It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Non-Believers who think science has all the answers, riddle me this

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I don't refute it's description as "art in motion". But Art is a human creation, it's our conscious imagination. There are many "art in motion" galleries featuring dances etc. I've never personally heard of the universe being described as "art in motion", I don't say it's a false description as such.

Would you consider the Andromeda Gallaxy smashing into our own as chaotic? or not?
edit on 4/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by triune
Nice to see the nay-sayers struggling to defend their position for a change. I would give you a star and flag OP, if I knew what all that meant. Never mind, the new religion of Science and their high priests, the scientists will one day catch up with the rest of us believers when all the clues lead them to the greatest scientist, the creator of All That Is - GOD.

I like the one about the scientists about to discover the last peice of knowledge to complete their full understanding. As they claw their way over the last mountain top of knowledge and peek over to take in the full glory of the discovery, what do they see. A group of mystics sitting there calmly taking in the view.


Some 50.000 religions, denominations etc and 3.500 'gods', and you predict that science/logic eventually will arrive to the same high level of knowledge and understanding?

Quote: ["A group of mystics sitting there calmly taking in the view."]

Don't drag mysticism into your quagmire of religion.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Thank you AQuestion.

Here it goes:

The main-point of the article is about the (sofar) unsettled relationship between micro-cosmos and macro-cosmos, and especially if there's only one cosmos, why it stays as it is, alternatively if there are several cosmoses.

There's nothing revolutionary in the article and the research it's based on, maybe some of the essential points have been refined.

If there's only one cosmos (the one we observe) it's not such a troublesome question.

If several cosmoses are suggested, some conditions will have to be examined.

Present knowledge indicates, that the basic manifestations in cosmos pop in and out. If EVERY basic cosmic manifestation 'popped' simultaneously, optional parallel cosmoses would be possible without any objections.

If the basic cosmic manifestations 'pops' irregularly in relationship to each other, the question to examine would be, if they 'pop' into a position waiting for them (forming them). I.e. adapting to 'historical cosmic memory', resulting in one steady unbroken cosmos.

In other words: Something 'neutral' pops into observable existence and get 'qualities' in the process. Like putting clay in a form.

There are ofcourse all kinds of middle-scenarios, where some 'popping' will be influenced by 'historical cosmic memory', some not; reducing the amount of parallel cosmoses from infinite to finite.

* I do on purpose use the word 'cosmos' instead of 'universe', as it's uncertain where the 'event horizon' actually IS. Our present 'event horizon' may very well move, into area of sofar unknown 'natural laws' (this is important in the context of causality, an issue in metaphysical speculations).

Further speculations on request.


Dear bogomil,

You got a star from me for responding to what I asked. I think I asked a fair question and I think the article was deserving of being considered. As for what it says, I believe what is says is that they cannot explain the cosmos without relying on faith in the unobservable and unprovable. I like the Large Hadron collider and what it is seeing. I enjoy keeping up on science and believe it has a lot to offer; but, I don't like people claiming science has the answer on faith alone anymore than I like Christians saying they believe blindly. I consider that fair and balanced.

Yes, the current state of science is attempting to reconcile what we see on a subatomic level with what we observe on an atomic level and it has only been able to do that logically by saying there must be an unknown that controls reality. It cannot explain beginnings with matter. That is the essence of the problem and even the physicists have a problem with quantum physics because it makes no sense and it is true at the same time.

I didn't start this thread to prove anything about God or reality, only that nobody has all the answers and that saying that science does and Christians rely only on faith is not sincere. Be well, gotta go get my car and thanks for actually answering what I asked.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
So, since nobody decided to address my response to this thread (except those who gave it little blue stars), I'm just going to do something I normally don't do, just make a nice big ol' post that doesn't particularly reply to anyone but sums up the big gaping holes in the OP's various posts throughout this thread:

Science is not about having an answer to everything, it's about trying to have an answer to what you can and giving the best possible answer based upon the available evidence to those for which you cannot be anywhere near certain. Science is a process by which we get ourselves closer to the truth, not a way to proclaim absolute certainty in all matters. That is the realm of religion.

