I'm not one who says that I have THE complete answer. And I think it is not only proper but necessary for humanity to continue to explore and understand everything.
I acknowledge that there are the "book-thumpers" as you describe them, and that they insist that no further exploration is necessary. I would put them in the same basket as the former head of the patent office who expressed the sentiment that everything that could be invented had been. That wasn't a religious sentiment, just a naïve one. There are many naïve people of faith.
As for "brane theory" that's interesting as a mechanism for the "big bang" but still doesn't answer the question as to where the membranes and all the matter came from originally. And what is outside of the expanse of the membrane?
In addition, there are questions about how inanimate atoms somehow organized themselves in a way that they were able to do more than just follow laws of nature. And eventually were not only able to do those things but were able to discern them and bend them to their will. These are profound questions that science doesn't appear anywhere close to being able to answer.
Nope, still not proof. Cohesive, in a way, but not real proof. From your cats' points of view, maybe you DO 'exist solely to provide them with food, shelter, etc.'... their religion might logically prove that...
Your presumption that I 'need to [prove god exists] for myself' makes no sense to me at all.
Why should I? How do I, even if I chose to? How would I recognize that my Proof was Valid or that It Worked At All?
Please reread the 53rd "Law." And thanks for calling my attention to a typo in it... it should read "one OF two" ... Perspectives.
Fish, you just fell into one of my traps... congratulations...
"Nobody has seen an atom, never".... Define "see" before you make that assertion, please... If 'see' means "with our naked eyes" or even "by reflected visible light" or any such similar 'definitions," yep, ain't nobody EVER gonna "see" an atom. Because they're smaller than the wavelengths of ANY 'visible light' we might 'see' with or perceive with our rudimentary eyes! That argument is a non-starter without better 'definitions' up-front. Don't go there.
And while I certainly don't know Aristotle's arguments or proofs (and I will research that), I'll put money on the likelihood that his arguments or 'reasoning' involves some circular paths. I've never seen any that don't.
C'mon, Robbie... no, love or gravity can't be bottled, but that is not Proof of Non-Existence. What We CALL Gravity certainly Does Exist, even if we don't know much about it. We can describe and predict its characteristics and effects, one of the strongest ones being that we all don't fly off this spinning globe Because Of Gravity... whatever Does Cause or Create it!
Just because we don't (yet) know the cause or the 'why' of it does Not negate its existence or predictive value.
And putting Love in that comment is certainly a red herring. You should be ashamed of that Breach of Logic and Argument!
What kind of Anti-Science Example is That?! Air is Defined as the mixture of gaseous chemicals existing above the surface of the Earth.
Do you have some other well-defined and well-agreed-upon Definition that can be Proven or Disproven? Not very likely. Trying to live without something is a Very Bad example of a Proof of Existence. Likewise, water AND gravity...
Rocky, if there's a list of "why this forum exists," somewhere on it would/should be "to discuss beliefs."
'Other People's Beliefs" really means 'other person's beliefs,' and each of us is 'the other person' to someone else here, so we tend to love to discuss beliefs... any beliefs any Other Person sees fit to launch into a thread here.
Some kind of primal urge to Discuss and Evaluate and Compare and Contrast. It is, I'd venture, our common Inclination.
Few, if any, here oppose any Other Person's Right to Believe What They Believe, but most of us tend to be curious about How The Other Guy/Gal GOT to Their Beliefs.
Robbie, search some back issues of Astronomy Magazine for reports on 'brane theory." Branes (short for membranes) were theorized some years back to offer a potential explanation for the concept of a Cyclical Universe. The membranes separate, move apart, then move together and rejoin, 'bouncing apart again' in some kind of endless cycle, every one of which 'creates' a Universe.
No, I don't recall if there was any 'how THAT started up' part of the theory, but as I've said before, 'we're still looking for theories and evidence...' Science did not/does not Stop When Someone or Something Offers Up THE Answer.
Some theories get supported; some get tossed out when better data or experiments are developed. But Science NEVER 'stops' because someone or anyone says... "This Is THE Truth and we don't have to look any further." (like some certain book-thumpers seem to repeat over and over and over...)
Hey, Someone gave you a 0 for your question. +1 from dino. You'd have thought that 0 came from me. (Hey, whoever has my back. That's not helpful. Thanks but no thanks). LetsShrug, when I was a kid, I had a bunch of plastic play toy dinosaurs. But I also had those little green vrs. gray plastic soldiers. I also had the Alamo, a French Foreign Legion fort and other such stuff with little plastic people going to war. But now? The answer is no. I've always been fascinated with dinosaurs, though.. Somehow the American king of the Jurassic Period, Allosaurus, became my favorite. Once I attempted to write a novel about allosaurs attacking a small college town from its own science department but I got distracted by trying to write something else. I'm always trying to write something. At least it's something to do.
