Is Science real? [Archive]

Zharakov

09-13-2005, 00:46

Now before I am called a moron and flamed... Just think for a second with an open mind...

Now, all you know the Earth moves around the sun... And that The Earth is acculy not the center of the univers... But how do we know? All we have are therories... And thats all they will ever be.

First, have any of you acculy been to space? I havn't. So I really don't know for cirtian that the Earth is flat or not...

Have any of us been to the center of the universe? If you have, I'd like to meet you. So how do we know what is and isn't the center?

Now, the scientists have a PHD *I think thats what there called*. But how do we really know they arnt just blowing from there arses?

Now, I'm not saying that I believe the world is flat, or that we are the center of the univers. But think about it for a while... You'r believeing something that was told to you. You trust the scientists through FAITH.

Its like how religious people folow the bible...

Papewaio

09-13-2005, 00:49

Tell you what... compare the PC you are using now with the Printing press.

Check out the transistors that you use on your PC. This uses scientific ideas to create the PC.

Other technology is a good indicator of what the knowledge from science allows.

Medical treatment, flight etc

Zharakov

09-13-2005, 00:50

Im not saying Science is fake...

Im just saying Science and Religion are one and the same...

CBR

09-13-2005, 01:51

Well you could say that about basically every event that you personally havent seen with your own eyes. Main difference between religion and science is you can become a scientist and check out things yourself. The astronomical examples you mention are not just theories but observations too.

CBR

LeftEyeNine

09-13-2005, 02:33

That's another "Am I an atom?" case..

We may start with distinguishing some topic being "different" and some topic being "absurd"..

Reverend Joe

09-13-2005, 02:48

Technically, at the basis of every belief system, is an opinion. The current strain of science is based on a certain opinion as well, an opinion that was in opposition to Descartes' theories. The fact is, you can't prove any of these opinions one way or the other. So it's really pointless to question, "is science real". Just go with it or don't.

Byzantine Prince

09-13-2005, 02:48

Science is not the same as religion. Science has to prove itself constantly, religion is just forced belief in something that might have had some evidence of existence thousands of years ago. It's not the same. Anyone can see the difference.

I'm not even particularly fond of science.

Zharakov

09-13-2005, 03:13

Seamus Fermanagh

09-13-2005, 03:27

Science and Religion are similer.

You must trust that Scientist to not lie to you and say our sun is pink with purple stripes.

If a Scientist ever lied about his/her work, who would know? "Other Scientists"
Well... Once again, you need to put your faith into them discovering that the information is false or true.

Its all a leap of faith...

Of course scientists "police" one another's work. Journalists are reviewed by editors, etc. etc. Peer review is one of the basic forms of truth testing in almost any field of endeavor.

If you want to check on the work of a scientist, pick up a few books on statistics and research method. You can indeed arm yourself with the knowledge to be a good consumer of their product.

I agree with you that science is, at its core, a belief system of sorts, but don't disparage the scientific method on such a cursory level -- you do it no justice.

Seamus

Papewaio

09-13-2005, 03:54

Lemur

09-13-2005, 03:54

A few crucial points about science:

Science is not a democracy. If I can create a repeatable experiment which disproves a theory that is very popular, it's still disproved, no matter how many people liked the old theory. It's not as though anybody gets a vote. They can either produce results or they can't.

Science is not a religion. There are no core beliefs in science, as there are in any religion. The only commonality that all scientists must adhere to is the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) (and if you don't understand the method, you've got precious little to add to this thread).

Zharakov, as your example you picked the heliocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric) view of our place in the solar system, versus the old geocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism) model. You ask, "Why do we not believe that the earth is the center of the universe? None of us has been outside the earth, much less to the center of the universe." So you conclude that our acceptance of heliocentrism and its modern descendents as nothing more than blind faith.

There is an essential difference -- experience, experiments and observation indicate that the earth is not at the center of the universe. So no matter how nice it would be to believe that we're at the center of things, we know it to be untrue.

If you conducted experiments that showed the opposite, that the earth was, in fact, central to all creation, and if those experiments could be repeated, and then backed up with the appropriate theories and equations, scientists would be forced to revise their understanding. That is the difference between science and religion. There is no evidence, no experiment or elegant theory that I can bring to the Catholic Church that will alter their opinions on God, Jesus ben Joseph or the Apostles. Religion can change, certainly, but not because of experiment and observation.

