RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/18/2006 4:40:30 PM)

No, I dont see, you are trying to prove he doesnt exsist, right?



Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/18/2006 4:42:20 PM)

I have always maintained that it is impossible to know either way.



cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/18/2006 4:44:23 PM)

It is impossible that YOU dont know either way, I already know he does exsist!!! ..LOL



marieToo -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/18/2006 4:48:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50

It is impossible that YOU dont know either way, I already know he does exsist!!! ..LOL


Chaingang...ya gotta admit, she sure is sexy when she gets spunky. [:D]



cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/18/2006 4:49:03 PM)

I know, I'm a pain....hehehe

Can't help it though..



Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/18/2006 4:49:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
"Science" is not in a position to judge infallibly who is sane and who insane;

So all those people in the lunatic asylums are not actually insane, nor those outside sane? Ah, I see: the key word is infallibly, suggesting that mistakes may be made. I consider that - perhaps mistakenly - an oblique slur.
 
Well, I for one do not care whether LadyEllen is sane or insane. The posts of her that I read according to me were usually eminently sane and sensible - more so than those of many other people - and that suffices for me.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
nor is it true that anyone who attributes his or her experiences to an incorrect source must be insane.

Quite. Though I do wonder what you consider either a correct or an incorrect source. As more likely examples of the latter I would suggest craziness and the use of mindaltering drugs.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Maybe you've experienced the divine and maybe you haven't,

Oh, she has. Her description is entirely congruent with those of others who have had identical experiences of the divine. Of course her experiences may also be explained in a secular - non-divine - way, but that does not - nor ever will - invalidate the theological interpretation of her experiences.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
but it's not the case that your opinion must be correct merely because no one can prove that you're insane.

Quite. But not being insane does add to - or perhaps does rather not detract from - credibility.



Lordandmaster -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/18/2006 5:17:22 PM)

Yeah, I realize I'm being dragged into a discussion with someone who just claimed that all modern physics is bullshit, but hey, I have an odd minute free...

An incorrect source does not have to be something like mind-altering drugs.  Suppose you experience the sense that someone is knocking on your door.  You assume it must be the mailman, and don't bother to answer it, thinking he'll just leave the package on your doorstep.  Surprise, surprise, it turns out not to be the mailman after all.  Someone who makes that kind of unwarranted supposition isn't necessarily insane.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
nor is it true that anyone who attributes his or her experiences to an incorrect source must be insane.

Quite. Though I do wonder what you consider either a correct or an incorrect source. As more likely examples of the latter I would suggest craziness and the use of mindaltering drugs.



Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/18/2006 5:34:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Yeah, I realize I'm being dragged into a discussion with someone who just claimed that all modern physics is bullshit
Big Bang, Expanding Universe, Black Holes, Many Universes Hypothesis, General Relativity, etcetera are all worse than epicycles. While those Ptolemeic physicists are doing their thing, I am rotflmaoahmb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
An incorrect source does not have to be something like mind-altering drugs.  Suppose you experience the sense that someone is knocking on your door.  You assume it must be the mailman, and don't bother to answer it, thinking he'll just leave the package on your doorstep.  Surprise, surprise, it turns out not to be the mailman after all.  Someone who makes that kind of unwarranted supposition isn't necessarily insane.

Quite. It was a mistake. Not an unwarranted supposition, though, otherwise it would not have been made. In any case, even if it was a mistake, the example does prove that the mailman exists, for otherwise he would not have been expected.
 
I was hoping for some more substantial examples, but that is not to be, I gather. Pity. A lot of noise, but no wool, as the Dutch proverb has it.



seeksfemslave -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 12:29:49 AM)

Rule made a criticism of the existence of
Big Bang, Expanding Universe, Black Holes, Many Universes Hypothesis, General Relativity, etcetera are all worse than epicycles. While those Ptolemeic physicists are doing their thing,
 
Now we are back on firmer ground I would like to say that while I dont think modern physics is bullshit I do think that something has gone badly wrong, particularly in the area of cosmology which is relevant to this thread. I am not mathematically  knowledgable enough to know what, but the hypotheses produced get ever more implausable. This seems to me a consequence of unrestrained mathematical speculation.
 
The underlying axioms (plural?) need to be examined in a critical manner. Only an opinion lol.
 
