8 Reasons Why I DOn't Believe In God

Originally posted by Welfhard
Alike? Like the many gods of the Greeks, Egyptians, and all the other many many pagan peoples?

Yep. I'm not the only one to suggest it, either. If you've ever heard of C.G. Jung, he was the other founder of modern psychology (besides Freud), and his last work was a book all about the archetypal similarities between all number of myths and legends, both religious and non-religious. It's called "Man and His Symbols" and you can probably find it online for free if you look in the right places.

Moreso in centuries past, but today man blindly uses the material sciences as so much of a crutch

Calling the sighted people blind? You're projecting.

I don't think you're qualified to say, honestly, since you just took something impersonal I said, identified with it and MADE it personal (just like a religious nut would identify with their god and take offense if I talked smack -- you see? you have more alike than you like to admit!!!), and then projected your ignorance onto me. Projection as a psychological mechanism is actually discussed in the same book I mentioned above.

Have you really never heard anyone express how left-brain dominated academia is today? Or have you never noticed yourself? Some people don't even understand why arts or music are taught in schools anymore, and at any rate they compare to the emphasis put on sciences and maths. All that makes a difference in how your brain physically works, because the half of your brain that is normally intuitive, subjective, holistic, etc. (right-brain associations) isn't as stimulated as the logical, technical, differentiating half (left-brain). And you only need to leave it to an emotionally-wounded, dominantly left-brained person to tell you how useless intuition and imagination are to human experience, but I disagree with them, and seeing as how the shape of our skull and the hemispheres of our brain are physically symmetrical, I think nature disagreed too.

That science, or theology, or any other name for a field of study, cannot provide all the "meaningful answers" to the questions man asks,

It's not sciences fault that man asks questions that have no answer, or that man for there to be something more than there is.

If science can't answer a question, then the question has no answer? You really ARE identifying yourself with science. If I give you a hammer and tell you to build something, are you going to think you're a hammer and get offended if I start talking crap about hammers, too? Science is a tool. They teach something called "philosophy" at most universities, and while it isn't a science, it was a certain philosophy that gave birth to science in the first place. Please don't make science your god. You disgust me just as much, if not moreso, than the religious nuts, particularly because they're usually at least optimistic and positive more than they are sarcastic and pessimistic. If it weren't for that then I probably would have never posted on this thread in the first place!

Suck at science, did we?

Actually 3rd year into an electronics engineering major and an avid fan of modern physics...

So now you're stooping to use the "crutch" of science, eh?

So now you're just going to give me some snide remark no matter what I say, because you're a donkey, right?

I use science, but it isn't my god. I don't preach it to people, and I don't look to it for all my answers to life's questions, throwing all my other questions away.

Making all things mega-parts determinism and quantum-parts indeterminism, probably only because at the quantum level observing an action changes it making it somewhat mysterious. It likely that the tiny particles are deterministic but even if the likely isn't so, Quantum is going to make infinitesimally small, negligible changes to the timeline, meaning you still have no freewill.

You have no idea what you're talking about. There are books out now that describe how the brain functions at a neuron level and below, and do you know how the brain functions below the neuron level, or how neurons amplify initial states created by even the slightest change of a quantum state? How how your neurons even work as a mass circuit in general? They conform to magnetic resonance fields, but there are many different configurations that are (more or less) stable, and even the slightest change of a quantum state in the right place can switch your neurons from one state to another, usually (but not always -- the quantum indeterminacy coming into play) the one that is thermodynamically (electromagnetically) most stable. And then of course the random "tunneling" of electrons in the first place could also make a difference in what someone thinks at a given point in time, etc. I don't even care if you disagree, because you WANT to disagree, it's an expression of your pessimistic attitude and the whole reason you even get online to argue with someone in the first place. Go read a book if you want to know something about what I'm talking about. There's one called "The Quantum Brain" by Jeffrey Satinover if you're really interested at all.

Morals are social constructs; customs to live by in order to be accepted and favoured in the group.

