DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> An unexpected religious conversation...
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 651 - 675 of 1009, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/21/2009 08:10:51 PM · #651
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To quote Hawking, "The idea that Bangs follow Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe. Though no theory has been developed to explain how this could ever happen, it has a certain philosophical appeal to people who like the idea of a universe without end." I agree with him in seeing the appeal of such a position, but it's basically "scientific religion", that is, an idea with no scientific merit (ie. it's not a theory), only philosophical appeal.


You've tried to argue many times of a "scientific faith" and I can't help but wonder why you keep going down this path. What does it serve? Suppose you're right and science is ultimately nothing more than a glorified religion. What then? Does that put your religion in a better light? Makes it more valid as a tool of truth? Your debating strategy is much like a voting troll trying to bring down other people's scores in the hopes that their entry would benefit. It's a flawed strategy.

Message edited by author 2009-10-21 20:11:47.
 10/21/2009 08:16:20 PM · #652
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To quote Hawking, "The idea that Bangs follow Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe. Though no theory has been developed to explain how this could ever happen, it has a certain philosophical appeal to people who like the idea of a universe without end." I agree with him in seeing the appeal of such a position, but it's basically "scientific religion", that is, an idea with no scientific merit (ie. it's not a theory), only philosophical appeal.


You've tried to argue many times of a "scientific faith" and I can't help but wonder why you keep going down this path. What does it serve? Suppose you're right and science is ultimately nothing more than a glorified religion. What then? Does that put your religion in a better light? Makes it more valid as a tool of truth? Your debating strategy is much like a voting troll trying to bring down other people's scores in the hopes that their entry would benefit. It's a flawed strategy.


It becomes a bridge of commonality that can foster understanding between the sides. My ultimate goal in all the years I've been on Rant is not to "win" (although the competitive side of me takes over at times), but to serve as a Rosetta Stone for the Scientifically minded. They can, at times, see the Religiously minded as a foreign species and I'm here to be a translator. One step is to point out how we all have our own "faith" concerning our worldview. If you can see the trait in yourself it's easier to understand it in another.
 10/21/2009 09:10:19 PM · #653
Do you really see yourself as indicative of the religiously inclined, Doc? Not to be too snide about it, but I'd wager 95% of "religious" types are the people who attend "Megachurch" services, watch Benny Hinn and find themselves mailing him a cheque, or are wont to treat the Pope like a frikkin' rock star.

Ultimately, the bulk of your metaphysical First Cause arguments do little more than begin to make a minor case for Deism...from there, all your work is ahead of you to convince anyone that your particular brand of Theism is more than loose re-tellings of ancient folklore. Me, I'm happy to listen to those who look forward with new ideas and technologies, rather than those who look behind to an unchanging collection of "scripture".
 10/21/2009 09:26:37 PM · #654
Originally posted by dponlyme:
My point here is that I, unlike you, do not decide for God what is good based on my own moral judgments but upon the relationship I have with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I am led to a greater understanding, day by day, in what is or is not moral. The more I submit to his counsel the more is revealed. Just as Jesus denied himself and indeed submitted himself so that I could be reconciled to the father I seek to submit myself wholly to his Holy Spirit. I accept correction when I do wrong and learn.


How does god/jesus/holy spirit communicate with you? Do you hear voices, or is it just a feeling you get?

And how do you recognise that it is god communicating with you, and not an evil entity, or simply a figment of your imagination?
 10/21/2009 09:33:36 PM · #655
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It becomes a bridge of commonality that can foster understanding between the sides.

