God and the Scientists
Why are we here, how did we come to be, and can these common existential questions best be explained through faith or proven facts? Oxford University Professor of Neuroscience Colin Blakemore gives viewers an overview of Christianity's historically volatile relationship with science in this amusing and thought provoking film.
Blakemore explains that tolerance for scientific inquiry and challenges to church doctrine were generally tolerated until a turning point in the 1500s. It was at this time accusations of heresy started to arise and scholars too often found themselves branded as heretics. Scientists and educators were forced underground lest they be tortured into confessions of heresy, a crime punishable by execution.
Blakemore takes the audience on a tour of Rome's Museum of Criminology, where he encounters a number of 16th century torture devices, as well as an intimidating tome menacingly titled "The Inquisition Handbook of Torture, Volume 1." Continuing his travels to London, Kentucky, and Geneva, Blakemore surveys the great minds that have found themselves at odds with the church throughout history, including Galileo Galilei, Benjamin Franklin, and Charles Darwin.
An interview with Vatican staff astronomer Brother Guy Consolmagno takes viewers inside the Vatican's observatory and meteorite lab to illustrate how far the church has come in its relationship with science. Consolmagno patiently and passionately explains that the Bible is not a science book, but rather "a human interpretation of divine inspiration." A champion of both science and religion, Consolmagno strives to find the common ground between both worlds.
While the church has clearly taken enormous strides since the inquisition age, a visit to Kentucky's Creation Museum illustrates the ongoing struggle many people still have with the scientific inquiry into the creation of man. In one of the film's funnier moments Blakemore is visibly confused and disturbed by the Museum's depiction of a past in which dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
Culminating in a visit to CERN's Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, God and the Scientists provides an entertaining lesson in history and theology while questioning if religion and science will ever universally co-exist, or if there will always be a struggle to find common ground between believers and researchers.
If we came from apes why are there still apes?
Humans did not come from Apes. All Apes: Gorillas, Bonobos, Orangutans, Chimpanzees, and us Human Apes that are classed as great Apes. Share a common ancestor, and us Human Primates (Apes) have followed different evolutionary paths.
If the US came from England why is there still England?
The dilemma is not God vs. science; for if we really understood God, we would become aware that God's method of creation (of everything) is perfect. Over 14 billion years ago, God created our universe by first establishing simple, concise laws , for its operation. It continues to expand exquisitely, in accordance with pre-established laws. It is automatic.
The greatest of God's creations are we humans. We are created in God's image, in the sense that God created our souls. Who am I? I am my soul. Who is God? God is soul, a being, residing beyond our universe. God created us to be His/Her children. Our true Mother and/ or Father gave all of Her children free will, so that we could become the individuals we are created to become. Through our decisions and desires, we can reach our own conclusions, or we could decide to ask our parent: "Who am I? What is Life about," or whatever personal questions we may have. God is ready and waiting for us to Love Him/ Her, and wants to prove to everyone who asks, genuinely desires, and longs from the depths of our souls {(which is the core or heart of who I am), (and not from our head, which is an ancillary appendage)} God says to each and every one of us. "Please, my children, I long to give you the substance of who I am. Please, allow My Love to be a priority in your lives. There is so much that I want to teach you. Can you humble your souls?"
The proof of God's existence is in receiving God's Love. Love and Truth go hand and hand together.
There is one thing that you missed out...you don't know that ANY of that is factual...it's what you believe.
At least science goes on facts.
Science is science
Religion is religion
One reinforces the other. This is not a contest except for those who make it so.
War is caused by men who understand neither science or religion.
Are you kidding ??? One does not reinforce the other . You truly do not have a clue . Sad
Religion is the cause of most strife suffering and war. It's time to bury it. Fools who believe in religious ideas should not be allowed to breed
Janeen, you need to calm down.
I think the thing that challenges Christianity the most is not science but evil in Christianity own existence. The capacity to know God and/or to be righteous will determine what Christianity will become (as well as the capacity to weed off Satan and give it its destruction which is intrinsic in the requirement).
He seems unsure whether he has a be in his bonnet about RELIGION or CHRISTIANITY. Like many of these insecure people, he has waded into this debate without any real knowledge or understanding of religion.
that little norwedgien guy in the time machine factory was the best. "I keep eet open....but for mi no es workin hypothesis...." The foolish presenter could learn a lot from this little norwedgian man
This scientist is as closed minded as the biblebashers.
Regarding the Bible...... "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen." Hebrews 11-1. Or another version.... "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
The key to science is what can be verified, or agreed upon, by any and all observers. Religion, or any belief system, seems to fail this requirement for universality, for corroboration. Given that evolution is both a theory and a fact, and can be corroborated, then we can say that evolution is a reality. And religions evolve, as do languages..... as evolution is defined as change over time according to natural forces. If one accepts the contingency of reality, the fact that one element of reality impinges upon another without any gaps..... without a god or a supernatural event intervening here or there .... then we have a coherent viewpoint.
My thoughts suggest the schools should teach anthropology and semantics to children to provide them with some tools with which to learn. Belief systems ...... philosophies, religions and such, simply can't be evaluated by science..... For example, semantics requires that the verb 'is', i.e. the notion of 'being', requires an object. A rock IS hard, black, heavy.... all qualities of reality that can be measured and corroborated. 'Being'... the fact of our existence, requires an object also, such that we can say our 'Being' is blood and cells and flesh. How does one talk about religion when a 'god' or a 'deity' has no Being that can be agreed upon?
Peace.....
Scientists/Physicists say that we exist within a 4 dimensional environment that is known as Space-Time. However, we are always confined to only the present time, thus we are always confined to just one point in time within that 4 dimensional environment that is known as Space-Time. This is the inside of reality. The outside, is all time other than the present time. It is huge. It is eternity.
Physicists do not yet fully understand the laws of physics. This is because, to them the eternity side of reality does not exist because this side is a religious concept, and to them, religion is false. As a consequence, they do not include the laws of physics present on the outside, which are different from those on the inside. Thus they are lost when it comes to fully understanding physics.
Today, is the day of ignorance, arrogance, and selfishness. Thus if proof of the existence of Jesus Christ/God is presented, it is laughed at as the result of this backward behavior. So if God managed to place both proof of his existence, and proof of Jesus Christ's existence within the Bible, and did so in a clever yet simple and unique encoded manner, with no doubt, you will reject it.
This is a such narrow minded and boring viewpoint. I stopped watching this after 10 minutes. This is nothing more than Mr Blakemore's point of view which he would like to disseminate as a gospel truth. Want to know about God? Look to the East. There, there you will find both real science and God hand in hand. Christianity was not the only thing floating around.
The deep space photo, showing billions of gallacies and the photo from the Moon, showing the earth made me very religious!!!
Also is that the case showing the beauty of the evolutionair theorie of Darwin. Science, love of nature, seeing the beauty of the Creation and religion are and should be one of a kind. The bible is a very old book. Is not it time for a New religion?
When one transitions from undergraduate school to graduate school something dramatic happens. One learns how to do research! Until now, one's previous education has focused on foundational operational knowledge and skills.
By following a very specific methodology one is able to add to the body of knowledge about a subject matter in a way that makes compelling representations of research data. That best explicated those data.
Here we are treated to a strawman argument filled with sweeping generalizations. The point of the trip Rome was that there is no conspiracy to hide the misdeeds of the Church.
Now I'm no defender of the church and certainly not the Catholic Church, one could talk about Oppenhiemer's atheism, or Hitler's Occultism, and draw sweeping generalizations that don't represent the data. This socalled documentary glossed over the fact that Christianity drove scientific inquiry in 1100 on. Giving us the scientific method. Further, there was a Reformation precisely due to the fact that those representing the "Church" in the video were in fact misrepresenting many of its foundational ideas.
Finally, since the book of James was written mid first century, Faith has been defined as "trusting" not as knowing. According to early Christians one can be all-knowing about God and not want a relationship with him.
Strawman representation of history (cherry-picking worst anti science by non-Christians posing as Christian leaders)
Equivocating the Christian definition of "Faith"
Missing the point that all humans resist change , look at Max Planck's reception inBerlin of his Quantum Theory in 1900.
This research project would have received an 'F' for method and for rhetoric.
Propaganda
Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence can not be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable. Because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore, and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon.
It is quite obvious that we humans are but babies fumbling around on this planet. We know very little in the scope on the grand scale of the universe. This documentary barely raised a hair of curiosity as it skimmed the surface about what we have learned via science. The complex Higs Boson experiment is briefly discussed, but what about the simpler mind boggling two slit proton experiment or the bizarre communication between entangled particles? We humans jest, because in reality we don't know enough to even begin to draw conclusions on our origin or that of the universe.
