Science Proves Nature Was Created

[Monk Of Reason]

Perhaps..... "All of the evidence is not in."

On what specifically? If the universe is created or not? The lack of the evidence allows us to come to the temporary conclusion that it is not the case and the conclusion will be revised as needed upon the light of new evidence. Is that a sustainable or at least acceptable answer?

 

[Etritonakin]

nay....
All things inter-relate....
but that does not bring time in the realm of the tangible.
It's all in your head.

In that sense, it is a representation and manipulation inside your head of something which is outside of your head -which can then be used to manipulate what is outside of your head.

 

[Thief]

In that sense, it is a representation and manipulation inside your head of something which is outside of your head -which can then be used to manipulate what is outside of your head.

I note your signature

 

[Etritonakin]

On what specifically? If the universe is created or not? The lack of the evidence allows us to come to the temporary conclusion that it is not the case and the conclusion will be revised as needed upon the light of new evidence. Is that a sustainable or at least acceptable answer?

The point of the thread would be....
"I have my personal beliefs, but was trying to write from an overall human perspective -acknowledging the present states of science and religious belief -and attempting to cause people top think in broader terms regardless of their position."

I don't accept the term "temporary conclusion". The lack of evidence keeps you from coming to a conclusion. Much time and effort is wasted by taking stances on temporary conclusions and arguing in a useless way about them -and would be better spent seeking new evidence. When we finally reach a conclusion, we don't want to look at our history and conclude we were inefficient and made a mess of things in the process.

 

[Etritonakin]

Have to go do stuff -be back later

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The point of the thread would be....
"I have my personal beliefs, but was trying to write from an overall human perspective -acknowledging the present states of science and religious belief -and attempting to cause people top think in broader terms regardless of their position."

I don't accept the term "temporary conclusion". The lack of evidence keeps you from coming to a conclusion. Much time and effort is wasted by taking stances on temporary conclusions and arguing in a useless way about them -and would be better spent seeking new evidence. When we finally reach a conclusion, we don't want to look at our history and conclude we were inefficient and made a mess of things in the process.

Should we remain totally clueless about everything forever since we cannot know everything? Or is it more pragmatic to be constantly re-evaluating our understanding of the world with new evidence? That would be the eternal temporary conclusions that we pragmatically base our understanding of the world under.

No one has stated in that "god is impossible and its fact that he doesn't exist". What most people say when arguing against the concept of god is that there is no evidence for god and so why would we believe in a god without evidence for one?

I also question your usage of "broader terms". I don't know what line you want to draw with this. We can be accepting of people's fears of vampires being real and start caging coffins and stabbing fresh corpses in the chest with a holy spike. Or we could take into account the flat earth society's theories for geography.

Why should we think broadly about these concepts but not those? What of the delusions of the mad? Should we accept their propositions?

Its not about thinking narrowly. Its about thinking critically. To those on the outside it may seem one in the same but it is not.

 

[Etritonakin]

Should we remain totally clueless about everything forever since we cannot know everything? Or is it more pragmatic to be constantly re-evaluating our understanding of the world with new evidence? That would be the eternal temporary conclusions that we pragmatically base our understanding of the world under.

No one has stated in that "god is impossible and its fact that he doesn't exist". What most people say when arguing against the concept of god is that there is no evidence for god and so why would we believe in a god without evidence for one?

I also question your usage of "broader terms". I don't know what line you want to draw with this. We can be accepting of people's fears of vampires being real and start caging coffins and stabbing fresh corpses in the chest with a holy spike. Or we could take into account the flat earth society's theories for geography.

Why should we think broadly about these concepts but not those? What of the delusions of the mad? Should we accept their propositions?

Its not about thinking narrowly. Its about thinking critically. To those on the outside it may seem one in the same but it is not.

You can do what you like and believe what you like -but, overall, we should think and act in a way which allows us to most efficiently collect data while not making the whole thing a useless endeavor.
You don't have to accept the delusions of the mad, but they certainly have had to accept the delusions of the supposedly learned -the horrible consequences of their temporary conclusions -which, in some cases, cause madness, and often make things worse. That sort of thing.

This forum is a great idea, generally -but how much of what is posted actually leads to something positive?

We do not simply make temporary conclusions, they find their way into actions. If we acknowledge our ignorance and refuse to make temporary conclusions, we are less likely to act in ignorance -and more likely to be cautious, more efficient, more likely to move beyond temporary conclusions to actual conclusions, etc.

really have to go do stuff

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You can do what you like and believe what you like -but, overall, we should think and act in a way which allows us to most efficiently collect data while not making the whole thing a useless endeavor.

And what in our current scientific approach is failing in this?

You don't have to accept the delusions of the mad, but they certainly have had to accept the delusions of the supposedly learned -the horrible consequences of their temporary conclusions -which, in some cases, cause madness, and often make things worse. That sort of thing.