Whether it's "scientific faith," "absolute morality" or "multiple universes", continually attempting to jam every shape and size of peg into your round holes does not foster understanding. All it does is make others question whether you even understand the basic concepts you're attempting to debate. Scientific faith is a complete oxymoron. Every idea faces immediate skepticism, every proposal is doubted, every hypothesis pooh-poohed until reviewed, tested, re-tested, verified, poked, prodded and turned inside out... and after all that, doubts will still linger. Germs? Bah! Atoms? No way! Black holes? You must be mad! It takes years, decades, or even centuries of research to build acceptance for a theory, and nothing is sacredâ every scientist in the world would love nothing more than to blast an established theory to smithereens. As basic as it gets, from the 2002 Scholastic Children's Dictionary: science is "the study of nature and the physical world by testing, experimenting and measuring." Experiments such as the Planck observatory, Large Hadron Collider and "Microscope" space project are specifically designed for precise measurements to test principles of string theory, the Big Bounce and other proposed models. Intelligent design proposes no experiments and measures nothing because the answer is both assumed and defined as unknowable. It's as far removed from science as you can possibly get.
 10/21/2009 09:46:24 PM · #656
Originally posted by david_c:
Do you really see yourself as indicative of the religiously inclined, Doc? Not to be too snide about it, but I'd wager 95% of "religious" types are the people who attend "Megachurch" services, watch Benny Hinn and find themselves mailing him a cheque, or are wont to treat the Pope like a frikkin' rock star.

Ultimately, the bulk of your metaphysical First Cause arguments do little more than begin to make a minor case for Deism...from there, all your work is ahead of you to convince anyone that your particular brand of Theism is more than loose re-tellings of ancient folklore. Me, I'm happy to listen to those who look forward with new ideas and technologies, rather than those who look behind to an unchanging collection of "scripture".


Well, David, it's no different than the fact that 95% of scientists are socially inept virgins. Actually I attended a "megachurch" for 15 years of my life (6,000 membership) and actually went to the school there from 1st to 6th grade. I am uncommon in the lengths I have travelled down both roads, but I'm far from unique. I find people like myself everywhere I live (and I've lived in a number of places).

I do agree that my arguments here are more inline with deism than Christianity, but you gotta crawl before you can walk. :) It should also serve as evidence that I'm more interested in finding common ground than converting anybody.
 10/21/2009 09:48:07 PM · #657
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I, unlike you, do not decide for God what is good based on my own moral judgments but upon the relationship I have with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I am led to a greater understanding, day by day, in what is or is not moral.

How does god/jesus/holy spirit communicate with you? Do you hear voices, or is it just a feeling you get?
And how do you recognise that it is god communicating with you, and not an evil entity, or simply a figment of your imagination?

Ah, right there is the contradiction: deciding "what is good based on my own moral judgments" and deciding that a deity is telling you what is good (also an interpretation of your own judgements) is the same thing, but with the extra step of rationalizing away personal responsibility for your decisions.
 10/21/2009 09:52:06 PM · #658
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It becomes a bridge of commonality that can foster understanding between the sides.

Whether it's "scientific faith," "absolute morality" or "multiple universes", continually attempting to jam every shape and size of peg into your round holes does not foster understanding. All it does is make others question whether you even understand the basic concepts you're attempting to debate. Scientific faith is a complete oxymoron. Every idea faces immediate skepticism, every proposal is doubted, every hypothesis pooh-poohed until reviewed, tested, re-tested, verified, poked, prodded and turned inside out... and after all that, doubts will still linger. Germs? Bah! Atoms? No way! Black holes? You must be mad! It takes years, decades, or even centuries of research to build acceptance for a theory, and nothing is sacredâ every scientist in the world would love nothing more than to blast an established theory to smithereens. As basic as it gets, from the 2002 Scholastic Children's Dictionary: science is "the study of nature and the physical world by testing, experimenting and measuring." Experiments such as the Planck observatory, Large Hadron Collider and "Microscope" space project are specifically designed for precise measurements to test principles of string theory, the Big Bounce and other proposed models. Intelligent design proposes no experiments and measures nothing because the answer is both assumed and defined as unknowable. It's as far removed from science as you can possibly get.


