Faith and Science

[coldcreation]

CC, we are all coming from the same space, limited knowledge and limited intellect. you will have to admit there are many things not known in the observable world. there are also many things not known in the universe beyond the reach of our telescopes. all events have not been reduced to mathematical certainty, even your cold creation thery. since this uncertainty exists, it may be foolish to declaim any one theory as true, while denigrating all others. since there are many people of some intelligence in the ID camp, i am sure if proper evidence was presented as to the truth of opposing theories

they would certainly adopt the theory of truth. one can't deny that which is self-evident.

 

You don't see many physicists preaching science in churches, synagogs, mosques, catachism, sunday school, in theology forum, on the front door-step of the Vatican. You do not see physicists trying to back up their religious claims or defend their religion with scientific arguments.

 

Scientists don't use metaphysical arguments to back their theories.

 

Why then do the spirited feel the need to support their arguments with scientific words. Everyone knows the bible is not theory, but metaphor.

 

Why, Questor, do you seek a designer within the field of science? The physical world is not the place to look. The designer must be found within.

 

cc

[Boerseun]

The designer must be found within...

Jeez, cc old buddy old pal - I just simply love that.

 

You are the newest recipient of Boerseun's Rep Points Programme.

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

The designer must be found within...

Jeez, cc old buddy old pal - I just simply love that. You are the newest recipient of Boerseun's Rep Points Programme.

 

What designer? The designer of what? Within what?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

The designer must be found within...

 

What designer? The designer of what? Within what?

 

Hi Lindagarret,

Those are fair questions. I don't know the answer to the first two, though I think the designer is He (î). And I think He designs intelligence, or perhaps crop circles.

 

Within means inside of each person, each believer, within the human mind, the imagination. There, one can find anything she likes.

 

Boerseun, thanks.

 

cc

[questor]

CC, i liked your quote also. we are indeed searching for the designer within. we are searching for the designer of consciousness, DNA, life itself. if that designer exists, it probably follows that the designer of the universe also exists and is undoubtedly the same force. i don't profess to know the answer, but i do know i will embrace the truth. to paraphrase Boersun,

bring me a slice of random creation of the universe and of life, i would like to chew on it awhile.

[coldcreation]

CC, i liked your quote also. we are indeed searching for the designer within. we are searching for the designer of consciousness, DNA, life itself. if that designer exists, it probably follows that the designer of the universe also exists and is undoubtedly the same force. i don't profess to know the answer, but i do know i will embrace the truth. to paraphrase Boersun,

bring me a slice of random creation of the universe and of life, i would like to chew on it awhile.

 

Inside, or within, is not a referrence to DNA or consciousness, but to the imagination. Basically, an ID is a pure product of the imagination. But like an impossible figure (vis Möbius strip) it is not realizable outside one mind. This is the reason there is no evidence available in the environment.

 

You call it erroneously "force." But if that were the case a reaction or effect should be available to observation. What force besides gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong/weak nuclear forces are you considering as a possible cantidate?

 

Its funny too how you like to paraphrase others who discount your views.

 

cc

[coldcreation]

second post deleted

[HydrogenBond]

Science is sometimes indirectly based on the teachings of religion and faith. For example in the very beginning of the bible the spirit of God was brooding over the deep and he said let there be light. This story seems to indicate an empty universe, with an energy field appearing, from which matter will stem. Does this sound at all familar. With the spirit of God there before energy he is not composed of energy or matter.

 

Many religions believe that when one dies their immortal soul goes to heaven and their physical body is left behind to decay. Physics predicts other dimensions, energy references, and even particles that can travel faster than the speed of light. It seems to me the ancients were saying something very similar thousands of years ago. Maybe this is the base theoretical set from which theoretical insight might arise. For example, if God was composed of particles going faster than the speed of light, there is plenty of potential to create an energy reference and matter.

[questor]

CC, in your post directed to me you said:

''Inside, or within, is not a referrence to DNA or consciousness, but to the imagination. Basically, an ID is a pure product of the imagination. But like an impossible figure (vis Möbius strip) it is not realizable outside one mind. This is the reason there is no evidence available in the environment.

 

You call it erroneously "force." But if that were the case a reaction or effect should be available to observation. What force besides gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong/weak nuclear forces are you considering as a possible cantidate?

 

Its funny too how you like to paraphrase others who discount your views.''

 

1st paragraph--please explain how someone can have imagination without consciousness? there is evidence of ID in the environment (order), but you refuse to accept it.

 

2nd paragraph--call it what you will. the forces you identify have not been well explained either. all particles have not been discovered either.

are we to assume no other surprises await us?

 

3rd paragraph--i'm happy to entertain you.

[TheBigDog]

A small mind experiment...

 

Take music - something we all recognize when we hear it. But now imagine we have no ears. Could science ever prove that music exists? Even if we were completely surrounded by it, could math and observation ever prove that there was music and not just sound?

 

Bill

[coldcreation]

A small mind experiment...

 

Take music - something we all recognize when we hear it. But now imagine we have no ears. Could science ever prove that music exists? Even if we were completely surrounded by it, could math and observation ever prove that there was music and not just sound?