Equating all forms of knowledge to all other forms of knowledge, declaring that all ideas are equal, regardless of their intellectual and factual basis, strikes this lemur as the worst sort of sophistry.

GoreBag

09-13-2005, 03:58

I have a book on Krisna consciousness that deals with the acceptance of knowledge. Your post reminded me of it.

In any case, no, people don't (well, I don't, at least) trust everything scientists say. Such a thing would be fundamentally silly, since scientific developments constantly change and knowledge is refined or even disproven. Accepting the knowledge presented to you because someone has credentials is a personal thing. Even men with doctorates lie.

Reverend Joe

09-13-2005, 03:58

Lemur- As I said:

Technically, at the basis of every belief system, is an opinion. The current strain of science is based on a certain opinion as well, an opinion that was in opposition to Descartes' theories. The fact is, you can't prove any of these opinions one way or the other. So it's really pointless to question, "is science real". Just go with it or don't.

Granted, the heliocentralism model does not have much basis in fact, but science itself IS based upon certain assumptions- assumptions that I believe, but others do not.

Azi Tohak

09-13-2005, 04:10

Im not saying Science is fake...

Im just saying Science and Religion are one and the same...

Good for you for saying so. But yes, this will be a thread of flaming.

I agree to be honest. Science has been proven BP? When was the last time you saw a species evolve to gain legs or lungs or a brain? Prove to me how a mess of chemicals formed a bacterium? And then how did that bacterium gain respiratory systems etc?

The tools used to measure anything 'scientific' are only as good as the people who have made them. I pick on biology only because that is the easiest to see. Chemistry has the same problem. Sure with think a scanning electron microscope is great, but what if it has failed, for whatever reason? And no, telling me so many people can't be wrong does not work with me. People see what they want to see, and with the current anti-Christian bent so prevelent in the West, it is a fun target.

Azi

Lemur

09-13-2005, 04:19

When was the last time you saw a species evolve to gain legs or lungs or a brain?
Let's take the opposite tack: What evidence do we have that evolution is not a valid theory? For instance, if populations do not respond to pressures and changes over time, I should be able to give the exact same antibiotic to every patient every time. Since there is no such thing as evolution, the viruses will not evolve to avoid my genocidal chemical assault, right? There should be no need for alternative regimens of drugs, since viruses do not adapt.

And yet they are needed, so something must be going on. Azi, please feel free to explain drug resistant bacteria without using evolutionary theory. And make sure to tell your doctor all about it.

Hypothesis, testing, observation. Rinse and repeat. If the theory doesn't match the facts, the theory is rubbish, and somebody's going to lose his grant money. Exactly how does this resemble religion? When is the last time you saw anybody attempting to test and observe the sacrament? How could one go about disproving Genesis?

AntiochusIII

09-13-2005, 04:49

I agree to be honest. Science has been proven BP? When was the last time you saw a species evolve to gain legs or lungs or a brain? Prove to me how a mess of chemicals formed a bacterium? And then how did that bacterium gain respiratory systems etc?Science, as a concept, is proven. The theories that are proposed into a generic whole of scientific knowledge, many of which accepted by the majority, can always be disproven. But I am willing to let you try to disprove science itself if you can. And no gods please. :bow:
The tools used to measure anything 'scientific' are only as good as the people who have made them. I pick on biology only because that is the easiest to see. Chemistry has the same problem. Sure with think a scanning electron microscope is great, but what if it has failed, for whatever reason?It will be like when carbon-dating technique is first used. The community will be stunted by the discovery, the ugly nature of humans shows up a bit, then the new theory/method, which factually defeats the older one (despite often being minority/"oppressed") becomes increasingly accepted, and things goes on. Science itself suffers no harm, despite a major theory disproven.
And no, telling me so many people can't be wrong does not work with me. People see what they want to see, and with the current anti-Christian bent so prevelent in the West, it is a fun target. AziPeople see what they want to see, true. But scientists are very jealous of each other, and will disprove his peer's theory at first opportunity if that theory could be disproven with the current technical capabilities. It's not like a prayer which relies, completely, on faith. It needs - of utmost importance - facts to base the theories on. However, a few branches of science are more philosophical in nature, and therefore the theories of such branches are more controversial in the scientific community.

ichi

09-13-2005, 05:28

Science and Religion are similer.

