Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 29
28
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Prezbo369

GargIndia

There was a worldwide flood around 5200 years back which sunk the city of Dwarka in Gujarat, India. The flood was due to a sudden melting of continental ice at the end of last ice age.

The "Noah's arc" as a Biblical story is symbolical story which says that Jews survived this flood. The story does not have to be completely accurate as our ancestors were as much given to hyperbole as we are.


As given as we are today perhaps?

Could you give some specifics on this claim?



First I need to give you a disclaimer. The history cannot be "proven", only inferred.

Many people have tried to find the truth behind the tale of lost city of Dwarka. They have undertaken underwater missions and come out with the findings.

I am providing you some links. However I do not vouch for accuracy of any material contained therein. It is what it is.

www.youtube.com...
creative.sulekha.com...

------------------------

Any Biblical story from Old Testament is about Jews because they wrote that book.
I am not aware of any Indian who wrote the Old Testament. There is no accounts of Noah's arc in Hindu mythology or Chinese mythology.
Even native Americans have no account of Noah's arc in their mythology.
I hope you get it.

As for hyperbole, if the whole humanity was saved by Noah's arc, it is reasonable that mythology of other races would include that fact.




posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

GargIndia

First I need to give you a disclaimer. The history cannot be "proven", only inferred.

Many people have tried to find the truth behind the tale of lost city of Dwarka. They have undertaken underwater missions and come out with the findings.

I am providing you some links. However I do not vouch for accuracy of any material contained therein. It is what it is.


If it's then merely your own inference or opinion, perhaps you should add a disclaimer every time you make claims like the one you made about a global flood?



Any Biblical story from Old Testament is about Jews because they wrote that book.
I am not aware of any Indian who wrote the Old Testament. There is no accounts of Noah's arc in Hindu mythology or Chinese mythology.
Even native Americans have no account of Noah's arc in their mythology.
I hope you get it.

As for hyperbole, if the whole humanity was saved by Noah's arc, it is reasonable that mythology of other races would include that fact.


I agree, however I'm not sure how you're able to differentiate between the hyperbole surrounding the Jewish/Christian global flood myth and the hyperbole surrounding your own Indian/Hindu global flood myth?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

GargIndia

peter vlar

GargIndia

Oh really? Again, can you name the experiments you have conducted yourself?
Let me ask a question to test your knowledge of science. The following link en.wikipedia.org... publishes mass of an electron. Please describe the method to find the mass of an electron.


Are you looking for the mass of an electron at rest or an electron in motion? Perhaps you're not as familiar with the parameters of the experiment yourself? Surely someone of your intellect wouldn't be so inspecific about such a precise experiment no? But just because I'm nice like that you use this formula-


The only thing I can expect to see from a person of low intellect like you is a Wiki quote.

Is this all you are capable of. I feel sorry for you.

I asked this question to a person who was not you. Let that person come back with an answer.


Look, I'm not going to take it personally. I simply find it would be unfair to hold you personally accountable for the brain damage you clearly have suffered at some point in your life. With that said two things I'd like to point out mr intellect... First, my reply wasn't from Wikipedia. Second I found it êxtraordinarily ironic that you would slag someone for using a Wikipedia quote in response to your Wikipedia quote.f I truly feel sad for you if this is how you approach people in the real world you are a terribly lonely individual. Though honestly, I would feel even more sad for you if it turned out that you're only an Internet tough guy/intellectual and wouldn't have the stones to approach people in such a manner. Please carry on, this is far more entertaining than anything on TV watching you talk down to people from a position of authority while never once offering up your bona fides.
edit on 21-2-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Self evident truth = all religion is made up BS by men and not by gods.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

GargIndia
As for hyperbole, if the whole humanity was saved by Noah's arc, it is reasonable that mythology of other races would include that fact.


This statement would apply to every 'religious text', including your own. If these stories were universal in nature they would've been included in very cultures tales.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Self evident truth = all religion is made up BS by men and not by gods.

Intelligent design =/= religion



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


intelligent design = creationism in a cheap tuxido



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 


If you say it is, you have to accept materialism as a religion also.

Just because a lot of the proponents of intelligent design happen to be religious folk, doesn't mean that intelligent design itself is religion.

