Zero respect

[eye exaggerate]

To me science and religion, religion being record of popular spirituality, are two points of the "strange loop" or "tangled hierarchy" of the mind. This would partly explain why neither fully explains things but taken together they can provide a much clearer picture of the history and existence of humanity and even the nature of matter as a whole. Science misses the whole because, by its very nature, it only acknowledges the predictable and therefore provable and mostly ignores the abstract. Thst's why science will never explain the evolution of mind which ironically includes the very thing that makes most scientific advancement possible; imagination.
Religion on the other hand disregards most logical reasoning or provable fact but, taken in context, is an excellent record of the evolution of human psychology.

I could go on and on

That's just the issue, thanks for bringing this up. Human psychology is at the heart of religion and spirituality. Since consciousness and psyche are (obviously) interrelated, giving it a quality or quantity is like a fish describing the water it is swimming in. I think it was Einstein that said something of that nature, and I agree with that idea. He, as far as I know, was a panentheist.

 

[Heisenberg]

Nope just trying to steer the discussion away from things just like this.
So, if there is no God, how did we get here, what holds everything in place, who made the laws of physics , how did all of this get here, short answer please.

My answer is very short: I don't know. The answer you seem to be suggesting is, "I don't know, therefore God."

See , even scientists cant prove their isnt a creator and more every year are actually saying they cant imagine how life began.
These arent quacks, these are noted leaders in their fields , so where did all this come from, why are we here, cosmic joke? Mistake?

Even scientists? Science does not try to prove existential negatives. I'm afraid you'll need to give examples to demonstrate your assertion that scientists are saying they can't imagine how life began. Who are these people and how did they get to be leaders in science without being aware of the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity?

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

The general form of the argument is as follows.

• Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
• Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
• Conclusion: Not-P.

If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

 

[joefoxx]

What do you think science is going to confirm?

God? or a Higher Power? What?

~PEACE~

An intelligent order preeminent to the material universe? Downward causation? "some" mind over all matter?

Just yesterday science KNEW the universe was essentially particulate material permeated by the 4 preeminent forces. Now we have "quantum everything" which has to have a few general relativists feeling about as educated as children. To me, when something like that is emphatically disproven there's literally not much left to stand on. Now we KNOW there has to be some much deeper and more complex system underlying the universe. And it's almost a free for all. Are there particles or strings or forces? Should we call them quarks or midichlorians or angels? Who says heaven and hell can't be somewhere out in that 95% of non baryonic matter?(personally I think all that God, Angel, Devil jazz is a lot of personification) Who says we're not just some marble on an alien's board game?

At the most, material science is close to confirming that the existence of the universe is not chance.

At the least, material science has confirmed that, when it comes to the explanation of "all things", it is just as unreliable as religion, though not nearly as stubborn, stupid, or stuck in its ways.

I try not to get to deep into physics, or any one discipline, because i think it detracts and distracts from the bigger question of our existence, which for the "human" constitutes both our material and abstract components.

We tend to forget one very small detail when we observe the universe; the observer. If perception is relative then mustn't the observer itself become a part of the explanation? The objective perspective exclusive to human consciousness is probably the single biggest factor in the search for truth(science or religion). The origin of mind has been written off by mainstream science long ago as a construct of the brain(upward causation), and ignored by most mainstream religion in favor of it's ability to facilitate physical control(downward causation). To me this is why they both fail at expressing the whole. The explanations of Darwinian evolution, and traditional mechanics both stop where the mind starts. This makes sense because mind and self awareness are prerequisite for question/explanation itself, or any need thereof.

Once again, just as in material science, the quantum explanation as opposed to the traditional one has opened a whole new field of possibilities.

 

[joefoxx]

That's just the issue, thanks for bringing this up. Human psychology is at the heart of religion and spirituality. Since consciousness and psyche are (obviously) interrelated, giving it a quality or quantity is like a fish describing the water it is swimming in. I think it was Einstein that said something of that nature, and I agree with that idea. He, as far as I know, was a panentheist.

exactly. it is the eye seeing itself.

 

[eye exaggerate]

exactly. it is the eye seeing itself.

