- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2013,18:43) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 07 2013,17:29) Charity, you never have anything good to say. You only tear down and never build up.
Why is your name Charity? Might be time to change it.
Charity isn't wearing a gas mask and carrying an assault weapon.Stuart
Tim
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 08 2013,20:28) The reason you cannot photograph God is because he is a mind or consciousness and is not fully contained in any finite body, like us. Not even the universe can contain him. I suggest that you google infinite and finite and do a bit of reading about these 2 words.
You can photograph a mind, and to some extent you can make images of consciousness: certainly we have magnetic resonance images of the parts of a conscious brain that lights up.I did ask, ideally, for a reason that did not involve you asserting a platitude.
But here you are asserting that you know what there is outside the universe, and suggesting that somehow we should take some meaning from your assertion that the word infinite has some application to the question. You must think your audience here is supremely simple.
Perhaps you can think of an example of something else that is infinite and cannot be photographed: usually you are good at ill-fit analogies. How about a circle? That's sort of infinite… oh wait, you can photograph a circle.
Stuart
Einstein didn't need a photo.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 09 2013,13:42) Einstein didn't need a photo. Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
Quote Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe
Hi T8,
Even if this were true, and I don't believe for a moment that it is, how do you know to which spirit you should sacrifice. People have believed wholeheartedly in hundreds of gods in the past, and none of them have been right.Quote The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, Scientists don't feel rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law. They study it.
The thing is that if there was no natural law you would live in constant fear of what was going to happen next. Would the sun stop? Would stars fall to the earth? Would gravity sease to hold you firmly on the ground?That si why it is harmfull to believe in the supernatural.
Tim
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2013,13:40) Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 30 2012,02:30) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 29 2012,16:11) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 26 2012,21:49) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 17 2012,03:04) You've never explained why I should not expect a photograph. Stuart
A bit hard to photograph an eternal spirit.
I've got no idea what an eternal spirit is, but can you actually explain why they can't be photographed, or are we just expected to take your word for it?Stuart
Stu.Can you show us a photograph of the BIG BANG?
wakeup.
Stuart
this is a lie ,who was the man that took that picture
how come it is all egg shape
Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 09 2013,16:34) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 09 2013,13:42) Einstein didn't need a photo. Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
Quote Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe
Hi T8,
Even if this were true, and I don't believe for a moment that it is, how do you know to which spirit you should sacrifice. People have believed wholeheartedly in hundreds of gods in the past, and none of them have been right.Quote The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, Scientists don't feel rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law. They study it.
The thing is that if there was no natural law you would live in constant fear of what was going to happen next. Would the sun stop? Would stars fall to the earth? Would gravity sease to hold you firmly on the ground?That si why it is harmfull to believe in the supernatural.
Tim
timQuote That si why it is harmfull to believe in the supernatural. you kind have to agree that New York as a plan sewer system in place for the ten million people living in it ,and well controlled by men ,
but you agree as well that all the laws in the universe are not controlled just are their by what ever means TIM thinks they are their ,right ,sorry that's a lot of B.S sewer stuff
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 09 2013,13:42) Einstein didn't need a photo. Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
Einstein was made a household name by a photograph, this one specifically:
You can read more about it here. General relativity predicted that light would be bent by gravitational fields, and Sir Arthur Eddington's measurements made during a solar eclipse in 1919 provided evidence to support that prediction.
You say we are not capable of grasping the universe, but you've just been claiming that your Imaginary Friend exists, at least partly, outside the universe. Are you capable of grasping these things while others aren't?
I think the data is pretty clear that your claim “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe” is laughable. This Pew Forum data says exactly the opposite:
Bear in mind this is a survey of American scientists, so the proportions of god believers in both categories is massively higher than we would see in the equivalent data for New Zealand.
You will no doubt have grasped that I am less than impressed by your attempts to explain why this god cannot be photographed. It looks like you have pretty much given up.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 10 2013,03:31) This Pew Forum data says exactly the opposite: Bear in mind this is a survey of American scientists, so the proportions of god believers in both categories is massively higher than we would see in the equivalent data for New Zealand.
Stuart
Stu,
Interesting chart, I know you were trying to point out how many “more” scientists do not believe in God compared to the average (less indoctrinated IMO) person. But, if evolution is such a slam dunk why do over half of the scientists still believe in some sort of “higher power” Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 11 2013,01:53) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 10 2013,03:31) This Pew Forum data says exactly the opposite: Bear in mind this is a survey of American scientists, so the proportions of god believers in both categories is massively higher than we would see in the equivalent data for New Zealand.
Stuart
Stu,
Interesting chart, I know you were trying to point out how many “more” scientists do not believe in God compared to the average (less indoctrinated IMO) person. But, if evolution is such a slam dunk why do over half of the scientists still believe in some sort of “higher power” Wm
Evolution by natural selection is a slam dunk because the evidence for it is overwhelming, and there is no evidence that contradicts it. You might also note that there really isn't any other explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, which should also suggest to you some slamdunkedness. If you don't think it is a slam dunk then where is your alternative theory that is falsifiable and supported by evidence?The crazy ideas some scientists might carry in their heads personally doesn't make any difference to the outcomes of the scientific process overall. There are differences between the sciences too. Probably most chemists and physicists don't have a detailed knowledge of how natural selection produces evolution; they haven't really had to confront in their work the fact that there is no detectable purpose in the processes of natural selection.
This theistic evolution website quotes these statistics:
“Although the idea of “theistic evolution” receives plenty of attention from the newsmedia, it clearly represents a fringe position among leading biologists. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics, a percentage of unbelief far higher than in any other scientific discipline.
Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”
And I'd point out again that we are talking about the US here, where rates of god belief in general are insane compared with most of the rest of the West. Theism is very rare in biology, which is why creationists are so keen on pointing out the few cases.
