RE: Why do you believe? (Full Version)

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



Message

vincentML -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 5:50:34 AM)

quote:

There is an even stronger articulation of this position which is perfectly intellectually coherent and defensible. It goes as follows:
1. To practice Science, the scientist MUST be objective and value free;
2. No human being is capable of being objective or value free about anything;
3. Therefore it is impossible for any human being to practice Science as it must be practiced according to self-declared rules of Science.

Tweak . . . this would be true if Science were the endeavour of only one human being. It is not, as you well know. It is a communal activity. The community spreads horizontally amongst peers and longitudinally back through the contributions of predecessors. Hence, the fallicy in your post. The same is true even for philosophy now that I think on it. Whereas religious belief remains mired in iron age tribalism.

quote:

Science has a number of very cute narratives but should never be confused with 'Truth" or 'facts'. To believe that Science can deliver 'Truth' or 'facts' (eg a la Dawkins) is an exercise in self delusion. Magical thinking is required to both produce and sustain this delusion.

You are strawmanning here. You know very well that the 'Truth' of Science is always contingent on verification, falsification, and new observations. The Romanticists and Post-Modernists only serve the cause of magical religion when they denigrate Science as a way of knowing and altering our reality. Strange bedfellows those. Blind to the obvious: Science works.



Toysinbabeland -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 5:52:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

My opposing arguments:

Actually nothing in the universe moves: all movement is an illusion - yet an effective one.

(If that is the case, then you wouldn't mind explaining the resulting energy, perhaps from a well struck match to the foundation of a fire?)t

The analogy is wrong, because a struck match releases already stored potential energy.

What actually occurs is an application of Newton's Third Law of Motion:

quote:

The third law states that all forces exist in pairs:

Suppose that we have a drum and that the centerpoint of the skin starts to vibrate spontaneously in an oscillating motion. The total energy of an oscillating motion is zero. (I intuit; you may call my bluff on that.)

Hence no energy is produced.

This vibration will communicate itself to all other parts of the skin. Not just in one direction, but in all directions. Thus again the total energy of the vibration is zero. Now if the vibration would be communicated only to one direction of the skin - like north - then we would have a net positive or negative energy; but that does not happen.

This propagation of the vibration from the centerpoint to the edges of the skin creates the illusion of motion. But the reality is that no part of the skin actually moves from its proper location at distance x from the centerpoint.

Hence my assertion.


Thank you for your response.
My match analogy held flaw.
Would you then consider the idea of assigning energy to conscious thought?
That the origin of conscious thought might in fact be the unmoved mover?



vincentML -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:04:34 AM)

quote:

It has been convincingly and repeatedly demonstrated that consciousness can influence random fluctuations and alter the course of events, your ignorant belief in the magical reality constructed by your prejudice notwithstanding.

Oh yes, I recall your attempts to argue that prayer can have efficacy. It is laughable when quantum mystics fall back on Science to make their case. I think my own definition of spiritual awareness is spot on tyvm. Just a bumper sticker slogan to justify and pretty up irrational thinking.



crazyml -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:10:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Spiritual awareness is a thin cloak that hides ignorance and magical thinking.

Actually, that is exactly what your unsupported (and insulting as usual) claims amount to. One definition of spiritual awareness encompasses an awareness of the non-local effects of consciousness. You will recall me saying:

Even if it were possible to know literally everything about the state of the universe at a given instant, we still couldn't predict the future from that knowledge. The probability of our predictions failing would increase with every passing moment due to the effects of random fluctuations

It has been convincingly and repeatedly demonstrated that consciousness can influence random fluctuations and alter the course of events, your ignorant belief in the magical reality constructed by your prejudice notwithstanding.

K.


I think you're misunderstanding Heisenberg, and placing way too much faith in Stapp = who is barking mad.

If it were possible to know literally everything about the state of the universe at a given instant, we would certainly be able to predict what is going to happen next. The point is that knowing everything about the state of the universe at a given instant is a physical impossibility given that the "everything" would also include the measuring equipment, the sharp intake of breath of the researcher on discovering how awesome it all is etc etc

As for claims that it has been convincingly demonstrated that consciousness can influence random fluctuations and alter the course of events, I can only say that it hasn't been demonstrated convincingly to me, or to quite a large number of phys types.

Now, going back to heisenberg - Is there a case for saying that even the electrical fluctuations in the human brain have an effect on the physics of the future... then sure, that kind of makes sense.




crazyml -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:14:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

My opposing arguments:

Actually nothing in the universe moves: all movement is an illusion - yet an effective one.

(If that is the case, then you wouldn't mind explaining the resulting energy, perhaps from a well struck match to the foundation of a fire?)t

The analogy is wrong, because a struck match releases already stored potential energy.

