What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

Wrong. No brain = dead body.
Dead body exact opposite of live (conscious body)

Shows that consciousness requires a brain.


Sleep = different state of consciousness.
If the body is alive, then we can assume it's not dead.
Life = consciousness
Death = no consciousness

Waking consciousness still fades away. Needs to be refreshed to reappear.


Universe = field of vibrating particles.
Can't do shit.

It done did a heck of a lot for us over billions of years.


Science bring light to the illusory physical reality.
Natural Sciences not a good guide for spirituality, you'd do
better if you seeked out philosophy or religion. Although those
genres are on the brink of being totally hijacked, by materialist worldview.

You made up the 'illusory' bit. Senses really don't do anything? A hoax?

Not just on the brink, but totally shrunk away to zippo and relegated to the imagination.
 
Not just on the brink, but totally shrunk away to zippo and relegated to the imagination.

Imagination, symptom of consciousness.
Consciousness = reality = God
Physical reality = temporary = component of reality.

jan.

jan.
 
Biological revelation my ass.
Thinking myself as nothing but a biochemical system really gives me a boost to get up in the morning, right.

"Nothing but a"

Your words not mine. Does having knowledge always disappoint you?
 
Superpositions of possible states collapse into definite single states when we disturb the quantum world by performing a measurement. The process of measurement involves physical interference (such as bouncing photons off something). So in order to look (obtain information) at the quantum world we need to interact with it in a physical way.

When you say "interact with it in a physical way", do you mean we put on some gloves and handled them?
Or do you mean we merely observed (look) them, without actually touching them?
If it is the latter then the use of the term "physical' in your statement is quite misleading as there is no proof that states consciousness (awareness) is a physical process.
But, do the particles respond to our observing them?
The answer needn't be long and complicated, a simple yes or no would suffice.

Here's my two cents;

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.

Consciousness can't directly observe the quantum world, it can only later interpret information that we obtain in other ways.

Do you agree that particles are affected by observation?

I'm going to deal with this part first because I think it's important that readers don't walk away believing as fact what you're trying to suggest here. But to be fair, it's probably not entirely your fault. That article was badly written. But let me quote from it the critical piece of information that you seemed to have missed:

The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons.

It's exactly like I said. The act of observation requires a physical interaction and in this case that role was played by the detector.

So do particles respond to the act of observation? Yes, of course they do, because the only way that we can "observe" them is to do something to them physically.

Tell me, how does one "view" a passing electron. Can you see it? Can you catch it and hold it in your hand? Of course you can't. It's too damned small. We have to use special equipment to detect such things and in every single case that equipment works via some kind of direct physical interaction.
 
I'll give it a try. :D

1In the beginning
God (supreme consciousness)
created (willfull observation of active particle field)

But God must have created the particles that he then "observes". So we're still stuck with an impossible link in the chain of cause and effect between the unphysical and the physical.
 
In other words you've got nothing...

You made a specific claim:

which included that word.
Unfortunately your usage does not conform with reality.
It may be true that you believe things are so, but you cannot show it to be so, thus: it is NOT true.
What is reality but truth?
 
What this sort of philosophizing leaves us with are a whole set of "big questions" that we currently can't answer, and quite possibly never will. We can't even be sure that the issues are being conceptualized correctly, and hence that our questions are being posed properly. In many cases they probably aren't.
So then the main question is how to deal with uncertainty and what role should religious beliefs have in one's life (regardless whether one is religious or not; one cannot know of something and be neutral to it).
What role should religious belief have in one's life? Well, a central one. Our religious belief (or lack thereof) substantially defines, or should define if we genuinely believe (or genuinely don't believe), our relationships with everyone around us and our attitudes to everything around us.
 
Rav,


So do particles respond to the act of observation? Yes, of course they do, because the only way that we can "observe" them is to do something to them physically.

What do you mean by ''do something TO THEM PHYSICALLY?