And they are also largely arbitrary, and vary from one place in the world to another. Yours are not "the best," and you can't prove that they are, either. Yet you'll continue to use those ideas on a daily basis with no objective validation of them whatsoever. I'm not saying it's wrong. That's exactly my point. If you remember, YOU were to one trying to make an argument on the basis that people shouldn't believe things (ie the religious) unless they can prove them objectively. Well, you're a hypocrite. Welcome to the club, we all are, you can't help it.

They aren't real universal laws by any stretch. God would be, but we still have no reason to believe, no motivating evidence.

I don't know who you're "we" is, but there are plenty of other "we" 's out there that have found every god you can imagine and then some. You just don't know what you're looking for, or looking at.

The Scientific Method, the best way of learning anything

Do you realize how Orwellian you sound yet? Or how much like a religious nut? Biased, is another way to put it, I guess. The whole science IS your god thing again, because you keep appealing to it, like a crutch.

"Complete Expression" ? You wanna define that for us?

The universe and everything in it. I have no idea what all that entails, but neither does anybody else, and yet there it is!!

The universe itself has no will or intent

That you can discern, I agree.

Btw, we are conscious, aren't we? Therefore, there is consciousness in the universe. Saying that therefore the universe itself is conscious is just semantics. If we want to claim it conscious simply because we exist in it, who else is going to object?

You still aren't answering the OP's question. This species, this planet, this solarsystem even, is not significant. On the assumption that a God exists, why would it care? Looking around at the upkeep of the world, it doesn't exactly look like he does. > Go back a few pages and look at George Carlin.

I know George Carlin, I've watched his comedies, he's a good comedian. He isn't a very good philosopher, though. Good at bashing religion, but as far as any kind of a philosophy goes he's pretty pessimistic and boring. Seeing our solar system as insignificant is just your point of view, your way of seeing things. It isn't objective or justified scientifically, but it does once again reflect your pessimism. I have no issues with my sense of significance in the universe.

But the general logic of 'higher beings' is flawed, what do they do in all of their infinateness?

The "logic" of your question, if it's supposed to be some kind of rebuttal, is awful. You have no idea what I mean by "higher," and I know for a fact you misinterpreted it.

I can't escape the idea that if God does exist, he can't care about any of us any more than we care about the stones that don't get stuck in our shoe, or he is morally bankrupt.

"He" doesn't care about you anymore than you care about yourselves, because you and "him" have more in common than you realize. If you want to find pessimism in this universe, you will find plenty of it and worse. If you ever want to go anywhere else, just look there and stop looking down all the time. Because there is everything, death and all kinds of nasty killings included. The people that dwell on those things tend to manifest more of it in the world. I call it like I see it. It's not about right or wrong or yes or no or anything technical because everything is just made up. You might as well be dreaming and really everything makes just as much sense as if you were. What's the difference?

[edit on 10-4-2009 by bsbray11]

Ouch...everyone seems to be getting a little testy....

It always amazes me that people seem to take the "Scientific Method" as the be-all end-all of everything in the universe around us. What proof do you have that the only things that exist are those things you can see, smell, feel, touch and taste? Are you omniscient or something?


So many things cannot be proven, so it is hilarious when people claim that they "only accept things with evidence!"

What is the proof of infinity? By using Daniem's yardstick way back on page one ( if it is invicible[sic], undetectable, unmeasurable and uncomprehendable, then it doesn't exist), there is no such thing as infinity! Which is funny, because it is used in mathematical calculations that power our technology and the basis of many laws and equations.

Heck, lets go a step further. What is the proof of ONE? We can have ONE apple, or ONE chair, or ONE chance, but on its own, there is no such thing as ONE (identity, unity, etc). However, it is the basis of all mathematics, and so, of all the sciences. Yet it cannot be proven!

What is the proof that anyone else exists? To my mind, and through logical thought, I have come to the conclusion that only I am real (if you accept Descartes), and all the rest is an illusion, or a product of my mind (solipsism). How can you prove me wrong?

And so on...

[edit on 10-4-2009 by babloyi]

reply to post by bsbray11

That science, or theology, or any other name for a field of study, cannot provide all the "meaningful answers" to the questions man asks,

What I don't understand is why when we don't have an answer we turn to 'god' as the explanation. That is how religions have been formed over thousands of years. it's quite childlike really....If I dont know the answer to something there must be divine intervention or divine reasoning behind it.