Just because a lot of the proponents of feminism happen to be men, doesn't mean that men are women.
edit on 9-3-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

neoholographic
In science, there are things that are self evident. For example, an apple falling from a tree, rain, the seasons, snow or the sun shining.

Science can now tell you why the sun shines or why an apple falls to the ground.

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth. When we see it, we know it. When we see an airplane, television, car or computer monitor we know it was designed by intelligence. It's a self evident truth.

This also applies to DNA. The genetic code is a clear example of intelligent design.

What are the key components to a system that was designed by intelligence? There's 2 of them.

The first component is, you will find instructions. These instructions will be letters, numbers or symbols that are in a sequence that instructs the production of cars, DVD players and yes, proteins. Intelligence will give the sequence of these letters, numbers and symbols.

The second component, is machinery. Intelligence will then design machinery to read this sequence of letters, numbers and symbols.

Again, we see this in DNA, DVD players, cars and everything else designed by intelligence.

When DNA is in a regulatory sequence you get promoters and operators that regulate the production of proteins. You get sequences that produce proteins. You get transcription, translation, error correction and now a new discovery about a second hidden code gives us gene control through what's called duons.

For instance if I were to write aaccThehhhjMANhhiuACROSSnnmmTHEjddfSTREET. I would first have to give meaning to the sequence of the letters THE MAN ACROSS THE STREET. I would then design machinery that can scan the letters and can pick out the sequence of letters that say THE MAN ACROSS THE STREET. This is what's happening with DNA. Sequences of DNA letters are being transcribed and translated. Even when a mistake occurs, it can be caught through error correction.

It doesn't get any clearer than this.

What happened is, people looked at the phenotype and came up with a convoluted theory of evolution. This theory eventually ran into the instructions(DNA) and it has just gotten worse and worse for the convoluted theory of evolution.

Evolution is the end result of intelligent design. It's the end result of a sequence of DNA letters that instruct the regulation and production of proteins.

Nature can produce design. It can produce a mountainside or a snowflake. It can't produce a snowflake that will translate and transcribe regulatory sequences on another snowflake.

Also, why does "nature" exclude intelligence or consciousness? When people say this happened naturally why does naturally mean without God, intelligence or consciousness? Where's the evidence that nature excludes God, consciousness or intelligence?
edit on 16-12-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)


sir, you are can believe what you choose , but all of this is your opinion which is guided by your faith . there is a big difference between faith and the truth



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to neoholographic
 



In science, there are things that are self evident.


Yeah, no.

That's sort of the polar opposite of science. Science does not assume something and declare it a fact. You can assume a hypothesis, but you then have to go out and test for it.
edit on RAmerica/Chicago31uSat, 15 Mar 2014 09:55:35 -05003-0500fCDT09 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: formatting



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to neoholographic
 



In science, there are things that are self evident.


Yeah, no.

That's sort of the polar opposite of science. Science does not assume something and declare it a fact. You can assume a hypothesis, but you then have to go out and test for it.
edit on RAmerica/Chicago31uSat, 15 Mar 2014 09:55:35 -05003-0500fCDT09 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: formatting
I can list a few things that science has assumed and declared a fact without conclusive evidence...

- Materialism
- Determinism
- Our brains produce our minds
- Our experiences are nothing but illusions
- Matter is inanimate
- Biological inheritance is purely material
- Laws of nature are fixed
- Only mechanistic medicine works
- Nature has no purpose

There's a difference between science the idea, and science the practice.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Okay, lets break your list down -

- Materialism
- Determinism
- Our brains produce our minds
- Our experiences are nothing but illusions
- Matter is inanimate
- Biological inheritance is purely material
- Laws of nature are fixed
- Only mechanistic medicine works
- Nature has no purpose

Materialism and Determinism are philosophical positions, not scientific ones. Nature has no purpose is, similarly, a philosophical question.

I will concede that there is actually one assumption which science does make, though like everything in science it is never absolute and it is certainly not declared a 'fact' - the null hypothesis.

The idea is that the default position for any claim is the possibility that the claim is bogus and does not exist. This is called the null hypothesis.

