Open minded Astro-Physicists have probably already proven the existence of heaven. Multidimensional realities that exist in the same space. Science will itself break into the great laboratory secrets of God. That is it's true objective whether you know it or not. Nuclear energy is the process that powers the stars.....so that makes it very ancient technology. Think about that. Wonder what creature whispered those secrets into some scientists ears? You hear from your origin.....your father which is in heaven. Whatever one that may be. Not everyone is from the same source. Anyone watch the Stargate episode where a Gou'ld named Nerti is doing experiments on children to create a Hac-Tar.....? A Hac- Tar was an advanced Terran with supernatural abilities they...the Gou'ld, can then use as hosts. You see......the dominate life form, dominates the host vessel. Life imitates art....or is it the other way around? I get them confused sometimes. But are you......."pickin up a theme here"? The bible says the serpents meat.....is the dust. That is also what man was made from. Science is the very religion that is being used to finish what started with the worlds first false religions...... What was the tower of Babel? It is a continuation of the true "War of the Worlds". A War older than the "foundation of the world" as it is today. The Battle for Earth is already won.......He came to lead "captivity captive". What side will you find yourself on? That is the only question that remains. It is a matter of the heart, where your true origins lie. The Kingdom of Heaven.....is in you.
VIZZIE!!!!! As much as I love Stargate...it is SCIFI!!! It's even on a channel DEDICATED to scifi!!! If you want to carry on this ridiculous comparison...did you ever notice how the Ori are extremely similar to Christianity? Art imitates life right...
Yeah I caught that too. Hollywood is not known for painting Christains in a favorable light are they? But.... Because there is science fiction, that doesn't mean there couldn't be something close to it in reality. They even did an episode on that remember.......Wormhole Extreme. Plausible deniability.... I liked Stargate too Enterpise, but I'm going to have to quit the tube just like a bad habit. It's vexing ... the drug commericals alone have me talking to myself. They insult human intelligence. If there is such a thing.... Sometimes I wonder.
That is not the answer Mosh.....lets all join hands, despite what we believe? They make the Word of non-effect. No that is not the answer, but it may be tried. The world council of churches is a similar move. Just not a move of God.
Pff. Boring. I only read it to se if anyone had mentioned the famous Devil's Footprints: I reckon it was Spring-Heeled Jack what done it.
You claim science IS a religion, yet haven't made an argument to defend your position, other than repeating the claim over and over. And since religion is loosely defined as the belief in supernatural powers that control human destiny, how does this definition fit in with your claim? Does your computer and internet connection work due to supernatural powers?
Well fire being 'hot' or 'hottness' are subjective quantities of experience, thats not really science, also think 2+2 is a bad example since thats an enclosed system of logic (not a judgement or proposition made about the outside world). Newton's concept of gravity is alittle nearer the mark though, certainly he did go out on a limb, his ideas would have been completely heretic initially. Thats not really what im claiming, guesses in science are offen well reasoned, but its still a leap of faith which ever way you spin it (dark matter anyone?), and by following your little leap of faith theres always the distinct possiblity of being completely and utterally wrong and becomming a scientific pariah. Well they must be proven at 'some point' yes, this is clearly where science differs from religion - remember i specifically said that science and religion have clear defined differences. If youre arguing against the idea of religion and science being the same thing then youre arguing against noone because thats not my position : p My position is that most humanbeings are belief/dogma driven no matter what the paradigm, all you can do is put checks and balances in place to make sure the dogma doesnt start to become a substitute for truth itself. Youre dealing with an incredibly simple observation, if all observations were this simple then youre absolutely right there would be no faith, no going out on a limb. Unfortunately most experiments are not this simple, just look at quantum mechanics - you have the 'many worlds' interpretation and the copenhagen interpretation. Modern physics isnt really as simple as boiling a jar of water. Hmm im really not sure i am to be honest, there have been many instances where the data/evidence has pointed in one direction and the scientific consensus has pointed in another. This is clearly dogma. The over all system of science does seem to be good at turning over dogmatic systems of belief reletively quickly though, or so it appears.. Yep this is definitely where science is a better way of inspecting reality. Science isnt dogmatic, thats missing the point imo - humanbeings are dogmatic, all youre pointing out is how the scientific paradigm has become efficient at expelling dogma. That doesnt stop people being dogmatic though Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As i said in my first post to be genunitely nihilistic about everything so that you dont believe in 'xyandz' - you simply percieve it to have the highest probablity of being correct, is incredilby difficult for most people, even scientists. Our minds seem to be much happier in 'belief mode'.
