Sure it does, I'm proving that an infinite thing is less likely to exist than a finite thing.
Your not PROVING anything. You're trying to make a philosophical point, and, to be honest, not doing a very good job of it. You are attempting to assign a "level of omnipotence" which is, by definition, impossible. just as there can be no 1-10 "level" of infinity. There can be no "level" placed on omnipotence. It doesn't work.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Your not PROVING anything. You're trying to make a philosophical point, and, to be honest, not doing a very good job of it. You are attempting to assign a "level of omnipotence" which is, by definition, impossible. just as there can be no 1-10 "level" of infinity. There can be no "level" placed on omnipotence. It doesn't work.
Exactly, it just doesn't work!
Aliens however, do work, they exist within the borders of 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
Take a look at pagan religions that pre-date Christianity and tell me how pure your's is. It's mostly rehashed beliefs that society has already founded itself in in one way or another.
Here's one of the best known ones..
Gilgamesh V. Noah - The Flood.
To say that any religion is "right" is ridiculous. That idea has caused humanity an enormous amount of harm.
religion is necessary to create some kind of order... even though some wars have been caused (indirectly or directly) by particular religions, at least the need for order & organization and regulation of rites, beliefs & culture was the first agenda in creating a system of belief...
plus, it adds color to a culture...
on the question concerning existensialism, i've never really explored whether i believe in an afterlife or not. not yet, because i'm busy trying to extract WORLDLY wisdom (not life-after-death wisdom) from various religios writings (by reading them in the right way, and not using these writings in forwarding my selfish needs, as some people do). This is why i believe religion gives us a sense of order in this WORLD...
Adds colour alright, the colour of people's insides usually!! and pretty much every war I know of has had a religious cause, or justification, including the next cycle of ridiculous worldwars we are in teh process sof entering at present.
And I always just love this, "reading the right way", argument. Remeber Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does, well religion is hwat is does, so prating that you are really one thing while doing another is pure shite.
And I see that you know the "right "way!!
or maybe its simply that intellect blinds some to this idea of grandeuer and self-importance...to think we are better than other animals, etc...who are we in the grand design? how can we even know? i don't see the intellect as making anything *obvious*...nor the fact that the alternative makes no sense to you a compelling arguement either. what appears as us being superior, can merely all be a masquerade, and our own self-delusions. animals DO have the capacity to learn, many are higly intelligent, such as ourselves who ARE a part of the animal kingdom...but who is to say that human intelligence is the 'best' intelligence? if it's a god, well then, it's all circular logic at best, and bottomline....we just don't know b/c we are using our own highly subjective methods/opinions/ideas...in making that assessment.
i think it's great if some find meaning/serenity/happiness in religion...and i think it's great if others find the same without. i do not find 'belief' necessary.......but i am all for choice, and individual happiness. it's also clear one does not 'need' religion to lead a good life, a moral life, a life that cares for life, etc.
so no matter what.....i think we should all simply respect each other's belief systems, or lack there of, and the validity of all....b/c NO one knows with any certainty WHAT happens after this life, so why waste your time here arguing over it? seems ridiculous at best.
btw - i hardly find cosmo's post 'ignorant'...but more like, asking questions....perhaps simplistic, but maybe that's where this whole debate should lie. i think the biggest issue of religion, is the whole idea that one feels compelled to push their agenda on others, there is only one right way, one god/allah/supreme being, only one correct way to live/worship, etc. if all those of a religious nature would take a live and let live attitude, not try to force their belief systems on others, the world would be a better, more peaceful, place. let's worry about our own 'souls'...and let's make the focus of the global community to make THIS life peaceful and harmonious....and we can all worry/prepare/hope for our afterlife, or not, of our own free will. makes sense to me.
*edits for my usual pathetic typos.
What do I believe? I believe I have no idea what to believe, but I know it should be my personal choice. Therefore, I have a severe distaste for all forms of organized religion that push the "belief in (insert your favorite omnipotent being here) = salvation/goodness/holiness/trip to (insert your favorite place here) after you die" idea. I loved this post..Thanks.
Adds colour alright, the colour of people's insides usually!! and pretty much every war I know of has had a religious cause, or justification, including the next cycle of ridiculous worldwars we are in teh process sof entering at present.
And I always just love this, "reading the right way", argument. Remeber Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does, well religion is hwat is does, so prating that you are really one thing while doing another is pure shite.
And I see that you know the "right "way!!
yeah well, the people who have caused all these wars must have thought that waving their religion & beliefs like a banner would make them look good. that's arrogance to me... i really think religion or belief systems are very personal, that you don't have to tell EVERYONE that you're a believer of CAtholism or ISlam or whatever, 'cause if a person does that, that means he/she is imposing his/her religious beliefs on other people... and it's very personal because a person believes in something because it works for him/her, and not necessarily for other people...
