Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are atheists more intelligent than religious believers? Study suggests such a correlation

page: 40
24
<< 37  38  39    41 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


And if someone had talking about radio waves before they were proven, your way would have been arguing against it telling the person to prove it, regardless if it was possible to understand it.

How in the world do you think new things happen and things progress? Someone first gets the idea and an understanding of something, then it later comes to be proven/known.


Exactly. It's your idea, it's your endeavour to prove it so it goes from being a hypothesis to (scientific) theory. Our beef with you is that you even without having done that, you still like to say that it is true just that we don't understand it. Can you not fathom how arrogant and religious that sounds.

And you say that I don't believe it because I don't like it as if it's on my head to side with you even before you have been able to prove your stance regardless of my understanding.

I don't have to do anything, none of us do, in regards to your "understanding" of things and don't pretend like we do.


Also, we were talking about freewill, consciousness wasn't even directly related to that discussion.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Welfhard]




posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Just as Einstein said - not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

You are simply saying that only the things that can be counted count, and if it can't be counted, then it doesn't count.

I openly tell you I can not physically prove it, but the logic and understanding behind it can be shown.

Freewill is a function of consciousness, and can not exist without it.

Anyway, the thread with the other theory is basically talking about the same things, so I'll just wait for science to prove it. It is heading in that direction.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Freewill is a function of consciousness, and can not exist without it.


I don't recall you ever showing that consciousness had to have freewill - consciousness is a very open term. Nor do I ever recall you being able to show how the process of choice was not linear beyond simply saying that it is.

There is no logic in the argument you presented.


And I resent that you call foul on me for being overtly skeptical of your idea when it's not demonstrable. It also means it's not falsifiable, too.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


It requires looking beyond the physical. Looking at patterns and applying them beyond what our senses provide.

Thought Experiment



A thought experiment, sometimes called a Gedanken experiment in English, is a proposal for an experiment that would test or illuminate a hypothesis or theory.[1]

Given the structure of the proposed experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform the experiment and, in the case that it is possible for the experiment to be performed, there may be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question.

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.

Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a single radioactive atom, and Maxwell's demon, in which a supernatural being is instructed to attempt to violate the second law of thermodynamics.


Further down:



As the contemporary philosopher Martin Cohen puts it, "much of modern physics is built not upon measurement but on thought experimentation".[2] As Cohen argues, the Renaissance period and the Enlightenment were characterized by breakthroughs in ways of seeing the world, not merely by new methods (and tools) for 'measuring' it.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Thought experiments only that we have imagination to create virtual realities in the same way we visualise memories.

Much of physics' conceptualisation is based on thought experiment, and upon testing and trailing, the numbers determine the veracity of conceptualised principles.

This says nothing of freewill or consciousness.

And I'm not going to start this argument again to give you more pointless opportunity to just say "Choice = freewill" and then pretend like that false premise somehow proves your whole point.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


How does that promote the idea of a creator (let alone "God")?
Seems like a pretty big leap to me...
Perhaps even a leap of faith.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
In case anyone has missed it, Astyanax has actually now started a thread with a theory that is basically saying what I've been saying in this entire thread.

It is saying nothing of the kind. Badmedia has, as always, placed his own unique misinterpretation of science and scientific thought on the Invariant Set Postulate.


state space = all possibilities/all things. The smaller subset (reality) = the limited perspective/experience of the state space.

Completely wrong. The state space being discussed includes physical impossibilities predicted by its equations as well as a smaller set of possibilities. The smaller set is not reality but the set of allowable real events and relationships. The invariant set postulate is not a way of distinguishing the actual from the possible, but the possible from the impossible. It is not yet a theory, by the way, and it will never be: it is a proposed scientific law, still too new to have been tested and accepted, so it is regarded, for the moment, as a mere postulate.

If it comes to be accepted as law, it will resolve the paradoxes of quantum mechanics and point the way towards a unified theory of physics. It will also remove the quantum paradoxes, concepts of nonlocality, etc., so beloved of What the Bleepers, Attraction Lawyers and other New Age misinterpreters of quantum theory.

Here, for those who are interested, is a link to the thread. I have but one request: please don't feed the troll.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Isn't it a bit curious how since that thread and theory came to light from a scientist, that suddenly the same people who called me nuts all through this thread for saying those things are suddenly absent?

1. I never called you nuts.

2. I am, as you can see, still present on this thread. It's just that the amusement-value of helping you make a fool of yourself is not very high, so I've decided not to do it.

And yes, you are trolling my thread. It is in the science forum, where your ideas about God are off-topic and are derailing the conversation.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by badmedia
 


Thought experiments only that we have imagination to create virtual realities in the same way we visualise memories.

Much of physics' conceptualisation is based on thought experiment, and upon testing and trailing, the numbers determine the veracity of conceptualised principles.

This says nothing of freewill or consciousness.

And I'm not going to start this argument again to give you more pointless opportunity to just say "Choice = freewill" and then pretend like that false premise somehow proves your whole point.


Ok, so prove Newtons bucket.



Given the structure of the proposed experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform the experiment and, in the case that it is possible for the experiment to be performed, there may be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question.


What part of that do you not understand?

As a thought experiment, take that which you are able to create in your imagination and imagine you could make that a persistent reality. Rather than looking at the limits you know of this reality, think about what is possible logically and in imagination. Then you are looking beyond this reality, the limits of this reality and so forth, and you can start to understand the things that can not be "proven" measured and so forth.

You say everything is based on determinism and causality, but then at the same time you think there is choice. When determinism itself says what happens is predetermined in a chain of events, where there is only 1 outcome, and therefore no choice. So yeah, it is pretty pointless to continue that.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Funny, because you aren't even in agreement with the article you linked in that thread now.

From your own source I quote:



The theory suggests the existence of a state space (the set of all possible states of the universe) within which a smaller (fractal) subset of state space is embedded.


The set of all possible states? But no, now you are telling me it's what is impossible and such.

And hmm, fractal.

You are full of it. Completely changing things around for the only purpose of telling me I'm wrong? Amazing the lengths you will go just to dismiss what I say.

Maybe you should be taking up your issues with them?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


You say everything is based on determinism and causality, but then at the same time you think there is choice. When determinism itself says what happens is predetermined in a chain of events, where there is only 1 outcome, and therefore no choice. So yeah, it is pretty pointless to continue that.


And off he goes again, saying that "choice = freewill" despite having been explained it over and over again.

I'm not starting this argument with you again. My first use of the ignore button in fact - be proud.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by badmedia
 


How does that promote the idea of a creator (let alone "God")?
Seems like a pretty big leap to me...
Perhaps even a leap of faith.


Actually, it doesn't really say anything about god. There are 2 realms here, there is creation/universe, and then there is that which is able to observe it(consciousness/god). All possibilities is just what you get when you remove the limitations(laws) of our reality, in which you realize this reality is but 1 in a much bigger pool of possible realities.

In this way, science is still very much valid and very useful for us. Because it is the study of the reality we are in.

I have nothing against Science at all, it's just that I realize and point out it's limitations.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by badmedia
 


You say everything is based on determinism and causality, but then at the same time you think there is choice. When determinism itself says what happens is predetermined in a chain of events, where there is only 1 outcome, and therefore no choice. So yeah, it is pretty pointless to continue that.


And off he goes again, saying that "choice = freewill" despite having been explained it over and over again.

I'm not starting this argument with you again. My first use of the ignore button in fact - be proud.


And yet, not once did I even mention the word freewill in my post. All I did was state that you believe there is somehow a choice while at the same time believing it's all just a chain of events.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

Read. The. Paper.

Then we'll talk.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Actually, it doesn't really say anything about god. There are 2 realms here, there is creation/universe, and then there is that which is able to observe it(consciousness/god). All possibilities is just what you get when you remove the limitations(laws) of our reality, in which you realize this reality is but 1 in a much bigger pool of possible realities.


In one of these possible realities, does God not exist?
Well I suppose I already know your answer to that.
I suppose that wouldn't be possible since God encompasses all realities?


Either way, you're essentially saying:
Universe = big (all that is)
We = small (observers)

If anything, I see that as an argument against your belief, as it suggests that we are only looking at a fraction of the elephant, and shouldn't claim to 'know' or 'understand' the whole elephant - as you have done.



Originally posted by badmedia
In this way, science is still very much valid and very useful for us. Because it is the study of the reality we are in.


Yep.
And perhaps all other realities aren't actually realities.
Perhaps it's just a way of thinking about it.
Schrödinger's cat doesn't actually exist in all states just because we are unaware of the true state in which it exists.

What you consider an outside reality, may in fact be an imaginary reality which exists in your head.

Just because you can think about something and understand it, doesn't make it true. You've talked about 'understanding' something as if it makes it fact.

I can (think I) understand several ways in which our moon is made out of cheese.
That doesn't make it so.

