Are Your Theories Backed by Science or Faith?

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Sure even science to a large degree requires faith.

exactly...

dark matter, for example, is described like invisible force that bind universe together and scientists BELIEVE it exists because they don't have any proof...

the same thing is with 'god': it is also invisible force that bind universe together and people BELIEVE in it 'cause they don't have any proof...

the problem starts when these two sides start argue about their BELIEFS like they were truth...

I BELIEVE that the truth is somewhere in the middle

cheers


[edit on 4-1-2009 by donhuangenaro]

Important to note that Evolution explains the origins of the species not the origin of life, origin of life is beyond our scope, but yet we try none the less.

As for the notion of randomness in Evolution being the hand of god... obviously this is not the main rule of outcome, most living things progress with each generation much as their predecessors, occasionally there are variations in genetic makeup that either serve to perpetuation the species or result in a premature death, those that are fortunate enough to have gained a survival advantage via favorable "randomness" carry that advantage to their offspring... thus evolving. There is no evidence that "god" has anything to do with these favorable random advantages just as much as s/he has anything to do with the unfavorable random disadvantages.

Injecting god in science to explain variability has no purpose other then to cling to one's faith in the face/evidence of there being no god.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Important to note that Evolution explains the origins of the species not the origin of life, origin of life is beyond our scope, but yet we try none the less.

As for the notion of randomness in Evolution being the hand of god... obviously this is not the main rule of outcome, most living things progress with each generation much as their predecessors, occasionally there are variations in genetic makeup that either serve to perpetuation the species or result in a premature death, those that are fortunate enough to have gained a survival advantage via favorable "randomness" carry that advantage to their offspring... thus evolving. There is no evidence that "god" has anything to do with these favorable random advantages just as much as s/he has anything to do with the unfavorable random disadvantages.

Perhaps you fail to understand. Randomness has no place in science. Science banks itself as being "provable", but you can't prove randomness. Because it is random. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It doesn't not say anything about random actions.

The closest thing to it not being random is some theory on somekind of cosmic rays. But even that is a bit screwy IMO. I get hit by cosmic rays and I'm not a toad.

Furthermore, the DNA settings themselves when they change automatically turn into things that are PRE-DETERMINED. While things may change, the change the DNA becomes is already pre-determined. Meaning, your DNA that creates your body was already pre-determined to do so. If something was cloned using your exact DNA, you would get YOUR BODY.

In reality, Genetics is really just the study of reverse engineering the things that contain DNA, and an attempt of making a catalog(aka, the book of life).

Injecting god in science to explain variability has no purpose other then to cling to one's faith in the face/evidence of there being no god.

evidence of there being no god? Have you lost your mind? All you are really trying to do is use science as a way of disproving god. And you can't do it. You are merely focusing on the creation - which is bound by logic, which is bound by action and reaction, and ignoring anything which doesn't meet or lie in the action or reaction logic.

In fact, one of the biggest conspiracies in the world is trying to get people to become action and reaction. Because just like science and technology, when you have things on an action/reaction level - you can control them. Just like we are able to send a rocket into space. Because we know the actions and reactions. If that rocket had something that only consciousness gives - a choice. Then you would not be able to control that rocket.

Science can not explain consciousness(GOD). It is not equiped to handle it, and as I said before - you can either accept this fact and get better understanding. Or you can continue to be ignorant and live in the action/reaction realm.

You dismiss the bible because it was understanding given to people thousands of years ago. You fault it because the understanding given to those people wasn't scientific, it was a general way of explaining things. On the flip side, some people fault science because it doesn't say exactly what the bible says. And BOTH sides are ignorant to the truth.

God is pure consciousness. Your consciousness is part of god. This is all said in the bible. You can NOT get consciousness or choice from a universe which is only action and reaction as the science world see's things.

The only way something can come from nothing is in THOUGHT. A result of consciousness(GOD). You can THINK up things out of thin air. And this universe is nothing more than a THOUGHT. a "What if".

How does the bible describe all this? It states that our bodies come from the dust of the earth. And our Bodies ARE from this universe. Our bodies work in an action/reaction way. You eat too much, you get fat. Action and Reaction. You reap what you sow, action and reaction. But where does consciousness come from? In the bible it says - the spirit of god(consciousness) FILLS these things. And of course, without consciousness NONE of this creation would exist. Because there nothing there to observe it. God is the only observer.

