Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LegoLord]

I said most.

[Sordid]

Yes, I heard you the first time.

[MrWiggles]

Well, just to hammer in, you can't affect the consciousness mind without affecting the physical mind. Duality is a dead concept. If God can affect conciseness, he will do so by affecting the physical mind.

As for god being proven with statical anomaly, possibly. Though Science could only say there is an unknown force causing these neurological event.

The issue with God, as it has been brought up before, is that it lacks definition. It also lacks a scientific one. There no operational definition of god. It make it hard and impossible to claim actions are of god.

Until a falsifyable model of God can be presented, then Occam Razor tells us a natural explanation is still preferable as it has the least assumptions.

I'm okay with this, with the caveat that "proving the existence of God" would be unnecessary to me if you could get "proving that there is an inordinate number of hallucinations of burning bushes, etc, that can be physically proven to only occur through random chance at one-in-a-hojillion odds" or etc.  If you could prove that SOMEthing is talking directly to people through a means we can't fathom, well, I'm sure science will have a blast continuing to figure out what it is, but at that point I'd be happy to say "Who cares if he's omnipotent or omniscient, someone is up there, precise definition unimportant".

You've loaded your own question. The presupposed answer to something talking, is that it an entity with the verb talk. We have to temper ourselves to not present question like this.

Like for instance when a theist goes 'Well who did create the universe?' It already state that its a person. When there nothing to suggest it has to be a person. The proper question 'What events and environment lead to the universe?'

This question allows for a who, as well for secular answer.  Its appriote for this case, as there isn't any evidence to disallow one answer for the other.

[Sowelu]

Ah, I withdraw my anthropomorphizing then.

I keep finding that science's standards with regard to religion are impossibly high...which is utterly respectable and a very good thing, but at some point along the line, if science goes far enough in that direction and finds a lot more supporting evidence, I'm going to decide that Occam's Razor really does lean towards the existence of God (or, you know, something).

Which is the one annoyance I always have with Occam's Razor--everyone applies it differently.  You always run into the one guy who decides that the Great Flood is a much simpler and cozier explanation than an old earth with plate tectonics etc.

[MrWiggles]

Occam Razor isn't applied differently. Its used {edit} incorrectly.

It get shorten to 'The simplest answer is favored answer' while it ignores the quailer 'with the least assumptions.'


Even if you have two answers, and A is simpler then B. If B has the least assumption, even being more complicated, it still has to be favored.

Science standards are constant. It impossibly high for everything. If your interested in seeing an impossibly high claim being reach, I would suggest you look into the acceptance of plate tectonics. For a very long while it was consider a fringe science. Hell, for a bit it was consider a psedo science.

[Sordid]

Hell, what about relativity? The idea that time slows down as you go faster? And space itself can be warped and deformed? It's absolute insanity! But it's true. As Dawkins puts it, the universe is queerer than we suppose and perhaps queerer than we can suppose. We evolved to hunt animals and gather fruit on the savanna, we're simply not equipped to deal with this kind of stuff intuitively.

[MrWiggles]

Knowing and considering that though. I mean we can assert a speieces smugness that we can contemplate such things and even begin to grasp them. Its fucking awesome.

[Sowelu]

Speaking of which, how about that there singularity?

Some common estimates put it sometime around sixty years from now, end of this century at the latest.  I can hardly freaking wait.

[MrWiggles]

Speaking of which, how about that there singularity?

Some common estimates put it sometime around sixty years from now, end of this century at the latest.  I can hardly freaking wait.

o.0

I probably know this under a different. But

what now?

[Sordid]

Knowing and considering that though. I mean we can assert a speieces smugness that we can contemplate such things and even begin to grasp them. Its fucking awesome.

Oh yeah, it is. That we are able to learn, that we can study and understand the workings of the universe, that is a triumph. It is fucking awesome, as you say. No, lemme rephrase that slightly.

It's BLOODY FUCKING AWESOME!!!

@Wiggles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[MrWiggles]

Oh that.

I'm to underread to have a proper opinion. The world will be different none the less.

It is more substainted then novel time theory. *shudders*

[Sowelu]

The literature ranges from "fairly sane" to "WOOO! I'M GLEAMING THE CUBE!".  Be warned.

[LegoLord]

Looking at the article on singularities, particularly the criticism, I highly doubt it's going to happen.

[Sordid]

Yeah, I try to not put too much hope into it, since it's far too reminiscent of apocalyptic prophecy for my comfort. You know, it sucks now but soon there's going to be this big event and then things will be awesome. But I do admit it is very tempting. We'll see.

[MrWiggles]

With the reading of thew wiki pages, it doesn't leave me feeling comfy.