To mr. Drummerboy
Evolution is a fact, it's been proven to be true time and time again. A "scientific theory" is not the same as a "regular plain ol' everyday run of the mill hey I have a theory about this" kind of thing. A scientific theory is backed by mountains and mountains of peer reviewed and closely scrutinized evidence. They are called scientific theories because they are always open to new evidence that someone, someday, might bring forward to challenge them. Evolution has been challenged many times over the years and it has never been proven incorrect. It is a fact.
Now on to the typical bible babble about the human tracks next to dinosaur tracks and that hammer stuck in the rock ... have you ever attempted to do any research on your own about these all too often cited as proof of creationism? Of course you haven't.
Evolution is a fact...? Please be careful with what you say and how you define it.
1. Distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is a fact. It can be proven by experiment and observation today that species within themselves can adjust and evolve. Macro-evolution however, one species evolving into a different species, e.g. fish becoming a land animal, cannot be proven by experiment. It can be assumed only indirectly by looking at historical artefacts.
2. If evolution is such a proven theory and would explain the origins of man, how can it be that there's not a single piece of evidence regarding the very essential crosspoints in our evolution.
- How did something come from absolutely nothing?
- How did something begin to live? Why can't be repeated in a laboratory?
- How did life evolve in self-conscious life?
Until that, evolution will continue to be a theory...
Poor guy he needs therapy!
A disaster for science !?! Everything that the church has touched was and is a disaster for humankind .
Thank goodness you do not have to deal with Islamic orthodoxy. There is a reason innovation is, has been, and will be absent from the Islamic world in places where Islamic doctrine has political control.
To better understand the relationship between religion and science, it helps to look at history and who used religion in what way.
In Medieval Western Europe, where Christianity took the form it did in the hands of the descendants of the barbaric peoples which overran the Western Roman Empire, it became a tool for fear and control and resulted in the stagnation of science and the inquisition. Meanwhile Christian Byzantium and the Islamic world flourished with science and culture.
The culture and scientific achievements of the Islamic world are the main reason the Renaissance even developed in Western Europe and Europe left the ignorant dark world it lived in. Even to this day we use Arabic terms in various fields such as math and chemistry.
Throughout history, from the Egyptians to the Babylonians and to the Chinese or whichever other civilization one looks at, it has always been religious cultures which inspired it's people to seek out knowledge and make scientific breakthroughs. Even in relatively recent irreligious times, from Nikola Tesla to Einstein, the most brilliant scientists have been inspired by faith and religion, just read their writings and biographies.
Just because religion resulted in ignorance in Europe and Europeans split it from science, does not mean that mankind has to live in atheism to reach scientific understanding. Religion and science can be perfectly harmonious if one understands how to think deeply about both, instead of easily dismissing the most important aspect of humanity which is religion.
A real scientist would understand the limits of his capability. He depends on tools for the ability to defy the normal senses. His observations are subject to interpretation and whatever established facts got to be replicated or verified by others.
Do we have a perfect science? The answer is No. A lot of things are still beyond human understanding although mankind has undergone tremendous changes through learning from others' work or observations. If that is true today then what more hundreds of years ago?
More powerful tools will also enhance the human ability for observation and generation of verifiable facts which we learn as knowledge.
Just imagine, had there been satellites and telescopes for early scientists to prove their work, then expect no resistance from the establishment in proving that the Earth is round or it is not the center of the universe. But those who were truly ahead of their time offered complex proof that somehow got to rely on faith too.
And for that matter not only Christianity but also for every sect of belief based religion will be forgotten in generation of millennia. Science is emerged out of logical inquiry or inquest from human brain. It gives reasoning facts of subject matter in place. It has methodology of discovery that physically provides proof to believe in. Religion is extant on the ground of ignorance or uninformed state of human mind for something not known. The fundamental force of religion is established on fear & doubt about unknown. There is nothing evident to believe in or accept format of current system of religion. On the contrary it has been exploited and misled society at large.
Spirituality is though parallel to science in quest of observing Nature & its existence but beyond sect based religion and/or material mass science. The subjectivity in spiritual expedition is essential in the initial phase of discovery, however once it’s discovered there is no significance of subject in place and so object of inquiry too. Say for example if you are looking at bouquet of flowers, first you are witnessing of its shape, colour, fragrance, and beauty. Now if you are buying these flowers with purpose to gift someone or to wish someone, it has some objective or goal cling into it. But if you want to simply enjoy existence of flower from bud to blossoming flower then you need to observe it very closely the entire process of flowering. For that you need to develop skill to see minutest process of Nature Science with your necked eyes. You can’t watch this process unless you engage yourself for long hours with opened eyes all the time and looking at bud until it becomes complete flower. This is mechanical and you will be exhausted physically & mentally. Now such process of developing skills has nothing to do with religion, it comes with experience of observing Nature surrounds our life and there spiritual practicing provides various techniques, which is part of self-science developed by many ancient & modern enlightened individuals. This is not mass movement or expedition but it is an individual discovery happening within one self without indulgence of religious dogmas, structures, beliefs, and scriptures. This is your own effort in opening petals of flower one-by-one that takes you at the pick of understanding in experiencing process of Human to Human Being!
Since many centuries GOD is an illusion for human; therefore society at large become victim of belief based momentum. Here in this documentary, scientist tries to understand religion stand point of GOD existence. Because Big Bang theory of Higgs Boson in recent time wants to justify their result of GOD particle as against belief based GOD education. The most significant part of video is “The Threat to Religion” in every stage of scientific argument that shows facts of its discovery which dismays religion at every point. This is something like survivor fight of dynasty if not been protected than whole human society will be vanished in act of sins performed against religion.
I think time has arrived where human has started accepting faith is more personal process than following mass belief system. The kind of revolution taking place even in religion to accept guy marriages or transgender reality in society is nothing but giving up against new form of realism in majority by process of law is more powerful than law of religion! Certainly academic has played an important role in developing systematic processes to educate human brain with more intellectual state of being rather following state of animal instinct. Religion has never taught human brain beyond fear & doubt so believe in GOD!!! Yet another attempt of science to expose belief based society…
Quote: "And for that matter not only Christianity but also for every sect of belief based religion will be forgotten in generation of millennia. Science is emerged out of logical inquiry or inquest from human brain. It gives reasoning facts of subject matter in place. It has methodology of discovery that physically provides proof to believe in."
Science can only tell us something about nature. No more, no less. The super-natural realm is something distinct and outside scientific scope. It's very telling that - in this age of science and discovery - the majority of humankind finds the so call 'scientific facts' unsatisfying and not convincing to explain why we are here, how we can distinguish between good and evil and other essential questions regarding our existence.
animal rights... Treating them in such fashion is what separates us FROM animals!
wrong video - but what makes you think we are separate - we are animals biologically speaking
Boring and disappointing. That is my opinion about this documentary.
I did expect something new, some new point of view or whatever.
We all know that Genesis was written for Stone Age people and adapted their limited knowledge.
We all know that the Roman Church consisted and still partly consists of people who want power and who defend the power they have. Just look at the way they handle
the child abuse cases these days..
We all know that “Justice” was and sometimes still is a means to do injustice.
Two of my ancestors were horribly tortured a few centuries ago. They were innocent and refused to admit a crime they had not done. Yet they were executed even more horribly for those non-committed crimes. That was usual at those times.
I find it cheap and disgusting that you ridicule the present believers on basis of misconduct by others in the past millennium..
Yes, there are the Creationist and others who will have to change their opinions and views someday.
Personally I am a Christian of the evolutionary type and I challenge you to explain how
humanity could live in Stone Age conditions only a few millennia ago, while our ancestors from one million years ago must have been almost as intelligent and sophisticated as we are.
I challenge you to explain Ice Ages, fossils of tropical plants on both Poles and worldwide
floods.
I challenge you to explain telepathy without accepting the idea of an immortal soul.
I challenge you to explain the near-death-experiences without accepting the idea of an immortal soul.
I challenge you to explain the difference between physical pain and sorrow without accepting the idea of an immortal soul.
Hi, if you have a single proof that telepathy and near death experiences really exist, theres a lot of people or associations ready to give you some million dollars for that proof.
hello, i just wanted to reply, "I challenge you to explain telepathy without accepting the idea of an immortal soul." well, it could be a possibly for telepathy to be possible if the human consciousness evolved in a way to benefit a radio transmission type of brain waves that extend around the body, not saying this is true but it at least possible to find this out without needing a human soul or any other conjecture.
"I challenge you to explain the near-death-experiences without accepting the idea of an immortal soul." it could be possible there is no soul and near death experiences happen because at time near death humans release many hormones and natural endorphins to help pain relief and possibly natural hallucinate so as to not be in terror at point of death."physical pain is when your opiate receptors stop accepting endorphins allowing the natural state of pain signal to flow. sorrow is is thinking back about what you wish you did differently and as far as people being as intelligent a million years ago is pure non-sense. in the bible no one knew to prevent billions of deaths just by telling people about germs and bacteria. this is only 2k years ago and it evidence people were way less intelligent than today..
