that was a quote from hindu scriptures. it was told to Jesus when he traveled to india to teach.
The six orthodox (astika) schools of thought in Hindu philosophy do not agree with each other entirely on the question of free will. For the Samkhya, for instance, matter is without any freedom, and soul lacks any ability to control the unfolding of matter. The only real freedom (kaivalya) consists in realizing the ultimate separateness of matter and self. For the Yoga school, only Ishvara is truly free, and its freedom is also distinct from all feelings, thoughts, actions, or wills, and is thus not at all a freedom of will. The metaphysics of the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools strongly suggest a belief in determinism, but do not seem to make explicit claims about determinism or free will.[78]
A quotation from Swami Vivekananda, a Vedantist, offers a good example of the worry about free will in the Hindu tradition.
Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here.[79]
On the other hand, Mimamsa, Vedanta, and the more theistic versions of Hinduism such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, have often emphasized the importance of free will. The doctrine of Karma in Hinduism requires both that we pay for our actions in the past, and that our actions in the present be free enough to allow us to deserve the future reward or punishment that we will receive for our present actions. The Advaitin philosopher Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah puts it this way:
Fate is past karma, free-will is present karma. Both are really one, that is, karma, though they may differ in the matter of time. There can be no conflict when they are really one.
Fate, as I told you, is the resultant of the past exercise of your free-will. By exercising your free-will in the past, you brought on the resultant fate. By exercising your free-will in the present, I want you to wipe out your past record if it hurts you, or to add to it if you find it enjoyable. In any case, whether for acquiring more happiness or for reducing misery, you have to exercise your free-will in the present.[80] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#In_Hindu_philosophy
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
that was a quote from hindu scriptures. it was told to Jesus when he traveled to india to teach.
I'm curious if that quote is taken from the Bible.
I would ask that when we are discussing matters of reality that ancient fairy tales are kept out of it.
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
The problem that you are going to find in most religions about free-will is that, like Buddhism they recognize free-will as "a neccisary illusion" and many modern philosophers agree with this.
The illusion of free-will motivates a lot of people to act. Without it, life seems to be pointless to some people. It also raises the moral question of accountability and people like hangings and stuff.
I've personally accepted determinism, predeterminism and accountability. I think the concerns about free-will as a neccissary illusion are rather shallow. Because the illusion it's self causes far more harm than it would if it didn't exist.
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
My understanding of reality is based on factual data, too.
Such as...
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're talking to someone that was dead for 20 minutes. legally brain dead. you can give my CT scan to any doctor and they will tell you the cause of death. they will tell you that i cannot be alive because the section of my brain that controls involuntary functions is missing. yet i'm still 4 points short of genius.
your science also says that because of the size and shape of a bees body compared to the size and make up of it's wings; it cannot fly. it completely defies the laws of physics.
The problem that you are going to find in most religions about free-will is that, like Buddhism they recognize free-will as "a neccisary illusion" and many modern philosophers agree with this.
The illusion of free-will motivates a lot of people to act. Without it, life seems to be pointless to some people. It also raises the moral question of accountability and people like hangings and stuff.
I've personally accepted determinism, predeterminism and accountability. I think the concerns about free-will as a neccissary illusion are rather shallow. Because the illusion it's self causes far more harm than it would if it didn't exist.
so now it's MANY? sounds like your truth and proff are whittling away.
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
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
Right, and your interpretation of quantum physics is absurd.
Is there any other basis for your beliefs besides distorted QM?
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
The Necronomicon is a fictional book from the stories of horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. It was first mentioned in Lovecraft's 1924 short story "The Hound", written in 1922, though its purported author, the "Mad Arab" Abdul Alhazred, had been quoted a year earlier in Lovecraft's "The Nameless City". [1] Among other things, the work contains an account of the Old Ones, their history, and the means for summoning them.
Other authors such as August Derleth and Clark Ashton Smith also cited it in their works; Lovecraft approved, believing such common allusions built up "a background of evil verisimilitude." Many readers have believed it to be a real work, with booksellers and librarians receiving many requests for it; pranksters have listed it in rare book catalogues, and one smuggled a card for it into the Yale University Library's card catalog.[2]
Lovecraft was often asked about the veracity of the Necronomicon, and always answered that it was completely his invention. In a letter to Willis Conover, Lovecraft elaborated upon his typical answer:
Now about the "terrible and forbidden books"—I am forced to say that most of them are purely imaginary. There never was any Abdul Alhazred or Necronomicon, for I invented these names myself. Robert Bloch devised the idea of Ludvig Prinn and his De Vermis Mysteriis, while the Book of Eibon is an invention of Clark Ashton Smith's. The late Robert E. Howard is responsible for Friedrich von Junzt and his Unaussprechlichen Kulten.... As for seriously-written books on dark, occult, and supernatural themes—in all truth they don’t amount to much. That is why it’s more fun to invent mythical works like the Necronomicon and Book of Eibon.[3]
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
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
That wasn't where I was going with this, but if you insist.