That's half freaky

 

[Someacdude]

The big bang theory is a bust, many scientists dont even believe that one anymore. So how did al of this get here, what set the ballances ?
I refuse to believe that the earth made with the ability to heal itself , with tides the distance from the sun, the exact speed and rotation to sustain life all happened by accident.

In the first book of the Bible after the creative day [ which where 1000 years each byt) The very first lie was told.
Satan told Eve that the reason God didnt want her to eat from the tree of life was because God knew if she did, that she would be like Gid, knowing good from bad.

People still believe this original lie, they still believe that they dont need God, that he has no right to tell them how to live their life.

Turn on the news , as the Bible says, Man has dominated man to his injury.

Life is much to hard, much to short and much to painful to be the way it is on purpose, even if there is no creator, man has had thousands of years to make things right.
All the great thinkers didnt make a dent and all our present day society has produced is more entertainment and much like Rome is in a state of decay.

Somethings coming , and there will be no doubt when it does, btw, the bible doesnt preach a rapture either, what it does say is that every eye will know that it is God intervening.

 

[Beefbisquit]

The big bang theory is a bust, many scientists dont even believe that one anymore.

Actually, they just found even more evidence in support of the big bang recently. Not sure where you get your info from but it's not from scientists.

So how did al of this get here, what set the ballances?
I refuse to believe that the earth made with the ability to heal itself , with tides the distance from the sun, the exact speed and rotation to sustain life all happened by accident.

The 'goldilocks zone' eh? We've found a lot of other plants in 'goldilocks zones' around other stars, it's not that uncommon. Also, if it takes 'god' to put a planet in that zone, then god put a bunch of planets in a bunch of those zones all over the galaxy. I wonder what alien Jesus looks like... lol

In the first book of the Bible after the creative day [ which where 1000 years each byt) The very first lie was told.
Satan told Eve that the reason God didnt want her to eat from the tree of life was because God knew if she did, that she would be like Gid, knowing good from bad.

People still believe this original lie, they still believe that they dont need God, that he has no right to tell them how to live their life.

'Need' god? I see no evidence that god even exists in any way more than in peoples minds. How could you possibly know each day was 1000 years? There is no consensus on the passage of time in the bible.

Turn on the news , as the Bible says, Man has dominated man to his injury.

Life is much to hard, much to short and much to painful to be the way it is on purpose, even if there is no creator, man has had thousands of years to make things right.
All the great thinkers didnt make a dent and all our present day society has produced is more entertainment and much like Rome is in a state of decay.

Somethings coming , and there will be no doubt when it does, btw, the bible doesnt preach a rapture either, what it does say is that every eye will know that it is God intervening.

People have been preaching rapture for as long as the bible has existed.

 

[Someacdude]

Beef, you do realze that simply saying something doesnt make it a fact right, i men seriously , was everything i said wrong even the questions?
You HATE religion , i get it, we all get it, but please stop saying things we both know arent true simply because you have an issue with religion and cant see the difference between the Bible and religion.
The way you think is so one track like whoever it was that quoted the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN nonsense See, the bible was very clear about the signs of true Christians, it gave an accurate description in the Bible.

Seriously, there is more evidence that the big bang happened, are you serious ? See thats where i knew you where not her to have a conversation only to show exactly what your agenda is so,,,in that case,,,whats the difference between you and those people who profess to be Christians yet only care about their own agenda?

 

[joefoxx]

The problem is that most people assume the nature of truth to be dualistic meaning there must always be truthVSfalsehood, a right answer/wrong answer, a winner and a loser. Either science must be absolutely correct or else religion must be. .

The death of philosophy in mainstream science is tragic because philosophy is allowed to incorporate and analyze the info from both sides and many other disciplines and then process the stats through the old "logic" or "valid reasoning" engine. This is why, I believe, a healthy interest in philosophy( or at the least correct reasoning), should be the most essential and fundamental science. Because philosophy owes allegiance to the original existential question and Because in our search for answers we are often found lost to that original question.... For example, to argue for science as an absolute path to truth is to deny valid reasoning since we know that the immaterial does exist( the fact that the universe is made up of something other than matter is self-evident) not only in our minds but manifested into reality through our works. So in the largest context an "absolute material" argument is 50% fallacy.. I'm sure you can guess who holds down the other 50%. This should be the obvious end to any science vs religion debate but it remains the song that doesn't end.