I can understand why the US government might want to 'chip' us, that doesn't mean they're actually planning it.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
In one of these possible realities, does God not exist?
Well I suppose I already know your answer to that.
I suppose that wouldn't be possible since God encompasses all realities?


Either way, you're essentially saying:
Universe = big (all that is)
We = small (observers)

If anything, I see that as an argument against your belief, as it suggests that we are only looking at a fraction of the elephant, and shouldn't claim to 'know' or 'understand' the whole elephant - as you have done.


Each observer is it's own reality, and yes each reality is but a fraction of that which is known, or only part of the elephant as you say.

As each is a mere perspective, then it is possible to get a perspective without god. You and many people would be an example of that. Now, yes in truth as it is "god" that is the observer god is always there, but in that perspective it can be absent.

I generally call that perspective the "experience", and the observer(god) is that which is doing the experience. However, while in that limited perspective, that is the "son" part of "god", the individual experience. The father(what most people would call god, the ultimate being etc) is that which would be viewing and of the perspective of "all".



Yep.
And perhaps all other realities aren't actually realities.
Perhaps it's just a way of thinking about it.
Schrödinger's cat doesn't actually exist in all states just because we are unaware of the true state in which it exists.

What you consider an outside reality, may in fact be an imaginary reality which exists in your head.


Yes, the "reality" only exists if it is being observed. A reality, or "possibility" which is not being observed(experienced) does not exist.

"The ride needs no explanation, only occupants".

But there is some wiggle room. Does that mean if nobody is look at the moon it no longer exists? The cat example would say in 1 it does, and in another it doesn't.

Now, I thought the deal with the invariant set was that rather than saying that, it says there is a force and a place these things like to "default" into, and that is where gravity and the non-randomness of this reality on the larger scale comes from - despite being able to see into more possibilities.

But there are many forces that are stronger than gravity. Especially on a smaller scale - such as using a magnetic to hold up a paper clip(small scale), vs using a magnetic to move a planet(large scale). And that is also what they see in quantum physics. Gravity may keep things into a hold and these things may want to revert back into that, but what about when you go beyond a force of gravity, or even manipulate the gravity etc.



Just because you can think about something and understand it, doesn't make it true. You've talked about 'understanding' something as if it makes it fact.

I can (think I) understand several ways in which our moon is made out of cheese.
That doesn't make it so.


Right, and that is not part of this/your experience. But if you can think of a logical way and an understanding of how it can happen, it is a possible reality. Again, if that is really happening or not is a matter of if it is being observed.



I can understand why the US government might want to 'chip' us, that doesn't mean they're actually planning it.


And this is a good place to talk about how big a jump in reality things are. We can see in 1 direction by using time. Imagine how big a jump in time it would be to go back 2000+ years. Huge amounts of change.

Now, the reality of being chipped, 2000 years ago - big jump. Right now, the moon being made out of cheese - that would be an even bigger jump. But today, being chipped is not such a huge jump, and very well could be in the future still - even if not happening at his moment.

In the end, I tend to see "reality" as a single experience among many. While in this "reality", I look to science to help me best to make my way through it. But I understand there is more to it than a single reality - even if we consider just the 6 billion people on the planet now, that is 6 billion individual and unique perspectives/experiences. Knowing that all is possible and so forth isn't going to give me a car and other technological things. So I think people need both science and philosophy.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Each observer is it's own reality, and yes each reality is but a fraction of that which is known, or only part of the elephant as you say.

As each is a mere perspective, then it is possible to get a perspective without god. You and many people would be an example of that. Now, yes in truth as it is "god" that is the observer god is always there, but in that perspective it can be absent.


A person's perspective is not a definite indicator of truth.
You seem to be saying that I'm looking at the wrong side of the elephant (to see God at any rate).
But I don't think you understand that your side of the elephant is just as limited as my side.
Another person looks at their side of the elephant and sees Zeus.
Their reason and logic tells them that a deity or supernatural force must be responsible for lightning.
The problem isn't what they see, the problem is what they don't see. They don't see an alternative explanation for lightning.
Just because they don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Similarly, you're looking at the state of our Universe, and conclude that it must have been created. But is it possible there's something you don't see? An alternative explanation? Perhaps one we'll never even understand because our limited minds aren't capable of it?
Who knows.

That's the main point I'm making.
Nobody knows the mysteries of our Universe until they cease to become mysteries - if that day ever comes.

You can see what you see, but you can never see what you don't see.
The least you can do is be mindful of the fact that you don't see it.



Originally posted by badmedia
Yes, the "reality" only exists if it is being observed. A reality, or "possibility" which is not being observed(experienced) does not exist.