But these are people who are bolting on their religious beliefs without any fit with the work they do during the day. Their religious beliefs demand an inherent divine purpose in life that is completely missing from any data they have ever collected. How do they keep the god bit of the brain from talking to the scientist bit of the brain? I don't know. Maybe there are so few top theist biologists because the claims of christianity are basically biological nonsense.
Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 10 2013,02:26) this is a lie ,who was the man that took that picture how come it is all egg shape
T, that is a map of the Cosmic microwave background radiation which was discovered by chance. It is what you see on your old analogue TV when it is not on a station.It said to be the left over glow of the Big Bang, thus a sort of signature as to what the beginning was like. i.e., where the clumps were.
Although, as impressive as this is, it is still not a video of the Big Bang happening.
Scientists have theories about many things that change with time.
No problem with that because science is the pursuit of knowledge.
But Science isn't the truth that's why it changes.To believe that there is no God means that everything came from nothing or something eternal and non-living yet produced life. That is your two choices. Simple as that. Can you see how ridiculous your choices are? I can.
And I bet that many scientists and Atheists never think about that. Why? Because such a question is of little or no interest to them. Instead they focus on the detail like the difference between an ape and a monkey. Again, nothing wrong with that, but if they don't ask deeper questions then they will never have deeper answers.
Anyway, as I said before, we actually both agree on something. I believe that the godless do not inherit eternal life and you do too.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 11 2013,17:54) Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 10 2013,02:26) this is a lie ,who was the man that took that picture how come it is all egg shape
T, that is a map of the Cosmic microwave background radiation which was discovered by chance. It is what you see on your old analogue TV when it is not on a station.It said to be the left over glow of the Big Bang, thus a sort of signature as to what the beginning was like. i.e., where the clumps were.
Although, as impressive as this is, it is still not a video of the Big Bang happening.
Strictly you are right that this is actually the light from the first time the universe was transparent and able to allow light to travel to us, so therefore it is not technically a photograph of the Big Bang, it's more like a photograph of the Big Bang wearing fancy dress.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 11 2013,17:56) Scientists have theories about many things that change with time.
No problem with that because science is the pursuit of knowledge.
But Science isn't the truth that's why it changes.
“The Truth” is a personal construct. The scientific method is the most respected means of discovering what is true: it is up to you whether you choose to base your personal truth on that which can be shown to be true. It is not true that humans walk again after they have been executed by ancient Romans.Quote To believe that there is no God means that everything came from nothing or something eternal and non-living yet produced life.
Well we know that all matter came from the gravitational energy of expanding space-time, we have good chemical reasons to speculate that life is a commonplace consequence of chemistry, and we know that the diversity of life is entirely explained by random mutation operated on by natural selection, which is a process that contains no foresight whatever.I don't know what you mean by a god, but it appears to be superfluous regarding where matter/energy and life came from.
Quote That is your two choices.
It's once choice, two options. Not two choices.I choose the scientific version that appears to be true, not the version that appears to be no explanation at all.
Quote And I bet that many scientists and Atheists never think about that. Why? Because such a question is of little or no interest to them.
I don't think people capable of thinking about such a subject would pay much attention to your false dichotomies.Quote Instead they focus on the detail like the difference between an ape and a monkey. Again, nothing wrong with that, but if they don't ask deeper questions then they will never have deeper answers.
You haven't asked a question with any depth. Apart from the obvious love you have of the cosmological knowledge obtained from science, you only have trivial word games and bad analogies.Quote Anyway, as I said before, we actually both agree on something. I believe that the godless do not inherit eternal life and you do too.
I don't believe you inherit an eternal life either. I don't think you realise what a disaster that could be.Stuart
Wow Stu, you display such a hatred for even the idea of God (before you ask “which god”, the one you've railed against here for going on 6 years). You've exposed an extreme bias and totally blind faith to your “religion”. You regurgitate opinions from the “good ole boy” clubs/networks (your evangelist) and offer them as proof of the “theory of” evolution.
Do some critical thinking for a change, eh. (its a disappearing art).
Wm
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 11 2013,18:07) Quote Anyway, as I said before, we actually both agree on something. I believe that the godless do not inherit eternal life and you do too.
I don't believe you inherit an eternal life either. I don't think you realise what a disaster that could be.Stuart
T8,
I guess stu understands the need for judgment before starting eternal life anyway.Wm
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 11 2013,23:08) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 11 2013,17:54) Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 10 2013,02:26) this is a lie ,who was the man that took that picture how come it is all egg shape
T, that is a map of the Cosmic microwave background radiation which was discovered by chance. It is what you see on your old analogue TV when it is not on a station.It said to be the left over glow of the Big Bang, thus a sort of signature as to what the beginning was like. i.e., where the clumps were.
Although, as impressive as this is, it is still not a video of the Big Bang happening.
Strictly you are right that this is actually the light from the first time the universe was transparent and able to allow light to travel to us, so therefore it is not technically a photograph of the Big Bang, it's more like a photograph of the Big Bang wearing fancy dress.Stuart
That explains the oval shape then right.Quote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 12 2013,01:07) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 11 2013,18:07) Quote Anyway, as I said before, we actually both agree on something. I believe that the godless do not inherit eternal life and you do too.
I don't believe you inherit an eternal life either. I don't think you realise what a disaster that could be.Stuart
T8,
I guess stu understands the need for judgment before starting eternal life anyway.Wm
Yeah the funny thing is I knew he would make that point. He is so predictable. I was going to tell him to read the question again because I knew his rebuttal would be something that we both don't agree with when I specifically stated that we both agree on something.Not the most clever rebuttal in history that's for sure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