What actually occurs is an application of Newton's Third Law of Motion:

quote:

The third law states that all forces exist in pairs:

Suppose that we have a drum and that the centerpoint of the skin starts to vibrate spontaneously in an oscillating motion. The total energy of an oscillating motion is zero. (I intuit; you may call my bluff on that.)

Hence no energy is produced.



Allow me to call your bluff on this - this is nonsense. Absolutely nonsense.



quote:



This vibration will communicate itself to all other parts of the skin. Not just in one direction, but in all directions. Thus again the total energy of the vibration is zero. Now if the vibration would be communicated only to one direction of the skin - like north - then we would have a net positive or negative energy; but that does not happen.


Still nonsense

quote:




This propagation of the vibration from the centerpoint to the edges of the skin creates the illusion of motion. But the reality is that no part of the skin actually moves from its proper location at distance x from the centerpoint.

Hence my assertion.


Which'll be nonsense.

Mkay?



vincentML -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:15:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Any argument on CM between believers and non-believers.

That is the purpose of P&R. Why bemoan the obvious? Additionally, it gives each of us an opportunity to test our understandings and positions against those of others. Why is that a bad thing? I think it is not. So, we have no need for apologies. If you don't like the program don't tune in.



Rule -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:17:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
A parallel can be drawn with pure water: any chemist knows that a volume of only H2O 'spontaneously' generates other molecules as well. Therefore it is possible to obtain motion from no motion.
(How do you know that wasn't the intention of a Divine, either to supply a need for faith, to vex for pleasure ---It would be a Dominant God.. :) ---, or because it just likes it that way.


The Divine, being 'outside' our universe does not distinguish much between good and evil. Those distinctions are as abstract to it as the difference between a plus and a minus sign and between making a right turn or a left turn. Love the Divine or hate the Divine, it makes no difference to the Divine.

Hindu mythology relates that one person intensely hated the ruling pagan god. The pagan god killed him, but because that man hated god so intensely at that moment, he achieved Nirwana for that very reason.

Love a dog and the Divine will arrange for a dog to come to you.
Hate a dog and the Divine will arrange for a dog to come to you.
Fear a dog and the Divine will arrange for a dog to come bite you.

Hence this spiritual wisdom in such Bible verses as:

quote:

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil


The communication from conscious life - and presumably also from non-conscious life and even from inanimate objects and from empty space itself - to the Divine is spiritual, i.e. the Divine receives desires, wants, determinations and decisions and other such instructions. This is an idiot proof communication method, that even a bacterium can perform.

The universe was designed in such a way that entities that are better at spiritual communication may evolve. Thus a worm will be better at this spiritual communication than a bacterium and a bacterium will be better at it than a rock.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
A parallel can be drawn with pure water: any chemist knows that a volume of only H2O 'spontaneously' generates other molecules as well. Therefore it is possible to obtain motion from no motion.

The argument of a random variation can go both ways, that it is down to the science, or that one is left with the impression that coincidence is too baffling, and that it becomes a part of a larger plan.)t

The interaction from the Divine to the universe is non-causal and therefore not detectable by science, because science can only study causal phenomena.

The Divine does not have a plan. It is only entities within our universe that can make plans.

However, we may extrapolate from a pagan god to the Divine, as in a sense they are identical, the reason for the pagan god to create the gods and humanity: "Because I am lonely".



Rule -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:30:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Is there a case for saying that even the electrical fluctuations in the human brain have an effect on the physics of the future... then sure, that kind of makes sense.

So you agree that the thoughts a brain produces may affect the physical world.

Perhaps you would also care to agree that the physical world affects the functioning of the brain?



Rule -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:38:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
What actually occurs is an application of Newton's Third Law of Motion:

quote:

The third law states that all forces exist in pairs:

Suppose that we have a drum and that the centerpoint of the skin starts to vibrate spontaneously in an oscillating motion. The total energy of an oscillating motion is zero. (I intuit; you may call my bluff on that.)

Hence no energy is produced.

Allow me to call your bluff on this - this is nonsense. Absolutely nonsense.

From Wikipedia:
quote:

In the spring-mass system, oscillations occur because, at the static equilibrium displacement, the mass has kinetic energy which is converted into potential energy stored in the spring at the extremes of its path.

Or in other words E = +X - Y = zero. (In a non-dissipating system as decribed by me.)

Your bluff-calling failed.

Q.E.D.



crazyml -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:44:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
What actually occurs is an application of Newton's Third Law of Motion:

quote:

The third law states that all forces exist in pairs:

Suppose that we have a drum and that the centerpoint of the skin starts to vibrate spontaneously in an oscillating motion. The total energy of an oscillating motion is zero. (I intuit; you may call my bluff on that.)