I'm not saying there wasnt a creator, but sometimes I just think we can say:

"I dont know the answer, science doesn't yet know the answer, and I'm OK with we just don't know yet, I dont have to say it was God, just so I have an answer, even if its made up"

Its OK to NOT have all the answers now.

reply to post by bsbray11

(just like a religious nut would identify with their god and take offense if I talked smack -- you see? you have more alike than you like to admit!!!)

Quite likely. I used to be a very devout christian.

Have you really never heard anyone express how left-brain dominated academia is today?

For sure, I'm a psych student myself. Left brain is synonymous with logic. As evidence of it's usefulness, science churns out technology. I like my computer

Right brains tend to go for art and literature. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current system.

If science can't answer a question, then the question has no answer?

Not at all. But some questions just have no answer. For instance you don't ask a scientist what the meaning of life is, there are many you could ask but science won't help you. The methods of science don't deal with "why" but "what" and "how".

I use science, but it isn't my god. I don't preach it to people, and I don't look to it for all my answers to life's questions, throwing all my other questions away.

Science is not meant to help with "all of life's questions". Philosophical questions regarding life in general and sociology, or more specifically what one should do with one's life is down to the individual.

Do you realize how Orwellian you sound yet? Or how much like a religious nut? Biased, is another way to put it, I guess.

Yes but I say that because science pays out, where religion doesn't. Science and rational thinking is what makes the human race powerful, rather than just another species ape. Science isn't a faith, it's a method to gain knowledge, which in turn makes us more powerful. It's successful consistently.

The "logic" of your question, if it's supposed to be some kind of rebuttal, is awful. You have no idea what I mean by "higher," and I know for a fact you misinterpreted it.

Go on. We're listening.

"He" doesn't care about you anymore than you care about yourselves, because you and "him" have more in common than you realize.

And you know this for fact, do you?

reply to post by AlexG141989


I have had an out of body experience (OBE) and that changed my whole perception of death and life after death. I do know there is a soul, but still have a lot of questions on where the journey will take me.

I think the problem is organized religion and the materialistic spin our culture and civilization has on it. Our spirituality as humans has been lost, and until we can find it, we will not grow. It may be true that computers will get faster and TVs thinner, but people will not grow into the next level of spirituality.

The ancients had a lot going for them when they realized that spirituality was just as important as everything else in their lives.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
What I don't understand is why when we don't have an answer we turn to 'god' as the explanation.

Who is doing that? Not me.

But take a look at how many people turn to science for all their answers, as if it were a religion itself. And when science can't properly formulate or answer a question, then these people just assume there is no value in the question anyway. For these people science has turned from a tool, to a pseudo-religious crutch used to try (unsuccessfully, I will tell you) to interpret all observed phenomena in the universe. Some "questions," involving subjective experiences and emotions, have no "right" or "wrong" answers and yet deserve scrutiny for personal benefit. This is exactly a psychologist's job though it's also considered "scientific" in some respects.

Its OK to NOT have all the answers now.

I agree fully, and it's also OK to understand things intuitively without having benefit of accurate words or social constructs to aid you.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Quite likely. I used to be a very devout christian.

When you say you used to be very devout, does that mean you used to defend your position vehemently? I used to engage in those kinds of "discussions," but I changed when I realized the biggest threat to me isn't having my beliefs torn apart, but clinging to irrational ones. I realize this very moment that I don't know hardly ANYTHING! If I thought otherwise, I would foolishly mislead myself. The less I realize I know, the more room I have for growing. And I don't want to stagnate and die.

Have you really never heard anyone express how left-brain dominated academia is today?

For sure, I'm a psych student myself. Left brain is synonymous with logic. As evidence of it's usefulness, science churns out technology. I like my computer

I do too but it was intuitive processes that led us to being able to even imagine and invent the computer, and all the things beforehand that made it possible. The logic hammers everything out and crosses all the T's, but the overall guidance for engineers and scientists often comes from their intuitive understanding of the relationships between physical functions. Art and literature depend on metaphors and exposing intuitive relationships, and fuel the mind in that way.

