Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12861 - 12880 of total 22587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 26, 2013 - 09:49pm PT
Only ignorant men with poor fund of knowledge think "science" is independent from God .......


only children and ignorant adults with poor intelligence think "god" has anything to do with science



there, fixed that for ya
WBraun

climber
Mar 26, 2013 - 09:51pm PT
what exists in the physical world (including experience) that after the fact, you cannot reverse engineer to antecedent causes or factors?

That would be "Time" itself for it is without properties, and it is perceived only by it's effects .......
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 26, 2013 - 09:55pm PT
...meaning at no time could you trace the appearence of water back to the matchstick. If water showed up it would be owing to the kid with the hose.

Yeah, bad example. Never took a chemistry class, huh?
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 26, 2013 - 10:05pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Does this say it all?
NO, It doesn't, there is more...
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Mar 26, 2013 - 10:15pm PT
So in this light maybe the question is: what exists in the physical world (including experience) that after the fact, you cannot reverse engineer to antecedent causes or factors?

My reply would be my meditative experiences. While I am open to the idea that maybe I produced them all in my own mind myself, for that to have happened, I have to have much more insight and knowledge than I am aware of. Of course it can be argued that the information was there all the time, I was just unaware of its presence until those breakthrough experiences. However, I doubt the folks on this thread would be willing to admit that I'm at least three times smarter than I normally appear using my usual state of consciousness which I do see connected to genetics and life experiences. LOL !

What is so interesting about the meditation tradition I follow (kundalini yoga) is that the spectacular biochemical and electrical experiences always are preceded by an insightful, wisdom oriented, forgiveness oriented, open to whatever help I can get attitude. I never have these experiences when concentrating on anything but understanding the nature of the spiritual universe, improving myself as a person, improving my understanding and interactions with other people, or helping another person or animal in dire need. The latter is of course the definition of the purpose of the spiritual life.

While open to unexplored knowledge of the power of the brain from a materialistic science point of view, until that aspect of the brain can be explained and predicted by science, I will continue to believe that there are dimensions to this universe that are not physical or at least not understood by science yet.

I suspect there are others on this thread who concur, but let me be the one to say it.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 26, 2013 - 10:37pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 26, 2013 - 11:15pm PT
Best answer so far is werner's, time. But you could also include all math and physics at least, that have no antecedent factors. Maybe basic principles of things, just exist without being an effect of some cause.

On the other hand, if you're asking if there's anything that just happens on its own without being caused by something else, unless you have something in mind you would be trying to prove a negative, that there is no cause. Or maybe you don't know the cause. Let's say a radioactive atom decays that has a half life of 1000 years. What made it decay at that particular moment instead of 1000 years from now? Maybe someone knows the answer, I don't. But assuming no one does, could you really say its random and has no cause? When you're talking about probabilities, it makes me think of the weather forecast. Maybe it will snow, maybe not. For that one, I would say that we're just not up to the task, but if we were, it would be determinable. So if you come up with something with no cause, I think the challenge would be, how do you know that?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 27, 2013 - 12:50am PT
John,

As for reading comprehension, this is how it went down.

You said:

Some "hard" physicalists might even say that if we had all the relevant data, we could predict a person's behavior down to the smallest nuance.

Since I have heard the opposite of this, I said:

Name one. Just one who isn't a crank.

I should have said, "Name one decent scientist."

I never said anything about a topic being a crank. I want you to find one good scientist who claims that if you know the position and state of every particle in the Universe, you can define what will happen in the future.

You can't. That is the nature of chaotic and turbulent systems. You can know every position and be unable to work it backwards as well.

That doesn't mean that it is entirely useless. You can work with probabilities, also known as statistics.

Find a modern scientist who thinks that the entire future of the universe can be determined with absolute knowledge of any state in time.

You already said, "Some." I say NONE. That is all I'm saying.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 27, 2013 - 01:07am PT
what exists in the physical world (including experience) that after the fact, you cannot reverse engineer to antecedent causes or factors?

you don't know, and you cannot know...
--


If you cannot show the connectedness between linear physical processes in the physical world, if in fact we "don't know and cannot know" such things," then on what grounds can we claim a bottom-up reductionistic model as valid? This pretty much scraps a hard-deterministic model as well if we are saying that ther is no such connectdness - unless we default out of the conversation and claim there IS a mechaical, determined connectedness, but we just don't know and cannot know what it is.

If science is built on the verity of predictions, on what factors are such predictions based if not a time-bound chain of events (including chaotic and random factors)?

By what process does any thing arise? Or is creation itself a misnomer?

