The Philosophy, Science & Religion forum has been created as an unmoderated forum. The issues discussed here can and will get very intense. Please show respect and appreciation to alternative views posted here. We appreciate your consideration.
God's existence, the evidence seems lacking? Stand on a riverbank or on a mountain top or hold a newborn baby in your arms. Of course there is at least a supreme being. I know we are not a science experiment for some giant lad like an ant farm. One must just pull their head out of the sand to see it. No?
--------------------
JaneyMae
Tangle Goblinwitch: She is only seen in the enchanted moment between sleep and waking
"Never miss a chance to shut up." Will Rogers
Leprechauns, castles, good luck and laughter. Lullabies, dreams and love ever after. A thousand welcomes when anyone comes... That's the Irish for You!
okay, here comes the quote: taken out of "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams
'The Argument goes somthing like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says Godm "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could have not evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefor, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.'
This quote is taken out of the context of the Hitch Hikers Guide explaning the Babelfish, which, if you stick it in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language.
quote: 'Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything in the history of creation.'
(I love the Hitch Hiker's books =) )
Janey, if I may comment, that again is a personal thing. It might be the evidence for you, but if I stand on a hill top, or just look out of my window down on the Forth I think of the wonders of nature, that something simple like a sea arm can be as beautiful as it is. I don't really think "oh, there must be a creator/something higher behind it. But again, that is me, you might not think so.. so I would guess it's a personal thing...
--------------------
Moderator: The Playground (RPG)
Carpe Jugulum Carved with a twisted smile An epitaph for sorrow Sethian - Epitaph
Any discussion that involves the physical world always being here says that everything else that science thinks it knows about the universe is bunk, as the basic laws of physics demand a beginning.
So you can't have it both ways. Either you accept that there was a beginning and there for a beginner, validating modern physics or you deny the scientific method totally and go off into a make believe science that ignores physical evidence in favor of something more meta-physical in nature in which case if you don't like the answers that you receive you simply change them to suit yourself.
Mikel
Not if you postulate a universe that is born, grows old, dies, and is reborn in an eternal cycle. Conservation of matter and energy is satisfied in this way, too.
--------------------
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." Carl Sagan
Not if you postulate a universe that is born, grows old, dies, and is reborn in an eternal cycle. Conservation of matter and energy is satisfied in this way, too.
The continuum theory is not an widely accepted theorem among mainstream scientists (or should I say the most likely) because of the following problem. It introduces issues in the 2nd law of thermodynamics heat loss, every pendulem eventually winds down no matter how large the swing. In other words even if the swing is to our perception infinite it will eventually stop all together.
The problem with the continuum is that it stands outside of the observable laws of modern physics and can only be supported as a meta-physical model. In other words there is no empiracle evidence to support this model and it depends totally on the unobservable. With in the confines of this thread it does not meet the criteria for the scientific method, dictates the universe is the only perfect engine, creates mathmatical problems and would say that most of what we know as modern science is bunk. (or at least in serious need of modification)
Don't think that I am saying this is all impossible, I'm just saying that in light of the laws of modern physics it does not stand up. Perhaps quantum physics will at some point change this but all that I have read on quantum physics and super string theory while interesting is unsubstantiated without some sort of evidence of the transfer of something between the observable dimensions and dimensions that are not observable.
While in theory conservation of energy could be satisfied by this model if the universe were a perfect machine or there is some sort of transfer going on between dimensions that is not currently observable we are forced by the evidence that we see to determine that gravity will win (at our solar level) or at the level of the entire universe either collapse or expand indefintily(provided escape velocity has been reached).
It is always possible that the laws of physics are wrong due to a misinterpretation of what is observed (just as at one point we thought that maggots came from rotting flesh and that the sun revolved arround the earth) at which point we will have to rethink all that we accept currently as fact in science (i.e.things called laws).
For now I will be as arrogant as the scientists of old and stick with what is observable and fits with in known law Besides If one is able to accept a continuum universe lacking empiracle evidence(there is really not one piece of evidence to suggest this as a model other than the need for there not to be any outside influence i.e. a beginer of all things,the cosmic archetect, God) why would one need empiracle evidence of the existence of God.