Point is, the belief that God exists, and the belief that God does not exist are both BELIEFS. No war of semantics about it. Atheism is just as much a BELIEF as is theism.
Depends on how you define atheism.
1. A person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist. (weak atheism)
2. A person who believes that no god exists (strong atheism)
3. A person who feels convinced that all references to gods are rooted in fiction and/or ancient superstition.
I identity myself with the first definition, but I prefer to indentify myself as an agnostic, as I agree with all three definitions and find them more useful:
1. The view that the existence of any god is unknown at present.
2. The view that any god's existence is unknowable.
3. The view that theism is incoherent (see ignosticism.)
These are the definitions found on Wikitionary, btw.
If you say peanuts can fly, and I say they don't, then it's on you to prove that they do. Absurd example perhaps, but that's the essence of it. (Besides, I like absurd examples as they are far more fun)
The one claiming something exists has the burden of proof. Hence belief in god and not believing in god are not equal beliefs. Belief in god requires proof if others are to be convinced. You can't prove something does not exist, only that something does exist. That's science.
So belief in god does not equate not believing in god. If you believe bacuase of proof you have experienced, ok. But unless you can share that proof, it takes more for others to believe something they have never seen exists, than believing that what they have never seen doesnt exist.
Peace
Dan
It looks like there is some backwards thinking in this thread. In science, itself, all possibilities stand until they have been disproven. That's right--until an idea, concept or theory has been disproven, it stands. Many science concepts have been "proven" only to be eventually disproven. By closing our minds and only looking at what is in the box of personal perspective, we will not be able to objectively see from outside the box. It is only by getting outside the box and being open to the fact that immense possibilties surround us that we will begin to have a glimmer of the truth of things.
Some people may consider that because they have not personally experienced something then it is proof of it not existing. The fact is, you can't prove a negative.
On the basis that one cannot prove a negative, it sounds like people are making decisions based on personal bias alone. That's fine--let's just recognize it's similar to cornnifer making his decisions based on personal experience. I say similar because truly, it is NOT the same thing. cornnifer has experienced something--his experience knows it to be true. That is quite different than experiencing a lack of something and questioning whether it exists.
Whether we can convince others or not has nothing at all to do with whether something is true. If we are thinking inside the box, our vision is impaired and we don't know which way is up or down. We need the support of others in order to feel that we are "correct" in what we find--there is safety in numbers. When we are not secure in our beliefs, we want to believe logic and science back us up, even when it is not the case. When we are using the compass of seeking truth, and owning our personal biases and blindspots by acknowledging them, we begin to differentiate between bias and truth. To exist freely amidst reality--among the vast potential surrounding us, without needing to box ourselves in...well, it's heaven, quite frankly.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Is anyone open to recognize that to close one's mind against the vast possibilites out there is living in the same close-minded box that so called religious close-minded people live in? Does anyone own that to blindly react to organized religion in a way that one remains in an equal but different box one is still in being controlled by the original powers that be who programmed us in the first place? Just because we've taken the opposing role in the drama doesn't mean we've escaped playing our part in the play. When we react from our programming and bias, we are parroting the acceptable words and phrases, while perched on our flawed premises. Reacting in biased blindess to something is a far cry from acting upon objective discernment. The biases throughout this thread are glaring.
All possibilities stand until proven otherwise.
Oh, I know. People see what they want to see. I'll hear the same biased blindness in the next religion/God thread and the one after that. That's the problem with the closed mind--it works very hard to justify itself. The fact remains: it doesn't work--you cannot justify the unjustifiable. And why try? You only fool yourself.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Having an open-mind does not mean to blindly believe in something with no imperical proof.
The scientific method is a means of explaining phenomena with imperical replicable evidence. So when you are referring to science as open-minded, it is and it isn't. A simple hypothesis it's self is not a science.
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
•Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
•Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
•Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
•Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
•Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
•Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
•Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of aparticular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
•Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
•Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
There is a lot more to scientific method than a simple hypothesis.
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
Having an open-mind does not mean to blindly believe in something with no imperical proof.
The scientific method is a means of explaining phenomena with imperical replicable evidence. So when you are referring to science as open-minded, it is and it isn't. A simple hypothesis it's self is not a science.
There is a lot more to scientific method than a simple hypothesis.
Are you in any way saying that possibilities do not stand as potential unless proven otherwise, according to science?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you in any way saying that possibilities do not stand as potential unless proven otherwise, according to science?
No, I am saying, according to science, if you have a hypothesis you need to back it up.
You can't say a possibility exists within the realm of science but ignore any contradictory proof or your inability to prove it yourself.