Hello Janeen
On telepathy. You presume that it might become possible if..... Actually it already does exist, and I challenged you to explain it
On near death. Again you presume something. Actually people happen to be able to tell exactly what was done to them while they had no heartbeat, did not breath, had no reflexes, had no brain activity and were completely unconscious during a prolonged time.Sorrow is, like fear, love, happiness, a spiritual emotion and completely different in nature as a physical emotion, like pain, hunger or thirst. A physical emotion can be remembered, but is then not felt again. I remember very well the pain I felt when I had kidney stones, but I don't feel that past pain. But if I have to speak about the death of my little brother over 70 years ago, I feel the sorrow again and I can't stop the tears.
Please read the book “Modern Science in the Bible” by Ben Hobrink, who is a biologist, and explain to me how Moses could have known that pigs generally are infected by parasites that are deadly for humans.
Greetings, Jan
"Oh Shiva, will you please come off it?"
I think there is a form of energy that science has not discovered because its tools cannot detect it. And I believe this energy is the basis of the life force, and has an atemporal aspect. And so I think life on earth will always be a mystery no matter how much science teaches us.
You could be right. I just don't know. I have observed things that I cannot understand. I only know that is was real.
Did you have independent witnesses that corroborated what you observed?
here is a stripped down comment maybe easier to digest. can human beings imagine things and think about things that are not real? yes. we have much fictional art poetry tv shows etc. so the question is how do you tell what human thinking and concepts ARE real and true?
now take something we know to be fictional say the concept of superman, what makes this less likely than the supernatural? what makes santa claus less possible than a soul or afterlife? because from our millions of non biased tests of reality superman spider-man and god have the same evidence and possibility as a 5 story gorilla climbing up your apartment building. now maybe we will find unicorns to be true someday, i just havent found any reason to think that is very likely maybe im wrong.
there is something called "culture defined beliefs" which means ideas and concepts passed down through generations and over time regardless how likely ,true, possible and factual they are. religion government, money, are some of these concepts that have been passed down totally de-coupled from reality but notice as time passed and we advance we slowly have gotten rid of false concepts, if as a lifestyle you only deal with reality as much as possible without making assumptions and filling in gaps with imagination , you actually live a better life because reality is what it is regardless what we think in our brains and imagine.
the facts show what can be called human progress is when we conform our ideas and language to reality itself, there has never been a example reality conforming to out expectations, beliefs, faith. concepts or ideas.
I can tell you how I decide that the impossible is actually true.
Four times I was visited by the soul of a deceased person. I felt somehow their presence. They were grown beyond my size the way a schoolboy I knew long ago, had grown by the time hed had become CEO of a multinational., They came for their own interest, I knew why they came to me and the next days their death at the time they visited me was confirmed.
Two times I whitnessed a healing by prayer, each time it concerned a deadly disease, the first time the progress of the disease was stopped, the second time the disease was completely healed,
very interesting indeed, i do not doubt your experience, however how where able to arrive at the conclusion that you where visited by the soul of a deceased person? for example it could have been all in your head. (you as in a person experiencing the situation, i am not judging your situation i can only try to empathize in a way to imagine myself going through exact thing and what i would think of or do to try to figure out what really happened independent of what i felt and experienced.) as far as the healing by prayer what would make you think you had enough information with the trillions of complex interactions in the body to rule out another less extraordinary explanation that happens all the time in regular situations of healing? a couple things come to mind and please respond any way you wish i respect it i'm just offering my perspective (one in which i try to remove all opinion and get down to pure observation) we have never had any evidence that a human being is something other than trillions of interactions, yes we think in our head of a symbol of a human as one object but in reality there is not only no evidence that a human being could be one object in any sense but a human being is actually trillions of objects all working together, yes we use language yo think and symbols in our mind , but our thinking is a model of reality and does not represent reality. so as far as a human being having a soul it does not even seem to make sense as a question because trillions of things making something up as a system is emergent, example our earth is trillions of things that add up to be what we think of and symbolize as one thing but we don't think it could have a soul, similarly a galaxy is trillions of things but we don't think it has a soul. so there is no indication a human being is one thing we think and experience ourselves and others as being one thing because of all those trillions of things adding up at once the moment we feel present and experience something. so my question is how could it be possible that a human being which is trillions of things that emergent create an impression of being one thing to the self or others, have a soul which is one thing ? there would have to be a soul for each of the trillion things that make a human up! as far a prayer , prayer is using language in the brain composed of words taught by society and changing the order of the words to create a symbol of meaning in the mind , but has no connection to what is real or true and cannot effect what is real or true . maybe you can help me out can you point to indication human being is possible in reality to be one thing? if so then a chance a soul could exist possibly. then with prayer, what indication is there that models in our head and language used to think with in our brain can do anything other than effect the way we may make explanations or perceive situations? here is a example of what i mean imagine a human is praying they don't realize it is only thinking in head in this example and nothing else, now because they prayed, the next time they see a certain situation in life perfectly explained by ordinary events well understood and mundane, they think "this is my prayer coming true" how do you yourself or anyone praying differentiate between it being all in your head as thinking with language then telling yourself it came true ,versus you praying and it actually came true?
also what indication do we have that the words you have used like "soul" and "prayer" exist or are apart of reality itself other than symbols human beings use in language only as ideas in thinking processes?
for example things a part of reality are things we can find out about in other ways then being told it by other humans we can measure it touch it hear it taste it or use sophisticated machines that probe deeper and test the chemistry materials etc. is there anything throughout the course of history that show the word "soul" is more real than the word "spider-man"?
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is
because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery
that we are trying to solve.”
―
Max Planck
Hello Janeen
No matter whether your name is Galileo, or Semmelweiss, or Chandrasekhar, anyone who dares to present something new, is denied and, if possible, silenced.
On TED com you can find a talk by Mrs Margaret Heffernan, titled “Dare to disagree”. It is about making Röntgen photo's of pregnant woman and the deadly result on their unborn children.
Notwithstanding solid and undeniable proof that it was deadly for those babies the medics ignored the evidence and continued to kill unborn babies. She said “.. we lost one baby a week..” and “.. it continued for 25 years...”. 52 weeks times 25 years resulted in some 1300 dead babies. Multiply that by the number of large hospitals all over the world.
Just think about the sorrow of all their parents.
And only because scientists have problems to accept new idea's.
Being an expert on electronics, I see no way how our brains could produces or receive radio waves.
What you presume about NDE does not fit with the testimonies of the people who had a NDE.
I clearly remember going through the process of dying when my heart stopped pumping. It was in a hospital. I saw what happened on a monitor. I knew that I had less than some 10 seconds of consciousness left. I felt no pain at all, just an unpleasant feeling in my belly. I was not afraid. I knew that I would go to a higher form of existence if reanimation would fail. The cardiologist asked me a question and because every looked so worried, I answered with a joke which lifted the tension and made them all laugh. And a few seconds later, without any interruption, I was in a warm soft bed feeling happy, and it was early in the next morning.
My conclusion: dying is painless, although the cause of death may be painful.
Telepathy does exist. I have experienced it and have observed by others. But I don't know how it works. I presume that it is a soul to soul contact.
Souls do exist. I observed four of them and I have no trace of doubt about that..
I have worked many years in IT and have written more than a million lines of computer programs. I know how you could program a robot to show the same reactions as a human if its hand or arm is hurt, damaged or burnt. But I have no idea how to program sorrow. There are two sets of emotions/feelings: physical feelings and mental feelings. I presume that the physical feelings are handled by our brain and that the mental feelings are handled by our soul.
It seems very important to prove beyond any doubt that we all have an immortal soul. It will reduce the fear for death and it will reduce killing. Would you kill a man if you were sure that he would be waiting for the moment of your death to settle the score? Would the German pilot, who crashed his plane in France recently, have done that if he had known that he would arrive at heaven's gate together with the 149 people he had also killed?
