Gordon, Once again you are failing to see the point. No one is arguing that faith based reality can be proven objectively, with the same instrumentation that you use to observe your world. You are defining your reality to the limits of the physical senses and instrumentation. That is your choice, isn't it? However, to say that anyone who has a different reality based on the use of different instrumentation is wrong is illogical. Until you have looked through the instruments of faith, how can you judge? By your standards and definitions, indeed you are correct in your perspective. However, to the naked eye, doesn't it appear as if the sun is traveling around the earth?
funny you bring this up. obviously, we have discovered that is incorrect. the people who wrote the bible did believe that. in fact, the church burned alive giordano bruno to death (look it up) because he believed the earth revolved around the sun. and isn't it just great that he happened to be correct, too. anyways, that example shows how dated religious beliefs are. why would you believe something so old and primitive? we have more advanced knowledge of our universe now. why throw out the window all that we have discovered and instead believe in something that basically cave men believed? i'm proud of the fact that i have different beliefs than someone born in the year 0100.
I've just been reading over all of your posts and everyone has interesting views. I'll share my own now: Einstein This past weekend I went up to New York City and visited the Natural History museum in uptown Manhattan. Inside they are currently running a wonderful Einstein exhibit. They have all kinds of neat toys to play with and visual examples of time, space-time and even a device that shows you that you bend space-time. I would recommend anyone who is interested in Einstein and space/time to visit this exhibit (it is running for the rest of the year I believe). I'm going back when I have more time (haha). Causality I was talking to this art student while in New York (actually the girl I was staying) and was asking her about how the universe seems to have so much order and design and how sad it would be if it was all just a fluke with no ultimate purpose. She then said one of the most profound things I've ever heard, yet it was pretty simple -- "Why does there have to be a reason?" Really, why? In our viewpoint of reality, everything that happens does so because something preceded it and caused it to happen. There is no event without a cause. Taken to an extreme, perhaps one could prove that if every small minute cause could be measured, we would know precisely what state everything would be in 10 seconds from now and the universe would be reduced to nothing but a determined event with no free-will or randomness. However, quantum mechanics seems to be the element within our universe that ultimately keeps things from ever being measured and known. vacuum and Dark Matter Yes, particles apparently spontaneously appear in a perfect vacuum, annihilate each other and then disappear -- but that doesn't mean that there was no preceding cause. Just because a cause is not observable does not mean it can be excluded. If these particles could be kept from annihilating each other, then you would essentially totally destroy thermodynamic theory by tapping into energy from nothingness. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just now being discovered and they make up most of the universe. Most of the universe is composed of stuff we know nothing about. That's pretty wild. So, in my humble opinion, it is important to just live your life in a good way and enjoy the experiences you have since there will always be something that is unprovable. That edge of science that cannot see behind the looking glass or down the rabbit hole is precisely why the practice of faith evolved with man. If something serves no purpose, evolution theory says that it gets weeded out. Since cultures and society's evolve, faith must serve a fundamental purpose for the continued evolution of society as a whole (macro-individual evolution). I love science, but I realize that there are just those things that must be realized through faith alone. You have your entire life and plenty of experiences to push you towards whatever faith, religion, god, ontological perspective that suits your own personal needs and nobody else can take that away from you. It is unprovable but knowable by everyone who practices their own faith -- the way it should be.
Over the course of science, we have repeatedly seen that many scientifically based conclusions were proven incorrect as instrumentation improved. Has science reached the limit of physical instrumentation? Who can say, so how can certainty about the conclusions based on current instrumentation be presented as absolute reality? Be proud of whatever you want, however, you are unable to prove logically that your reality is the correct reality, and that other realities are not available with the use of faith based instrumentation. You can concluded it is right for you (and you may be right, may be wrong....who can say?) but to concluded that it is right for others makes no sense to me.
Isn't it amazing how people are always so sure that "they" are right? From an individual perspective, it is always "I" that is the deep thinker -- it is always "I" that can smoke cigarettes and not be affected by statistics -- because "I" am special and unique. That isn't true, though. You're just another person to me and I'm just another person to you. Although "I" feel special, I'm just another brick in the wall. When you ask these questions, sometimes it is ok to just admit to yourself that you don't have the slightest clue what is going on. God cannot be proven to exist, but neither can be be proven not to exist. Name one imaginary scientific discovery that could prove without a shadow of a doubt that god does not exist? Now, name one that could prove he DOES exist? You can't think of any can you? That means science is the wrong tool to be looking for or denying a god-like entity/force/etc Caveman weren't primitive in my opinion. They didn't have laptops, Coors Light and palm pilots, but they were probably a lot more capable than you at many things. I bet if I dropped you in that time period, you'd probably be out of the picture in a few days. Why though? You're supposed to be advanced, right? What they did was observe events and learn what happened when those events occurred. If it rained, it meant that they could drink fresh water. If there was a bad thunderstorm, it meant that they should get their asses inside. They didn't have to worry about the reception on their television or the power going out -- we do. Science is just another way of looking at something by applying a rigorous controlled study where, if an event happens, it can be tested, verified and expected to happen under similar conditions each time. It is a perspective of approaching logic, but not always fundamental logic itself.
They have a very large screen that, when you approach it, it shows a grid that bends. It is hard to explain -- I suggest you go see it if you really like Einstein. There is nothing cooler than touching a piece of glass that seperates you from his original draft of E=MC^2 by only an inch.
Woo Aphie, Science is just another way of looking at something The understatement of the age ! There is no contest between religion and science and the two are not mutually exclusive to my mind. You can have faith in anything you want of course. It's just more sensible to me not to make the conclusion before asking the question. I find all religious stances I have come across simply boil down in the end to conclusive doctrine. Comparing the way science forwards ideas and the developing results of science, in the same manner as religious belief and the way it manifests itself, is simply bogus to me. I would say science is different in that requires continuous scrutiny and a rigorous evaluation of its "faiths", whereas (a god based personal) faith reaches it's own subjective conclusions.
Just more sensible to you. Your opinion, not fact that can be proven. Try as you might, you still confine your arguments to your standards, your rules, your understanding, your opinions on what is the right perspective on reality....yet they remain your opinions, not fact. If it works for you, what the hey....
So what is your beef?? Do you prefer to confine your arguments to your standard of making a conclusion before answering the question? Yes they are my opinions and they are defined as such ....so what?