Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

That isn't objective evidence though. That is still subjective evidence. Anything that originates from the mind of a human is subjective evidence. Objective evidence is evidence obtained through observation.

And what's not objective about observing a nifty rock carved to tell you how great somebody was?
And by the by, if I observed a god, would you believe me? Objective evidence is more than evidence that is merely observed by human beings.

Because if it can interact with a human's sense then we should be able to build a machine that it would be able to interact with as well since we have machines that can all duplicate humans senses and record information from them.

Not necessarily. Remember, you can interact with a human's "senses" by stimulating parts of the brain with wireless signals. You could "appear" to thousands of people at once, but the video camera in the room wouldn't pick up a thing.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Losing ground? That's what it appears now that you're trying to nit pick everything. It was my opinion I guess. Not really a hypothesis. Anyhow that's going in a different direction.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

And by the by, if I observed a god, would you believe me?

encounter of the second kind?

it depends on the circumstances, the evidence available, and what the answer is if we ask the top boys at harvard, yale, princeton, etc what qualifiers to look for in a god. to call it a god, i mean.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheCretinHop

It appears you are looking at it from the wrong angle and trying to make science align with religion when the opposite is what is supposed to happen.

#1 scientific fundamental point: Living matter cannot form from non-living matter. Period. That puts a seal on all of it. No theory can come out of that except that something greater than our comprehension that is living, exists and created us. Period.
Thread should be closed. It's geting boring.

This isn't a scientific concept. Period.

Here you go bub. Scientific proof debunking spontaneous generation. Period. Lol. Scientific fact as I was saying...
agridr.in...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

encounter of the second kind?

it depends on the circumstances, the evidence available, and what the answer is if we ask the top boys at harvard, yale, princeton, etc what qualifiers to look for in a god. to call it a god, i mean.

Bingo!
Simply because I perceived something through my senses doesn't make it objective or believable.

Although frankly, I wouldn't ask the guys at Harvard/Yale/Princeton what to look for in a God.

originally posted by: TheCretinHop

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheCretinHop

It appears you are looking at it from the wrong angle and trying to make science align with religion when the opposite is what is supposed to happen.

#1 scientific fundamental point: Living matter cannot form from non-living matter. Period. That puts a seal on all of it. No theory can come out of that except that something greater than our comprehension that is living, exists and created us. Period.
Thread should be closed. It's geting boring.

This isn't a scientific concept. Period.

Here you go bub. Scientific proof debunking spontaneous generation. Period. Lol. Scientific fact as I was saying...
agridr.in...

Because of theories like this being debunked you can by milk at the store safely and not die. Fact.

originally posted by: TheCretinHop

originally posted by: TheCretinHop

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheCretinHop

It appears you are looking at it from the wrong angle and trying to make science align with religion when the opposite is what is supposed to happen.

#1 scientific fundamental point: Living matter cannot form from non-living matter. Period. That puts a seal on all of it. No theory can come out of that except that something greater than our comprehension that is living, exists and created us. Period.
Thread should be closed. It's geting boring.

This isn't a scientific concept. Period.

Here you go bub. Scientific proof debunking spontaneous generation. Period. Lol. Scientific fact as I was saying...
agridr.in...

Because of theories like this being debunked you can by milk at the store safely and not die. Fact.

"The Ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea. Aristotle disagreed, but he still believed that creatures could arise from dissimilar organisms or from soil. Variations of this concept of spontaneous generation still existed as late as the 17th century, but towards the end of the 17th century, a series of observations and arguments began that eventually discredited such ideas. This advance in scientific understanding was met with much opposition, with personal beliefs and individual prejudices often obscuring the facts.

Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously.[citation needed] Attempts to disprove the spontaneous generation of life from non-life continued in the early 19th century with observations and experiments by Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann. In 1745, John Needham added chicken broth to a flask and boiled it. He then let it cool and waited. Microbes grew, and he proposed it as an example of spontaneous generation. In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani repeated Needham's experiment but removed all the air from the flask. No growth occurred.[9] In 1854, Heinrich G. F. Schröder (1810–1885) and Theodor von Dusch, and in 1859, Schröder alone, repeated the Helmholtz filtration experiment[10] and showed that living particles can be removed from air by filtering it through cotton-wool.

