Science and God hand in hand...

Sure the ground and sky is real you and I are real and all that.

yea sure but are the values in the equations fixed or moving always. Are there correct ones that work completely ? How can we say they work for everything when we clearly it seems don't know everything by a long shot. There is a strong possibility we will be be unable to do so through physical limitations in observability. Despite how clever we are or think we may become.

Well the color thing may have not been the best example. red and blue are like labels in a catalogue. Meaningless in themselves. To make sense of it we need relation or comparison. things are what they are, and the way they are - i don't have a problem with that.

I don't think I am missing the point. It is not subjective because of those prior experiences. A prior experience of say being held under water in childhood is in itself an objective cause. The viewing in relation or comparison is what makes it subjective. think of a venn diagram. I see it as a co-existance. You need that bit in the middle to see the whole of one or the other - if you like..
It is about the view or perspective taken. Both are valid and we can learn from both. They happen together. Not seperate. We seperate them with labels though. We need it, and we don't need it..

I don't really think it needs to be proved or even can. In the way you seek.. Nature is as it is. It is its own purpose - I don't think it has a seperate purpose other than to be nature and to happen. We are part of nature, and we are happening - so there is your proof. We and all around and beyond us are the purpose of nature. I doubt too that we are central to any of it. But just as much belonging to it as all else..

As you do, I reject certain definitions of God. Just to be clear.. It is not particularly my favoured choice of wording for reason of its connotation through various religious orders. It kind of grows on you though . But underneath it all (certain unecessary projections and manipulations of mind..) it is all the same.. hmm. I think this sort of thing has been spoken of already by wanderer in a better fashion.

Are you speaking for all scientists, I heard quite a few are agnostic and such. Maybe the odd taoist, you never know.
Do you have proof for the above - we wouldn't want to be unscientific now would we
maybe you're doing your best to say you don't see yourself as a 'philosopher'.. Isn't atheism a philosophy. Empiricism then.. what's that - and on it own.. ?

 

probably because i havent had the same education as steven hawking, its hardly a crime not to understand the majority of this book- its a shame such apparently important knowledge is so innacessable to so many of us, except you of course.

yep i agree, but all supernatural things are natural things yet to be explored. and the 3rd eye is nothing mystical, just something we've lost touch with, using the NEW system i posted on the link earlier around the forhead will stimulate it, if you actually do some research and practise (as scientists do) instead of saying "no thats stupid" before you even look into it.

the problem is they dont go IN and see whats going on.
and you didnt answer my question.
your making me think of scientists as almost robotic.

yes, an original explorer, not confined to established theories or afraid to challenge them, imo its scientists like this who actually advance science. Didnt freud and jung take lsd?

we CANNOT monitor these experiences, thats why the system is flawed because it isnt taking into account all possible means of gaining knowledge or experiencing LIFE as it can be DIRECTLY. - how the hell are you supposed to monitor what someone is experiencing at the instant moment they are experiencing it?
maybe you poop scoop would'nt get anything from taking psychadelics, but theres lots of people who'd disagree with you, aldous huxley, john lennon, alex grey (www.alexgrey.com - amazing)

have you taken any lsd or mushrooms to BACK UP that claim?

guess im a complete NOOB then......

so suggesting that for the world to improve, people need to improve, im a quack? your not listening at all. Im sure glad the future of our worlds development is in your capable hands.

the fact that you keep defining science in every sentence isnt saying you know what science is, sounds like you keep re-reading the same a-level textbook. stop taking being disagreed with as an attack on you, debating with people like that is real pain in the ****.

 

You are of course right, but the fact there are so many bs charlatans claiming they have true skill, the fact that Derren shows how it is done and how easy it is, and the fact the no one has really even proven their skills under test conditions leads me to believe otherwise.

Read up on the $1 million offer by Randi which is designed to test this type of paranormal stuff. To date (since 1964!), no one in has even passed a preliminary test!

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation

And check out Randi punking Uri Geller on The Tonight Show: http://www.darat.org/~dimossi/James.Randi.debunking.on.Tonight.Show.wmv

 

Agreed 100%, but this doesn't disprove God. Charlatans have always made claims of this and that, and Mr. Randi's challenge is an excellent way to show them up.

God isn't about this challenge. He is more concerned with what happens to you after you leave this place and it's many things!

 

I'm always amazed how many ppl seem to know what god is concerned with or knows although none of them have ever met him. You guys must have amazing psychic abilities, seriously. Talking with someone who might not even exist. Or is just something you believe in.

Christian

 

Maybe, maybe not, but we kind of covered that..
Well it seems you are saying the above because science currently beleives in the big bang model. It is becoming overweight and inneficient as a theory. And it is boring..

Try a fractal universe on for size, it is hardly boring at all.

 

I'm glad I amazed you.

 

I've read some stuff on the fractal universe theory which seems kind of like the men in black idea...

I found an interesting web page you guys might like to read...

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Hageman011104.htm

 

Completely missed my point. I even said God was the experience through prayer, so I don't even know what you're saying anymore.

How is it close minded? If you don't have proof, why should I believe you? Were you one of those kids that believed it when your friend told you his dog can speak, "just to keep an objective stance"? I'm not going to believe a word you say until you can prove it. I might consider it and say "yeah... it's possible...", but I won't say it IS, until you can provide proof.

I don't pray. If this same part of the brain were the part that also affects language, then it might be because you "talk" to God when you pray. Then it's no longer the God part, it's the linguistics part. I don't pray, so how can I use the prayer portion of my brain? If I do, then it must be used for something other than praying, too. At which point it isn't the "God" portion of the brain.