Some of us don't have time to become experts in all fields of science. Hell, nobody does. It would take many lifetimes to become a proper expert in all science. In that sense, we all have to take science on a reasonable level of trust. This is entirely separate from the idea of faith in one very meaningful way: I can examine science whenever I choose and there are those who actively do so constantly who would be happy to help. The publications are, as the root would hint, public. They are peer-reviewed. Hell, the very process of science is the attempt to disprove the idea that you have to the point where you've exhausted all possible options and can declare that it's likely true...and then you let other people test it. There's no faith in that which is constantly tested.

You seem to think that the ignorance of a lay individual in two fields of incredibly sophisticated science is somehow a knock-down argument against science...well, how does that follow? I don't know all that much about anything relating to electricity beyond the bare basics...so does my inability to understand the science somehow disprove the Faraday effect? I don't particularly understand what my father's doctoral thesis was about, nor can I even understand even the title of it, but that doesn't invalidate it.

How about this: ask a quantum physicist about quantum physics (granted, you must be on since you proclaimed yourself to be very familiar with its ideas, I wonder how many published papers you read on the subject every month).

Another crazy idea: ask a theoretical astrophysicist about the idea of multiple universes.

I'm sure if you e-mail enough people from universities asking for an explanation of the two you would probably get the explanation you are looking for, though I doubt it would be as simple as you'd want it to be.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I don't think the universe is chaotic.
Surely each vision is of the beholder and if it is consciously veiwed it will be seen as a living breathing work art.
If it is not see as is, it will be strpped of it's beauty and it will be a dead 'thing'.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


You've been there before and after a week or two left this direction in deep confusion. Now it's back to square one for another go.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Thanks for the star as a gesture from you. It's not that I really collect them though.

You wrote:

["As for what it says, I believe what is says is that they cannot explain the cosmos without relying on faith in the unobservable and unprovable."]

That's only indirectly a scientific question, it's a question for philosophy, more precisely the epistemology, which I can pester Itsnowagain with, when he gets too mytho-poetical.

Quote: ["but, I don't like people claiming science has the answer on faith alone anymore than I like Christians saying they believe blindly."]

I believed, that we had left gnostic atheism behind us. There are to my knowledge actually very few, if any, resident gnostic atheists on ATS with a regular participation.

Quote: [" I consider that fair and balanced."]

A competence-challenge never hurts anyone, if it's only to smoke out pretenders.

Quote: ["Yes, the current state of science is attempting to reconcile what we see on a subatomic level with what we observe on an atomic level and it has only been able to do that logically by saying there must be an unknown that controls reality"]

Sure, A_a_a and I have on another thread talked a lot about that. But I'm strictly opposed to pre-determined or pre-mature answers based on the sometimes peculiar reasoning chains of theists.

Quote: ["It cannot explain beginnings with matter. That is the essence of the problem and even the physicists have a problem with quantum physics because it makes no sense and it is true at the same time."]

I recommend patience. Some two three centuries and it'll be beyond anything we even can guess at today.

Quote: ["I didn't start this thread to prove anything about God or reality, only that nobody has all the answers and that saying that science does and Christians rely only on faith is not sincere. Be well, gotta go get my car and thanks for actually answering what I asked."]

You're welcome.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
...they are hypocrites trolling the faith forum to prove we are illogical; but, fail to prove anything they believe is logical, they give up so quickly, it is sad.


First off, lets define some words so you understand reponses you have been getting...and i saw mistakes in the posts i was reading that say multiverse theory...when it should be multiverse hypothesis ( i am guilty as well).



Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

..a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory

It is extremely important to distinguish between facts and theories in science, and in every other subject also, because facts usually remain the same and theories often change (johnpratt.com)


A theory is not actual truth.

Has there been an experimental design to test the hypothesis of multiverses? If none has been done, then the concept of multiverse is still a hypothesis and not a theory and certainly not a fact.

I have a problem with your topic because you are comparing a hypothesis to your faith ( another hypothesis that will be proven false tomorrow).






edit on 4-6-2011 by LiveEquation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


define god correctlly and I bet Stephen Hawkins will believe in it.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Not trying to be combative, OP, but I'd like to see you respond to madness's points. Not that I agree with him, but damn he has a way with words does he not?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Thanks for the star as a gesture from you. It's not that I really collect them though.

You wrote:

["As for what it says, I believe what is says is that they cannot explain the cosmos without relying on faith in the unobservable and unprovable."]

That's only indirectly a scientific question, it's a question for philosophy, more precisely the epistemology, which I can pester Itsnowagain with, when he gets too mytho-poetical.

