It's been awhile, but yes. The point is our normal perception level so colors our view of reality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No debate anymore?
- Thread starter Jadamas
- Start date
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Some subsets of mathematics have been very successful in representing nature's behaviors is very well defined contexts. I've always wonder if the assumption that nature could ever be accurately and completely represented by the language of mathematics is possibly a delusion taken on faith to be true. Without a very well defined context, I wonder if nature is just too unpredictable to be accurately represented.
What do you think? Do you think mathematics is all-powerful when it comes to representing nature's behaviors?
What?
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Stars are the neurons of God's brain. Are you hard of hearing?
In case you have never heard of the idea of Universal mind here is a link for your edification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_mind
I do not invent the concepts I use in language. I just come up with metaphors and colorful commentaries.
I said what because i really didn't think anyone was that uninformed
The first line of your link is telling... Concept... Tries...
Here, i have an idea, stars are big exploding balls of hydrogen and helium that make a few heavier elements.. oh wait, yes, thats what they are
So you base your claim on an unproven 2500 year old idea... Makes sense.?
Does that mean the standard model is not the best current description of the sub atomic (excluding gravity)
Never seen woo as thoroughly researched and tested... Why is that?
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Dawkins is the most ignorant smart person I think I have ever encountered. That clip is embarrassing!
siti
Well-Known Member
I think he means the Daily Star...not the most widely respected scientific journal I seem to recall.
Pah! Ridiculous - that's exactly what the so-called "scientists" want you to believe...balls of hydrogen indeed - you'll be telling us that earth is a sphere and goes round the sun next...
...mind you - you'd think the God squad side would have a bit more sense than to keep replaying debates involving George Pell - especially ones where his opening gambit is to defend the superior morality of Christianty...its hard not to vomit listening to that...but there we go!
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Gluons and the Strong force have to come from somewhere. God is a good of an explanation as any other words.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Just because you have words to represent nature doesn't mean you actually know anything meaningful. Explain to me why atoms stay together in the first place. Or why electrons move at all. I get that you think everything that exists is so simply understood so you can't help yourself but insult by claiming I am uninformed. I think the problem is not that I am uninformed but your lack of intelligence in questioning what is actually happening in reality. Your blind devotion to materialism-realism is faith based. Hard determinism doesn't seem to exist in spite of your lack of acknowledging it.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Don't you realize that literally all of these issues you just outlined also apply (perhaps even moreso) to your claims?
Apologes
Active Member
No, it means that Carroll finds that fact insufficient to make big calls about the fundamental aspects of reality which we don't yet understand completely in some cases (eg correct model of the universe) yet wants to do exactly that when it comes to phenomena like consciousness which we understand just as little.
You're the one to bring 'woo' up so you tell me.
Last edited:
Did someone read this book?
I’m looking for a rating or comment before buying it:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22748242-7-reasons-to-believe-in-the-afterlife
I’m looking for a rating or comment before buying it:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22748242-7-reasons-to-believe-in-the-afterlife
Any fully paid up member of the flat earth society will tell you they have members all over the globe.
And Pell... Never mind.
I love it, you are stuck so you resort to the underhanded creationist method of making up seemingly impossible questions so you can pat yourself on the back. Only they are not impossible, they are well understood.
Atoms stay together because neutrons and protrons protrons are positively charged.
Electrons move because there is no friction so its initial velocity is maintained.
Reality? LOL.
Reality : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Old hat, try some modern research
There is NO life after death: Scientist [Carroll] insists afterlife is IMPOSSIBLE
https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...ath-what-happens-when-you-die-quantum-physics
He [Carroll] said: “Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there's no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die.”
Last edited:
WalterTrull
Godfella
Maybe the other way around. The physical world is in consciousness.
An article I have read about consciousness:
https://questionsonislam.com/article/consciousness
Not sure if it’s an islamic point of view or not.
https://questionsonislam.com/article/consciousness
Not sure if it’s an islamic point of view or not.