Sciforum Members - What do we believe?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
I try not to have beliefs at all - only an acceptance of probability.
atheist and proud of it
:cheers:
:cheers:
Atheist.
Star-gazer
Registered Member
Ditto
Atheist, and there is outerworldly life, but they arn't around earth
I think if you're still relating you state of being as a belief then you haven't learned enough to convince you that you of what you understand as knowing.
If some one ask you what is the Capital of China you don't answer, Beijing? You state it...Beijing. If you believe, then quite simply you don't actually know.
I know God exist. I've seen enough proof, I've seen the alternatives:
It doesn't matter if you knowledge offends what someone else believes. How does that really effect you? They couldn't possibly have the same exact knowledge and experiences that you have. So if you're atheist (generally speaking)...then know...belief is always going to be something other people do. What's humorous is that it is always expressed as belief...with no apparent conviction.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I'm a scientist. Not a professional, but by philosophy. We've spent the last five hundred years testing the fundamental hypothesis of the scientific method: that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by deriving theories from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. The hypothesis has withstood all of the testing and we continue to unlock the secrets of the natural universe at a breathtaking rate.
There is no rational reason to hypothesize a supernatural universe that cannot be observed. To do so is to give up on science and science has given us no cause to do that.
Reasoning is one of the basic things that makes us human, and I won't give it up. Religions, on the other hand, are collections of archetypes, instincts implanted in our synapses by accidents of evolution. To believe in religion is to fall back on the animal inside us, and I won't do that either.
There is no rational reason to hypothesize a supernatural universe that cannot be observed. To do so is to give up on science and science has given us no cause to do that.
Reasoning is one of the basic things that makes us human, and I won't give it up. Religions, on the other hand, are collections of archetypes, instincts implanted in our synapses by accidents of evolution. To believe in religion is to fall back on the animal inside us, and I won't do that either.
Saquist - you confuse knowledge and interpretation.
That Beijing is the capital of China is a FACT - it is defined as such and can be nothing else.
You might think you "know" that God exists (as fact), but at best you can merely have reached an interpretation of your experiences that have led you to believe such.
It is your personal assessment / interpretation. It is NOT fact.
Your experiences are fact, undoubtedly, but your interpretation is nothing but subjective.
If you consider it a fact that God exists it is because you "believe" your interpretations to be fact.
I hope that you can see the difference.
And conviction has nothing to do with it.
Conviction does not turn a subjective assessment into fact - or madmen will have soared into the skies unaided as they jump off buildings. Yet still they fall to the ground with a deadly thud.
I haven't confused anything Sarkus.
Don't let that analogy stumble you. Understand the analogy for how it's being present not for how you understand it. Otherwise you've failed to relate at which point you should ignore the analogy.Or ask for clarification.
Truth is not so narrow as you suggest. Experience is not interpretive, the propper word is subjective, based on perspective. Facts are based on society and any fact can be questioned within varing degrees of prosecution. The facts in of themselves are objective.
For instance. My statement was not "God is a fact." but was "I know God exist."
That's a conclusion solely based on the fact of experiences in research. That is a unique perspective that no one else has. What I have researched is information posessing an objective reality.
It's impact one you and anyont else is minimal.
conviction has everything to do whith how you present what you know or what you believe. It's the distinguishing factor between those who use commonly misunderstood terms and those who say what they mean.
If you mean "know"...then say know. Even if it is subjective don't betray your knowledge to be anything other than fully accepted. Belief has condition of possible doubt.
"There is no doubt there is enough information to conclude that God exist."
This is the entire purpose of a conviction statement. it's an expression of internal knowledge. Yes that is subjective, Yes, it is a conviction. It is not the purpose of such a statement to be understood as a FACT but it is a conclusion.
Don't let that analogy stumble you. Understand the analogy for how it's being present not for how you understand it. Otherwise you've failed to relate at which point you should ignore the analogy.Or ask for clarification.
Truth is not so narrow as you suggest. Experience is not interpretive, the propper word is subjective, based on perspective. Facts are based on society and any fact can be questioned within varing degrees of prosecution. The facts in of themselves are objective.
For instance. My statement was not "God is a fact." but was "I know God exist."
That's a conclusion solely based on the fact of experiences in research. That is a unique perspective that no one else has. What I have researched is information posessing an objective reality.
It's impact one you and anyont else is minimal.
conviction has everything to do whith how you present what you know or what you believe. It's the distinguishing factor between those who use commonly misunderstood terms and those who say what they mean.
If you mean "know"...then say know. Even if it is subjective don't betray your knowledge to be anything other than fully accepted. Belief has condition of possible doubt.
"There is no doubt there is enough information to conclude that God exist."
This is the entire purpose of a conviction statement. it's an expression of internal knowledge. Yes that is subjective, Yes, it is a conviction. It is not the purpose of such a statement to be understood as a FACT but it is a conclusion.
Last edited:
All matter is a record of its potential at the place of its birth in its wave. Masses of matter, like buoys floating in the ocean to mark courses for ships, are floating in space to register the electric potential of the position of their birth.
Whenever matter is in the place of its birth, it belongs there.
See http://www.walter-russell.de/en/Naturwissenschaft.php
Whenever matter is in the place of its birth, it belongs there.
See http://www.walter-russell.de/en/Naturwissenschaft.php
Last edited:
By distributing the design phase of reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for Intelligent Design, adjoining to the restrictive principle of natural selection a basic means of generating information and complexity. Addressing physical evolution on not only the biological but cosmic level,...
See http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
Its what hes best at.
Physics gives rise to observer-participancy, observer-participancy gives rise to information, information gives rise to Physics. A "closed loop". The CTMU makes no distinction between matter and information. "Concrete matter now vies with abstract information abstractly representing matter".
Talking in cirlces literally gets you nowhere.