Another subject, evolution. Evolution is a very slow process. Presume that you get a son and a daughter who have a change in DNA which increases average lifetime say 25%. Just try to calculate how many generations are needed before 90% of the world population has inherited this favorable gen. Therefor it is certain that the people living one million years ago were on average almost as intelligent as we are. And there are always a few who are far more intelligent as average. That makes it inconsistent that humanity lived under Stone Age conditions less than ten millennia ago.
when you stated you'd "have no idea how to program [robot feeling] sorrow" - do you mean as symptoms in reaction to robot-human interaction/relations? If that is the case (which would make sense)..sure ya could
You are either for science or you are for religion. Thanks to the m*rons of today who can't seem to understand that SCIENCE and RELIGION are TWO SEPARATE things, you are now insulted for being religious and banned from believing in science just because you are religious. So stop running around liking those statuses where atheist discount religion with science which was regurgitated by other scientists who clearly have a hard-on for religion and then speaking from a religious perspective. Even the father of modern science, Issac Newton, was a devout religious man, but I bet no true science guru is going to sprew that truth out there.
there seems to be so kind of misunderstanding regarding scientists, people thinking they have some kind of bias to material world and think nothing else is possible. this is completely false. science has no opinion it tests reality to find out how it actually is , and what we have found is there is no supernatural no afterlife no soul no human brain or any consciousness creating reality. this is the the findings of science not any faith opinion or beliefs. i personally wish some those things were true, but they are not and we can live in fantasy world or accept the parts of reality so well tested and confirmed they have made certain things impossible. a soul will always be impossible because we will never find out a human beings is really one thing, a human being is trillions of things in body and brain we understand exactly what makes us up how we work and why , no matter what we learn it will be just more detailed , because reality does not flipflop around and change. now i completely understand people they have limited knowledge and gaps in their understanding have a gap where maybe spiritual ideas can still live. but being a atheist is not a choice it happens to you against your will once you have learned more and more about reality . if you are missing large chunks of the totality of human knowledge in a specific area that can lead to false conclusions just like human interaction a conversation where a person has not got all the information about someone and jumps to a wrong conclusion by filling in missing information with assumptions, this why humans argue and fight and violence it is our nature to jump to conclusions ,especially when we want to never die or see our loved ones again or many deep issues that is difficult to face reality with. there has been zero unbiased tests when probing reality, on quantum level or any level where the idea of immortally jumped out as an answer , where supernatural jumped out of experiment and never an experiment that showed a living thing can beat death. instead to evidence is so demonstrable regarding these ideas being only human imagination and they are not even possible in reality because reality works taking forces and laws of nature very simple and complexity builds over time . consciousness in reality is a word used to describe trillions of processes in a advanced system . when you damage or kill those individual parts consciousness as a slang word dies. quantum mechanics has zero connection to consciousness , go take a class on quantum mechanics and you will be given calculus and physics equations with a deterministic model of quantum level this why our electronics so stable, a computer is trillions of parts that have to work predictable for the device to work even for 5 mins let alone 5 years and millions of the same exact devices made and sold and are stable this is because it is all deterministic just is probabilistic .only the people with gaps in their information relating to the totality of human knowledge regarding a field or many fields can force in the supernatural , but in reality there is no evidence that the supernatural is more than a word thought of in a brain.
Science is not an entity in itself - consciousness gives birth to science - and is connected to it in ways quantum has only begun to scratch the surface of (double slit experiment) Google 100th monkey experiment and think again
there has never been one piece of evidence that has connected "consciousness" (a word that means intelligent agent) with quantum mechanics . you bring up the double slit experiment. all that evidence of is anytime we put a detector (atoms) near he atoms i the experiment, we get different results in the behavior of things at that scale , this is only evidence that atoms interact with other atoms the detectors are stoms the slits are atoms the walls of the experiment are atoms then we shoot atoms through the experiment this is why only people that dont work in quantum mechanics talk about consciousness and quantum mechanics, the people that do these tests do not because consciousness is just a vague word like god that can mean anything there is no such things as consciousness that is a nickname we give to the trillions and trillions and trillions of parts that add up to be a human , we think human in our head as one think but that is a compartmentalization in science you look at the reality of things not compartmentalization's.
that is a very mechanistic view of the universe. Tell me, how many trillions and trillions of parts that humans are consisted of have been verified to be made out of 99.9999% empty space? Thats right, all solid matter, you, me - made out of atoms - or these trillions and trillions of parts you keep referring to - are much much much closer to being - nothing - than something and coroborated by Science itself. With that in mind, can you tell me more about 'reality'?
here let me put it to you succinctly: We know nothing about reality; we only assume because we measure s*it, which is constructed by our senses. for eg. we can measure gravity as an object accelerating 9.81 m/s towards the ground but we dont know its inner workings; we cant even decide if we should consider it as a force..
All we know is that we are conscious, and that we know that we are conscious.
are you talking about the state of totality of human knowledge , or are you talking specifically about what you yourself know? there is millions of pieces of evidence we may learn about in more detail but will never change a millions years in the future. here is a common feature of reality, things are constructed of its pieces that all add up to make it real. also here is another fact of reality , laws of nature act on simple things over large periods of time and more complex things are made because those complex things are made of things that add up to be the reality of the more complex. so to say we dont know nothing about reality is insane. when a human being talks about a "soul" this idea is incompatible with reality. they are thinking of a intelligent agent (in reality is made from trillions of parts ) as if it could exist as an intelligent agent completely De-coupled from being a system made up of parts. there is no indication this could be real . everything is made of its parts that interact to add up even extremely simple things. so what i am saying is we know a hell of a lot about reality , we as in the totality of human knowledge through thousands of individuals dedicating their entire life to science and others picking up where they left off. now you yourself and where your own knowledge is at is whole other thing , but you have every opportunity this day and age if it is important to you to learn about as much as you can everyday about what all these thousands of people dedicated their life's work , millions and millions of time to make up an entire reliable body of knowledge with no other equivalent. when a person has massive gaps of knowledge , sure almost anything is "possible" in their mind and
when a person cannot differentiate between their feeling of being conscious and reality or their thoughts and feelings and reality, in their thinking process anything could be possible, but one big problem reality dictates what is possible all we can do is our best to find out what that actually is and live in awe and amazement over what is real because anyone can create thousands of fantasy worlds but it is what is real that matters.
Im talking about we- the human race - not including the odd shaman who is various levels of awareness above us...as for the rest of what u said, could you summarize please?
we know we are conscious, and we know consciousness that we have like rest of reality and what is true is a complex system of trillions of parts that make something up . complex things arise from nature acting on simple things of vast periods of time. anything human beings think up in their thoughts that is not a complex system made of many parts is not possible for example a soul is not possible. what is the trillions of parts that make up a soul? how do each one of them parts connect to the each one of trillions of parts that make us up if it is our soul after-all? we have no indication such thing as a soul is something other than a human thought de-coupled from reality. if we did have indication a soul is possible we would found its parts and how they add up to be a soul and how that connects to each one of the parts that make a human being up.
to summarize if a human thinks of a human being as reality dictates that is trillions of complex parts that add up to be a human being . a "soul" has no way to fit with that at all. but if a human being thinks of the idea of a human being as one object (not true) then easy to think a "soul" (one object) is connected to that human being. my point is people have to think about human being in a way which is false for the word "soul" to be a part of their thinking in any way shape or form , it is the gap of knowledge reality would be in (all the trillions of parts that add up to be what a human being actually is in reality) missing all that in thinking process and thinking a human being is one object , now in that gap one can force fit the idea of a soul and connect the two. = a human being with a soul.
reality shows that the more consciousness a system has (a human being or a dog is a system in reality not one object) is the more complex of a system and the more parts it has example a human being has many more trillions of parts that make up the system than say a house-fly, more consciousness means more complex system of trillions of parts. thinking the human created idea of GOD . by its description it would require so many trillions of parts to make it up in reality it would require infinite parts to work together in a way which is not possible in reality. now if a person evokes a whole other reality or being that is like thinking super-man or spider-man is real that a written song on the piano has a soul or a painting of a imaginary place that you can go to , that is believing human imagination is reality somehow. we call that mental illness
why would you take your opinion of there not being a soul so seriously? by the same reasons it cant be proven that there is a soul, it cannot be proven that there isnt a soul. We are light energy and if energy cannot be destroyed then how do we proceed without a 'soul'? decoupled from reality? what reality are you referring to?
could you re-phase your comment just showing the findings of hundreds of years of evidence regarding a particular point. here is example list all the ways we have found information about a soul being more than a word people use. how are we light energy? decoupled from reality means to not take into account reality. i am referring to the one reality that exists. list out all the realities you are aware of and how we know they are there.
reality is what is real and would be no different if you could magically erase every human being alive reality would not have changed at all.
i can make an example with gravity. gravity is a part of reality and because it is , it is not possible to defy gravity people have no choice but to follow reality. another example if a person just met you and seen a picture of you what is the likelihood they could know the real you with no information? if they prayed or meditated could they know everything about you ? or would they have to learn who you really are? there is a real you and every other person. i dont know what the real is is right now , unless you helped me learn about you and gave me information about you. this works the same with everything there is a reality and we learn what that is we cannot just think up what is real or true we have to find out what is real and true, no human being has ever found evidence of a soul being real or true just peoples ideas that have shown no results in hundreds of years even when more than 50 percent population believe in a soul not one shred evidence of a soul, how it works what are the parts of a soul how do those parts fit together at all? things that are real are made of parts that fit together that add up to the reality of the object.