As the wikipedia article states "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof."
The religious "theory" doesn't allow for the scientific community to disprove it. The religious "theory" by no means conforms to the scrutiny of the scientific method.
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's convenient. I can't prove a negative (such as the non-existance of god or garden fairies), but I have to allow for the possibility of them until "proven" otherwise, which as you've just said is impossible.
Damn, I'm getting some great ideas for science fair projects based on this line of reasoning.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
God is a pretty good concept. Man creates God... so we can use Him as a crutch. Man created God in Man's images... to make sure one of those other damn critters couldn't. God is a good explanation and a rational justification for Man's action's and decisions.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
No, I am saying, according to science, if you have a hypothesis you need to back it up.
You can't say a possibility exists within the realm of science but ignore any contradictory proof or your inability to prove it yourself.
As the wikipedia article states "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof."
The religious "theory" doesn't allow for the scientific community to disprove it. The religious "theory" by no means conforms to the scrutiny of the scientific method.
I completely agree that you need to back it up to PROVE it. Whether you prove it or not is irrelevent. What has been "proven" can be disproven. When we thought the world was flat, it remained irrelevent in the sense that it was not true. What is relevent is that God is as yet not disproven and therefore stands as a distinct possibility. Science knows that we cannot eliminate a possibility until we eliminate it. Therefore all possibilities remain....well, possibilities.
As far as contradictory proof....it all depends on the context. If I am saying God exists, and you are disputing me using a study that determines the validity of any stage of evolution, we are coming from completely different contexts. What is true in one, may not be true in another. A fact shown within a theory meant to prove one thing does not disprove another theory, necessarily. The relevence of our facts are a product of the theory we are using. Differences may indicate a need to widen our parameters. If we don't acknowledge this, we continue to feed blind bias and distortion into the "machine".
You are correct: religious theory is beyond the parameters of the science method. Science sprang from philosophy but did not replace it. They are entirely different disciplines, both relying heavily on logic. They are not the same. Same for religion--it is from beyond the parameters of science.
Beyond logic, we also have our intuitive and emotional intelligences, neither of which is logical. Both are alogical, which is NOT to be confused with being illogical. For such a reason, integrated whole-brain thought is required to truly discern truth. Logic relies on the premise for it's accuracy. The premise relies on having a glimpse of the big picture, whether by experience, or by insight. It is our other intelligences that give us in"sight" and "direct knowing". Yes, intuitive processes must be augmented by logic to be used effectively, and yet it come from the part of the brain that gives us the "big picture". Logic's fill-in-the-blanks is a complementary function.
If we rely on logic alone, we remain in the box, lacking a visionary compass.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That's convenient. I can't prove a negative (such as the non-existance of god or garden fairies), but I have to allow for the possibility of them until "proven" otherwise, which as you've just said is impossible.
Damn, I'm getting some great ideas for science fair projects based on this line of reasoning.
You cannot prove a negative. You can't prove God does not exist. If you have proven it to yourself, I call that personal bias rather than objective discernment. You can disprove an argument for something--a positive. As far as I've seen, no one in this thread, or any other for that matter, has disproven God.
Actually, it can be quite inconvenient to seek the truth. It is much easier to accept what our filters tell us, based on, largely, what we've been taught.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, you're a computer dude, aren't you? Do you understand the necessity for using abstract concepts or symbols to explain complex topics that cannot be explained using straight forward simple linear words? Maybe being 'math guy' might be enough for making my point.
Do you understand why in quantum physics, we need to theorize using complex figures to explain dimensions far beyond what our five senses perceive? If so, is it then possible for you to understand what a mystic might be be talking about--using a theoretical framework in order to bring such concepts to our understanding? You watched "What the Bleep". Remember how it was the shamans in cultures who perceived beyond the "norm". It was the shaman who first saw Columbus' ship, (so they said), and by his increased perception, he was able to understand and translate such a vision--of a ship on the horizon--to regular folk, in a digestible way. He was open to comprehend such a concept. Regular folk could not without a tranlated framework.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
God is a pretty good concept. Man creates God... so we can use Him as a crutch. Man created God in Man's images... to make sure one of those other damn critters couldn't. God is a good explanation and a rational justification for Man's action's and decisions.
What if our creating God is meant to be the same as Michelangelo seeing the angel in the rock and setting it free (by creating a sculpture). What if it's the same as Plato's concept that everything exists as it's potential form first before we actualize or REALize it?