Quote: ["but, I don't like people claiming science has the answer on faith alone anymore than I like Christians saying they believe blindly."]

I believed, that we had left gnostic atheism behind us. There are to my knowledge actually very few, if any, resident gnostic atheists on ATS with a regular participation.

Quote: [" I consider that fair and balanced."]

A competence-challenge never hurts anyone, if it's only to smoke out pretenders.

Quote: ["Yes, the current state of science is attempting to reconcile what we see on a subatomic level with what we observe on an atomic level and it has only been able to do that logically by saying there must be an unknown that controls reality"]

Sure, A_a_a and I have on another thread talked a lot about that. But I'm strictly opposed to pre-determined or pre-mature answers based on the sometimes peculiar reasoning chains of theists.

Quote: ["It cannot explain beginnings with matter. That is the essence of the problem and even the physicists have a problem with quantum physics because it makes no sense and it is true at the same time."]

I recommend patience. Some two three centuries and it'll be beyond anything we even can guess at today.

Quote: ["I didn't start this thread to prove anything about God or reality, only that nobody has all the answers and that saying that science does and Christians rely only on faith is not sincere. Be well, gotta go get my car and thanks for actually answering what I asked."]

You're welcome.


Dear bogomil,

I apologize for only giving a partial response earlier, I had to pick up my car which was in for maintenance. The star was symbolic of my appreciating a direct answer to a direct question. For page upon page I received nothing that even attempted to explain their answer. Instead I was confronted by people who attacked any belief in God which I did not raise as a question nor did I attempt to prove. When I did ask people to stay on point I was then told that I wasn't very nice, trolls, not conversation.

You point out, and correctly so, that what I was asking a philosophical question more than a scientific one. I am not a gnostic nor an atheist; however, I find quantum physics, gnostic beliefs and my own Christian beliefs to be fascinating for true discussion and that is what I sought, had to wait a bit to get to it though. We cannot reconcile science with reality without using philosophy to guide us, the questions do not answer themselves.

While I may be a theist, that doesn't prohibit me from loving science and looking at how the creation works and it should not, I don't claim to have all the answers and detest others telling me that they know I am wrong because Stephen Hawkins said so as if that is an answer, especially when they cannot even understand what he did say. That is blind faith and just as silly as a person claiming to be a Christian when they haven't even read the book.

We both agree that the answer to my question regarding quantum physics is a thought in motion and not a final answer, I will therefore ask you, what you do believe the answer is. Do you believe in alternate or parallel universes or cosmos? Be well.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiveEquation

Originally posted by AQuestion
...they are hypocrites trolling the faith forum to prove we are illogical; but, fail to prove anything they believe is logical, they give up so quickly, it is sad.


First off, lets define some words so you understand reponses you have been getting...and i saw mistakes in the posts i was reading that say multiverse theory...when it should be multiverse hypothesis ( i am guilty as well).



Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

..a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory

It is extremely important to distinguish between facts and theories in science, and in every other subject also, because facts usually remain the same and theories often change (johnpratt.com)


A theory is not actual truth.

Has there been an experimental design to test the hypothesis of multiverses? If none has been done, then the concept of multiverse is still a hypothesis and not a theory and certainly not a fact.

I have a problem with your topic because you are comparing a hypothesis to your faith ( another hypothesis that will be proven false tomorrow).



edit on 4-6-2011 by LiveEquation because: (no reason given)


Dear LiveEquation,

You have a problem with me questioning science because I am a believer, what does my faith have to do with me questioning science? My question would be equally valid if I was an atheist and they are asking the same questions as me in scientific circles, it is just a theory and should not be treated as an absolute truth to be used against believers until it has been proven. You disappoint me in your answer saying that basically if I am a believer that I should not test their hypothesis.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by AQuestion
 


For the short version of my response:



And now, the long version.



Originally posted by AQuestion
I do mean to challenge. If you choose to constantly post on the Faith forum and tell us that we are stupid and that science has all the answers then riddle me this.


Stop right there. As I already said, this is a straw man argument. You are not addressing anything that anyone says. Thinking you are wrong is different than thinking you are stupid. I am wrong about a great many things and will probably continue to be wrong about some of them and entirely different things in the future and at no point will I be right in all of my positions until the day I die.

