• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science cannot solve the final mystery

cladking

Well-Known Member
There are at least 3 aspects to reality in practice. I.e. in practice means if we are communicating, then reality consists of 3 aspects in regards to humans: Same, similar and different. We are in the same reality because otherwise we couldn't be talking, which we are, right? We are similar in that we think about what reality is, yet we come to different results.
In short in practice we share parts of reality, yet we differ how we make sense of it. :)

I'm not sure I understand your point so let me state mine in a different way.

I believe there is only one single reality which is perfectly logical. Indeed, it in a manifestation of logic itself much like mathematics is a manifestation of a quantified logic. Mathematics isn't "real" in the same way reality is real but it obeys logic therefore it works. Reality obeys logic and (thereby?) exists.

While there is only one reality and one logic each of us sees only part of it at best. Science, only because it employs experiment which ties it (science) to reality and logic, provides a spectrum of reality. It doesn't show reality itself like a photograph but rather it shows points (lines) of reality like a spectrograph. We fill in between these points (lines) with our beliefs, knowledge, and assumptions. We make it four dimensional in our minds so we can use the knowledge to do things like invent new experiment or create technology. This is wholly unlike every other living creature, every other consciousness, on earth. Our science must be different because our language is not metaphysical and is not logical. Since it isn't logical we can not deduce reality like Peers now days believe they can. Observation is sufficient to finding reality only when combined with logic or experiment.

I'm trying to say that if our language were logical we wouldn't need experiment and we wouldn't even experience "thought" at all. We'd be just like animals and pyramid builders.

So long as we employ language to think we MUST NECESSARILY see reality in terms of our beliefs and models and this is an horrendous vantage for seeing some things including some experimental results.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I'm not sure I understand your point so let me state mine in a different way.

I believe there is only one single reality which is perfectly logical. Indeed, it in a manifestation of logic itself much like mathematics is a manifestation of a quantified logic. Mathematics isn't "real" in the same way reality is real but it obeys logic therefore it works. Reality obeys logic and (thereby?) exists.

While there is only one reality and one logic each of us sees only part of it at best. Science, only because it employs experiment which ties it (science) to reality and logic, provides a spectrum of reality. It doesn't show reality itself like a photograph but rather it shows points (lines) of reality like a spectrograph. We fill in between these points (lines) with our beliefs, knowledge, and assumptions. We make it four dimensional in our minds so we can use the knowledge to do things like invent new experiment or create technology. This is wholly unlike every other living creature, every other consciousness, on earth. Our science must be different because our language is not metaphysical and is not logical. Since it isn't logical we can not deduce reality like Peers now days believe they can. Observation is sufficient to finding reality only when combined with logic or experiment.

I'm trying to say that if our language were logical we wouldn't need experiment and we wouldn't even experience "thought" at all. We'd be just like animals and pyramid builders.

So long as we employ language to think we MUST NECESSARILY see reality in terms of our beliefs and models and this is an horrendous vantage for seeing some things including some experimental results.

What is this one reality you believe in?
Does it involve a god? Why?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
If you want to believe that "Ancient Science" knew more than modern science, that's your prerogative.
If you want to believe that "Ancient Science" is the basis for Great Religious wisdom, that's your prerogative.
If you want to believe that modern science is based on beliefs, that's your prerogative.

Provide some evidence. Your repeated assertions are not evidence.

Who said ancient science knew more than modern science?

I suppose it's also my prerogative to be right while you have no clue you're wrong?

Until you understand me you won't see logic or evidence.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Who said ancient science knew more than modern science?

I suppose it's also my prerogative to be right while you have no clue you're wrong?

Until you understand me you won't see logic or evidence.

Correct me if I'm wrong... Doesn't all your claimed logic and evidence involve a super natural god in which there is no evidence for?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
What is this one reality you believe in?

I don't "believe" in reality so much as I accept it axiomatically just as I accept axiomatically that it bears a striking similarity to what everyone else sees.

Does it involve a god? Why?

I have no way to know if there were an Initial Cause or not. I have no means to know if there is a Consciousness behind creation and how events unfold. I have no means to know any characteristic of the Gods or of God.

I merely know that our assumptions and beliefs about many things are wrong. Science in its ideal form is founded in language and some modern science is founded in beliefs that are incorrect. Meanwhile most religions are at least loosely founded in ancient science which was distinctly different than our science. Ancient science was apparently not very advanced but it provided a perfect vantage for seeing reality because of its metaphysics which removed the observer from the observation.

