World would be worse off without faith...

onelongsong

callen wrote:

they use the bee story as a foundation that god exists.....ROFLMAO.

i use the bee story to prove that science is fallable.

Ahnimus

callen wrote:

they use the bee story as a foundation that god exists.....ROFLMAO.

Yea, because they've been convinced that God did not create science.

I'm not sure the whole logic, but it's more or less only because scientific investigations threaten the foundation of metaphysical beliefs.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

i use the bee story to prove that science is fallable.

Science is not fallable.

See, the scientific method states that in order for a theory to be a scientific theory it must be falsifiable. Which means that it can be challenged and proven wrong or inaccurate. That doesn't make science fallable, it makes it adaptable and debatable.

In contrast to Religion that argues that it is not falsifiable. Religion cannot be proven wrong and scientific theories can, therefor Science is less fallable than religion. Actually, therefor science is infallable.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

i use the bee story to prove that science is fallable.

Science does not claim infallibility ... that's religion. Science is perfectly happy to correct itself as our knowledge increases. There is no greater achievement for a scientist than to come up with a new theory that debunks an old, widely accepted theory, and forces everyone to look at things in an entirely new way. The best scientists spend a large portion of their time TRYING to prove science wrong!

Contrast this with religion, which decided thousands of years ago that this is the way things are, this is the way things will always be, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic.

Ahnimus

hippiemom wrote:

Science does not claim infallibility ... that's religion. Science is perfectly happy to correct itself as our knowledge increases. There is no greater achievement for a scientist than to come up with a new theory that debunks an old, widely accepted theory, and forces everyone to look at things in an entirely new way. The best scientists spend a large portion of their time TRYING to prove science wrong!

Contrast this with religion, which decided thousands of years ago that this is the way things are, this is the way things will always be, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic.

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” - Niels Bohr, Physicist

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Oddly, Einstein believed in determinism, he did not believe we have free-will. However he did believe in a God like entity, and so did Hawking. Somehow both managed to take their discoveries and fit it into their religion. Simply by saying that determinism is indicative of God's plan. The illusion of free-choice is a misinterpretation of Biblical text.

"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein

"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate." -- Stephen Hawking

oddly; einstein did not believe in the theory of evolution. in order for the theory of evolution to be true; changes must be small and over long periods of time. he could not explain complex organs such as the heart; brain; or even the eye developing slowly over thousands of years. he also could not explain a single organism evolving into a massive dinosaur; then an extinction; then smaller creatures evolving from the same [DNA] organism. if the organism evolved into the dinosaur once; it must evolve into the dinosaur again. it's been millions of years and no one's seen a dinosaur lately.

evolution is not a law of science. i challenge you to back that statement. the THEORY of evolution is a THEORY. something widely accepted as true because another explaination cannot be proven.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

oddly; einstein did not believe in the theory of evolution. in order for the theory of evolution to be true; changes must be small and over long periods of time. he could not explain complex organs such as the heart; brain; or even the eye developing slowly over thousands of years. he also could not explain a single organism evolving into a massive dinosaur; then an extinction; then smaller creatures evolving from the same [DNA] organism. if the organism evolved into the dinosaur once; it must evolve into the dinosaur again. it's been millions of years and no one's seen a dinosaur lately.

evolution is not a law of science. i challenge you to back that statement. the THEORY of evolution is a THEORY. something widely accepted as true because another explaination cannot be proven.

Have you been reading Conservapedia?

Honestly, Evolution is a scientific theory, not just a theory, it complies with the scientific method. Now, Einstein was a physicist, not a evolutionary biologist or even a biologist. So I wouldn't take his word on Evolution too seriously, and I'm not sure what you are saying is even true.

Now, Charles "Chuck" Darwin didn't want to believe in Natural Selection either because he was a devoted Catholic, but his evidence was undeniable, since Darwin's time we've accumulated billions of pieces of evidence, including fossils and the recently mapped genomes of Humans, Apes and Mice. All the evidence for genetic evolution is there, undeniably.

This lecture series addresses all skepticism about Evolution and some facts about Darwin's life.
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

Science does not claim infallibility ... that's religion. Science is perfectly happy to correct itself as our knowledge increases. There is no greater achievement for a scientist than to come up with a new theory that debunks an old, widely accepted theory, and forces everyone to look at things in an entirely new way. The best scientists spend a large portion of their time TRYING to prove science wrong!

Contrast this with religion, which decided thousands of years ago that this is the way things are, this is the way things will always be, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic.

ok now. ahnimus said science has proven God doesn't exist. now we agree science is fallible and as time passes; old theories are replaced with new theories or facts. for example; up until 1634; it was scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth.

i'm not debating religion. ahnimus said he would prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist. using of course scientific fact. now we agree science is fallible and these cold hard facts of his could be proven wrong tomorrow.

so the logical conclusion is that he has an opinion based on what he believes to be true. this being said; he can't prove anything and we revert back to what i said. we each have our opinions and i respect his as his opinion.

brain of c

but you gotta have faith.......