You must trust that Scientist to not lie to you and say our sun is pink with purple stripes.

If a Scientist ever lied about his/her work, who would know? "Other Scientists"
Well... Once again, you need to put your faith into them discovering that the information is false or true.

Its all a leap of faith...

One of the foundations of science is replicability. In order for a work to be considered it must explain the process used to arrive at any research results. Then others can repeat the same experiment.

We can all do the same thing. For example I've noticed how the sun rises and sets at varying latitudes at various times of the year. In my observations I've found that the sun rises and sets in perfect agreement with the predictions consistent with established theory.

Scientists today use the theory of evolution to manufacture strains of corn and wheat that are resistant to insects or disease. Scientists are responsible for the knee surery that allows me to walk.

Science is not the same as religion, its exactly the opposite.

Believe what you want. I can't believe I'm even replying to this thread.

ichi :bow:

Big_John

09-13-2005, 05:35

I can't believe I'm even replying to this thread.

ichi :bow:
big_john :bow:

Zalmoxis

09-13-2005, 06:22

Because scientists love proving someone else wrong... it is just like this forum... na na naaa na, I proved you wrong look at this link.

At least with science you can always go out and check the results yourself if you really want to.

Religion is a little bit more difficult in getting repeated revalations...
So we're all basically scientists.

A.Saturnus

09-13-2005, 17:18

Im not saying Science is fake...

Im just saying Science and Religion are one and the same...

Science can put you on the moon. Religion can´t.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

09-13-2005, 17:26

well, I do believe science for the most part BUT, seeing as everybody seems to be saying that the practice of science provides repeatable proofs, why are there so many arguments and contested theories in science?

Surely if scientists were infallible then there would be no arguments.

Redleg

09-13-2005, 17:27

Going to the moon is nothing but an illusion - to quote another .org member... ~:eek:

Taffy_is_a_Taff

09-13-2005, 17:38

fair enough.

Damn, some theories do take a LONG time.

Vykke

09-13-2005, 18:08

Yup. Scientists are always refining old theories and models, changing one variable here, adjusting a few numbers there, etc. They get into big arguments over that sort of thing because they're important in practical applications of the theory or model, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the theory itself is in question (though sometimes it is). Also, new additions are always having to be made to theories, or new theories invented, to describe recently discovered phenomena.

Unfortunately, as you said, scientists aren't perfect. They make mistakes, see things in the data that aren't there, and in, general, fail to know everything. They're also hampered by funding limitations and the physical constrains of their own senses and equipment and standards of statistical proof (my dad and brother are both scientists, so believe me when I say it can be very hard work to scientifically prove even relatively simple concepts). Bad scientists are a problem, too. Because of all this, I'm sure there's dozens of things that have been accepted by the scientific community that aren't really true. Probably not many full theories, but a lot of modifications to theories, etc.

Peer review, though, is the thing that cleans up this mess. As Papeweio said, scientists love to prove one another wrong. I'm confident that the vast majority of scientific data that's been around more than 15 years or so is true. By that time it's sure to have been validated at least once, probably numerous times, either on purpose by scientists trying to prove their compatriot wrong, or by other scientists who do it incidentally while carrying out their other work.

Still, if you don't believe anything you can't see with your own eyes, and don't have the resources to test scientific theories yourself, then you've got no reason to believe in most scientific discoveries of the last 200 years, just like you have no reason to believe in any religion. Though if you're going to take that philosophy, it'll be tough to get through life. It seems to me that sooner or later you're going to have to trust somebody.

Zharakov

09-13-2005, 20:43

I find it funny how people keep missing my point...

I also find it funny how people defend Science like other people defend Religion...

Let me try a diffrent aproche... During my days in School, I lerned about a thing called a Kuasar *No clue how its spelled in Eneglish...* they are things our Scientists can hear... But can't prove there existance. Why, because the noise could be other things like Solar Debris.

However, manny scientists are convinced that Kuasars exist. THey don't know what they are, or why they make that noise. But they are sure without a doubt that there are Kusars.

