Actually, many very plausible theories regard the singularity at the beginning of the universe and the singularity in a black hole to be the same concept. In all singularity mathematical processes, the singularity equation falls into a dead end called infinity. since infinity is incompatible with every known law of physics, it cannot technically exist. In the "soap bubble" multiverse hypothesis currently receiving so much attention, this is easily accounted for because something so heavy and dense -having violated the structural laws of one universe- "falls" out and the lack of a black holes gravity containment allows the expansion of a new bubble/universe.
As far as oneness, I do not need to address every little concept that someone comes up with. How do you account for the hypothesis that this planet is the turd of a pink, flying elephant and we are nothing but mites, all neglecting to do our duty to eat as much thorium as possible each and every day? Until you find a pink, flying elephant you cannot compare the planet with it's turd and therefore my imaginary concept has as much validity as yours does. On Jan 13, 3:41 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 Jan, 19:18, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Your response was fine. You ordered your thoughts and responded in an > > easily followed manner. Welcome =-) > > > > Science isn't a religion, or an alternative to religion, but scientism > > > is like a religion, and is an alternative to religion. > > > I think very little about scientism and, other than a few letters in > > the names, they are not relevant to each other in my opinion. It is > > similar in my mind to the difference between studying the sun and > > worshipping Ra. > > > > I'm not a believer in any formal religion, yet I think I sometimes > > > pray. Most often, I only pray in a silly way, when I am merely > > > desperate for some unknown entity to step in and help me, but it's not > > > always so silly. Sometimes I have some belief in something or Someone > > > I am praying to. > > > My intended target was not you, but rather those fundies that > > LITERALLY pray for god to fix a pipe, prayed for food to be delivered > > (often mental illness, people who are afraid of certain foods), or > > allow their children to die while they pray for a cure. It seems to me > > that to believe in a god means that one should believe the cure to > > possibly be delivered via doctor rather than Gabriel. > > > > What, then, does one do with a self or with feelings that have gone > > > awry? Turn to science? To psychiatric medication, perhaps, because > > > the brain at least is a tangible object for scientific enquiry? Is > > > psychiatry scientific? > > > This is a topic of great debate actually. Since there is very little > > structure in psychiatry and ufologists, past life regressers, and > > other people are allowed to join the serious psychiatry associations, > > many say no. I say that it could and probably should be considered > > science, when the scientific method is applied. This is not what I > > intended to say however. I was referring to people that need > > emotionally cuddled by a concept "greater than themselves" that can > > promise an end to pain or a reward for "enduring" reality. These are > > the people that "feel small" without some personal connection to the > > universe and world, all the while forgoing their true connection to > > the universe and world. > > > > But delusion and failure are part of the human condition. Is there, > > > then, no difference between truth and falsehood, in any of the ways of > > > addressing our human limitations and failings? Is one religion, or > > > one therapeutic fad, as good, or as bad, as any another? If science > > > cannot address a question, then does that question have no answer, or > > > will any old answer do as well as another? > > > Science does not, can not, and will not console a person for failing. > > In science, failure is part and parcel of everything. Often people > > compare success with truth or failure with falsity, this isn't how > > science works. The studies that claim sweeteners cause cancer in rats > > and therefore humans is a great example. The study was a success. It's > > results showed it to be successful over and over. Yet the entire study > > promotes a false concept. The "true" results of that study, and many > > more, is that anything injected into an animal in large quantities > > (sometimes as much as a 5th of the rats bodyweight) is likely to cause > > cancer. > > If a question cannot be addressed by science, either the person asking > > needs help in devising better, or more relevant, tests, or it is an > > inherently untestable concept like spirituality. > > > > Can you logically demonstrate their alleged self-defeating quality? > > > Free will existing if god created people knowing their decisions > > beforehand, god being far beyond human understanding unless the human > > is the one describing him and his need for your money, etc., there are > > plenty but I've been asked not to offend people with opinions and > > ideas that run contrary to them. > > Yet 'free will' is incompatible with the concept of a space-time > continuum. And a space-time continuum is compatible with the concept > of Oneness. How do you reconcile that? > > > > > > I can be lost in wonder at the structure of the ribosome, or the > > > Triangulum galaxy, or the set of zeros of the Riemann zeta function > > > (but is mathematics a science?), and at the human mind(s) that can > > > discover (or invent) such things, but there is much to wonder about > > > that does not seem to form a subject for scientific enquiry, but is at > > > least as important as anything in