One day we'll realize that we as living creatures can't preceive the universe as it is as we are unable to see the absolute objective truth (which exists btw).
That depends on your veiw of the the universe in whole.
Hell for all we know it truely is just a random chaotic smear of stuff that somehow got lucky and blarbed into what we have now.
"Maybe" it's all just dumb luck that formed the universe as it is now.
Perhaps if there is a universe 2,3,4,5 there may be a whole different variant.
Man kind is far too short sighted to even guess our own galaxy at the moment, let alone the full truth of what the universe is.
For all we know now, I can say that it's a box within a box within another box.
Science while it has provided neat little theories just opens more questions than before on our little plane of existance.
I'll go with my own feelings on this and say the world is flat,at the center of universe and that the celestial bodies circle MadAce.
1246 FTW
I corrected it.
Doh, I always forget that we are all figments of your Belgium Imagination.. Wait maybe that's why it exists.
I stopped reading the original post when they said that the universe seems set up to create the observer. If the universe were set up differently, then the observer would be different and one might think the universe was precariously balanced such that they could exist, without considering the possibility of other configurations that would produce humans, for example. Or there might not be any observer at all, at which point it would be irrelevant.
The anthrocentric principle is an approach that states that theories which contradict our existence here are nonsense, because obviously we exist. Some people take this a step further than the anthrocentric principle and propose that the world was created for us. It's a handwave that some people might not notice, but it is a perversion of the principle.
But as a final though, i always was under the assuption that the bible was a book written for non-christians to help them find there way to god, and it was never intended to be 'bible bashed' as it is today. My pasture taught me that your bible and reading it is te single most personal thing you can do, and its basically a direct line to God (if you believe this draenor, then i thank you for showing me this).
So im confused why i should listen to this man, when according to my pasture, God Himself is showing me what he means ?
When he said that reading the Bible is a very personal thing, I very much doubt that he meant that you shouldn't look to others who are more educated about it to search for the hidden meanings and to decipher just what something means. I point you towards Chuck Misler in the hopes that you will be able to clear up the misconceptions that you seem to have regarding some specific scripture. Corinthans for example. It's true that you shouldn't just read the Bible like a book, most new Christians start out with the book of John because it's relatively short, and explains who Jesus was and what he did. Reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation isn't going to teach you very much unless you have someone there with you who is helping you decipher the meaning of the text. Just as your pastor told you to contact him if you had any questions, Chuck Misler can be your contact to clear up the questions that you have now.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If God does exist, wouldnt it be a very natural thing then, or even super-natural ?
Why is God Unnatural, wouldnt he take offence to that ?
I don't really understand what you are trying to ask...it depends on the connotation of the word unnatural. Do you mean unnatural in a sinful way, or just that his existance is not of nature, but rather he himself created nature? I assume the later since that seems to be the more obvious. God isn't "natural" because he is what created nature, and a reality for nature to describe. If you want to describe that as super-natural then that's okay I guess, but I don't want to get into a discussion over semantics about the nature of God.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
In a way, yes, it's the same thing that secular science does, using the evidence that exists to try and prove our own beliefs. I wouldn't say that creationists try to twist the evidence to support their own views, I would say that creationists look at the same evidence, and interpret it differently. And to a large degree, creationists are willing to consider much more of the evidence that exists against our own beliefs. When I say that secular science is looking for specific answers, I mean that they want to take God completely out of the equation, and it's just not going to work in the long run, plain and simple. Whether you want to believe in creationism or not is a separate issue from the belief in a general creator.
Creationists are willing to consider the evidence that exists against your own beliefs? What are you talking about? Creationists cite the Christian Bible as the evidence that exists for your belief and dismiss all else as warped human thought. As you say, any universe without God doesn't exist to creationists. They are unwilling to accept a universe without God. Of course you're not willing to consider that possibility.
Secular science does not wish to take God completely out of the equation - science hasn't found God there in the first place.
so what your saying it has to be predictable in order to be a theory......interesting...even top evolutionists,physicists and scientists all agaree that creationism is as much a theory as the big bang, when it comes down to the nit an gritty neither side has hard evidence. So in all reality each basis would be considered a pre-concieved twisted notion based off of your standards.
What in the world? How many scientists think that creationism has as much validity as the big bang? There are no collection of measurements in existence that point towards creationism. Creationism is derived from what science hasn't got to yet.
