First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Flaws Behind Physics
1536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Montréal, Canada
Offline
Posted 7/15/07

azrael910 wrote:


entityrj wrote:


djzabou wrote:


azrael910 wrote:


djzabou wrote:


You don't look for it. If finds you. The meaning of life can and will be shown to you in due time.


This is the kind of horse shit that pisses me off. I'm not even going to dignify this schlock with a response.


Lookif I really do have to give you an explanation, its going to take some major ass wooping but I don't have to take out a beating stick to make you understand do I? Look, Your the one who says that you've looked up stuff and you cant find anything that will change your mind so ,ok we got the picture. I give you a simple response to your comment and you give me this ****** Sorry for giving you easy advise. Are you going to charge money for responses so that I have to justify your life with a long ass answer. ( People who create sh*** get sh***)

You gave him a fortune-cookie answer when he actually had a laid-out response. That's insulting of course.


Yeah that's pretty much it right there. There was no content there, none. I could have received better advice in my horoscope for the day. Don't take the time to respond unless you have something to say. I may not agree with Seraph, but he does do his best to explain his view. (which is why I take the time to respond).

EDIT: I wish Mauz still posted... he was always a joy in threads like this... DAMN YOU MOD STATUS! why do you make all the cool people go away!!!


And you say that you took your time to carfully select thoses words to piss other people off, my my, (I see your point)
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/15/07

The supernatural is not a logical answer. I don't think it's an impossible answer, however I don't find it remotely logical since nothing has ever been definitively proven to be supernatural.


Yes it is. As I’ve been forced to repeat half a million times, just because something is super natural does not mean it is magical. I honestly believe God is just an entity in which all the things he does is scientifically possible, but that they are supper-naturally scientific. A science above our science above or at least outside our science.


Explain to me how the core religion has been modified or changed. everything is subject to interpretation, and people practice it differently, but i don't recall any heavy editing to the core belief structure in quite a while.


The concept of God has completely evolved, especially in Christianity. The appliance of logic, mathematics, and physics to religion have also been integrated thus profoundly changing the mystic way of looking at religion. It’s changed in many ways, the difference is that Religion doesn’t have a good social picture. People always ignore the charities and good effects religion has had on the world and point out The Crusades and the Muslim zealots. However they ignore the bad side behind science. The weaponry being the bane of countless lives, nuclear weapons, the diseases and disorders it has created. No. Instead when you bring up science people think of technological conveniences and medical advantages.


Fair enough, I should have specified mainstream western religion. Eastern religion is a completely different ball of wax. I think there are logical flaws in religions like that, but their claims aren't quite so absolute.

For the record, I was wiccan for two years in my younger stupider days and that's really not a subject you want to get me started on. I can think of few religions more riddled with holes than that mess. More of one giant LARP to be honest.


A wiccan and a witch are not quite the same thing. Wiccans technically worship nature, Witches directly worship demons spirits and the devil. However, I do think it’s a fickle religion personally. Like the Muslim religion. (In my opinion.)

Also, Scientology is not an eastern religion.

The core of religion has greatly changed. Back to the creation ‘semantics.’ In Christianity the creation was the spawn of matter, time, and energy. In scientology it’s the building of life as we know it through materials already in existence…in this case alien ghosts… O_O (Scientology is ridiculous in my opinion.)


Well that just seems like semantics to me, which is certainly open to interpretation. Are you arguing that the big bang and other scientific theories were those used in religious descriptions of creation? That certainly sounds perfectly reasonable to me - certainly more reasonable than *poof* god magick!!


This is what I mean. In my opinion the super natural is scientific and not magical. This being said something divine can be logical. In fact based on logic and physics there must in fact be something that existed before and outside of the creation of time and matter. A source of energy. Not necessarily God or a deity, but something super-natural in that it is not something we can comprehend. Like the subatomic particles we conversed about earlier. Can’t comprehend them, but they are there, or our system wouldn’t work. If they were not real then existence as we know it would fall apart. God is the same way.

If you study physics and the big-bang you will find that the big bang was the result of the collision of matter and antimatter, which causes a massive upsurge of energy that in the end actually produces matter. However matter is nearly energy ‘bottled’ up. Mass is energy and energy is mass. Antimatter is just matter with an opposite charge so it is the same way. This being said it takes energy for there to be matter or antimatter which are both the necessary items for there to have been a big bang by the theory itself. Basically this is all something very complicated to show something incredibly simple. The Big-Bang is sciences greatest support for the existence of something supper-natural. In order for it to have occurred there had to be an outside source of energy. This the supernatural.


The thing is you reference them as hard data. You can't do that unless you're prepared to provide support for your claims. When you reference supernatural occurrences as proof for anything, I'm going to call you on it.


No, you imagined that. I simply explained a bit of my own thinking. Sort of a representation of why what I say is credible and possibly unbiased. I’ve been an atheist and a Christian so I can see both sides of the fence better than the average individual. I simply explained why I converted to avoid having the question arise.