The Our brains produce our minds, Biological inheritance is purely material and (possibly, depending on what you actually mean) Only mechanistic medicine works bits would fall into this category, since no one has been able to prove alternate theories like the idea of a soul, or crystal healing energies or whatever.

Matter is inanimate - seems an odd one. Depends on which definition you are using. Do you mean inanimate = non-moving or inanimate = non-living. I mean at a sub atomic level it's all moving, and at macroscopic level it can be either alive or dead. Can you please clarify, and point me to the particular scientific position you are referring to.

Laws of nature are fixed. Lets take a look at Scientific Laws. Wikipedia says -



An analogous term for a scientific law is a principle.

Scientific laws:

1. summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
2. can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
3. are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
4. are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts, e.g. "the laws of motion require that..."

Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, which are proposed during the scientific process before and during validation by experiment and observation. These are not laws since they have not been verified to the same degree and may not be sufficiently general, although they may lead to the formulation of laws. A law is a more solidified and formal statement, distilled from repeated experiment.

Although the nature of a scientific law is a question in philosophy and although scientific laws describe nature mathematically, scientific laws are practical conclusions reached by the scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolution.

Fundamentally, all scientific laws follow from physics, laws which occur in other sciences ultimately follow from physical laws. Often, from mathematically fundamental viewpoints, universal constants emerge from scientific laws.


So we can see there several important points which completely refute the idea that scientific laws are fixed, or that they are an assumed fact.

- They are based on conclusions from repeated verifiable experimentation
- They are often formulated and proven mathematically
- They are strongly supported by evidence
- They are not 'fixed' at all, but provisional just like any scientific theory and subject to change should they ever be successfully challenged by future observations or evidence
- Like all scientific theories, they are not intended to be taken in an absolute sense as immutable fact



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by vasaga
 


Materialism and Determinism are philosophical positions, not scientific ones. Nature has no purpose is, similarly, a philosophical question.
Maybe. But they are still central to our mainstream scientific views. It's the reason why only abiogenesis is being regarded as a valuable theory for the origin of life, while something like biocentrism is shoved aside, despite them both being in the hypothesis phase.


ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
I will concede that there is actually one assumption which science does make, though like everything in science it is never absolute and it is certainly not declared a 'fact' - the null hypothesis.

The idea is that the default position for any claim is the possibility that the claim is bogus and does not exist. This is called the null hypothesis.
It's definitely not the only one in practice...


ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
The Our brains produce our minds, Biological inheritance is purely material and (possibly, depending on what you actually mean) Only mechanistic medicine works bits would fall into this category, since no one has been able to prove alternate theories like the idea of a soul, or crystal healing energies or whatever.
You must've surely heard of the placebo effect? Or the nocebo effect? In case you haven't, watch these:





That should throw the brain/mind one and the mechanistic medicine one out the _ As for biological inheritance, there's this stuff called epigenetics, where your body could behave as having a damaged gene, while the gene is actually intact, simply because your grandma damaged her genes while smoking or whatever. Watch this:




ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Matter is inanimate - seems an odd one. Depends on which definition you are using. Do you mean inanimate = non-moving or inanimate = non-living. I mean at a sub atomic level it's all moving, and at macroscopic level it can be either alive or dead. Can you please clarify, and point me to the particular scientific position you are referring to.
I was leaning more towards the non-living idea. We don't even know what life actually is, so, how do we know what is alive and what isn't? We can't figure out if a virus is alive or not. How can expect to do the same with particles, or the planet or whatever?


ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Laws of nature are fixed. Lets take a look at Scientific Laws. Wikipedia says -

So we can see there several important points which completely refute the idea that scientific laws are fixed, or that they are an assumed fact.

- They are based on conclusions from repeated verifiable experimentation
- They are often formulated and proven mathematically
- They are strongly supported by evidence
- They are not 'fixed' at all, but provisional just like any scientific theory and subject to change should they ever be successfully challenged by future observations or evidence
- Like all scientific theories, they are not intended to be taken in an absolute sense as immutable fact
Ok. Even though all of that is true, take as an example, the speed of light. It's always being referred to as being a fixed value, but in reality, it fluctuates quite a bit. Basically, everything that's referred to as a constant is not actually a constant. You don't have to watch it fully, since it's very long, but, the first 10-15 minutes or so might already give you an idea... For more info you can read the 'about' of the video.