Same thing with Aleians.

Religious people like me, are convinced without a doubt that there is a God in one shape or another. We have no way to prove it, but are sure without a dount that there is a God.

Science is full of things that can't be explained. You just ecept them with faith...

I shouldn't even dignify this with a response. Unlike religion, science is not a belief system. It's not a "THIS IS RIGHT, THIS IS WRONG." sort of thing. Science is a method for finding the truth. And it's as real as any other method commonly used for anything. As real as using your eyeballs to see. As real as using your teeth to chew.
Saddly, by the way manny people *You* act. Science does give off an air of "THIS IS RIGHT, THIS IS WRONG"...

Religion is a method to serch for truth. So is science.

Big King Sanctaphrax

09-13-2005, 20:53

Religion is a method to serch for truth.

Where's the searching? It seems to be that there's a bunch of ancient superstitions, and you either blindly accept it, on faith as there is no possible reproducable proof, or you don't.

As opposed to science, which is constantly striving to improve its theories via experimentation and inquiry. I know which approach I'd stick my money on.

Meneldil

09-13-2005, 21:06

The more I read this forum the more I have the feeling that the western world is heading for another dark age.

Navaros

09-13-2005, 21:15

there is such thing as real science

but,

much is what is called science today is not actually real science

rather, there is much religious fantacism being called science. ie: "scientists" who think that evolution is correct and zealously refuse to be open to any other conclusion

the word "science" has been skewed by such religious fanatics who call themselves scientists when in actuality they do not even live up to the very spirit of what it means to be a scientist

such religious fanatics posing as scientists will often zealously hold their own foolish speculations and untruths (about evolution being correct among other things) as being undisputable facts. and they have the nerve to call that bunk "science".

BDC

09-13-2005, 21:18

The more I read this forum the more I have the feeling that the western world is heading for another dark age.
I'm starting to agree...

Time to stock up on the tinned beans and fill some sandbags.

Doubly so after reading the post above mine. :dizzy2:

Adrian II

09-13-2005, 21:19

Vykke

09-13-2005, 22:02

If you've got the desire to do so, there is nothing hampering someone from, say, getting the guided tour of an atom from some scientist or another. Or asking to borrow his miscroscpoe to see what all the hubbub is about for this or that.

Not so for religion.

True, and you could certainly get some good evidence for cell theory and some other oldie-but-goodie models and theories. But the more recent advances aren't verifiable by common people with a hundred dollars' worth of equipment. They needed teams of highly trained people with expensive labs to discover, and independently verifying them isn't much easier, if any. For instance, how could a regular joe verify that the fancy-sounding enzyme "carbamoyl phosphate synthetase" actually makes the molecule carbamoyl phosphate? Even assuming he had the time to learn enough necessary background knowledge, he would, at a mimimum, need a refractometer, centrifuge, chromatography column, autoclave, petri dishes, and probably a bunch of other stuff I don't even know exists, not to mention the huge number of tissue samples he'd need just to get enough of the enzyme to work with. Even the tour of the atom you mentioned isn't really independent, since you're just listening to what the scientist tells you. If you don't believe a word he says, then it's not going to mean much for you. I think this is where Zharakov is coming from.

Of course, that's no reason to reject science as a load of crap. Almost any field of human endeavor has specialists who are more able to participate in it than regular people. If a historian says "Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo," do you automatically assume he's full of it because you never saw the Battle of Waterloo? What about taxes? They say it's going to build roads and fund the police force. But you never saw them actually spending the money on that. Maybe they're just pocketing it.... etc. My point is that you can't go around doubting everything people tell you just because you haven't seen it. You have to decide who's trustworthy and who isn't... and in my opinion, the scientific community is, on the whole, worthy of that trust.

That doesn't make it the same as religion. Much of modern science is difficult to verify, but it's still possible. Most religious ideas aren't.

Zharakov, there's a difference between faith and an astronomer's belief in quasars (I think that's what you're talking about). The astronomer saw evidence that supported the existence of quasars, and decided they probably existed. He might not have proof that quasars exist, but that's not the same as having no evidence as all.