Dark matter is not a "leap of faith", it is a theory based upon observation. It will certainly take a lot more work, but a "leap of faith"? Not at all.
We weren't talking about science in this instance of the conversation, we were talking about knowledge. And therefore, the subjective quantity of experience led to the knowledge that fire is hot, not an out on a limb claim. Since you said: ...I pointed out that experience and observation are key to acquiring knowledge, not necessarily a fanciful claim with 'no clear evidence either way'. There's no leap of faith. Even the proponents of dark matter won't tell you they're 100% absolutely sure that dark matter exists. As humans they'd want to be vindicated that their theory is right sure, that's only human. But the specific question "Are you 100% sure that dark matter exists?" will get you an answer of 'no'. You seemed to be supporting Vizzie's ridiculous comparison. So I came at both of you guns a-blazing. The comparison that science is dogmatic (far less claiming it is a religion) is quite unfounded. You may or may not be right that humans are belief driven. More than likely since there only 16% of the world calls itself "athiest" or "agnostic" or "non religious". Ascribing this ratio to the modern scientific community however is unfair unless you have some sort of non-dogmatic evidence to back it up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Very true, that's what I get for trying to answer at that hour of the night Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! While yes there are varying interpretations in quantum mechanics, you'll get none of these people claiming absolute infallibility. This is not dogmatic. Name a few, point out the empirical evidence and (key here) then tell me that these incorrect scientific consensuses still exist...If they do not exist, or if evidences of opposite are circumstantial or questionable, this is clearly not dogma, it is simply red tape. Perhaps (again considering the overwhelming theist population)...however many scientists are not in the majority of dogmatic humans. Dogmatic scientists (an oxymoron if i ever heard one) would more than likely be in the minority.
Fair enough, i'll conceed that. A small leap of faith doesnt have to denote absolute certainity, simply that you have faith in the possiblity of your line of enquiry. Do people chasing ghosts believe with 100% certainty that ghosts exist as an external phenomena? i doubt very much they do, theyre just seeing where their enquiry takes them and what comes of their investigation. At both ends of the spectrum, regardless of methodology its human beings going after an idea/going out on a limb. This isnt how 'all" knowledge is aquired, you were right to correct me on that, but a large porportion of it is. Would you disagree with this? Far from it, its a huuuuge problem in science that most scientist are more than aware of. Infact theres a huge debate amonsts scientists right now over global warming, the - 'global warming is a redherring' lobby are basically arguing that those 'for' the idea of global warming as simply allowing social dogma and popular attitudes within the media to dictate whether or not it exists, rather than relying purely on the data itself. I think to be honest youre pretty much out in the cold if you dont think dogma is a problem in science, its far too easy for scientists to become comfortable with the 'scientific facts' they learnt at university and to balk at anyone claiming they may be erroneous. Its simply the way humanbeings work, its why new ideas only become fully accepted once the older generation at the helm eventially die of old age. This is widely recognised within the scientific community and far from just an opinion of mine. Maybe it would be simpler to just say its a real problem, rather than ascribing a specific ratio? True but on the flipside look at some of the essays Bohm wrote, i think its pretty loud and clear that he had already made up his mind already how the universe works! Infact when i think back to essays by other scientists ive found this attitude to be pretty universal, you cant state your opinions as fact within a science journal of course, but if youre writing an essay or book its hard not to let slip with any beliefs you might hold. Well i pointed one out earlier - global warming, still a hotbed of controversy in science. Thinking of another - Group selection in evolution is contraversial however the data is absolutely sound, but the idea doesnt seem to have really taken hold yet. People cant really get beyond the main tenants of gene/kin selection. I suspect the problem here is essentially asking people to stop thinking in terms of dna and genes as being the central currency in evolution. Its kind of like trying to re-write one of the 10 commandments in terms of evolutionary theory. Thinking of recent one in archeology, archeological groups had been arguing over the existance of small tribes of miniture humanoids for half a century, all the evidence was there. Consensus just wouldnt swing in their favour though, i suspect part of the problem was that many people had a false association going on whereby communities of dwarfs/elfs were the stuff of fairy-tale and myth and therefore couldnt be true by default. Not so, aging scientists are well known to reach a point whereby they become far too fond of their pet theories and what they were taught originally at college and stop assimilating or accepting current data, (or the weight of consensus). Not suprising - it must feel like someone trying to tear down a belief system youve held all your life! Possibly, although i personally think the system of science itself is less prone to dogma rather than the individuals that compose the system being less prone.