 

Bill

 

Your experiment for small minds is irrelevent. Of course we could prove music exsits. Vibrations could be detected. The base notes would pass directly through your body. They could be recorded and visualized with any stereo system available on the market today.

 

We could also write music without every having heard it, or without every hearing. We could even play music on any instrument.

 

My point: when something is physical there is available in the environment evidence of its existence. When no evidence is available, it usually means the whatever is been sought is product of pure thought.

 

That is the difference with the physical and the metaphysical, with the natural and the supernatural.

 

cc

[hallenrm]

Am reminded of that 'million monkey" metaphor, if a million beings learn something new, the "million plus one" learns spontaneously. Is there a collective consciousness that prevades all, and manifests as God, that is the grand designer, we all are parts of it.:xparty:

[coldcreation]

Am reminded of that 'million monkey" metaphor, if a million beings learn something new, the "million plus one" learns spontaneously. Is there a collective consciousness that prevades all, and manifests as God, that is the grand designer, we all are parts of it.:xparty:

 

This thread I thought was about faith and science. The above doctrine is all faith.

 

If the use of the words collective consciousness (pilfered from Jung and Freud) is supposed to related your prose to science, we're off to a bad start. You're going to need more than that.

 

Secondly, your question (I assume it's a question as it begins with " Is there a..." but there's no ? at the end so I'm not sure), there is no proof, evidence, or law that points to a collective consciousness that pervades all. It does not manifest itself (as God, a grand designer, as you write, or as anything else). The only manifestation I am aware of is when St. John, Jean or Juan saw an apparition of the leg of Christ in his cave in the Greek Island of Patmos, from where he would write Apocalipus.

 

PS. Great 'million monkey" metaphor. Hmmm

 

cc

[TheBigDog]

Your experiment for small minds is irrelevent. Of course we could prove music exsits. Vibrations could be detected. The base notes would pass directly through your body. They could be recorded and visualized with any stereo system available on the market today.

Without ears would we have a concept or context of music?

Can you look at the dancing lights on a stereo and recongnize the song?

Would the song be recreated by making the lights repeat the same motion?

 

We could also write music without every having heard it, or without every hearing. We could even play music on any instrument.

Without sensory feedback, how would a person play any instument? The point is to make music, not noise.

 

My point: when something is physical there is available in the environment evidence of its existence. When no evidence is available, it usually means the whatever is been sought is product of pure thought.

My point: when you assume that nothing is lost when information is translated from one form to another you are gravely mistaken.

 

That is the difference with the physical and the metaphysical, with the natural and the supernatural.cc

Without ears, "sound vibrations" would be physical; "music" would be metaphysical. Does that mean it doesn't exist?

 

CC, I shall take your comments under advisement and state the question again...

 

A small experiment for minds of all sizes...

 

Take music - something we all recognize when we hear it. But now imagine we have no ears. Could science ever prove that music exists? Even if we were completely surrounded by it, could math and observation ever prove that there was music and not just sound?

 

Bill

[coldcreation]

Without ears would we have a concept or context of music?

Can you look at the dancing lights on a stereo and recongnize the song?

Would the song be recreated by making the lights repeat the same motion?Bill

 

Yes.

 

Without sensory feedback, how would a person play any instument? The point is to make music, not noise.Bill

 

Some call Led Zeppelin noise. Others call the sound of waves hitting a beach music.

 

My point: when you assume that nothing is lost when information is translated from one form to another you are gravely mistaken.Bill

 

I think that recording studios are well enough equiped to handle the job. With digital technology virtually no information is lost. It's just a question then to apply a combination of effects to th individual: lights, vibrations, colors perhaps and the sound/music should be decipherable.

 

Without ears, "sound vibrations" would be physical; "music" would be metaphysical. Does that mean it doesn't exist?Bill

 

Why would the music be metaphysical? I dissagree with the reasoning.

 

Take music - something we all recognize when we hear it. But now imagine we have no ears. Could science ever prove that music exists? Even if we were completely surrounded by it, could math and observation ever prove that there was music and not just sound?

 

Bill

 

Yes to the first. Yes to the second (the interface between music and sound is far from clear, it is too subjective: most of what I listen to might be called sound or noise).

 

Do you have any other analogies beside music-sound-noise?

 

cc

[TheBigDog]

CC, A swimming pool is more fun when you get in and swim.

 

Perhaps my question is poorly worded, and I need to change my approach to get you to come in and swim around a bit. So here it goes again...

 

A small experiment for minds of all sizes...

 

Take music - something we all recognize when we hear it. But now imagine we have no ears, we have never had ears. We have evolved into beings that have no concious use of sound. Yet in our physical world there exist the same fauna and flora that we know today. We, instead of vocal cords and ears, have developed a language of hand signals and facial expressions. We have computers, and monitors with awsome 3D graphics, but no sound cards or speakers, or headphones. There is written language, and a spectrum of colors, but no notion of musical notation, octaves, chords, etc. If you are a man in that world, could science ever prove that music exists? Even if we were completely surrounded by it, could math and observation ever prove that there was music and not just sound?

 

Forget the question about taste in music. Call it your taste in music for your own purposes.

 

Bill

ps. Don't bellyache about people not responding to your posts. What am I, chopped liver?