Well, I see my work is unfinished. :P

By the way, to quote Brian Greene, a Rosetta stone of his own in String Theory, "Without monumental technological breakthroughs, we will never be able to focus on the tiny length scales needed to see a string directly...we would need an accelerator the size of the galaxy to see individual strings." I think you always hurt your case by stretching the truth.

What will the new Large Hadron Collider at Cern have to say about string theory, the alleged theory of everything that describes nature as composed of tiny wriggling strings?

String theorists hope that it will confirm supersymmetry, a notion that doubles the kinds of particles in the universe. and was originally invented as part of string theory. String theorists would be gratified by its discovery, but that would not prove their case.

In most cases, to test string theory directly, experimenters would have to build an accelerator to boost particles to the so-called Planck energy, at which âstringyâ effects are expected to show up, roughly 10 quadrillion trillion electron volts.
 10/21/2009 10:32:08 PM · #659
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How are you discrediting Intelligent Design? It's impossible as it is the ever-shifting goalpost and all things could be attributed to it.

First sentence: a) Is that a real question, and if so, b) Do I take that to mean you give creationism credence?
Second sentence: I don't understand.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And I'd object to your "repeatedly tested" bit. How do you do that? Keep putting numbers in and see if you get numbers out? There are no testable hypotheses these ideas make. You don't put numbers in and verify the numbers out against observation.

Mathematical physics is a real scientific discipline and the theories--the formulae--are testable. I am no mathematician as evidenced by what I'm about to say: if the numbers crunch, the theories arising from the formulae are good. Relativity, for example, is blighted with the singularity, and needs to be replaced at least on the quantum scale, and everyone knows it. I.e, science at work.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So actually I'm still lumping the two things in the same "non-scientific" category. One may suit your tastes better, but that doesn't remove it from the basket.

So let me make sure I understand you: mathematical physics is not science, in the same sense that intelligent design--creationism--is not science. Is that what you mean to say?
 10/21/2009 10:51:38 PM · #660
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How are you discrediting Intelligent Design? It's impossible as it is the ever-shifting goalpost and all things could be attributed to it.

First sentence: a) Is that a real question, and if so, b) Do I take that to mean you give creationism credence?
Second sentence: I don't understand.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And I'd object to your "repeatedly tested" bit. How do you do that? Keep putting numbers in and see if you get numbers out? There are no testable hypotheses these ideas make. You don't put numbers in and verify the numbers out against observation.

Mathematical physics is a real scientific discipline and the theories--the formulae--are testable. I am no mathematician as evidenced by what I'm about to say: if the numbers crunch, the theories arising from the formulae are good. Relativity, for example, is blighted with the singularity, and needs to be replaced at least on the quantum scale, and everyone knows it. I.e, science at work.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So actually I'm still lumping the two things in the same "non-scientific" category. One may suit your tastes better, but that doesn't remove it from the basket.

So let me make sure I understand you: mathematical physics is not science, in the same sense that intelligent design--creationism--is not science. Is that what you mean to say?


I never know how far we should nest replies. I'll just comment below:

What I meant about the Intelligent Design theory was to say that as a scientific theory it is bankrupt because, as you said, it doesn't make testable predictions. But as far as I know now, String Theory is actually exactly the same. To see if I am incorrect I googled, "what testable predictions does string theory make?" The very first link is a powerpoint presentation well beyond my education, but the last slides seem to say there is very little testable in the theory (although you could actually rule it out). Physics forum could only give us the "hope" we might one day have testable predictions. Further down another quote by Brian Greene (in 2006), "Shedding light on this point, Brian Greene whom Lee Smolin quoted in his book as seen above, wrote in his article, âThe Universe on a Stringâ, in The New York Times (October 20, 2006), âWe understand string theory much better now than we did 20 years ago. Weâve developed powerful techniques of mathematical analysis that have improved the accuracy of its calculations and provided invaluable insights into the theoryâs logical structure. Even so, researchers worldwide are still working toward an exact and tractable formulation of the theoryâs equations. And without that final formulation in hand, the kind of detailed definitive predictions that would subject the theory to comprehensive experimental vetting remain beyond our reach,â"

I really don't think I'm cherry picking here. String theory is not a scientific theory in the sense that debators regularly use to strike down Intelligent Design. But because I understand the value behind it, I do think we should give it some legitimate sounding title. I came up with Scientific Philosophy. Personally, I would be more willing to apply such a title of respect upon String Theory than Intelligent Design, although I could call ID by the same name as well.