Causes madness?

This forum is a great idea, generally -but how much of what is posted actually leads to something positive?

People take from this forum what they will. I feel I take a lot of good out of it and some may take a lot of bad. But its their choice. This forum for example isn't really much different than any other kind of social gathering. We talk about something that is not talked about much and where no matter your opinion it is highly controversial. You can take from it a mental exercise or you can take from it some self reflection.

We do not simply make temporary conclusions, they find their way into actions. If we acknowledge our ignorance and refuse to make temporary conclusions, we are less likely to act in ignorance -and more likely to be cautious, more efficient, more likely to move beyond temporary conclusions to actual conclusions, etc.

Lets put this in less vague terms.
We can safely assume that no external or supernatural being makes us go around the sun? Yes? That is a temporary conclusion based on our current evidence. This allows us to calculate things based on our actual findings such as gravity and physics. We then can make all kinds of temporary assumptions that work out rather well and we have technological advancement. I don't know what "temporary conclusion" you are referring too that lead into actions that you feel are harmful. If you could please list a few.

 

[leibowde84]

If literally nothing preceded the Big Bang.... then there was magically a Big Bang....

So anything that we don't understand scientifically YET is automatically "magic"?

 

[Shad]

I will never concede my view point.
Time is not a substance.
Time is not a force.

It is one measurement divided by another.
It can only be found on a chalkboard.

Then you just provided evidence that you refuse evidence and experiments which show time changes due to motion, speed and gravity aka time dilation. This makes you anti-science and misinformed. The Hafele-Keating experiments shows your view is untenable.

 

[leibowde84]

Then you just provided evidence that you refuse evidence and experiments which show time changes due to motion, speed and gravity aka time dilation. This makes you anti-science and misinformed. The Hafele-Keating experiments shows your view is untenable.

who is this in response to?

 

[Shad]

who is this in response to?

The quote should be on my post. I see it. Maybe there is a problem with the site. It was to thief who denies time dilation thus space-time. I hope the quote system still works besides on my end. Could you confirm the quote is present. Thanks.

 

[Etritonakin]

So anything that we don't understand scientifically YET is automatically "magic"?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo -literally nothing cannot be understood "scientifically" -or it would be something. It is already understood logically -and so scientifically in a sense -as nothing, nought, zip, zilch, nada, the complete absence of anything, that from which nothing could possibly arise or proceed -because it is nothing.

 

[leibowde84]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo -literally nothing cannot be understood "scientifically" -or it would be something. It is already understood logically -and so scientifically in a sense -as nothing, nought, zip, zilch, nada, the complete absence of anything, that from which nothing could possibly arise or proceed -because it is nothing.

We don't know what there was before the Big Bang though. And we might one day figure it out.

 

[Etritonakin]

Should we remain totally clueless about everything forever since we cannot know everything? Or is it more pragmatic to be constantly re-evaluating our understanding of the world with new evidence? That would be the eternal temporary conclusions that we pragmatically base our understanding of the world under.

No one has stated in that "god is impossible and its fact that he doesn't exist". What most people say when arguing against the concept of god is that there is no evidence for god and so why would we believe in a god without evidence for one?

I also question your usage of "broader terms". I don't know what line you want to draw with this. We can be accepting of people's fears of vampires being real and start caging coffins and stabbing fresh corpses in the chest with a holy spike. Or we could take into account the flat earth society's theories for geography.

Why should we think broadly about these concepts but not those? What of the delusions of the mad? Should we accept their propositions?

Its not about thinking narrowly. Its about thinking critically. To those on the outside it may seem one in the same but it is not.

Nahhhh -the whole wild tangent thing was fun for a bit, but I am not motivated to follow this particular conversation.

 

[Etritonakin]

We don't know what there was before the Big Bang though. And we might one day figure it out.

Sounds good.

 

[Thief]

Then you just provided evidence that you refuse evidence and experiments which show time changes due to motion, speed and gravity aka time dilation. This makes you anti-science and misinformed. The Hafele-Keating experiments shows your view is untenable.

No....my view only insists that time is a measure of motion.
It is not a force or substance.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Movement distorts gravity.
Time is a measure of movement.

If I had to clocks perfectly in synch and I kept one on earth and sent one near the event horizon of a black hole and then compared them the times would be different.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

So anything that we don't understand scientifically YET is automatically "magic"?

Yes. That is the common thread throughout history. If I practice magick that could be explained with metaphysics, however it is explained not proven and as it is not proven I do not complelty understand it. Therefore it is magick.

 

[Thief]

If I had to clocks perfectly in synch and I kept one on earth and sent one near the event horizon of a black hole and then compared them the times would be different.

that doesn't make time a force or substance.
movement is real.