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.
lemme put it this way, what is the source of your love for your family?
Enlightened self interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evofreaks
is there a scientific explanation for it?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evofreaks
well since i am addicted to bones tv series, actually the character tempe brennan has a very detailed and intelligent scientific explanation for it. but like the evolution theory, she only explains the hormones and organs reaction to things but not the source... so there.
What if the "hormones and organs reaction to things" actually is "the source?"
I just wanted to comment on the OP's name: I read it as My Thunder Stood rather than Myth Understood. Which is awesome.
Oh and I guess I'll talk about the topic too.
I think I can only buy into the notion that there is no 'God', but rather just infinite creation. Infinite cycles of life and death. Now like Mystic, this creation, a Spinozan lack of duality or a sort of Dasein, or even a prime mover, I think HAS existed at least in terms of philosophy and can be labeled many things, perhaps even God. And although it does require somewhat of a leap, or at least a very big assumption to believe in most old school philosopher's arguments rely on these really big assumptions. Yet they still have very interesting and coherent ideals.
Now I think there is a disconnect between non-theist Christians and pure theists (who have studied philosophy of some kind.) The former have no real basis in 'logic' for their belief, while the others can. I tend to take more stock in someone who can do more than puppet a belief.
And it is Kierkegaard who states that, and probably what I most believe, in that a 'God' such as this can't and shouldn't be 'proven' but rather that belief is enough to inspire and to promote faith, as existing on its own accord and not burdened by reason. In part, I find that admirable.
But I digress...
Ironically I think that the infinite can always exist and hence there is no beginning. And if everything exists in itself with no 'prime mover,' I guess logically you can or can't believe in a 'God' regardless of the universe's beginning. Just because 'we' were created by a big bang doesn't mean that it was the absolute beginning of the universe.
Blech. In any case the knowledge that we don't know coupled with the infinite nature of everything should be enough to humble us. Call it 'God' if you like, I'll just go on confusing people.
I liked your post. Particularly the way you don't take yourself too seriously.
"belief is enough to inspire and to promote faith, as existing on its own accord and not burdened by reason."
Yes it is. But it is not enough to provide any good reason for that belief and that is what is lacking for those who find it important to have sound reasons for what they believe.
How could science make observations about what is not material?
The way this guy did: Johns Hopkins astrophysicist Charles Bennett won the Shaw prize in astronomy. Link to article
Extract:
A Johns Hopkins University astrophysicist whose work helped determine the precise age and composition of the universe will share the $1 million Shaw Prize in astronomy for 2010, the school announced Thursday.
Charles Bennett and two colleagues at Princeton University are being honored for their groundbreaking work with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, a spacecraft launched in 2001 to study cosmic background radiation, said to be a remnant of the "big bang" that scientists say marked the birth of the universe.
In 2003, Bennett, along with David Spergel and Lyman Page at Princeton, announced their finding that the universe was 13.7 billion years old and that the atoms familiar to science constitute less than 5 percent of it. The rest, they concluded, consists of one-quarter dark matter and nearly three-quarters a mysterious force dubbed "dark energy."
Quote:
Exactly what idea is it that you want to be taken seriously that is currently discarded? How would this idea lead to a greater scientific understanding? How would you test if your idea is right or wrong?
You say that the universe and god are the same thing and that all evidence that science gathers is just describing the functions of your god. Let's accept that for the sake of argument. How would it change anything if science called the universe god and just continued describing it in the same way it always has?
Nothing . . . but it adds one more legitimate contender to the universal field theories . . . and it would shut up the barely scientifically literate atheists with their puerile pink unicorns and fairies or FSM or whatever asking for proof of God when it is right in front of them.
Dark matter and unknown particles hardly add up to anything more than the old, tired, fishing in the muddy waters of Quantum mechanics for metaphysical mermaids. You just dress it up in better jargon. Your Chimerical God is no more evident than pink unicorns.
Dark matter and unknown particles hardly add up to anything more than the old, tired, fishing in the muddy waters of Quantum mechanics for metaphysical mermaids. You just dress it up in better jargon. Your Chimerical God is no more evident than pink unicorns.
You obvously paid no attention to WHY those asinine comparatives are NOT comparable. I would have expected more of you Arequipa . . . you at least make a show of objectivity and moderation . . . too bad it isn't real. There IS a Universal Field and Consciousness exists . . . nothing about your puerile supposed equivalent alternatives is real.
The existence of dark matter was deduced by its gravitational effects on other matter. It's not immaterial.
So, nothing would change, and it wouldn't be helpful to science at all to call the universe god. Glad to see you finally admit it.
Sorry to see your asinine dismissal of the entirety of my post to quote mine a single supportive phrase. The hypocrisy of "objective" scientists is legion. The density in here is suffocating.
The origin of universe is a science matter; it's not a religious matter.
The only reason religion wants to have something to say about it is to credit the human existence to their God, so they can say "my God did you, now drop your pants and bend over and pray." (religious rapist's logic)
People would be more likely to consider to view point if you weren't condescending.
Charles
Last edited by cpsTN; 05-31-2010 at 09:58 AM..
Reason: Phrase Change
The existence of dark matter was deduced by its gravitational effects on other matter. It's not immaterial.
So, nothing would change, and it wouldn't be helpful to science at all to call the universe god. Glad to see you finally admit it.
The beginning of hate is often seen when people turn others' words against them.
Charles
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.