So if something like this happens it should not be reported or spoken of here. The initial article and the one posted below are factual, something out of the ordinary and exceedingly rare happened. In contrast to all the horror and suffering we read about each and every day I wanted to share this uplifting and remarkable story. http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/248334-d...
Smith was submerged in the icy water for more than 15 minutes before first responders arrived.
The paramedics performed CPR on site for 15 minutes and doctors continued for almost 30 more minutes once he arrived at SSM St. Joseph Hospital West.
When his heartbeat didn’t return after 45 minutes, the doctors lost hope. His treating physician Dr. Nancy Bauer explained:
“He was gone. I’ve never felt someone so cold in my life.”
They called in Smith’s mother to tell her that her son wasn’t going to make it. She started praying.
“God, please don’t take my son,” she prayed. Dr. Bauer recalled her coming into the room, sitting down, and calling out to the Holy Spirit. A few seconds later, Smith had a heartbeat.
“It gave me goosebumps.” Evidence indicates that when the brain is without oxygen for more than ten minutes it is likely to suffer severe damage.
So even after his heartbeat returned, doctors were worried that he wouldn’t recover completely.
But after 48 hours, he opened his eyes. And when doctors asked him several basketball questions, he answered correctly, signifying that his brain would return to normal functionality.
When Today asked Smith about his experience, he had this to say: “There’s no really any explanation but how God wanted me to live for a reason so I’m alive now.”
As I said in my initial comment "Some things you can't explain."
And the science behind the cold-sleep/drowning in The Abyss is, I believe, valid, too. That's why I brought it into the thread. A human body plunged into icy water CAN, apparently, 'protect itself' by going into some kind of 'suspended animation' or 'hibernation,' and with the right conditions, possibly or probably be restored to 'life.'
The movie IS, fundamentally science-fiction, but most s-f has some scientific basis from which the 'improbable' sprouts.
Yeah, Glenn Beck... science-fiction without the foundation... :)))))) (usually)
re: "I'm of the opinion that God sets the stage and then leaves man to meet his own destiny (free will). Its the only rational explanation I can see why bad things happen for no apparent reason. "....
That's the kind of statement that always makes me stop and wonder...
If a God set the stage and then leaves, it kinda makes the 'God' as well as the 'setting the stage' part AND the 'and then leaves' pretty much a nice fiction. If you remove any or all of those 'initial conditions,' anything that follows still follows, even if 'none of the above' happened!
and then to call that the 'only rational explanation' begs a question that is immune to begging... or something like that! :)
There are those here that express those sentiments, if not outright, then implicitly.
I've used my reason, as have many others here, and come to a different conclusion.
You find it necessary to jump into a discussion with a different poster to interject your own sentiment. That's fine, but just pointing out that you're an interloper.
"There is no God, AR said so.." whoa Robbie. No one in here talks like that. Objectivism is not about AR saying so. It's about using reason. You're using religious terms that gulchers don't use. That empty, "cuz the bible says so" response. I'm voting this down for lack of accuracy...and cuz I'm sick of you.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I acknowledge that there are the "book-thumpers" as you describe them, and that they insist that no further exploration is necessary. I would put them in the same basket as the former head of the patent office who expressed the sentiment that everything that could be invented had been. That wasn't a religious sentiment, just a naïve one. There are many naïve people of faith.
As for "brane theory" that's interesting as a mechanism for the "big bang" but still doesn't answer the question as to where the membranes and all the matter came from originally. And what is outside of the expanse of the membrane?
In addition, there are questions about how inanimate atoms somehow organized themselves in a way that they were able to do more than just follow laws of nature. And eventually were not only able to do those things but were able to discern them and bend them to their will. These are profound questions that science doesn't appear anywhere close to being able to answer.
From your cats' points of view, maybe you DO 'exist solely to provide them with food, shelter, etc.'... their religion might logically prove that...
Your presumption that I 'need to [prove god exists] for myself' makes no sense to me at all.
Why should I? How do I, even if I chose to?
How would I recognize that my Proof was Valid or that It Worked At All?
Please reread the 53rd "Law."
And thanks for calling my attention to a typo in it... it should read "one OF two" ... Perspectives.
But I was humorous where?
"Nobody has seen an atom, never"....
Define "see" before you make that assertion, please... If 'see' means "with our naked eyes" or even "by reflected visible light" or any such similar 'definitions," yep, ain't nobody EVER gonna "see" an atom. Because they're smaller than the wavelengths of ANY 'visible light' we might 'see' with or perceive with our rudimentary eyes!
That argument is a non-starter without better 'definitions' up-front. Don't go there.
