or where they get there charge. every time we make a discovery like that, we have more questions. we learn more and more about how things work, but little about why they work or how they came to work that way as opposed to another way.
i dont explain the incomprehensible being as you put it. i just find that there is more order to life than chaos and that there must be a reason for that. i dont believe in religion, or in "god" setting down 10 rules to follow and handing them to humans in stone tablet form. i look to nature and science to reveal "god's plan" to me.
BAM! Put that in your public school curriculum and smoke it.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
like i said, im sure you're right. i dont believe anything in the bible to be true. doesn't mean i believe you have any definitive prove that god does not exist. god, to me, is little more than a creative force of direction. the reason life has more order than chaos.
i have spoken about my experiences before. i do not feel like reiterating them here becos they are deeply personal to me and i dont feel like having you and ahnimus going at me with your bullshit pop culture psychological analysis of me.