Not necessarily.
It could just be unknown.
The state of the universe isn't reliant on our observance.



Originally posted by badmedia
But there is some wiggle room. Does that mean if nobody is look at the moon it no longer exists? The cat example would say in 1 it does, and in another it doesn't.


There's a lot of wiggle room considering the tiny specs we are
.
In your imagination, the cat can be either.
In reality, it can only be alive or dead.



Originally posted by badmedia
Now, I thought the deal with the invariant set was that rather than saying that, it says there is a force and a place these things like to "default" into, and that is where gravity and the non-randomness of this reality on the larger scale comes from - despite being able to see into more possibilities.


Honestly, I wouldn't know
.
But I'd say the non-randomness (if you want to call it that) of our universe is based on causality.



Originally posted by badmedia
but what about when you go beyond a force of gravity, or even manipulate the gravity etc.


Use the force, Luke!



Originally posted by badmedia
Right, and that is not part of this/your experience. But if you can think of a logical way and an understanding of how it can happen, it is a possible reality. Again, if that is really happening or not is a matter of if it is being observed.


How does our observance change the outcome to the eternal question:
Is the moon made of cheese?
Either the moon is made of cheese or it's not, regardless of what we observe or think we observe.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


What will tomorrows winning lottery ticket be? I have no clue. So it's not that I am not recognizing the limits, it's just that you are wanting to add that which I know and have experienced as being false because it hasn't also crossed your perspective/experience.

You aren't just asking me to realize a limit, you are simply denying in me what you yourself lack. And that is pretty much the human condition.

Because when it comes to god, it's not a belief for me. I know the father. It is from that which my understanding comes from. I understand that is no good for you, truly I do. But you are simply denying it in me and others and demanding that it is just a belief or imagination.

So I realize I have a tiny perspective and so forth and that it doesn't include all there is - but do you? If so, then why are you so adamant about dismissing such things as false and just some ones imagination? If you realize you have such a limited perspective, then why are you so quick to deny the experiences of others as being false if it's not a part of your perspective?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
How does our observance change the outcome to the eternal question:
Is the moon made of cheese?
Either the moon is made of cheese or it's not, regardless of what we observe or think we observe.


The bottom line is you can't see past this reality into the layer of possibilities. In this reality, the moon is not made out of cheese. But you are simply applying the limitation to all possibilities and in doing so you completely miss the point.

In 1 paragraph you are telling me I need to be aware of the limitation, but yet in your own posts you apply that same limitation as being the end all be all.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
What will tomorrows winning lottery ticket be? I have no clue. So it's not that I am not recognizing the limits, it's just that you are wanting to add that which I know and have experienced as being false because it hasn't also crossed your perspective/experience.

You aren't just asking me to realize a limit, you are simply denying in me what you yourself lack. And that is pretty much the human condition.

Because when it comes to god, it's not a belief for me. I know the father. It is from that which my understanding comes from. I understand that is no good for you, truly I do. But you are simply denying it in me and others and demanding that it is just a belief or imagination.



I doubt the human 'ability' to 'know' what is outside our senses.
I don't completely discount it.
But... I've heard a lot of stories of people 'knowing' or 'understanding' or having personal experiences, OBE, etc.
They hardly ever seem to match up.
More reason for me to doubt people who claim to know.



Originally posted by badmedia
So I realize I have a tiny perspective and so forth and that it doesn't include all there is - but do you? If so, then why are you so adamant about dismissing such things as false and just some ones imagination? If you realize you have such a limited perspective, then why are you so quick to deny the experiences of others as being false if it's not a part of your perspective?


Where did I say that?
I'm not denying your experiences or calling them false.
I'm saying that ultimately your perspective is limited, as is mine.

Here's what I know:
1) You don't allow the possibility that you could be wrong
2) As far as we know, anything is possible.

Put the two together...
Doesn't compute.

If you simply realized your limitations, and that you could be wrong, I wouldn't be arguing against you now.



Originally posted by badmedia
The bottom line is you can't see past this reality into the layer of possibilities. In this reality, the moon is not made out of cheese. But you are simply applying the limitation to all possibilities and in doing so you completely miss the point.

In 1 paragraph you are telling me I need to be aware of the limitation, but yet in your own posts you apply that same limitation as being the end all be all.



Not at all.
As far as I know, anything is possible.
And I have a very small (ok, large) hunch that the same could be said of you, though you may never admit it.
To you, only one thing is possible.
God created this existence and we're part of a whole, experiencing stuff - just because.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 37  38  39    41 >>

log in

join