If science can't answer a question, then the question has no answer?

Not at all. But some questions just have no answer. For instance you don't ask a scientist what the meaning of life is, there are many you could ask but science won't help you. The methods of science don't deal with "why" but "what" and "how".

This kind of feels like a couple of contradictory sentiments, at least from my perspective. You say science doesn't have to be able to answer a question for that question to have an answer, but then you say I can't be helped scientifically with some questions. So what?, is what I say. You can still find "answers" elsewhere, to all sorts of "questions." Not every answer is "yes" or "no" or has a specific quantity or even defined logic associated with it. Sometimes it's probabilities that you have to intuitively work with to achieve results (like quantum mechanics). Sometimes understanding something simply means understanding the SHAPE or FORM that is exhibited by certain behaviors, regardless of what science has to say about it (often nothing at all). All these ways of knowing these are outside of the scientific method but are equally powerful and actually ancient, artifacts of the human mind itself and how it naturally figures things out on its own terms.

Science is not meant to help with "all of life's questions".

Right, I like to see emphasis taken off of science except when it's actually useful, like for analyzing formal problems. People don't realize how speaking of "science" in layman terms is really no different than using your intuition in the first place, unless you are actually crunching some numbers and using those formulas mechanically.

Yes but I say that because science pays out, where religion doesn't. Science and rational thinking is what makes the human race powerful, rather than just another species ape.

Who is more like an ape?: a Buddhist monk with hardly any technology at all, meditating peacefully, or a general that uses technology to kill thousands of people for questionable motives? You know the monk would never do such a thing. Is he more of an ape? I don't think a distinction in your terms is so black and white. Science IS a method, but it's not also the destination.

You have no idea what I mean by "higher," and I know for a fact you misinterpreted it.

Go on. We're listening.

This is as close to an analogy as I can find, and it is visual:




The "higher" aspects of this image (metaphorically) are literally the higher frequency components geometrically. The smaller circles, which in wave physics would correlate to smaller wavelengths and higher frequency, can be said to sequentially "make up" the larger circles from a primeval, formative kind of view. For example, "first" there were atoms, "then" molecules form, then chemicals, then chains of chemicals and living metabolisms, organs, and living creatures, for example. This form and analogy really can apply to anything in life, though.

When you apply it to religious thought, it symbolizes the different levels of meaning contained within certain religious or philosophical modes of thinking. As an example, there used to be "mystery schools" that taught the "inner" (high-frequency) teachings of certain religions, like Judaism or many "pagan" religions. Even Christianity had gnostic sects that wrote in rich symbolism from which many different shades of meaning could be interpreted, all of which were meant to be educational as far as interpreting real life circumstances and events, only beyond mundane words and experiences (even if seemingly embedded within them ).

An example is Jesus Christ. I don't believe Jesus Christ ever physically existed. However, I believe he was a metaphor or symbol for a number of things, according to different groups of people. By making such a symbol, and creating myths around it, etc., ancient philosophers spoke symbolically of universal motifs, no different than Carl Jung and his "archetypes." Obtaining the "philosopher's stone" in alchemy is more or less equivalent to the "second coming" of Christ in Christian mythology in the deeper contexts. Egyptian mythology also makes references to immaculately concepted god-men, just like Jesus. Why? Because the Egyptians were also familiar with the patterns and symbolism associated with the story, its "inner" meaning, etc.

Another more mundane example: food that has been sitting around longer loses more of its life-bearing structures, and therefore its nutrition. As it ages and decays it becomes "lower frequency" and is less beneficial for your body. Freshly picked grain has all sorts of nutrients in it that soon degrade.

I can't go too far into any of this because the amount of information would become overwhelming. Any simple symbol can be analyzed and seen to conjure up all sorts of complex psychological states within an individual, even a stop sign. Symbols are MEANT to arouse certain psychological states within the individual. Religious and traditional philosophical symbols have a special function, but it is too often grossly and materially misinterpreted by uneducated people, and becomes something enslaving rather than something that is liberating to the mind and allows it to find much more meaning in the universe.

