I apologize for the length. You asked for definitions. I wanted to present them fully. I guess I should have addressed object permanence separately.
The short version is that science gives us the boson, a thing defined as outside our experience. Believe the boson, believe in the unseen.
Length was not the problem Bob. You said,
I have differentiated a state of being from a state of existence as theoretical not experienced.What you wrote about bosons did not clarify this. Actually, you made it worse with,
Believe the boson, believe in the unseen.
Stardusty Psyche said: “Something from nothing is irrational.”
What about nothing from nothing?
Widdershin, what is the universe? Is it something you read about and have accepted as real?We are not playing that game. I'm not going to define for you that which is unquestioned so that you can get me into an endless argument about semantics. If you truly don't understand something, that's one thing. But arguing semantics is for the weak minded. I don't for one second think that you truly don't understand what "the universe" is or what I mean when I talk about it.
As you can see Sree, it is not just my opinion that you are a troll.
Oh, no. All the signs of a troll are definitely there. There is no exchange of ideas and no debate. There is just Sree saying something, someone disagreeing and backing their opinions with facts, then Sree saying that same thing again. No compromise, no explanations, no questions, just arguments.
Lausten: "What you wrote about bosons did not clarify this. Actually, you made it worse with,
Believe the boson, believe in the unseen."
I assume you are asking for more clarity.
Science has posited a thing (the boson) which science defines as outside our ability to experience and even though we are not able to sense it, science says it is most likely there (theoretical). Science says we can say a thing exists only if we or our machines can sense it. Thus we cannot say the boson exists, only that it likely “is”.
I suggested that one way to deal with this apparent contradiction is to accept that a thing may have a state of being separate from a state of existence. In other words we can accept that the boson “is” without saying that it “exists”.
Science says roughly 95% of the universe may be outside our ability to sense it. By introducing the boson, science has thrown the religious community a large bone: there is at least one likely thing outside our experience and it has at least some of the characteristics required by traditional religious entities.
Not asking, just commenting. Science didn’t throw any bones. Only if you apply religious type thinking to everything could you come to that conclusion.
Bob touches on what I refer to as the Map v Territory Problem.
Which brings be back to NOMA and all that jazz … Lausten, I been patient, holding back, but you knew I’d have to bring this up sooner to later. 
I would like to propose some clarification to what Sree is struggling* with.
*Though he comes off very confident, I sense someone struggling, that he’s here says something worth acknowledging. If he’s a troll, well lets figure out how to crack that shell of feigned self-certainty. I fear he’ll just disappear. I’d much rather we continue. I mean consider some of the stuff W. has written in past couple days, f’n awesome (not to diminish the good stuff others are posting in response) and worth putting down on paper (er, the screen) and out there, wouldn’t have happen without Sree.
Sree, are you familiar with Stephen Gould and his essay about NOMA, Nonoverlapping Magisteria?
Recently it provided a vehicle for me to try to explain a different perspective and since you are dealing with the reality v mind question, I think it’s worth bringing to your attention. It would be fun to see if you can do anything with it:
Missing Key to Stephen Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” (9/1/19)
Recently it occurred to me that what Stephen Gould was missing was a much more fundamental divide that is crying out for recognition.
Specifically, the Magisteria of Physical Reality vs the Magisteria of our Human Mindscape.In this perspective we acknowledge that Earth and her physical processes and the pageant of evolution are the fundamental timeless touchstones of reality. Part of Earth’s physical reality is that we humans were created by Earth out of her processes.
Science shows us that we belong to the mammalian branch of Earth’s animal kingdom. Yet, it’s undeniable that something quite unique happened about six million years ago when certain apes took a wild improbable evolutionary turn. Bye and bye …
The missing key is appreciating the fundamental “Magisteria of Physical Reality,” and recognizing both science and religion are products of the “Magisteria of Our Mindscape.”Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.
Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.
What’s the point?
Religions, Science, political beliefs, heaven, hell, even God they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.
{That’s not to say they are the same thing, they are not!
Though I think they’re both equally valid human endeavors, but fundamentally qualitatively different.Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls,
Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that.}
Opps Bob, Sree, sorry, my bad, they kinda blur together.
Lausten, I been patient, holding back, but you knew I’d have to bring this up sooner to later.My experience has been that members like Sree and Bob eventually fade away. Mike Yohe was a rare exception, but one request to cut back on the repetition and he ran off. Sherlock was a, fortunately, rare case of someone who didn't have boundaries. The red flag/big clue from both of these recent entrants was how quickly they jumped saying there is no way to determine what's true. Once they do that, any factual reference can be dismissed, and any claim they make can be called factual.