Tell me, how does one "view" a passing electron. Can you see it? Can you catch it and hold it in your hand? Of course you can't. It's too damned small.

Of course we can't see electrons.
There are lots of things we can't see or hear, but we build interfaces (microscope) as aids.


We have to use special equipment to detect such things and in every single case that equipment works via some kind of direct physical interaction.

Here is a quote from the link;

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current.

Your use of the term ''physical interaction'' is misleading.
 
But God must have created the particles that he then "observes". So we're still stuck with an impossible link in the chain of cause and effect between the unphysical and the physical.

Why?
Energy is neither created or destroyed.

jan.
 
Jan, whatever you are going to post next you made it up.

Now, here is truth:).

My office is in the boiler room, and here, in this semisecret chamber from which I post, are many fine treasures: The one and only jewel-encrusted edition of the ‘Great Omar’ (Rubaiyat) that I fished up from the Titanic lying on the floor of the North Atlantic.

Here, as well, Aristotle’s ‘lost’ book, ‘Beyond Metaphysics’. and, too, I have some nuggets of gold found in the original Garden of Eden that I located in the heart of the Amazon Jungle, wherein lie massive fields of Lady’s Slippers and all of the flowers of paradise. I reached up—and put the apple back on the tree.

And the Celtic Chronicles, I have, as well, that I found in an iron box beneath Glastonbury Abbey, telling all of the tales from the Dark Ages, and, from the tomb of the Holy Sepulcher—the grail itself.

Here, as well, a sliver of the true cross, a small vial containing a drop of the Virgin Mary’s milk, a pebble, from a moon rock, given to me by a polymath who works for the President, a smart thinking and talking cricket named ‘Crick’, the tip of the spear that pierced the side of the Saviour, a few molecules of immortal air from a sealed pyramid chamber in Egypt, some secret papers retrieved from the shaft of the bottomless CIA trash pit of “things that never happened”, a thriving rose bush, just outside the window, that was begun from Omar Khayyàm’s 11th century garden, ‘Flamberge’—Prince Valiant’s ‘Singing sword’ (Twin to ‘Excalibur’), Thomas Jefferson’s briefcase, an original and intact Ming dynasty vase, the third [missing] tablet of the 15 Commandments, and the solution to gravity, as it is a means and a reason for quantum collapse from superposition, as well as a tennis ball with my initials marked on it in a yin-yang style.

Yet, all of these treasures pale in comparison to reality’s truth unveiled, but no one cares about that.

I also have the ‘treasure’ of a preliminary but solid indication of the Higgs particle’s existence, which Lisa Randall was nice enough to give me from the LHC’s latest analysis.

I am now holding part of a brick that came from Nero’s very recently discovered revolving banquet hall that kept pace with the turn of the Earth. I am about to ponder the existence of this brick, but that would probably be too disruptive to my life, so I’m going out to date some old fossil instead…

I’m back—and she is very young at heart and quite exciting, so we are trying to tone it down by smoking some pot and pondering the brick. Just kidding. Actually, I’m thinking of the Library of Congress, for I heard that it has five hundred miles of stacks. It began anew, after burning by the British, when Thomas Jefferson donated his personal library. I found his personal diary in the lining of his brief case. It said the founding fathers wanted to retain a Deity to save the new nation from the religious superstitions associated with a Theity.

I hold in my hand a bone from early sapiens or of proto-man. He is not gone, though, but lives on in your heart and mine, as in him lived all those before in which the universe itself came to life. Amen.

(Just some fun? Nope, all true since I say so, but I have proof for some items.)
 
What role should religious belief have in one's life? Well, a central one. Our religious belief (or lack thereof) substantially defines, or should define if we genuinely believe (or genuinely don't believe), our relationships with everyone around us and our attitudes to everything around us.

Sure, but from this, it does not follow that some particular religious tradition is the right answer or that it will be easy to choose, or even possible to choose within this one lifetime.
 
Back
Top