To put yourself in a similar situation: Let's say you hear a strange yowling noise, and try to figure out what it is. Since you're in a civilized area, the most likely explanation is that it's a cat. You don't have proof that it's a cat. To get that you'd need to track down the creature that made it and make absolutely sure that it does indeed make that sound. But since that's not a reasonable course of action, you'll just have to assume that your guess is correct. The astronomer is in a similar position. He "heard a sound," as you put it, and he figured out that a certain object would make a sound like that. He called it a quasar. He doesn't have proof that it was a quasar, but it seems like a reasonable guess given the evidence available.

This isn't quite the same thing as faith.

Azi Tohak

09-14-2005, 01:01

Zharakov I knew it would wind up like this. People don't like it when you question what they have accepted, unthinking.

Its okay, been happening for thousands of years. People like to look for truth and when they think they've found it, everything else becomes anathema. No point in debating, and right now, you're just hanging yourself out as a target.

Azi

Quietus

09-14-2005, 02:09

Religious people like me, are convinced without a doubt that there is a God in one shape or another. We have no way to prove it, but are sure without a dount that there is a God.

Science is full of things that can't be explained. You just ecept them with faith... The problem with this is that God DOESN'T follow the laws of physics.

Everything else follows the laws of physics. But God is not physical. You cannot see, hear, feel, taste or smell this God.

Is God energy? No. Is God a matter (and has mass)? No. Hence, it is not physical.

How can a physical human being who can use and utilize only a real physical universe interface with a God that is not physical?

Your prayers are physical, how can your physical prayers reach a God that is not physical?

Zharakov

09-14-2005, 02:28

Papewaio

09-14-2005, 02:34

Science doesn't kill people, People kill people...
:weirdthread:

I think I am getting my causes mixed up. ~D

Zharakov

09-14-2005, 02:38

Ohh great... in 30-40 years... The Science community is going to be runnign around in white bath robes and hoods while burning lab equipment...

*Jokeing*

Comrade Cube, my 2 relationships were valid. Why. Because you *and several other people* Were doing exactly that.

Soulforged

09-14-2005, 06:12

Your prayers are physical, how can your physical prayers reach a God that is not physical?
Well in here you're wrong. Prayers are ideal, trying to reach an ideal being, and from where does those ideas come...from the brain, so every idea is just in your head. That's something that i never understood of believers, but...

On the topic, though the question seems dumb i think i understand it. The science exists because the man perceives what he calls reality, he creates the reality by perception. The science is about the finesse in that perception, comparing with other phenomenums, finding rules, deducting from those rules, creating instruments (both ideal and real) to improve the perception. But the critical point is in this: does religion comes out with any result on the physical perceptible world, the one we call real? When we use the instruments of religion to communicate (let's say preaching or praying) does this change something in the real world? Well i think that the answer is obvious (no). The science does, and that's all that matters to define your reality. I'm not sure about other sciences but in the one i study, law or rights, there's one preconcept clear, we cannot judge the tentative of someone that bases all his plan in supersticious believes, like for example killing someone by using voodoo and then praying to God to save his life,why? Because it will never have any effect whatsoever in the real world. Hope i answered your question (the subject of the exitence of God comes in another package).

AntiochusIII

09-14-2005, 06:41

Ohh great... in 30-40 years... The Science community is going to be runnign around in white bath robes and hoods while burning lab equipment...You seems pissed that people managed to defend science, logically, too. Hmm...talk about refusing to listen to opinions and fanaticism.

Science is NOT a religion. First and most importantly so: it doesn't have a divine thingy of any kind, especially gods and goddesses. Second: it's not giving out absolute answers - not, at least, unless based on 100% fact. Third: they won't burn you if you refuse to believe. In fact, they are not supposed to force you to believe in the first place. Read the scientific method, review it from all possible angles, and you'll learn much of the fundamentals of science.

Enough?

P.S. Oh, and do seperate science from philosophy. The confusion and fusion of the two could lead to many misguided opinions.

Meneldil

09-14-2005, 08:15

Holy crap... All of you need to sit on a ice burge for a few minutes and cool off.

A Dark Age IS comeing, but it is commeing because people don't want to hear a diffrent Opinion. Because people are so closed minded that they are convinced that they are right and anyone who disagrees is dead wrong.