Peace
Mikel
--------------------
He is no fool who gives up that which he can not keep to gain that which he cannot loose
mmh.. sorry Janey, about Wicca I know about only as much as I read in this forum, for me that's a relatively new thing..
I'm more into general direction Agnotic, with a good portion of sarcasm and Irony mixed into the whole affair. *shrugs* It's how I feel and think about it... I don't have to Wicca to appreciate nature though, I'm living in Fife, Scotland, right next to the Firth of Forth and I have the most magnificent view right out of my window. I wake up everymorning, pull up the blinds and think I'm incredibly lucky that I live somewhere like here..
mmh.. sorry Janey, about Wicca I know about only as much as I read in this forum, for me that's a relatively new thing..
I'm more into general direction Agnotic, with a good portion of sarcasm and Irony mixed into the whole affair. *shrugs* It's how I feel and think about it... I don't have to Wicca to appreciate nature though, I'm living in Fife, Scotland, right next to the Firth of Forth and I have the most magnificent view right out of my window. I wake up everymorning, pull up the blinds and think I'm incredibly lucky that I live somewhere like here..
I asked the Wicca question as I want to know more about it than what I've read in my books. Not meaning to imply a bit. Just looking for a knowledgable soul.
I agree you are one lucky girl to be living in Scotland. That's somewhere I want to go someday. Hope my someday arrives. One of these near years I'm going to England with a friend who is from there and then from there I plan to go to Scotland, Ireland, and the Czech Republic. The latter is to visit a friend and the first two because I want to
The continuum theory is not an widely accepted theorem among mainstream scientists (or should I say the most likely) because of the following problem. It introduces issues in the 2nd law of thermodynamics heat loss, every pendulem eventually winds down no matter how large the swing. In other words even if the swing is to our perception infinite it will eventually stop all together.
The problem with the continuum is that it stands outside of the observable laws of modern physics and can only be supported as a meta-physical model. In other words there is no empiracle evidence to support this model and it depends totally on the unobservable. With in the confines of this thread it does not meet the criteria for the scientific method, dictates the universe is the only perfect engine, creates mathmatical problems and would say that most of what we know as modern science is bunk. (or at least in serious need of modification)
Don't think that I am saying this is all impossible, I'm just saying that in light of the laws of modern physics it does not stand up. Perhaps quantum physics will at some point change this but all that I have read on quantum physics and super string theory while interesting is unsubstantiated without some sort of evidence of the transfer of something between the observable dimensions and dimensions that are not observable.
While in theory conservation of energy could be satisfied by this model if the universe were a perfect machine or there is some sort of transfer going on between dimensions that is not currently observable we are forced by the evidence that we see to determine that gravity will win (at our solar level) or at the level of the entire universe either collapse or expand indefintily(provided escape velocity has been reached).
It is always possible that the laws of physics are wrong due to a misinterpretation of what is observed (just as at one point we thought that maggots came from rotting flesh and that the sun revolved arround the earth) at which point we will have to rethink all that we accept currently as fact in science (i.e.things called laws).
For now I will be as arrogant as the scientists of old and stick with what is observable and fits with in known law Besides If one is able to accept a continuum universe lacking empiracle evidence(there is really not one piece of evidence to suggest this as a model other than the need for there not to be any outside influence i.e. a beginer of all things,the cosmic archetect, God) why would one need empiracle evidence of the existence of God.
hehe, still did not make it down to england to visit my friends there =/
No, problem with implication, I don't mind correcting people about things If you want to know more about wicca or paganism, I recommend the grove... =)
hehe, still did not make it down to england to visit my friends there =/
No, problem with implication, I don't mind correcting people about things If you want to know more about wicca or paganism, I recommend the grove... =)
I second that recommendation
--------------------
May all your up's and down's be under the sheets!
Religion is for those who are afraid of going to Hell. Spirituality is for those who have already been there. - Anonymous
And I must grin back at ya, sir. That is truly white hair you are lookin at. Eons ago, it seems, it was blonde. Went to the Grove and didn't find what I was looking for. So I will simply keep reading books.
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)