RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Rule -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 12:50:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

Our universe is not expanding; that is merely an interpretation of a phenomenon, but not a fact.


Ah yes, the old it's-not-a-fact theological rebuttal to materialism. Well true, we do construct interpretations from phenomena. Tis a little activity we call science.

Vincent, no! Bad Vincent! Electroshocks are NOT good for your brain, Vincent. Do not touch those electrified wires to your head again!

In any case, whether or not you did that thing with the wires, you herewith have demonstrated to have neither aptitude for science, nor for science philosophy.



Rule -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 1:07:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

Relative to the 'outside' even if our universe did expand, the expansion would be irrelevant, as there is no distance as we understand it 'outside' our universe.


If there is no distance outside our universe then we can safely conclude, would you agree, that the multiverse theorists are in error?

No, I do not quite agree. However, your questions and remarks this time do show a glint of intelligence and I compliment you for it.

As far as regards the conventional, branching multi-verse hypothesis, introduced as a solution for some quantum mechanical conundrum, you are quite right in your conclusion - though I have no idea how your conclusion relates to the distance issue.

However, when pondering cosmology about twenty years ago, I quickly came to realize that there in fact are two universes - our and its inverse - that do exist, beside Reality (the Divine).

Think of the Divine (Reality) as a Venn diagram that encompasses entirely our universe (and the second) universe. However, hypothetically (for we have no proof of this whatsoever, nor likely ever will), the Divine might have created and encompass many more of such separate universes each with their own parameters. Indeed, hypothetically, beings in our universe might program the Divine to create such universes and perchance be able to transfer data from one such universe to another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Furthermore, if there is no distance outside our universe while the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate then can we not conclude that the expanding universe is creating distance from nothingness?

No, since the size of the universe as measured from its 'outside' is, has been, and always will be unity. The question in any case is irrelevant, though, because the universe is not expanding; nor is this non-expansion accelerating.



Rule -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 1:19:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

The Divine is 'HUGE'. Our universe is a - relatively independent - part of it. As the Divine is the other side of the coin - literally present on the reverse side of every point in our universe - it is easily as 'large' as twice our universe, if we might use the terms 'huge' and 'large' meaningfully. So, who is not to say that the Divine might consider our universe as being a little thing? And yes, it is easily kept track off; though most of the tracking is likely to be an automatic process.


I confess to being confused here. If the Divine is nothing as you stated elsewhere in this thread and if there is no distance outside this universe, then how can the divine be "HUGE?" How can it be assigned dimension if distance is nonexistent? How can we know how far it is from top to bottom? Side to side? Belly to butt? Doesn't "HUGE" imply measurements?

It is quite alright to be confused as this is a difficult subject. It is also good that you put the term huge between upper comma's, though you ought to have kept the question mark outside of it.

The Divine is huge as compared with the two universes, which are integral, though independent, parts of it. There are no dimensions as we know them in the Divine (except for those limited to the two universes). What is familiar, though, is numbers. The Divine is made up off a number of identical particles, and hypothetically these could be counted, just like the particles in our universe hypothetically can be counted. (Though usually it is rather a guess than a count.)



mnottertail -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 1:35:22 PM)

Even under hypothetical circumstances, fermi particles cannot be counted, and not really even within the realm of the universe estimated with accuracy.

It fails quantum mechanics under several dealios.
Pauli Exclusion Principle
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Fermi-Duroc Equation
Bose-Einstein Equation

and prolly a whole lot more.  Your statements may be meta-religious-ethereal, but they are bad science and just untrue altogether in reality.  



Rule -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 1:36:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

That is a possibility. When I did my ponderings on cosmology and particle physics twenty years ago, I did perceive a hint that the particles that constitute the Divine, might themselves be composed of even smaller particles - but at that point I stopped my ponderings.

To quote a great American [8|] there you go again, making interpretations from phenomena. Not fact then?

That is right! Not a fact! (Incidentally, you are entitled now to be proud of yourself for this perception.)

My ponderings/interpretations are what is known in science philosophy as a hypothesis. Ordinarily, a hypothesis eventually may progress to become a theory. (In science the term 'theory' means something quite different from the erroneous comprehension that the average man has of the term.) I have doubts whether my interpretations will ever become theories. But, since they enable me to make so much more sense out of the phenomena of our universe, I prefer to call them truths.

