[romanP]

Blue_Nose wrote:

romanP wrote:

Discussing anything is impossible if you won't allow anyone to define the terms being discussed. So what is your purpose in this discussion, because it seems you are now doing exactly what you previously accused Bart of doing, that is deflecting all manner of reasoning. In fact, that seems to be exactly what you've been doing all along, while Bart was trying to define what he was talking about, after you asked him to do so.

I will no longer play this game. If you can't offer a better, more sensical definition instead of merely brushing off everything you disagree with, I think it's only fair to call your opinions on the matter null and void, since you seem intent on declaring that nothing has any meaning or definition anyway.

Magic has a definition, as has been pointed out. That definition is not "that which causes action" or whatever you've claimed. I'm siding with the dictionary on this one.

So you choose to demonstrate that you haven't been paying attention at all. First, I gave the definition of karma and you brushed it off as superstition, when it clearly is not so, and now you confuse it with my definition of magic.

No, my definition of magic is the end result of karma. Karma is action, which causes change. Without action, there is no change. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is how the universe has happened, as far as we can tell, from beginning to present. Magic is carrying out intentional action, and seeing your intentions come to fruition.

The definition of magic in the dictionary includes something which is unreasonable and unexplainable, and therefore makes no sense. Why would you choose to believe in something that doesn't exist, when all it takes for this definition to be realistic is for one term, which is wholly unncessary, to be excluded?

Quote:

I'll post where I please, thanks. I'm not going anywhere.

Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't be bothered to have some knowledge of the terms being used.

Quote:

romanP wrote:

Quote:

Since time originated with the Big Bang,

No one knows where time originates. It's questionable as to whether or not anything existed before the Big Bang.

Yes, we do know - you're simply assuming your own ignorance is universal. Spacetime is the fundamental component of Einstein's theory of relativity, which binds time and space together. Given our understanding of physics (feel free to challenge Einstein's theories), time does not exist without space, nor space without time. There was no 'before the Big Bang'.

Einstein's theories about the beginning of the universe are being challenged rather heavily these days. Space and time requiring each other to exist do not rule out that there might have been something before the Big Bang, since there is, as of yet, no observable proof that there was no time or space before the Big Bang, only that it created time and space in our universe.

Einstein only wrote about the laws of our universe, since it is, as of yet, impossible to even conceive of the laws of other universes, should such things exist.

Quote:

romanP wrote:

What existed before the Big Bang is a very large question. No one knows exactly how the Big Bang occurred.

See above. How the Big Bang occured is certainly a major question, though.

In order to ask how the Big Bang occurred, you might need to include the idea that something existed before the Big Bang. It is only a part of the currently observable timeline, we don't know that other events were or were not possible before the beginning of this observable timeline. The only logical answer is that there both were and were not events before the Big Bang.

Quote:

romanP wrote:

God is, by many definitions, the embodiment of all unanswered questions. There are many things which we may never know.

Simply attributing everything unknown to 'God' is a meaningless designation - what's the point? Why not simply leave the questions unanswered, as they should be?

Because people who speak and write like to give things names, especially ones that are easy to say. "God" is a lot easier to use than "all great and unanswered questions."

Quote:

romanP wrote:

There is a realm of science where opinion and fact are almost indistinguishable from each other. This area of science has a lot to do with how we managed to fit 750GB of data on two 3.5" metal discs, where we could once only fit .001% of that amount. If early nuclear physicists had not debated and shared opinions, we would not have this area of science.

We're coming close to an age where quantum computers (which are parallel computers, or essentially neural networks, like our own brains), will be able to exist at room temperature. It's now possible that this could happen within our lifetime. It has been said that a quantum computer equal to 1 q-bit has more computing power than all pre-existing computers in any given city. That is, a computer made from an artificial atom using an electron to perform essentially the same task a transistor would, has more computing power than any of us is capable of, even with the aid of a city full of computers made with current consumer technology. These computers already exist, and are being used to crack strong encryption algorithms, but can currently only exist at temperatures close to absolute zero.

We have the potential to build true artificial intelligence with quantum computers, yet we still have yet to really understand all of the components that got us to this point in the first place, that is, intelligence, consciousness, and the mind.

Blah blah blah, we get it - you're really, really, really impressed by technology. That still has nothing to do with magic or the supernatural.

It has quite a lot to do with it, but if you refuse to understand, then I don't know why you keep replying. Go pick your nose or something if this doesn't interest you.