what makes you think i have an opinion of there not being a soul? how could i establish such an opinion? just by thinking it up? no. i have no opinion all i can do is learn about reality and find out what is real and adapt myself to what is reality and true.
there should be an equivalent of totality of evidence like there is with anything that is real. but a soul has same evidence of being real as spider-man or superman, that is human thoughts expressed.
we can think of many fictional things, how do you know how many fiction things you believe personally right ow at this time? what methods do you use to know if something or even a single thought you have is valid or invalid?
list all ways a soul can be shown to any human to be more true or more real than super-man the comic.
i myself test against reality, look at the totality of knowledge and evidence to differentiate between reality and my own fantasy, now matter how large or small.
you dont believe we are light energy condensed into matter? what reality are you referring to? the reality in which 99.9999% of solid matter we touch is in fact empty space, the reality in which we are limited to what we can measure? The reality in which we are limited to the perception of our senses?? Or the 99.9999% of 'empty' reality we zero explanation for? - how can you base your suppositions on what 'we know' when there is far more that we dont know about the universe we live in? where do twin proton, neutron electron particle disappear off to? Its an electrical universe - keep reading
I don't even know why you're wasting your breath arguing with someone who isn't intellectual. She is a clown who is depending on Google to give her opinions as she clearly can't even make up her mind what she wants to believe. Judging by her 10,000 posts on here she is bored and just wants to be heard, something her husband obviously refuses to do, hence, here she is clogging up a documentary comment section with criss-cross bullshit opinions...just ignore her and eventually she will go to her husband, beg for attention, he'll pet her head and give her a bone, and she'll disappear with her ignorance.
is there ever an unbiased view on this issue?
if there wasn't we would be living in caves still we would have disease killing us we would not have enough food or be able to build machines computers medicine etc.
who said unbiased is contra-technololgy? why is it caves or computers? because your imagination is limited to those extremes?
no those things could not work if we did not create them in the way reality actually works, imagine creating a computer by throwing parts in a garbage can and shaking and opening to see if it is a computer or not. when human beings deal with things the way they actually work we can create a computer. in fact every single success or human advancement was and can only be, when human beings do things the way reality dictates it actually works this is non-biased view to do things the way it can only be done to succeed at it because reality is a dictatorship. in our imagination we can create all kinds of things , but in reality it works the way it does and we adapt and learn what that is or fail every time.
that is example with those types devices but here is example with everyday human life. when people live in a way to observe around them and interested the way things really are they advance and succeed as a person and in life, but when a human being instead expects reality to conform to their ideas and thinking process of human imagination they fail miserably in life from the tiniest to the largest things. say human interaction. when human learns about a person they first meet they can establish friendship , but if a human instead makes things up about the person in their head the first meet conflict will arise because the mental image the human is thinking about is not the other person at all .this is describing the same thing. at every scale of reality we find out what is real and how it works or our expectations and assumptions make our life miserable and hurt us because we are believing our imagination is true. so if a person says " all's i know is i'm conscious" and their methodology of living their life is based on their imagination and not interested reality itself they will be a failure, to the degree their expectations and assumptions oppose reality.
so if a person's imagination just so happened to be the way everything around them actually works. all they would have to do is think a thought and trust it instantly is being real and true and they would have happy life, but since we know imagination is capable of anything , and we have to study and learn how tings actually work we have to judge what our thoughts are to see if they are real or true and adapt and change them along with our expectations and assumptions to match up with what things are really like and how they really work (reality)
you keep referring to reality - what is this reality you speak of? please be succinct
reality is the place your in that if you never existed the earth never existed or any person ever existed would be exactly the same in all ways. reality is the way things work no matter what you have or have not learned yet in life. reality is the system for which you are forced to adapt to in order to succeed at anything. you have one choice when it comes to being a human being and what is important to you either reality or imagination. imagination is thinking in head using words and created concepts. imagination has no rules ,imagination can be opposite of reality and mostly is. imagination does not have to work any specific way or be stable at all and requires no advancement to have or no learning to get better at it. imagination as a way to deal with others and the reality around you leads to conflict ,violence,domination,wars,poverty, if someone thinks in their imagination (thinking in head) that they are only one with consciousness it is easy to do any terrible act to another because it is like torturing a rock no one feels bad. but if they see the reality that all humans are complex system of trillions of parts and we all the same value and consciousness people can see the reality of co-operation respect,love,honor integrity, as a way to live together.
in reality a human being requires many things to live a healthy and happy life, the way to achieve them no matter how big or small is to do things and think about things the way they actually are (reality) imagination is de-coupled from reality it does not have to consider anything true or real and can work any way to do anything at any time for any reason , yet imagination has no way to give a human being the things that absolutely required to have a healthy and happy life. now if a person cares not whether they live or die, and cares not about meeting any need required to survive and be healthy and happy they have no reason to deal with reality , they can deal with pure imagination for the time they have left.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -
Albert Einstein
reality = how things actually work, what things actually are. those would never change if you or i never existed.
imagination= thinking in thought with words or symbols re-arranging them and fitting them together in any way to create new concepts, none of which have anything to do with anything other than the process itself of imagination.
now if we take our thinking and every way absolutely possible ,force the thinking to fit with reality and be interested in what is real and how things are and what they actually are, that is called learning. but de-coupled from reality thinking and imagining is nothing more than thnknig and imagination creating false assumptions and false expectations and false storyline to world around them. false sense how things work and what they are .
when you think someone you love you can never think of the real person you can only create a virtual model of the in your head but if you have reality centered around that mental imagine as much as you can you will be thinking fairly close about the real person. but instead if your model of them is pure imagination only not based on reality at all in any way or form , your actually not even thinking about the real person , just a imaginary storyline to a person you see in front of you.
now imagine a situation in which a person is thinking that way of you and treating you in such a way that is completely imagined and has nothing to do with the real you and they punish you and abuse you because of who you are in their mental image of you which is entirely fabricated in their thoughts. this shows the same way reasoning with "soul" "god" supernatural" afterlife" yes a person can purely imagine these things in their head and create a model of it in their mind but they have no way of which to match those concepts with reality at all or think about them the way they really are because those concepts are missing from reality there is no way to think about them other than through imagination and thinking in thoughts based on no rules no systems how they work no complex parts that add up to be the foundation of what makes them real. no instead you left with thoughts and concepts and a way of thinking that is same if someone did that with you they wouldn't even be able to think about the real you they would be thinking about their thoughts and concepts they fabricated when they see the image of your face or hear your voice completely disconnected from the real you.
this is the real perspective of science not that it ruling out anything, it just going based on what learned so far and keeping mind open to find more out but never using imagination to create a false image of something it has no way to know other than pure imagination. we can scientifically approach some these questions in a way they could be possible only, for example "what are all the parts that in reality make up god?" "what is example of 2 parts that connect in the complex system called a soul?" now you see the concept shows its true falsehood because a soul has no parts and is one thing broken down as far as it can be as created form the imagination of humans , yet reality shows us this is not possible no matter what, all advanced things are made up of more and more complex parts the more complex the thing is or can do.
What is the definition of science...?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
reality = how things actually work....for how we believe things work according to our current level of awareness? did you know human logic is circular? how do you know what things would be like if we never existed? would everything still exist? if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound if theres no one there to hear it?
even atheists think that Dawkins is a lightweight who is way out of his depth so why he sets himself up as a commentator on spiritual matters is beyond me.
exactly, science is humble enough to give hum recognition for the first person with a vague idea of how reality actually is regarding species, but Darwin contributed very little when compared to say genetics and biology regarding evolution and its mechanisms.
it would seem so. Darwin suggested a framework but I don't think he would have been comfortable with how his ideas have been misused and manipulated by people with their own agendas just trying to add credence to their ill-thought out theories. One clear example of this were the German Nazi films where beetles were filmed fighting and the strongest one won to justify the German people as the master race. Darwin also wrote about symbiotic, co-operative relationships in nature but this was conveniently omitted. I think science can be a noble thing but it can also be misused to justify a person or nations actions. This is unfortunately also true of religion.
science cannot be misused, what one may say science being misused is on the surface when you dig deeper it was the people or person's lack of knowledge about reality in one specific area or another that leads them to these domination strategies and false scientific concepts. so what i am saying is a gap in knowledge coupled with a negative agenda can bring a person to do those things . but more knowledge (more science) actually corrects this. therefore it cannot be science that is misused it is opposite of science that allowing for the negative things to happen, its is false assumptions and false expectations created in a humans thought process that allow a possibility for them to carry those actions out . more science or having their assumptions and expectations match reality in their thinking process makes those types of actions and behavior and ways of thinking not possible.