Yes, a simpler explanation for a more simple time. Jeez, I can't imagine why these things weren't explained in terms of modern science to people back then. Would be kind of like trying to teach your 5 year old child who to catch a baseball based on physics equations. Oh yeah sure, there are physics equations and variables that fit into each throw and catch. But that certainly isn't the best way to teach someone how to throw and catch a baseball, nor would you use it to explain how it works.

Science has it's place. Without science we wouldn't have the technologies we have today. But if you can't keep it or put it in it's proper place. Or if you lack the insight to put it in it's proper place, then you are a fool. These concepts aren't even new concepts.

I think, therefore I am. As I am conscious, in the result there is not a higher form of consciousness, then I am God. Then I am the observer of all there is. And without me, things cease to exist. Of course, as I have no direct memory of creating this creation, outside a few dreams, then it is only logical that somewhere beyond our very limited perspective on things, there is a higher consciousness, if nothing more than a deeper level of me.

You look for god externally and you will never find him. God is within if you are smart enough to look there. How can you expect to find or see God when you can't even understand or know yourself and what you own consciousness is? And how can you expect to progress further when you refuse to look in this direction, and use other peoples mistakes as your only comparison on who is right?

So much for being the all seeing I. Obviously you are blinded to trust only that which is external.

saddly if we create an Artificail conciousness your idea of god will be distroyed.... this will indeed happen in less than 4 years... may your GOD R.I.P.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
saddly if we create an Artificail conciousness your idea of god will be distroyed.... this will indeed happen in less than 4 years... may your GOD R.I.P.

No it's not. Now you are just making things up. It can not be done. There is no logic which can create or describe consciousness. I'm a programmer, and these are things I've tried to do. The closest thing you can do is simulate consciousness. Thus why it is called artificial intelligence

A computer can not even generate a truly random number. Any so called random number a computer generates can actually be predicted. Because it is based on logic. There is no logic which gives consciousness.

You may think you are being smart, but this is a topic I've spent years on. As a programmer, creating AI was a dream of mine. Until I realized the harsh truth of the matter. And that is the closest thing I can get to creating anything which appears to be intelligent and having "choice" is to generate "seemingly" random numbers and then picking a predetermined option.

Both.

I believe in God, but I still believe in evolution. If science can prove something, why shouldn't I believe it, there is nothing science has really fully proven that denies my God is real.

if you where to create a sphere around an electrode then where the electrons choose to equalize the charge could choose the possiblitys randomly... or jsut about as randomly as existance already is.

then you hook cooridinates on the sphere to possible desicions which would be loaded relevent to the situation (of course distributed evenly as to the amount of possible known relevent choices).

dont we all make desicions based on logic.... although extremely complex logic beyond the memory capacity and processing power of current electronics.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
if you where to create a sphere around an electrode then where the electrons choose to equalize the charge could choose the possiblitys randomly... or jsut about as randomly as existance already is.

then you hook cooridinates on the sphere to possible desicions which would be loaded relevent to the situation (of course distributed evenly as to the amount of possible known relevent choices).

dont we all make desicions based on logic.... although extremely complex logic beyond the memory capacity and processing power of current electronics.

Ok, you tell me how to create randomness from logic, and I'll make you a millionaire. Really, it's that simple. As I mentioned before, it is impossible to create something that is truly random.

I am not just making this stuff up.

www.random.org...

Perhaps you have wondered how predictable machines like computers can generate randomness. In reality, most random numbers used in computer programs are pseudo-random, which means they are a generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula. This is fine for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect if you're used to dice rolls and lottery draws.

RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use RANDOM.ORG for holding draws, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive games and gambling sites, for scientific applications and for art and music. The service has existed since 1998 and was built and is being operated by Mads Haahr of the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland.

So, if you are going to create something which is truly "random" and can not be predicted, then lets see it. If you can create randomness from logic, then as I said before - I will make you a millionaire.

