Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13001 - 13020 of total 22349 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:27pm PT
There's only ONE God period.

Why did the Egyptians have different gods?
The Romans?
The Babylonians?
The Norse?
WBraun

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
Why did the Egyptians have different gods?


They didn't.

Due to poor fund knowledge by you they only were worshiping the demigods ......

Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:43pm PT
What's a demigod?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:45pm PT
Malemute
Turn on ABC right now and watch The 10 Comandments.
That'll answer ur questions

Edit: Awe come on Capt'in, you don't have to believe in the bible to be able to appreciate
one of the best movies ever made. Just the depiction of the Egyptian life is Awesome!
Captain...or Skully

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:46pm PT
Or not.
Lynne Leichtfuss

Sport climber
moving thru
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:52pm PT
Gosh, I just stopped in to say hi to Dr. F. But then got to reading this last page. So much to respond to and think about. I wish I was retired.....or re- tired....I must be to tired. :DDDLOL Did anyone get that but me?

I love all yo guys. A Happy and Blessed Easter from lynnie.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:52pm PT
Turn on ABC right now and watch The 10 Comandments.
That'll answer ur questions
no it won't.

I repeat, "what's a demigod?"
Furthermore, who created the demigods?
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2013 - 10:53pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Hi Lynne L
Yes, please join in on the conversation
WBraun

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 10:57pm PT
Demigods are very powerful agents of God to take care of the various administrative duties of the material creation.

The Sun God Ra as example.

He provides illumination.

Without illumination there would be no life nor knowledge.

These demigods are not metaphors.

They actually exist.

Their bodily feature are not visible normally to mundane living entities but their attributes are seen by material science in various capacities.

Not all demigods are spiritual entities.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2013 - 11:01pm PT
How do they work, since they don't have a brain or mind?
What do they do?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 30, 2013 - 11:24pm PT
If God is all powerful, why does he need agents?
Can't he do telekinesis?

Did the sun god Ra create all the stars? If so, why did God take the credit?

Do the agents & God share a hive mind?

Why did the Egyptians worship the agents? Did God never reveal himself to the Egyptians?

Why did God allow the Egyptians to build the pyramids?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 30, 2013 - 11:53pm PT
I'm not Ed's buddy, although I would like to meet him someday. He is far smarter than me.

I will say this, because it is pretty obvious:

Don't confuse the quantum world with the classical Newtonian world, JL. You can fly to Mars and do it all with classic mechanics. I am pretty sure that the velocities are so low that any relativity correction is also minute. So yeah, you can send a rover to Mars using classic mechanics. Correct me again, Ed.

If you want to get really precise with relativity, unless you spend a lot of time standing on your head, your head is older than your feet. I read that NIST placed two atomic clocks next to each other, but one was slightly higher (and therefore revolved around the Earth at a slightly faster speed than the lower clock. They measured it. I'm not sure if it was just a fun trick, but it is true. We covered relativity in Physics 1 and 2 as undergrads. Quantum physics deals with probabilities, but it works.

The best lay book that I have ever read on the topic is "QED" by Feynman. His path integral, and the notion that light travels in every conceivable path, isn't that hard to understand, because he was a great teacher. It came from a lecture to a non science audience, but it still takes some real thinking to get through it. It is a small book. Less than a hundred pages. No equations.

The Apple falls from the tree, and what happens can be predicted with great precision. Unless you are dealing with a really huge mass or a very high velocity, you can get by with Newton's physics, the groundwork of which was published in the late 1600's.

Can you imagine how bright that guy was? He not only gave us laws of motion that are applicable today, but he also did great work in mathematics. Calculus, for example, which is pretty amazing given that he had a pen and paper only. There were no calculators back then.

Other than our electronic gizmos, we wander about our merry lives using Newton's laws of motion. Ed can correct any oversight of that statement.

John, you seem hung up on something that the five classic senses can't feel. That doesn't necessarily imply the comedic "sixth sense," but you desperately avoid all of these quite logical and very fruitful avenues of explanation and prediction.

We can control our minds fairly easily. You can obsess about some wrong and get unreasonably angry. You can dream of that girl who got away and feel longing. Our minds can control their own output. Just look at the range of beliefs in this world, none of which are physically caused.

The thing about reductionism and determinism is "Where are they applicable?" Another way to say it is, "Will they be fruitful in this particular case?"

Some really great ideas came from a great imagination and a pencil and paper. You could say the same thing about art.

I'm a simpleton. I suggest that you use small words.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 30, 2013 - 11:54pm PT
Werner's exsposure is very illuminating.


Drf
How do they work, since they don't have a brain or mind?
What do they do?

Your very scientificlly predictable in your questioning.
But you can't understand the matters of the spirit
By asking material questions
MH2

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 12:03am PT

Put simply, once you hold said "thing" up to the light, who and "what, exactly," witnesses same?





JL,

If you are questioning who and what you are then science is not going to give you a complete answer. I've never seen anyone on this thread claim that it will.

However, if you are curious about how your mind works, science has a lot to tell you.

You say that experience is a process, not a thing.