Philosophy employs a dynamic set of principles that almost every human being can agree on. It should foster a language common to all humanity. Instead this language is falsified through separate, bias cultures with both religious and governmental influences superimposing their own set of self serving values or dualistic choices in it's place. Obviously, in most early cultures there was just one particular hard fast set of values, and this is the closest I can get to a literal explanation of the babel story:

Since language systems are basically different systems of symbology for the same things we can easily reason that confused languages alone would not slow down any progress of human advancement much. "Tongues" probably referred more to "culture" which comprises what we personally believe to be ultimately good and bad and the way we carry out those beliefs. Differing(confused) cultures would and have constituted a significant opposition to the evolution of humanity as a whole as the famous "confusing of tongues" was said to have had...

 

[joefoxx]

Tangentially, on the subject of the bible, I could speculate that the advent of "logic and reasoning" roughly correlates to the "eating from the tree of good and evil" and, as a bit of a stretch, the "restriction from the tree of life" represents the realization/idea(and eventual fear) of ever impending (physical)death, a trait seemingly exclusive to humanity. Cultural tradition/religion/government would be the cherubs in front of the doors keeping everyone away(distracted) from their own personal sense of logic and reasoning.

In this way, we can interpret most of Genesis within the context of some gnostic monks describing a psychotic episode experienced by the first monkey man without attempting to disprove the validity of either science or religion. On the contrary, our goal would be to search out the commonality between them for the most logically reasonable explanation. We could do the same with all other fantastical elements of the bible(my personal favorite is Superman Vs Jesusman) and probably all come to a greater understanding of the truth together. Instead we babble on in the stagnant pond of redundancy, arguing extraneous details from different perspective lily pads, while highly logical people with the emotional range of teaspoons set the parameters of our belief structure.


Studying the bible in the context of "all things considered", I would say it and most creation stories can be more easily understood as describing the birth of human consciousness as opposed to the first physical man and the rest to be a perspective history on the evolution of the human condition(psychology and philosophy). This would allow agreement with both ideologies so it would stand, for me, to reason the most correct theory....

 

[Beefbisquit]

Beef, you do realze that simply saying something doesnt make it a fact right, i men seriously , was everything i said wrong even the questions?

You clearly stated 'the big bang theory is a bust'. If you didn't intend for people to take that statement as literal, why make it? Were you trying to be deceptive?

You HATE religion , i get it, we all get it, but please stop saying things we both know arent true simply because you have an issue with religion and cant see the difference between the Bible and religion.

I don't 'hate' religion, I do think it's harmful and you seem to be demonstrating my point with scientific ignorance. Scientists proposed a theory about the big bang, and started looking for the evidence they proposed should be there, and lo and behold, they found it exactly how they thought they would. A new, more recent study has only strengthened this hypothesis. So, why you say 'the big bang theory is a bust', is beyond me. You're either out of the loop, don't understand the science behind it, or are ignorant.

The way you think is so one track like whoever it was that quoted the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN nonsense See, the bible was very clear about the signs of true Christians, it gave an accurate description in the Bible

I have NEVER seen a christian act Christ-like. The 'no true Scotsman fallacy' is one of the many fallacious arguments used by 'the faithful' to attempt to (poorly) rationalize their beliefs. It goes along with the 'god of the gaps' argument, and argument from incredulity.

Seriously, there is more evidence that the big bang happened, are you serious ?

I am very serious. So are the astrophysicists that study this stuff...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cosmic-inflation-evidence-of-post-big-bang-expansion-discovered-1.2575998

http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4036287.ece

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/physics-cosmic-inflation-031714.html

Very serious.

See thats where i knew you where not her to have a conversation only to show exactly what your agenda is so,,,in that case,,,whats the difference between you and those people who profess to be Christians yet only care about their own agenda?

When you start by slandering a genuine scientific discovery as a 'bust', and you offer zero reasoning as to why it's a bust or how you can possibly refute their claims; you're not informed enough to actually have a meaningful discussion about the topic at hand.