You're not stupid, you're just wrong. Granted, you may be stupid, but I'm not going to say that unless you entirely demonstrate it.

Furthermore, nobody claims that science has all the answers. Science cannot have any answers because it is a method by which we examine the universe. It is the means by which we gain answers, not a repository of them.

And lastly, you're about to commit the fallacy that treats "I don't know" as an admission of being wrong, which is particularly dishonest when you're dealing with two fields that are entirely complicated and which can each have an entire lifetime devoted to them.



Explain how multi-universes and quantum physics makes sense?


They don't, they're counter-intuitive, just like Newtonian physics. Also, the idea of a multiverse is hypothetical and is not established.



Please do, I know the theories quite well.


I doubt it. Unless you happen to have two PhDs, one is theoretical astrophysics and the other in quantum physics, to say you know them quite well is just a massive overstatement.

Furthermore, the idea of a multiverse is not so much a theory as a hypothesis and quantum physics is a field of study rather than a theory. Granted, there is a theory that explains the facts of quantum physics, but it is not a theory on its own.

...so your familiarity is called into question.



I will make it even easier, read this article and come back and explain it with simple, straight forward words that everyone will understand, if it is so sensible than this should be easy.


Again, you have this bizarre fascination with 'sensible'. I'm sorry, but science is not sensible. Science is counter-intuitive. Newtonian physics, general relativity, etc...they don't really make sense on a surface level. Furthermore, explaining quantum physics in anything but the jargon of physics removes more than half of any understanding that can be truly gathered in the field, the same holds true for the idea of a multiverse.



It is the current state of science so it must make sense, right?


It does if you're an expert in the field. If you're unfamiliar with the decade of study at a post-graduate level that is required to truly be an expert, it will all seem quite mango-shaped.



How bout this, would you feel better if I came on the Science site and endlessly told you about God?


Part of theology is the questioning of theology. Part of religion is irreligion. Part of faith is its absence. The biggest question in the field of theology, the absolute biggest problem to any theologian, is that of the nonbeliever.

Anyway, your entire argument is a straw man based in either ignorance or deception.

I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're ignorant.


Dear madnessinmysoul,

Your answers did not show up in my reply box because you did not reply to my post, you replied to other peoples posts. You tell me I am wrong, wrong about what? What in my OP did I say was the answer, you are not truthful. Yours is the straw man, not mine. You also spread falsehood when you say that nobody says science has all the answers, Hawkins does. You attempt to say that science is just a process, you don't have the answer except to say that faith in God is wrong, how arrogant. You then attempt to say that I need someone to give me a piece of paper in order to learn about and understand quantum physics, why? Whose approval do I need to understand the cosmos or ask about it? Your whole attack on me is silly, I did not create a straw man, I provided a link to an article that another wrote and asked people to justify it.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
Every time science bumps into something we can explain yet, someone will say God is the next level.
The great thing about scientists is that they won't stop there and they will prove what we couldn't explain before wasn't God.

OP, riddle me how you believe in God. Show me proof. I know you can't.
If multiverses are possible, it will be explained with proof a lot sooner then God.

God is just a idea, the idea to limit us from the unknown, to not go crazy about not being able to explain something.

One of the first sign of great intelligence is to know that we don't have answers to everything, so now tell me...
Is it a sign of low intelligence to think we know everything by answering with "God"?


Dear User8911,

I did not say God was the answer, you twist words that were not even my OP. My point is that we don't have all the answers to anything only assumptions and hypothesis. I am okay with that. And I don't answer everything with God, I haven't done that on this thread so you are again putting words in my mouth.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by triune
Nice to see the nay-sayers struggling to defend their position for a change. I would give you a star and flag OP, if I knew what all that meant. Never mind, the new religion of Science and their high priests, the scientists will one day catch up with the rest of us believers when all the clues lead them to the greatest scientist, the creator of All That Is - GOD.

I like the one about the scientists about to discover the last peice of knowledge to complete their full understanding. As they claw their way over the last mountain top of knowledge and peek over to take in the full glory of the discovery, what do they see. A group of mystics sitting there calmly taking in the view.


Dear triune,

Turnabout is fair play. As for science catching up, it is not designed to prove or disprove God, it is incapable of either and I know that, it is a process and should be treated as such. I love science and the search for knowledge, I happen to like Michau Kaku immensely. Currently the best in quantum physics are using the large hadron collider to find the Higgs Boson particle and if they find it, it changes all physics and if it doesn't exist then all physics still has to change.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Thanks for your answer.