The point is the philosophies you believe based on facts are just that--philosophies based on facts. Like my own. You can't prove a philosophy. It's beyond "fact" and in the realm of the subjective.
edit: I quoted the wrong post, here...I meant to grab the QM post, but really it doesn't make much difference in terms of my response.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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
I'm not sure that I agree with the "Science without religion is lame" part, but the rest of it makes sense. I love when people pull out the bee flight as an argument that science doesn't work. I actually heard it at an Evangelical service once. And every single person except me were nodding their heads in agreement as if what they were being told was fact.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
so now it's MANY? sounds like your truth and proff are whittling away.
What?
I said many philosophers believe free-will is a neccissary illusion. They still think it's an illusion. Certainly not all philosopher's are determinists, and not all scientists are either. Some ignore what they find.
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
That wasn't where I was going with this, but if you insist.
The point is the philosophies you believe based on facts are just that--philosophies based on facts. Like my own. You can't prove a philosophy. It's beyond "fact" and in the realm of the subjective.
edit: I quoted the wrong post, here...I meant to grab the QM post, but really it doesn't make much difference in terms of my response.
I'm not trying to, I'm trying to prove a fact to the people on this board.
Wether or not you believe it, or I believe it, doesn't change the fact that it's a fact.
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
I'm not sure that I agree with the "Science without religion is lame" part, but the rest of it makes sense. I love when people pull out the bee flight as an argument that science doesn't work. I actually heard it at an Evangelical service once. And every single person except me were nodding their heads in agreement as if what they were being told was fact.
Well, what I gather from that part of Einstein's statement is that religion challenges our preconceived notions about reality. But sceince tells us what is really going on.
I see the benefit of taking into consideration all religious beliefs as our ancient past is full of clues. But definitely the onus is on the scientific method to prove what is reality.
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
your science also says that because of the size and shape of a bees body compared to the size and make up of it's wings; it cannot fly. it completely defies the laws of physics.
Scientists Finally Figure Out How Bees Fly
Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities, have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly.
Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest.
Using a combination of high-speed digital photography and a robotic model of a bee wing, the researchers figured out the flight mechanisms of honeybees.
"For many years, people tried to understand animal flight using the aerodynamics of airplanes and helicopters," said Douglas Altshuler, a researcher at California Institute of Technology. "In the last 10 years, flight biologists have gained a remarkable amount of understanding by shifting to experiments with robots that are capable of flapping wings with the same freedom as the animals."
Exotic flight
The scientists analyzed pictures from hours of filming bees and mimicked the movements using robots with sensors for measuring forces.
Turns out bee flight mechanisms are more exotic than thought.
"The honeybees have a rapid wing beat," Altshuler told LiveScience. "In contrast to the fruit fly that has one eightieth the body size and flaps its wings 200 times each second, the much larger honeybee flaps its wings 230 times every second."
This was a surprise because as insects get smaller, their aerodynamic performance decreases and to compensate, they tend to flap their wings faster.
"And this was just for hovering," Altshuler said of the bees. "They also have to transfer pollen and nectar and carry large loads, sometimes as much as their body mass, for the rest of the colony."
Try this!
In order to understand how bees carry such heavy cargo, the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium that is less dense than regular air. This required the bees to work harder to stay aloft and gave the scientists a chance to observe their compensation mechanisms for the additional toil.
The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency.
"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."
The work, supervised by Caltech's Michael Dickinson, was reported last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis. They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon.
Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature.
"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. "We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us."
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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].
Comments
The six orthodox (astika) schools of thought in Hindu philosophy do not agree with each other entirely on the question of free will. For the Samkhya, for instance, matter is without any freedom, and soul lacks any ability to control the unfolding of matter. The only real freedom (kaivalya) consists in realizing the ultimate separateness of matter and self. For the Yoga school, only Ishvara is truly free, and its freedom is also distinct from all feelings, thoughts, actions, or wills, and is thus not at all a freedom of will. The metaphysics of the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools strongly suggest a belief in determinism, but do not seem to make explicit claims about determinism or free will.[78]
A quotation from Swami Vivekananda, a Vedantist, offers a good example of the worry about free will in the Hindu tradition.
Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here.[79]
On the other hand, Mimamsa, Vedanta, and the more theistic versions of Hinduism such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, have often emphasized the importance of free will. The doctrine of Karma in Hinduism requires both that we pay for our actions in the past, and that our actions in the present be free enough to allow us to deserve the future reward or punishment that we will receive for our present actions. The Advaitin philosopher Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah puts it this way:
Fate is past karma, free-will is present karma. Both are really one, that is, karma, though they may differ in the matter of time. There can be no conflict when they are really one.
Fate, as I told you, is the resultant of the past exercise of your free-will. By exercising your free-will in the past, you brought on the resultant fate. By exercising your free-will in the present, I want you to wipe out your past record if it hurts you, or to add to it if you find it enjoyable. In any case, whether for acquiring more happiness or for reducing misery, you have to exercise your free-will in the present.[80]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#In_Hindu_philosophy
I'm curious if that quote is taken from the Bible.