Message edited by author 2009-10-21 22:53:58.
 10/21/2009 10:57:03 PM · #661
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
By the way, to quote Brian Greene, a Rosetta stone of his own in String Theory, "Without monumental technological breakthroughs, we will never be able to focus on the tiny length scales needed to see a string directly...we would need an accelerator the size of the galaxy to see individual strings." I think you always hurt your case by stretching the truth.

I never suggested that strings or quantum loops could be seen directly (they would be far too small to resolve), so how is that stretching the truth?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
String theorists hope that it will confirm supersymmetry, a notion that doubles the kinds of particles in the universe. and was originally invented as part of string theory. String theorists would be gratified by its discovery, but that would not prove their case.

Since you seem to respect Hawking, I'll quote him: "I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of one hundred dollars that we won't find the Higgs. If the LHC does find supersymmetry, this would be one of the greatest achievements in the history of theoretical physics. [It] would be a key confirmation of string theory. Whatever the LHC finds, or fails to find, the results will tell us a lot about the structure of the universe."

In addition, look up ESA's Planck mission, the Microscope mission, the STEP mission and neutral hydrogen absorption. Remember, the point of this is not that any single experiment will absolutely prove a given theory, but that these models aren't just some untestable philosophy as you seem to claim. Experiments, tests and measurements are already being conducted.
 10/21/2009 11:16:17 PM · #662
Jason, I still think it's outrageous to equate creationism with, say, string theory in any sense. I accept that the theoretical models provided by mathematical physics are currently difficult to test physically. But to equate junk science with real science derived from mathematical physics and which is, in fact, ultimately testable, is a serious lapse. The formulae gave rise to the theories, and the theories promoted the discovery of a way to test them. How is that unscientific?

Message edited by author 2009-10-21 23:17:52.
 10/21/2009 11:38:38 PM · #663
Originally posted by Louis:
Jason, I still think it's outrageous to equate creationism with, say, string theory in any sense. I accept that the theoretical models provided by mathematical physics are currently difficult to test physically. But to equate junk science with real science derived from mathematical physics and which is, in fact, ultimately testable, is a serious lapse. The formulae gave rise to the theories, and the theories promoted the discovery of a way to test them. How is that unscientific?


Perhaps I'm just taking umbrage that I don't see rabid posters on forums bemoaning the misuse of the word "theory" in "String Theory" when they would do so in a zeptosecond if someone tried to slip by a mention of "Intelligent Design Theory". I know you think it's outrageous to equate the two, but that's your worldview. I don't blame you and I'm not about to go trying to sell ID in high school science classes. But if we teach our high schoolers what a "theory" is, then we had best be consistent with the application of the word. I know String Theory feels better and seems more helpful, but it properly shouldn't be included under the heading of "scientific theory".

I would also point out that Intelligent Design IS "ultimately testable" if you can rule out all natural methods for bringing about life, then you must be left with something at least along the lines of ID. Of course doing so would be akin to building an accelerator the size of the galaxy. It's just not going to be done so we might as well not consider it.

Shannon, I actually already said the same as the Hawkings quote when I said, "...the last slides seem to say there is very little testable in the theory (although you could actually rule it out)." I meant that if Supersymmetry is not found then String Theory is dead. However, importantly, if supersymmetry IS found, it does not prove String Theory.