"He" doesn't care about you anymore than you care about yourselves, because you and "him" have more in common than you realize.

And you know this for fact, do you?

Knowing what I mean to represent with each term, yes. Just like I have more in common with my blood cells than I realize, even though I'd I'm more familiar with how cells operate with their surroundings than most Americans.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

When you say you used to be very devout, does that mean you used to defend your position vehemently? I used to engage in those kinds of "discussions," but I changed when I realized the biggest threat to me isn't having my beliefs torn apart, but clinging to irrational ones.

I used to avoid those discussions because I knew that it was likely that the other person would likely know more about what I'm supposed to know and believe than I do. If that were the case I would likely be undone by knowledge - I wasn't too concerned with truth, I assumed Christianity was truth.

Out of fear I decided to arm up with as much knowledge. I started reading the bible, Christianity criticism and responses, general history and history specifically about the bible. Eventually It dawned on me that my assumptions I'd had since childhood might be wrong, so I had to explore that possibility.

I do too but it was intuitive processes that led us to being able to even imagine and invent the computer

Aren't you happy there are plenty of right-brain people out there (like me!).

So what?, is what I say. You can still find "answers" elsewhere, to all sorts of "questions."

You think they'll be helpful? Science can demonstrate it's finding in it's methodology, it is rigorous in that way. Philosophy sort of goes that way too, but logical conclusions are heavily influenced by a) perception of the world and b) inherited value systems. It's helpful, but not as productive.

Right, I like to see emphasis taken off of science except when it's actually useful, like for analyzing formal problems.

When would you say it's not useful? Science can tell us something about everything (justabout) so for everything (justabout), science is an important place to start.

Who is more like an ape?: a Buddhist monk with hardly any technology at all, meditating peacefully, or a general that uses technology to kill thousands of people for questionable motives?

Neither and both. Both because in taxonomy, humans are apes. Neither because they have lifestyles were ultimately their will can be incredibly influencing on the environments. We aren't cave men anymore, we can choose how to live and we do. We have reached a point were we no longer have to adapt to the environment as we can adapt the environment to us.

AND I was talking about humanity as a species, rather than societies or individuals.

This is as close to an analogy as I can find, and it is visual:

You figure that reality is fractal. Interesting idea.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
Aren't you happy there are plenty of right-brain people out there (like me!).

No, that's what I'm saying. That would be like me asking you "aren't you glad there are so many people that hop only on their right legs?" I feel pity for all the people who haven't learned how to walk with both of them, just like nature intended us to. But it's no skin off my back what goes on in your head, let it just be food for thought that both halves of your brain are physically the same size.

So what?, is what I say. You can still find "answers" elsewhere, to all sorts of "questions."

You think they'll be helpful?

I KNOW they are by experience but people who don't know never listen. You don't even know what "questions" you "should" be asking, but it makes absolutely no difference to me.

Right, I like to see emphasis taken off of science except when it's actually useful, like for analyzing formal problems.

When would you say it's not useful?

Um, let's see. Singing your little newborn baby to sleep, for one. Or knowing how to leave a girl totally breathless; did science teach you how to do that? Or being able to dissolve yourself in the reflection of a full moon over a still lake, or being able to soothe your dying grandmother as she breathes her last breaths. You know, all the WORTHLESS things in life that aren't worth any sort of serious consideration. Do you ever wonder how something "could" have been, if you had just done some little thing differently? I don't.

That's neglecting to mention all of the arts, too: music, literature, visual arts, etc. I'll only mention them because you would probably resort to arguing over their value, too. But more people will know and love Beethoven's 9th symphony, almost 200 years after it was written, than will remember your name when you die. That's a deep lynch pin in our collective psyche, a testament to the real value of intuitively unearthing subconscious elements of our minds.

Again, let this all just be food for thought for you, because I have no desire to argue over the emotional value and meaning of really wooing a woman (from intuition ALONE), and feeling her lose her breath, just because I know what I'm doing. You can get off on what you like, how you like, I will be JUST as happy tomorrow with my world.