I would ask that when we are discussing matters of reality that ancient fairy tales are kept out of it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The illusion of free-will motivates a lot of people to act. Without it, life seems to be pointless to some people. It also raises the moral question of accountability and people like hangings and stuff.
I've personally accepted determinism, predeterminism and accountability. I think the concerns about free-will as a neccissary illusion are rather shallow. Because the illusion it's self causes far more harm than it would if it didn't exist.
Such as...
Speaking of bedtime stories ...
http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
so now it's MANY? sounds like your truth and proff are whittling away.
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
Right, and your interpretation of quantum physics is absurd.
Is there any other basis for your beliefs besides distorted QM?
The Necronomicon is a fictional book from the stories of horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. It was first mentioned in Lovecraft's 1924 short story "The Hound", written in 1922, though its purported author, the "Mad Arab" Abdul Alhazred, had been quoted a year earlier in Lovecraft's "The Nameless City". [1] Among other things, the work contains an account of the Old Ones, their history, and the means for summoning them.
Other authors such as August Derleth and Clark Ashton Smith also cited it in their works; Lovecraft approved, believing such common allusions built up "a background of evil verisimilitude." Many readers have believed it to be a real work, with booksellers and librarians receiving many requests for it; pranksters have listed it in rare book catalogues, and one smuggled a card for it into the Yale University Library's card catalog.[2]
Lovecraft was often asked about the veracity of the Necronomicon, and always answered that it was completely his invention. In a letter to Willis Conover, Lovecraft elaborated upon his typical answer:
Now about the "terrible and forbidden books"—I am forced to say that most of them are purely imaginary. There never was any Abdul Alhazred or Necronomicon, for I invented these names myself. Robert Bloch devised the idea of Ludvig Prinn and his De Vermis Mysteriis, while the Book of Eibon is an invention of Clark Ashton Smith's. The late Robert E. Howard is responsible for Friedrich von Junzt and his Unaussprechlichen Kulten.... As for seriously-written books on dark, occult, and supernatural themes—in all truth they don’t amount to much. That is why it’s more fun to invent mythical works like the Necronomicon and Book of Eibon.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necronomicon
The point is the philosophies you believe based on facts are just that--philosophies based on facts. Like my own. You can't prove a philosophy. It's beyond "fact" and in the realm of the subjective.
edit: I quoted the wrong post, here...I meant to grab the QM post, but really it doesn't make much difference in terms of my response.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not sure that I agree with the "Science without religion is lame" part, but the rest of it makes sense. I love when people pull out the bee flight as an argument that science doesn't work. I actually heard it at an Evangelical service once. And every single person except me were nodding their heads in agreement as if what they were being told was fact.
What?
I said many philosophers believe free-will is a neccissary illusion. They still think it's an illusion. Certainly not all philosopher's are determinists, and not all scientists are either. Some ignore what they find.
I'm not trying to, I'm trying to prove a fact to the people on this board.
Wether or not you believe it, or I believe it, doesn't change the fact that it's a fact.
Well, what I gather from that part of Einstein's statement is that religion challenges our preconceived notions about reality. But sceince tells us what is really going on.
I see the benefit of taking into consideration all religious beliefs as our ancient past is full of clues. But definitely the onus is on the scientific method to prove what is reality.
Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities, have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly.
Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest.
Using a combination of high-speed digital photography and a robotic model of a bee wing, the researchers figured out the flight mechanisms of honeybees.
"For many years, people tried to understand animal flight using the aerodynamics of airplanes and helicopters," said Douglas Altshuler, a researcher at California Institute of Technology. "In the last 10 years, flight biologists have gained a remarkable amount of understanding by shifting to experiments with robots that are capable of flapping wings with the same freedom as the animals."
Exotic flight
The scientists analyzed pictures from hours of filming bees and mimicked the movements using robots with sensors for measuring forces.
Turns out bee flight mechanisms are more exotic than thought.
"The honeybees have a rapid wing beat," Altshuler told LiveScience. "In contrast to the fruit fly that has one eightieth the body size and flaps its wings 200 times each second, the much larger honeybee flaps its wings 230 times every second."
This was a surprise because as insects get smaller, their aerodynamic performance decreases and to compensate, they tend to flap their wings faster.
"And this was just for hovering," Altshuler said of the bees. "They also have to transfer pollen and nectar and carry large loads, sometimes as much as their body mass, for the rest of the colony."
Try this!
In order to understand how bees carry such heavy cargo, the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium that is less dense than regular air. This required the bees to work harder to stay aloft and gave the scientists a chance to observe their compensation mechanisms for the additional toil.
The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency.
"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."
The work, supervised by Caltech's Michael Dickinson, was reported last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis. They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon.
Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature.
"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. "We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us."
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060110_bee_fight.html
"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
Thanks for the article Hippiemom.
i use the bee story to prove that science is fallable.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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...
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
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].