There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
And you didn't bother to read post #411 as well?
I think you might find, if you care to check, that I probably did. Since I quoted it at the same time as replying to it.
I'd consider it to be a major clue, if not a dead give-away.
are you talking about dyw's butt?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Right. What does the post #411 imply?
Events CANNOT occur without a cause (assumption?), however, it is doesn't make sense to represent absolute nothingness in real life - and hence, there will always be a cause for something to happen.
I find it highly unlikely that, if the universe itself has a fundamental structure that causes things to happen even in its most reduced form, then it is very likely that the structure of the universe causes minute things to happen all the time...things that are not caused entirely by other particles/waves/strings. Perhaps this is the reason that we see uncertainty in QM...not because it is non-deterministic, but because the very fabric of the universe imposes an ever-present non-local deterministic influence.
Mostly that you're not reading my posts. Or not understanding them
Yes, that's an assumption, if you mean ever at all.
There you go again: applying the rules as they are NOW to "events" THEN. When we already KNOW that they didn't apply.
And hence your "conclusion" is false.
Oh this is stunning.
YOU find it UNLIKELY that IF x is the case then... and you're using that argument as conclusive "proof" that A=B.
Can you spot your fallacy here? (Correction, fallacies).
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
To me, causation is an analytical extrapolation of something that is inherently undefined in nature. I would guess it would be possible to develop a consciousness that conceptualizes all empirical events in terms of isolatedness from other events, thus rendering causation unimaginable. So the question becomes, what causes causation at the subjective level. But without even taking it that deep, there is an irony in the fact that epistemology breaks with the logic of cause and effect to the extent that it is rooted in cognitive voluntarism rather than physical determinism. Still, I tend to attribute causal determinism to logical sequences even though I know it is ultimately my own volition that enables me to reason out the logical consequences of ideas. Some people are able to simply reason on the basis of sequential associations instead of logic, which while frustrating demonstrates that cognition is not enslaved to reason.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
What made you think somebody wrote it for me?
Taken from your link.
Something has a cause while the other rise from nothing.
OK, so I should have asked how do you tell the difference...
Because you don't write that way, nor use that terminology, among a number of other clues.
Which part of "my link"? One of the posts in the thread or from something in the links from the OP?
Never mind, the OP. Found it.
Why quote it? The following question doesn't seem to relate to this.
You're not making sense. What's your point?
Between what and what? The two cases above that you alluded vaguely to?
The simplest way would be to find a cause and show that it is actually a cause. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Last edited:
There must either have been the fundamental stuff forever or it forever forms from the unstable symmetry of nothingness. Both options seem implausible, yet one of these two options must be correct, even if we don’t want either one to be.
For the purposes of this thread, we don’t need to know which option is correct, for they both lead to foreverness; thus, no creation, and no Creator. And none need apply to this economy. The basic stuff is also very tiny and elemental, not composite and complex. Mind (brain) occurs at a much higher place of the spectrum, well away from the simple, simpler, and the simplest. A being cannot be first or even close, for its parts and the further sub-parts would have to be even more so. QED on two counts.
For the purposes of this thread, we don’t need to know which option is correct, for they both lead to foreverness; thus, no creation, and no Creator. And none need apply to this economy. The basic stuff is also very tiny and elemental, not composite and complex. Mind (brain) occurs at a much higher place of the spectrum, well away from the simple, simpler, and the simplest. A being cannot be first or even close, for its parts and the further sub-parts would have to be even more so. QED on two counts.
No proof of God came forth, so I (we) moved onward to the outright disproofs, along with several more circumstantial disproofs, and then for a time it was onward to why believers believe, from both science and the believer’s ongoing reasons.
For me, it is now even to go on past the TOE to which we now have two clues to, thanks to these religious threads, and work the firm parts of this TOE all the way up to our being, which is what science does and is ever doing, so, I will but provide a brief sketch on how the movements of appearances of stuff in space can beget being.
(Tomorrow sometime. There will even be an image or two.)
Jan would say, “Hold off”, but we are just overturning the same ground here, although that is still good, to a degree, to overcome the massive neglect and avoidance by the believers.
For me, it is now even to go on past the TOE to which we now have two clues to, thanks to these religious threads, and work the firm parts of this TOE all the way up to our being, which is what science does and is ever doing, so, I will but provide a brief sketch on how the movements of appearances of stuff in space can beget being.
(Tomorrow sometime. There will even be an image or two.)
Jan would say, “Hold off”, but we are just overturning the same ground here, although that is still good, to a degree, to overcome the massive neglect and avoidance by the believers.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
That's not your problem.
Between something that has a cause and something that rise from nothing.
I'm not sure what the OP (from another thread that you linked) mean by rise from nothing. Perhaps something which has a cause that cannot be known.
You keep on saying that my posts are not making any sense. I respect your opinion. Don't worry this would be my last reply.
It seems to me that whatever evidence people of the past provide us with nothing is enough for you. If those are not proofs for you perhaps they are puzzles for a person who is drawn to reflection and drawn to faith. They will be meaningless to people who reject faith because the scientific process is still gathering evidence for past events and that process is not yet complete. Does it satisfy me personally? Yes it does. You may experience question marks in the scientific process you investigate and you may ended in a question mark - a mystery. Admittedly, I cannot prove God's existence using the scientific method - for God is not subject to measurement. In the end, we must all make a choice to trust.