Who is more like an ape?: a Buddhist monk with hardly any technology at all, meditating peacefully, or a general that uses technology to kill thousands of people for questionable motives?

Neither and both. Both because in taxonomy, humans are apes.

That's not scientifically accurate at all. There is a THEORY that we have a common ancestor, not that we "are" apes. You're not using science right now, you're using non-scientific analogies, ie symbols/metaphors with words. MY symbols and metaphors. When will you learn to tell the difference? You think what I say is meaningless yet you can't escape the very things I'm telling you about even as you respond to me. Not only that but you totally neglected the real human emotional implications of a technological general who kills thousands, versus a peaceful monk who toils to help others. Why am I not surprised you would not consider emotional value? It's not "logical."

[edit on 16-4-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Homo sapian sapians are classified as 'Great Ape', which is part of a greater group called 'Ape'.

Humans are ape by definition.

Um, let's see. Singing your little newborn baby to sleep, for one. Or knowing how to leave a girl totally breathless; did science teach you how to do that? Or being able to dissolve yourself in the reflection of a full moon over a still lake, or being able to soothe your dying grandmother as she breathes her last breaths. You know, all the WORTHLESS things in life that aren't worth any sort of serious consideration. Do you ever wonder how something "could" have been, if you had just done some little thing differently? I don't.

You don't 'need' science in these circumstances but it is still there, able to explain a lot of what is going on.

There is no need to get worked up about this.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
Homo sapian sapians are classified as 'Great Ape', which is part of a greater group called 'Ape'.

This, again, all theory. Do you take it as doctrine? I took your words in a general context, seeing only "man" and "ape" and not Homo sapiens or Pongo pygmaeus. Such a misunderstanding would have been avoided with greater consideration for the connotations of words in certain contexts, wouldn't it? Reading by context is an intuitive process.

You don't 'need' science in these circumstances but it is still there, able to explain a lot of what is going on.

I have never known anyone that was mature enough psychologically to perform the things I just described and simultaneously use science as such a crutch to perform them. Most people I know that are really good at picking up girls, for example, don't give a rats ass about science, while all I have to do is conjure up the social image/symbol of "nerd" to illustrate how overly technical types handle the same "question." I can only imagine the awkwardness of someone "logically" trying to figure out what their next move should be, instead of feeling it intuitively. All science on the subject would in fact have to be based on such interactions, studying it as if trying to understand it from the outside. Who is outside? The scientists. Coincidentally, I write music. Have you ever tried writing music or do you think you would be able to wrap your head around how to go about doing it, and coming up with something artistic? I've studied an immense amount of music theory but anyone else who has done the same can probably tell you how little bearing it actually has on what is actually written, because writing music is another great example of a non-logical thinking process. Maybe you should try it, and we can exchange musical ideas instead?

[edit on 16-4-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have never known anyone that was mature enough psychologically to perform the things I just described and simultaneously use science as such a crutch.

I never said one should. People intuitively do all sorts. People are curious and want to know why they do what they do, or how the brain deals with all of the situations we find ourselves in.

We don't use science to make us better at what we are already good at, but to understand it.

This, again, all theory.

Define theory, please.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard

1 A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2 The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. [Emphasis mine.]

www.answers.com...

A theory is a theory. I don't see anything in there about "truth" in any sort of absolute sense. Then again, you know, the best scientists already realize we can never truly describe the absolute in logical/scientific terms (like Carl Jung, for example, and many famous quantum physicists). It has to be experienced directly, if anything.


I take it you're afraid to dive into music composition? It's a lot like improvisation, but on a bigger scale. Maybe science or music theory can help you?

[edit on 16-4-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

A theory is a theory. I don't see anything in there about "truth" in any sort of absolute sense.

Ah but you missed something. A scientific theory is something that explains observations of a specific phenomena, and makes accurate predictions.

Theory is the highest level of objective truth you can get in science. The only thing that can go higher is maths which has 'proof'.

So yes it is theory that man and ape share a common ancestor and I have no reason to doubt that. It's a well established assertion that's not been shown to be wrong in more than a century.

