Print

[Baggins]

OK, back to the real topic...Perception is at the heart of what you're trying to say I think.  Time, the universe, and in a sense our very reality(as we call it) is nothing but an illusion or living dream of some greater conciseness.  Not a being(as in a creator), but a collective of thought and experiences...How's that for deep...

I for one, don't "know" for sure if there "is" a God...But, the alternative is just too depressing and pointless.  Without the concept of good and evil, morality is nothing but a word to express an emotion.  Ok, enough of that...

I don't follow Einstein's explanation of time being relative to direct observation.  I see it as a flowing river, moving in one direction and on a set path.  My future isn't anothers past...Regardless of distance, direction or speed of the observed and/or observer.  If it's 5 o'clock in my living room and some one views me from Mars, it's still 5 o'clock.  That might not be the best way to put it, but it's about as simple as I can make it.

I still don't see the correlation between time and spirituality...Other than perceptions change over time.

[ducksoup]

Freeman Dyson theoretical physicist and mathematician

Antonino Zichichi physicist

John Polkinghorne theoretical physicist, theologian, writer, and priest... professor of Mathematical physics,  Cambridge

Owen Gingerich astronomer

John T. Houghton

R. J. Berry

Michał Heller

Eric Priest authority on Solar Magnetohydrodynamics

Christopher Isham theoretical physicist

Henry F. Schaefer, III chemist

Robert T. Bakker  Paleontologist

Francis Collins  Director NIH former director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute

Noella Marcellino  microbiologist

Simon C. Morris paleontologist

John D. Barrow cosmologist

Stephen Barr physicist

Karl W. Giberson physicist

Martin Nowak evolutionary biologist and mathematician

John Lennox mathematician

Jennifer Wiseman  head of the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics at NASA

Some courtesy Wiki

[ducksoup]

Religion without Science would still be thinking witches were casting spells on people and that kids that convulse on the ground have a demon inside them. (Mark 9).

Again, name me one well known scientist or philosopher that would agree with you. Name me one well known Christian apologist that would agree with you. In this case, such an appeal to majority and authority will reveal your view is probably not reasonable; plus, you've added no reasonable support for your claims.

This idea that there is a divide between science and spiritual ideas is absurd. If one believed epilepsy was a demon, due to faith and religion, but science showed it was a brain abnormality which could be treated with medication, that one would drop such ignorant beliefs if he were reasonable.




Anyways, I hope this can go back to the original subject matter. Forsythia brought up freewill in relation to Einstein's relativity, which was a good point.

Oh yeah, which logical fallacy is it that says everyone is on my side, so you lose?

[LessGovernment]

Xerxes; stop beating the "there is NO GOD" drum ... I remember you saying...

...if they start talking about it having attributes that have no evidence to support such claims, then I'll point that out, and explain why I don't accept such things. - and - I will use it against you here ...

Why would you use Einstein and Steven Hawking to support your bias NOW that there is NO GOD?  And, would it be safe to say we can see reluctance in your love for Steven Jay Gould as a CREDIBLE source NOT to believe in a Creator; since you LOST with your earlier drawing from his book?  Now you throw him under the bus as an "illogical" and "incoherent" writer(like me?)

You call this SCIENCE, the science of "time" - to supposedly know something that you claim I, and other Christians, CANNOT know(if there is a God)?  Your deity for evolution is "TIME"; and Hawking's ASSUMPTION that evolution MUST HAVE happened leads him to talk this way "philosophically" or "scientifically" or "intellectually".

Can't time be MEASURED?  If it can, I think you either have to date those rock layers in the Geologic Column, pal!  OR, you better have and EYEWITNESS to one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal!  Steven Jay Gould's drawings DO NOT do it for me!  (and I will thank Hovind for pleading with Christians to ASK questions about these CLAIMS of millions of years)

You cite these "intellectual powerhouses" for the same reason I would use/cite/include Hovind, Walt Brown, Dr. John Whitcomb, Ray Comfort, Paul Washer, and John MacArthur to make a "spiritual", "intellectual", "philosophical", or "scientific" point stick.

Can I talk about the spiritual reasons for God EXISTING here on your thread here, since you brought it up?  Oh no, I have to stay "naturalistic", right?  So, OK, I will stick to SCIENCE and LOGIC as you think Hawking has MADE your case that there is NO GOD.