The gravity of this situation is that it's very likely that, within our lifetime, we could create technology that will operate with its own sentience, beyond our control. It's unfortunate you think this is irrelevant, because we have yet to fully understand what makes us alive and sentient. As of yet, the answer is still something that might be called supernatural, and this makes it difficult to really distinguish the difference between whatever is natural and whatever is supernatural.

Quote:

romanP wrote:

If there isn't such a law, then why is it that, as far as we can tell, the universe only has 117 natural elements and not an infinite amount?

117 elements have been observed at this point. Some time ago, there were 116 observed elements. Are you trying to suggest there's some special significance to the number 117? Is there even a scientific law that makes a comment on such a limit?

I'm asking why we haven't found, say, 5.34x10^99999999 elements instead of such a small number as 117.

btw, this conversation is very hard to follow and reply to with your deleting of the subject matter of what you're replying to.

Quote:

romanP wrote:

Science, religion, and philosophy have always served the same purposes. They all exist to attempt to explain the world around us. Religious scriptures are mostly documented compilations of stories, myths and communal laws of people who lived thousands of years ago. Some of those stories are different versions of ways to explain how everything came into existence, which is the same thing science intends to do. The question of whether or not anything is real is one being asked by science, religion, and philosophy.

Religion has a nasty habit of coming up with conclusions and fighting tooth and nail to maintain them. I don't recall anyone being burned at the stake for making a comment against science.

I don't know that any Buddhists have ever been burnt at the stake by other Buddhists for anything, and it seems rather inconceivable that such a thing would happen, so I think your reply is a tad silly.

Quote:

romanP wrote:

That would be an incorrect definition of science. Science is a routine of being continually proven wrong. If this were untrue, we would still be thinking that the sun rotates around the earth, which is the centre of the universe and flat.

I didn't define science, I highlighted falsifiability as a component required in science. To be able to be falsified is a requirement of a scientific hypothesis, exactly as I stated. In other words, if you can't possibly prove your hypothesis wrong, you can't make any scientific conclusions. That you bring up the fact that science is continually refined and revised supports my point.

I have no idea, since you deleted whatever it was that I was previously replying to

[Blue_Nose]

romanP wrote:

So you choose to demonstrate that you haven't been paying attention at all. First, I gave the definition of karma and you brushed it off as superstition, when it clearly is not so, and now you confuse it with my definition of magic.

No, my definition of magic is the end result of karma. Karma is action, which causes change. Without action, there is no change. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is how the universe has happened, as far as we can tell, from beginning to present. Magic is carrying out intentional action, and seeing your intentions come to fruition.

The definition of magic in the dictionary includes something which is unreasonable and unexplainable, and therefore makes no sense. Why would you choose to believe in something that doesn't exist, when all it takes for this definition to be realistic is for one term, which is wholly unncessary, to be excluded?

You've created your own definitions for words that already have explicit definitions. I can do that too:

Blue_Nose's Pointless Proof of the Existance of Magic:
Magic is sunlight bouncing playfully off the waters of the lake. Therefore, magic exists.

Is that a useful exercise at all? No, it serves no purpose but to muddy the terms being used.

romanP wrote:

Einstein's theories about the beginning of the universe are being challenged rather heavily these days. Space and time requiring each other to exist do not rule out that there might have been something before the Big Bang, since there is, as of yet, no observable proof that there was no time or space before the Big Bang, only that it created time and space in our universe.

There's no useful argument for anything "before" the Big Bang, either. Mere speculation of something isn't useful without some scientific reasoning.

romanP wrote:

In order to ask how the Big Bang occurred, you might need to include the idea that something existed before the Big Bang. It is only a part of the currently observable timeline, we don't know that other events were or were not possible before the beginning of this observable timeline. The only logical answer is that there both were and were not events before the Big Bang.

That's a bastardization of Schrodinger's cat experiment. You should note that this was not an argument that suggested one should literally consider both states to be occuring at the same time.

romanP wrote:

Because people who speak and write like to give things names, especially ones that are easy to say. "God" is a lot easier to use than "all great and unanswered questions."

It's not easier when God is already used as "the sky-daddy that created the universe".

romanP wrote:

It has quite a lot to do with it, but if you refuse to understand, then I don't know why you keep replying. Go pick your nose or something if this doesn't interest you.