Now granted, unfortunately I agree that the vast majority create this "god" in their own image. As well as satan. In psychology, it's called the superego, and it's created in the image of our silly, small egos. Or the shadow--our rejected traits, our inner hidden devil that we project onto the other guy. We then proceed to walk around entirely oblivious that we are living vicariously through this external god and satan, all the while being completely disconnected from the truth of our inner goodness or ugliness. Same goes for the athiest who has their own projections for good and bad to make up for a lack of integrated inner wholeness. Sometimes I see from what athiests say that science is good and exalted and "true" while religious people are the evil of the world. All the while being disconnected from their own potential heights of greatness or depths of ugliness. We've all learned well from the stories we've been fed. Is it a wonder Jesus spoke in parables? Being out of touch with ourselves and an integrated potential, we can only understand the parables rather than live the truth. Times, they sure are a changing though.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, you're a computer dude, aren't you? Do you understand the necessity for using abstract concepts or symbols to explain complex topics that cannot be explained using straight forward simple linear words? Maybe being 'math guy' might be enough for making my point.
Do you understand why in quantum physics, we need to theorize using complex figures to explain dimensions far beyond what our five senses perceive? If so, is it then possible for you to understand what a mystic might be be talking about--using a theoretical framework in order to bring such concepts to our understanding? You watched "What the Bleep". Remember how it was the shamans in cultures who perceived beyond the "norm". It was the shaman who first saw Columbus' ship, (so they said), and by his increased perception, he was able to understand and translate such a vision--of a ship on the horizon--to regular folk, in a digestible way. He was open to comprehend such a concept. Regular folk could not without a tranlated framework.
I agree with you Angelica. My point is that theory alone isn't enough to be considered fact. Religion by it's nature is neither a provable or disprovable theory. As a society we shouldn't use this kind of theory as any basis for policy. Unless the theory can be replicated and proven, I don't consider it a fundamental to modern life.
Interestingly, people invest more belief in theism than they do actual science. A few examples are Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy, Nikola Tesla's theories and Mel Winfield's theory of gravity. All those theories are well grounded in science and can be replicated to a certain extent. However, the majority of people consider those scientists "nuts". I personally find their work more intriguing than a religious belief.
I recently watched a production called "Lies in the Textbooks" which attempts to prove Evolution wrong, it attempts to prove the Grand Canyon was created instantly. But what it fails to do is provide any solid replicable evidence. It's mostly conjecture and philosophical belief. That doesn't stand-up against the "lies" in the textbook. As an example, one of the arguements was that since the surface level at the river's entry point to the canyon is lower than the surface level of the exit point, it could not have been created by the river, because river's do not travel uphill. This theory omits a very critical observation, the surface heights surrounding the grand canyon may have changed over the millions of years suggested by the official scientific theory. This theological hypothesis assumes that the earth around the grand canyon has never changed in millions of years.
It's quite simple to prove or disprove anything if you fail to follow the scientific method that has been constructed to accurately explain phenomenon. If we fail to explain something with science, that doesn't exactly leave the door open for radical hypothesis, but the door is always open to hypothesis with significant scientific structure. You can't prove or disprove a religious belief with our current knowledge, that renders the hypothesis inadmissable.
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
Also what gave the indian chief the ability to pass on his knowledge, was his ability to explain it and accurately describe it. If he had just said there is something out there but I don't know what, it would have had no effect.
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 agree with you Angelica. My point is that theory alone isn't enough to be considered fact. Religion by it's nature is neither a provable or disprovable theory. As a society we shouldn't use this kind of theory as any basis for policy. Unless the theory can be replicated and proven, I don't consider it a fundamental to modern life.
Interestingly, people invest more belief in theism than they do actual science. A few examples are Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy, Nikola Tesla's theories and Mel Winfield's theory of gravity. All those theories are well grounded in science and can be replicated to a certain extent. However, the majority of people consider those scientists "nuts". I personally find their work more intriguing than a religious belief.
I recently watched a production called "Lies in the Textbooks" which attempts to prove Evolution wrong, it attempts to prove the Grand Canyon was created instantly. But what it fails to do is provide any solid replicable evidence. It's mostly conjecture and philosophical belief. That doesn't stand-up against the "lies" in the textbook. As an example, one of the arguements was that since the surface level at the river's entry point to the canyon is lower than the surface level of the exit point, it could not have been created by the river, because river's do not travel uphill. This theory omits a very critical observation, the surface heights surrounding the grand canyon may have changed over the millions of years suggested by the official scientific theory. This theological hypothesis assumes that the earth around the grand canyon has never changed in millions of years.
It's quite simple to prove or disprove anything if you fail to follow the scientific method that has been constructed to accurately explain phenomenon. If we fail to explain something with science, that doesn't exactly leave the door open for radical hypothesis, but the door is always open to hypothesis with significant scientific structure. You can't prove or disprove a religious belief with our current knowledge, that renders the hypothesis inadmissable.