I claimed you were stretching the truth because you made it sound like the LHC was going to provide observable evidence to confirm String Theory when it can do no such thing. It can only rule it out. To give an aburd analogy, if I postulate there is a disease caused by a tiny demon which always causes your ears to turn red and I find a patient has red ears, we would not claim this is evidence confirming or proving my demon theory. However, if we could never find a patient with red ears we would know that such a disease never existed.

Message edited by author 2009-10-21 23:40:51.
 10/21/2009 11:46:06 PM · #664
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps I'm just taking umbrage that I don't see rabid posters on forums bemoaning the misuse of the word "theory" in "String Theory" when they would do so in a zeptosecond if someone tried to slip by a mention of "Intelligent Design Theory".

But wouldn't that be because one is decidedly real science, and one is decidedly junk science? How is it my world view that, say, string theory has at its core the scientific discipline of mathematical physics, while intelligent design has at its core the very conclusion that it seeks to prove?

And finally, I think you must firmly state whether you accept intelligent design--creationism--or whether you do not, so that we (or at least I) know what kind of science you accept, and can argue accordingly.
 10/21/2009 11:56:47 PM · #665
Intelligent design is the only theory scientists can ever muster up when trying to prove the existence of God. Like Einstein said, his life's work was dedicated to finding out who and what God is. But most who discredit creationism should take into account that they, like most people here aren't physicists so they know too little to say whether its valid. Like a Russian doll, truth through science can be found layer after layer. The LHC can help us figure out the 4th dimension, should we even care to worry about the 5th and 6th, and on and on?

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 00:37:12.
 10/22/2009 12:12:45 AM · #666
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps I'm just taking umbrage that I don't see rabid posters on forums bemoaning the misuse of the word "theory" in "String Theory" when they would do so in a zeptosecond if someone tried to slip by a mention of "Intelligent Design Theory". ..But if we teach our high schoolers what a "theory" is, then we had best be consistent with the application of the word.

It's appalling that a med school graduate would have such a weak grasp of scientific theory. Hawking again: "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

Hawking himself refers to strings as a scientific theory (see previous quote). Experiments to test the predictions of string theory are underway, while intelligent design makes no predictions and cannot be disproven.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I claimed you were stretching the truth because you made it sound like the LHC was going to provide observable evidence to confirm String Theory when it can do no such thing.

That's precisely what it would do. A Higgs boson would be observable evidence of the supersymmetry predicted by strong theory. "If the LHC does find supersymmetry, this would be one of the greatest achievements in the history of theoretical physics. [It] would be a key confirmation of string theory."
 10/22/2009 12:19:19 AM · #667
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps I'm just taking umbrage that I don't see rabid posters on forums bemoaning the misuse of the word "theory" in "String Theory" when they would do so in a zeptosecond if someone tried to slip by a mention of "Intelligent Design Theory".

But wouldn't that be because one is decidedly real science, and one is decidedly junk science? How is it my world view that, say, string theory has at its core the scientific discipline of mathematical physics, while intelligent design has at its core the very conclusion that it seeks to prove?

And finally, I think you must firmly state whether you accept intelligent design--creationism--or whether you do not, so that we (or at least I) know what kind of science you accept, and can argue accordingly.


I guess we don't need to belabor it. I was totally unaware of this wiki quip before I went to the article for Scientific Theory, but it distills perfectly what I am trying to say about String Theory: "In the humanities we find theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment." I would clearly place String Theory (and all the others we're talking about) in this category.

At the end of the day we both agree String Theory is important work being done and Intelligent Design is much less so.

If people want to show me that String Theory can make testable predictions I will accept a link to any web page which professes such a concept so we can evaluate it in its entirety. I have already presented 3 quick Google hits that say it does not. Otherwise, we can let it lie.
 10/22/2009 12:21:41 AM · #668
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I claimed you were stretching the truth because you made it sound like the LHC was going to provide observable evidence to confirm String Theory when it can do no such thing.