now religion is completely opposite of science. religion is thinking in a way where your assumptions and expectations do not have to conform to reality but thinking that reality conforms to your ideas and beliefs just because you were taught them since a child and told things where true even though reality itself not only shows no evidence, but shows evidence that falsifies the claims of religion showing religion to be no more true than any act of human imagination like art music fictional novels and any one of the number of things that express the nature of human imagination as a art form itself. religion and spiritual beliefs seem to be culture defined beliefs which are passed on because conscious humans early in their development attributed a conscious agent .every rustle in the bushes as a explanation in order to survive the lions and tigers and bears . the humans that did not have this association died because they where less cautious . so all animals have that sense of "who's there" when hear a noise see something in distance a dog barks when a person walking on sidewalk "who's there" carried on with us and the ideas about them stuck with us in the gaps of our knowledge about reality. when we lost someone we loved we still thought about them in our thinking so it felt like they were still around somehow. when we think of ourselves we think of our consciousness as a concepts that identify who we are , then we forget we are conscious because of trillions of parts make us up, and think that consciousness could be dis-embodied somehow on its own as a system with no parts just consciousness as a single object but this is no different than saying super-man can fly and laser beams out of eyes we can imagine it but has nothing ot do with what is real and true.
yes that is true enough. i do not agree that religion in the true meaning is opposite to science although it is different. Science does not need religion and religion does not need science.
The mind can never perceive reality because of it's very nature. It is always based on the interpretation of information received through the senses. We are eternally and irrevocably cut off from reality and neither science nor religion will ever change that. The difference between the two, once you have removed the silliness of fundamentalism in both camps, is that religion, in it's pure form admits it's inability to perceive reality whereas science seems to advocate that eventually, through experiment, it will be able to see reality in all it's crystal clarity. Which is the greater illusion?
science may well answer certain questions but faith, in its true sense, does not offer explanations and in fact never intended to. The religion we have created did try and answer questions and was therefore way out of it's remit. Faith is not believing something without proof, faith has nothing to do with beliefs, nor has it anything to do with explaining reasons for our existence. Trouble is most people's experience of spirituality is via organised religion so it really is no surprise that this confusion has arisen. There is plenty of teachings concerning faith but this is not going to be found shouted from the rooftops like these "sunshine" Christians. It is a deeply hidden, esoteric experience which actually appears more like darkness and void to the human mind, completely without images, belief systems, creeds, formal ritual or even feelings. If there are atheists who want to rigorously test their beliefs, they need to enter the mystical experience via someone who has been there before. Read modern thinkers like Thomas Merton, Martin Laird, Abbot Jamieson of Worth Abbey, the Cloud of Unknowing by an anonymous author for those able to cope with medieval thought, the few but deeply profound writings of anonymous writers from the Carthusians, etc. It is a shame that atheists usually only find the trivial, superficial writers to go on so it's no surprise they come to the conclusions they do. There are no answers in the scientific sense within mystical Christianity nor can there be. Forget the contemporary fairweather fundamentalists who think every word of the Bible is factual, it was never intended to be with this being invented in the last century. These fundamentalists have done no end of harm to those who may be seekers, scientists, atheists or philosophers with their simplistic sensate and sensational nonsense aimed only at titivating the senses.
Enjoyed your discussion regarding spirituality. I hesitate to tell people about the mystical Christian experiences I've had (totally unexpected and a surprise each time--the last one shortly before I graduated from law school) and no drugs involved. Although the experiences have had a huge impact on the way I view life, I know it's usually pointless to try and convince anyone because (as I know you must appreciate), unless someone has had the experience, they can't fathom what you're talking about...I became a Catholic a few years back and chose the name "Theresa" after St. Theresa of Avila. Had heard she was a mystic, so read a couple of books about her, including her own writings. I can't tell you how I felt when I read that her experiences were the same as mine (though hers were ongoing for many years). I heard a while back that approximately 10 percent of humanity has these, or similar mystical experiences.
Science has always been a passion of mine, and I find no conflict between science and the spiritual world, but I appreciate that many scientists who have not had a deep spiritual experience would prefer to provide their own solutions (it's a chemical in the brain, we're imagining things, etc.) which are laughable to those who know better. Some people simply must live in a black and white world. But we don't relish the ridicule of people who have no clue as to what we're talking about, and I decided long ago that it's really not important that people be told because they'll either have the experience themselves and learn, or not. Either way, all is well in the universe. I'm very glad for scientists like Sir Roger Penrose, et al. who are trying to find a link between consciousness and quantum mechanics. It's too bad that ridicule has had such a dampening effect within the scientific community, when brilliant minds that came up with new ideas in the past were discredited by their colleagues or scientific societies, and only some of the ideas survived. But, that's human nature---ridicule that which one doesn't understand. The thing is, the mystical experience leaves one not simply with a "belief" but with a "knowledge." And that is a difficult thing to convey.
Cheers, Maddog3
Well I’m glad that simple faith in God has nothing to do with science . Genesis tells about the beginning of creation and that shows us the power of God . He also sent his son to the earth to bleed and die for our sins and it is Christ who we follow and that doesn’t take science either it takes willingness . Right from a little child to the oldest person on earth can follow Christ and that is taught through sconce
Janeen, please disregard the following paragraph. After re-reading some of your discussion I realized we aren't on the "same page." Tried to delete my dribble, but the system wasn't having it. This just shows that it's probably best to read something twice before responding because sometimes we didn't read what we thought we did! And this should be an excellent example of what you mentioned regarding our perception of a thing and the reality of it. Cheers.
Janeen, in your talk about "reality" why didn't you include the quantum physics information (proven hundreds, maybe thousands of times in increasingly complex experiment conditions) that our world of reality consists of particles when we're watching and waves when we're not. Or, a discussion of quantum entanglement. Without those topics, your explanation of reality seemed incomplete. Ok, your response might well be that a full discussion of the nature of reality could (and does) fill volumes of books. Maybe best discussed while drinking wine among friends on long winter nights. However, I'm glad and reassured that physicists like Hawking and Susskind, et al. have found the humility to admit that they don't really "know" the nature of reality. Neither they nor anyone else has yet solved the "theory of everything." So, we keep speculating and guessing. But we'll keep looking...and hopefully never completely solve the mystery, else once the intellectual challenges cease, what a boring existence we shall have.
I agree totally, but do you think pure faith, and I dont mean the fundamentalist nonsense of the last century, has anything to do with science? Quantum physics is indeed fascinating and deeply profound but it never set out to describe the nature of God anymore than true spiritual faith never intends to interpret science within a spiritual context. They are not incompatible, they are unrelated subjects.
All I try to do is keep an open mind and not try to put everything in a box. Many (if not all) things are interrelated. The truth is, we really know very little. I don't necessarily believe quantum mechanics can describe the nature of God---only insofar as everything in God's universe partakes in the divinity of creation. Actually, I'm pretty much only an observer who cheers from the sidelines when some great advance in science is made, laugh. I suppose the reason I don't find a conflict between God and science is that I've adopted the habit of not sweating the small stuff (i.e. I ignore church dogma). (see my previous comments to you).
that is probably the healthiest approach as all that really matters is god and our relationship with god, everything else is play
hello, yes quantum mechanics is absolutely important part of reality without a doubt. it is the most successful and reliable area od science we have found to date this is why all our electronic devices are so stable on quantum level (electricity) we can make millions of exact laptop or cell phone and they are mostly exactly react the same. people are confused about the double slit experiment it says when we place a detector made of atoms near atoms in the test the atoms react to the other atoms that's all it says ,consciousness has nothing to do with it, and don't take my word for it read every book or even take a college course on quantum mechanics. quantum mechanics is extremely predictable and is calculated everyday that is why electronics work to the degree they do stable notice your cell phone does not start going static and stop working when placed right next to your brain which is conscious?
all the stuff i been commenting about is just information we have found out that we know will not change through thousands of lifetimes worth of dedication , none this is how i feel ,my opinion what i think about it. it is just the parts we can rely on enough to say will never change no matter what else we can learn. quantum mechanics can never tell us consciousness affects reality. because consciousness is just a slang word a compartmentalization , our body and brain has trillions of things happening and we call that consciousness in our thoughts and language but language has nothing to do with reality. we have songs art poems tv shows movies all created from human ideas concepts and language in the brain through thought they have nothing to do with reality. religion afterlife souls and spirituality are the same thing as fictional novels tv shows art music poetry. that is language used in the brain in thought to recombine ideas in different patterns with words and phrases. it is called human imagination. all thinking is imagination , unless your only thinking about things that reality has shown to be true, and your only talking about the specific areas that have been shown to be reality, this is what i have doing in all my comments here on this topic.