Only some will ever find such things interesting. I accept that going in. But fobbing off non-answers and the intemperate panty waste snipes of a Cintune do little to further the conversation IMO.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 27, 2013 - 01:26am PT
John,

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

A lot of scientific data is statistical. A LOT of it is statistical. You can repeat an experiment many times and look at the range of results. It depends upon the experiment, of course.

Everyone with a science degree who also took statistics please raise your hand.

Mine goes up.
Paul Martzen

Trad climber
Fresno
Mar 27, 2013 - 02:25am PT
Base wrote,
There are other things that we don't qualify at all, such as happiness.
Not sure if you meant qualify or quantify or what your exact intent was. I think you meant that happiness is still out of reach of understanding by science. I don't think that is the case myself.

I think one problem with understanding happiness is that we are so culturally saturated with foolish ideas about happiness that it is hard to see the fairly obvious actual evidence about happiness. Then when we continually find that the happiness promised by songs, religion, salespeople, advertising, and on and on, don't actually work out, we fall back on the idea that happiness is some sort of magic.

In my opinion, a big myth/problem idea is that happiness is some sort of steady state that is achievable if we do the right thing, pray to the right god, say the right incantation, buy the right product, and on and on. Clearly that is not the case, but we disbelieve the evidence and assume that we just didn't do the incantations right, didn't believe quite hard enough, should have gotten a better product, should have married somebody else.

The evidence, which all of us experience, is that happiness is a very transitory state which fades quite rapidly after each experience that generates it. Rock climbing supplies pretty good lessons of the nature of
happiness. We get to the top of a climb, and maybe we are happy at our accomplishment. But then as the feeling fades, we start thinking about what to do next. If happiness was some sort of steady state, then we could just stay on top of a mountain and remain happy. If we believe that happiness can be a permanent condition, some sort of heaven, but we ourselves can't maintain it, we assume something is wrong with ourselves.

My personal, best guess at the moment about the nature of happiness is that it is a feeling we get as we make progress in dealing with problems. So, as I make progress on a climb, I feel pretty happy. As a crux is passed or the climb is completed, the tension is released and that feeling bursts forth stronger. But then it immediately starts fading and I start looking for new problems to solve. With some accomplishments/experiences the sense of happiness fades pretty fast while with others it seems to fade slowly.

Whether or not my hypothesis is on the right track, it seems to me possible and worthwhile to try and find useful questions to ask about emotions and happiness. To me, useful questions are ones that lead somewhere. Where we don't know.

Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 27, 2013 - 07:40am PT
Good point Paul. I listened to a psychology course on itunes, I think it was from Yale, and the prof told a very interesting story. He said, what would be the best thing I could imagine happening to me? He says, he could win the nobel prize in pyschology. For a few days at least, he'd feel like king of the world, but then being a nobel prize winner would be normal and the feeling would wear off. Then what? He'd have to win a second nobel prize, and be the first psychologist to ever do so. Again, the buzz would only last a few days, and life would be back to normal. Then he said, what would be the worst thing that he could imagine? How about being hit by a car and paralyzed from the neck down? As it turns out, when people in that condition are studied, they're just as happy as everyone else. I'll take his word for that, I guess. The moral of the story is ... this is how your brain works. You may be able to imagine a steady state of happiness, but it's not physiologically possible.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 27, 2013 - 10:19am PT
But fobbing off non-answers and the intemperate panty waste snipes of a Cintune do little to further the conversation IMO.

So sorry, but if you're going to keep trying to lead the "conversation" by the nose to its foregone conclusion, you should at least make an effort to get your facts straight. Otherwise people might get the false impression that you really have no f*#king clue what you're talking about, right?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 27, 2013 - 10:41am PT
then on what grounds can we claim a bottom-up reductionistic model as valid?

by predicting the outcome of an experiment, observation or measurement. One tries many different approaches to that prediction, some work, most do not... you keep nibbling away at the edges, sometimes you get big chunks...

...the basic premise is that a physical observable has a physical cause. Pretty simple.

Maybe you use some hoity-toity emergent theory, or just get down and dirty in the bits... it doesn't matter as long as you are able to predict...


It took me all this time to get you to say that.

Now that you have, we can proceed. A "cause" by any definition is an event in space and time. Such events and causes flow forward through time, the theory goes, meaning some future event does not create anything in the present.

Now if we were to get "down and dirty in the bits," your definition above implies that during an experiment, the string of causes/events, flowing forward in time, are connected to each other? That is, one physical event or experimental outcome is connected to a prior one, and that if we know the one at the bottom, we can reason forward and predict the outcome. This would be true even if we were using a "map" that did not correspond one-to-one to reality - isn't this what you are saying? But the string of causes, from the bottom up, that are posited on your map are connected one to the other, at least in theory.