And just for the record (no patronization intended). The use of the word 'gnostic' can be confusing. I just learned another version than the 'gnostic religion' recently. When there's talk about gnostic theism/gnostic atheism, it means something like 'absolute' theism/atheism. If you already knew that, I apologize.

Quote: ["We cannot reconcile science with reality without using philosophy to guide us, the questions do not answer themselves."]

There's a constant feedback, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing some non-denominational theologians into it also.

Quote: ["We both agree that the answer to my question regarding quantum physics is a thought in motion and not a final answer, I will therefore ask you, what you do believe the answer is. Do you believe in alternate or parallel universes or cosmos? Be well."]

My answer is ofcourse subjective, and is just personal speculations.

I'm not that keen on parallel universes, and I do have some well-considered reasons for it. Depending on the reliability of 'Big Banging' (which I don't think is incompatible with continuous creation in zero-point physics), all universal manifestations started together and should thus have instantaneous FTL communication. That would make the universe rather 'conservative', sluggish, and not prone to be influenced by anomalies at zero-point level, branching off in the trousers of time.

For good or bad the idea of 'consciousness' as being what's beyond event horizon, appeals more to me. That implies an observer-created 'reality', which has some attractions. It can 'explain' why the different 'realities' all seem so 'real'.

Though the new-age "What the bleep do we know" version is rather dumb and sensationalist, as it suggests some 'observer' criteria leading straight to solipsism. The definition of 'observer' in this context needs some SERIOUS examination.

And we know VERY little, if anything, about consciousness per se.

I could drone on, it's a favourite subject of mine, but enough for now.

Thanks for asking. This is a position where theism can stretch a hand across to objective procedure, without anyone getting burned.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, since nobody decided to address my response to this thread (except those who gave it little blue stars), I'm just going to do something I normally don't do, just make a nice big ol' post that doesn't particularly reply to anyone but sums up the big gaping holes in the OP's various posts throughout this thread:

Science is not about having an answer to everything, it's about trying to have an answer to what you can and giving the best possible answer based upon the available evidence to those for which you cannot be anywhere near certain. Science is a process by which we get ourselves closer to the truth, not a way to proclaim absolute certainty in all matters. That is the realm of religion.

Some of us don't have time to become experts in all fields of science. Hell, nobody does. It would take many lifetimes to become a proper expert in all science. In that sense, we all have to take science on a reasonable level of trust. This is entirely separate from the idea of faith in one very meaningful way: I can examine science whenever I choose and there are those who actively do so constantly who would be happy to help. The publications are, as the root would hint, public. They are peer-reviewed. Hell, the very process of science is the attempt to disprove the idea that you have to the point where you've exhausted all possible options and can declare that it's likely true...and then you let other people test it. There's no faith in that which is constantly tested.

You seem to think that the ignorance of a lay individual in two fields of incredibly sophisticated science is somehow a knock-down argument against science...well, how does that follow? I don't know all that much about anything relating to electricity beyond the bare basics...so does my inability to understand the science somehow disprove the Faraday effect? I don't particularly understand what my father's doctoral thesis was about, nor can I even understand even the title of it, but that doesn't invalidate it.

How about this: ask a quantum physicist about quantum physics (granted, you must be on since you proclaimed yourself to be very familiar with its ideas, I wonder how many published papers you read on the subject every month).

Another crazy idea: ask a theoretical astrophysicist about the idea of multiple universes.

I'm sure if you e-mail enough people from universities asking for an explanation of the two you would probably get the explanation you are looking for, though I doubt it would be as simple as you'd want it to be.


Dear madnessinmysoul,

You are so worried about what I might have said that you missed what I did say in my OP. Unfortunately, you do not understand my position. You claim that religion is about knowing the answer, I disagree, I see it as requiring one to constantly ask the questions and don't believe we can ever know God fully, not even when we die. All may be revealed but not all will be understood. You are responding to things others told you about God, don't put their words in my mouth. As far as how much I read on quantum physics, just about everyday because there is a lot going on in the field and it is fascinating. When they claimed that there was no justification for gravity working or discuss the spooky effect I am riveted.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by AQuestion
 


define god correctlly and I bet Stephen Hawkins will believe in it.


