Evidence of the Non-Physical

[Sheldon]

You're not the messenger Sheldon, you're the source. Quite blaming someone else for what you espouse as fact and truth.

Oh dear, shooting the messenger is a metaphor. Is this your idea of candid debate, endless dishonest straw man fallacies? The entire scientific world accepts evolutions as a scientific fact. Ever hear of project Steve?

 

[rational experiences]

Humans standing on earth said one God our God earth O.

Mass held in space a God.

God in space is not balanced.

The cosmic God is in war battles.

O battled the sun god won. Earth. O and planets battle being hit bombarded constantly.

No balance it is chaos said a man teacher.

On earth the balances are differentiated.

Alight versus dark
Burning gas versus cold clear non burning gas.

Said by a living conscious human an observer only.

Then we tell a story how bio organic life came out of eternal direct into ground lowered heavens. As a spiritual cause.

We already owned balance as we were the exact same spirit body type owning variations of its body to own its inherited life manifestation.

Inside of our water world. The eArths heavens water oxygenated state that changed our being.

Our spirit our type our body our sound became changed by water.

Being. Balanced perfectly.

Why we told the story the eternal lost gods O angels into hell. The spirit language changed.

Creation came out of separation.

After space the separation refilled with gases water. We were forced out of the eternal.

We never wanted to leave. It was karmic.

Is why the Baha'i teaching is similar to my realisation the eternal status was never in creation.

 

[DNB]

Don't be a clown, that petulant non sequitur has nothing to do with your claim about those arguments, and even you must know at least that much. If you've parroted those arguments and can't justify your grandiose claims they are valid then have the decency not to produce irrelevant straw men. If you think they are valid, then offer them for scrutiny, it is that simple. That is how debate works.

The taxonomy of humans is that they are part of the family of great apes by the way, did you really not know this? Humans share a much higher percentage of their DNA with the other great apes, as Darwin predicted of course are our closes evolutionary relatives.

You need to start reading your Bible.

 

[DNB]

Oh dear, shooting the messenger is a metaphor. Is this your idea of candid debate, endless dishonest straw man fallacies? The entire scientific world accepts evolutions as a scientific fact. Ever hear of project Steve?

Don't shoot me I'm just the piano player, is an album by Elton John. So, you don't need to tell me about figures of speech, idioms, or clichés. Or ,even the taxonomy of musical genres, for I know very well that typically Elton John's music is classified as pop or easy listening. Now, do you think that that's how Elton would categorize his music?

 

[DNB]

Did it? You might want to collect your Nobel prize if you can evidence that. I'll watch the news with eager anticipation.

Well, most of your assertions seem to come from nothing?

 

[rational experiences]

The bible said no man is God O the planet.

Humans choose science to practice. Study stones and substances. Built machines in a false God theism O maths. No God in maths actually even existed nothing O liars.

You added up ideas of the substance + to thesis how to machine react convert it as a God type that hadn't existed.

O zero space cold pressure held mass the numbered status man gave earth God. O planet God. Earth.

The energy you got out of O nothing God maths conversion. O earths substance.

So as you irradiated sacrificed equal human life body by the machine life partner you put at your side. You said maths was evil mother space abomination. Evil female maths space attacked me.

You said the destroyer is a scientist the isis. Theist thesis.

Said TH numbers.
One.
Two.
Three. Holy form. Just thinking about my own self human life first.

Four TH.
FIf TH.
Six TH.
Seven TH.
Eight TH.
Nine TH.
Ten TH. Etc.

Th O Th. The beast God of numbers.

Why you said beast is because animals lived before you. Theist man plus beast to be time shifted by maths calculus. What you did and said looking back.

Then you reasoned why was life sacrificed and made unequal when gods image O pressure kept life O cell healthy? Attacked.

TH is is...Jesus king of kings.

A study.
Reasoned.

Why no man O is a cell O of God. As biology is not God o the stone substance.

O maths As used to advise how to convert to get energies creation from God O the earth form.

Pretty basic human advice.

How you preach it determines if you lie or not.

Science human choice is the liar first.

So you should understand why science does not want to be the liar.

Why they argue that humans believing they are not Gods form are sick. And also contradict argue why you cannot be gods substance form O.

Reasoning. All natural humans are the scientist first observer in natural life.

O human cell life continuance made in gods image was the healer spiritual medical answer. Pressure conditions involved.

Science status. We own cell O life by gods body. No planet no pressure. No cell remaining O. Life's Continuance.