Another area that is suspect: I read a few years ago that there exist astronomical objects that according to the red shift are at different distances from us, but according to distance measurements made by I think absolute luminosty are not. The basic calibration of distance beyond that measurable by parallax rests on a pitifully small sample of variable stars and a massive assumption. ie absolute luminosity is related to rate at which the luminosity varies.
Neutrinos have NEVER been discovered in anything like the quantity expected. See on going experiment somewhere in the Dakotas or Montana, up in that area. When that supernova was detected in the Southern Hemisphere a year or so ago, the detector should have been swamped with Neutrinos. but it wasn't.
 
I've always wondered how you measure the red shift of a galaxy anyway.!! To produced the absorpton/ emission spectra in a lab. requires precise controlled conditions., not a swirling mass of thermonuclear reactions and mega strength electric/magnetic fields.



Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 2:14:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
The underlying axioms (plural?) need to be examined in a critical manner.
I did so already and my conclusions and solutions are in my astronomy book, about which my reviewer said:
"The rich diversity of papers presented at a conference on astrophysics might be published as a book without Introduction or Conclusion. ... MSAG is that sort of book, with two important differences: two of the ‘papers’ – the book’s 25 chapters (256p) – are from a conference on planetary geology and all are by ...
MSAG opens with stars and planets that orbit within the body of much larger, low density stars. A later chapter deduces a model for the magnetic fields of stars and planets, concluding that most extra-solar planets – and some black holes in supposedly binary systems – are illusions created by Zeeman Effect stars. Other chapters explain the physical and orbital characteristics of planets and moons; discuss galaxies, quasars, supernovae and planetary nebulae, and elucidate how they were formed; offer novel explanations for warped galactic discs, nascent solar systems, polar ring galaxies, and the structures of spiral galaxies; introduce a new redshift mechanism in which the wavelength of light lengthens as it moves away from its source, contrary to General Relativity; examine phenomena explained by General Relativity and show them to be explicable by more conventional theories; and argue that ‘triads’ of charged particles can be accelerated by lines of magnetic force. The chapters on geology show that Mars was dealt a mortal blow by a pair of impacts early in its history and that Earth’s ice ages are belated effects of the comet impact that ended the Cretaceous.
Or thus says the Preface ...
The Preface’s promise: ‘Each page has one or more fresh ideas’, is no overstatement."
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
I've always wondered how you measure the red shift of a galaxy anyway! To produced the absorpton/ emission spectra in a lab requires precise controlled conditions, not a swirling mass of thermonuclear reactions and mega strength electric/magnetic fields.

Do not worry about that. Most scientists are not qualified to interpret their data when it concerns unfamiliar phenomena, but they are qualified to and do obtain the correct data from their observations.



seeksfemslave -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 2:47:40 AM)

Rule said
.....and some black holes in supposedly binary systems – are illusions created by Zeeman Effect stars.
 
I bet Stephen Hawking won't be too happy about that !
 



meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 3:51:42 AM)

How come you haven't got a Nobel prize yet Rule? You make statements with such certainty and dish so much current scientific thought I'm sure you must have sound evidence.



LadyEllen -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 3:57:31 AM)

I think I've said all I can say on this thread, but lets go one more time!

I am convinced by my experience, that the divine exists. I cant convince you of that, and thats fine - to be honest, it would be foolish to try in many ways, since only experience can make one sure. If you chose to believe me, that would be okay too, but your belief in my experience would constitute faith rather than knowledge, which isnt even second best to knowledge.

I have faith that what science tell me is out there in the universe, how it arose and how it works and so on, is true. I have no direct understanding, still less experience of black holes, so that I believe they are out there is based solely on the authority of those who claim such understanding and experience. My belief in black holes is thus as much an act of faith on my part, as it would be an act of faith on yours to believe my testimony about what I experienced.

As it happens, my belief in science, black holes and so on, does not in any way conflict with my experience of the divine. Black holes may or may not really exist, but whether they do or not does not invalidate or validate my knowledge of what the cosmos is or does or what it is for - in fact it doesnt really matter; and I think I can let you in on this secret - not one of the religions of man is able to convey this purpose adequately.

As what we experience as time progresses, I have no doubt at all that science will likely provide for us ever greater and more detailed and unified descriptions of what we find around us in the cosmos. I have no doubt that these developments will further debunk religious beliefs as being inadequate accounts. But just as to describe a person is inadequate in terms of knowing that person as they know themselves, the descriptions of science will also fail in knowing the cosmos.