In 1864, Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of experiments similar to those performed earlier by Needham and Spallanzani, Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life".[11][12]

After obtaining his results, Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream")."
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Not necessarily. Remember, you can interact with a human's "senses" by stimulating parts of the brain with wireless signals. You could "appear" to thousands of people at once, but the video camera in the room wouldn't pick up a thing.

No you can't.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No you can't.

Yes, you can. We may not have developed precisely the technology I'm describing, but we've known about radio wave's abilities to affect human perception since the Second World War.
Link One and Link Two

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Theoretically, yes you can.

Think about it - our entire experience of reality is ultimately deduced from electromagnetic waves at different frequencies (or rates of pulse). All our senses depend on these waves, and different living bodies can pick up completely different wave bandwidths as opposed to each other.

This is fact, right?

Our entire reality is produced in the brain, and therefore it is through the BRAIN'S DECODING of the electromagnetic waves, or signals, which it receives from the entirety the human-body-universe system, that it ultimately constitutes what we call our 'reality'.

However, we experience a specific slice, or flavour of this source of electromagnetic waves, rather than the complete thing simueltaneously - which would probably be the most intense mind# you could ever experience lol.

We know the brain uses a fourier transform (mathematical concept) like process to change the signals received into 'reality', and we know through the fact that we have things such as colour blindness that it IS the brain's decoding of the signal that ultimately decides what our reality appears to be.

We know that we can use parts of the brain to stimulate responses, visions, feelings and so forth - and that's with our primitive understanding as of right now.

We know that ultimately there must be a set of 'rules' or codes that also judge what 'signal' received by the brain corresponds to what 'we' see.

This is fact, right?

That means, logically, that you could, with complete knowledge of this 'code', so to say, and electromagnetism in general, purposely induce images in people's brains, that would appear to manifest in 3-dimensional reality for them.

So yeah, you could manifest sense through wireless signals.

As for the camera...well...if you were using plain out visible light waves in complex patterns to fool the people, the camera would also pick up this image since it would have been programmed for visible light by us anyway.

Is this what you meant?

If you plan to firstly chip/modify the people's brains with something that would fundamentally change how the signals are perceived, or WHAT signals are perceived, then it would be possible to do the camera-room trick...

You could also theoretically do this through genetic engineering, since we know this can be completely controlled by DNA alone. That fact itself gives rise to some scary concepts.

I can't see why you wouldn't be able to do any of that since we know that the fundamental decoding system, and hence the resulting experience, CAN be changed based on some form of physical parameter or another.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yes, you can. We may not have developed precisely the technology I'm describing, but we've known about radio wave's abilities to affect human perception since the Second World War.
Link One and Link Two

No you can't. We've known about radio wave's abilities to affect human auditory systems. I believe you said the brain.

a reply to: DazDaKing

Our entire reality is produced in the brain, and therefore it is through the BRAIN'S DECODING of the electromagnetic waves, or signals, which it receives from the entirety the human-body-universe system, that it ultimately constitutes what we call our 'reality'.

So the brain too is produced by the brain? Where do you get this nonsense? It's simply untrue. We're not brains on sticks or in jars.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yes, you can. We may not have developed precisely the technology I'm describing, but we've known about radio wave's abilities to affect human perception since the Second World War.
Link One and Link Two

No you can't. We've known about radio wave's abilities to affect human auditory systems. I believe you said the brain.

Touché, on that particular auditory effect. However...Link

So, the 1970s...we've got patents out to modify brain waves remotely. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure this would qualify as using radio waves to affect the brain.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Lol - you misunderstood.

I didn't say that physical reality itself, i.e the actual atoms that constitute the physical matter that constitutes our brain is a product of our brain - there's a distinct difference here.

Yes, reality as you see it, is completely decided by how the brain decodes the electromagnetic wave signals it receives from the objective atomic world. Most humans share the same decoding patterns in their natural and physical brains which allow us to experience what we define as an objective reality.

However, the end product of what we experience is still controlled by the brain. How can you call that nonsense? What do you think of hallucinations and people with severe mental disorders like schizophrenia then?

Now do you understand?