Was not teaching the correct natural medical healer reasoning.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Open your eyes.

My eyes are open. I would have some troubles typing otherwise. Not a whole lot of troubles, mind you, but some.

How are your eyes?

 

[Hidingfromyou]

The universe is designed, even a child recognizes that. But, you and your cohorts prefer to use esoteric arguments in order to dispel any logical and empirically proven evidence. Just admit it, all creatures follow countless patterns of existence, birth, growth, death. The seasons have cycles, medicine is predictable, the food chain has a static hierarchy. Multiple creatures of such a disparity in their genus and species, share a contingency upon each other - each needs another for survival, and yet, some still don't. The planets, their satellites, the constellations, the orbits, revolutions and rotations, all working in an integrated and symbiotic manner. Life propagates life - the miracle of birth.

But, of course, all this is nothing but haphazard chance, no design, no purpose, no formula or structure, just an explosion....

Apparent design in nature doesn't require a designer or an intelligent. Evolution by natural selection is one such example. And the outcomes of the interactions of phenomena, like atoms, are another example. Stars and planets form by gravity. No one is directing them.

Another thing children do is input intelligence into natural phenomena when there is none.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Apparent design in nature doesn't require a designer or an intelligent. Evolution by natural selection is one such example. And the outcomes of the interactions of phenomena, like atoms, are another example. Stars and planets form by gravity. No one is directing them.

Another thing children do is input intelligence into natural phenomena when there is none.

Yeas, as along as you take methodological naturalism for granted.

 

[ratiocinator]

Man has a spirit, ...why do you think this forum was created?

It was created to talk about religion and other topic. Nothing to do with 'man' having a spirit.

Both evil and good exists, and all actions have been defined as such, therefore man has a spirit.

Good and evil are human, subjective value judgements, either of individuals or societies, based on biological and cultural evolution. Again, nothing at all to to do with a spirit.

Something did not come from nothing.

That's a theist claim.

What more is there to discuss?

Well, so far you haven't produced even the slightest hint of the first suggestion of the smallest iota of a reason to think a god (or spirits) exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Theoretical physics developed in spite of theological beliefs held by it's practitioners, not because of.

"The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for
example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe, and were imprinted on it at the moment of its birth from “outside,” like a maker’s mark, and have remained unchanging ever since...It is not hard to discover where this [our modern] picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe.
Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." (pp. 89-90)
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.

"Newton was amazed by that accuracy, and he found there an argument for the existence of God. Since the system was so finely tuned, since one could predict the future state of the sky, and since, by solving equations, one could recover the state of planets at any previous moment, one had to admit that the solar system, as well as all the cosmos, had been conceived by some superior intelligence.
At the peak of a physical theory, it is not unusual to find that scientists have invoked some "higher power." This can be transformed into a theological argument, as in the case of Newton." (p. 3)
Basdevant, J-L. (2007). Variational Principles in Physics. Springer Science.

"One of the most widespread misconceptions about science concerns its historical relationship to religion. According to this pervasive myth, these two enterprises are polar opposites that compete to occupy the same explanatory territory. The history of Western thought is understood in terms of a protracted struggle between these opposing forces, with religion gradually being forced to yield more and more ground to an advancing science that offers superior explanations. Wherever possible, religion has resisted this ceding of territory, thus hindering the advance of science. While historians of science have long ago abandoned this simplistic narrative, the “conflict myth” has proven to be remarkably resistant to their demythologizing efforts and remains a central feature of common understandings of the identity of modern science." (pp. 195-196)
Harrison, P. (2015). Myth 24. That Religion Has Typically Impeded the Progress of Science. In R. L. Numbers * K. Kampourakis (Eds.) Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science (pp. 195-201). Harvard University Press.

I referenced sources in my previous post, and added a few even simpler and clearer ones of varied nature to this post. I could continue to add more and more, but as you haven't done anything but contradict what is well-known historically about the emergence of physics and how as well as why it was able to develop conceptually, particularly the religious and theological origins of modern physics out of early modern natural philosophy from Descartes, Galileo, Newton and beyond, I will await some sort of explanation preferably with something other than rhetoric to back up your position.
Certainly, religion has impeded the development of progress in the sciences and the development of physics. But examples like Galileo are actually rather few and far between in this matter and ultimately fail because like his contemporaries Galileo was a firm believer and his works were influenced by theological principles particular to Western monotheism through-and-through.
Newton used God as an explanation not merely as a motivation for believing in a rational universe, but also evidenced by his laws where God serves in multiple ways as an explanation (most interestingly in varied references, including correspondence, where elsewhere he famously declared to make no hypothesis regarding the origin, explanation, or source of his force).
The same is true of Descartes. I already referenced Maupertuis and Euler.