Now if this were not the case, "things" arising in the universe would need not have an antecedent or prior cause. They would literally emerge out of "nothing," much as Craig would have us believe that DNA basically invented itself out of nothing at all - but it just took a long-ass time.

My point here is we run into problems if we try and have it both ways. If as Ed is saying, an observable "thing" has a physical cause, with no exception, there we know as much only through something's connectedness to that cause. Ed threw the ball; BASE (Mark) caught it. If a "cause" is NOT connected to th4e emergence of a physical thing, "cause" becomes a meaningless word.

Also, and we went over this already, what you are talking about with "space" (and my lack of understanding same) are is not void or total lack of thingness, that was being argued recently at a conference mentioned on this thread. You refer to stuff like quantum fields and potentialities existing within a true void, which is neither a background or a foreground, but is the entire lack of "ground." Our rational minds cannot get hold of "no-thingness." So our minds focus on the stuff we can grab onto and label.

As I said earlier, you can look at physical reality and never see this void, just as you can look at a brain and never, in 1,000,000 "see" subjective experience. But we know it is there. And that's amazing.

What generates every thing in the first place, or the search for first ("efficient") causes, is an even bigger playing field.

JL
MH2

climber
Mar 27, 2013 - 12:18pm PT

you can look at physical reality and never see this void


If the void is real and has a role to play in physical reality why could it not be detected?


you can look at a brain and never, in 1,000,000 "see" subjective experience


If subjective experience is connected to brain activity why could it not be detected by instruments?


Remember that not too long ago we did not know that we are made up of cells.
WBraun

climber
Mar 27, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
If the void is real and has a role to play in physical reality why could it not be detected?

Because it's only detected thru the soul.

I keep stressing that we are not are our material bodies.

Yet material science has an authoritarian grip and hard fixed anchor on the fundamental defect that is rooted in gross materialism.

That is their root dogmatic consciousness that prevents them from going forward.

They are dumbfounded and stuck even though they keep discovering more about the material world it's still ultimately only material that they are discovering.

Their tools are not the right tools for what their really looking for .....
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 27, 2013 - 01:53pm PT

you can look at a brain and never, in 1,000,000 "see" subjective experience


If subjective experience is connected to brain activity why could it not be detected by instruments?


This comes from an old thought experiment form Liebnitz. Instruments detect objective functioning, the firing of neurons and so forth. There is noting in that activity that suggests you are smelling a rose or hearing a siren. Scientists don't normally insist that one discrete thing is in fact something else. That's why saying that subjectivity IS objectivity is the very essence of science fiction.

And like I said, just note how the rational mind cannot grasp no thing, or true void. The brain can only grock onto some quality, ergo we keep trying to make void into a thing we can detect.

JL

go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Mar 27, 2013 - 02:01pm PT
As Easter approaches my hope is the you come to a saving knowledge in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that you can forgive me this cut-n-past!

And that you would but take the time to read this short intro and first chapter into the Gosple of John, from the book of edited messages of Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee, radio program http://www.ttb.org/...


Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Thru The Bible, by J. Vernon McGee
Credit: go-B


Before I go back into the cyber wilderness, the Real Voice is not on TV, but from God...

John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
jstan

climber
Mar 27, 2013 - 02:07pm PT
Spare us, please.

On the Uses of Subjective Experience

It has none.


When I began studying physics we used voltmeters with a little mirror across the face and behind the needle. It was there so one could line up the needle with its image thereby assuring the observer's line of sight was normal to the instrument. This was done because errors in subjective experience can occur. If the meter with the needed sensitivity was not available you could also have three people repeat a series of readings in random order and then check to make sure all three sets had very similar averages. Why? To get subjective experience the hell out of the experiment.

None of the values read will be identical because no two persons will have the same subjective experience even under identical stimuli.

Granted subjective experience can be a trip. Indeed, perhaps we should consider subjective experience to be just another form of tripping. We can indulge in this and perhaps even enjoy it.
But once it is over

have you got anything useful in the real world?

When small I had the job of fixing small engines. I learned nature is very unforgiving. I was successful only when I got the engine to run reliably. It is easy to pretend you have succeeded.

But until I heard the engine running, I had failed.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 27, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
Sure - lets compare Bible notes!

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1 Samuel 15:3 (King James Bible, Cambridge Ed.)

And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until you come to Shur, that is over against Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatted calves, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

15:7-15:9.

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD your God does give you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes:

Deuteronomy 20:16

And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.

Joshua 6:17

It goes on and on like this ...
Messages 12861 - 12880 of total 22587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews