0
kallend

Science corrects its mistakes

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote


Now you are talking about spiritualism. I don't believe in that either.



Call it what you want. Basically you have chosen to not live a discipline that others do, for whatever reason. There is no common experience there for you to fully appreciate whatever observations are made by those living a given discipline. That doesn't make you a bad guy, nor does it invalidate observations and experiences made by those living a discipline.



Not sure what your point is here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


Now you are talking about spiritualism. I don't believe in that either.



Call it what you want. Basically you have chosen to not live a discipline that others do, for whatever reason. There is no common experience there for you to fully appreciate whatever observations are made by those living a given discipline. That doesn't make you a bad guy, nor does it invalidate observations and experiences made by those living a discipline.



Not sure what your point is here?



That you're blind to the double standard you are displaying in your comments.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


My mother is a Jehovah's Witness and that is what I grew up with.



Ah, that is pretty hard core. My mother was raised Church of Christ in the deep south. I was raised in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist faith, again in the deep south. That belief system, as I was exposed to it, is quite limiting, IMO.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Not sure what your point is here?



You've chosen to let your experience with a fucked up belief system impact your entire view on an energy space that does exist, and is accessible to those who choose to investigate it.



You might as well have written that in Klingon and I would have understood it the same.

What "energy space"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


Now you are talking about spiritualism. I don't believe in that either.



Call it what you want. Basically you have chosen to not live a discipline that others do, for whatever reason. There is no common experience there for you to fully appreciate whatever observations are made by those living a given discipline. That doesn't make you a bad guy, nor does it invalidate observations and experiences made by those living a discipline.



Not sure what your point is here?



That you're blind to the double standard you are displaying in your comments.



I don't see the double standard. I think you are not understanding what I am writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I don't see the double standard. I think you are not understanding what I am writing.



I do understand what you're writing, better than you can imagine. You're disputing a Christian god based upon your experience. And I agree with you, _that_ god doesn't exist as you and I were taught to experience it.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Emotions and feelings should have no place in determining whether something exists or not. With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none.



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'

Christopher Hitchens



"Absence of evidence of absence does not give rise to a presumption of presence."

-Andy9o8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going back to the Neutrino particles.

Yes we know they exist and that they have always existed. But before we could prove they existed it could not be reasonably concluded that they did exist. Why? Because there was no evidence to conclude so. Only an argument that they existed. Coming to the conclusion that something exists does not cause it to begin existing it just means we are aware of it's existence. We are currently not aware of the existence of any deity because there is no evidence of one. Many people believe deitys exist, but belief does not mean there is any that exist and is not enough to conclude that any deity exists. Evidence is needed.

Does that clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


What "energy space"?



An energy that most religions call "God". It's an energy that our science cannot measure, and our vocabulary is quite limited in describing.


...exactly like Thor, Apollo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Because there was no evidence to conclude so.



Right. And that evidence did not present itself until someone went looking for it. And after much effort, and no small amount of failure along the way, they succeeded in producing observations that could be discussed. Then, as others were taught how to make those observations, an entire new word came into our vocabulary that's in common use today.

Quote


Only an argument that they existed. Coming to the conclusion that something exists does not cause it to begin existing it just means we are aware of it's existence. We are currently not aware of the existence of any deity because there is no evidence of one.



You continue to argue against a Christian God, as you and I were taught to experience it. You're preaching to the choir, brother :P:)
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


What "energy space"?



An energy that most religions call "God". It's an energy that our science cannot measure, and our vocabulary is quite limited in describing.



What makes you think it exists?



For me, subjective, emotional evidence that leads me to believe in the existence of a god of some sort.

Again, evidence that doesn't meet a level of scientific "proof".
But it is enough to convince me (mostly anyway, I'm not completely sure).
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


What makes you think it exists?



Basically, I sought those observations.

After I rejected my Christian beliefs, there still existed a body of observations/personal experiences/awareness that simply did not make sense to me in a context where I was just worm food waiting to happen. Over the course of my first year in graduate school, I spent quite a bit of time trying to reconcile an understanding of God with my knowledge of thermodynamics. It turned out to be reasonably simple, maybe even crude. 25 years after I reached a closing point on that "thought", I put it to paper here in dzcom as a multi-thread series, starting here:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396715;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

The one thing that view lacked was allowing for any significant personal experience. Basically, I was in a great river. Found myself spending alot of time watching out for eddies, avoiding the big rocks, and keeping the cooler close by as needed.

The one nagging thought that I kept coming back to was: each and every one of us is our own reservoir of energy, and we're all capable of producing great change for good in this life. Even within ourselves there are really many reservoirs of energy, including ones that can be called love, compassion, etc. They're all there waiting to be understood, appreciated, lived in this life, and hopefully shared with others.

I've now reached a point where I have a comfortable framework to further explore this energy. It's a personal thing, for everyone who chooses to make the effort.

Editted to add this link:
My last thread is here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2409368;search_string=God%20and%20the%201st%20law%20of%20thermo;#2409368
It will let you track back through the other threads easily.
BTW - please do not view this a sales pitch on my part... It's not. I was simply looking for feedback that would let me push the boundaries on that thought.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


For me, subjective, emotional evidence that leads me to believe in the existence of a god of some sort.

Again, evidence that doesn't meet a level of scientific "proof".
But it is enough to convince me (mostly anyway, I'm not completely sure).



Exactly, the personal experiences are the observations. For some, those observations lead to the conclusion of ultimate responsibility - you are responsible for what happens to you in life. Period.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just all verklempt that my excuse to say that my drink of wine with dinner is health food is all gone :(

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

There was a good argument that they existed, much better then there is for any deity.



Show the argument supporting existence prior to physical evidence of neutrinos.



Conservation of momentum.

Pauli makes a prediction

In 1930 the Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli predicted that there must be another particle given off when a beta particle is produced, which is very difficult to detect.

The Italian physicist Enrico Fermi named it the 'neutrino', which means little neutral one in Italian.

Pauli suggested that the energy liberated in beta decay was shared in a random way between the beta particle and the neutrino. This would account for the range of observed energies of beta particles and the different angles at which a nucleus could recoil.

The power of science: finding something new that was predicted by theory
The neutrino’s existence, mass and probable behaviour had been worked out in the 1930s by Fermi and other scientists. This is a good example of science’s unique ability to predict the existence of things that have never been seen.

And Hey Presto! in 1956 the gamma ray signature predicted for the neutrino was actually observed for the first time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think it's pretty reasonable to say that he believed they existed before they could be proven to exist.



So why is HE right for believing and Christians wrong?



There is no evidence to support Christians claim of their god existing. Their argument is weak and of poor logic.



There was no evidence to support Pauli's belief in the neutrino existing at that point, either.



WRONG.

After you've taken the statistics class you so badly need, perhaps you should take some physics.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0