The gravity of this situation is that it's very likely that, within our lifetime, we could create technology that will operate with its own sentience, beyond our control. It's unfortunate you think this is irrelevant, because we have yet to fully understand what makes us alive and sentient. As of yet, the answer is still something that might be called supernatural, and this makes it difficult to really distinguish the difference between whatever is natural and whatever is supernatural.

So you're arguing that magic and karma are not supernatural, but computers are?!? You're right - I should stop replying to your pointless comments.

romanP wrote:

I'm asking why we haven't found, say, 5.34x10^99999999 elements instead of such a small number as 117.

Why is 5.34x10^99999999 elements more reasonable than 117? You made the argument that this constitutes a scientific law - let's hear the scientific law that states there's no more than 117 elements.

romanP wrote:

btw, this conversation is very hard to follow and reply to with your deleting of the subject matter of what you're replying to.

It's also very hard to follow if pages and pages of nestled quote boxes fill the posts - this line of discussion is making posts too long as it is. If you can't remember your own arguments, go back and review the thread.

romanP wrote:

I don't know that any Buddhists have ever been burnt at the stake by other Buddhists for anything, and it seems rather inconceivable that such a thing would happen, so I think your reply is a tad silly.

The obvious point was that science and religion do not have the same interests at all. Buddhism is an exception to typical religion, as the Dalai Lama himself has stated that if science explains the world in a manner more fitting than Buddhism has, they'd accept the science. They are truly interested in discovering the truth.

romanP wrote:

I have no idea, since you deleted whatever it was that I was previously replying to

I brought up falsification as a requirement of science - the ability to prove a hypothesis incorrect. You tried to challenge that somehow, but you were wrong.

[DerbyX]

romanP wrote:

Religion has never sought to do that either. Religion is merely a tool, like a hammer. You can use a hammer to hit nails and build a house, or you can use a hammer to bash in someone's face and kill them. This doesn't make the hammer a bad tool, it just means that some people have more wicked intentions in their mind than others.

Except that religion does try and control peoples lives, some moreso then others. The 10 commandments ring a bell? Hell, its often preached that the bible is a "how to" manual to get to heaven. Same diff with the qu'ran.

People may ues religion to do good or bad but in either case they are seeking to exert control over someones life and they use the theology to do it (usually in the form of thraets of hellfire).

Science doesn't do that because science is simply an explanation. Nobody says "if you don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics you will go to hell".

Quote:

Religion is a tool for guidance and a simpler way of understanding the universe. It's like the Coles Notes of science. It asks a lot of the same questions, but the answers are a bit muddied by the cultures it passes through and they're not so full of jargon that can be hard for the average person to understand.

Sure religion is used as a guiding force (a benevolent type of control) but is not a simpler method of understanding of the less intellectually gifted. It starts with a conclusion "god did it" and simply tries to shoehorn everything into its conclusion. All data that supports it conclusion, no matter how flimsy is given enormous weight and all data that contradicts it, no matter how solid is simply discounted as "obviously false".

Religion is not open to the possibility it may be wrong, except in minor non-core theology points.

Science works the other way around. Even if I start with a premise that I am trying to prove and the experimental data I produce proves I was wrong I am still advancing scientific knowledge (sherlock holmes style) and thus science still wins.

Quote:

The idea that god is everything is not one that can be discounted by science.

Nor can that idea every be proven and thus seriously taken as an explanation.

Quote:

We've created our own computer simulations of life, and this makes it difficult to determine if our own reality isn't also some kind of simulation. We're already building alternate universes on the internet, in the form of games like World of Warcraft and Second Life (especially the latter), and it's only a matter of time before these universes also become conscious and self-aware.

Uhhhhh, coming from a hard-core gamer like myself I can safely say that I have never gone to a bar and picked a fight with the largest guy I could find with the intent of relyinh on my upraded magic missles spell to save my ass.

I've heard this reality speech before but it fails the same basic logic as the "what if" infinity explantion that a six year old may utter.

Quote:

As for creationism, that's just people misusing a tool again. Not all Christians are scared morons who think they need to market their religion in order to save it, especially in a way that goes against all of its own teachings. In fact, it's probably safe to say that most Christians aren't like that, and this phenomenon is only popularised by a vocal minority.

Misuing? I would think they say they are the people (and only them natch) who are getting it right.

Regardless, the same tactics they use to promote creationism are the same ones religion uses to further its belief structure through science. I may not believe in it but at least I can respect the person who say "I cannot prove my god exists but I believe he does". As long as he isn't trying to prove he exists to me. Afterall, I can't prove my parents/girlfriend truly love me but I believe it anyway.