I'll mention again to everyone here how you used a drawing from a Steven Jay Gould book, and asked me to refute it, in another thread.  You are clearly name-dropping and mentioning Steven Jay Gould here, so, I will too ... remember the fancy picture depicting your evolution fairy tale that showed ...

#1) (from left to right in black and white) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of a fish were found in a rock layer called Devonian, they named it Eusthenopteron and estimated/printed that this particular lobe-finned fish lived 385 million years ago

#2) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of something they named Tiktaalik was recently found in that same rock layer called Devonian, and they estimated/printed it lived 375 million years ago, and that it EVOLVED from the Eusthenopteron over 10 million years;

#3) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of something they named Ichthyostega was found in the same rock layer called Devonian, and they estimated it lived 365 million years ago, and the picture showed it EVOLVED from the Tiktaalik 10 million years later(and... those still seem to exist TODAY as a “mudskipper” as seen in the National Geographic video/link provided by YOURS TRULY.

Remember how I asked you if you have any proof that the Devonian rocks THEMSELVES were separated by demonstrable physical evidence of 3 different catastrophes, 10 million years apart AT LEAST that would have buried each one of these species rapidly?

Remember how I asked you if you have any proof that the Devonian rocks THEMSELVES were dated in EACH case - separate from the fossils?

Remember Hovind telling the students "think about it!  NO FOSSILS COUNT for evidence for evolution" in his rebuttal to Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine "because you CANNOT PROVE that a fossil had ANY KIDS, especially ones of a different species"(in this case; just because they find a Eusthenopteron fossil in a Devonian rock layer, they CANNOT PROVE it had any kids - let alone EVOLVED into a Tiktaalik 10 million years later?

If anyone wants to head back over to that http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=26318.180 thread: Hovind says that specifically at the 45:27 mark during the debate with Shermer.  (Does T-M-T want to refute Hovind’s argument, and say Hovind “clearly has no clue as to the actual science used in various methods of dating…” [FOSSILS])

It seems to me the there exists NO EVIDENCE between the 3 different species depicted in that picture, to SUPPORT the idea that over a period of 20 million years time, the Eusthenopteron(a lobe-finned FISH which still exists today in the form of a celocant) became an Ichthyostega(a “mudskipper” which still exist today)…and, if myself and the other Christians are right; that your DATING ruse and fossil record/timeline is indeed a HOAX – your whole Hawking’s “there wasn’t enough TIME for a God to create” is absolute LUNACY, and simply more propaganda of another God-hater who speaks great swelling words to satisfy your BIAS!

Now, I thought you were DONE beating that horse - and now I have just pointed out “...and explain[ed] why I don't accept such things.” - Did you want to argue SCIENCE for the non-existence of God, or, change it to Einstein's and Hawking's philosophies as to why there is NO GOD; and brain wave studies about free will to PROVE there is NO GOD because we can see a 6 second bridge between making a decision, and acting on it based on one's belief system and education on some MRI scanner(that was initially invented by a "mentally diseased", "delusional", "who knew just enough science" young Earth creationist)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Vahan_Damadian

Seriously - you are clearly still beating the "there is GOOD REASON(scientific/philosophical) to believe there is NO GOD" here on MonroeTalks; when in fact there isn't - and all the Hovind/creationist bashing in the world by you, T-M-T, or Forsythia is NO CASE either...we ask questions...and you just seek to irritate and arouse...

Give it a REST, man - that's my THOUGHTFUL ANSWER.  Private emails between you and fellow atheists and Christian-bashers will draw less fire, and SOUND criticism of your MOCKING beliefs! 

[MonroeMonkey]

Ducksoup, do you have comprehension issues? Seriously. Or are you not reading my posts before you make comments?

I said, "Name me ONE well known scientist or philosopher that didn't (or doesn't) believe science played (or plays) a role in our formulation of spiritual views."

So, what exactly is your list of?

Your list had Francis Collins on it. I read his book called The Language of God. In it he shows how science DOES affect issues of FAITH. Such as issues on creation, evolution, homosexuality, demon possession, etc. And he's a Christian.

Comprehension. Comprehension.

Oh yeah, which logical fallacy is it that says everyone is on my side, so you lose?

You've yet to show me one name that says modern science doesn't play a role or influence our spiritual views these days.

Comprehension. Comprehension.

[MonroeMonkey]

Less, do you have comprehension issues? Seriously.