But I am not all that interested in debating the clear and unambiguous historical record as it regards the many and varied ways in which theological concepts and principles formed the conceptual basis as well as motivation (among other important relations) for the emergence of modern physics. Firstly because it is rather obvious and (as noted above) one has to distort the record horribly whilst overreaching (in e.g., pointing to theists whose work was highly theological in nature or motivated by theology in no small way, such as Galileo) for evidence of theology hindering the emergence of modern physics. Secondly, because the point of my post was a clear counter-example, so to really address it you would have to argue specifically about the action principle and its historical emergence in physics from Maupertuis and Euler and before even beginning to address the emergence of modern physics out of natural philosophy and early modern sciences.
And, finally, because it isn't all that relevant now. Just because the action principle seems quite mysterious to many doesn't mean we should accept the rationale upon which it was based in a theologically dominated culture when belief in a rational deity could help motivate and justify the kind of inquiry that was contingently required for the sciences to emerge (Western theology need not have provided the impetus or justification that it did, as is shown by the fact that it took centuries after widespread Christianity for early modern sciences to emerge, that this worldview was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, and that the Greeks actually came very close to developing the scientific endeavor without monotheism at all).
My point was that it is ridiculous to say that theology has never and could never offer anything as was argued in the post I responded to. It clearly did. This is just fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for
example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe, and were imprinted on it at the moment of its birth from “outside,” like a maker’s mark, and have remained unchanging ever since...It is not hard to discover where this [our modern] picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe.
Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." (pp. 89-90)
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.

"Newton was amazed by that accuracy, and he found there an argument for the existence of God. Since the system was so finely tuned, since one could predict the future state of the sky, and since, by solving equations, one could recover the state of planets at any previous moment, one had to admit that the solar system, as well as all the cosmos, had been conceived by some superior intelligence.
At the peak of a physical theory, it is not unusual to find that scientists have invoked some "higher power." This can be transformed into a theological argument, as in the case of Newton." (p. 3)
Basdevant, J-L. (2007). Variational Principles in Physics. Springer Science.

"One of the most widespread misconceptions about science concerns its historical relationship to religion. According to this pervasive myth, these two enterprises are polar opposites that compete to occupy the same explanatory territory. The history of Western thought is understood in terms of a protracted struggle between these opposing forces, with religion gradually being forced to yield more and more ground to an advancing science that offers superior explanations. Wherever possible, religion has resisted this ceding of territory, thus hindering the advance of science. While historians of science have long ago abandoned this simplistic narrative, the “conflict myth” has proven to be remarkably resistant to their demythologizing efforts and remains a central feature of common understandings of the identity of modern science." (pp. 195-196)
Harrison, P. (2015). Myth 24. That Religion Has Typically Impeded the Progress of Science. In R. L. Numbers * K. Kampourakis (Eds.) Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science (pp. 195-201). Harvard University Press.

I referenced sources in my previous post, and added a few even simpler and clearer ones of varied nature to this post. I could continue to add more and more, but as you haven't done anything but contradict what is well-known historically about the emergence of physics and how as well as why it was able to develop conceptually, particularly the religious and theological origins of modern physics out of early modern natural philosophy from Descartes, Galileo, Newton and beyond, I will await some sort of explanation preferably with something other than rhetoric to back up your position.
Certainly, religion has impeded the development of progress in the sciences and the development of physics. But examples like Galileo are actually rather few and far between in this matter and ultimately fail because like his contemporaries Galileo was a firm believer and his works were influenced by theological principles particular to Western monotheism through-and-through.
Newton used God as an explanation not merely as a motivation for believing in a rational universe, but also evidenced by his laws where God serves in multiple ways as an explanation (most interestingly in varied references, including correspondence, where elsewhere he famously declared to make no hypothesis regarding the origin, explanation, or source of his force).
The same is true of Descartes. I already referenced Maupertuis and Euler.