I do have an agenda, it's called ending scientific illiteracy and ignorance.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Seriously, there is more evidence that the big bang happened, are you serious ?

Redshift and cosmic background radiation are evidence of the big bang. What evidence is there to support any organized religion outside of their religious texts?

 

[eye exaggerate]

The problem is that most people assume the nature of truth to be dualistic meaning there must always be truthVSfalsehood, a right answer/wrong answer, a winner and a loser. Either science must be absolutely correct or else religion must be. .

The death of philosophy in mainstream science is tragic because philosophy is allowed to incorporate and analyze the info from both sides and many other disciplines and then process the stats through the old "logic" or "valid reasoning" engine. This is why, I believe, a healthy interest in philosophy( or at the least correct reasoning), should be the most essential and fundamental science. Because philosophy owes allegiance to the original existential question and Because in our search for answers we are often found lost to that original question.... For example, to argue for science as an absolute path to truth is to deny valid reasoning since we know that the immaterial does exist( the fact that the universe is made up of something other than matter is self-evident) not only in our minds but manifested into reality through our works. So in the largest context an "absolute material" argument is 50% fallacy.. I'm sure you can guess who holds down the other 50%. This should be the obvious end to any science vs religion debate but it remains the song that doesn't end.

Philosophy employs a dynamic set of principles that almost every human being can agree on. It should foster a language common to all humanity. Instead this language is falsified through separate, bias cultures with both religious and governmental influences superimposing their own set of self serving values or dualistic choices in it's place. Obviously, in most early cultures there was just one particular hard fast set of values, and this is the closest I can get to a literal explanation of the babel story:

Since language systems are basically different systems of symbology for the same things we can easily reason that confused languages alone would not slow down any progress of human advancement much. "Tongues" probably referred more to "culture" which comprises what we personally believe to be ultimately good and bad and the way we carry out those beliefs. Differing(confused) cultures would and have constituted a significant opposition to the evolution of humanity as a whole as the famous "confusing of tongues" was said to have had...

That is all

 

[eye exaggerate]

Redshift and cosmic background radiation are evidence of the big bang. What evidence is there to support any organized religion outside of their religious texts?

Could you describe Redshift for us?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Could you describe Redshift for us?

Redshift is to light waves what the Doppler effect is to sound waves

When a light emitting object like a galaxy moves away from an observer, the wavelength of light increases making it appear closer to the red end of the light spectrum. Every galaxy in the universe is shifting to the red because the universe is expanding, using that information it can be deduced that if you turn the time far enough back, every galaxy in the universe was at the same single point in space at some point in time in the distant past

 

[Heisenberg]

The big bang theory is a bust, many scientists dont even believe that one anymore.

You are not going to be able to make assertions such as this without being called on them. Please provide evidence that scientists are abandoning the big bang theory, and then list the reasons why. When you are finished, I will then point out that you are simply seeking to create a gap in which you can insert your creation delusions. IOW, your burden is not to disprove the big bang, but to prove creationism. You have already demonstrated that you are happy to let lack of imagination fuel your beliefs and, apparently, you think it should fuel ours as well. I am open to evidence of creationism, but the only thing you have shown us is the different ways in which your brain has chosen to fool itself.

 

[Beefbisquit]

[video=youtube;PCxOEyyzmvQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCxOEyyzmvQ&list=UUHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA[/video]

 

[Beefbisquit]

Thought this was pertinent to the discussion; (and funny)

 

[Red1966]

No actually, you're not the only nut job with a messianic complex on here as of a few days ago. I saw another but I can't remember his name off the top of my head.

Jesus???????????

 

[Red1966]

It isn't possible for me to understand how you can possibly believe what you believe... I mean, I believed some crazy shit when I was younger, but Christianity seems so blatantly incorrect to me. There's so many contradictions, and things that don't make sense. There's virtually zero evidence to support any of it, and Christians treat it like it's completely factual, and as if everyone should act the same way as they do. If you want to believe in Christ, or Santa, or demons, or the loch ness smonster for all I care, go to town, bud. But leave me out of your 'crazy', and for fuck sakes, don't try to make any laws based on your beliefs to make other people conform to the insanity.

But aren't all laws traceable to religion?