Hence no energy is produced.

Allow me to call your bluff on this - this is nonsense. Absolutely nonsense.

quote:


From Wikipedia:
quote:

In the spring-mass system, oscillations occur because, at the static equilibrium displacement, the mass has kinetic energy which is converted into potential energy stored in the spring at the extremes of its path.

Or in other words E = +X - Y = zero. (In a non-dissipating system as decribed by me.)

Your bluff-calling failed.

Q.E.D.



You didn't describe a non-dissipating system, you described a drum.

Now of course, you can pop the drum in a vacuum and bang it.

You could use a material that results in no energy dissipation.

But in the meantime you've either invented perpetual motion or.... Utter fucking nonsense.

QED



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 6:45:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
However, we may extrapolate from a pagan god to the Divine, as in a sense they are identical, the reason for the pagan god to create the gods and humanity: "Because I am lonely".

I take severe exception to that statement!
There is no way to extrapolate from a Pagan god to the 'Divine' at all and they are not even remotely similar, let alone identical.
And if you knew anything about Paganism you would know that your "Because I am lonely" quote could fit well with other religions but not Paganism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
A parallel can be drawn with pure water: any chemist knows that a volume of only H2O 'spontaneously' generates other molecules as well. Therefore it is possible to obtain motion from no motion.

It doesn't generate those other molecules without the destruction of the donor H2O molecules so it's basically just a transformation from one form to another.
I'd hardly call that 'motion'.


Next strawman Rule??



Rule -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 7:12:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
You didn't describe a non-dissipating system, you described a drum.

Now of course, you can pop the drum in a vacuum and bang it.

You could use a material that results in no energy dissipation.

But in the meantime you've either invented perpetual motion or.... Utter fucking nonsense.

QED

Please pay better attention:
I did not describe a drum.
I described Reality by analogy with a drum.



PeonForHer -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 7:17:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Any argument on CM between believers and non-believers.

That is the purpose of P&R. Why bemoan the obvious? Additionally, it gives each of us an opportunity to test our understandings and positions against those of others. Why is that a bad thing? I think it is not. So, we have no need for apologies. If you don't like the program don't tune in.


I don't know why it's a bad thing. You'll have to ask someone else.

Dead ends can be dreary or they can be fun. Go for it if you think it'll be fun on this occasion.



crazyml -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 7:51:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
You didn't describe a non-dissipating system, you described a drum.

Now of course, you can pop the drum in a vacuum and bang it.

You could use a material that results in no energy dissipation.

But in the meantime you've either invented perpetual motion or.... Utter fucking nonsense.

QED

Please pay better attention:
I did not describe a drum.
I described Reality by analogy with a drum.


Gosh you're wriggling. You didn't make it clear that it's a non-dissipating system so now you seek to say that it's not actually a drum you're applying your laws of physics to, but a magickal imaginary drum.

In that case... fuck me! Fill your boots.

I've no doubt that your magick drum will be capable of all sorts of feats that might turn all of the laws of physics upside down.

But don't pretend that your'e actually doing "science".




goodgirlmary -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 8:03:07 AM)

Wow.



MrBukani -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 8:42:05 AM)

A big question of mine has always been is ,

WHY is the other side so bad?

Imagine we if you were wrong about being an atheist and there is a god.
Or being a christian and there is nothing.
Do you think one side is better then the other?

At times I wish there was a god because life can be unfair.
Most times I think there can be no god otherwise he's not playing fair.
I think I am on the right side, but in case I am wrong the other side is not much better or worse.



Rule -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 9:58:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
You didn't make it clear that it's a non-dissipating system so now you seek to say that it's not actually a drum you're applying your laws of physics to, but a magickal imaginary drum.

The fact escaped you because you were not paying attention. Toys and I were discussing the unmoving mover and I had asserted that all movement is an illusion.



Real0ne -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 10:03:44 AM)

so are you willing to stand out in traffic to test that theory?



Rule -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 10:21:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
so are you willing to stand out in traffic to test that theory?

lol.

I have been hit by a car twice. The first time, as a child, aggravated by pneumonia, I was hospitalized for nine weeks. The second time I walked like a cripple for at least a month and it took quite a while to recover from all of the crippling damage.

Being hit by a car does not mean that either actually moved. Move a searchlight at night across the clouds. Do you think that the lighted spot actually moves faster than light? It does not. The cloud that is lighted does not move at all.



Real0ne -> RE: Why do you believe? (6/23/2013 10:37:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule


lol.

I have been hit by a car twice.


how does a collision between 2 physical stationary objects occur?






Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875