Science and God hand in hand...

Maybe we can try a universal model where everything was SUNG into existance? That would be even more fun!

Science isn't about boring or fun, it's about what IS. Last I read, the BB model accounts for the current state of the universe, it's age, it's formation, and is a lot more simple than the fractal universe model, hence more believable. Until we find more evidence, BB model takes the cake.

 

Let me guess, you can't even describe *it*, can you?

I know, I read those studies. What I am saying is that you said there is a "god" portion of the brain. I said I don't use it, since I don't pray.

Let me make this analogy: You say there is a "lifting" part of the body. I say, maybe, but since I never lift anything, I don't use it. Then you say "oh, but it is also the pushing and pulling part of the body." At that point it is no longer a "lifting part" of the body, it is an arm. Something totally different that just happens to lift as part of it's uses.

Wait wait wait wait wait....

It's a verifyable frequency.... check. I understand that.

It's the same for everyone? I don't know. If I punch a kid in the gut, it won't be like punching a grown man. Does everybody report the same thing?

Cannot be disproven? It doesn't have to be. Unless there is proof FOR it, then it is false. That's the way the world works.

"Open up and it will be there"? Science doesn't work that way. You don't have to BELIEVE in a fist to be punched. You don't have to BELIEVE in gravity to be pulled down.

 

Come on guys be nice

 

I am being nice. I managed not to insult anybody.

 

Actually, i would say that divinity is also subjective. The thing is, religious folk would argue otherwise.

 

i think ghosts are real because ive had the experience of existing as "me" but not in physical form, (this was with an OBE i had) i know how arrogant that sounds, but theres really no other evidence there is to possibly give- you cannot observe or measure something like this- it has to be experienced first hand. what im saying is, scientists should use the technology they have to experience this state for themselfs, the technology exists.

you cant show someone they have extra sensory faculties, they have to come to the realisation themself.

go inside your own awareness, this comes back to meditation, which has nothing to do with the physical body, *consciousness* is not an orifice explained in a textbook.

he tried to broaden the field of human experience, simple. If you havent tried lsd or mushrooms then your in no place to judge it my friend, its like nothing you'v experienced before your placing it in the "drugs are bad" category without even trying it. Try basing your opinions on personel experience instead of what you hear.

i agree its evil to force someone to do something against there will or under false pretenses, but again your stance is completely hollow since you have no actual experience, lol. Theres a world of difference between a crack addict on a street corner to a mushroom trip with the intent of honest and scrutinous introspection.

you like having such a closed mind?
have you ever had an original idea?
original ideas are what make civilisation progress, to attack them the way you do would have made the world a stagnant place a long time ago.
so if drugs alter chemicals in your brain making it "virtual" and unreal, dont you ever drink alcohol?

lol

ok i thought you were reffering to that specifically, no problem.

well, apart from what iv'e already said, i can see how science is flawed simply by your behavour, because your what its representing. which is basically "a complete unwillingness to appreciate other viewpoints" I have nothing against what science has done for the world, id like to understand it more than i do but it just hasnt been that way.

 

and I just disagreed with your summation... But, whatever, you refuse to read what I write...

Again, read what I write, I could care less if you believe me... Your persepective doesn't matter in regards to my belief...

Your logic leaves much to be desired... Because you don't pray doesn't mean that that part of your brain doesn't get used, they only studied changes in the electric currents compairing 2 different activities, not the vastness of possibilities of human activity...

often, science can start with science fiction(a la Star Trek, etc)

Actually, they've discovered that increments in natural disasters occur cyclically with periods of relatively low frequency to ages of higher frequency, we are entering another high frequency age only it is ahead of schedule, many attribute it to the greenhouse effect but no theory has yet been proven...

I have told you, but, as i've reiterated over and over again, you don't read entire responses before replying...

 

I believe that without outside influence an individual will come to their own understanding or communion with God, or God will come to them if it is meant to be... If it is not, then it won't happen, the Religious and athiest alike fight a futile battle...

 

For the record, let me state that I am NOT debating whether science will make you a better person. This has nothing to do with science as it is entirely subjective and changes from culture to culture. Science is just figuring out how Nature works.

You sure it was an OBE and not a dream? Or a shroom attack?

Can't you DO anything with that 3rd eye of yours? Or is it just there for decoration?

The thing is, consciousness isn't explained anywhere. Everybody has a different view of it. They have different views of their own awareness. I fail to see why science would even touch on this.

I have better things to do than fry my brain, if even temporarily. I'm no scientologist (big difference here), but I still don't like to mess with my mind.

I can be introspective without punishing my brain. And no, there isn't. A crack addict just wants to be REALLY introspective.

No, I'm 19. But I tried some beer and champagne anyway and don't like the taste. Sorry. Why bother drinking the hard stuff? Whenever I see anybody take a shot of it, they cringe as if in pain. No thanks.