Reality is tied to logic when observed from this perspective but it can't answer questions about God.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong... Doesn't all your claimed logic and evidence involve a super natural god in which there is no evidence for?

No!

But I do not fully agree that there is "no" evidence. It's easy to see why some individuals see a consciousness behind reality. I just can't define what characteristics such a consciousness might have if it even exists. There is no need for faith to use ancient science or my brand of nexialism. Faith is impossible for ancient people and unnecessary for understanding them.
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack

Hmmm. Ok answer these with what you believe/accept..

The universe-- god created or naturally formed?

Earth-- god created or naturally formed?

Life-- god created or natural risen?

Evolution-- god guided or naturally happening?

After death-- back to earth or go to a supernatural place?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Hmmm. Ok answer these with what you believe/accept..
The universe-- god created or naturally formed?
Earth-- god created or naturally formed?
Life-- god created or natural risen?
Evolution-- god guided or naturally happening?
After death-- back to earth or go to a supernatural place?

So how did universe, earth, life, intelligence come about? Who knows?


Following essay raises some of these questions.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1425656584247/universe-life-consciousness.pdf

The essay was discussed in the following thread

Quantum Cosmology and the nature of Consciousness
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
The universe-- god created or naturally formed?

Everyone's beliefs are irrelevant to the reality. Either there is a God or is not regardless of what you or I believe. For this reason I should abstain from the question.

My beliefs have been all over the map during my lifetime. I was a very devout atheist for many years but this religion didn't really suit me. Now, there is no real category in which I fit. Perhaps "agnostic" comes closest but I believe despite the extensive evidence for the existence of God(s) that I don't know, can't ever know, and ultimately it most probably doesn't matter whether (T)he(y) exist(s) or not (only because we can't know).

Earth-- god created or naturally formed?

Whether there is a creator or not all thing that exist came into existence by a means we would find "natural". I assume that this would probably apply to any Creator(s) but I can't know. Most of the universe and everything we see is still wholly invisible to us. We think we understand everything we see but instead we see only what we believe while ALL OTHER CONSCIOUSNESS sees what they understand.

Evolution-- god guided or naturally happening?

There is no such thing as "evolution". Species change but the mechanism of change is misunderstood. It is natural and as the Bible oft implies it is determined by BEHAVIOR and not by fitness

After death-- back to earth or go to a supernatural place?

I'm reasonably confident we cease to exist except for our constituent parts and in memories. Very strong willed people can probably cause events after death but this has nothing to do with the "supernatural". While there is far far far more reality and "natural" events than probably any of us can imagine and could include things we'd believe are "supernatural" the fact is that all of reality operates on logic. I might add that consciousness seeks patterns and individuals might see REAL patterns that they misinterpret as "supernatural". While it's very highly improbable that "ghosts" exist it's far less improbable that some individuals might interpret perception as ghosts and there is some basis in reality for their belief.


I don't think it's a good idea to reject any idea out of hand. I don't believe in "intelligence" and none of us can think of everything. But modern humans are all very very different and have different knowledge sets and experiences. While we've all gone off in 7 billion different directions caused by our beliefs (all humans once pulled together) there are advantages due to the extreme range of behavior that will help protect us from the extinction level events that may be coming in the next century. Importantly all people always make perfect sense in terms of their premises. It is our job to deduce these premises and try to understand them. Only by understanding are we exposed to the many ideas we can steal and compensate for the lack of intelligence. We have a true "babel of tongues" but we can use this to our advantage if we listen as much as talk.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Science is the assumption that reality is as it appear to humans, but no evidence, proof, reason, logic or what ever can be given for that.

No. Science is the pursuit of knowledge of the natural.

sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/

noun
  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
    "the world of science and technology"

If you want to claim that religion is nonsense, then don't use science for that. You can't because nonsense is a process in your brain and not a result of observation.

Did I claim that, from a scientific standpoint, religion is nonsense? Were you referring to this exchange?

All things are digital. Reality is digital. Something either is or is not.

Nonsense. Complete, utter nonsense.
Perhaps you are referring to the following...​

So God went from 100% God to 1/3 God along with 1/3 Holy Ghost and 1/3 Jesus. Some of you argue the 2nd third and the 3rd third have always existed and all are one.

Yes, I dismiss this as nonsense. Out of hand? Hardly!
Many religious beliefs are nonsense. The above is evidence of that. That's not just my opinion, it is probably the opinion of most rational people.

but I don't accept that you claim authority about what is nonsense not just for you, but for all humans including me and other religious humans.

