Want to see the foundational of science faith ripped to shreds? See link in sig.You actually thought your other topic "ripped to shreds the foundation of science"? Ha-ha. Thank you. That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. :)
You actually thought your other topic "ripped to shreds the foundation of science"? Ha-ha. Thank you. That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. :)More lazy, vague, emotion driven characterizations with no actual intellectual content.
You actually thought your other topic "ripped to shreds the foundation of science"? Ha-ha. Thank you. That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. :)More lazy, vague, emotion driven characterizations with no actual intellectual content. Tanny has developed a thinly veiled version of the Watchmaker analogy to discredit science. If you point this out, he calls you emotional. I suspect he will continue to do this for a while. Hopefully he doesn't have as long a legacy as MikeYohe.
Tanny has developed a thinly veiled version of the Watchmaker analogy to discredit science. If you point this out, he calls you emotional. I suspect he will continue to do this for a while. Hopefully he doesn't have as long a legacy as MikeYohe.More lazy, vague, emotion driven characterizations with no actual intellectual content.
@ Tanny,
Does God have mass or is God purely spiritual, a massless mind?
Simple question.
@ Tanny, Does God have mass or is God purely spiritual, a massless mind? Simple question.Another question. If the universe needed a creator, who or what created the creator? Anyone who says a creator must exist is simply moving the goalposts. If the universe needs a creator, so does the creator.
@ Tanny, Does God have mass or is God purely spiritual, a massless mind? Simple question.Thank you for assuming I would be in a position to know such things. :-) Why would you believe anything I might say on such an enormous subject, or anything anybody said?
@ Tanny, Does God have mass or is God purely spiritual, a massless mind? Simple question.Thank you for assuming I would be in a position to know such things. :-) Why would you believe anything I might say on such an enormous subject, or anything anybody said? More lazy, vague, emotion driven characterizations with no actual intellectual content. See? Nobody can be brilliant all the time. :)
@ Tanny, Does God have mass or is God purely spiritual, a massless mind? Simple question.Thank you for assuming I would be in a position to know such things. :-) Why would you believe anything I might say on such an enormous subject, or anything anybody said? Well, for the sake of argument, one could propose that Dark Matter is the body of god and Dark Energy is the result of its quasi intelligence. Personally I would argue against that , but it is an argument for which science has no ready answers either. This is why we call it Dark. I am just trying to objectively discuss the possibility that what a lot of people call God may be have certain probabilistic mathematical qualities, which are as yet unknown to both theists and atheists alike. As atheist, the one thing I most object to is the assertion that god is a motivated entity, which would imply a capacity for human-like emotion. IMO, that is just plain hubris, and brings so much attendant garbage with such a notion, that agreement on that level becomes impossible. When I was trying to envision a common denominator, I came up with an equation of what theist have named God is in fact an intuitive recognition of what David Bohm calls Universal Potential (That which may become reality) and the Implicate order which probabilistically forms from that Potential field and finally becomes expressed in part as our Reality, through the quantum function. So, for sake of objective argument let's posit this for falsification. At least this assigns not an intelligent, but an implied probabilistic aspect to the mathematical properties and values of the Wholeness (the universe). Max Tegmark proposes that the universe does not have some mathematical properties, but has only mathematical prperties Anyone?
@ Tanny, Does God have mass or is God purely spiritual, a massless mind? Simple question.Another question. If the universe needed a creator, who or what created the creator? Anyone who says a creator must exist is simply moving the goalposts. If the universe needs a creator, so does the creator. Only if you think causation is a fundamental part of reality. It may not be. You are using commonsense to address questions that are beyond commonsense.
@ Tanny, Does God have mass or is God purely spiritual, a massless mind? Simple question.Thank you for assuming I would be in a position to know such things. :-) Why would you believe anything I might say on such an enormous subject, or anything anybody said? Well, for the sake of argument, one could propose that Dark Matter is the body of god and Dark Energy is the result of its quasi intelligence. Personally I would argue against that , but it is an argument for which science has no ready answers either. This is why we call it Dark. I am just trying to objectively discuss the possibility that what a lot of people call God may be have certain probabilistic mathematical qualities, which are as yet unknown to both theists and atheists alike. As atheist, the one thing I most object to is the assertion that god is a motivated entity, which would imply a capacity for human-like emotion. IMO, that is just plain hubris, and brings so much attendant garbage with such a notion, that agreement on that level becomes impossible. When I was trying to envision a common denominator, I came up with an equation of what theist have named God is in fact an intuitive recognition of what David Bohm calls Universal Potential (That which may become reality) and the Implicate order which probabilistically forms from that Potential field and finally becomes expressed in part as our Reality, through the quantum function. So, for sake of objective argument let's posit this for falsification. At least this assigns not an intelligent, but an implied probabilistic aspect to the mathematical properties and values of the Wholeness (the universe). Max Tegmark proposes that the universe does not have some mathematical properties, but has only mathematical prperties Anyone? Sure, the universe does have many mathematical properties but only if you choose to look at it this way. What about the wind in your hair or the touch of a loved one or the pleasure of looking at a great work of art? Can all these thing be reduced to mathematical formulas? Even if they can it is impossible to me to directly equate mathematical concepts to 'raw' perceptions. The universe is not that simple and much more subtle than we can imagine. Also, I like what David Bohm has to say, even if some think he gets carried away.