According to creationism the earth is around 10,000 years old, Yet we have plenty of evidence that the earth is a lot older than that. No need for me to mention the evidence as such as ice cores have been discussed here before.
I stopped reading the original post when they said that the universe seems set up to create the observer. If the universe were set up differently, then the observer would be different and one might think the universe was precariously balanced such that they could exist, without considering the possibility of other configurations that would produce humans, for example. Or there might not be any observer at all, at which point it would be irrelevant.
The anthrocentric principle is an approach that states that theories which contradict our existence here are nonsense, because obviously we exist. Some people take this a step further than the anthrocentric principle and propose that the world was created for us. It's a handwave that some people might not notice, but it is a perversion of the principle.
It reminds me of Douglas Adams commentry on a God creating us.
"Wow im the luckiest puddle of water alive, ive been given a hole that fits me perfectly, a precise fit with no overlaps of missing bits or anything. Its impossible for a hole to be made this perfect for me by chance, this hole must have been created for me.... THERE MUST BE A GOD !!!" Haha. Exactly.
Haha. Exactly. :)Wait, just re-re-reading the article again, is the scientist in this article trying to prove the existence of a absolute or preferred frame of reference, or am i mistaken in this jump to relativity ?
If this article is trying to prove the existence of one of these things, a page full of LOL's, relativity is one of the most common sense theories going, it works perfectly, otherwise G.P.S. wouldn't work with any accuracy.
If anyone who has a good understanding of relativity can help me with this please ?
I'm sorry if my understanding of relativity is somewhat basic and restricted solely to the most axiomatic approach, but it's all I've ever been exposed to.
Space and time are still mathematical objects in relativity and it seems like the person is arguing that they shouldn't be; since both space and time are human constructions they should be observed as being a part of human perception and not necessarily as absolutes.
It's obvious that the top down approach to universal theory is ass-backwards, but he still has a good point: There are uncountably many ways to describe something accurately without ever being correct and it might very well be impossible to ever describe anything precisely.
If one were to further use his line of reasoning, one would also have to question the validity of logical consistency which is the basis of all science.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I liken the universe to a long forum post its already there in it's whole form but we are only aware of the words as we read them (e.g. consciousness) but the whole topic is open to interpretation if you see what I mean
Originally posted by MadAce Originally posted by Meon No, physics will. The String Theory to be exact.
Already outdated. M theory up next.
One day we'll realize that we as living creatures can't preceive the universe as it is as we are unable to see the absolute objective truth (which exists btw).
anything that exists can be figured out by a human, including drunk ones.
It’s not a matter of gullibility; it’s a matter of common sense and simple rational deduction.
Not to turn this into a religious debate or anything, but what exactly is rational about a supreme being that simply popped into existance with the power to make worlds, and, on a whim, decided to make us?
As long as science remains consistant in its approach to data aquisition there shouldnt be a problem.
If this line of reasoning is correct, well im a buddhist and i could use that same argument to prove my buddhist belief that nothing exists.
Its seems by using a Biocentric approach, you actually remove the need for a biocentric approach, because if time and space are only part of the observers perception, then nothing could be difinativly proven as actually existing outside the observer.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a theory that can contain a statement of it's own consistency, which really makes it hard to develop a universal theory.
Everything in science is built on mathematics, which is built on logic, which is built on consistency: I am definitely not a proponent of the biocentric theory as it even rules itself out as you stated in your post, but it must always be noted that whenever we try and make a logical system we will always face certain logical constraints.
There is still always a lingering question in my mind when I think about the foundations of reasoning: What is outside of logic?
Maybe there is another way to formalize something without the notion of consistency, or maybe the conditions of consistency should be changed. What if it's possible that we are skinning the cat with the wrong side of the blade?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Comments
One day we'll realize that we as living creatures can't preceive the universe as it is as we are unable to see the absolute objective truth (which exists btw).
That depends on your veiw of the the universe in whole.
Hell for all we know it truely is just a random chaotic smear of stuff that somehow got lucky and blarbed into what we have now.
"Maybe" it's all just dumb luck that formed the universe as it is now.
Perhaps if there is a universe 2,3,4,5 there may be a whole different variant.
Man kind is far too short sighted to even guess our own galaxy at the moment, let alone the full truth of what the universe is.