That's precisely what it would do. A Higgs boson would be observable evidence of the supersymmetry predicted by strong theory. "If the LHC does find supersymmetry, this would be one of the greatest achievements in the history of theoretical physics. [It] would be a key confirmation of string theory."


The point is Supersymmetry is predicted by a legion of such ideas (including the 10^400 versions of string theory). Which one is correct? It's a "key confirmation" because if we don't find Supersymmetry then String Theory is officially dead. As the slide presentation from my first link states, "String theory predicts gravity." Does that mean it's been confirmed?

TO go back to Hawking: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

You are welcome to use all the links you want to show me how String Theory does both.

EDIT to add: I keep finding these quotes that are too good to pass up:
"Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet... not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far â just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing... String theory has always had a few vocal skeptics... Sheldon Glashow, who won a Nobel Prize for making one of the last great advances in physics before the beginning of the string-theory era, has likened string theory to a 'new version of medieval theology,' and campaigned to keep string theorists out of his own department at Harvard. (He failed.)"

Do note that this person also uses the term "string theory" but clearly does not believe it is a theory.

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 00:30:51.
 10/22/2009 12:30:26 AM · #669
At what point do we rename this thread "An unexpected physics conversation"? At the least it has caused me to dust off my copy of The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. I'm also currently reading an article in The New Yorker which is where that quote above came from. Link Here

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 00:33:44.
 10/22/2009 12:36:02 AM · #670
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Intelligent design is the only theory scientists can every muster up when trying to prove the existence of God.

Intelligent design is a construct of desperate religious zealots, not scientists. No scientific method is involved.

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Like Einstein said, his life's work was dedicated to finding out who and what God is.

You'll have to provide a source for that one. If anyone was dedicated to a search for God, it certainly wasn't Einstein...

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own â a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
 10/22/2009 12:49:25 AM · #671
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If people want to show me that String Theory can make testable predictions I will accept a link to any web page which professes such a concept so we can evaluate it in its entirety.

Done. Go nuts. (This is one of the predictions that the LHC is supposed to test).
 10/22/2009 12:49:53 AM · #672
Well yes and no scalvert, I ask myself though, was Adam a super-ape or super-human ? he was created by something, things or one. if you believe in Evolution then it makes it easy to believe that a Superman is different in every timeline indigenous to the time of the evolution's precipice. If anything all these super hero films make you want to hate creationism because of its individualism. My point is there is no such thing as the superhuman authority because if you believe in evolution like I do, then all evidence suggests it happens on a massive and planetary scale pertaining to all of mankind.
 10/22/2009 12:56:58 AM · #673
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
was Adam a super-ape or super-human ? he was created by something, things or one.

Yep, an author. ;-)
 10/22/2009 01:01:11 AM · #674
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."

Also, this is a perfect of example of something science couldn't prove, or probably will ever prove. It could only get close at best, and prayer and the power of intention are noetic sciences, and though they prove little, a good point was made in a noetic science magazine that I once read explaining how prayer only works if done collectively and on a planetary scale. The majority of a civilization has to will the same things and perhaps god only listens then.

Good show on ABC radio right now. A rare show on tonight. local AM channel, not sure if link would work for all.
//www.wabcradio.com/

Tonight's show



Message edited by author 2009-10-22 01:12:05.
 10/22/2009 01:06:55 AM · #675
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
a good point was made in a noetic science magazine that I once read explaining how prayer only works if done collectively and on a planetary scale. The majority of a civilization has to will the same things and perhaps god only listens then.

If such a thing were actually possible, it would become obvious, demonstrable, and convincing for that particular religion as the "correct" one. However even among the faithful, it must be height of arrogance to think that God takes requests or would change anything on the basis of petition.

EDIT- Just in case, pray for my current entry. It sucks.

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 01:08:25.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 02:55:33 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 02:55:33 AM EDT.