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Okay lets break down your post again.

Biocentrism

Posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing Materialism and Determinism are philosophical positions, not scientific ones. Nature has no purpose is, similarly, a philosophical question.

Posted by vasaga Maybe. But they are still central to our mainstream scientific views. It's the reason why only abiogenesis is being regarded as a valuable theory for the origin of life, while something like biocentrism is shoved aside, despite them both being in the hypothesis phase.


Biocentrism has been pretty thoroughly debunked (see Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza’s Notion of a Conscious Universe). Again, we are talking philosophy rather than science itself, but it is not disregarded because of philosophical positions - it's disregarded because it's bad science. Yes, it is derided because it is essentially The Secret dressed up in pseudoscience, and because that walking singularity of mind-body mystic nonsense Deepak Chopra has so heavily associated himself with it, but apart from that, and more importantly it fundamentally misinterprets testable scientific truths.

For example. Lanza says that everything we perceive is created by the act of perception. He puts forth this idea that subjective experience is all there is. But when you look at what he says, it's clear he is misrepresenting the nature of reality to make it seem at odds with objective existence. To do the mental gymnastics, he relies on a subtle conflating of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.

i.e, Lanza says about light and colour -


“Consider the color and brightness of everything you see ‘out there.’ On its own, light doesn’t have any color or brightness at all. The unquestionable reality is that nothing remotely resembling what you see could be present without your consciousness. Consider the weather: We step outside and see a blue sky – but the cells in our brain could easily be changed so we ‘see’ red or green instead. We think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. In any case, you get the point. This logic applies to virtually everything.“


The truth of it is that yes, colour is a subjective experiential truth which lies outside of objective reality. However, he ignores the objective side of this equation - yes the observers expeiencing colour is subjective, however, the physical properties of light responsible for this experience are not subjective, they are an objective and testable part of the natural world.

This is of extreme importance and he is missing it entirely - The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself, it creates a subjective experience (or representation) of the (objective) phenomenon.

Temperature is another example. The temperature of something is as a direct result of the kinetic energy of the molecules, but the experience from the observers perception of that temperature is subjective.

His claims that without an external observer, objects remain in a quantum probabilistic state is based on conflating 'observer' with 'consciousness' and is a common yet fundamental misunderstanding of quantum theory.

Like many people, he misunderstands the anthropic principle and puts the cart before the horse, then uses this as his central argument that the universe to him is obviously tailored for us. It's exactly like Douglas Adams' puddle thinking "gee this hole in the ground fits me perfectly!".

The Null Hypothesis

posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
I will concede that there is actually one assumption which science does make, though like everything in science it is never absolute and it is certainly not declared a 'fact' - the null hypothesis.

The idea is that the default position for any claim is the possibility that the claim is bogus and does not exist. This is called the null hypothesis.

posted by vasaga It's definitely not the only one in practice...


I think you misunderstand me here. The idea of the null hypothesis is actually basic common sense and skepticism. It's basically saying ' Your idea is no more than just an idea unless you can prove it'. It's fundamental to the integrity of the knowledge on which we use to build our knowledge base. I'm not revealing a weakness in science, but rather the opposite - a strength.

Mind over Matter

posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
The Our brains produce our minds, Biological inheritance is purely material and (possibly, depending on what you actually mean) Only mechanistic medicine works bits would fall into this category, since no one has been able to prove alternate theories like the idea of a soul, or crystal healing energies or whatever.

posted by vasaga You must've surely heard of the placebo effect? Or the nocebo effect? In case you haven't, watch these:


Of course I have heard of the placebo effect. But you seem to tbe under the misunderstanding that the placebo effect is not mechanistic. The body is able to produce all kinds of pharmeceuticals at the behest of the brain. When a 'mind over matter' effect happens within the human body, there is a physical and chemical component to that change. For example, when we experience severe pain or shock, the body produces endorphins (basically natural morphine) in the hypothalimus or pituitary gland which bind with receptors in the brain to produce the euphoric or soothing effect as a response. This does not happen by magic, there is a clear, chemical (and thus mechanistic) process which is well understood.