For all we know now, I can say that it's a box within a box within another box.
Science while it has provided neat little theories just opens more questions than before on our little plane of existance.
I'll go with my own feelings on this and say the world is flat,at the center of universe and that the celestial bodies circle MadAce.
1246 FTW
I corrected it.Doh, I always forget that we are all figments of your Belgium Imagination.. Wait maybe that's why it exists.
Pass the tinfoil please, I need new armor.
The anthrocentric principle is an approach that states that theories which contradict our existence here are nonsense, because obviously we exist. Some people take this a step further than the anthrocentric principle and propose that the world was created for us. It's a handwave that some people might not notice, but it is a perversion of the principle.
When he said that reading the Bible is a very personal thing, I very much doubt that he meant that you shouldn't look to others who are more educated about it to search for the hidden meanings and to decipher just what something means. I point you towards Chuck Misler in the hopes that you will be able to clear up the misconceptions that you seem to have regarding some specific scripture. Corinthans for example. It's true that you shouldn't just read the Bible like a book, most new Christians start out with the book of John because it's relatively short, and explains who Jesus was and what he did. Reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation isn't going to teach you very much unless you have someone there with you who is helping you decipher the meaning of the text. Just as your pastor told you to contact him if you had any questions, Chuck Misler can be your contact to clear up the questions that you have now.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Creationists are willing to consider the evidence that exists against your own beliefs? What are you talking about? Creationists cite the Christian Bible as the evidence that exists for your belief and dismiss all else as warped human thought. As you say, any universe without God doesn't exist to creationists. They are unwilling to accept a universe without God. Of course you're not willing to consider that possibility.
Secular science does not wish to take God completely out of the equation - science hasn't found God there in the first place.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
"Wow im the luckiest puddle of water alive, ive been given a hole that fits me perfectly, a precise fit with no overlaps of missing bits or anything. Its impossible for a hole to be made this perfect for me by chance, this hole must have been created for me.... THERE MUST BE A GOD !!!" Haha. Exactly.
If this article is trying to prove the existence of one of these things, a page full of LOL's, relativity is one of the most common sense theories going, it works perfectly, otherwise G.P.S. wouldn't work with any accuracy.
If anyone who has a good understanding of relativity can help me with this please ?
I'm sorry if my understanding of relativity is somewhat basic and restricted solely to the most axiomatic approach, but it's all I've ever been exposed to.
Space and time are still mathematical objects in relativity and it seems like the person is arguing that they shouldn't be; since both space and time are human constructions they should be observed as being a part of human perception and not necessarily as absolutes.
It's obvious that the top down approach to universal theory is ass-backwards, but he still has a good point: There are uncountably many ways to describe something accurately without ever being correct and it might very well be impossible to ever describe anything precisely.
If one were to further use his line of reasoning, one would also have to question the validity of logical consistency which is the basis of all science.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I liken the universe to a long forum post its already there in it's whole form but we are only aware of the words as we read them (e.g. consciousness) but the whole topic is open to interpretation if you see what I mean
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
One day we'll realize that we as living creatures can't preceive the universe as it is as we are unable to see the absolute objective truth (which exists btw).
anything that exists can be figured out by a human, including drunk ones.
As long as science remains consistant in its approach to data aquisition there shouldnt be a problem.If this line of reasoning is correct, well im a buddhist and i could use that same argument to prove my buddhist belief that nothing exists.
Its seems by using a Biocentric approach, you actually remove the need for a biocentric approach, because if time and space are only part of the observers perception, then nothing could be difinativly proven as actually existing outside the observer.
Occam's Razor.......
Consistency is precisely the basis of everything scientific, however, Goedel showed that there are valid statements in any logical system that are not be provable in the system itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a theory that can contain a statement of it's own consistency, which really makes it hard to develop a universal theory.
Everything in science is built on mathematics, which is built on logic, which is built on consistency: I am definitely not a proponent of the biocentric theory as it even rules itself out as you stated in your post, but it must always be noted that whenever we try and make a logical system we will always face certain logical constraints.
There is still always a lingering question in my mind when I think about the foundations of reasoning: What is outside of logic?
Maybe there is another way to formalize something without the notion of consistency, or maybe the conditions of consistency should be changed. What if it's possible that we are skinning the cat with the wrong side of the blade?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.