And it's virtual because you don't make proper judgements while intoxicated. You bump into things and can't think straight. Can't think in the REAL world.

Science looks at the Natural world through observation, experimentation, and proof. You are either:

1) Not observing the natural world, but thinking "what if"

2) Not experimenting, but thinking "yeah, that could work" anyway

3) Not providing any proof, just saying "believe me!!!!"

4) A combination of the above

So why should I appreciate your viewpoint?

 

Whatever indeed.

And that's why your belief isn't science in any way, shape, or form.

If it gets used even though I don't pray, then it CANNOT be called the "God" part of my brain. It does MORE than that. It can be called the "HEAOTHOAI part of the brain which does XXXX, YYYY, and gets used when you pray", but not "The God part of your brain".

An idea only. Not the actual science part. If a bum says "You doctors should find a way to cure cancer", and they do, does he get any of the credit?

Thanks for missing my analogy.

You base your insults on faulty logic yourself, so how can I even take that seriously?

 

when did I say it was? Do you just make assumptions on statements for the sake of arguing against them?

Is it that hard for you to accept that the brain does in fact encourage spirituality? Doesn't even mean that God exists, but, you cling to your nonbeliefs instead of analyzing what this implies objectively... I find it interesting that you embody the same characteristics which you criticize in your religious counterparts...

bad example, more like- I bet if they did X to solve Y disease it would work... Then scientists do it and it works... Or, it'd be cool if we had wirless communication devices, and then cell phones were made, with direct influence from Star Trek...

you never made one, you made a statement, which I in turn replied to... An analogy is an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably agree in others, which you did not establish at all- you spoke of one thing ain regards to that one thing...

Firstly, I haven't intentionally insulted anything about you, if I have, tell me what so that i can apologize... Second, what does this have to do with reading an entire post before you reply to it and comment on subjects that have already been addressed?

 

Hard to accept that perhaps it doesn't ? Care to explain how in fact our brain encourages spirituality ? Just because you seem to see something that you discribe as "it" and apparently might have seen doesn't mean others can. Also, you claiming this I could say it was a fidget of your imagination. Because our brain is capable of lots of things, including hallucinations (due to overtiredness, for example), picking up enhanced noises, etc. None of them though have alot to do with a higher power, just our physical make up. And our enhanced senses in certain situations. So that you go at him for apparently not seeing things objectively maybe you should think about seeing things more logically. Not everything 'out of line' of our normality needs to have a spiritual explanation.

As for embodying the same characterisics: Shouldn't that give you a hint to change something in yourself if you point it out in a atheist ?

Christian

 

We're argueing science. If you're not, then what are you doing in this thread?

There is a part of the brain that gets used when we commit suicide. Clearly, our brains encourage suicide.

Just because it gets used doesn't mean it's encouraged. If it has other uses than spirituality, that means it is designed for whatever that other use and prayer have in common, not prayer solely.

You just did the same thing I did.

Wouldn't it be cool if we had a cure for cancer? And then XXXX was made, with direct influence of that bum wanting to cure cancer.

Do you have any idea how complicated cell phones are? And satelites? Star Trek having a few ear pieces suddenly means scientists have them to thank for cell phones?

Did you understand my point, though? You will find a fault in EVERY analogy, since that aren't meant to be perfect. Quit getting stuck on the details and look at the big picture.

Why is everybody here so afraid of insults? I used to get insulted on a regular basis (worked in fast food). Know what I did? Didn't give a damn about it. I can't imagine your life if you can't take a harmless insult. I'm not breaking your legs, you know.

 

I would suggest reading through some of my past posts for clarification... I addressed this already...

 

Allow me to attempt to clear things up for you. I was agreeing with your sentiment in your response which I replied to. I also happen to think things are real. Not only what we experience of the nature outside of ourselves – but also the nature of our minds experience. Maybe you didn’t ‘know’ what I just said because all you seem to be looking for is opposition. Like I said I agree – things are real..

It’s great that you live up to your name. You have made such a mess young puppy, pooping all over the place. There is plenty of your mess to clean up.

I said:

You said:

No. Where exactly did I say this? You are putting words in my mouth. I am observing things as they are. Maybe we should accept certain limitations that are in existence. Science is limited by human beings and the reality they live in. It is not a fault of science or you or I. It just is this way. Of course I want things to improve for everyone through both science and other ways.. Science in its empirical sense cannot do it all by itself. Is any direction it takes ok – purely in the name of science – no I don’t think so personally.

…continued from prior quote

Where Have I said this ? Where have I said God is some separate external being that gives answers to us..

What I will say: the answers come from within.. That is the answers you refer to above. – just in case you get confused again.