Well done on stumbling on the semantics of one sentence and refusing the read the rest - which would have made it clear as to what I meant.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Also - are you aware that you're arguing against sense being affected by wireless signals, when our entire modern understanding of sense as we know it depends on the properties of electromagnetic waves, how the body transforms them into electrical signals and ultimately how the brain decodes this into an experienced 'reality'.

Or are we going to be really arsey about semantics here?

He said 'affect regions of the brain', which is what you're indirectly doing by manipulating or giving artificial signals to trick it into seeing something that's not actually there in physical form.

Directly influencing physical regions of the brain with electromagnetic waves to create a perceived image is infinitely more complex than what I've talked about. I do agree that the original posters language seems to suggest this meaning, but I think that's just a product of misunderstanding.

The point I think he's trying to make is that you can affect senses with artificial wireless signals. You should have really pointed out which part of what he said you didn't agree with straight away - but who am I to say that?

originally posted by: DazDaKing


The point I think he's trying to make is that you can affect senses with artificial wireless signals. You should have really pointed out which part of what he said you didn't agree with straight away - but who am I to say that?

Yup, that's pretty much my point. You can mess with people's perception with wireless signals.

a reply to: DazDaKing

Ok. I've been thinking about your ideas for awhile and I want to bounce a narrative off your head to see if I better understand where you are coming from.

At some point tens of thousands of years in the past, we co-existed with another humanoid race that evolved alongside us. This other race was violent and possibly conquered and enslaved the humans in the past. I guess they would rule over the humans as gods. Let's say they were violent masters too and put the literal fear of god in them. This other race, being harrier would look more beastial and it is likely that the reason the gods were animorphized in retellings may be due to this.

In any case, this other race started to die out for some reason. A core group of younger members of the race started inbreeding with the humans to preserve their species. Or maybe they were just horny. In any case, the older members forbade this and shunned and likely executed the hybrids.

But something happened. Something that changed the course of history. A flood that wiped out all of the master race and left the hybrids and humans alive to assume control of the world. From this the legend of the older race was passed down orally and mutated over the years into the first religion when it was finally written down in Samaria.

Because if that is what you meant, then I apologize. I could totally see that being the origin of religion and how it could tie into science. Just as long as we assume that all of the supernatural hocus pocus was just exaggerated stories of normal human feets. Which is the likely case.

a reply to: DazDaKing

Yes, reality as you see it, is completely decided by how the brain decodes the electromagnetic wave signals it receives from the objective atomic world. Most humans share the same decoding patterns in their natural and physical brains which allow us to experience what we define as an objective reality.

However, the end product of what we experience is still controlled by the brain. How can you call that nonsense? What do you think of hallucinations and people with severe mental disorders like schizophrenia then?

I call it nonsense because it isn't the case. The idea that "decoding patterns" in the brain allow us to experience objective reality is unintelligible. Quite obviously one also needs eyes, ears, skin, bones, heart, lungs...everything of the body, including reality itself, to experience reality.

Now do you understand?

I don't.

Well done on stumbling on the semantics of one sentence and refusing the read the rest - which would have made it clear as to what I meant.

Once I hit one unintelligible statement, it's difficult to move on to the next unintelligible statement.

Also, are you aware that you're arguing against sense being affected by wireless signals, when our entire modern understanding of sense as we know it depends on electromagnetic waves?

I'm not sure you know what sense is.

But I fear we are moving too far off-topic.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: DazDaKing


The point I think he's trying to make is that you can affect senses with artificial wireless signals. You should have really pointed out which part of what he said you didn't agree with straight away - but who am I to say that?

Yup, that's pretty much my point. You can mess with people's perception with wireless signals.

Not wirelessly. And certainly not to the degree that you can fake a religious experience. Unless dizziness counts.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: DazDaKing


The point I think he's trying to make is that you can affect senses with artificial wireless signals. You should have really pointed out which part of what he said you didn't agree with straight away - but who am I to say that?

Yup, that's pretty much my point. You can mess with people's perception with wireless signals.

Not wirelessly. And certainly not to the degree that you can fake a religious experience. Unless dizziness counts.

Dude, if you can make voices appear inside someone's head wirelessly (and you can, read my link) then you can fake a religious experience.