Sorry, but you're probably when you say "quantum mechanics can never tell us consciousness affects reality." There has long been a dispute as to whether the physical world creates consciousness (Democrates) or whether consciousness creates the physical world (Plato). The most current information I have found is that most physicists now believe in Plato's theory. For a very readable explanation go to: quantumconsciousness dot org Stuart Hameroff, MD and the British physicist at Oxford Univ., Sir Roger Penrose have been working on the problem for over 20 years. For more complex detail, see "Consciousness, Neurobiology and Quantum Mechanics: The Case for a Connection" ---Stuart Hameroff ---the emerging physics consciousness, 2006 --Springer Also: "Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness" by Sir Roger Penrose --1994. If you Google the last one you'll find a review by William Faris, Feb. 1996, Notices of the AMS. Although Faris doesn't necessarily agree with Penrose, he does say: "We do not understand either quantum mechanics or the mind, but this does not suggest that one is the solution to the other; most likely each will bring its own surprise." And Faris quotes Penrose when he says: "His argument requires that 'our brains have somehow contrived to harness the details of a physics that is yet unknown to human physicists.'" If you care to research you'll find much more on the subject. The beauty and awe science holds for me is that scientists hold so many varying views on any given area. With all the brilliant minds working on problems world-wide, sometimes a break-through is made, or most often , we simply have brilliant theories to contemplate. To say that all scientists believe "this," or all scientists believe "that" is totally wrong.
"all the stuff i been commenting about is just information we have found out that we know will not change through thousands of lifetimes worth of dedication , none this is how i feel ,my opinion what i think about it. it is just the parts we can rely on enough to say will never change no matter what else we can learn."...
"all thinking is imagination , unless your only thinking about things that reality has shown to be true, and your only talking about the specific areas that have been shown to be reality"
Presumably the "thinking" we do in science is exempt from these rules...?
see the arguments of Stuart Hameroff MD and the British physicist at Oxford Univ., Sir Roger Penrose. They (and many others including me) respectfully disagree with you. For more detailed explanations see: "Consciousness, Neurobiology and Quantum Mechanics: " The Case for a Connection " 2006 Springer (can locate on Google). William Faris, who reviewed Sir Roger Penros's book "Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness." states, "We do not understand either quantum mechanics or the mind, but this does not suggest that one is the solution to the other; most likely each will bring its own surprises." Faris then quotes Penrose, "our brains have somehow contrived to harness the details of a physics that is yet unknown to human physicists." The crux of the argument is whether the physical world is created by consciousness (Plato), or whether consciousness is created by the physical world (Democratis). From all I can find lately, the current belief among most particle and theoretical physicists favors Plato's version.
There was a British scientist in the 19th century who told us "all that can be known, is known." Brilliant scientific minds and time have made us laugh at that egotistical assertion. Woe be the day when science is degraded into a discipline where every scientist agrees on everything. That will truly be the day when science is dead.
Haha...where DO you get all that incorrect information? And BTW: I wasn't confused about the double slit experiment. And it says far more than you suggest. I think you need to update your scientific information. I'll try and find for you the name of the excellent documentary on the subject I saw recently. It indicates that physicists now believe in Plato's argument that the physical world is created by consciousness. I'm sure you can find many articles also if you do a little research. I've included some sites and publications in my message below (which is waiting to be approved by this site).
Dictionaries are great things. Faith - Strong belief in religious doctrine based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Scientific theory - Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[4] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative). Now we got that straight we can stop wasting our time and face the fact, that facts make no difference to people who have belief. They don't need them, so you ramming facts down someones throat isn't going to change anyone's mind. It's a little like art, it's not always tangible what makes it good or bad. To some it's their life and to others pointless. I'm a atheist and I know a lot of the time this is no more than theist bating I'm guilty of this for sure, apologies. Live and let live we all change throughout life so let people find their own path. In the same vain though we must therefore live in a secular society. Peace out.
If that is what the dictionary says is the definition of faith, then it is incorrect. There is confusion that a "faith" is a belief system. It is not.
The
definition of faith: "Strong belief in religious doctrine..." asserts that the
perspective of subjecting one’s self to a system of beliefs is what faith is, not
that faith in its own right is the belief system. A more expanded way of
understanding the definition of "faith" can be found in the most updated
oxford English dictionary which states " faith is the complete trust and
confidence in someone or something" Furthermore, the caveat that makes
faith unique from just simply trusting as the epistemological concept is that faith does not require any
form of proof.
I understand, and it seems that there are two parts to the dictionary definition. In some christian thought, faith being complete trust in god would be a satisfactory definition. The difficulty arises in that since god cannot be visualised, imagined, thought about, defined, grasped, etc, then what is it exactly that we have faith in? This is at the heart of christian mysticism and when someone has reached the point of realising that any attempt to quantify god in any way whatsoever will mean that the they are merely putting their faith in a projection of their own mind, however ethereal or sophisticated - yet another illusion. Over the centuries this experience has been well documented in works such as "Dark Night of the Soul" or the "Cloud of Unknowing". This apparent dilemma does not however have any detrimental effect on faith which is not an emotion, world view or belief system. I don't want to risk boring you too much but when in this darkness where there is nothing tangible to hang on to, it is here that all we can do is put our trust in the god who we can never conceive of ! At this point, many mystics report their most profound experiences of a living god who makes him/her/it's self known directly to the soul purely as a gift. No amount of religious adherence or ritual will force god to do "things". Christianity is not a collection of spells and incantations.
Yes, a gift of light in the darkness that bathes the soul in immense love.
BTW: I can't begin to tell you how refreshing it has been to read your views. I don't normally participate in online discussions, so stumbling into a kindred soul is a joyous experience for me---didn't even find such a person when I used to attend church. Nice to meet you Maddog3
Yes I agree with you there. Faith being like art is a very good analogy in that it does not need to be tangible or provable using the scientific method. There are quiet corners of Christianity which would find your comments : "we all change throughout life so let people find their own path" very refreshing and is another point of complete agreement. As a Christian, by choice rather than upbringing or tradition, tending towards the mystical variety, I have found over the years that indeed I have changed greatly and I have no real need for a "creed" or system of beliefs anymore. I don't know how this has happened but at the same time I know my "faith" is far clearer and stronger now than it has ever been, although strangely I could probably not adequately explain it. That may sound contradictory but there are many christians who would relate completely with that. So, having just checked "faith" in the Chambers, I find the spiritual conviction rather than proof bit fine but the belief in religious doctrine part is from my current angle, completely the opposite of faith!
Bible is backed up by science
um, what part that a talking snake ? or how about women came from man rib? or how about the order of creation wrong? or how about that people have a soul and afterlife exists which is not verified by science, science shows soul is impossible because a human being is not one thing in reality a human being is trillions of things, for example a computer is trillions of things it cannot have a soul right? or earth is trillions of things or galaxy is trillions of things or internet is trillions of things none of them is possible to have a soul or afterlife.
We all know that science was very advanced 3500 years ago.
Of all the numerous cultural Stories of Creation from the major religions, the Bible´s story is about the least sufficient one. Take for instants the Egyptian story or some of the Eastern stories of creation and even modern science isn´t sufficent, largely because of the cyclical ancient world perception.
The modern ideas of "gravity" and "Big Bang" is totally out of cosmological logics and have become scientifical doctrines based on pure asumptions and beliefs.
...Thinking of putting 18:25 on a tee shirt.
+1
hahaha dude aweseome
(@any God-Like beings commenting here.) Saying what is possible or impossible IS impossible without having omnipotent minds which would require those defining possibility and reality to have the mind of a GOD. I assume by your own conclusions you are not a God. The only important question becomes why believe something you cannot know?
sounds like saying something without any actual information contained with in it.
i think they call it a "deepity"
take "omnipotent mind" a stringing of two words that have no basis in reality, which is totally fine unless your super imposing this thought concept onto reality , there are no examples and no suggestions by the testing done of reality that shows "omnipotent mind" can or could be something other than those two words thought of by a human brain. reality has nothing to do with what we think. what is real has zero to do with our imagination (stringing together of words) if we have an idea and through the probing of reality those words turn out to exist in reality we can further associate them with reality. until then to do so would be the same as thinking the walking dead tv show is a real alternate universe, a painting has a soul, that is compartmentalizing concepts in the brain using language , then thinking is is real somehow. we call it mental illness for short.
here is an example of this in everyday life , imagine you have just met a person they walk in the other room where you are in conversation with a good friend, they hear half a sentence you say and know very little about you in their brain they make assumptions to fill in information missing from their mental image of you (not the real you) and through this process create a storyline you said something racist and start yelling and run out and say never talk to them again , meanwhile you realize they did not hear the entire sentence or conversation or even have the context that it fit in and if they did would have not behaved in such a way or created that mental image of you. this situation happens everyday because humans cannot gain information by thinking alone knowledge is learned and if we make assumptions as a replacement to taking in all information then pondering the implications of such information without expectations of assumptions, we end up believing the language thought in our mind is reality and things go wrong , but instead we are interested in reality itself and adapt our self to solid information of reality we can grow ,advance, evolve and see true value in others our self ,and see the beauty and Majesty that is called reality.