And while I certainly don't know Aristotle's arguments or proofs (and I will research that), I'll put money on the likelihood that his arguments or 'reasoning' involves some circular paths. I've never seen any that don't.
Cheers!
What We CALL Gravity certainly Does Exist, even if we don't know much about it. We can describe and predict its characteristics and effects, one of the strongest ones being that we all don't fly off this spinning globe Because Of Gravity... whatever Does Cause or Create it!
Just because we don't (yet) know the cause or the 'why' of it does Not negate its existence or predictive value.
And putting Love in that comment is certainly a red herring. You should be ashamed of that Breach of Logic and Argument!
Air is Defined as the mixture of gaseous chemicals existing above the surface of the Earth.
Do you have some other well-defined and well-agreed-upon Definition that can be Proven or Disproven? Not very likely. Trying to live without something is a Very Bad example of a Proof of Existence. Likewise, water AND gravity...
'Other People's Beliefs" really means 'other person's beliefs,' and each of us is 'the other person' to someone else here, so we tend to love to discuss beliefs... any beliefs any Other Person sees fit to launch into a thread here.
Some kind of primal urge to Discuss and Evaluate and Compare and Contrast. It is, I'd venture, our common Inclination.
Few, if any, here oppose any Other Person's Right to Believe What They Believe, but most of us tend to be curious about How The Other Guy/Gal GOT to Their Beliefs.
'k?
Rather than 'simply' believing It Is....
No, I don't recall if there was any 'how THAT started up' part of the theory, but as I've said before, 'we're still looking for theories and evidence...' Science did not/does not Stop When Someone or Something Offers Up THE Answer.
Some theories get supported; some get tossed out when better data or experiments are developed. But Science NEVER 'stops' because someone or anyone says... "This Is THE Truth and we don't have to look any further." (like some certain book-thumpers seem to repeat over and over and over...)
+1 from dino. You'd have thought that 0 came from me.
(Hey, whoever has my back. That's not helpful. Thanks but no thanks).
LetsShrug, when I was a kid, I had a bunch of plastic play toy dinosaurs.
But I also had those little green vrs. gray plastic soldiers.
I also had the Alamo, a French Foreign Legion fort and other such stuff with little plastic people going to war.
But now? The answer is no.
I've always been fascinated with dinosaurs, though..
Somehow the American king of the Jurassic Period, Allosaurus, became my favorite.
Once I attempted to write a novel about allosaurs attacking a small college town from its own science department but I got distracted by trying to write something else.
I'm always trying to write something.
At least it's something to do.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/248334-d...
Smith was submerged in the icy water for more than 15 minutes before first responders arrived.
The paramedics performed CPR on site for 15 minutes and doctors continued for almost 30 more minutes once he arrived at SSM St. Joseph Hospital West.
When his heartbeat didn’t return after 45 minutes, the doctors lost hope. His treating physician Dr. Nancy Bauer explained:
“He was gone. I’ve never felt someone so cold in my life.”
They called in Smith’s mother to tell her that her son wasn’t going to make it. She started praying.
“God, please don’t take my son,” she prayed.
Dr. Bauer recalled her coming into the room, sitting down, and calling out to the Holy Spirit. A few seconds later, Smith had a heartbeat.
“It gave me goosebumps.”
Evidence indicates that when the brain is without oxygen for more than ten minutes it is likely to suffer severe damage.
So even after his heartbeat returned, doctors were worried that he wouldn’t recover completely.
But after 48 hours, he opened his eyes. And when doctors asked him several basketball questions, he answered correctly, signifying that his brain would return to normal functionality.
When Today asked Smith about his experience, he had this to say: “There’s no really any explanation but how God wanted me to live for a reason so I’m alive now.”
As I said in my initial comment "Some things you can't explain."
The movie IS, fundamentally science-fiction, but most s-f has some scientific basis from which the 'improbable' sprouts.
Yeah, Glenn Beck... science-fiction without the foundation... :)))))) (usually)
But whoever designed, built and started the 'game' has 'left the playing field,' so They probably took any Purpose with them when they left, no?
That's why I enjoy This kind of Game... :)
That's the kind of statement that always makes me stop and wonder...
If a God set the stage and then leaves, it kinda makes the 'God' as well as the 'setting the stage' part AND the 'and then leaves' pretty much a nice fiction. If you remove any or all of those 'initial conditions,' anything that follows still follows, even if 'none of the above' happened!
and then to call that the 'only rational explanation' begs a question that is immune to begging... or something like that! :)
:)
There are those here that express those sentiments, if not outright, then implicitly.
I've used my reason, as have many others here, and come to a different conclusion.
You find it necessary to jump into a discussion with a different poster to interject your own sentiment. That's fine, but just pointing out that you're an interloper.
Load more comments...