"Special pleading. You have no valid base to make that assertion. As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
You're saying if someone receives frontal lobe damage, they have a lower level of conciousness? That is kind of like the same as saying a child has a lower level of sentience as well. And we can all make the assumption, based on the fact that most of us have some memories on childhood, that that is not true. And are you saying science has an unfallible explanation of a soul, and that there is no debate or question within science about it?
"If that's not invoking a god, then I don't know what is. If you're invoking some other supernatural entity, then it's still the same error you're making."
It is, from a scientific perspective, exploring all available options. If you received unfallible evidence of a supernatural event, would you shun all possible experiments and studies of it just because of the fact that it was supernatural? And what I meant was possible credibility in the supernatural. Like, "well we really don't know much about this and it really seems like a mystery, so maybe a supernatural explanation is present here." Or would you take the arguably ignorant stance of, "well, it just can't be supernatural so let us not even consider that."
And by predetermined, I mean everything can be "predicted" but not by us, obviously. Meaning, if time were to magically be reversed by 100 and then 100 years were to pass again, everything would be exactly the same as it is now.
"As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
Seriously? As far as science understands, the universe spontaneously exploded from nothing so the whole creation rebuke part of your argument earlier was kind of pointless. Why are you here if you're going to say such stupid things such as "Science says so" as a basis for your arguments?
as EternalWraith said, "You dont see how weak your arguments are becoming."
"As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
Seriously? As far as science understands, the universe spontaneously exploded from nothing so the whole creation rebuke part of your argument earlier was kind of pointless. Why are you here if you're going to say such stupid things such as "Science says so" as a basis for your arguments?
as EternalWraith said, "You dont see how weak your arguments are becoming."
We're talking about science in the bible. I suppose you think science shouldn't have a say when talking about science in the bible.
It is, from a scientific perspective, exploring all available options. If you received unfallible evidence of a supernatural event, would you shun all possible experiments and studies of it just because of the fact that it was supernatural? And what I meant was possible credibility in the supernatural. Like, "well we really don't know much about this and it really seems like a mystery, so maybe a supernatural explanation is present here." Or would you take the arguably ignorant stance of, "well, it just can't be supernatural so let us not even consider that."
Science is the study of the natural. Supernatural is, by definition, not science.
About your comments earlier on Dark energy and matter being related to, er, `branes` from higher dimensions. I never replied to that, because you know thats crazy right?. Anyway, I was wondering if you read this and what your thoughts are on it
A few years back it seems, do you know if there has been significant changes to the theory or different models of explanation?. I haven`t kept track with progress made on dark energy and matter. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2009/08/68497142/1
The only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be "literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual," says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe
"We're talking about science in the bible. I suppose you think science shouldn't have a say when talking about science in the bible."
No, we're talking about whether sentience is supernatural or not. You used how science understands it as a counter point to it being supernatural. Tell me if this makes sense: The National Association of What Tastes Best says apples taste better than oranges. I say no, oranges taste better and you say no, apples taste better because the NAWTB says that apples taste better.
"Science is the study of the natural. Supernatural is, by definition, not science."
It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.
Most scientists today agree that quantum mechanics is a complete theory. This paper shows that you can't have any extension to QM, hidden variables or not, that would increase its predictive power: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5173.
Radiation for example does not have a cause. Quantum tunneling is merely the mechanism by which it works, not the cause of it. The typical creationist "everything must have a cause" argument is doomed to fail from the get-go.
There is much to discuss about asking God for healing. Even more so about the laws that govern healing and restoration. Divine or through medicines. Far beyond the scope of this thread, and even of my limited understanding of the matter.
The only reason it needs to be so complicated is so that it can be unfalsifiable, which is just the way you guys like it.
People are too lazy to read, and I take the time and effort to present the data here to silence any stupidity and ignorance.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
-Stephen Hawking
I can think of no greater pretension to knowledge than saying "I have here a book inspired by the creator of the entire universe, therefore you should do what it says." And yes, it is nothing more than pretensions, because religion has given mankind nothing of value that any decent moral person could not have thought of himself.
It is, from a scientific perspective, exploring all available options.
If you received unfallible evidence of a supernatural event, would you
shun all possible experiments and studies of it just because of the fact
that it was supernatural? And what I meant was possible credibility in
the supernatural. Like, "well we really don't know much about this and
it really seems like a mystery, so maybe a supernatural explanation is
present here." Or would you take the arguably ignorant stance of, "well,
it just can't be supernatural so let us not even consider that."
"Supernatural" is something that only exists in TV dramas and the like. I consider the word itself to be a contradiction, along with omnipotence. If it can be detected by our instruments, then it's part of this universe/multiverse, and therefore natural. Yes, if we detect something we would investigate it, whatever it is. But the truly ignorant stance would be to throw our hands up in the air and say "I give up, it's magic!" That is not an answer. The point at which you say "goddidit" is the point at which scientific inquiry just grinds to a dead halt.
About your comments earlier on Dark energy and matter being related to, er, `branes` from higher dimensions. I never replied to that, because you know thats crazy right?. Anyway, I was wondering if you read this and what your thoughts are on it
A few years back it seems, do you know if there has been significant changes to the theory or different models of explanation?. I haven`t kept track with progress made on dark energy and matter.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2009/08/68497142/1
The only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be "literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual," says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe
That would indeed be interesting.
Truth be told I'm not a big fan of it myself, seeing as how nobody has been able to detect a single particle of it. The best alternative to dark energy/dark matter is MOND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
Don't know if you gave up on the whole consciousness being supernatural thing but would just like to add that engineers, psychologists and whatnot have managed to build robots that and in some areas their mental abilities can be up to par with toddlers.
Don't know if you gave up on the whole consciousness being supernatural thing but would just like to add that engineers, psychologists and whatnot have managed to build robots that learn and in some areas their mental abilities can be up to par with toddlers.
Lol. I wish I was involved in that kind of work!. Thats also not consciousness haha.
Its only a sub-system and elementary at best, machines can never be `human` in the fullest sense. We are made in the image of God. We can only replicate that process via procreation. Making machine in the image of man, is, mhm, ye, would be much inferior but its still fun and cool.
Its only a sub-system and elementary at best, machines can never be `human` in the fullest sense. We are made in the image of God. We can only replicate that process via procreation. Making machine in the image of man, is, mhm, ye, would be much inferior but its still fun and cool.
We could use genetics to remove some of the mistakes that God made though.
Would it still be a God if you can shake his hands?
Grad, that pic is a blast. I knew it!
\o\ lol /o/
One must wonder though, why are miracles so isolated? I know there are a lot of people having visions in certain places, but I guess there must be a reason why God doesn't just jump in and stir the pond.
@Hookah604: Go
Seriously? You need comprehension skills if you're asking me that, because it was clearly answered in my post.
@Eiviyn: Go
"Special pleading. You have no valid base to make that assertion. As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
You're saying if someone receives frontal lobe damage, they have a lower level of conciousness? That is kind of like the same as saying a child has a lower level of sentience as well. And we can all make the assumption, based on the fact that most of us have some memories on childhood, that that is not true. And are you saying science has an unfallible explanation of a soul, and that there is no debate or question within science about it?
"If that's not invoking a god, then I don't know what is. If you're invoking some other supernatural entity, then it's still the same error you're making."
It is, from a scientific perspective, exploring all available options. If you received unfallible evidence of a supernatural event, would you shun all possible experiments and studies of it just because of the fact that it was supernatural? And what I meant was possible credibility in the supernatural. Like, "well we really don't know much about this and it really seems like a mystery, so maybe a supernatural explanation is present here." Or would you take the arguably ignorant stance of, "well, it just can't be supernatural so let us not even consider that."
And by predetermined, I mean everything can be "predicted" but not by us, obviously. Meaning, if time were to magically be reversed by 100 and then 100 years were to pass again, everything would be exactly the same as it is now.
@Eiviyn: Go
"As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
Seriously? As far as science understands, the universe spontaneously exploded from nothing so the whole creation rebuke part of your argument earlier was kind of pointless. Why are you here if you're going to say such stupid things such as "Science says so" as a basis for your arguments?
as EternalWraith said, "You dont see how weak your arguments are becoming."
We're talking about science in the bible. I suppose you think science shouldn't have a say when talking about science in the bible.
Homeschooled.
