Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That occurred to me too, but it does belong because this is about Mystic's argument for a scientific theory of god and hopefully evidence for god.
The posters here are coming to see that Mystic's theory is very speculative and isn't so much science as philosophic speculation with science attached to give it some body. They are also coming to see that Mystic's expressions of exasperation at the stupidity and obtuseness of everyone who does not agree with him is his way of evading the admission that, at bottom. he really has nothing to back this stuff up.
Trust me, this is all based on a presupposition of the existence (which he had called 'obvious' in the past) of a god of some kind without which the dismissal of the materialist default on the grounds on some unanswered questions makes no logical sense.
Believe me, with an a - priori god - belief, all that stuff is (or looks) logical and the theory at least possible if not feasible, but, if that a priori god is not a valid starting point (1), the whole thing is unsupported, unscientific and unnecessary.
The experiences that Mystic had which turned him from what must have been a very strident atheist into what he is now are best (rationally and scientifically) approached from the default supposition that it derived from some action of the grey matter if not some problem with the bowels.
Not trying to denigrate or attack the very clever and erudite Mystic, but just to perhaps clear up a few puzzles about his posts.
(1) yeah, have to say that Mystic takes an a priori god - claim as valid through a sort of modified philosophically - framed First cause argument; essentially there must have been some 'will' to decide to start the cosmos off. This is arguable both philosophically and scientifically under the 'who knows anything?' clause, quite apart from the increasingly feasible eternal matter theory.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-11-2012 at 03:53 AM..
Reason: footnote
::Sigh:: Have you not engaged in inductive reasoning before.
I'll answer about my formal education and experience as soon as you answer my question about your professional scientific background.
Quote:
Your insistence on attacking the conclusion deductively as nonsense indicates a defensiveness to the conclusion that prevents you from engaging in the inductive process that suggests the conclusions.
Do you have a specific objection here or are you just venting?
Quote:
In short . . . reality does NOT do mathematics despite what many physicists and mathematicians have come to believe about our artificial rubric.
Proof that scientists think that reality does math, whatever that means?
Quote:
But what it DOES DO can be inferred from the mathematical relationships that model the relationships and produce the "measurables."
That occurred to me too, but it does belong because this is about Mystic's argument for a scientific theory of god and hopefully evidence for god.
The posters here are coming to see that Mystic's theory is very speculative and isn't so much science as philosophic speculation with science attached to give it some body.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it philosophy any more than I'd call it science. It's really just making stuff up and then yelling at people who ask him to show his work. Maybe it belongs in the politics forum?
I wouldn't go so far as to call it philosophy any more than I'd call it science. It's really just making stuff up and then yelling at people who ask him to show his work. Maybe it belongs in the politics forum?
The old term is called "The Quickening". IF lately you have sensed time speeding up and then once in a while slowing....it is not your imagination..time as we know is in a accelerated state these days..not just for me because I am older but for everyone..Positive and negative forces are intermingling as they pass through each other and re-set...even concepts of good and evil are blending as they pass through each other..which you will see in common moral relativism..
Don't worry...it's a natural thing and it will pass....All things and creatures have a dividing lateral line..left - or right - or positive and negative...It's just the way things are constructed...God used a the simple law of construction..a push and pull...creating balance...some times even his work comes apart....I am sure the creator might be slightly embarrassed...and is working on the problem of disipation and de-composition...universal cosmic rot has set in.
As the theorists dither about - toying with the spector ...they speculate...it's real simple-time and space are having some problems....I just wonder if God has a boss?
Have to admit I do not understand your post at all or what it is based on. Have you any links or citations backing up what you are talking about which might make it clearer?
As far as I know the perception of the speed of time passing is entirely subjective to the observer and has nothing to do with the speed that time is actually passing. I have also read or heard nothing to suggest the "speed" of time has changed at all.
::Sigh:: Have you not engaged in inductive reasoning before. Your insistence on attacking the conclusion deductively as nonsense indicates a defensiveness to the conclusion that prevents you from engaging in the inductive process that suggests the conclusions. The point of the article is that the mathematics models real relationships that underlie the "measured" constructs employed. We know the mathematical relationships are artificial constructs of our consciousness. We need to understand the assumptions used to create those constructs and rules of interaction to infer what the underlying relationships in reality might ACTUALLY be referencing. In short . . . reality does NOT do mathematics despite what many physicists and mathematicians have come to believe about our artificial rubric. But what it DOES DO can be inferred from the mathematical relationships that model the relationships and produce the "measurables."
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
I think I would add a voice to those calling all this a 'back pedal'. The OP has made the same claim before and at that time did not suggest it was analogy or imagry but presented it as if it was a fact.
Even if it wasn't - calling it an analogy etc. solves nothing. Analogies are useful but need to be carefully used. The usual idea of analogy is to highlight your own point by making comparisons to something known and understood by the listener. In that way you help the listener understand your points by making reference and comparisons to thinks the listener already knows and understands.
What is happening here is the opposite. The comparison is been made to nonsense pseudo science - false interpretations of Einstein equations - and direct contradictions to current physics. This will not shed light on anything at all - only confuses the issues - and results in nothing but making the OP look science illiterate.
Matter can not be accelerated to the speed of light - forget past it. Suggesting the opposite - even behind the excuse of calling it an analogy - is and remains nonsense.
Your Moderator cut: edit status indicates you have no exposure to my synthesis or how I have used analogies to simplify my views. Try to catch up:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, if it isn't philosophy, it's religion.