Anyway, the hint that I perceived definitely is not a fact and may not be a truth.



mnottertail -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 1:38:58 PM)

nope a scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for OBSERVABLE phenomenon.

not met necessary and sufficient conditions.



Rule -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 2:09:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
So, let me understand. You say the Divine is made of particles and the Divine is outside our universe and you interpreted all of this from your study of particle physics.

Mostly from my cosmological ponderings, but since quantum mechanics pertain to phenomena in our universe, yes of course they were data to be considered and explained in my interpretations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Is it then that the QM laws and interpretations do not apply to the Divine?

Not quite. My interpretations appear to be complementary to superstring theory (which is way over my head); it is the missing part.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The Copenhagen interpretation of the duality of particles does not apply?

You mean particle versus wave? All waves are made up by particles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The particles in the Divine have neither frequency nor wavelength nor quantum leaps and falls?

As I said: I perceived a hint of even smaller particles. The particles making up the Divine in any case are far 'tinier' that the Planck length.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
That the Divine consists of static mass?

That is an excellent question! I have wrestled with this question myself twenty years ago. On the one hand there are the basic particles (way smaller that electrons and photons) of our universe, which themselves though static, do move, like a person standing in one location can perform all kinds of movement. Too, there is the hint of the particles even smaller that the particles that make up the Divine, which implies movement of - or rather within - the Divine particles. Thirdly, for a mover to move and to process information requires movement of a kind.

So I am rather inclined to suspect that though static, there is movement re the Divine particles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
It's just a glob what is?

It is like a sea of particles, likely highly organized - and organized in a most peculiar way in the basic particles that constitute our universe..

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Without energy how can it respond to prayer?

'Outside' our universe is no energy as we know it. However, the energy as we know it is constituted - a construct - from the particles that make up the Divine, so there is some kind of energy - just not any that we would recognize as such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Or, are you suggesting a different duality? Is the Divine constructed of particles and nothingness?

The Divine is Nothingness. As things do exist only in our universe. Hence why I distinguish between the universe and Reality (the Divine / the 'outside').

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
No room for dark energy even?

Dark energy does not exist. The concept is an erroneous interpretation of a phenomenon.



Rule -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 2:14:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
nope a scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for OBSERVABLE phenomenon.

Quite. I pondered and interpreted observed phenomena.

(Well, actually I started out by pondering how to create the universe. I used observed phenomena and accepted science to guide me in how to to do so. Otherwise I might likely have created Oz or Peter Pan's Never Never Land or some other such fanciful universe.)



PeonForHer -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 2:24:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
The Divine is huge as compared with the two universes


Really?  I always thought he was a bit of a shortarsed beardy sort of bloke, myself.



Rule -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 2:33:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
The Divine is huge as compared with the two universes

Really?  I always thought he was a bit of a shortarsed beardy sort of bloke, myself.

You are confusing the Divine with a pagan god (likely with the Creator, though other male pagan gods may also have cultivated a beard). Both are closely connected, like a door and a door-bell, but it is erroneous to assert that they are identical.



Edwynn -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 5:58:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
And more importantly, if She does have a license, precisely who granted it? [:D]



Maybe the Beatles???

I think I'm gonna be sad,
I think it's today, yeah.
The girl that's driving me mad
Is going away.

She's got a ticket to ride,
She's got a ticket to ride,
She's got a ticket to ride,
But she don't care.

[:D]




No no, you missed it. The question was who granted the privilege.

Right Beatles, different song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7dkn1ZnIPk


Baby you can drive my car
Yes I'm gonna be a star


Of course, Eric Clapton was god, but he didn't work for the DMV.





Kirata -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/15/2012 9:22:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Really? I always thought he was a bit of a shortarsed beardy sort of bloke, myself.

I thought that was Santa Claus?

K.



Kirata -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/16/2012 12:29:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

we're talking about things like whether the placebo effect counts when it comes to the claim that something "works".

No. You are. Not "we," just you. I missed this in my first catch-up on the thread, but it bears comment.

People frequently expand the concept of the placebo effect very broadly to include just about every conceivable sort of beneficial biological, social, or human interaction that doesn't involve some drug well-known to the pharmacopoeia.