science, such as ethics. ("The > > > starry heavens above, the moral law within.") > > > Ethics is an awesome example of using the scientific method to examine > > concept rather than simple reality. The development of ethics has been > > the subject of biologists, sociologists, palaeontologists, > > archaeologists, etc., and ethics pre-date religion. Unless one tries > > to argue that chimpanzees and dogs are religious, ethics is not even > > a human concept. Burning for eternity for disobeying ethics is the > > human invention. > > > Yes, mathematics is a science. It is testable and predictable. > > > For your final paragraphs, yes paranormal is generally that which is > > not in the norm, therefore untestable. > > I would never presume to tell you what to believe, but if you present > > anything as evidence or try to convince me of it's truth, you allow me > > to criticise it. This holds true with ghosts, gods, or ones. This is > > the primary mistake that religion, paranormalists, and philosophers > > make, they presents their own existence as evidence, books written by > > people that profit from them as proof, and concepts that directly > > contradict themselves as well as the idea that the concept was created > > to injure. The idea that the universe couldn't have come from nothing > > therefore a god came from nothing to create the universe is one. > > Rather, energy is neither created nor destroyed. And, if energy is > the substance of God, then He would have always existed and always > will and there is no discrepancy between that kind of God and this > universe. The whole concept of coming forth from nothing is what is > suspect, here. It only takes a certain geometric configuration for > the energy to 'appear' to come from nowhere or nothing when it, more > likely, just came from the previous Big-Bang cycle. > > > On Jan 12, 10:03 am, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 12, 3:48 am, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why do so few people (otherwise intelligent for the most part) have > > > > such a tweaked view of science? I'm so tired of hearing it described > > > > as a religion (oh ya, well you worship science!), a dogma (ya but > > > > since science says...then you have to believe it!), a choice (just > > > > because you like science, doesn't mean I have to!), ETC...!!!!! > > > > Science is a method of understanding the world around the person in > > > > question. It is not an alternate to religion. > > > It's not hard > > > to see that people sometimes confuse science with scientism (whether > > > or not they believe in scientism), unless you deny that the word > > > 'scientism' has any clear meaning. Do you? > > > > > Science is the direct examination of evidence. It is only useful when > > > > contemplating something testable or checkable. > > > > Have you ever had a leak and systematically checked for which pipe it > > > > was? Welcome to science. > > > > Have you ever had question and looked for an answer or asked someone > > > > that has? welcome to science. > > > > Have you ever altered a recipe because something sounded good or you > > > > thought might work? welcome to science. > > > > Fair enough. > > > > > If you have ever prayed for your pipe to stop leaking, prayed for an > > > > answer, or prayed for food to make itself, you aren't a scientist and > > > > very likely will never have the capacity for science. > > > > > Science does not give a damn about you or your feelings > > > > > it is a concept and a method, not a consoler for delusion or failure. > > > > > Science does not care about oneness or deities. Since these are > > > > generally self defeating logical concepts > > > > > and not concepts that appear > > > > in the natural world, science COULD NOT speak on them and never does. > > > > Whereof science cannot speak, must all remain silent? > > > > > Science does not care about whether or not you are confused on some > > > > philosophical concept. Science can however, allow you to explore and > > > > investigate an amazing world surrounded by a complex solar system, in > > > > a superbly beautiful galaxy. > > > > > Science can allow you to understand that simply existing is such a > > > > beautiful and awesome concept, that no little metaphysical idea needs > > > > be entertained if one wants to be amazed, confused, or challenged by > > > > everything that they purport to search for. > > > > I can't see what you are saying here. You have some sense of beauty > > > and awe (good, that speaks well of you), but you seem to be saying > > > that you owe it all to science, in much the same pious way that > > > religious people are often inclined modestly to attribute all good > > > human qualities to God. Is this not somewhat religious of you? If > > > not, then what exactly are you saying, in scientific terms? > > > > > -Personal note:- > > > > It will take all of your energy and attention to understand even a > > > > small amount of the knowledge that awaits you and is literally just > > > > sitting there waiting for you to find it. Don't waste life on unproven > > > > concepts reinforced with prophets and people that are proven to be > > > > wrong and/or nonexistent. > > > > I can never get rid of my feeling of stupidity for not yet seeming to > > > have seen this 'proof' that is supposed to be out there somewhere: a > > > proof that all manner of things (never exactly specified, it seems) do > > > not exist, and that belief in all manner of things is 'irrational'. > > > > To take a specific example of something in which I believe personally, > > > which I think of as being 'paranormal', yet which I do not think of as > > > being > > ... > > read more »
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