I NEVER said "THERE IS NO GOD."

I'm a Panentheist! Do you know what that means!? I'm a THEIST! Geez.

I've merely said I use "Occam's Razor" in relation to many views of GOD, such as manlike attributes of hate, wrath, thoughtful construction, control, etc., etc., etc.

My point in posting the Hawking video was to show that Scientists use Einstein's Relativity in relation to their views on god and its existence or lack of. And this topic was a question of, "How does this view of time affect your views of the spiritual, if at all?"

And I'm not even reading your off topic stuff about fossils. This is NOT the thread for such off topic rants.



Again, can we address the SUBJECT MATTER, which is Einstein's Relativity and its spiritual affects, if any.

[MonroeMonkey]

Anyways, this forum is a waste of time. I've come to agree with Less on this point.

People REFUSE to stay on topic. Over half of the posts in this thread alone have been off topic and purely trolling. Other topics, like, "Things in the Bible I Disagree with" and "Evolution Vs. Creationism" were for more heated debate, as I expected creationists to go into a frenzy when reality was presented. And I expected people to get irritated when I pointed out the war crimes in their Bible.



And strangely, the Administration told me in private that if I respond to the off topic trolls, in this thread, in the same manner in which they respond to me that the thread would be locked. With that logic, to get any thread closed, all one has to do is post off topic rants, get people angry, and have them insult you back.



This forum is a waste of my time and energy.

Peace out.

Don't kill each other!

[ducksoup]

Ducksoup, do you have comprehension issues? Seriously. Or are you not reading my posts before you make comments?

I said, "Name me ONE well known scientist or philosopher that didn't (or doesn't) believe science played (or plays) a role in our formulation of spiritual views."

So, what exactly is your list of?

Your list had Francis Collins on it. I read his book called The Language of God. In it he shows how science DOES affect issues of FAITH. Such as issues on creation, evolution, homosexuality, demon possession, etc. And he's a Christian.

Comprehension. Comprehension.

You've yet to show me one name that says modern science doesn't play a role or influence our spiritual views these days.

Comprehension. Comprehension.

Ahh, concede that you threw me a curve by representing that all scientists have faith in something.

So, which are you asking from, so I can know which you will reject…

Evidentialism, Foundationalism, Coherentism, Coherentism, or Skepticism.  Maybe some other theory?  Whatever, just randomly saying “prove me wrong” with such a huge generality is daunting.

I guess I am very confused because you say that man believed in ridiculous things in the past that were proved untrue scientifically, and leads one to believe you extend that forward as if saying that science will eventually prove it all, spirituality of whatever kind, wrong. 

Either way, condescension and rudeness are very unappealing characteristics that are meant to dissuade dissention.  But, I have noted that it is your favored tool.

I can just as well say clarity of thought, clarity of thought, say what you mean with clarity.

[ducksoup]

Anyways, this forum is a waste of time. I've come to agree with Less on this point.

People REFUSE to stay on topic. Over half of the posts in this thread alone have been off topic and purely trolling. Other topics, like, "Things in the Bible I Disagree with" and "Evolution Vs. Creationism" were for more heated debate, as I expected creationists to go into a frenzy when reality was presented. And I expected people to get irritated when I pointed out the war crimes in their Bible.



And strangely, the Administration told me in private that if I respond to the off topic trolls, in this thread, in the same manner in which they respond to me that the thread would be locked. With that logic, to get any thread closed, all one has to do is post off topic rants, get people angry, and have them insult you back.



This forum is a waste of my time and energy.

Peace out.

Don't kill each other!

Cool, how many times will you quit THIS topic?

[ducksoup]

Ducksoup, do you have comprehension issues? Seriously. Or are you not reading my posts before you make comments?

I said, "Name me ONE well known scientist or philosopher that didn't (or doesn't) believe science played (or plays) a role in our formulation of spiritual views."

So, what exactly is your list of?

Your list had Francis Collins on it. I read his book called The Language of God. In it he shows how science DOES affect issues of FAITH. Such as issues on creation, evolution, homosexuality, demon possession, etc. And he's a Christian.

Comprehension. Comprehension.

You've yet to show me one name that says modern science doesn't play a role or influence our spiritual views these days.

Comprehension. Comprehension.