Taking the present instance as a case in point, "people" in that statement means "you."

A group of medical students was asked to participate in a study of two new drugs, one a tranquilizer and the other a stimulant. Each student was given a packet containing either one or two blue or red tablets; the tablets were inert. The students' responses to a questionnaire indicated that 1) the red tablets acted as stimulants while the blue ones acted as depressants and 2) two tablets had more effect than one.

These differences in outcome are not "placebo effects." All the pills were placebos. What we are seeing here is the psychological and physiological effects of meaning in the treatment conditions (the meanings of color and number).

Prayer affects us because it is a meaningful activity, invested with intention and purpose. That's how WE work. It is the intention and purpose, the meaning of our actions, that determines their effect on us.

And in case it need be said, you don't have to believe in God to pray. Prayer forms part of the practice of many Buddhist sects, even though Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. You can even say to yourself, "Fuck, I don't believe any 'God' is going to be listening to this, but what the hell," and just pray as if something was. Just that sincere "as if" is enough to invest the act with meaning.

Reference: Deconstructing the Placebo Effect, Annals of Internal Medicine

K.



vincentML -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/16/2012 4:07:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

Our universe is not expanding; that is merely an interpretation of a phenomenon, but not a fact.


Ah yes, the old it's-not-a-fact theological rebuttal to materialism. Well true, we do construct interpretations from phenomena. Tis a little activity we call science.

Vincent, no! Bad Vincent! Electroshocks are NOT good for your brain, Vincent. Do not touch those electrified wires to your head again!

In any case, whether or not you did that thing with the wires, you herewith have demonstrated to have neither aptitude for science, nor for science philosophy.


Ah, excellent, Rule. Falling back upon a personal attack is always a sign of befuddlement [:D]



vincentML -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/16/2012 4:20:30 AM)

Depends
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Even under hypothetical circumstances, fermi particles cannot be counted, and not really even within the realm of the universe estimated with accuracy.

It fails quantum mechanics under several dealios.
Pauli Exclusion Principle
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Fermi-Duroc Equation
Bose-Einstein Equation

and prolly a whole lot more.  Your statements may be meta-religious-ethereal, but they are bad science and just untrue altogether in reality.  


Depends of course on whose reality. No slander against Rule intended, just an observation: paranoid schizophrenia has its own realities. Just sayin.



vincentML -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/16/2012 4:23:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

nope a scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for OBSERVABLE phenomenon.

not met necessary and sufficient conditions.


Rule's definition does not meet the requirements of falsification either. Gotta be TESTABLE.



vincentML -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/16/2012 4:51:59 AM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The Copenhagen interpretation of the duality of particles does not apply?


quote:

Rule
You mean particle versus wave? All waves are made up by particles.


Well, no. Not particle versus wave. Waves are particulate and particles have wave functions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
That the Divine consists of static mass?


quote:

Rule
That is an excellent question! I have wrestled with this question myself twenty years ago. On the one hand there are the basic particles (way smaller that electrons and photons) of our universe, which themselves though static, do move, like a person standing in one location can perform all kinds of movement. Too, there is the hint of the particles even smaller that the particles that make up the Divine, which implies movement of - or rather within - the Divine particles. Thirdly, for a mover to move and to process information requires movement of a kind.

So I am rather inclined to suspect that though static, there is movement re the Divine particles.


Thank you for the compliment on my question. I am just a student here and appreciate your encouragement. So, if there is movement there must be energy. No?

quote:

'Outside' our universe is no energy as we know it. However, the energy as we know it is constituted - a construct - from the particles that make up the Divine, so there is some kind of energy - just not any that we would recognize as such.


Ah, as I suspected. Not just a glob but an energized glob. Excellent.


quote:

Dark energy does not exist. The concept is an erroneous interpretation of a phenomenon.


Quite unfair of you to leave your student without the correct interpretation. But perhaps just a pedagogical mis-step which you will adjust. I was quite stunned to learn in a physics lecture that dark energy accounts for approx 75% of out Universe, so I anticipate your setting things straight. [:)]



mnottertail -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/16/2012 6:25:22 AM)

Quite unfair of you to leave your student without the correct interpretation. But perhaps just a pedagogical mis-step which you will adjust. I was quite stunned to learn in a physics lecture that dark energy accounts for approx 75% of out Universe, so I anticipate your setting things straight. [:)]

Some as of late corrections would indicate that there is not as much dark energy as we have imagined for quite some time.  There were some calculation problems with it.