Biological Inheritance

posted by vasaga That should throw the brain/mind one and the mechanistic medicine one out the _ As for biological inheritance, there's this stuff called epigenetics, where your body could behave as having a damaged gene, while the gene is actually intact, simply because your grandma damaged her genes while smoking or whatever. Watch this:


I'll admit to not knowing a hell of a lot about it, though it looks just like neo-Lamarckism to me.

Whatever the truth of it, epigenetics like any idea in science will live or die on the testable evidence and on the predictions it makes. It would not be just assumed that the idea is wrong - the idea would need to be proven and stand up to challenges to be accepted.

I think part of the problem here is, like many, you are putting the cart before the horse.

In science, ideas are not considered true unless they can be proven. You are looking at it from the complete other end. You say "Well why does science assume my idea is wrong!?".

The answer is the null hypothesis. It's a fundamental bedrock of science and skepticism that an idea needs to be proven before it is accepted.


Living Matter

posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Matter is inanimate - seems an odd one. Depends on which definition you are using. Do you mean inanimate = non-moving or inanimate = non-living. I mean at a sub atomic level it's all moving, and at macroscopic level it can be either alive or dead. Can you please clarify, and point me to the particular scientific position you are referring to.

posted by vasaga
I was leaning more towards the non-living idea. We don't even know what life actually is, so, how do we know what is alive and what isn't? We can't figure out if a virus is alive or not. How can expect to do the same with particles, or the planet or whatever?


I actually kind of agree. It's not an easy thing defining life, and I believe it's an area where we are seemingly always expanding our knowledge and definitions. However, just because there is a gap in our knowledge does not mean an untested alternative hypothesis gets a free pass.


The Speed of Light

posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Laws of nature are fixed. Lets take a look at Scientific Laws. Wikipedia says -

So we can see there several important points which completely refute the idea that scientific laws are fixed, or that they are an assumed fact.

- They are based on conclusions from repeated verifiable experimentation
- They are often formulated and proven mathematically
- They are strongly supported by evidence
- They are not 'fixed' at all, but provisional just like any scientific theory and subject to change should they ever be successfully challenged by future observations or evidence
- Like all scientific theories, they are not intended to be taken in an absolute sense as immutable fact



posted by vasaga Ok. Even though all of that is true, take as an example, the speed of light. It's always being referred to as being a fixed value, but in reality, it fluctuates quite a bit. Basically, everything that's referred to as a constant is not actually a constant. You don't have to watch it fully, since it's very long, but, the first 10-15 minutes or so might already give you an idea... For more info you can read the 'about' of the video.


The only folks interested in challenging the speed of light are Young Earth Creationists. They need for the speed of light to have been much faster (in the order of billions of times faster) in the past in order to explain away the Starlight Problem (that being, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, why can we see the light from distant galaxies which are millions of light years away?).

Check out Stuart Robbin's breakdown of this issue in episode 81 of his podcast, Explaining Pseudoastronomy. You can either listen to the episode or read a transcript at Exposing Pseudoastronomy Episode 81: Is the Speed of Light Constant?

To mention just a few of the points that Stuart makes -

- The speed of light varies depending on the medium it's moving through
- There is no reason to assume the speed of light has changed, other than a YEC agenda
- The idea is based on special pleading
- Supporters and promoters of this idea cherry-pick the data in order to show a slewed result. They focus on sets of data that prove their point of view, while ignoring those that do not.
- Results from past observations tend to be less accurate. With the advent of technology like lasers, and with a greater understanding of science and our limmits of measurement, accuracy has greatly improved.
- The Institute of Creation Research (the ICR) itself debunks this idea and does not recommend that YEC's use it.

However, this is all kind of irrelevant. The idea that the speed of light is not constant is not dismissed just because scientists don't like it or are trying to cover up something or some other bizarrre notion. The idea that the speed of light is not constant is not accepted because it is not proven. That's it basically. The persons making this claim have simply not proven their case. The alternate idea, that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, has behind it mountains of evidence, observations and mathematical proof. There is no equivalency here.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


Of course I meant to type "Exposing Pseudoastronomy" not "Explaining Pseudoastronomy", but for some reason I can't edit that post (too big?).