That's cool. But suggesting an idea is not the same as actually making it work. I could say "we should make a teleport device". But if someone else actually makes it work, then there's not much credit I deserve.

I don't have any proof. Neither do you. But my position is much more logical. Your position is basically "Look at all the natural disasters happening these days!" and mine is "No, they've always been there, it's that we've only just started caring about them recently.

Insult it. Please. I want to know where I use fautly logic. But be precise. Don't say "that doesn't make sense", say why. I want to know what I'm doing wrong.

 

I think what he is trying to say is that prayer is not the only 'tool' or way..
I don't pray to God for example. I have experienced *it* though.. Remembering that - yes - this is my experience - therefore subjective in comparison.. What is in my head through personal experience and choice is in the re-telling. Anyway my tools, at there heart are not so different.. they have been moving meditation (taiji) - taoism & chan buddhism & still meditation. My experience has basically been to experience or perceive a greater sense of wholism..

There is proof that meditation and prayer take the mind to higher frequency levels. So yes it is a real and proven experience. What we don't fully know or understand is its full significance other than the benefits it can produce for an individual and by proxy the wider picture..
I would count myself as someone who would like to see research continue in this area - but in tandem with reputable and established scientific thinking..

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/46/16369

Well I think that even though different parts of the brain have differing functionality and ability, it is still a working whole. Nature did give birth to it after all. I also think that brains and therefore by proxy, different brains/minds function and are able in differing ways. And can be induced to change in various ways. One of these is meditation. Another might be attachment..

This 'god experience' as far as I am concerned is not subjective - in no way shape or form. It is a verifiable frequency of conscioussness & can be measured such. Its resultant behaviour and thinking patterns are also observable and comparable. It tells its own story..

Now experiencing this is one thing, but when in union with knowledge - like that of some philosophies(like buddhism for example) that cannot be disproven by science or logic/ reason. This is a powerful phenomena to be sure. Empiricism, Science ? hmm smaller potatoes in comparison on a personal and functional level I'm afraid to this IMHO. However it is not an automatic experience. It cannot happen to a mind with barriers up. Or should we say conditioning..

Open up and it will be there - this much I know for sure. What you make of it is a whole other story.. your own. But then some people may just prefer to throw apples in the air. This is choice - and 'praise the heavens' for that - and long may it continue.

regards zd

 

that was a good read, and it certainly raises some interesting issues and points.. eg.

I would have to disagree with them both. For me it implies either panism or monism - same, same regardless. The attachment to theism (him) rather than this or that ('Mamma' nature/ Tao) - 'that which is and is being' presents somewhat of a problem.. oh the condition of it all..


You may enjoy this here story book
Fractal Universe - A Pictorial Hypothesis by Colin Hill

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/

 

Actually you didn't. Or if then with your arrogance in assuming you know what god is or wants. But, guess I've seen other ppl like that so I'm not surprised either-example Endeavour. Guess once you find the 'man in the moon' you can say anything and feel you're above all others.

Christian

 

Yawwnnn....

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

My Theory is that the facts of science doesn't relate to the myths of religion I would think. Both of the subjects aren't a good mix. But rather the maths mix in well with religion.

I think it would be better to maybe leave it alone heh... >.<

 

agreed!
you put it better than i did zendog

 

Aren't we discussing the external world? I am pretty sure someone said "Science is good, but only God is perfect." and "Science if flawed" or something to that extent. I am saying that God isn't even real, and science is striving to be perfect. We don't understand the mind, but even there we are making huge strides. "God" has been around for 5000+ years and hasn't helped one bit, science has only been around for about 500 years and revolutionized civilizations several times over. What exactly is the arguement here, then?

 

I don't even know what you just said.

 

so you're saying that you believe in your god but you don't care weather we do? you're a rare breed indeed. you won't care if your children or family believe? then i tip my hat to you and i say there should be more like you if we have to tolerate religion.

Fun is subjective, the theory of divinity is not. big line there.

 

Nobody said it would be easy. I never said it was a crime, either. Just stating a possible (and common) reason. Most people get turned off from physics because they don't understand the math. Are they stupid? No. They just don't understand it, is all.

I agree. But not the way you think of it. You are likely thinking of "Ghosts are real and we need to communicate with them." or something like that (I'm not trying to put you down), whereas I think "Ok, people think they see ghosts. What are they REALLY seeing?"

3rd eye? James Randi. $1M if you can prove it.

Go in where? We've been into every orfice in the human body, and even made new ones when we had to. Wait, that's not what you're talking about, is it? Then explain please.

Considering Freud died a year after it was created, and Jung died about 20 years later, I'd say no, they didn't.

Wait, WHAT did Leary do besides "hey man... this ... this stuff is like cool and all... you all need to try it!"

By the way, LSD was heavily tested in the 60's. The government told hookers to give it to random people (documented). Then another gov't scientist took a bunch of people and gave them LSD for long periods of time (days) in sensory deprivation chambers and recorded it. That's damn evil and wrong, but it's more scientific than writing down what you saw on an acid trip.

Science is NOT about experiencing life. Where did you get that idea? Science is about figuring out how Nature works.

No, I like my mind the way it is and use other ways to make it grow (i.e. go out and experience real things. Drugs alter the chemicals in your brain. Another "virtual reality")

Finally we agree on something.

When did you suggest that? When did we even start debating this?

Saying science is flawed when you don't know what science is, is an attack. I'm definig science in every sentence in hopes that you'll actually read it one of these times. Oh well... a man can dream, can't he?

That's actually the beauty of science: it is definable in an A-level text book. The definition of science DOESN'T change as you get more advanced. It's a beautiful thing once you understand it.