And yet, this is really just the tip of the iceberg. Because consciousness is the state of being aware that you are aware. "I think, therefore I am". You just can't create an observer. Even if I were to create AI based on random numbers, it still is just a machine turning gears. It's a totally different story to bring in something that "see's".

It's the same old question that has been around for thousands of years. To WHAT/WHOM is "reality" being presented too?



[edit on 4-1-2009 by badmedia]

Is what we do and say really random? Even though you thinkwhat you do is random... its all built form previous knowledge... "the son can do only what it sees the father do".

Even if i stand up and think "im going to do somthing random" even this random action i think of can only be formed form previous muscle memory.

We seem to think that the causality we live in is separate from teh image that we are?

Is the image a camera takes uniqe or random? or is it only based on the position of the camera in causality?

Aren't you as much the drawing as the stensil that was used to draw it?

Yes it is impossilbe to make ANYTHING that is random..... ANYTHING.... so even yoru precious conciousness in replicatable... biologicaly and mechanicaly.

Does this not disprove your "GOD"... maybeyou should concider mine? just a suggestion.
[edit on 4-1-2009 by Wertdagf]

[edit on 4-1-2009 by Wertdagf]

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Is what we do and say really random? Even though you thinkwhat you do is random... its all built form previous knowledge... "the son can do only what it sees the father do".

Even if i stand up and think "im going to do somthing random" even this random action i think of can only be formed form previous muscle memory.

We seem to think that the causality we live in is separate from teh image that we are?

Is the image a camera takes uniqe or random? or is it only based on the position of the camera in causality?

Aren't you as much the drawing as the stensil that was used to draw it?

Yes it is impossilbe to make ANYTHING that is random..... ANYTHING.... so even yoru precious conciousness in replicatable... biologicaly and mechanicaly.

Does this not disprove your "GOD"... maybeyou should concider mine? just a suggestion.

Well, if you are correct in what you say, then I have no choice and it doesn't really matter what I believe because it wasn't my choice to begin with. How do you suppose I could "consider" your "god". Of course, these arguments are the same arguments a crazy person who goes around doing bad things might try to make as justifications of their actions. Oh, I had no choice in the matter!

In reality, you point out one of the biggest problems in society today. A bunch of ignorant repeaters who only know what they are told, and are unable to think for themselves. Which again, as I mentioned before is the true conspiracy in the world, turning people into action and reaction modules for ease of control. Showing images on the TV for the appropriate reactions.

Perhaps you are unconscious, have no choice in things and only operate on action and reaction. I don't know if you have a soul or not. But I do. I think, therefore I am. I exist because it is impossible for me not to exist. As if I didn't exist, there would be nothing there to recognize it.

And there are many others who aren't ignorant and do actually think. Proof of this is in the advancements of society, which obviously aren't the same stencils their fathers used. Get stuck in other peoples lines, appeal to authority using your memory. But I won't.

Reality is nothing more than an illusion. A thought, which is the only thing that can bring something from nothing.

Google Video Link

Why would you speak this way? Just because causality has already laid out a path for you in this reality, does not mean that you are not good.. or improving on your bad decisions.

Before you start telling everyone i need to be crucifed. take a deep breath.

Your logic comes from a fear of punishment and not a love of good.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Why would you speak this way? Just because causality has already laid out a path for you in this reality, does not mean that you are not good.. or improving on your bad decisions.

Before you start telling everyone i need to be crucifed. take a deep breath.

Your logic comes from a fear of punishment and not a love of good.

Are you just a troll? No where did I suggest you need to be crucified. Far from it. My logic has nothing to do with fear of punishment. My logic is based on taking responsibility for your own actions if anything. You are just making stuff up at this point.

I am the cause in causality. That which creates the logic. Only programs which have no free will are subject to causality. That is not me.

Would you say that your personality would be difernt if you where born with no legs?

What about if you were born a differnt color? a different location?

so how much do you think causality would then effect your logic...

Your thoughts are created by your experainces... those experiances depend on the enviroment you were born in.

In turn causality determines your thoughts, emotions.... what you love and hate.

You speak of ignorant people who refuse to see... and yet here you are spouting insults, with your head in the sand.

The life you have lived has created these emotions you feel and the thoughts you now have. Does this mean you cannot understand how causality has effected you and learn from it... NO, but even those thoughts of understanding causality, is apart of it.