Of course we have now come to the devide between spirituality and religion. You seem to be talking from a mostly spiritual sense. You have far less credence talking about religion because religion is rooted in the mundane world and has at its core a controlling (or guiding if you like) and proving tennent. It does seek to prove itself to the people in order to get people to believe.

Religion does have written texts that it says are the literal/inspired word of their god and that word must be provable by that level alone.

Quote:

Quantum physics, philosophy and eastern religions all quite have a lot in common, actually. At the subatomic levels, it becomes quite difficult to discern whether or not everything is the same even when it appears different, and whether or not anything exists because it was already there, or if it only appears to exist because we observed it.

100 years ago we had the same trouble dealing with the molecular level. Quantum physics has nothing in common with philosophy and/or eastern religions except when we are trying to pick up that smoking hot 3rd year graphic artist student at the local pub.

Past that it is horribly, horribly complex equations understood only by the type of people who have absolutely no chance with that 3rd year hottie.

Quote:

Whose religion does that? Buddhism demands that all Buddhists recognise the impermanence of a changing universe. Discordians believe that all things are true, even when they're not, and they don't even really believe that.

Chritstianity, Islam, and Judaism for starters. Now just because Buddhism has a more 60s hippie vibe to it doesn't mean it knows anything about science though or the quantum nature of the universe.

Quote:

You're confusing all religion with the mind tricks of hucksters calling themselves Christian clergymen, a common mistake made by angry atheists. Perhaps you can come up with a more knowledgeable argument when you've stopped sucking on those sour grapes.

Suurrre. My bad using actual christians as examples of christianity. Unfortunately, even the ones who don't make any effort to convert people or make policy in the mundane world doesn't mean they don't hold those beliefs. The fact that they are christians means they believe in the theology surrounding the birth/death/ressurection of JC and all the "historical" events surrounding his life, not to mention that they put alot of faith in what their bible says.

Alot of real world historical claims that science can indeed support ot disprove.

Quote:

Only in the eyes of a jaded, angry atheist. You're just as silly for firmly believing there is no god as anyone else who believes that god is an old white man in the sky who talks to them directly. Being certain in your lack of belief about one thing doesn't free you from all belief, it just shifts your belief to something else. You are just as religious as the people you're criticising.

For someone who cannot tell the difference between religion and spirituality you seem pretty sure.

Spirituality my be a search for answers whereever that journey takes them but that is simply not so with religion. Religion starts with the answer, god. Its subsequent journey is not finding where the road leads but always attempting tomake sure that road leads to their god. In addition your religion/spirituality deals with alot of non-testable beliefs.

Science doesn't. It may postulate unproven theories but they are based on real evidence and the knwoledge that further evidence will come when more knowledge exists.

Claiming that science is just a religious also shows you lack of knowledge about what science is. Science is about evidence. Relgion/spirituality is about faith.

Quote:

That is part of the mysterious nature of the universe. Let me know when you solve it, because a newer, harder puzzle will probably take its place.

That is science not religion. Science can accept the existence of a provable god. An omnipotent god can certainly prove himself to us thereby validating the theory.

Can religion say the same? How many follow religion in order to determine if god(s) actually exists? How many follow because they have already reached that conclusion and are offended by the actual questioning now?

Quote:

There are a lot of things that have no evidence for existing in anyone else's reality tunnel, but are most definitely a part of yours. Take, for example, the difficulty I'm having in explaining my ideas about magic. It makes so much sense in my mind, but I think many people here are too jaded to understand what I'm saying, and perhaps I'm pushing my Belief System too hard on them. This does not mean that no such thing exists in the form that I think of it, it only means it's not a part of a lot of other people's nervous systems.

Yes you are. You are getting pissed off at me because I just won't see it your way. You haven't made your case. You can't compare science and religion because I don't believe you truly understand either one.

What you seem to understand is spirituality but that is neither science nor religion though the 3 are not mutally exclusive. You may have a spiritual or non-spiritual scientist but that doesn't mean that spirituality is scientific or even at its basic tennets works the same.

Quote:

Yes, yes, christianity. You can poke a lot of holes in it. You can also poke a lot of holes in atheism. I think you will find that a lot of things stated by religions have their time and place, but some of them are timeless.

