To all atheists and non-believers

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by timojin, Mar 29, 2016.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Same to you.
    I believe the world is older than Galileo , Shamans and Astrologers existed in the time Nimrod in Mesopotamia , In Egypt surgery was don on human scull Those people were religious people , they got inspired by the spirits. In the last 1000 years there were not scientist , there were the Alchemists , tradesmen, witches, healers .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Does the truth scare you?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Not. I believe science is exploration and so man did not have much time in his early times , he just wanted to satisfy his stomach , he worked from sun rise to sun down and was lead by religious leaders .
    As man become economically in better position and he had more time then he started to explore . and later in the 1600 children of wealthy had the opportunity to learn of other people experiences explore further their knowledge and than call it science.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    1600, where does that come from?
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,075
    Sorry timojin, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,075
    Sorry timojin, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Religion may have inspired exploration in certain areas but science follows reality regardless of the starting point. Real scientific exploration has led us away from religious "truth".
     
    Write4U and zgmc like this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,075
    Ah, I see what you are saying, but how do we know that scientific exploration does not lead us closer to natural "truth"? Suppose original cause is just a mathematical equation? An implaccable genderless dynamical natural imperative.
    I am a fan of Bohmian Mechanics and if there ever was a scientist who was qualified to speak on both subjects of Physics and Metaphysics, it was David Bohm.
    Below are some reviews by knowledgeable minds.
    http://www.quantumyoga.org/QuantumBrahman.html

    and a complete biography by Will Keeping;

    http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS

    Somewhere in this I see truth, metaphysical, but not religious and without the necessity for a biblical God.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  12. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,405
    I think need and greed inspired exploration first. curiosity second. Certainly those with more time on their hands had an advantage.
     
  13. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,118
    In my humble opinion, stating that early hominid's exploration of stone knapping & heat treating, ceramics, weapons manufacture and use, food gathering, crop production and preservation, fire technology etc were NOT science is arrogant, to say the very least. You simply cannot start at the top (present state) and dismiss all that had gone before as something other than science. As I recall, the 'computers' of the early 20th century were not machines, they were human beings.

    However, I am used to this type of trolling from this individual and don't take it seriously.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Billy T likes this.
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    The only way to recognize natural "truth" is by religious dogma. Science doesn't deal in "truth", if such a thing even exists; it deals in reality.
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I was a fan of his too, even bought one of his books; but during reading of its sections on the guiding waves, I became no longer a fan, as I think he is demonstrably wrong about them, if you believe every electron is identical to all others.

    It is hard to explain my objections, but we know that photons and electrons only interfere with themselves. Consider two electrons in an interferometer which were launched into it at the same time. Each has its own "guiding wave" that is occupying exactly the same space with in the interferometer, yet guides ONLY its electron.

    How could that be if they are truly identical? AFAICan tell, it can't be, unless there is some difference between the electrons, which plays the role of a name. I. e. Bohm postulates that guiding wave A, associated with electron A has no influence on electron B, which is guided by its own guiding wave B. Yet the guiding waves (and the electrons) are in all parts of the interferometer simultaneously and together.

    Wave A must some how recognize electron A, but it is identical to electron B and in the same identical space. Guiding wave A can restrict its effect to electron A alone ONLY IF, there is some difference between electrons A & B. - A huge violation of known physics.

    For example, if there is any difference, ever so slight, the whole periodic table of elements has no foundation and chemisty completely changes as any number of these different electrons can all be in the same ground state of "hydrogen." Pauli's exclusion principle is in the trash can!

    To me, the lesson from all this is don't let your philosphy / beliefs over rule math that works (to 16 significant figures, at least) even if the results seem very strange to humans.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
  16. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,661
    Then how should we understand phrases like 'experimental confirmation' or 'proved mathematically'?

    Science deals in propositions that are believed to refer to physical reality. And science endeavors to have as many of its 'scientific' propositions about physical reality be as true as it can manage.

    If scientific propositions shouldn't be thought of as being true, then why should anyone believe anything they read in textbooks or in the journals?
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Confirmation is relative to what we already know; it is not absolute. Proof is a matter of internal consistency.

    They shouldn't "believe". They should accept the best current explanations of reality. They should also accept that those explanations may well be superseded - i.e. that they are not "truth".
     
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Which as they differ? Some say there is a heaven; others say no, there is re-incarnation. etc. That is no guide to truth, but a path to disputes about truth.

    Physics may not be completely true either, but it is converging towards truth. Newton make great advance from the idea that angels, were beating their wings, to keep the planets in perfect circles about the sun, but he did not have it quite right. Even still with GR, Science may not be exactly truth, but if not, it is getting ever closer to the "natural truths."

    Religion, only the other hand is continually splitting and then disputing what is truth. Once at least Christianity was unified. Then it split into two branches. Then Luther spit the western Catholic version (Protestant vs. Catholics) Now there are many dozen of versions of the Protestant faith's version of truth and several of the Catholic's.

    Summary:
    If religion is a guide to truth, then truth is extremely finely divided now with A's truth in contradiction to B's truth.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
    Write4U likes this.
  19. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,118
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,075
    I think I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that truth can only be recognized by religious dogma.

    Uunless you want to include Mathematics as a religious dogma, religion does not come into play in a universe that functions only mathematically, which it appears to do. According to Tegmark, "the universe does not have some mathematical properties, it has only mathematical properties". Which, IMO, has no need for a sentient and motivated supernatural mathematician. It is just the way things work and is probably the only way to achieve any consisency in functions.
    p.s. I have never heard anyone say that god holds the universe together. Mathematics do.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,075
    I am way over my head here, but allow me to offer a few thoughts on this.
    Why use the term "guiding wave" for local conditions? Would it not be more accurated to say the particle's *guided wave*? A river guides all particles downstream, but the river may display eddies, wave interferences, even whirlpools, and all water molecules are identical in structure themselves. But even as physical objects they must obey the physical wave interference.
    But consider, wave A needs not recognize particle A. Particle A creates the wavefunction associated with that particle. Thus while particles themselves do not interact, their wave functions can , and do as demonstrated by the double slit experiment. All particles become expressed in seperate locations (the interference pattern) and never actually interact physically as particles.
    But wave A needs not recognize particle A, the wave function IS particle A in a state of transition. And we do know waves of any frequency can and do interfere or harmonize.
    But elements do exist, thus there must be a flaw in the logic of that proposition.

    I completely agree with that. This is why I always qualify my statements as probative rather than declarative. It is a fascinating subject.
     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    I didn't say that religion is a guide to truth. I said "truth" is a symptom of religion. If they claim to have "the truth", they're religious.
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    That isn't what I said. I said that if somebody claims to have "the truth", what he has is religious dogma.
     

Share This Page