Does God exist?

[Thunderbird]

I can see, Thunderbird, that your recent suspension and probation on the site have had zero impact on your tone.

 

What was that definition of insanity again? Something about doing the same thing and expecting different results. :eek_big:

I did not tell anyone to "get ****ed", so I did use restraint. I was merely pointing out that a poster that agrees with a mod without thought, or input of the subject at hand is by its nature a sycophantic act.

 

I was using observation to categorize Moonman as a such. Good reductions science. I even provided him with two terms so as to help said sycophant in his inevitable googal search of self discovery.

[InfiniteNow]

I did not tell anyone to "get ****ed", so I did use restraint. I was merely pointing out that a poster that agrees with a mod without thought, or input of the subject at hand is by its nature a sycophantic act.

 

I was using observation to categorize Moonman as a such. Good reductions science. I even provided him with two terms so as to help said sycophant in his inevitable googal search of self discovery.

 

Ah... so you completely disregard that someone might agree with Pyrotex because he's actually correct. Interesting.

[Thunderbird]

Ah... so you completely disregard that someone might agree with Pyrotex because he's actually correct. Interesting.

 

:eek_big: Come on.... this is a good subject for debate here. Have you read the post's in question? Input..:eplane: Is pyro correct?

[freeztar]

Is pyro correct?

 

Nope, but Pyro's post was spot on. :eplane:

 

Physics has discovered/described much more about energy than Eastern Mysticism can/does/did. It's no coincidence that scientists chose to describe these complex energies in layman's terms by borrowing from history. I *love* taoism! But it can't describe rocket trajectories, or at least there's no way of obtaining these types of things from the teachings of Eastern Philosophy.

 

I was once excited about the possible merger between the two and began to read the "Tao of Physics". I got about 40 pages in and put it down. The equivalence is just not there. :eek_big:

[Thunderbird]

Nope, but Pyro's post was spot on. :eplane:

 

Physics has discovered/described much more about energy than Eastern Mysticism can/does/did. It's no coincidence that scientists chose to describe these complex energies in layman's terms by borrowing from history. I *love* taoism! But it can't describe rocket trajectories, or at least there's no way of obtaining these types of things from the teachings of Eastern Philosophy.

 

I was once excited about the possible merger between the two and began to read the "Tao of Physics". I got about 40 pages in and put it down. The equivalence is just not there. :eek_big:

Nether is this post.

You should of kept reading then you would not equate Taoism with rocket science. He has a new book out looks good, I'm in.

 

 

The Science of Leonardo: Inside the Mind of the Great Genius of the Renaissance

Description: Leonardo da Vinci's pioneering scientific work was virtually unknown during his lifetime. Now acclaimed scientist and bestselling author Fritjof Capra reveals that Leonardo was in many ways the unacknowledged "father of modern science." Drawing on an examination of over 6,000 pages of Leonardo's surviving notebooks, Capra explains that Leonardo approached scientific knowledge with the eyes of an artist. Through his studies of living and nonliving forms, from architecture and human anatomy to the turbulence of water...

[freeztar]

Nether is this post.

 

Sorry, I thought you'd understand. :shrug:

You should of kept reading then you would not equate Taoism with rocket science.

 

If you would have read, and understood, my post, you probably would not have made such a claim.

 

He has a new book out looks good, I'm in.

I'm game. Everything deserves a second chance. :)

 

The Science of Leonardo: Inside the Mind of the Great Genius of the Renaissance

Description: Leonardo da Vinci's pioneering scientific work was virtually unknown during his lifetime. Now acclaimed scientist and bestselling author Fritjof Capra reveals that Leonardo was in many ways the unacknowledged "father of modern science." Drawing on an examination of over 6,000 pages of Leonardo's surviving notebooks, Capra explains that Leonardo approached scientific knowledge with the eyes of an artist. Through his studies of living and nonliving forms, from architecture and human anatomy to the turbulence of water...

 

Leonardo is one of my idols. A true Renaissance Man! :)

[Grains]

I got interested in this post by it's title and have not looked over all the posts so I apologize if I repeat/revisit any arguments already stated.

 

I found this post interesting mostly because of the question asked. "Does God exist?"

 

I found this statement interesting cause not only can you not prove/prove god exist but you cannot define what god means to each individual.

 

I think it's most important to understand the brilliance of the mind and it's ability to reason/examine/question/etc. One should not criticize another for his religion or non religion yet understand the importance of that to that person and his reasoning behind it. Not everything needs a scientific answer and that's what makes the other half of the world great.

 

One's faith and mind is something that can never be touched by science.