Science is the study of the natural. Supernatural is, by definition, not science.
@Eiviyn: Go
Science is the study for the truth, and if the Supernatural is the truth, then therefore science can coincide and actually support Religion.
@Gradius
About your comments earlier on Dark energy and matter being related to, er, `branes` from higher dimensions. I never replied to that, because you know thats crazy right?. Anyway, I was wondering if you read this and what your thoughts are on it
A few years back it seems, do you know if there has been significant changes to the theory or different models of explanation?. I haven`t kept track with progress made on dark energy and matter.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2009/08/68497142/1
The only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be "literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual," says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe
That would indeed be interesting.
@Eiviyn: Go
"We're talking about science in the bible. I suppose you think science shouldn't have a say when talking about science in the bible."
No, we're talking about whether sentience is supernatural or not. You used how science understands it as a counter point to it being supernatural. Tell me if this makes sense: The National Association of What Tastes Best says apples taste better than oranges. I say no, oranges taste better and you say no, apples taste better because the NAWTB says that apples taste better.
"Science is the study of the natural. Supernatural is, by definition, not science."
Fiiiine. Too bad it is not really important.
I thought we were well past Spontaneous Generation but I guess it's made a comeback.
Like I said before, quantum mechanics has pretty much left determinism in shambles and randomness is built into the quantum world.
Radiation for example does not have a cause. Quantum tunneling is merely the mechanism by which it works, not the cause of it. The typical creationist "everything must have a cause" argument is doomed to fail from the get-go.
The only reason it needs to be so complicated is so that it can be unfalsifiable, which is just the way you guys like it.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. -Stephen Hawking
I can think of no greater pretension to knowledge than saying "I have here a book inspired by the creator of the entire universe, therefore you should do what it says." And yes, it is nothing more than pretensions, because religion has given mankind nothing of value that any decent moral person could not have thought of himself.
"Supernatural" is something that only exists in TV dramas and the like. I consider the word itself to be a contradiction, along with omnipotence. If it can be detected by our instruments, then it's part of this universe/multiverse, and therefore natural. Yes, if we detect something we would investigate it, whatever it is. But the truly ignorant stance would be to throw our hands up in the air and say "I give up, it's magic!" That is not an answer. The point at which you say "goddidit" is the point at which scientific inquiry just grinds to a dead halt.
Truth be told I'm not a big fan of it myself, seeing as how nobody has been able to detect a single particle of it. The best alternative to dark energy/dark matter is MOND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
Nonetheless, dark energy is pretty much here to stay: http://news.discovery.com/space/new-study-re-confirms-evidence-for-dark-energy-120912.html
^-Ignore the sensationalistic headline
Guess we'll see how it turns out.
@Gradius12: Go
I like when people come along and make replies to points that have already been addresed.
I highly suspect this is the theme for most of this thread.
@Charysmatic: Go
Don't know if you gave up on the whole consciousness being supernatural thing but would just like to add that engineers, psychologists and whatnot have managed to build robots that and in some areas their mental abilities can be up to par with toddlers.
Lol. I wish I was involved in that kind of work!. Thats also not consciousness haha.
Its only a sub-system and elementary at best, machines can never be `human` in the fullest sense. We are made in the image of God. We can only replicate that process via procreation. Making machine in the image of man, is, mhm, ye, would be much inferior but its still fun and cool.
http://www.scienceinquran.com/creation_phenomena.html
Here is a list similar to your own, presented in a similar fashion. Please read it.
Done.
We could use genetics to remove some of the mistakes that God made though.
Not everything has to be point-counterpoint. Perhaps somebody else reading will get something out of my reply.
Bah. There are much better ways of finding out which religion is correct:
http://i.imgur.com/3RQDA.gif
@Gradius12: Go
Hardly appropriate to be so disrespectful and vain...
All religious texts are fiction stories.
Would it still be a God if you can shake his hands?
Grad, that pic is a blast. I knew it!
\o\ lol /o/
One must wonder though, why are miracles so isolated? I know there are a lot of people having visions in certain places, but I guess there must be a reason why God doesn't just jump in and stir the pond.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
That's why the Flying Spaghetti Monster has noodly appendages instead of hands.
This is hardly accurate...