You are free to choose to trust in the existence of no God. Certainly I cannot "compel" you otherwise by logic or scientific proof. For me, though, in the absence of scientific proof that there is no God, I don't care to go down that nihilistic road. I'll take the "high way"
Last edited:
Huh?
How does that address my question?
Then you obviously didn't look at the links given in the post.
Quite. And mine since you have now shown that you'd rather obfuscate than reply and have not bothered to check links I've given in response to your questions.
If only you'd had the brains/ guts/ rationality to sate that at the very start.
And now you've spoilt it again.
You cannot make claims about something (and expect them to be believed) if you cannot show that that something does, indeed, have the properties that you claim.
Oh dear. "Nihilistic"?
What you mean is that you don't care to go down the rational road and you'll take the gullible route.
Last edited:
From TOE to Being…
So, particles and their further composites are the objects that can arrange or be arranged in the place called space, which is a fine kind of oppositional pairing of matter vs. space that makes things clear and separate. From motion of the objects in a space becomes the transitional pairing involving the notions [of time] of past to future. One could think of these oppositional and transitional pairs of matter, space, past, and future as the corners at the base of a 4-sided pyramid from which we will now derive ‘being’ at the top, for a top must always have support.
These 4 fields (as we will call them) of matter(what), space(where), past(then), and future(when) then can even further combine: the what-matter + the when-future fields join to become a next higher field, progress—the progression of matter into the future, and the what-matter + the then-past fields become the new history field of the matter past—what has occurred.
The when-future + the where-space fields combine to make for the new wishes-hopes-and-dreams field in the future place of space; while the then-past + the where-space fields merge to form the remembrance field of memories in the past space. (‘Space’ here, is also meaning mind space.)
The new emergent fields then further combine: learning becomes of remembrance and history; a change-of-outlook becomes of remembrance and wishes; a change-in-structure becomes progress and history; and vision becomes of wishes and progress.
At the next stage of combination, creativity is brought forth from learning combined with a change-in-structure; direction results from learning and a change-of-outlook; growth is the vision for a change-of-outlook; and planning is the vision for a change-in-structure.
Finally, creating, direction, growth, and planning compose one’s being—the who—that basically became of the what, where, when, and then as matter, space, past, and future.
Science is working out all of the details.
(Note that the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ have been previously discussed and that we are past that, for the above.)
The basic forces, too, submit to the oppositional/transitional scheme, for the strong and the weak force are in opposition, the strong promoting stability, the weak promoting changeability, with the electric and magnetic forces in transition, in either direction.
So, particles and their further composites are the objects that can arrange or be arranged in the place called space, which is a fine kind of oppositional pairing of matter vs. space that makes things clear and separate. From motion of the objects in a space becomes the transitional pairing involving the notions [of time] of past to future. One could think of these oppositional and transitional pairs of matter, space, past, and future as the corners at the base of a 4-sided pyramid from which we will now derive ‘being’ at the top, for a top must always have support.
These 4 fields (as we will call them) of matter(what), space(where), past(then), and future(when) then can even further combine: the what-matter + the when-future fields join to become a next higher field, progress—the progression of matter into the future, and the what-matter + the then-past fields become the new history field of the matter past—what has occurred.
The when-future + the where-space fields combine to make for the new wishes-hopes-and-dreams field in the future place of space; while the then-past + the where-space fields merge to form the remembrance field of memories in the past space. (‘Space’ here, is also meaning mind space.)
The new emergent fields then further combine: learning becomes of remembrance and history; a change-of-outlook becomes of remembrance and wishes; a change-in-structure becomes progress and history; and vision becomes of wishes and progress.
At the next stage of combination, creativity is brought forth from learning combined with a change-in-structure; direction results from learning and a change-of-outlook; growth is the vision for a change-of-outlook; and planning is the vision for a change-in-structure.
Finally, creating, direction, growth, and planning compose one’s being—the who—that basically became of the what, where, when, and then as matter, space, past, and future.
Science is working out all of the details.
(Note that the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ have been previously discussed and that we are past that, for the above.)
The basic forces, too, submit to the oppositional/transitional scheme, for the strong and the weak force are in opposition, the strong promoting stability, the weak promoting changeability, with the electric and magnetic forces in transition, in either direction.
From TOE to Being…
i was gonna criticize all the color not being scientific,(pretty pic, you made it?) till i noticed it said 'The poetic Universe'.
other than that ,it was a struggle to read all that and try to understand it..(still don't)
You can understand it, Squirrel, for it is simple, almost trivial, as all must be. Take it step by step, or even work it down from the opposite, higher direction. Sure, there are gaps, such as to be filled by all of evolution and science, but the basics are there.
i just realized that the bottom one can be marketed as a dart board to tell you what to focus on..
Yes, and just wait until Chi hears that we put Mohamed's picture there.
Come on, Squirrel, you can do it. Appearance in motion in space to past and future to all the rest… to being. The simple begets the complex.
can't make me, if i don't want to..
if it takes the complex to explain the simple, then it must not be that simple...