[

Quite the contrary. Religion makes the absolute claim of being infallible. Therefore, it is incapable of fault. So proving it's fallibility is part of proving it false. So if fault can be found, the whole house of cards come tumbling down. I don't think it is a claim that should be swept under the rug.


I don’t think you are comprehending the concept I am presenting properly. How can I put this simply…? Okay, basically what I am saying is that just because logic supports or counters something does not mean that it is or is not real. I put flaw in ‘’’s because I’m being specific. Not just flaw in general, but a logical flaw. The paradox of omnipotence, for example, which has many times been called proof that there cannot be a God.

Take my little electron for example. It counter-acts basic logic and common sense. But it’s mathematically proven that an electron spins twice before presenting the same face. Once again if it didn’t behave as it did the structure of everything wouldn’t work the way it does so it must in fact work the way it does. It’s like a car. If this didn’t set a spark off then the gasoline would not light and the vehicle would not work. The vehicle does work, however, and therefore it must send off a spark.

So can God create something greater than God? Well it’s not something we can comprehend whatever the case. But just as this electron can be spinning without presenting the same face each time so, perhaps, can God be omnipotent without being able to do something or while doing something like making something greater than him. You understand? It’s the logically illogical, the paradox of physics itself.


Whether you believe in gravity or not doesn't make any difference as to whether or not your going to fall if you jump of a cliff, no matter how hard you believe you're going to fly. I guess you could argue that just because it occurs doesn't mean the theory is correct (it could be something else entirely resulting in the same effect), but the predicted result is occurring just as expected.


That’s false. Gravity effects time and thus for time to be in its current linear form there must be gravity. Basically things wouldn’t be the way they were if there wasn’t gravity. I don’t know how to point this out any better. But gravity is by fact real. Because logic, math, and science said so. (More proof that science has the same kind of word as religion. You’re defense of it is further proof.)

As far as your statement about the mountain, once again your ignoring the fact that there are scientifically documented cases of scientifically ‘impossible’ invents just like that. But, just because religion is attached to it you discredit it immediately. This is narrow-minded and ignorant.

Religion is a science because it is a part of physics which is the mother of science. You may not like it but it’s a fact. Just as much if not more so then your mountain statement. None the less, there is scientific evidence of miraculous things that cannot be explained by science having happened, but you ignore these simply because you don’t want to believe it.


I guess everything requires a certain amount of faith, but the extent of faith required is what separates them. I have faith in science because it is something thoroughly tested and researched. So I can accept the possibility of errors, especially since science will reevaluate itself if contradicting evidence is discovered. Religion requires an extreme leap of faith that can't be tested or researched, thats something I can't accept.


You’re wrong. Science is not always thoroughly tested. If you’ve actually studied physics you would know most of it is just concept and theory, just like religion. Things which cannot be tested but only theorized.

Anyway, religion is a part of physics. You won’t find a credible physics book that doesn’t mention it or God. But most of physics cannot be Most of the concepts in physics cannot be tested. They can only be thought out. Nothing more. Basic logic. Like those math problems they give you in 9th grade. “Spot is a dog. If then all dogs have three legs Spot must have three legs.”


10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 7/15/07
Heres what I'm thinking you are saying. You are saying if you can't explain it by physics, it has to be god. Miracles are god's work. (Bluntly stated)

But heres what I'm thinking. You are thinking its either or. Now, if I was to think randomly, I can also say, it might be aliens. Aliens as far as we know, doesn't exist. But if we think logically, we can assume there are more signs of life other there than we know.

We know more about theres possibles of being aliens than god. Unless aliens are god......

For every miracle there always people out there to disprove it and some of them in fact, have. Its all god's work until we prove it otherwise.
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 7/15/07
i read through all that mess, and yet again you spend an absurd amount of hot air saying absolutely nothing.

you AGAIN mentioned miracles as proof without referencing a thing

there is scientific evidence of miraculous things that cannot be explained by science having happened


for the record, i'm taking college physics right now. i don't recall seeing religion or god show up yet. i suspect if i took it at Bob Jones i would find a "credible" enough text book to include rubish like that.

i don't consider scientology or neo-paganism mainstream western religions. i thought that was evident in my terminology, but apparently not. scientology is nothing more than a financial scheme and paganism a glorified LARP. by mainstream western religion i mean christianity, islam, judaism.

i'm done wasting time with your none sense. you're young, you have ample opportunity to discover more of the world.
42013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Fort Meade, MD
Offline
Posted 7/15/07

keelo wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Yes, I am really 16. However, I’m not smart. I’m just educated. I actually study something before I spew off. I also pray to God to help me present my arguments and to give me the gift of eloquence most of the time. (Like before this thread.) He typically says yes. That’s my belief, and I’ll probably bee flamed for it, but I believe that I look smart because God is using me. Who knows, I’m not trying to jam my religion down peoples throats, and that’s not what this thread is about. So maybe I’m just naturally eloquent. I don’t believe so though. Call it divine intervention or psychology, but whenever I pray for something I do better in it.