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


Very impressive post.


ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
This is of extreme importance and he is missing it entirely - The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself, it creates a subjective experience (or representation) of the (objective) phenomenon.

We put a lot of faith in the ability of our minds to receive and organize all of that raw sensory input data that is constantly barraging our senses and then form that into some kind of a representation or construct of the objective world that we depend on. Thankfully it does this fairly consistently and I can rest assured that when I wake up tomorrow morning my apt will look like it did when I went to bed. But it is a reality unique to humans, and represents only one tiny slice of the true universal reality, whatever that is. A reality that we will probably never know or could ever conceive.


Like many people, he misunderstands the anthropic principle and puts the cart before the horse, then uses this as his central argument that the universe to him is obviously tailored for us. It's exactly like Douglas Adams' puddle thinking "gee this hole in the ground fits me perfectly!".

The universe as I experience it is different from how everything else experiences it. And to take that idea a step further- humans have arrived at a consensus of what we are observing out there and calling a universe, but make no mistake that the universe as we know it is not at all like how any other living species anywhere else observes/experiences it. So in a sense Lanza may be right to say that the universe (as we see it) is specifically tailored to us and our senses, from our perspective.
edit on 27-3-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   

PhotonEffect

The universe as I experience it is different from how everything else experiences it. And to take that idea a step further- humans have arrived at a consensus of what we are observing out there and calling a universe, but make no mistake that the universe as we know it is not at all like how any other living species anywhere else observes/experiences it. So in a sense Lanza may be right to say that the universe (as we see it) is specifically tailored to us and our senses, from our perspective.
edit on 27-3-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)


Sure. In a sense. But don't make the same fundamental mistake Lanza makes and confuse the objective reality with the subjective. The object reality, no matter what being living on whatever piece of rock floating around the cosmos, is the same. It can be demonstrated (often mathematically) and is consistent, regardless of the subjective experience..



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


yes, I understand the difference between the two realities.


ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
The object reality, no matter what being living on whatever piece of rock floating around the cosmos, is the same. It can be demonstrated (often mathematically) and is consistent, regardless of the subjective experience..


How can we know, or prove, what that objective reality really is, let alone declare the uniformity of it, or lack there of, across all of the cosmos- a place that we haven't come close to observing/understanding in its totality? (funny I called it a place, but that's just my subjective notion of it. Objectively, the universe could be a completely different concept, like a dimension, beyond our capabilities of describing it.) We can't even come to an agreement on what reality is.

Our senses only allow for a certain representation of reality. The "human" one. But couldn't I argue that the objectivity we speak of is still in some way rooted in our subjectivity, influenced by our ideas, our concepts, our language and meanings. We throw at it these human creations such as words and numbers and like to think these tools are sufficient to have figured it all out. Is objective reality just a human consensus model?

Not only that, what moment in time do we really exist in? Sounds like a simple question with a simple answer. But is it? I've heard the past and future don't really exist; that they are just concepts, ideas, figments of the imagination. Feels right to say we only live in the present. But do we- It takes time for the objective instantaneous reality to be processed by our sensory equipment and brain. So in "reality" it seems we may actually live in the past; in the wake of time. How can this be? And what of the discovery that our brain makes decisions 6-10 seconds before we are even aware of them. What does this say about an existence completely dependent on awareness and decision making?

But what I really would like to know is, what really is a banana in the objective reality?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Well it seems to me there is an element of design evident, however how much of that is intelligent is in my opinion a moot point.

I don't think the designs are really that good to be honest. Take humans - riddled with inneficient total loss biosystems, can you imagine having to constantly top up the oil every few hours on your car?

It's sloppy and ill conceived at best.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jed001
 



there is a big difference between faith and the truth

In a perfect world that MIGHT be possible...

On this world, it's a 100% impossibility.

Two FACTS come to mind:

1) Everything is backwards


Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health. Lawyers destroy justice. Universities destroy knowledge. Governments destroy freedom. The major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality. ~ Michael Ellner

2) Science has become a Religion.


"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join