But I am not all that interested in debating the clear and unambiguous historical record as it regards the many and varied ways in which theological concepts and principles formed the conceptual basis as well as motivation (among other important relations) for the emergence of modern physics. Firstly because it is rather obvious and (as noted above) one has to distort the record horribly whilst overreaching (in e.g., pointing to theists whose work was highly theological in nature or motivated by theology in no small way, such as Galileo) for evidence of theology hindering the emergence of modern physics. Secondly, because the point of my post was a clear counter-example, so to really address it you would have to argue specifically about the action principle and its historical emergence in physics from Maupertuis and Euler and before even beginning to address the emergence of modern physics out of natural philosophy and early modern sciences.
And, finally, because it isn't all that relevant now. Just because the action principle seems quite mysterious to many doesn't mean we should accept the rationale upon which it was based in a theologically dominated culture when belief in a rational deity could help motivate and justify the kind of inquiry that was contingently required for the sciences to emerge (Western theology need not have provided the impetus or justification that it did, as is shown by the fact that it took centuries after widespread Christianity for early modern sciences to emerge, that this worldview was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, and that the Greeks actually came very close to developing the scientific endeavor without monotheism at all).
My point was that it is ridiculous to say that theology has never and could never offer anything as was argued in the post I responded to. It clearly did. This is just fact.

Good post. A short side note. The classical Greek idea of rationality is properly also at play,

 

[ratiocinator]

You need to start reading your Bible.

Oh, I have. It's a disjointed, incoherent mess, riddled with contradictions, that provides no clear message at all. If it's a communication from some god, then it's some crazy, mixed up deity.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, most of your assertions seem to come from nothing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You need to start reading your Bible.

I don't have a Bible and I don't need one. And I don't need to read it to figure out how to be a human.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wow. What utter nonsense. Your claim is that some theologian wrote that "the actual world is the best of all possible worlds" and that somehow created modern physics?

Actually, I was quoting from a physics monograph there, you'd have to take that claim up with Haag. My claim is that the action principle was clearly and obviously a development from theological principles. Those who developed it were quite clear about their rationale. They happened to be right about its importance, and it was their theological presuppositions and theological worldview that enabled both earlier developments upon which the action principle emerged formally (namely, Newtonian mechanics, which were also clearly and explicitly developed by Newton both as evidence for God and based on theological principles of a rational cosmos created by a rational deity) as well as their own work.

Nope. You're living in a fantasy.

By all means, feel free to show how the historical record doesn't reflect this emergence or take issue with the importance of the action principle itself.

Theology is 100% useless now.

I don't have much use for it and don't find any in physics, although I find it interesting in general. That said, I know that in particular certain work in logic and set theory as well as other foundational mathematics continues to be furthered due to theological arguments by theologians and philosophers, both believers and non-believers (see e.g., Logic and Theism by Sobel and the later references to his work on Gödel's unpublished argument for god. It's not much, certainly. There may be more that theology continues to offer the sciences and mathematics that I am not aware of. Mostly I think its importance comes (at least within foundation physics and cosmology) from understanding where a great many of our modern tools, models, approaches, and ideas have their origin since they now appear mysterious to us but apparently were not so long ago when we knew considerably less about the physical world. But like a lot of academic work, I think that most theology (and again, I'm not a theologian but a physicist so I'm biased on this) is like many other fields- important to those in the field and those interested in it, but with little influence outside of its scope.

It can add nothing and no new knowledge in our present day.

Current debates on e.g., multiverse theory among physicists and cosmologists continue to be inspired by the ability to "explain" without a creator:
"To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"
from the editor's introduction to the volume Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or Multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.

Theology didn't add to previous scientists' knowledge. At best, it motivated them.

This is self-contradictory.

Newton's laws contain no deity

Have you read much of what Newton wrote?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Good post. A short side note. The classical Greek idea of rationality is properly also at play,

Absolutely. And in addition to coming quite close to developing the scientific endeavor in antiquity, Greek thought was absolutely fundamentally at play in early modern natural philosophy and more general academic/scholarly thought at the time. Indeed, I am not at all sure that one could have found the kind of theological arguments upon which Newtonian mechanics or Euler's action principle were based without the heavy influence of Greek philosophy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You need to stop reading fairy tale books, it makes you sound adolescent.

Evidence wise, those unicorns are on par with your supernatural claims.
Odd that you immediately recognize the problem when it concerns unicorns, but not when it concerns other supernatural stuff.

Why is there a police force?

How is that evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're not following the rationale.

I do, which is why I recognize the fallacies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You talk way too much!

You talk way to little.
One-liner claims and no mention of any supporting evidence or logical argument at all.