Topic: Why Science Does Not Disprove God (Read 7927 times)

Oh!
Just thinking about this concept triggered a reminder of something quite similar which I read, it is on the topic of Cosmology... Let me know if this is what you are getting at?

The ultimate super weak force, the fundamental force that lead to Consciousness.

13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the earliest, first known thing in the creation?
Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?
Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.

13.7 Questioner: After this, what happened?
Ra: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

13.8 Questioner: Can you state the next step?
Ra: The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion. The next step is an infinite reaction to the creative principle following the Law of One in one of its primal distortions, freedom of will. Thus many, many dimensions, infinite in number, are possible. The energy moves from the intelligent infinity due first to the outpouring of randomized creative force, this then creating patterns which in holographic style appear as the entire creation no matter which direction or energy is explored. These patterns of energy begin then to regularize their own local, shall we say, rhythms and fields of energy, thus creating dimensions and universes.

Yep, I'll agree this one doesn't have so much outright practical value outside of a subtle suggestion to just relax once in a while

You guys are dropping some weird sophistry in this thread.  Those three premises and conclusion seem to me to be as vacuous and dereft of explication as any other tautology you might come up with.

You guys are dropping some weird sophistry in this thread.  Those three premises and conclusion seem to me to be as vacuous and dereft of explication as any other tautology you might come up with.

Just stemming from this last idea...

I had spent some time trying to answer the "What is the purpose of life?" question, and I came up with the following:

Premise 1: The purpose of a purpose is to be purposeful according to whatever constitutes a purpose.
Premise 2: The purpose of life is to be purposeful according to whatever constitutes life.
Premise 3: Living constitutes life.
Therefore: The purpose of life is to live.

Just stemming from this last idea...

I had spent some time trying to answer the "What is the purpose of life?" question, and I came up with the following:

Premise 1: The purpose of a purpose is to be purposeful according to whatever constitutes a purpose.
Premise 2: The purpose of life is to be purposeful according to whatever constitutes life.
Premise 3: Living constitutes life.
Therefore: The purpose of life is to live.

The very fact people here can compare themselves to apes if proof they are not.


Motivation is the driving force that causes the flux from desire to will in life. For example, hunger is a motivation that elicits a desire to eat.

Motivation has been shown to have roots in physiological, behavioral, cognitive, and social areas. Motivation may be rooted in a basic impulse to optimize well-being, minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure. It can also originate from specific physical needs such as eating, sleeping or resting, and sex.

Motivation is an inner drive to behave or act in a certain manner. These inner conditions such as wishes, desires and goals, activate to move in a particular direction in behavior.


Is to state "I have no purpose in life" a lie?

Doesn't matter - I'm an ape too - 'grunt'.
Feel free to grunt back.
Maybe you'll attract  a mate through online grunting and pass on your genes.

If any of the above have been observed under reasonable experimental conditions by skeptics, well... www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w

How quaint that according to you, we understand that we are animals and that there is no God, but cannot understand "most of everything".  

The top 40 cases in support of the survival hypothesis can lead to an understanding of mind; one based on evidence:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

You have to be REALLY CLEVER to come up with a parsimonious explanation that does not entail survival.

And it's really not that complicated; rebirth is one of the central concepts in spirituality. Even Darwin recognized it:

"As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities"

  
  not gravity, it is such a weak force
Electricity, instead.
the sun an anode, the deep void the ground
plasma is everywhere, they say, making up 99.999% of all there is
and it conducts electricity
you blink an eye, electric current at the synapses, through the nerves, the eye is refreshed, life goes on

even as you are electric, the universe is electric

  I am that I am.  i am he, so are you.

  energy cannot be created, or destroyed.
      = death is an illusion

valentine michael smith (R.A.H. Stranger in a Strange Land) said it best:

  "Thou art God"

I'm proposing that the human mind is limited and we are biologically incapable of understanding most of everything - it doesn't matter how hard we try - we are not clever enough.

"need" implies a sort of universal purpose which I don't think there's a reason to assume.


(n.b. the below is a highly simplified explanation - the more complicated version is beyond my understanding)

We know that matter and energy are equivalent, as cryptodevil points out. The fundamental forces that affect energy give rise to complex equations, the solutions of which are the various types of particle we observe as matter. The n-body equations derived from the forces affecting a small subset of those particles (protons, electrons and neutrons) give rise to the structure and properties of the elements on the periodic table, which make up us, our planet and the vast majority of the matter that we observe.

Why are the fundamental forces calibrated the way that they are? Why do they affect the particles that they do? Why is there matter at all? Why is there more matter than antimatter? These are some of the great unanswered questions in physics.


"I think, therefore I am" is hardly a natural law from which to derive physical conclusions. As far as I see it, consciousness is not some special physical phenomenon of its own - we are essentially programs running on large, complex, biological computers that have evolved in order to effectively reproduce our host bodies, and we are as mundane and explainable as the electronic computers that we have recently learned to build (albeit far more complex). It is as nonsensical to ask "what happens to our consciousness after we die" as it is to ask "what happens to the computer after it is taken apart?"

What do you mean by need? I think essentially everything is the result of gravity. Without it what would could exist?

So we have the intelligence to create technologies that are capable of measuring the reality that is far beyond our biological limitations, but you are proposing what, exactly? That because there are aspects of the Universe that are yet to be fully understood . . .therefore God?

Or what? Therefore . . .something you want to arbitrarily claim is possible based solely on your imagination? Not exactly reasonable, is it?

Goodness me, the level of misunderstanding and outright misrepresentation being shown here is staggering.
'Spiritualists', first stop assuming that such a thing as a 'spirit' exists and then seeking to cherry-pick information to support your assumption.

We are a brain that functions as a filter, otherwise the sheer amount of data our senses receive would absolutely render us incapable of functioning. Our sense of 'self' is that filter. All information we currently have about the brain suggest this to be so.

'Intelligent Design' Creationists, no, no you may not keep pointing us in the direction of shonky science 'proof' that, likewise, serves to misrepresent data in order to work backwards to your intended aim of claiming your assertion as anything more than utterly baseless wild speculation.

What is it about theism that encourages so much dishonesty?

@Joint - Warmth, you've been told already is not definable outside of subjective personal sensory perspective. Otherwise it is simply a 'temperature' objectively measurable by technologies we create to do so.

The 'feeling' you get at one level of 'warmth' is not going to be the same 'feeling' I get, or someone else gets. Our brain, our body, creates sensory feedback from reactions from the radiation of heat across nerves which fire information to the brain and gets translated into 'warmth' as a rapid way for us to interpret the level of heat in order to what? Yes, in order to ensure we react to it quick enough not to get burnt! It allows us to respond without actually having to spend time thinking about it.

Without nerve signalling to the brain, in cases where there is numbness, people find themselves only knowing they are burning their skin when they smell it cooking.

@Wilikon - E=MC² In a nutshell, matter is energy slowed down. Matter and energy interact with different types of matter and energy to create, guess what, different matter and energy types!

'Spiritualists', first stop assuming that such a thing as a 'spirit' exists and then seeking to cherry-pick information to support your assumption.

*cough* Bollocks! *cough*