Dear Doublemint,

I don't have much regard for Hawkins, there are many others that I do appreciate. He is very much a bitter and arrogant person, he is brilliant; but, I see him a a glory hog. There are many great scientists working in quantum physics and outright say that it is an investigation, that is sincere and admirable.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I'm sorry, but your idea of religion runs contrary to its practice for...oh...I dunno...tens of thousands of years. Furthermore, reading popular science articles if a far cry from reading proper published scientific papers.

Your idea of religion, even though it is not representative of any majority of its practice, still basically amounts to 'let's make up answers to questions without method or reason'. Question all you want, but you're still accepting the general premise of a deity without justification. You're not basing anything on a reasonable standard of evidence. You're not even worrying about internal consistency.

Science has a method, learn from how damn effective that's turned out to be.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Thanks for your answer.

And just for the record (no patronization intended). The use of the word 'gnostic' can be confusing. I just learned another version than the 'gnostic religion' recently. When there's talk about gnostic theism/gnostic atheism, it means something like 'absolute' theism/atheism. If you already knew that, I apologize.

Quote: ["We cannot reconcile science with reality without using philosophy to guide us, the questions do not answer themselves."]

There's a constant feedback, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing some non-denominational theologians into it also.

Quote: ["We both agree that the answer to my question regarding quantum physics is a thought in motion and not a final answer, I will therefore ask you, what you do believe the answer is. Do you believe in alternate or parallel universes or cosmos? Be well."]

My answer is ofcourse subjective, and is just personal speculations.

I'm not that keen on parallel universes, and I do have some well-considered reasons for it. Depending on the reliability of 'Big Banging' (which I don't think is incompatible with continuous creation in zero-point physics), all universal manifestations started together and should thus have instantaneous FTL communication. That would make the universe rather 'conservative', sluggish, and not prone to be influenced by anomalies at zero-point level, branching off in the trousers of time.

For good or bad the idea of 'consciousness' as being what's beyond event horizon, appeals more to me. That implies an observer-created 'reality', which has some attractions. It can 'explain' why the different 'realities' all seem so 'real'.

Though the new-age "What the bleep do we know" version is rather dumb and sensationalist, as it suggests some 'observer' criteria leading straight to solipsism. The definition of 'observer' in this context needs some SERIOUS examination.

And we know VERY little, if anything, about consciousness per se.

I could drone on, it's a favourite subject of mine, but enough for now.

Thanks for asking. This is a position where theism can stretch a hand across to objective procedure, without anyone getting burned.




Dear bogomil,

I must admit that this has been somewhat exhausting and hard to keep up with responding, I didn't expect so many posts with so few actually dealing with what I asked instead of telling me what they think I believe. You have once again nailed it, so glad we got past the initial answer me in a sentence non-sense that everyone seems to want to play and can get to the meat of the subject. Yes sentience has to be taken into consideration and science has been unable to do that as of yet. It strays away from it because that then becomes the area of philosophy and accepts that there is no absolute certainty that can be known.

You bring up the issue of the observer and that is critical to our even coming close to understanding science or theology. I have a problem with solipsism, it denies anything exists except self, in which case this is all meaningless. There is an Indian lady on the site who is a physicist (pretty sure she said she was) and provided one of the most thorough and simple explanations of the current state of quantum physics, someone attacked for being a non-believer, in fact she was (I believe Hindu). I apologize for not knowing her screen name.

Too many wish to separate out Christians from discussions of science and atheists from honest questions about what we believe. People were so worried about what they perceived I wanted to prove that they ignored what I asked. I know quantum physics is complicated and has many different theories, I am happy with that and no it doesn't prove science right or wrong or anything other than what it is, a process. My read of this thread is that people would prefer to not be questioned about what they believe because it might lead them to give an honest investigation into sentience and the importance of the human experience. Take care and be well.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Sorry guys but the OP is right even if I may not agree with his way of saying it.
All you non-believer, science types take the theories given you as fact. Do any of you conduct your own experiments on creation/time or space??? No you do not but you believe everything you are told and then turn around and slam others for doing the same.
I would venture to say 99% of you are not rocket scientists or physicists but cling to every word that was told as the truth to you.

Yep, you've just been fed some of the same crap that you all dish out.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join