Is that a chicken or the egg question?  Did spiritual views arrive before science?  Did science arrive first and form spiritual views.  I suspect that cavemen had no concept of science but could easily believe that some outside higher thing created fire. 

Also, if I found TWO of whatever you ask would that disqualify me because you ask for "ONE"?

Clarify, how can something formed long ago (spiritual views) be formulated by modern scientists?  Or does your question mean that modern science cannot create a new spirituality?  Or perhaps your sentence means that science always supports or denies spirituality when modern scientists look in a test tube?  You seem to THINK it is a clear question, but it is wild and very non specific.

[sammy]

Anyways, this forum is a waste of time. I've come to agree with Less on this point.

People REFUSE to stay on topic. Over half of the posts in this thread alone have been off topic and purely trolling. Other topics, like, "Things in the Bible I Disagree with" and "Evolution Vs. Creationism" were for more heated debate, as I expected creationists to go into a frenzy when reality was presented. And I expected people to get irritated when I pointed out the war crimes in their Bible.



And strangely, the Administration told me in private that if I respond to the off topic trolls, in this thread, in the same manner in which they respond to me that the thread would be locked. With that logic, to get any thread closed, all one has to do is post off topic rants, get people angry, and have them insult you back.



This forum is a waste of my time and energy.

Peace out.

Don't kill each other!

Wow! so you know how it feels when the admin. threatens you. I also know that feeling, since I was given a "time-out" when you couldn't handle my posts. Paybacks are ... whatever. May the gods go with you until you return in another persona. We will recognize you as one who brooks no opposition, no matter how many times you say you want "discussion". As Roy Rogers would say, "goodbye,good luck, and may the GOOD LORD take a likin' to ya!

[ducksoup]

And strangely, the Administration told me in private that if I respond to the off topic trolls, in this thread, in the same manner in which they respond to me that the thread would be locked. With that logic, to get any thread closed, all one has to do is post off topic rants, get people angry, and have them insult you back.



This forum is a waste of my time and energy.

Peace out.

Don't kill each other!

   Interesting hypothesis, is it based on evidence.  Did the Admin really tell you that they were trolls and you were being respectful and courteous and will be banned for that?  I have seen what I would have to call troll topics with the intent to claim that science proves faith false because both cannot coexist.  You call anyone that disagrees in any way "stupid" and often.  That, sir, is more likely your charge.

Just for clarity, I have not reported anyone for anything in years.

[ducksoup]

Some constructive advice, X, if you care to listen.

You always work from the premise that you are smarter than everyone else.  When someone does not get what you are trying to convey, you always and automatically claim their stupidity and repeat the exact same thing again.  It is rather egotistical to believe that others will completely understand every nuance of what you are saying because you are perfect.  If you ever pay attention to my posting I very frequently repeat what I said in a completely different way because I assume that I am at fault in using improper conveyance, not the receiver.  I have not seen you attempt to convey your ideas in another way.

If you wish to void others point by claiming logical fallacies, then don’t use them yourself.  I have pointed out a few, but they are a tiny portion of what you DO use.  What I have found absolutely stunning is you claim that another poster, usually Less, is using a logical fallacy so then his entire message is false.  But, you use that exact same logical fallacy in the same topic to prove yourself right and the other wrong.  If you are smart enough to recognize them, then you should be smart enough to avoid using them.  Unfortunately, it does seem to suggest that they are known and purposeful.

And then the one you most assuredly got in trouble over.  It is appropriate to say someone does not understand, or to clarify what you meant for understanding.  It could possibly be usable to say that your opinion is that the statement made is stupid.  But, calling others “stupid” as a person just because you think you re better without proof of that is very childish.  It shows that your logic skills are not well formed and you must cut the other down to show you are superior.

And lastly, saying you are just talking science when every topic, whether mentioned in the topic or not, is see through trolling.  If you want to talk logic, talk logic, if you want science talk science, but claiming that you intend anything but your personal belief that evidence based science disproves faith is not based in reality.  It is one thing to say that you disagree with the posters and calling them stupid because they do not agree with you 100%.

The idea of logic is to discuss philosophically and LEARN, not demand that everyone convert to your religion and bow down to your ego.  Although you claim to seek knowledge, you shun anything but your own preconceived ideas thus “proving” that you are smarter, more logical, more moral, better, I don’t know whatever emotional need it is you have to troll.