Another little secret - it is only when we truly understand that we are part of the cosmos, and part of what it is about, rather than outside observers analysing it, that we will be able to understand All that Is, and as a byproduct of that, end the foolish religious differences, (of which science regrettably is one), with which we are so pre-occupied, and which were mentioned in the OP.
E





meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 4:10:37 AM)

The fundemental flaw in claiming that science is a religion is that it isn't. It leaves itself open to be debunked. There is an open invitation to anyone to prove science is wrong. The fact that someone might consider they do not have the ability to prove it wrong, doesn't mean they have to believe in it as an act of faith because science doesn't put forward a truth, that is what religion does.



seeksfemslave -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 4:53:41 AM)

Well Lady E I for one do not believe that as things stand scientific knowledge in any way deposes the idea that something supernatural or metaphysical is present. I also very much doubt that it ever will.

The idea of ethical values requiring a supernatural being, well that has been totally debunked, both by logic and experience.
Unless you argue that our ability to engage in logical analysis is supernaturally sourced , which presumbly IS the position of  devout believers.



LadyEllen -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 5:05:39 AM)

The problem is religion and God, not spirituality and the divine.

And yes seeks, believe it or not, the reason we can think is not disconnected from All that Is, but an integral part of it; not that there are really any parts, except those we need to discuss this.
E



philosophy -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 5:13:21 AM)

"So all those people in the lunatic asylums are not actually insane, nor those outside sane?"

......well duh.......shock horror, psychiatric medicine not a precise science controversy..........the very concept of sane/insane is not an absolute one. One can be OCD and still be considered sane. One can also have OCD and be considered insane. The test is functionality. If you can function in the world with your illusion intact, you are sane. If your illusion precludes you functioning in the world you are insane. As the world moves the goalposts on what illusions you can/can not function with, then it follows that sanity is not an absolute measure but a relative one. Therefore to even think that there can be some degree of error-less psychiatry is false.



Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 5:24:15 AM)

A good and wise post, LE.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
The idea of ethical values requiring a supernatural being, well that has been totally debunked, both by logic and experience.

Nothing in our universe requires anything supernatural. The universe has been rigged to be examined by either theistically, or atheistically, or by a combination of both means. (It is a failsafe: if a species refuses to explore the universe in one way, there is yet another way to do so. Such redundancy of physiology and biochemistry is also incorporated into organisms.)
 
As to the ethics of the various human incarnations of aspects of the divine: each of the gods of yore had his own, different perception of what is ethical. So yes, ethics may have been passed down to us by the gods through the various religions - and a lot of them certainly were. But which ethics are from which god? Which ethics were dictated by the more unsavoury gods?
 
As always: do not follow scripture like an automaton. If you are able to - yes, I know that some are not - think for yourself and make up your own mind: that is the purpose of having a mind. Like it says somewhere in the New Testament: Examine everything and keep what is good / true.
 
Edited to add: philosophy, you took my statement out of context. Never mind, I am sure that other people will appreciate your elaboration.



philosophy -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 5:29:17 AM)

"philosophy, you took my statement out of context. Never mind, I am sure that other people will appreciate your elaboration."
 
 
...sorry 'bout that then....but its a long thread and i'm cherry picking :)





Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 5:40:01 AM)

Scientific methodology is not a religion - it is a set of ethics, or standards if you prefer. The idea of certainty is rejected in favor of the idea of theory - that all supposed "facts" are provisional and subject to change as our knowledge about things grows. Hence while ideas like evolution are often discussed almost as if they were facts, they remain mere theories subject to minor tweaks, more substantive changes, or even outright rejection in favor of other theories that might supplant them. The utility of any theory exists in precise relationship to the degree to which it fits available data sets.

Agnosticism is not a religion either - it is the mere acknowledgment that there is no evidence of a deity either way. Agnosticism is sometimes defined as: "The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge." My only challenge to that definition would be to alter the definition this way: "The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is currently unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge." My point is that agnosticism is merely a provisional philosophy about first principles. Similar to the ethics of scientific methodology, agnosticism is open to changes in our accepted knowledge.

Some might look at the above and assert that the weakness of such views is the continual lack of certainty. Alas, one person's weakness is another person's strength: I think flexibility is a good thing:

Crisis - Adaptation - Survival.



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125