---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been real and measurable except that we didn't have the instruments to do so, is it possible that there exists right now, something else which is real and measurable but for which we don't yet have the instruments for measuring? Aha, good question! By else I assume you means something interesting rather than just another subatomic particle that's virtually identical to all the others? Trouble is, if it's bigger than a wavelength of light which is 0.000000001mm then we'll be able to see it. Unless it's made of something really interesting which means it won't be able to see us either. But it's hard to imagine how something could exist without mass. Mass means gravity which is also measurable. So it's a puzzling thing indeed. But we don't know what we don't know, I imagine if it's undetectable and not interfering with our universe in any way it'll probably stay that way so we'll never know! On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:12 AM, salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : salyavin, it stopped me in my tracks here at the end when you say "...if it isn't measurable it isn't real." How about atoms? Were they unreal when they weren't measurable? No, they were always measurable, we just didn't have the technology to do it. Did they only become real when we became able to measure them? Of course these are rhetorical questions meant to make the point that I think one of the functions of science is to make measurable that which has been real all along but existing beyond the usual range of our senses. For this reason, I think some day science will *prove* the truth of many of the spiritual and some of the religious traditions. You never know your luck, so far it looks like the opposite is true. But people will always claim they have been vindicated if they can. Look at all the quantum mystics there are. How serious to take them? Basically, if you see the word "quantum" outside of a physics textbook, ignore it. Meanwhile, people take it on faith. Why? Because maybe human intuition is the best scientific instrument of all! It's great at some things. In the occasions in my life that I've ignored my inner voice things have gone always wrong. It's like our conscious ways of working out what to do are woefully inadequate compared to our instinctive selves. I don't think it works at all beyond our own personal experiences. I would say that the only people who ever came up with a good cosmological theory without the ability to test it (like the Greek speculation about atoms - it's Greek for "indivisible") got there more by luck and never knew if they were right or not. Which is why there are so many different "revealed" versions of the truth... On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:24 PM, salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : P.S.: Either you just made up what you attributed to me in a malicious attempt to make me look stupid, Yup, malicious that's me. You made yourself look stupid - not to mention exceptionally irritating - with your refusal to explain what you mean. See also our oft repeated jyotish discussion. And I notice from the Ed Fess blog that he uses the same lame argument about having to have read all types to know that you can discount them. Nonsense. If I was to say you have to have ridden every type of bicycle before you can say you don't like cycling what would you say? It's the concept dear..... or your thinking has been going off in the wrong direction, at least where classical theism is concerned. Depends which version of classical theism you are talking about, there appear to be hundreds but I've no doubt they can all be adapted to avoid having to provide any actual evidence beyond the "I want it to be like this" variety. I repeat my usual position that applies to all theism. It's unnecessary so why bother? That's a fab encapsulation by the way, not as elegant as Xeno but it sure is succinct. There is no conflict whatsoever between classical theism and science, including the laws of physics You may have found a version that doesn't but I can assure you that any god that has these qualities..... Transcendence Omnipotence Omniscience Omnipresence Absolute Benevolence ....but doesn't, or never has, interfered with his creation is missing a trick. The funny thing about the universe is that it looks exactly as one would if it wasn't made by a god with these classical theistic qualities. Odd that. But please don't write back with another "but you don't understand, my god is different..." it's the concept. I'm sure Ed Fess can wriggle his way round it with some other version but I really don't care. I convert for evidence. And necessity would count as a form of evidence. And there is no necessity, as well as the other major evidential problems. And like that we have a much better explanation. So really, why bother? Unless you want to. and if you want to, fine. Here's how science works. Someone has a model of how they think the world works - an old one is that the earth is the centre of the universe and everything else revolves round it. Looks good from a position standing on the Earth's surface but if you measure the way planets move you find you have a really complex set of mathematical calculations to make so you can make predictions about where they will be in the future. Sometime later someone thought that maybe the Earth isn't the centre of the universe and that everything went round the sun. Voila! all of a sudden things made more sense, and the universe had become simpler to explain. Simplicity in explanations is good. That's been going on for centuries, new measurements reveal that an old model of the universe is inadequate so a new one has to be drawn up. That process will continue until someone puts down their electron microscope and says that's it. Finished. Until that glorious day (if it ever happens) anyone with an idea that improves upon an old one has to provide a superior explanation to the one they are replacing. This will get accepted as the new paradigm. Simples. I ask myself what contribution the many versions of classical theism (or any sort - they are much of a muchness to me) is actually making that improves on what we have. Seems like not much, but as it concerns a prime mover it would have to be fundamental wouldn't it? It also seems to me that classical theism would be one of the early models that got superceded. If it was real it would be kind of hard for an accurate model to function without it I would have thought. But it determinedly refuses to be measurable except as something people want to be true. So the only way it isn't in conflict with science is because it isn't measurable. And if it isn't measurable it isn't real. It's the concept, it's wrong.