[Moontanman]

Do you even understand what your agreeing with,:) try reading more than one post before sucking up to the Mods and you might find yourself actually participating in a discussion instead of being the forum toady{sycophant}.

:love::love::rose::kiss2::kiss: :shrug: :circle::)

[Cathryn]

Actually, anyone who understands science would say the opposite. I suggest that your comment above is more a result of stupid people attempting to describe science. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "what science is."

 

 

 

 

I can only conclude that you have absolutely no idea what science is, what the scientific method means, if you can say something above sincerely.

 

 

 

 

Let's start here. You tell US what kind of science YOU are talking about, and we'll see if we can meet in the middle to overcome the confusion. Sound fair?

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

Unit Plan: Teaching the Nature of Science - What Science IS

 

With all this defining of science, with all it's branches and in all it's forms; sounds more like blind faith in a religion I'd say! And you IN are an extremist. That's OK, I understand, I was once in that sort of coma.

 

I woke-up and one day so will you. Only then will you stop this obsession you have to prove to the world that YOU matter.

[Boerseun]

With all this defining of science, with all it's branches and in all it's forms; sounds more like blind faith in a religion I'd say! And you IN are an extremist. That's OK, I understand, I was once in that sort of coma.

Please.

 

Show me just one religion that's self-correcting and self questioning, and you might be on to something.

 

The only way religion changes, is through bloodshed and purges. The reformers were hounded to death for pointing out the church's failures. Only in the 1980's did the Catholic Church accept Galileo Galilei's theory that the Earth might just be rotating around the sun, and not vice versa. Think about the ramifications of that, for a second. 1980. Twenty eight years ago. The Earth rotating around the sun. When you consider this, the Church that is held in such great esteem, indeed looks more like a factory of ignorance than anything else. The curch poisons the minds of the ignorant, and prevents the light cast by the candle of science to penetrate into the nooks and crannies of human misery.

 

Show any scientist a failure in a set theory (show him and prove to him that Einstein was wrong, for instance), and you will be the new Hero of Science.

 

Show me any religion that (per definition, I might add) continuously question itself. They don't, because they have no reason for existence apart from human insecurities and the base human fear of the dark, death, and the Unknown in general. And, of course, there's money involved. But don't ask your priest/pastor about the money issue - they'll (of course) flat-out deny it. But that, my dear invisible faceless and nameless fellow member of Hypo, is the sole purpose for the Church's existence. The Big, Fat, Mighty Dollar. It's a con. Get over it. The Emperor is, indeed, naked. People seldomly accept when they were wrong, but in this case, I promise you, we won't point and laugh at you. Plenty of us have been done in for ages, too.

 

So, no. Following Science and believing in the Truth as presented by Science is not comparable to faith in any sort of religion you'd care to mention.

 

Not even close.

I woke-up and one day so will you. Only then will you stop this obsession you have to prove to the world that YOU matter.

Ironically, that's not what Science does. Nobody here's got an obsession with anything, apart from, maybe, getting at the Truth. And when you approach the Truth from a Scientific angle, we work exclusively with empiricial data. No invisible, supernatural bullshit here.

 

Do you know why Scientists don't stand in droves on Sundays with their measuring equipment at Church doors to find a piece of God to test?

 

Basically for the same reason that they don't crowd around my pet dog Pluto with Geiger counters and similar tools to test my claim that my dog's made from Plutonium, and glows in the dark, and he can run faster than light.

 

And that reason is that the claim is so ludicrous that it doesn't actually warrant the time and effort spent on proving something that is already on the face of it, even before the tests began, diametrically opposed to the laws of nature that is, unfortunately for pastor Billy Bob Jones of the Reborn Evangelical Baptist Reformed Adventist Mormon Ministries, cast in stone.

[C1ay]

With all this defining of science, with all it's branches and in all it's forms; sounds more like blind faith in a religion I'd say!

 

You have a gross misunderstanding of what science is. Science is simply a search for the truth and the body of knowledge assembled by such. It insists that truth be verifiable and that the tests that verify it be repeatable. This is far from faith based truths where people simply make up an answer like "God did it".

[Pyrotex]

Zen Buddhism does not need validation from science it is in itself an experience brought about though the discipline of meditation by quieting the mind....Its not about the metaphor’s, its about the disruptions of energy. The point of the post was to show that western physics arrived at the same view as eastern mystics, only from two different directions.

Whoa! Slow down. Nobody said that Zen Buddhism needs validation from Science. Zen Buddhism is a wonderful and useful discipline.

