mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, I know that. What is your point?
-
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!
Science, religion and the truth
- Thread starter mikkel_the_dane
- Start date
Yes, I know that. What is your point?
WhyIsThatSo
Well-Known Member
Well, you are so big and bad now,
I'm just curious as to what you will do about it .
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
What I will do, when I am dead?
WhyIsThatSo
Well-Known Member
Yes, what will you do about it ?
Surely your "life" now has some meaning and purpose.
So, what will you do when it is taken from you ?
cry ?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Nothing, because when I am dead as really, really dead, then I am no more and then I can't do anything about, because I am no more.
You know me better that me, so you should know this.
Further you should know that I am a former professional, so that problem I solved many years ago. When I am dead, I am no more, so I can't have any problems.
WhyIsThatSo
Well-Known Member
When you die ( and you will die ) , it's just like walking through a door into another room.
Only you will not know what is happening to you because you are not "conscious" now.
And being "unconscious" you will be at the mercy of all sorts of "Beings", some good, some down right nasty.
You have been there many times before, and each time you were sent back,
after a little "spanking".
What you experience then depends on how much you work on yourSELF now.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So you are threatening me. Okay.
Why would I do that? I know full well that I am going to die. In fact, I have come close a few times.
WhyIsThatSo
Well-Known Member
No human being has ever really died, and they never will.
WhyIsThatSo
Well-Known Member
Threatening you how ? With the fact that you will die one day ?
That can't be a threat, that's something promised to All of us.
We are all in the same boat. Death is the enemy of us all.
Some of us just like to do something about it, that's all.
Contrary to ALL of the evidence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, what happens after. You tell me, something unpleasant will happen unless I do like you. That is a threat.
BTW death is consciousness, remember. Consciousness is all, there is.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But evidence is not truth. Evidence rest on the unprovable assumption that the universe is fair and thus natural and knowable.
Regards
Mikkel
Einstein 1915 assumed a static universe (whence his 'cosmological constant'). Friedmann 1922 proposed an expanding universe. More effectively, Lemaître 1930 was the first to realize that Relativity implied a moment of creation and in 1927 gave a reasoned account of the universe that would result and the evidence to support it. The sheer size of the universe and the sheer number of other galaxies is down to Hubble 1924. Hubble again, around 1930, discovered from the observed redshift of galaxies that the universe was indeed expanding, consistent with its having a beginning.Not necessarilyIn this case of "Big Bang" I just demand the same methodical principle as when I´m postulating alternative cosmological ideas and meet this claim from "standard cosmologists".
Besides all this, there is no possible "cosmological truth" before cosmological scientists can agree in ONE theory for everything.
These theories made predictions, one of which led to the discovery / identifying of the universe's microwave background, a great mine of information about the earliest days.
And so on through computer modeling of the early universe and its expansion, looking for what's needed to account for all that we presently observe about the cosmos.
Where's the problem, do you say? How would you go about it instead?
Best opinions are themselves a matter of opinion.
So in the end the most objective test available for science is, like science itself, pragmatic ─ does it work?
And I'll go out on a limb and say, Yes, pretty well ─ certainly better than any of the options if the task is making accurate statements about the nature of reality.
Yes, we are getting there. It is about how beliefs work, because that is your belief. So that is useful, yet beliefs are not useful. I will not let go of the apparent incoherence of your belief system. Either you stop treating your own beliefs as special and really useful or this goes on.
Beliefs influence humans and and that is a part of existence. Or humans are not a part of existence.
I am trying to get you to give up this "weird" dualism that beliefs are not a part of the universe, yet they influence how humans' lives are and that you speak with a straight face about useful, yet that is subjective and not science.
You use your notion of useful to evaluate other humans' behavior. Just come out and admit that is subjective. Be honest.
Regards
Mikkel
I never said it wasn't subjective. Where on earth did you get that idea? Beliefs are part of the human universe and do have impact on others, otherwise we wouldn't have so much conflict and discrimination. Just going to ignore all this?
Well my interest was purely out of curiosity in my youth, my occupation and training being in engineering, so I doubt I got the full aspect that studying it properly at college would have provided. And my interest then switched to psychology, which I probably found easier anyway - and more useful. Now, my brain is struggling to hang on to any faculties it might once have had, so one can see why I might not be predisposed to discuss such very much. And too many philosophers - I have looked at all the main ones - just seem so 'not very useful' to me these days. Still a lot better than studying religion though.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Then the universe for its parts have things, which can do subjective processes.
So I believe in God.
Now I know that you know that you can't evidence, reason, logic, proof, truth and what not show that that is wrong? Or can you?
Regards
Mikkel
Humans can do/believe things that are relative (subjective) to them. Not sure why one would then assume that the universe is involved subjectively. After all, humans are just a subset of the universe, and play a very small role if we are to accept what we know about the universe.
I would never suggest one could prove or disprove a God or gods, because I don't think it is possible to do so. I leave that up to individuals - their assessments and experiences. And where many seemingly have the latter to entice them into believing. Me, not so much, since everything I have experienced suggests no such being. Although as I have frequently commented, I am a little agnostic on this one.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Polymath257 said: ↑
The phrase 'magnetic fields of motion' is nonsense. So, for that matter, is the rest of that sentence.
At this point, you aren't doing science. You are doing some sort of mysticism. If that makes you happy, go for it.
Native said: ↑
This is the usual pathetic approach from you when you are seriously questioned. Playing ignorant and personally ridiculing a fellow debater.
It really shouldn´t be necessary to link you forward to the concept of "Magnetic Field" but here you have it. Try to overcome your automatically biased resistance of EM and accept facts.
Now try to deal with motions in magnetic fields and then moderate your own condescending comments:
"At this point, you aren't doing science. You are doing some sort of mysticism. If that makes you happy, go for it"
The phrase 'magnetic fields of motion' is nonsense. So, for that matter, is the rest of that sentence.
At this point, you aren't doing science. You are doing some sort of mysticism. If that makes you happy, go for it.
Native said: ↑
This is the usual pathetic approach from you when you are seriously questioned. Playing ignorant and personally ridiculing a fellow debater.
It really shouldn´t be necessary to link you forward to the concept of "Magnetic Field" but here you have it. Try to overcome your automatically biased resistance of EM and accept facts.
Congratulations
Now try to deal with motions in magnetic fields and then moderate your own condescending comments:"At this point, you aren't doing science. You are doing some sort of mysticism. If that makes you happy, go for it"