However, dark energy does exist,  for at least two empirical reasons.  The sky is dark at night in our expanding universe.   (I wrote an treatise on this in answer to a question popeye put forward once on one of Firms threads, but I am to lazy to find it....) suffice it to say that in the void which exists without our universe, it does not tear apart galaxies or rend and wrack our leading edges of the expanding universe.   And two, simply for aesthetic reasons, since if all of our universe and everything inside it was exploitable, we would be gods ourselves, and we are unable to correct such relatively minor comparative issues as recession.

So, reductio ad absurdum without showing my work. 



GotSteel -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/16/2012 12:19:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

There's been a trend to the double blind studies on prayer showing that prayer and fake prayer are equally effective.

Somehow or other CM seems to have lost the links you posted to the studies you're referring to that established this trend.

Could you repost them please?

Here you go, you might want to take a bit of time and look at that meta analysis you're talking about as opposed to just it's conclusion this time around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
In the present case, you dug up a single study published in 2006 in which Herbert Benson was the lead author. The very next year, however, another study was published which looked at a meta-analysis of 17 different prayer experiments and concluded that the data reflects precisely the opposite:

"Some people feel Benson and associates' study from last year, which is the most recent and showed no positive effects for intercessory prayer, is the final word," said Hodge... "But, this research suggests otherwise. This study enables us to look at the big picture. When the effects of prayer are averaged across all 17 studies, controlling for differences in sample sizes, a net positive effect for the prayer group is produced." ~Science Daily



It turns out that if you're not trying to pimp your handbook for professional on how to use spirituality the data looks a bit different.

quote:

ORIGINAL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17487575
The effects of distant intercessory prayer are examined by meta-analysis and it is concluded that no discernable effects can be found.


But how is it, you might ask, possible to get such a different conclusion? Well, it's the sort of thing that happens if you exclude completely bogus studies like the IVF one you were talking about earlier. But even with the discredited IVF study it's possible to notice the trend:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=masters+k.+s.+2004+meta+analysis&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fchb.syr.edu%2Fstaff%2Fk_masters%2FAnnals_of_Beh_Med-prayer.pdf&ei=5109T6G1Hobo0QGB8NjEBw&usg=AFQjCNH0hM1FSmEi4A54PJmCPKAXol6v3Q&cad=rja


"Results: A total of 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding an overall effect size of
g = .100 that did not differ from zero. When one controversial study was removed the effect size
reduced to g = .012. No moderator variables significantly influenced results.
Conclusions: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies.
Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce
significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to
this line of research."




Kirata -> RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? (2/16/2012 1:44:39 PM)


Wow, pulling stuff from all the way back on page 16. Kewl. That way nobody will remember the context and you can look all intelligent-like. But hey, I'll play. Only first, here's the bit that you trimmed from that post you resurrected:
    Additionally, it should be noted that even small positive results are remarkable because none of the studies touted for their scientific rigor and double-blind design have actually had even remotely effective controls, for the astoundingly simple reason that there is no way to assure that friends and loved ones aren't praying for those in the so-called no-prayer "control" group.

    This flaw reduces such studies to nothing more than a test of one prayer-condition against another, with the consequence that a no-difference result reveals absolutely nothing except the bias of those who misrepresent such nonsense as "scientific proof" that prayer doesn't work.
That last phrase means you. And the meta-analysis you linked underscores the issue:
    It should be pointed out that all of these studies suffer from a major and unsolvable methodological flaw, i.e., receipt of prayer cannot be controlled and therefore it is impossible to know to what degree individuals in the control groups were actually the recipients of the “intervention” (IP) from loved ones, family members, clergy, or others apart from the research intercessors.
After you let that sink in, I'd be curious to hear you expand on your claim that these studies show prayer and fake prayer to be equally effective. Fake prayer? Did you make that up? Which studies employed fake prayer? More directly, what the fucking fuck is "fake" prayer?

Thank you in advance for your time.

K.



Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625