CCReligion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls,
Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that.
There is no place in the science of evolution for god, spirit, soul, divine intervention, divine guidance, miracles, or any such superstitious foolishness. The science of evolution traces the biochemical means and interactions with the physical environment that gave rise to whole of all life that has ever lived of which we are just a small part, albeit the most intellectually advanced part.
Religion invents superstitious fantasies called mind, heart, and soul that have no place whatever in rational thought or scientific analysis.
All aspects of the human organism including all our thoughts and all our behaviors are entirely within the magisteria of science including the science of how these aspects of our organism arose, the science of evolution.
Religion is within the magisteria of ancient ignorant superstitious attempts at explaining who and what we are.
To say that religion is compatible with science is to say that ignorant superstition is compatible with rational analysis. They are not compatible with each other. Gould was wrong.
I find it quite interesting that many can accept life and consciousness springing from an inanimated mix of minerals and chemicals in the 5% of the universe we can see and then totally reject any notion of something similar happening from whatever occupies the 95% of the universe we say we can’t see.
I think we should remember that it is science, not religion, that posited this 95%.
Stardusty Psyche: “the science of how these aspects of our organism arose, the science of evolution.”
I used to believe in Darwin. It occurred to me that if evolution were true, and I’m thinking of the slow and gradual change type of evolution, there should be a preponderance of evidence for it. There isn’t.
The fossil record shows a variety of creatures, but each one of them is identified as a particular creature from some inception date to some extinction date. If evolution were true, the vast majority of fossils should be of some in-between creature. If we identify the various creatures with numbers, all of them we know will have whole numbers and there will be no “decimal point” varieties. The vast majority should be like 3.72 and 3.73. In short, there should be many, many more “missing links” and very few stable species. The fossil record shows no missing links.
So, we are left having to accept that creatures somehow morphed rapidly from one thing to another. A vote for mutation calls for consistent mutation, a bit of an oxymoron, and cries out for a cause or perhaps many, many causes.
Bob said: “So, we are left having to accept that creatures somehow morphed rapidly from one thing to another. A vote for mutation calls for consistent mutation, a bit of an oxymoron, and cries out for a cause or perhaps many, many causes.”
According to evolutionists, humans appeared 250,000 years ago. Think about it. You either accept that or you don’t. Do you have any compelling reason to believe that? If none, then you don’t. More people, creationists, have a compelling reason to believe that humans came out of thin air created by God. And they do. It’s as simple as that.
Hi Sree,
Regarding Evolution:
Please consider going to The Smithsonian Natural History Museum. There are over 19 different hominin species on display there. Also, I recently received my results back from Helix DNA kit. I’m 1.8% Neanderthal.
Hi Adonai,
The Bible was written by unknown authors. Your book means nothing to us. If you use it, we get to use it to, to remind you your God is a complete A**.
Cannibalism: “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son…” (II Kings 6:28-29)
Incest and getting drunk with dad is no problem if the world is running thin on suitable DNA donors: And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in and lay with her father: but he perceived not neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. And the next day the elder said to the younger: Behold I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine also to night, and thou shalt lie with him, that we may save seed of our father. They made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in, and lay with him: and neither then did he perceive when she lay down, nor when she rose up. So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father. [Genesis 19:31-36]
Psalm 137:9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks
Psalms 139:16
You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe.
So, if God has a divine plan for everyone, then why pray?
Blaire, Congratulations primo, on your 1.8% Neanderthal heritage! Not bad!
Come to think of it, since humans contributed to the extinction of Neanderthals, anyone left with Neanderthal DNA should be due reparations from all humans. New Zealand would probably be sufficient.
BobI used to believe in Darwin.
The fossil record shows a variety of creatures, but each one of them is identified as a particular creature from some inception date to some extinction date. If evolution were true, the vast majority of fossils should be of some in-between creature.Your error is in thinking evolution would have to be steady and smooth over time. Adaptation tends to occur in response to environmental changes. A stable population in a stable environment might evolve very slowly, then along comes a climate change or a new predator moves in or whatever and that can trigger rapid change. Gould called this punctuated equilibrium.
The fossil record shows no missing links.False, there are many, here are some: