SY said:
How is any experment a fixed known reference? if you understand anything about calibration you will know what I'm talking about and I'm sure you do. Also the Ten Commandments is a fixed reference for moral values, no?
kingdaddy said:
Only in Judeo-Christian cultures and only for last few thousand years... and even then often, very often ignored, by those who profess them.
dave
I use the word "experiment" as a general term to mean "testing of hypotheses in the real world."
There are lots of fixed, absolute points used in experiment. Speed of light in a vacuum, for example. Planck's constant. e/m ratio. And so on and so on. With your powers of observation and inference, certainly it has not escaped you that the constancy of these quantities is why your computer works and why the atoms in your body don't collapse.
There are lots of fixed, absolute points used in experiment. Speed of light in a vacuum, for example. Planck's constant. e/m ratio. And so on and so on. With your powers of observation and inference, certainly it has not escaped you that the constancy of these quantities is why your computer works and why the atoms in your body don't collapse.
SY said:
Dave:
It's my understanding that many non-Christian religions have a remarkably similar set of laws to go by, I could be wrong though.
Now on to fixed points:
Speed of light is not an absolute fixed point, it's a guess and can never be proven from my POV. What reference do you use to prove speed of light, and what reference do you use to prove the reference and so on (you get my point). Also I'm quite sure that the atoms in my body have nothing to do with life, a spirit is not made up of atoms, my body is, but that’s not what makes me alive. That’s why science can and never will be able to explain life, it’s looking in the wrong domain with the wrong tools.
The Ten Commandments do not fail as a reference to morals and living together in peace. Everything man made has and will fail, even our laws are based on failure not success.
BTW my computers don’t work very well at all, like all things made by man they fail constantly and cause as much trouble as they alleviate.
Science has no absolutes and is only somewhat successful because these laws can be used for relative matters. You can tell something about another thing (relatively speaking) even if the point of reference is technically incorrect because you are only using it as a tool to judge something that is different relative to it. This in no way proves anything in the absolute, only it’s relation compared to another measurable thing. Sorry for the poor wording, I’m trying to explain something I have no words for but I know in my heart. Much I have learned in the calibration lab, and the more I calibrate the more I realize that there is only relativity in any measurement and no absolutes. Again sorry for the redundancy and poor wording, I’m trying my best, I hope you understand my POV.
kingdaddy said:
True... as Leary has written in one of his many very revealing books, there are way more similarities between the world's religions than differences.
You must be a Windows guy... you can thank Bill Gates for foisting his 3rd rate software on you, and the general custom of many people pushing to buy the lowest priced stuff for the quality of the hardware (also seen in migration of jobs from US to Asia, to a large extent exemplified by Wal-Mart-like attitudes and the droves of people going their to vote with their dollars)
dave
Nope, the speed of light IS the reference. Without it, you have no definition of time. And it's a good reference, else Einstein, Maxwell, Lorentz, et al are wrong and your computer doesn't work and magnetism doesn't exist. The concepts of space and time are a perfect example of how using "common sense and observation" can get you to totally wrong answers.
kingdaddy said:
Well in a modern scientific world............. you do know what mathermatics are right?
Mans earliest reference point was the sun, even in the religous world.
So why the sun? The sun comes up and goes down everyday, it has a frequent pattern, we use this as a reference point. And its not only us who use the sun as a reference, animals too. Ever wonderd why animals fret when there is an eclispe of the sun?
The oldest room on earth is in ireland, (older then the pyramids btw). They used the sun to mark a new year and to know when to plant crops, along with religion.
Even today we still use the sun as a reference point. How do you think we are able to measure the speed/distance of manny things in space?
Trev🙂
You seem very certain on this, do you have any proof to back up your statement?
The mind is very powerful.............do spirits realy exist? Or is it our imagination, coincidence ect?
Trev🙂
SY said:
Maybe it’s my lack of understanding or ability to properly word my intent, but all I see in the physical realm is relativity and not one absolute unless you count death, and technically death IMO is not of the physical either. Have you ever had an epiphany about something you had no prior knowledge or experience in, but somehow knew that this idea in your heart was undoubtedly true? I’ve only had a few, most were of the spiritual sort but some like the relative/absolute conundrum have caome as a byproduct of my better understanding of the spirit world.
That is because you don't really know it is true. You just feel that you "knew that this idea in your heart was undoubtedly true." But the sciences of neurology and psychology (as well as common sense) shows that feelings of knowledge do not imply said knowledge. After all, certainly there are cases where an individual has felt that something was "undoubtedly true", whereas another one has felt that something contradictory was just as "undoubtedly true."
That's exactly it. Guess what, the basics of physical understanding of the way the universe works are not inborn to humans; we mortals have to actually study and work hard at it. It took millions of hours of work by thousands of enormously intelligent people to get us to the basics that one can learn in a 4 year physics program. The idea that you can somehow conjure it up for yourself is as misguided as expecting you can learn Hebrew by just thinking hard about Moses.
BTW, my big epiphany came while studying Einstein's first paper on relativity. Brilliant in its simplicity and power- Einstein was a first-class writer. At once, I understood why magnetic fields were an inevitable result of the mostion of charged particles. It was so powerful and brought together so many previously-disjointed bits of knowledge floating around in my brain that I literally shed tears.
Prune said:
I believe that God is literally Truth and my faith in God is my absolute to judge all things from. That being said, if you don’t know God then you cannot know what truth is, you can only guess. So far I haven’t seen, felt or heard anything that proves science has any answers to the questions of life or it’s origins and since science keeps changing their theories I feel it imprudent to acknowledge science as anything but self edification and an exercise in futility. Until those men of science acknowledge God they will never know the absolute reference of truth and therefore always stumble in the dark with only an occasional glimpse of their true surroundings, and still they wont know what they see because they are looking too close. I have no doubts of what I know and understand in my heart and don’t intend to just roll over and abandon them at the drop of a unproven and illogical religion, which is science and the minds of man.
Dont take this the wrong way, i respect what people beleive in and who they are ect, but i for one could reverse that and say the same for god and the bible.
Trev🙂
And which god are you talking about, he kindly asked?
And god was created in the image of man.
That for me is a truer statement that also has the advantage that it can be researched in its multicultural variety that to me prove this statement to be correct.
All societies create the god they need to give a spiritual basis for their abuses of what we now call human rights.
As you might gather - i have a rather dim view of religion, and for me it is at the root of the most evil things humans did to each other.
Your standpoint is finally very clear - as i had suspected from the start - any attempt of a discussion was only meant to come to your final conclusion: that science for you, if it is not based on the concept of "god" is no science.
Back to before the enlightenment started.
It seems to me you did not even try to understand the principle that science is simply not interested in god, as it is beyond its scope of investigation for all the reasons mentioned.
ace3000_1 said:
You’d have to get in line because half a dozen have already done so. In fact I find it ironic that the science crowd cannot see that if they point their high power perception of how there is no proof of a God toward their own beliefs it will yield the same questions of validity. What’s strange is the fact that belief in a God does not even require any physical or scientific evidence and it survives the scrutiny better then science examining its own theories/theorems. BTW not to worry, I am not ever offended by a rational respectful debate even if it leads to someone exclaiming that I’m a wack job for my beliefs and curses the existence of any possibility of a God, my faith is not nearly so shaken. Also I dont beleive any Bible is the untarnished word of God, their all tainted with mans hands, and AFAIK the only text God himself wrote is the Ten Commandments.
IMO.
Well just because you see things different doesnt make you a whack job, (we could get technical here and define exactly what a whack job is 😀 ). You are you, you beleive in what you believe, you see in what you see, you feel in what you feel, and people should respect that no matter the colour, race, proof, differences ect.
Trev 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.