I was wrong when I said that neutronium was the densest possible form of matter. You all know who you are.
He's an [Deleted], Q. Sorry about the "insult", but in my opinion this is a valid and reasonable description.
I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to think outside the box, and is so intelligent, can't come up with a very long list of ways that Science and Religion differ. If these two pursuits seem identical to you, then perhaps it is your head that is in the trough. My wee little brain can think of many ways that Science can be discerned from Religion. 1. Science welcomes change, rather than resisting it. When new theories come along that more elegantly describe observations, scientists flock to them. String Theory, Inflationary Cosmology, Particle Physics, QED, Chaos Theory... they are almost fad-like in the zeal and enthusiasm that they receive. The people that are slow to change are the laymen and the founders of competing theories. How is this not to be expected? The former don't see the improvement as easily, and the latter depend on their formulations for prestige and funding. But science loves to forge ahead. Religion abhors it, killing in the name of stasis. 2. With religion, all knowledge is divinely handed down and it is correct the first time. New discoveries keep conflicting with strongly-held convictions, and must be denied. Science is the thing which is creating these discoveries and these conflicts. If the two were equal, science would be hurting itself through the same process, and yet science gets stronger as religion gets weaker. 3. Science will never say that it has completed its epistemological work. It is always looking to go forward. Religion will always say that its ontological work is failing, and attempt to move back in time, when that ontology included much of what is now in science's domain. How can this shift be taking place if Science=Religion? 4. Part of the scientific process is open disagreement. Every paper is poured over for flaws. Every mistake published, every bad theory hounded out. Religion finds excuses for its flaws, looking for forced consensus. I can't think of a scientist physically torturing another until the latter agreed to the formers findings. Yet religions the world over have always done this. This is a difference that must be accounted for somehow. All of these are differences. What to do about them? Should we call these mutually exclusive things equal? Of course not. We should be sure to label them differently so that we can talk about them and discuss them. But of course, your motives are not elucidation, you seek to cause harm, and to buttress yourself. Why? Because you KNOW that Reason is superior to Faith. Almost all theists KNOW this deep down. They WANT Reason, they WANT their faith in God to be logical, so that it will be dependable. They also want to discredit the Reason of atheists by ironically accusing atheists of being what they feel themselves to be - illogical. So they call Science a Religion, they call Atheism a Faith. It is so transparent what you are doing. You are attaching your own failings to others, and trying to adopt the strength of the Scientific Method for your superstition. It isn't working. Religion and Science are polar opposites. If you are going to choose Religion, at least be comfortable and happy with your decision. Don't take your inner turmoil and doubts out on everyone else. And please don't take them out on the English Language. On this forum, all we have as tools are generally-accepted definitions. If you can't win an argument with these tools, taking them away should not be the next step. -swivel
That's the problem with "leap of faith" isn't it? There are so many levels and definitions of it in humanity that you can apply a technically correct definition of it to anything you feel like applying it to. There are two different kinds of faith and you know it. One is religious zeal and one is basic confidence (for lack of a better word). Where is your evidence that will cause science to throw out a proven theory in favour of a superior one? Or evidence that will cause a consensus for a theory that has no competition? Remember this evidence cannot be circumstantial or even prone to varying interpretation or else a scientific theory cannot be formed. As a simplistic example, you can't say "It is proven that miniature humans existed OR they may have been paleolithic children"!! This is not a scientific theory! That is your perspective. My old math professor and my late physics professor (both are/were over 50 when I was teenaged) were both very enthusiastic about their students learning and challenging. In conversation, my math professor can be quoted as saying he'd be so proud to be proven wrong in a math theorem by one of his students...that it would indicate he's teaching correctly. I don't know how many folks in the science field you know or their achievements/qualifications/specializations...but the ones I know and know of are hardly dogmatic and not even clingy. Science and the scientific process themselves are more likely "immune" rather than simply "less prone". As to the individuals, I cannot speak for the absolute, but I think I can take a "leap of faith" and say that dogma is at least not the forerunner in priorities of a typical scientist's career. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