Do any of you know what you sound like? RELIGIOUS FANATICS.

Now, us Christians do a bad thing where they tell everyone ells with a diffrent opinion that they are wrong... Apperently so do you people...

Some Religious people are not willing to hear diffrent views, and attack anyone with a view they don't like... Apperently so do you people...

You people share manny traits as some Religious nuts... The bad ones...

Do you have a simple way to prove me science is wrong/not real ? I mean an objective way, not something like 'the Bible/God/the right wing nutjob priest I listen to said so'.

Now, I don't know what kind of drug you're on, because I know a load of religious people who don't reject science, and who even work for science. I'd like to say that's because french are smarter, more rational or whatever (joke), but I hope that's not the case.

Zharakov

09-14-2005, 20:48

You seems pissed that people managed to defend science, logically, too. Hmm...talk about refusing to listen to opinions and fanaticism.
Acculy... we Russians have a thing called Sarcasim... ~:cheers:

Now listen to me... I am NOT saying Science is wrong.

What I am saying is that people who do not believe in God or Religion tend to act like people who do.

And all of you are proveing my point.

AntiochusIII

09-14-2005, 23:17

And all of you are proveing my point.How so?

Kagemusha

09-14-2005, 23:51

AntiochusIII

09-14-2005, 23:56

What Zharakov is saying is that you are drawing all believers as fanatics.Look at the mirror.I dont find a conflict between god and science.We should first define God.There is still things that science have no answers.Cant God and science co-exist?Or is there only one God called science?Did I? And others simply state that the cry of "God" against science is pretty much fanatical, anyway.

And science, when it takes the role of God, will betray its very foundation as this is an endless progress of searching, finding, and relating to facts. I'll state my point again: God does not change, her power is absolute ~;) . Science does change, and though the concept of science itself is naturally more-or-less indisputable, the things in it are always subject to change.

Kagemusha

09-15-2005, 00:08

I think you just hitted the nail there CG.This only my opinion but,there are things we can proof and then there are things we cant.What has carryed science for thousands of years?Idea.Already ancient philosophers had ideas about many things that have been proved more reacently.
If we only look at the world and universe through that what we can proof with our limited understanding the wiew remains narrow.We have to remember that the bible was written by men with their narrow understanding.So it would be ignorant to believe it in word by word.The thing that we can prove is that humans have had always an urge to believe in something higher.If whole spieces have that kind of urge.Could there be something behind that?

Soulforged

09-15-2005, 00:42

What Zharakov is saying is that you are drawing all believers as fanatics.Look at the mirror.I dont find a conflict between god and science.We should first define God.There is still things that science have no answers.Cant God and science co-exist?Or is there only one God called science?
Yes they can live togheter, but as true knowledge enters the mind of more and more persons religion will seize to exist. On the other hand i don't know why so much problem. If we've a 0 to the left it will make no difference if it's or not there, God is that 0.

Zharakov

09-15-2005, 01:16

Nobody here is trying to do any of that. The conflict comes at the proof level. If Zharakov has a problem with Quasars, it astounds me that he could believe in a god for which there is considerably less proof.

I have no problems with... Those... I was simply useing them as an example.

And Kegem said it well. Look in the Mirror... Many here *And ells where * sound like Fanatics about Science...

There was one man in Russia who preached a religion that made Computers the new Gods... It was an odd experience...

Quietus

09-15-2005, 01:23

Well in here you're wrong. Prayers are ideal, trying to reach an ideal being, and from where does those ideas come...from the brain, so every idea is just in your head. That's something that i never understood of believers, but... Your brain is physical. Mechanisms of thinking is physical (mechanical, electrical and chemical). Where's the connection to a god that is not physical?

Papewaio

09-15-2005, 01:49

What has carryed science for thousands of years?Idea.Already ancient philosophers had ideas about many things that have been proved more reacently.

And they got many many many many more ideas wrong. It is the same with astrology, they get a few random hits that are correct and people think they are on to something.

Science is a lot younger then thousands of years old.

Soulforged

09-15-2005, 05:28

Your brain is physical. Mechanisms of thinking is physical (mechanical, electrical and chemical). Where's the connection to a god that is not physical?
Yes but the pray is ideal, i'm not talking about the electrochemical process taking place in your brain, i'm talking about the idea generated that only exists in your brain. That nothing tries to reach the other nothing, by the means of nothing. (the following is not towards you) I think that the sum of three 0 equals 0, the nothing.