[ducksoup]

To answer to your OP.  The distortion of Einstein is interesting only in the concept that for your theorem to be true, then all of what is time, not just what we know of it happened in a blip and human kind an even tinier blip within that blip and we consciously maintain a false timeline progression from past to future to provide sanity.  That your “freeze frame” concept is all of reality in the same “freeze frame” and there is no other “freeze frame.”  All of what we consider time is false.  In that infinitesimally small bit of non time contains everything at all times.

Is it egotistical for us as humans to decree that we determine the rate of decay of the universe within that micro blip of non time? 

It also claims that the future is fixed and cannot be changed because it already happened in the micro non time blip that we consider our timeline.

Frankly, it has a great flaw.  The concept is dependant of light being the fastest thing possible.  If one can invent a way to go faster than the speed of light then the theory holds that one would go back in time.  That sole inventor could meet his grandfather and kill him, making his own birth impossible so then he cannot be born and later invent faster than light time travel and cannot kill his grandfather because he didn’t exist.  But, if he does then he repeats the same death of his grandfather and therefore never existed.

That was easy, but I am sure you can struggle out a way to call me stupid, or that I cannot understand what you said, or something other that is condescending to prove that you are the only holder of logic.

[LessGovernment]

as I expected creationists to go into a frenzy when reality was presented.

And, as I suspected - he couldn't outlast or endure others who would pick out his motives for what they are; Christian-bashing in an attempt to encourage Christians to DOUBT their faith, and the truth of Jesus/creation/salvation/moral absolutes in the book of their faith.

As far as "staying on topic"; we can read his "rants", and even though it looks like it flows - he snowballs the topics into "God doesn't exists, and here is WHY these scholarly people I like say so" - to which I counter with scholarly people I like, and make sense to Christians...to which he calls "off topic", and "poisoning the well"...to which he then starts a NEW TOPIC in frustration and begins setting up NEW borders around his "context" and then DEMANDS everyone stay within his LIMITS as though we are not free to discuss...

The insults flow, such as "thoughtful response from THIS crowd", or "comprehension problem" - meant to irritate, or simply toot his own horn, which agitates a response from the crowd; and so I jump in in disagreement with HOW Hawkins approaches his atheism with a built-in ASSUMPTION evolution happened.

As far as I am concerned, I addressed enough of his "subject matter" directly enough(outside his rigid BOUNDARIES he had set up and hoped to CONFINE me in), as he was clearly CHALLENGING everyone's "intellect" and "understanding" as to what REALITY is ... and ... he spelled out the name Steven Jay Gould(for WHAT reason, I questioned), to which I responded he is just another non-believer in the "a Creator-did-it" camp(to add to Xerxes LIST of those who don't believe in God/Creator), and used Xerxes OWN words/post to discredit Gould, then the fossil-record, then Hawking's clear bias and approach as "lunacy" IF evolution didn't happen the way ALL these guys think it did(with NO empirical scientific evidence).

Haven't studied Einstein; haven't studied most of what Xerxes has studied - did watch some of his videos, and read what he wrote - but, don't care to study "the other side" either to "qualify" myself for debating the OVERALL topic "how did we get here, and where are we headed". 

All his posts sound all nice and intellectual, and the brainwave science stuff is "neat" to - but clearly - he is Christian-bashing with the condescending tone "we're smart, you're dumb"(and, you're even dumber if you don't stay within the boundaries of what I GIVE YOU) - but - he opened the door with his own WORDS - and I went to challenge these assertions about the non-existence of God scientifically in MY OWN unique way, peppered with some references to other things Xerxes has used.

Opening NEW threads does not make him immune from having his dogma challenged - he can come at it any way he wants - but overall, it has been "Christianity is a lie, the Bible is a forgery, and Jesus is a joke; there is NO God, there was no creation event, and no catastrophic flood, and only the weak-minded fall for religion" ... I didn't "WIN", I never set out to "WIN"; I merely buffered him as a bully, and hoped he would BACK OFF.

Thread views greatly increased, and slowly OTHERS got involved on his side, and my side; that is what he wanted - so - all went well in MY opinion; GOOD DISCUSSION - even if he is right, and I am wrong! 

[and BTW: Duck, you NAILED IT - "Either way, condescension and rudeness are very unappealing characteristics that are meant to dissuade dissention.  But, I have noted that it is your favored tool."]

Peace[out] be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Ephesians 6:23