True, i know what youre saying - my own personal definition would be- 'belief in something or the possiblity of something without adequate proof' Although as i said i dont think theres anything wrong with working off that basis, sometimes to fish out the evidence you have to run the risk of looking foolish/being wrong. Well going with group selection as an example, if you google it/wiki it im sure it wont take you long to find the evidence. Ive got the experiemental evidence in the bibliography of a book somewhere, but i just cant be bothered to root it out at this hour sorry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Its up to you to ultimately whether you personally believe the scientific consensus is right or whether the emerging theory should become the consensus. You needent even go with this example though, scientific history will be littered with ideas that took a disproportionate amount of time to begrudgingly become accepted. Very offen the problem isnt in the validity of the new idea but in how many lectures/resources/and time have been put into the old ones. dwarf-like humans are now part of the archeological consensus actually, twas on the front cover of nature a few years back. That was an example of evidence simply being shunned for no rational reason atall for an absurd length of time, if you look at the findings/evidence they stretch back for half a century (if not further). Yes and im sad to say anyone entertaining such ideas would have probably been labeled at the time a 'quack'. Not every old/middle-aged individual is going to be dogmatic, but even the greatest minds can end up swallowing their own dogma instead of accepting the weight of consensus. You must be aware of how strongly opposed einstein was to quantum field theory? the way in which he rejected evidence after evidence is well documented. I think its debatable whether science will ultimately lead us towards objective truths or lead us down conceptual blind allies. Who knows what scientists in a hundered years time will make of notions our quantum mechanics, or string theory. What im saying is, at this point in time i think its incredibly difficult to guage just how immune science has been. Id argue that as long as human beings are part of the equation the data will always be fallible. The system of science is our best shot of describing our 'objectively reality' but i believe no system is perfect.
I knew my reference to a scifi show would be used to ridicule my entire statement. I've been posting here too long not to expect that. Thats fine though, because it only brings an opening to make this point. My point in referencing the Hac-Tar....was only relating a concept. When science achieves it's ultimate goal........who of you will be around to see the knowledge is in the right hands? None. So what will become of it? If what the spiritual have been trying to tell those who will listen all along is true.....that there are spiritual forces unseen to man, controlling his very nature and that is at war with God..... What have you done in your headlong quest for knowledge apart from the "character" required to contain it? Turned something loose upon the universe that wasn't meant to be loosed. God has a better way. Not religions of the world now, which are under the same spiritual control as it's governments and science, that's how they are alike.......but God. Every Son that comes to God must first be tried and tested......then placed into a position of authority in the Kingdom. Science in the hands of sinful men ( sin defined as unbelief here) attempts to bypass this tried and true method and place this power in the hands of mortals that can't even control themselves let alone the creative power of the universe. If you blindly give your lives and influence to develop knowledge, then leave it in the hands of those who will come after......can any of you see why this can't be allowed? Mortals are hosts. The mortar between the bricks. This is why He said "who's not for Me is against Me" Those who haven't seen this don't yet realize what it is that controls them. Mankind has been the host vessels for the enemies of God, all along. The truth can set you free from this life of spiritual slavery. That is what His sacrifice was for. To bring salvation, to redeem that which was lost.....Man. The journey to enlightenment can not be apart from a spiritual one, that brings a separation that must come first. Science is a quest for this power apart from God. And it's no accident. It is not a sign of man's intelligence, but his ignorance....of who he is, and whats at stake. Jesus said; " If you called them "gods" whom the Word of God came to, and they were".... What then does that make you, if you can hear from your Father in Heaven? The days are soon coming when mortal man will be as rare as the gold of Ophir. God is no longer "winking" at man's ignorance. The truth was here if you really wanted it. It is then a fact that today, men are "willingly ignorant". They have brought about their own end. That said......I could call the names of the ones who will come to deny and refute everything I've just said. But why? This wasn't said for their benefit. Why was I inspired to post spiritual comments on a science forum? Perhaps it is to judge them that slander the truth in the eyes of the innocent, mocking what they don't understand. They will no longer be able to say they didn't hear it.