Simply put, you are confusing ultimate reality as being determined by empirical evidence. To assume human brains are anything more than the by-products of evolution in their capabilities to determine 'reality" is quite a leap of "faith".
Absolutely, and that reveals, religion does not have the monopoly of faith.
no, money and politics and culture defined beliefs are same religious faith . science is opposite of faith.
your confusing "ultimate reality" as something other than your idea of it. the only reality we know is what we can probe and test but it is on relative scale. eagles have double our vision they see differently a insect has hundreds of lenses the world looks different, dogs have better hearing bats have sonar, reality for them is relative like us. that why we have to test things to see how it really is in a certain context.
I agree the reality we can know is that which we can test but that does not exclude any other possibilities that we cannot test. As I said before the important question for "belief systems" is why believe something you cannot observe directly. That is a personal choice that cannot be proven or disproven. Peace.
nobody is denying we now have many pieces of the puzzle of the picture we call reality. but we can't test for something if we are completely unaware of somethings existence and this vast universe will no doubt reveal things beyond our current understanding. the scientific reality you refer to is just our best take on reality so far.
they are saying that because we have small finite brains, it's likely impossible to fathom reality. and when somebody goes around making concrete statement saying " this is this and this is that " you simply prove once again some scientific minds care more about the applause of their peers than the open minded pursuit of the final knowledge of reality. you can believe you know what that is as you have already verbalized a pretty decided stance on these matters...but it's still contains a small dose of faith no matter how hard you wish it wasn't so.
science has not yet finished the unfolding of discovery of fundamental truth, how could it when we are still earth bound.
and just because somebody entertains the possibility of a God doesn't make them anti-science. not all spiritual people are closed mind simpletons. and when someone says the word God, they don't necessarily mean some large bearded man sitting on a cloud like you imagine we all believe.
that why we probe and test reality to see how it actually is not our opinions or ideas or concepts.
sure, you have several layers of scientific discovery.
first layer are matters of concrete truth that have been tested from multiple methods and techniques and are undeniable,
second layer is with matters that due to given circumstances cannot be subjected to complete study / method but still show as conclusive proofs.
third layer is matters / elements that also due to circumstances, study is a minimal possibility and scientific theory is used to fill in the blanks.
forth layer are matters / elements that have yet to be proofs because we don't yet possess the tools / techniques to do so
Adam, you nailed it. Sometimes trying to reason with another person who is caught up in their own perceptions is useless---they just keep repeating the same thing without including their sources, authority, or names of "scientists" they are speaking of. I hate to see all scientists lumped together as if they all believe the same thing. Ridiculous!
human consciousness is not real it is virtual, that is we model information coming in through our body and senses and use it to construct ideas, but we never think directly about reality itself, science is the tool to connect ourselves to what is actually real even if it is fragments as we learn we construct those pieces without making assumptions or expectations and begin to learn about reality itself. we have learned an incredible amount through thousands brilliant minds dedicating their whole life to this process then we can add up all the totally of knowledge to get a larger picture. this larger picture shows us the entire earth and everything in it is a tiny insignificant spec compared to all reality and would be no different to reality itself if the whole earth never existed this has important implications when pieces together with the story of reality construction all life on earth and how reality itself works here for us. in all this time of learning and all the thousands and thousands of lifetimes worth of knowledge pieced together. there are things about reality we know that will never change and one important part of that is god is impossible , a afterlife is impossible a human soul is impossible, a human being is not even a single object in reality but a complex interaction of trillions of things. reality is so far away from the idea of god or afterlife or souls it makes them utterly impossible no matter what else we learn it will never be possible to learn we don't really die, or we are being watched and loved by a magic being. the only way it is even possible for a human being to think it is even possible for these things to exist is for that person to have large gaps in their knowledge of the totality of reality as a whole how it works what is reliable and what cannot ever change.
either people are interested in reality how it actually is or people are interested in their thinking process (imagination), and have no interest in reality itself. what are you interested in?
every thought you or I or anyone will ever have is imagination and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, all we can do is study reality and adapt our thinking process to what we find out through testing is real. this is because when we think in our head we can never think about a real think we think of a model we have of it in our brain. this is what god is ,we model our own experience of a consciousness which is a complex interactions of trillions of processes , we compartmentalize this idea of consciousness down to one thing (it is not) and then superimpose this idea in our head of it to a disembodied god, this is all taking place in our imagination literally. reality shows us consciousness can never be a single thing , only in this sense of an idea in a human's head. what we think has zero to do with what is true UNLESS we study reality itself learn something about it then reflect on that with our thoughts and makes no assumptions or jump to conclusions in our mind thought process.
what is the definition of reality?
your implying scientific method has finally arrived and is capable of explaining all fundamental knowledge ? big talk for a species who barely hasn't yet left it's own planet, let alone star system. but i guess the perceived imagination of knowing all concrete truths is more important than truth itself ?
Wow, that had to be cathartic.
In fact there is some small evidence that cannot be explained ,that humans co-existed with dinosaurs,The human foot prints beside the dinosaur ones on a river bed in Minnesota.
The metal axe embedded in a coal seam etc.We are supposed to be related to apes, but there is scant evidence for this, small cheekbone or parts of a skull have been found that are very very old, but where is the definitive link? Evolution still remains a THEORY.
huh?, what you have learned or studied or researched, or a lack of has zero to do with reality itself. there is so much evidence in millions of places for evolution either you dont know about it or youd have to be mentally ill to deny it. i myself had to research the topic myself because my school too afraid to teach because the religious nut-jobs in power. but the evidence is the most strong you could ever have , fossil is not even really any of the evidence, the evidence is the d.n.a. we all have just like at a crime scene you dna can show 99.9999 percent accuracy who committed the murder the same process shows we came from bacteria then fish then mammals then apes ,actually we are still apes now. we only have a couple differences with apes
i guess you never studied science before our dna can be traced bake to the first cells. all life is the same life slow changes over billions years, we have to study reality to find out what is true, our thoughts have nothing to do with what is real unless we check them to reality first.
we came from apes then before that we came from fish and before that period of time we came from worms and before that we came from bacteria. there is millions of pieces of evidence independently verified this for hundreds of years, it is as undeniable as the observations of gravity.
Good heavens! Don't you people write a load of old drivel? you go on about reality ,imagination,science,is religion good bad or indifferent. do you not realise that all Human-beings are totally insane?Our brains have adapted too far.We no longer behave as nature intended us to behave,we have become far too clever,our cleverness has replaced intelligence! All other life forms display far greater intelligence than do we,none of them do anything to damage their environment as do we.The more clever a Human is,the more damage they do.The scientists-the inventors -are so dangerous they will bring about disaster.As Einstein stated.....The greatest disaster for Mankind was splitting the Atom....There's clever for you.
I disagree, how many people did the atom splitting kill compared to good old guns. The greatest disaster for Mankind was the invention of gun powder.
@ denis- I agree..'Good Heavens!' Loads of INSANE drivel in previous thread. But I ask ...Is Mother-nature to blame for creating us (as we are), if "we no longer behave as nature intended us to behave..."? Where would you say the cut-off point should be for our cleverness? Do beavers or ants not damage the environment? Do volcanoes? Seems nature in itself is VERY destructive ..making evolution possible..as intended?
@ Fabian- at this point black powder has taken more lives, hopefully that will always be the statistic..
Are there others intents in nature other than living organisms trying to survive, thrive and reproduce?
I would say that nature certainly provides the mechanisms -the drive- to do these things (survive, thrive, and reproduce). But as Denis stated -he believes humans have become too clever. I guess the question is- did we take a wrong turn ? Or is it in our "nature" to destroy ourselves ? Is this our failure in finding balance in our efforts to thrive...or, is our destructive nature part of nature's "plan"? I guess Im putting your question back to you 0.o
Ah geez...I guess thats the age old question.
Maybe it would be better if I ask - Is cancer the result of human manipulations of nature..? Or, is cancer (are cancers) part of the evolutionary process..?
My humble opinion is that there is no plan in nature. Only random mutations that happen to be best suited to their environment. I have no evidence it is in our nature to destroy ourselves, the increase in population during our existence on the planet definitely support the opposite.
Did the FACT that Chimpanzees genes makeup is very similar to that of humans escape you?
The article was published 10 years ago in Nature and is titled "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome" if you would like to read it.