Well I guess it would be nice
If I could touch your body
I know not everybody
Has got a body like you

But Ive got to think twice
Before I give my heart away
And I know all the games you play
Because I play them too

Oh but i
Need some time off from that emotion
Time to pick my heart up off the floor
And when that love comes down
Without devotion
Well it takes a strong man baby
But Im showing you the door

cause I gotta have faith...

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Have you been reading Conservapedia?

Honestly, Evolution is a scientific theory, not just a theory, it complies with the scientific method. Now, Einstein was a physicist, not a evolutionary biologist or even a biologist. So I wouldn't take his word on Evolution too seriously, and I'm not sure what you are saying is even true.

Now, Charles "Chuck" Darwin didn't want to believe in Natural Selection either because he was a devoted Catholic, but his evidence was undeniable, since Darwin's time we've accumulated billions of pieces of evidence, including fossils and the recently mapped genomes of Humans, Apes and Mice. All the evidence for genetic evolution is there, undeniably.

This lecture series addresses all skepticism about Evolution and some facts about Darwin's life.
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html

but we've agreed that science is fallible and scientific conclusion is based upon THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.
science does not have the ability to prove that God engineered evolution at this time. they only assume that some magic dust fell from space and evolution mysteriously appeared. since evolution is life; who created evolution [life].

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

ok now. ahnimus said science has proven God doesn't exist. now we agree science is fallible and as time passes; old theories are replaced with new theories or facts. for example; up until 1634; it was scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth.

i'm not debating religion. ahnimus said he would prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist. using of course scientific fact. now we agree science is fallible and these cold hard facts of his could be proven wrong tomorrow.

so the logical conclusion is that he has an opinion based on what he believes to be true. this being said; he can't prove anything and we revert back to what i said. we each have our opinions and i respect his as his opinion.

I've heard people say that scientific theories are proven wrong, or that science is "turned on it's head". Which is complete rubbish, it's refined, but for the most part the basic theories are consistent.

Take for example the old religious belief that the sun revolved around the earth. Well in fact the earth revolves around the sun, but the revolving relationship between sun and earth remains consistent. That is how science typically functions.

I can prove that religion is bunk with religion. There can be no such thing as free choice and God's plan. They are contradictory.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

but we've agreed that science is fallible and scientific conclusion is based upon THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.
science does not have the ability to prove that God engineered evolution at this time. they only assume that some magic dust fell from space and evolution mysteriously appeared. since evolution is life; who created evolution [life].

Science has made organic material, Urea, as an example, from non-organic material. The origin of life is no different, it started as non-organic matter that in a specific combination creates organic matter. Science is coming amazingly close to explaining how the first organic life spawned from non-organic matter. It's my belief, shared by some, that the plasma emissions from the sun (Aurora Borealis) played a role in the origin of life.

I don't agree that science is fallable, any given scientific theory may be flawed, but the overall system of the scientific method ensures truth over time.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The separation between God and Science is absurd.

If... God created the universe, then the laws of the universe are the means by which God created things to behave. There should be no separation, it's absolutely absurd.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is stupid." - Albert Einstein

This goes back to holons. Remember holons are wholes/parts. They are wholes that are also parts of other wholes. For example, a whole atom is a part of a whole molecule, which is a part of a whole cell, which is part of a whole organism, etc. Similarily, a letter is a whole and part of a word; a word is a whole and a part of a sentence. The physiosphere is a whole and also a part of the biosphere, which as a whole is also part of the noosphere, which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere.

Remember the holon is the basic building block of all that exists. Keep in mind that atoms are only building blocks of the physical world, and are not a building block of say our personal experience of love. Atoms, for example, do not underly philosophy, since philosophy, while real, is not physical. Therefore for an actual integrated theory of everything, and to cope with such inter-disciplinary concepts, we must use a different kind of building block that is universal, such as the holon.

To conclude, we must go back to where the whole of the physical level of the universe is a whole unto itself, and also a part of the biosphere (realm of biology), which is a whole and also a part of the noosphere (realm of mind), which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere where spirituality is found.

In this sense, we can see how science which is a phenomena of the phsyiosphere, and "God" as a part of the theosphere, are one. And yet as we progress up the holarchy, we go beyond science, to levels beyond science. In conclusion science is part of the theosphere, and yet the theosphere is not limited to science.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

This goes back to holons. Remember holons are wholes/parts. They are wholes that are also parts of other wholes. For example, a whole atom is a part of a whole molecule, which is a part of a whole cell, which is part of a whole organism, etc. Similarily, a letter is a whole and part of a word; a word is a whole and a part of a sentence. The physiosphere is a whole and also a part of the biosphere, which as a whole is also part of the noosphere, which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere.

Remember the holon is the basic building block of all that exists. Keep in mind that atoms are only building blocks of the physical world, and are not a building block of say our personal experience of love. Atoms, for example, do not underly philosophy, since philosophy, while real, is not physical. Therefore for an actual integrated theory of everything, and to cope with such inter-disciplinary concepts, we must use a different kind of building block that is universal, such as the holon.

To conclude, we must go back to where the whole of the physical level of the universe is a whole unto itself, and also a part of the biosphere (realm of biology), which is a whole and also a part of the noosphere (realm of mind), which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere where spirituality is found.

In this sense, we can see how science which is a phenomena of the phsyiosphere, and "God" as a part of the theosphere, are one. And yet as we progress up the holarchy, we go beyond science, to levels beyond science. In conclusion science is part of the theosphere, and yet the theosphere is not limited to science.

It sounds like you are taking about fractal theory of the universe.

But, there is no such word as physiosphere, and theosphere. These are made up words, that describe nothing in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

Ahnimus

Angelica, I really don't understand.

The holographic universe, or fractal universe theories do make a lot of sense... but then you make this huge leap into their being spirituality and God. When neither of those theories imply anything about spirtuality. It's what is called "Junk Science" and it's very wide-spread these days.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It sounds like you are taking about fractal theory of the universe.

But, there is no such word as physiosphere, and theosphere. These are made up words, that describe nothing in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

I'm actually talking about a very simple concept. From a skim of your fractal article, it looks like this theory is pertaining to the physical level of life--objects. Based on the holarchical view I just laid out that clearly goes beyond the mere physical, right there we have the indicator that I am talking about an entirely different concept.

Considering scientism has overtaken realms of understanding it is not equipped to deal with due to the inherent limits of science, I'm not surprised that the idea of a theory of everything that includes everything is a little hard to conceptualize. And when it is conceptualized, the scientism that has molded our basic brain filters seems to want to take over by trying to force non-physical things within our reality system into a box (science) that cannot comprehend the depths to what is beyond. We essentially must collapse reality to fit our perceptions of it.

That's okay, because thankfully for us, there are frontrunners who have evolved and paved the way for us, for when we're ready to open to new horizons.

Abookamongstthemany

Ahnimus wrote:

It sounds like you are taking about fractal theory of the universe.

But, there is no such word as physiosphere, and theosphere. These are made up words, that describe nothing in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

Words exist as soon as they are spoken and have meaning for someone. She described what they meant to her.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm actually talking about a very simple concept. From a skim of your fractal article, it looks like this theory is pertaining to the physical level of life--objects. Based on the holarchical view I just laid out that clearly goes beyond the mere physical, right there we have the indicator that I am talking about an entirely different concept.

Considering scientism has overtaken realms of understanding it is not equipped to deal with due to the inherent limits of science, I'm not surprised that the idea of a theory of everything that includes everything is a little hard to conceptualize. And when it is conceptualized, the scientism that has molded our basic brain filters seems to want to take over by trying to force non-physical things within our reality system into a box (science) that cannot comprehend the depths to what is beyond. We essentially must collapse reality to fit our perceptions of it.

That's okay, because thankfully for us, there are frontrunners who have evolved and paved the way for us, for when we're ready to open to new horizons.

Angelica. You can't dismiss reality by making up words and metaphysical definitions for them. All you can do is confuse people.

There is absolutely no evidence supporting your theory. There never will be, because as your theory defines it's self as metaphysical, it can not be measured. I put it in the same pile as God and Bigfoot.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica, I really don't understand.

The holographic universe, or fractal universe theories do make a lot of sense... but then you make this huge leap into their being spirituality and God. When neither of those theories imply anything about spirtuality. It's what is called "Junk Science" and it's very wide-spread these days.

The problem here, again, Ahnimus is your assumptions. I am not talking about either the holographic theory of the universe, or fractal theories, both of which are science. I'm going beyond science to the parent of all sciences: philosophy. Science sprung from philosophy and is a part of the whole of philsophy and yet philosophy branches beyond the limits of science. We are operating on the level of logic and theory now. A different criteria is held for the world of pure concept. In order to learn and grow and expand, it is most effective to suspend judgment so as to be able to grasp the presented concepts. You have the ability to do so.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica. You can't dismiss reality by making up words and metaphysical definitions for them. All you can do is confuse people.

There is absolutely no evidence supporting your theory. There never will be, because as your theory defines it's self as metaphysical, it can not be measured. I put it in the same pile as God and Bigfoot.

You give me far too much credit. The credit goes to the brilliant integrative theorists who are far beyond me in terms of comprehending integrative theories of everything.