 

What is a "disruption of energy"? This doesn't come from Physics. Science is not concerned with "disruption of energy". The word "disruption" has no [special] meaning in Physics. Saying that both western physics and eastern mystics arrived at "the same view" appears to be an empty statement--WHAT exactly, is the "view"? That "it's all about the disruptions of energy"? No, that phrase has no meaning in Science.

 

Now, "energy" DOES have a special meaning in Science. Energy has specific and measurable definitions. Energy = 1/2 * mass of a moving object * the velocity of the moving object, squared. There's one definition.

 

Energy has UNITS of measurement. Joules. The Joule breaks down into kilograms * meters, squared, per seconds, squared.

 

So, in eastern mysticism, what are the UNITS of measurement of "energy" or "chi" or "qi"? How do eastern mystics measure "energy"? If you "disrupt" some "energy", is it still "energy"? Or does it become something else?

 

If eastern mystic "energy" cannot be measured and has no UNITS, then how can you possibly say that physics and mysticism have the same "view".

[Thunderbird]

Whoa! Slow down. Nobody said that Zen Buddhism needs validation from Science. Zen Buddhism is a wonderful and useful discipline.

 

What is a "disruption of energy"? This doesn't come from Physics. Science is not concerned with "disruption of energy". The word "disruption" has no [special] meaning in Physics. Saying that both western physics and eastern mystics arrived at "the same view" appears to be an empty statement--WHAT exactly, is the "view"? That "it's all about the disruptions of energy"? No, that phrase has no meaning in Science.

 

Now, "energy" DOES have a special meaning in Science. Energy has specific and measurable definitions. Energy = 1/2 * mass of a moving object * the velocity of the moving object, squared. There's one definition.

 

Energy has UNITS of measurement. Joules. The Joule breaks down into kilograms * meters, squared, per seconds, squared.

 

So, in eastern mysticism, what are the UNITS of measurement of "energy" or "chi" or "qi"? How do eastern mystics measure "energy"? If you "disrupt" some "energy", is it still "energy"? Or does it become something else?

 

If eastern mystic "energy" cannot be measured and has no UNITS, then how can you possibly say that physics and mysticism have the same "view".

"disruption of energy"?

Oopsie, My bad… that should have been description of energy.

[Thunderbird]

:love::love::rose::kiss2::kiss: ;) :circle::)

I love you too Moonman.

[Thunderbird]

Sorry for the confusion, Pyro, I have to leave for the city now, but I’ll will try to think of a better way to describe how these “seers” could detect directly though observation that which western science detected though mathematics and scientific experiments.

[InfiniteNow]

I found this statement interesting cause not only can you not prove/prove god exist but you cannot define what god means to each individual.

That's a powerful point, indeed. ;)

 

 

One should not criticize another for his religion or non religion yet understand the importance of that to that person and his reasoning behind it.

I, however, couldn't disagree with this assertion more. Why should religion get a free pass? Why NOT challenge and question it EXACTLY like we would ANY other realm of existence?

 

It's our questioning and challenges of ridiculous phenomena which has allowed us to discard the rubbish and move forward as a culture and mature as a people. I'd like to know what exactly the benefit is about censoring our challenges when they apply to religion or belief in god?

 

If all one can come up with is, "So we don't hurt the feelings of people who believe," well, that's FAR from being a good enough reason.

 

At some point in their lives, you just have to man up and tell the kids that Santa doesn't exist. :)

 

 

 

 

 

Oopsie, My bad… that should have been description of energy.

 

That's fine, but the Eastern philosophies still haven't described energy in a measurable way. It's metaphysics, not physics, and as we all clearly know the two are not equal, so you're premise is false.

[Pyrotex]

...the Eastern philosophies still haven't described energy in a measurable way. It's metaphysics, not physics, and as we all clearly know the two are not equal...

;) what he said

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

What we got here is a contramorphism.

 

There is this "stuff" from eastern mystics, notably Chinese, that someone long ago translated into English as "energy". We shall call it: energy3

 

There is this "stuff" that western physicists discovered, that someone said, "hey, it's a measure of the ability to do work, so let's call it energy." We shall call it: energy5

 

Both energy3 and energy5 are pronounced and spelled exactly the same.

 

SO... can we not assume that they are the SAME?

 

No, we cannot. They are, in fact, not the same at all. Upon close inspection, we see that their origins are different, how they are used is different--and one can be mathematically defined and measured, and the other cannot.

 

energy3 and energy5 are TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Two identical words that have only a passing similarity in usage, but are essentially incompatible, make up a contramorphism.

The two words are "against or opposing the shape of the other".

 

Attempting to EQUATE energy3 and energy5 is a study in lazy thinking.