Quietus

09-15-2005, 07:18

Yes but the pray is ideal, i'm not talking about the electrochemical process taking place in your brain, i'm talking about the idea generated that only exists in your brain. They are the same really. But the point is, how will that prayer reach a god that is not physical? And how will a god that isn't physical answer back?

Keep in mind, in able to open a door, you need to grab the handle and pull/push physically (mechanically).

Same way with the mind. The process is mechanical, chemical and electrical.

That nothing tries to reach the other nothing, by the means of nothing. (the following is not towards you) I think that the sum of three 0 equals 0, the nothing. I don't exactly see your point here. You are saying that since ideas are abstract, then God will get that abtract?

No, because that abstract conciousness is a function of a physical process (which is mechanical, chemical and electrical in nature).

If you want to disrupt this physical process, for example, then observe a drunk individual.

Lastly, if God is physical, then you can interpret him via sound, sight, smell, taste or touch.

Soulforged

09-16-2005, 01:48

They are the same really. But the point is, how will that prayer reach a god that is not physical? And how will a god that isn't physical answer back? They can't but prayers are ideas, just that, that's my point. The idea can reach another idea but it will be just an illusion inside your mind, nothing real.

I don't exactly see your point here. You are saying that since ideas are abstract, then God will get that abtract? No. God doesn't get that abstract, God is that abstract. God just "is" in the metaphysical plane, wich only exists as an idea inside the human brain, so it's pretty abstract, a way to generalize things in way different of the matter, and create a superior ruling being, that makes it an idea. So God is an idea, i've already said it many times in other posts.

No, because that abstract conciousness is a function of a physical process (which is mechanical, chemical and electrical in nature). Ok, but you're forgetting to separate things here. Forget the chemical process. The human can create and in fact creates many ideas in his head. In the time that this process finishes the idea only exists like it in the human brain. So the actual defintion of the idea, it's content is purely abstract, a mere interpretation.

If you want to disrupt this physical process, for example, then observe a drunk individual. This has nothing to do with my point, idea keep coming up in the mind of a drunk individual, though he cannot reason.

Lastly, if God is physical, then you can interpret him via sound, sight, smell, taste or touch I never said God was physical, in fact always said the contrary.

Quietus

09-16-2005, 04:08

They can't but prayers are ideas, just that, that's my point. The idea can reach another idea but it will be just an illusion inside your mind, nothing real. Yep. But an idea such is a metaphysical God is nothing more than an idea.

No. God doesn't get that abstract, God is that abstract. God just "is" in the metaphysical plane, wich only exists as an idea inside the human brain, so it's pretty abstract, a way to generalize things in way different of the matter, and create a superior ruling being, that makes it an idea. So God is an idea, i've already said it many times in other posts. Agreed.

Ok, but you're forgetting to separate things here. Forget the chemical process. The human can create and in fact creates many ideas in his head. In the time that this process finishes the idea only exists like it in the human brain. So the actual defintion of the idea, it's content is purely abstract, a mere interpretation. My point was without those processes, there would be no idea at all.

This has nothing to do with my point, idea keep coming up in the mind of a drunk individual, though he cannot reason. Or more reasonably, that drunk individual wouldn't even remember those ideas when sobered up.

I never said God was physical, in fact always said the contrary. I just want to make sure you're not saying that an idea such as a God can speak to a person inside their heads.

Soulforged

09-16-2005, 05:00

I just want to make sure you're not saying that an idea such as a God can speak to a person inside their heads.
Subjectively yes. But there'll be no objective God. That's why if you ask me the question: Is there a heaven or a hell? I'll asnwer don't be ridicolous man...And if you ask me what will i do in a moment of total desperation then I'll answer, sure there "must" be a God and i "reached" him. Is all subjective, all the creation of God comes to the subject and not the object. The object preceeds the subjects in all manners, like the matter preceeds the idea, that's why God is just an illusion, and like an illusion you might believe that you've made contact with him, or that him exists, and all that incredible fantasies. I usually find me in that state when I use marihuana. ~;)