Is a river a process or a thing? If you have a river with a small gradient and straight parallel banks, the water flows in straight lines with the fastest flow in the middle. If you take that river and gradually steepen the gradient, at some point the water starts swirling. Why does that happen?

Even simple nervous systems perceive and react to light. There are many things we don't understand about thinking but there is no reason to believe we won't eventually come to know a lot more. It will be the human nervous system that witnesses whatever understanding we develop.

Aren't things being held up to the light in this thread and witnessed? Is it so mysterious?

Couldn't neurons produce your experience in the same sense that water makes a river?
Lynne Leichtfuss

Sport climber
moving thru
Mar 31, 2013 - 12:06am PT
Thanks for the very beautiful picture, Craig. That about sums up all I feel about god, religion and science. Love yo Dude. What beauty you propagate. Wish we were having a climbing get together this spring in JTree. Will miss seeing all you Stonemasters. Cheers, lynnie
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 12:23am PT

Couldn't neurons produce your experience in the same sense that water makes a river?

Isnt the cause of a river the fact that two water cells can't occupy
the same space?

Or is it gravity?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 31, 2013 - 12:26am PT
That seems to be obvious, there is no "information" exchange that couples the two trajectories together.


Okay, I'll put it as simply as I can, Ed. And for the last time, I DO NOT have a hang up on some flunky causal model with a domino like string of events. I'm prying at you not to try and get you to admit something your ae skilled at wiggling out of. So answer this.

You mentioned an Initial Condition, and Final Condition. We can safely say that the IC occurred in time BEFORE the FC. So in this sense we can say they occurred sequentially, IC, then FC. So far so good. Now, regardless of what happened in the time between IC and FC, above and beyond location and velocity, what is your belief about how FC is connected to IC, or put differently, forgetting about any causes, why does FC follow IC at all (again, FORGETTING about location and velocity for purpose of this question.

A physics friend would have me ask you this - and admitedly it is a set up, but I doubt that I can remember just how she phrased it. So I might bungle it here but who's keeping score anyhow? This is just a discussion.

Say we have the intitial condition and final condition of an experiment. And because it is a dynamic process, never static, we use the metaphor of a movie to describe the experiment. Granted we can only take "snap shots," as Ed described it, or freeze frames using the movie metaphor. So far so good.

Now let's say the experiment is the old Baking Soda & Vinegar Volcano, the classic science fair demonstration in which you simulate a volcanic eruption using kitchen chemicals: baking soda, vinegar, water, detergent, food coloring and either a bottle or else you can build a dough volcano.

Now say we execute the volcano experiment with fantastic precision, as they can do in world class labs, and say we conduct the VERY SAME EXPERIMENT 1,000 times and we take exactly the same time to do so, under the same conditions, every time, down to a nano second. And say between the initial or beginning of the movie and the final or end of the movie, we take exactly twenty stills (at the most "fundamental" moments) or freeze frame of what transpired during the super controlled volcano experiment.

Now given that the 1,000 volcano experiments are done the same, and the twenty shots of said experiments were also taken at exactly the same time and in exactly the same sequence as the experiment transpired, how closely do you think that each set of 20 photos (corresponding to 1,000 selfsame versions of the same volcano experiment) would match up with any other set of photos? Would the sequence of the photos be identifiably the same in each set, or in some cases might photo 7 in set 105, match photo 19 in set 567, and maybe photo 16 in set 821 would match photo 2 in set 290? In other words, would the sequence of shots show a certain order, or would they appear in a totally and unpredictable and random sequence, every time.

Again, do you believe there would be some uniformity to the sequence of the photos, set to set, and if so, why would photo 9, and the conditions thereof, consistently issue from photo 8, and in turn, lead to the condition in photo 10?

And remember, we're not asking for "causes," or WHY?

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 31, 2013 - 12:54am PT
If you are questioning who and what you are then science is not going to give you a complete answer. I've never seen anyone on this thread claim that it will.
--

Good God, that's just a horrifically misinformed quip on what I'm been saying all along. Since when have I expected science to experientially answer the koan, "Who am I?" This isn't some bullshit psychological question answered with a dash from your evaluating mind. That's CONTENT. I couldn't have made it clearer that the answer to the "Who am I" question can NEVER be addressed with content or mere data. And the very idea that a treatise on objective functioning is even talking about the same thing seems remarkable to me, coming from a doctor.

This really is the most obdurant crowd in terms of fusion to a perspective. It was the NLP people who said to never argue with people tranced by a perspective, but like the US invading Afsghanistan, I am guilty of not listening to expert opinions.

Experientially KNOWING who you are is a totally different animal than reckoning yourself via congnitive/conditioned evaluations, psycholocially, biologically, et al. The difference is known by all experienced climbers, who recognize one can "know" things about El Cap by way of Roper's old Green Guidebook, but go spend a month up there and the experience will tell you a totally different story.

JL
Captain...or Skully

climber
Mar 31, 2013 - 12:58am PT
Not yet.
Double talk, Largo. Otherwise known as baloney.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 31, 2013 - 01:01am PT
Largo's exposure is illuminating also..

Must be that time of the year.

Thank You it's very prophetable
Messages 13001 - 13020 of total 22349 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