I agree, following the scientific method is of utmost importance in the science process and in discerning factual data. That said, every possible hypothesis still remains as a possibility until it's disproven. I think it's 100% fair, considering that is what unbiased thinking entails.
If you know quantum physics philosophy, you know that the point of view of the observer is intimately involved in the experiment--relatively speaking, and therefore affects the outcome of any experiement. At heightened levels of perception adherence to fine lines of objectivity is of great importance considering potential for distortion.
2% of the population is considered to be brain actualized. That means the majority of scientists are not. If we are looking through functioning fragmented by bias and what we don't acknowledge about ourself (what is unconscious), we continue to distort. Let's no longer agree to sully the fine lines of objectivity that are crucial in building our theoretical castles in the sky.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Also what gave the indian chief the ability to pass on his knowledge, was his ability to explain it and accurately describe it. If he had just said there is something out there but I don't know what, it would have had no effect.
His inability to explain, or the inability of others to understand him would not mean what he perceived did not exist.
Remember my history as a psychiatric patient? My one time "delusions of grandeur", and of healing myself not only came true, but in learning the theoretical information frameworks to create what "intuition"/Life showed me, I learned to see things other people just do not see. You've told your own stories of learning the fallacies of common thinking and having to single-handedly pass through the limits of conventional thought in order to be true to the pursuit of knowledge.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I agree, following the scientific method is of utmost importance in the science process and in discerning factual data. That said, every possible hypothesis still remains as a possibility until it's disproven. I think it's 100% fair, considering that is what unbiased thinking entails.
If you know quantum physics philosophy, you know that the point of view of the observer is intimately involved in the experiment--relatively speaking, and therefore affects the outcome of any experiement. At heightened levels of perception adherence to fine lines of objectivity is of great importance considering potential for distortion.
2% of the population is considered to be brain actualized. That means the majority of scientists are not. If we are looking through functioning fragmented by bias and what we don't acknowledge about ourself (what is unconscious), we continue to distort. Let's no longer agree to sully the fine lines of objectivity that are crucial in building our theoretical castles in the sky.
Not to mention politics and it's effects on the scientific community. See that's my problem, the bias in science. It's at times no different than the bias of an organized religion. However, the truth will eventually be reveiled.
I was very interested in the Holographic Universe theory. That may very well be truth and a lot of these hypothesis support the existance of an alternate realm of reality that may very well be home to a god of some sort. But I think, if someone is enlightened, so to speak, it is futile to try and convince others of their knowledge without replicable proof.
I've personally seen what looks like energy swirling around in thin air. But the more I concentrate on it, the less I can see it. I've lead myself to believe that what I was seeing is not energy, but a dysfunction of my senses and perception. Though I do constantly make the effort to think outside the box, the box ultimately wins.
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
Not to mention politics and it's effects on the scientific community. See that's my problem, the bias in science. It's at times no different than the bias of an organized religion. However, the truth will eventually be reveiled.
I was very interested in the Holographic Universe theory. That may very well be truth and a lot of these hypothesis support the existance of an alternate realm of reality that may very well be home to a god of some sort. But I think, if someone is enlightened, so to speak, it is futile to try and convince others of their knowledge without replicable proof.
I've personally seen what looks like energy swirling around in thin air. But the more I concentrate on it, the less I can see it. I've lead myself to believe that what I was seeing is not energy, but a dysfunction of my senses and perception. Though I do constantly make the effort to think outside the box, the box ultimately wins.
Keep up the effort--enhance and do everything to encourage it. The box will lose in the end. It's taken me 12 years to make peace with my biases. What it distinctly entails is being willing to own them at every moment. People love to draw attention to our flaws! Be glad. It's a good way to become conscious of what we are unconscious of. And the more opposing views you can harmonize with, the more your own view will increase through understanding you do not naturally possess with your own piece of the puzzle. It's fun to think of how completely repelling you were to me when we first talked out here.
As for the energy sightings, have you learned anything about peripheral vision? We've been trained to use only our 3% cone of vision and ignore the other 97% of our sight (with literal vision AND psychological vision!). Apparently in the past, we were evolutionarily willing to use our full vision. I've read that energy is more percipable in peripheral vision. You might be seeing what others don't see. Why would you question your own senses? Just because the "norm" doesn't see it doesn't mean it's not real. If you can't trust your own observations, whose can you trust? That is the key for overcoming the bias--trust the inner truth. Even court takes our personal experience as being a valid submission. Why would you question your own perception? Is there a correct way to see? I only notice the flashing light of my computer screen with my peripheral vision. But I'm told it objectively exists as flashing light despite the illusion of my direct sight not seeing it.
If you are advanced in thinking and in vision, you will not find lots of validation my friend. It's a road less travelled to be in a top some percentile.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
...I think, if someone is enlightened, so to speak, it is futile to try and convince others of their knowledge without replicable proof.
What they say is that if someone is enlightened, their mere presence raises the consciousness of the whole group. See shaman-from-what-the-bleep story. The normal unenlightened folk became able to perceive what they could not prior to the explanation of the shaman.
Think of the mind-bending books you have read that enabled you to understand universes you earlier were oblivious to.
All our knowledge is the product of enlightened thought. Thinking within the confines of dulled, biased thought entitles us to live under bias and stifled thought. Creating fresh, outside the box ideas takes true creation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That's convenient. I can't prove a negative (such as the non-existance of god or garden fairies), but I have to allow for the possibility of them until "proven" otherwise, which as you've just said is impossible.
Damn, I'm getting some great ideas for science fair projects based on this line of reasoning.
The Earth and it's immediate neighboring planets are all in fact suspended in a dark box with stars painted on the sides by an overweight man in his mid-forties named Gene. The sun is a heat lamp.
How does one calculate the probability of the existence of aliens or god?
Have a look at some pictures from the Hubble telescope and see just how big the Universe is and how many stars are in it. Then think that even if it's a billion/gazillillion to one probability that life exists elsewhere, then there must be scads of places. Then imagine an entity powerful enough to create and master all those stars etc, and decide which outcome is more likely.
All religion is ultimately narcissistic, thinking that a God is really interested in your petty endevours.
so then, honestly, i have no idea why all the 'god' discussion. clearly, 'god' has nothing to do with religion, especially today...and especially once it's "organized." personally, so much discussion of god in a thread about why religion MUST exist, for me, is rather insulting to whatever entity one may or may not believe to be 'god.'
so then, honestly, i have no idea why all the 'god' discussion. clearly, 'god' has nothing to do with religion, especially today...and especially once it's "organized." personally, so much discussion of god in a thread about why religion MUST exist, for me, is rather insulting to whatever entity one may or may not believe to be 'god.'
No more insulting than saying ghosts, aliens and other paranormal don'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
Comments
good existed before religion.....they just picked up on it and added it to their repertoire...
Your not PROVING anything. You're trying to make a philosophical point, and, to be honest, not doing a very good job of it. You are attempting to assign a "level of omnipotence" which is, by definition, impossible. just as there can be no 1-10 "level" of infinity. There can be no "level" placed on omnipotence. It doesn't work.
Exactly, it just doesn't work!
Aliens however, do work, they exist within the borders of reality.
Here's one of the best known ones..
Gilgamesh V. Noah - The Flood.
To say that any religion is "right" is ridiculous. That idea has caused humanity an enormous amount of harm.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Adds colour alright, the colour of people's insides usually!! and pretty much every war I know of has had a religious cause, or justification, including the next cycle of ridiculous worldwars we are in teh process sof entering at present.
And I always just love this, "reading the right way", argument. Remeber Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does, well religion is hwat is does, so prating that you are really one thing while doing another is pure shite.
And I see that you know the "right "way!!
What do I believe? I believe I have no idea what to believe, but I know it should be my personal choice. Therefore, I have a severe distaste for all forms of organized religion that push the "belief in (insert your favorite omnipotent being here) = salvation/goodness/holiness/trip to (insert your favorite place here) after you die" idea. I loved this post..Thanks.
yeah well, the people who have caused all these wars must have thought that waving their religion & beliefs like a banner would make them look good. that's arrogance to me... i really think religion or belief systems are very personal, that you don't have to tell EVERYONE that you're a believer of CAtholism or ISlam or whatever, 'cause if a person does that, that means he/she is imposing his/her religious beliefs on other people... and it's very personal because a person believes in something because it works for him/her, and not necessarily for other people...
Depends on how you define atheism.
1. A person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist. (weak atheism)
2. A person who believes that no god exists (strong atheism)
3. A person who feels convinced that all references to gods are rooted in fiction and/or ancient superstition.
I identity myself with the first definition, but I prefer to indentify myself as an agnostic, as I agree with all three definitions and find them more useful:
1. The view that the existence of any god is unknown at present.
2. The view that any god's existence is unknowable.
3. The view that theism is incoherent (see ignosticism.)
These are the definitions found on Wikitionary, btw.
Some people may consider that because they have not personally experienced something then it is proof of it not existing. The fact is, you can't prove a negative.
On the basis that one cannot prove a negative, it sounds like people are making decisions based on personal bias alone. That's fine--let's just recognize it's similar to cornnifer making his decisions based on personal experience. I say similar because truly, it is NOT the same thing. cornnifer has experienced something--his experience knows it to be true. That is quite different than experiencing a lack of something and questioning whether it exists.
Whether we can convince others or not has nothing at all to do with whether something is true. If we are thinking inside the box, our vision is impaired and we don't know which way is up or down. We need the support of others in order to feel that we are "correct" in what we find--there is safety in numbers. When we are not secure in our beliefs, we want to believe logic and science back us up, even when it is not the case. When we are using the compass of seeking truth, and owning our personal biases and blindspots by acknowledging them, we begin to differentiate between bias and truth. To exist freely amidst reality--among the vast potential surrounding us, without needing to box ourselves in...well, it's heaven, quite frankly.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
All possibilities stand until proven otherwise.
Oh, I know. People see what they want to see. I'll hear the same biased blindness in the next religion/God thread and the one after that. That's the problem with the closed mind--it works very hard to justify itself. The fact remains: it doesn't work--you cannot justify the unjustifiable. And why try? You only fool yourself.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The scientific method is a means of explaining phenomena with imperical replicable evidence. So when you are referring to science as open-minded, it is and it isn't. A simple hypothesis it's self is not a science.
There is a lot more to scientific method than a simple hypothesis.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, I am saying, according to science, if you have a hypothesis you need to back it up.
You can't say a possibility exists within the realm of science but ignore any contradictory proof or your inability to prove it yourself.
As the wikipedia article states "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof."
The religious "theory" doesn't allow for the scientific community to disprove it. The religious "theory" by no means conforms to the scrutiny of the scientific method.
Damn, I'm getting some great ideas for science fair projects based on this line of reasoning.
Hail, Hail!!!
As far as contradictory proof....it all depends on the context. If I am saying God exists, and you are disputing me using a study that determines the validity of any stage of evolution, we are coming from completely different contexts. What is true in one, may not be true in another. A fact shown within a theory meant to prove one thing does not disprove another theory, necessarily. The relevence of our facts are a product of the theory we are using. Differences may indicate a need to widen our parameters. If we don't acknowledge this, we continue to feed blind bias and distortion into the "machine".
You are correct: religious theory is beyond the parameters of the science method. Science sprang from philosophy but did not replace it. They are entirely different disciplines, both relying heavily on logic. They are not the same. Same for religion--it is from beyond the parameters of science.
Beyond logic, we also have our intuitive and emotional intelligences, neither of which is logical. Both are alogical, which is NOT to be confused with being illogical. For such a reason, integrated whole-brain thought is required to truly discern truth. Logic relies on the premise for it's accuracy. The premise relies on having a glimpse of the big picture, whether by experience, or by insight. It is our other intelligences that give us in"sight" and "direct knowing". Yes, intuitive processes must be augmented by logic to be used effectively, and yet it come from the part of the brain that gives us the "big picture". Logic's fill-in-the-blanks is a complementary function.
If we rely on logic alone, we remain in the box, lacking a visionary compass.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Actually, it can be quite inconvenient to seek the truth. It is much easier to accept what our filters tell us, based on, largely, what we've been taught.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Do you understand why in quantum physics, we need to theorize using complex figures to explain dimensions far beyond what our five senses perceive? If so, is it then possible for you to understand what a mystic might be be talking about--using a theoretical framework in order to bring such concepts to our understanding? You watched "What the Bleep". Remember how it was the shamans in cultures who perceived beyond the "norm". It was the shaman who first saw Columbus' ship, (so they said), and by his increased perception, he was able to understand and translate such a vision--of a ship on the horizon--to regular folk, in a digestible way. He was open to comprehend such a concept. Regular folk could not without a tranlated framework.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Now granted, unfortunately I agree that the vast majority create this "god" in their own image. As well as satan. In psychology, it's called the superego, and it's created in the image of our silly, small egos. Or the shadow--our rejected traits, our inner hidden devil that we project onto the other guy. We then proceed to walk around entirely oblivious that we are living vicariously through this external god and satan, all the while being completely disconnected from the truth of our inner goodness or ugliness. Same goes for the athiest who has their own projections for good and bad to make up for a lack of integrated inner wholeness. Sometimes I see from what athiests say that science is good and exalted and "true" while religious people are the evil of the world. All the while being disconnected from their own potential heights of greatness or depths of ugliness. We've all learned well from the stories we've been fed. Is it a wonder Jesus spoke in parables? Being out of touch with ourselves and an integrated potential, we can only understand the parables rather than live the truth. Times, they sure are a changing though.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I agree with you Angelica. My point is that theory alone isn't enough to be considered fact. Religion by it's nature is neither a provable or disprovable theory. As a society we shouldn't use this kind of theory as any basis for policy. Unless the theory can be replicated and proven, I don't consider it a fundamental to modern life.
Interestingly, people invest more belief in theism than they do actual science. A few examples are Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy, Nikola Tesla's theories and Mel Winfield's theory of gravity. All those theories are well grounded in science and can be replicated to a certain extent. However, the majority of people consider those scientists "nuts". I personally find their work more intriguing than a religious belief.
I recently watched a production called "Lies in the Textbooks" which attempts to prove Evolution wrong, it attempts to prove the Grand Canyon was created instantly. But what it fails to do is provide any solid replicable evidence. It's mostly conjecture and philosophical belief. That doesn't stand-up against the "lies" in the textbook. As an example, one of the arguements was that since the surface level at the river's entry point to the canyon is lower than the surface level of the exit point, it could not have been created by the river, because river's do not travel uphill. This theory omits a very critical observation, the surface heights surrounding the grand canyon may have changed over the millions of years suggested by the official scientific theory. This theological hypothesis assumes that the earth around the grand canyon has never changed in millions of years.
It's quite simple to prove or disprove anything if you fail to follow the scientific method that has been constructed to accurately explain phenomenon. If we fail to explain something with science, that doesn't exactly leave the door open for radical hypothesis, but the door is always open to hypothesis with significant scientific structure. You can't prove or disprove a religious belief with our current knowledge, that renders the hypothesis inadmissable.
If you know quantum physics philosophy, you know that the point of view of the observer is intimately involved in the experiment--relatively speaking, and therefore affects the outcome of any experiement. At heightened levels of perception adherence to fine lines of objectivity is of great importance considering potential for distortion.
2% of the population is considered to be brain actualized. That means the majority of scientists are not. If we are looking through functioning fragmented by bias and what we don't acknowledge about ourself (what is unconscious), we continue to distort. Let's no longer agree to sully the fine lines of objectivity that are crucial in building our theoretical castles in the sky.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Remember my history as a psychiatric patient? My one time "delusions of grandeur", and of healing myself not only came true, but in learning the theoretical information frameworks to create what "intuition"/Life showed me, I learned to see things other people just do not see. You've told your own stories of learning the fallacies of common thinking and having to single-handedly pass through the limits of conventional thought in order to be true to the pursuit of knowledge.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Not to mention politics and it's effects on the scientific community. See that's my problem, the bias in science. It's at times no different than the bias of an organized religion. However, the truth will eventually be reveiled.
I was very interested in the Holographic Universe theory. That may very well be truth and a lot of these hypothesis support the existance of an alternate realm of reality that may very well be home to a god of some sort. But I think, if someone is enlightened, so to speak, it is futile to try and convince others of their knowledge without replicable proof.
I've personally seen what looks like energy swirling around in thin air. But the more I concentrate on it, the less I can see it. I've lead myself to believe that what I was seeing is not energy, but a dysfunction of my senses and perception. Though I do constantly make the effort to think outside the box, the box ultimately wins.
As for the energy sightings, have you learned anything about peripheral vision? We've been trained to use only our 3% cone of vision and ignore the other 97% of our sight (with literal vision AND psychological vision!). Apparently in the past, we were evolutionarily willing to use our full vision. I've read that energy is more percipable in peripheral vision. You might be seeing what others don't see. Why would you question your own senses? Just because the "norm" doesn't see it doesn't mean it's not real. If you can't trust your own observations, whose can you trust? That is the key for overcoming the bias--trust the inner truth. Even court takes our personal experience as being a valid submission. Why would you question your own perception? Is there a correct way to see? I only notice the flashing light of my computer screen with my peripheral vision. But I'm told it objectively exists as flashing light despite the illusion of my direct sight not seeing it.
If you are advanced in thinking and in vision, you will not find lots of validation my friend. It's a road less travelled to be in a top some percentile.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Think of the mind-bending books you have read that enabled you to understand universes you earlier were oblivious to.
All our knowledge is the product of enlightened thought. Thinking within the confines of dulled, biased thought entitles us to live under bias and stifled thought. Creating fresh, outside the box ideas takes true creation.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
PROVE ME WRONG.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Have a look at some pictures from the Hubble telescope and see just how big the Universe is and how many stars are in it. Then think that even if it's a billion/gazillillion to one probability that life exists elsewhere, then there must be scads of places. Then imagine an entity powerful enough to create and master all those stars etc, and decide which outcome is more likely.
All religion is ultimately narcissistic, thinking that a God is really interested in your petty endevours.
Why Religion Must Remain A Part Of The World...
so then, honestly, i have no idea why all the 'god' discussion. clearly, 'god' has nothing to do with religion, especially today...and especially once it's "organized." personally, so much discussion of god in a thread about why religion MUST exist, for me, is rather insulting to whatever entity one may or may not believe to be 'god.'
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
No more insulting than saying ghosts, aliens and other paranormal don't exist.