Poke a single holw in "atheism"? Considering its single and only tennent is 'I don't believe in god(s)".

Quote:

In Jewish tradition, there is quite a lot of reason behind kosher food practises, such as not eating pork and slaughtering cattle in a certain way. They have quite a lot to do with personal health and hygeine, and reducing the suffering of other animals should you have to kill them in order to eat them. Of course, we have refridgeration and health laws now, but 4,000 years ago, these things were very important.

Yes, quite alot of religious and cultural taboos were created to keep people from doing things that primitive man knew from experience led to bad things. So what?

They didn't attempt to discover why, they just simply said "god said don't do this".

They didn't say "god said don't do this because doign it will make you sick".

Quote:

Science is always being proven wrong. It was once thought, less than a century ago, that atoms couldn't possibly exist, and then Einstein proved that they do. After decades of theorising, we're coming around to the idea that atoms were kind of a silly idea in the first place, and a whole new model of the structure of matter is having to be designed.

A theory or scientific belief may be proven wrong but science isn't. What do you think they used to prove that theory wrong? Yup, science. Discovering new and better evidence that invalidates a theory is infact very good science.

Quote:

Not so much a copout as my refusal to believe anything. My god is everyone's god, and even your certitude that there is no god.

Your god is everyones god eh? Zeus? Odin? Qhat about all the other gods that exists eh?

Quote:

I'd like to see you try to explain consciousness with atheism.

Easy, Magic.

[romanP]

DerbyX wrote:

Quote:

Not so much a copout as my refusal to believe anything. My god is everyone's god, and even your certitude that there is no god.

Your god is everyones god eh? Zeus? Odin? Qhat about all the other gods that exists eh?

All of them. Every last one of them. Can you deal with that?

I'd respond to the rest of this, but I'm getting bored with your insistence in talking only about Abrahamic faiths. It shows a certain kind of tempered ignorance, which makes it seem like a waste of time to keep talking about it. I tried to shift your attention to the fact that there are many other religions than the ones that were born from Judaism, and you were barely willing to acknowledge that much.

[DerbyX]

romanP wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Quote:

Not so much a copout as my refusal to believe anything. My god is everyone's god, and even your certitude that there is no god.

Your god is everyones god eh? Zeus? Odin? Qhat about all the other gods that exists eh?

All of them. Every last one of them. Can you deal with that?

I'd respond to the rest of this, but I'm getting bored with your insistence in talking only about Abrahamic faiths. It shows a certain kind of tempered ignorance, which makes it seem like a waste of time to keep talking about it. I tried to shift your attention to the fact that there are many other religions than the ones that were born from Judaism, and you were barely willing to acknowledge that much.

Dodge away then chummer.

You seem to think you are any different with your insistance that your religious beliefs are any different then those you are pissing on you have no credibility.

Come back and respond when you have studied and have obtained enough knowledge to understand what a) Science is; b) Religion means; and c) What defines spirituality.

I will be here waiting to correct you.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX wrote:

Except that religion does try and control peoples lives, some moreso then others.

Not all religions try to control people.

Followers of Jainism, for instance, would utterly recoil at the prospect of controlling anyone else. Spiritual independence is a key tenet of their faith and, as such, imposing oneself on others would violate their spiritual independence.

A Jain would never force their faith on anyone for any reason.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Except that religion does try and control peoples lives, some moreso then others.

Not all religions try to control people.

Followers of Jainism, for instance, would utterly recoil at the prospect of controlling anyone else. Spiritual independence is a key tenet of their faith and, as such, imposing oneself on others would violate their spiritual independence.

A Jain would never force their faith on anyone for any reason.

Jainism is a lifestyle philosophy as much as anything. Its followers try to live their lives by a specific code (an almost anti-fun code) and while that isn't quite the same thing as being dictated at by your priest/iman/TV evangelist it is still a way to live your life.

It also has less then zero to do with scientific knowledge and the pursuit thereof.

Romans whole theory is that religion and science are both essentially the search for truth but that is simply not the case. He also nicely discounts any religion that does try and control peoples lives and singles out the "abrahamic faiths" meaning 4/5ths of the population who follow them as being used wrong.

Even if it is a uplifting and benign religion dedicated to the well being of its practioners it still doesn't qualify it as science.

Science is a science unto itself. It deals with the physical world and the realities that come with it. It deals with evidence and theories based on evidence and observation.

Faith by its very nature doesn't work that way. Thats why its called faith.