True, I agree with you there. Ask for God's help, and he'll give it to you. it's funny how scientists deny the great flood ever happened.for example they even found seashells that were on the summit of huge mountains.


seashells are found on the top of mountains because of the tectonic plate movement of our planet.
At some point in time every part of the world was underwater, but there were always points ABOVE water. that's the nature of tectonic plate shift. That's what makes our planet so different from the others in our solar system.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/16/07
haha azrael you should know better by now

>_> The first thing that came to mind after reading this thread:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

I don't know if should reply to the statements presented here, on the one hand I bet if I post, Eros would point and laugh at me for wasting my time but it also annoys me seeing some of the statements written here >_<

so maybe I'll edit this later
371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Chicago, IL
Offline
Posted 7/16/07

mauz15 wrote:

haha azrael you should know better by now

>_> The first thing that came to mind after reading this thread:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.


Dude that's an awesome quote! Can I jack that from you? I get into heated arguments ALL the time in the IT world and its like no matter what you say or claims you give they only have a bias point of view even though they're claims make no sense whatsoever.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/16/07
^ haha sure thing. It's from Bertrand Russell
418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/16/07
hmm i duno bout all this talk about god me im loselly buddhist, i belive the world is an "illusion", now illusion is a funny word cause if the entire world is an illision then an illision from the point of veiw of someone in that illusion is rather week, have i lost you yet im just getting started, so if were in an illusion our word for illusion dosnt realy meen illusionso i take illision to mean somthing else than the text book definition. so this is what i think, the univerce existed, im not shure about creation it dosnt realy matter to me, now according to physics with nothing to observe the univerce it wasnt defined until we or somthing else came along to give it definition this is the law of superposition, anything that hasnt been observed yet exists everywhere expet where it could be observed, weird i know. so with nothing to obseve it everything exists prety much evry where so if every thing exists every where everything has to happen and thats a whole lot to happen now with everything happing quite litraly at once some conbination of stuff has survive and grow long enough to obseve something this might have created the big bang cause we still dont know how that happend now if the first sencience (god/whoever, maybe) could surive the perfect chaos of everything existing everywhere a explosion with power beyond the scope of imagining is a little breeze and quite possibly this being could still exist but it dosnt matter if its a god or not cause its still traped in a universe thats defined by its inhabitants obsevations and what is an illusion but a small parcel of the universe created and defined by observation.
Posted 7/16/07

mauz15 wrote:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.



This is a common quote, nothing special.
It was also portrayed in one of the episodes of MAD TV. It was demonstrated in a scene where one of the prisoners telling his other comrades to pass along a message. The message was about planning to break out from the prison cell at midnight. Well, as the message was pass along from one person to another person, the message was "being unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
The actual intent of the message was jumbled, which to cut the story short, the actual plan did not happen.
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 7/16/07
^^ You lost me with your lack of periods and Capitalization and horrible spelling. English plox..

And that thing about us giving a definition to things belongs in philosophy and not in religion or science. And thats as far as I got to with your wall of incoherent text.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/16/07
well the "arguments" in this thread are common (unfortunately) so yeah that's the first thing that popped up in my mind. let's stop talking about it because it is off-topic
418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/16/07
i apologize for the bad spelling however i spell phoneticly so if you take some time you should be able to work it out, language is only avessel for thought i dont care how beutiful the vessel is, i am more concernd with the purity of the thought. so here's a thought for you:

what your all failing to realize that no matter what idol you worship (im using this metaphoricly, no offence ment) science or religion the interpertation of it relies on us and i have to say we are imperfect being if there's one thing we do well it's messing things up so any knowlege gained from any source is subject to bias because we have touched it

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
sory to bring this up again but it ilustrates my argument perfectly because we are all basicly stupid pepole tranlating the usniverses for lack of a better term "divine song" into thoughts and language that we can understand
P.S. i hope you take the time to read through my posts, if you dont so be it, your loss.
371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Chicago, IL
Offline
Posted 7/16/07

whatsome wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.



This is a common quote, nothing special.
It was also portrayed in one of the episodes of MAD TV. It was demonstrated in a scene where one of the prisoners telling his other comrades to pass along a message. The message was about planning to break out from the prison cell at midnight. Well, as the message was pass along from one person to another person, the message was "being unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
The actual intent of the message was jumbled, which to cut the story short, the actual plan did not happen.


How common of a quote is it? Hmm I would see that as a miscommunication rather than a misinterpretation of a clever man. It would be just the same as a simple game of telephone it has nothing to do with intelligence. Its like if I call someone on the phone and say did you get the Dell? The next person could say did you hear Bob got a bell. Then the next person could say oh Bob went to hell? and so on. I see the quote more as if i'm explaining how computer networking works to a complete novice it'll fly over their head and they'll just comprehend it by using what they know. I'm not sure if i explained that correctly its getting late and i'm getting to that stupid point.
418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/16/07
about us defining things its the law of superposition see Schrödinger's cat
EDIT: wrong wiki article, link changed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

oh and aperently the law of superposition has been used to refute gelogical theroys behind fossils on mountains
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.