People usually use this sort of tactics when they run out of rational responses. It fails to surprise or faze me. It only reflects poorly on you.

I said:

Really? What I said read like perfectly comprehensible English to me.. Maybe you are not as clever as you clearly think you are. “Nothing relative about it” Oh really ?
A wannabe scientist should at least understand relativity.
Well I am not saying that the philosophical ideas behind this mode of thinking are right and science is wrong. I happen to think they are both right in there own way. Also that they are compatible. Or at least should be.

Firstly where does the *the color red* exist ? You say there is nothing relative about it. But can it exist without anything relative to it? Like the other wavelengths that make up the spectrum of light. So is it the spectrum of wavelengths (frequency) that is light which exists or the colors we see that really exist? I would venture that color cannot exist without us here to perceive it. If we remove that which discerns color from the equation. What happens to its existence. So its existence clearly relies on what is relative to it. Like wise our existence and perception relies on what is relative to it. An example might be the food we eat. If we didn’t put food through our mouths and neither did any other creature on the planet – but say breathed it through the air. Food as we know it would not exist to us at all.
ie likewise have to see to get around our world and function as we do, therefore we see color. Colours exist as a function of the brain. Therefore the *color red* is in our mind. Te wavelength exists and is part of the creation of the impression..


So if our brain functions – (in this case also involving our sight) wasn’t how it is – would the color red exist. Well it wouldn’t exist in our mind would it. But it does. Likewise if we were to encounter an alien race (just hypothetically of course) there may be things that exist in there minds that do not exist in ours (and vice versa).
So I would say that yes the color red does not exist in that wavelength of light on its own. It is a frequency in a range of vibration – that is all. It is not the color red just yet. For that to happen it must be related to other things.

I hope this is a little clearer for you. Relative!

I said:

you said:

No I have not contradicted myself at all. Philosophy is an involved subject matter – perhaps I am guilty of skimming my understanding of it at certain times.. but no contradictions I am aware of. If you find the subject matter contradictory or counter intuitive that is not my problem.. Our existence as part of and in nature can often seem to be this way, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be..


I will do my best by you, I’m sure.. One thing though If I am contradicting myself please clearly show where and exactly how (the burden of proof lies with you) and I will accept that I have done so and rectify my position if need be. I would even go so far as offering you a prize if you can do so – how does £50 cash sound – knock yourself out. So far I cannot see where I have contradicted myself on this thread. However you have chosen to reply to multiple posters on this thread, it may be that you are having a little trouble telling things apart.

When I say “We need it, and we don't need it.” I am referring to the objective / subjective ‘divide’. Both points of view exist. We can choose to view them separate or in tandem. In one sense we need to to be able to tell them apart – at the same time we need to integrate and make sense of both what is seen as subjective and what is seen as objective.

It is reliable and not reliable depending on what you wish to do with it. If you wish to use it in comparison – it will reliably tell you something – what it tells you will not be reliable for all fields of study – depending what it is you wish to learn or discover through using said methods. There are different tools for different jobs – that is all I am saying. For example do you wish assert that psychologists do not use scientific methods. If so why are they unscientific? Is it simply because of the area they study?

Yes – but are there reactions not reliable given there separate experience. 2 people can have the same experience and act differently – but this is due to accumulation and the integration and choices a persons mind carries out over the course of its existence.

It is by no means a problem if such methods do not fit for certain investigation, but clearly it can provide viable and reliable information – depending on what part of nature you are looking into. You cannot carve nature up as you please and say this is nature and this is not part of nature just because you wish to be a scientist. Whatever understanding is brought to bear on nature it is a human one dictated by human nature. You can argue all you like against this. It is fact. Your arguments here clearly display your human prejudices. So you have proven this point in effect. If science is objective, then you are showing that scientists are sometimes not so objective as they some of them claim to be.. So they are not special or different in this regard. And seeing as people must carry out scientific work and give it direction and focus – I would venture that successful scientists tend to be those that keep an open mind. The others will more likely just be the workhorse scientists. Not much different to other fields then.. Perhaps you might do well to bear this in mind if you want to make it a life’s work and be any good.. or do any good.

Yes and quite right you are testing that which is physical. That is the remit of empiricism/ science. I have no problem with it. In your example above – it will work under fixed conditions the way you are saying it will. How much of value about anything is really surmised through this. It is just measuring and accounting what happens. If man A decides to move his body around in strange ways – what will happen. Each time you fire him he does something different. By observing 2 things that behave the same and comparing them you learn nothing new. Otherwise you are just confirming. To learn something new you must compare differing behaviors – see the cause – and figure out why and what it means. Unfortunately it seems from your point of view – what things mean is not at all, all that objective (meaning scientific under your terms), now are they ?