I take it you're afraid to dive into music composition? It's a lot like improvisation, but on a bigger scale. Maybe science or music theory can help you?

Music is an art form, not something built on the methods of science.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
Ah but you missed something. A scientific theory is something that explains observations of a specific phenomena, and makes accurate predictions.

Yeah..... so..... what? Newton's theory of gravity used to make "accurate predictions" but it was replaced by Einstein's theory, and now even Einstein's theory is being revised. I'm not missing ANYTHING. None of this has anything to do with absolute truth, because we cannot know absolute truth through science, we can only approximate it to infinity. Again I refer you to Carl Jung and the founders of quantum physics and the double-slit experiments. But you know better than they do so why should I argue with you about it?

Theory is the highest level of objective truth you can get in science.

Exactly. Which is why it sucks so much, but you wouldn't understand!

What kind of people take the initiative to say, "This science sucks. I'm going to improve it with a better theory!" ?

The ones that have intuitive insight, and know better than even science itself.

So yes it is theory that man and ape share a common ancestor and I have no reason to doubt that. It's a well established assertion that's not been shown to be wrong in more than a century.

Sounds like all the people that used to argue that the Earth was the center of the universe, for generations even after the idea was first challenged. I'm not saying it's wrong (even though it probably is), I'm saying only "slow" people take the theory of their day as ultimate truth.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Theories are revised and refined as we learn more, so they then become more accurate over time.

The scientific is the most logical system for collecting knowledge and understanding it.

Overtime, our understanding of nature becomes more and more accurate.

There is no better way to know something, that is why science is valued so much, and why it is so good at helping innovation and invention, because without it, the required understanding of the environment would not exist.

Sounds like all the people that used to argue that the Earth was the center of the universe, for generations even after the idea was first challenged. I'm not saying it's wrong (even though it probably is), I'm saying only "slow" people take the theory of their day as ultimate truth.

I'm not taking it as ultimate truth. I believe UT is ultimately unknowable - at least at the moment. I'm saying that the theories are well established and as such, are the best bet for accuracy.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
I'm not taking it as ultimate truth.

Nor are you even looking for it. When your mind moves from Christianity to science, you just changed your views from aligning with one massive group of people, to aligning with another massive group of people. You aren't figuring things out by yourself. I think for myself, and I see the logic in science, but I have also come to know a lot of knowledge that is NOT possessed by popular science. I know it just the same as you know the Sun is hot, having experienced what I know personally, the same way Newton understood intuitively what the apple meant when it fell even when no one else did, and he developed a theory based on that experience. But I'm not going to make theories or write books because it's redundant to me, because lots of them have already been written by people who have been to the same places as I have, and beyond. But someone who doesn't think for themselves will never realize any of it. Stick with physical rigor, and see where it takes you, I've stopped caring. It's a mass mentality just the same. This will be my last post on this thread too, I think, but if really want to press me with something I'll take u2us.

reply to post by bsbray11

Nor are you even looking for it.

Nor can I find it.

abosutely brilliant post. Covered every point.

There a is problem with believing in god. The problem is believing. Do not believe, either god is known or not.
Churches and organized religions are not the best places to find god, although when god is known they make more sense.
When i was 26 i had what is called an awakening, i didn't know what it was at the time. I was not at all 'religious' before, but i was compelled to read religious books, all different religions. I was trying to understand what had happened, it was amazing, i kept telling people that i wanted to wrap it up in a beautiful box with a big bow on it and give it to everyone. Life had become incredibly sweet, it was horrendous before. I remember saying that as long as there are clouds (to look at), i would never be unhappy again.
That was the awakening, it lasted about a year, and then faded. God had graced me with his presence and then left me. I felt huge grief and sorrow for years after, until i found others on the net who had experienced the same.
Generally there is an awakening (to something more), a glimpse and then it seems to go away. But it is enough to know and then there is a passion to find again. The spiritual seeker is born.
The spiritual seeker then searches to find this experience again. It is so real and so beautiful but very illusive. Liberation can take many, many years. This is when it has been totally integrated, realized.
There are people on youtube who speak about this.
I think that unless there has been an awakening that it would be impossible to believe, or understand.