You were the first to state "how much longer must we suffer these wolves in sheeps clothing... who understand not what they say and wrap themselves in sybolism...."

just like you and your bible... which is the only place you get this freewill idea.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Wertdagf]

Science is a faith/
tum didlely tum

kx

Science is a faith... in our ability to reason.

Religion is a faith... in god's ability to reason.

zippity doo daa day

reply to post by Wertdagf


These things are just culture. Culture means you express things differently. Someone who is born in Japan has a different culture, but the same basic principles that make up that culture exist in some form or another. Does a man in china not hunger for dinner just because he eats something other than what I might eat for dinner?

I do not see things like this at all. I see basic equations, and the individual variables as being things like "culture". When I mentioned symbolism, I am talking about focusing on the single variable, rather than the equation. People tie their symbolism as being the only truth, when in fact the symbol is just used to express the truth(equation).

For example, the things you mention that happen to a person, time, places and events are all just variables. Where as the actions are the equations. The man in Japan eats dinner, I eat dinner. That I eat A and he eats B does not change the basic equation.

Since you mentioned the bible, it does say that every man will think he is right. And this is based on the fact that we all have our own unique and individual perceptions on things, or what you seem to call causality. But we do not make our choices and such based only on these things, we also make them based on things we can see as possibilities and so on. There is influence, no doubt about that. But to say these things are based only on the cause and effect is not the truth.

These things are just culture. Culture means you express things differently. Someone who is born in Japan has a different culture, but the same basic principles that make up that culture exist in some form or another. Does a man in china not hunger for dinner just because he eats something other than what I might eat for dinner?

Does not water on a hill flow downward? would you say that to water elevation is only culture? What he eats could determine how much longer untill he needs to eat agian.. so yes

I do not see things like this at all. I see basic equations, and the individual variables as being things like "culture". When I mentioned symbolism, I am talking about focusing on the single variable, rather than the equation. People tie their symbolism as being the only truth, when in fact the symbol is just used to express the truth(equation).

Your saying the words equations and variables.. these are all math terms, math is all based around causality.

For example, the things you mention that happen to a person, time, places and events are all just variables. Where as the actions are the equations. The man in Japan eats dinner, I eat dinner. That I eat A and he eats B does not change the basic equation.

Yes it does it can change the amount of energy he has, which could change how far he travels to gain new experiances. What he eats could injure his body and in that sickness alter his personality. Also the rotation of the earth also determines at which point people eat(daytime).

reply to post by Wertdagf


Anyone can be anal, focus on things literally and ignore the points made. Which is really all you are doing. This pretty much confirms to me that you are really just a troll. Not looking for actual discussion or understanding.

Didnt i just adress each one of your points every time? I adressed my awnsers to your logic. This is not the end but only the begining to you understanding and not "faithing" your way thought life.... wake up badmedia.. wake up.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Didnt i just adress each one of your points every time? I adressed my awnsers to your logic. This is not the end but only the begining to you understanding and not "faithing" your way thought life.... wake up badmedia.. wake up.

What you fail to understand is that I am a man of little faith. These are nothing more than assumptions on your part. You assume I am a bible thumper. I am not. I did not learn from the bible, I do not generally preach the bible - but I can talk about it. I do not go to church - in fact, what you call the christian church, I call the church of Satan.

Any fool can know, the point is to understand. And that is what I am trying to give you - understanding. So you can be anal and point out that what someone eats for dinner will have different calories, different sides of the world or anything else. But you are really just avoiding the understanding. What you mention in response are things that were hardly the point. If you just want to be as such in response, then I won't waste my time and I will consider you just a troll. If you make valid points and responses to the understanding I speak of, then I will respond as well.

I understand that each of us has our own unique perspective on the world. But the point is to transcend the individual perspective and see things from as many perspectives as possible. What you do is no different than those who focus on the idols of 2 religions and then fight because they think they are different. But if they realized the idols are just symbols and shadow of the truth, and looked at the understanding each idol provided, then they would instead see similarities instead of anal differences like you point out.

The only thing you can possibly offer me with your level of thinking is practice in being patient with those who are less fortunate.