Not really – you should read the link that wanderer posted. I will post it here again in cased you missed it. Science finds things out -yes. The things that science finds out often don’t tally with each other even. There are field and branches within science itself that aren’t compatible – in that scientists often disagree. Also there needs to be commentary on how all these things fit together and what they mean to the society and community that science serves. This is the role taken by philosophy I think. I am not here to oppose science against philosophy. I think I have a fairly healthy regard for both. There is way more philosophy that I don’t particularly like than there is science that doesn’t really float my boat – I would say. Like wise I’m sure that you don’t find every single area of scientific endeavors exciting. Maybe you do – it’s your choice – based on experience I would guess.

So can a philosopher be a scientist. Sounds like philosophers get a better deal. You refer to the work of science – then yes it is not the work of empiric studies to question and understand how there findings relate to other knowledge now is it?

Correct Science is NOT about experiencing life. Again – where exactly did I say this Mr. loopy?
Being human is about experiencing life – science as a discipline carried out by humans is not about experiencing life (and I did not say it was) or nature - it is about measuring and comparing its behaviors and not just the ones you like. The ones you like - no doubt they are the scientific fields of study you will enter if you so wish to.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth – it is a childish way to make an argument where none was there in the first place – perhaps your argument with this lies elsewhere and not with me. I would highly recommend you to be more careful in how you reply. It only reflects poorly on your intellect and what you are able to discern and understand – as well as your ability to communicate appropriately with adults. You have become an adult now, so please start behaving like one.

I don’t agree that science is ‘stand alone’ . Seeing as scientist are busy uncovering and measuring, testing. Someone has still got to integrate understanding and shed light on direction and what xyz discoveries mean in relation to each other and in relation to social factors. Science may not care (under your definitions and brief for it), but people still do.

 

why do you say that? ya lost me.
"fun" is different to each individual, but the religious will argue that "Divinity" is not, and it will "manifest" or "appear" in time. thats what i was getting at.

 

Religion itself is the "outside influence" without you'd never have started the battle. if there is no "outside influence" there then Atheisim is as natural a mindset as fear of falling. and in that sens, "Atheisim" is a word that shouldn't even exist.

Don't group me in with those people.
A battle? no, they are, tightening the strangle hold on society with every day. but for now, i think we're mounting our offenses.

 

I had a huge post here and somehow I lost it. Instead, I will make a new thread so we can start fresh.

 

actually, this thread was not intended to "argue science", it was created to argue that science and a belief in God can coexist... But, the focus seems to have been lost...

This is a distortion of the original context... But, for the sake of being reasonable I will search for some more specific information for you... But, until then, ponder this...

Just as excercise may directly use one part of the brain, it may still effect another indirectly (for instance the development and secretion of dopamene or endorphins) which in turn may effect your ability to pay attention, go to sleep, or even be happy... Everything you do effects every part of your body no matter how insignificant... When you lift weights you are not only using the muscles, but you must breathe properly to regulate your energy effectively... Every action has an effect on your body, and I am not telling you to pray, but neglecting a part of your brain just doesn't seem like the most healthy thing you could do... Balance has always served to keep people healthy, and the brain works better as a whole... But, let me get some more info for you so that I can be more specific with my commentary...

not really, you are saying that suggesting someone make an object that does task A is the same as coming up with ideas and models of an object that does task A...

And, the man that invented the first big cell phone used admitted on a History Channel program that he was influenced by Star Trek to make cell phones... As was the development of personal computers which would not be possible without the creation of the microchip, no one had idealized computers that small until Star Trek, before that computers were humungous, so, creative minds DO play an influence on what scientists may be motivated to invent...

The show Ghost in the Shell takes place in a future where humans are highly cyberized from limbs to the brain... The development of nanotechnology and computers that can be controlled by thoughts are the early developments of a very similar reality...

I thought I'd also add that "warp" has been a theorized method of travelling and rapid speeds through space where in an electromagnetic field of some kind (requiring an immense amount of power) shortens the space in front of a craft while expanding that space behind it in a way that the craft travels through a sort of "bubble"... Theoretically unless we can come up with new forms of energy we would never be able to create it...

But, like I said, what you gave wasn't an analogy... You should know the meaning of words before you use them...

^^^It implies a weakness in self-control and restraint not indicitive of a constructive debate and also implies an inability to express yourself maturely... It is not that you are offending anyone, it is that you make yourself appear the fool and it becomes difficult to maintain the discussion with respect for you... Also, it is a MAP rule that insults are not allowed, so I don't understand the need to justify your behavior...

 

I won't categorize those that choose to remain objective in their stance... I contend that belief in divinty is natural insobeing that since the most primitive of man walked this Earth he has always been convinced of a higher power... Every society of people ever recorded has held a belief in a God or Gods that was not only acknowledged, but worshipped... I feel that it is actually religion that turns more people to athiesm than science...