Where did I claim I had "authority" to speak for everyone. That kind of ego is reserved for theists. Like the Christians who, with authority, assert that members of "other" Christian groups are not real Christians.

I go reductio ad absurdum on your claim of knowledge of what ultimate reality is. You don't know that, nor do I. I know that and you believe differently.

You falsely attributed many things to me in your post. Now you will have to quote me where I stated that I have "knowledge of what ultimate reality is".
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You can't even consuider the possibility that religion is based in ancient science and modern science is based in belief. You can't consider the possibility that other perspectives, while no more "correct" can provide a far better vantage for seeing truth; for seeing reality.

If you want to believe that "Ancient Science" knew more than modern science, that's your prerogative.
If you want to believe that "Ancient Science" is the basis for Great Religious wisdom, that's your prerogative.
If you want to believe that modern science is based on beliefs, that's your prerogative.

Provide some evidence. Your repeated assertions are not evidence.

Who said ancient science knew more than modern science?

What did you mean when you asserted: "You can't even consuider the possibility that religion is based in ancient science and modern science is based in belief"?

If you did not mean that religion is based on ancient science, then your wording was very poor.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I suppose it's also my prerogative to be right while you have no clue you're wrong?

It's your prerogative to believe anything you want to. If you want to believe you are right and I have no clue, OK.

By the same token, I know that you are ***************************** (self-censored to avoid getting banned)
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
What did you mean when you asserted: "You can't even consuider the possibility that religion is based in ancient science and modern science is based in belief"?

If you did not mean that religion is based on ancient science, then your wording was very poor.

I meant what I said but then you read far too much into it.

Religion is based on ancient science but that means neither that religion is superior to modern science nor that ancient science is superior to modern science.

I meant that modern science is based in belief but that we can't see it because our language filters all sensation and perception through belief. Just because there is so much belief underlying and in modern science doesn't make it in any way inferior to ancient science. Ancient science had its assets and liabilities. Its chief weakness was that as knowledge and theory were added to the language, the language itself became geometrically more complex. It was making people tongue tied. What good is a language that increasing portions of the population were incapable of using. First they invented writing to accommodate those incapable of understanding basic "English" and eventually there weren't enough literate individuals to even operate the state. They had to switch to the "pidgin" form of Ancient Language that was already being used by all the "dummies". It was a 1200 year process between writing and the "tower of babel". A few literate people lived on for centuries as the "Nephilim".

The most important thing here that people are missing is that consciousness is a gift given by nature to assure survival of the individual. Until modern language arose ALL CONSCIOUS THINGS were scientists just as all plants and animals (non-human) are today. It is logic manifested as consciousness and expressed as language which is science until the Tower of Babel. Now we humans must employ experiment to tie our beliefs to reality and to execute science because our language is still just as confused as it was in 2000 BC when the tower "fell".

We have completely botched everything because science and history were lost in a cloud of (metaphorical) dust. Chemistry became alchemy, language became stand up humor, and science became religion. Religion, however, better than the other confusions, accurately reflects ancient science. It continues to drift just like the 7 billion different languages we employ but at it's root is a science that was poor at creating technology but excellent at creating understanding. Indeed our Holy Trinity is a confusion of ancient "thought"; Knowledge > Creation > Understanding.

This is all pretty hard for people not because it isn't very well evidenced and completely logical but because nobody wants to believe it. The whole human race is polarized along lines that don't even exist and people value their opinions far too much to accept that all opinions are wrong and we are not even an "intelligent" species. We are just wordy and have just accumulated vast amounts of knowledge because we have had complex language for 40,000 years. Nobody wants to believe that most of our knowledge is actually incorrect or highly conditional on things that have little to do with reality itself. We believe we have virtually become Gods so we allow Peers to vote on the very make-up of reality. We are Homo Omnisciencis and conquer far off moon in a single bound. We imagine we have far more knowledge and power and wisdom than we really do so we make and maintain outrageous mistakes. As companies, brands, quality, and resources spiral down the tubes at ever increasing rates we give all the wealth to those who have engineered the madness and call the creators of the wealth "migrant", "laborers", "illegals", "untrained", and all manner of labels to avoid allowing them to have a share. Resources, capital, and loyalty no longer have value or meaning. Companies don't care if you buy their product or not because they're engineered junk and you have to buy something. The madness goes far beyond just the economy and touches every institution.

People just don't care so they don't notice Congress makes taxpayers pay the insurance for infrastructure built on beeches that Congress deems will soon be deep underwater.

People just don't care because people believe we know everything and any contradiction is merely apparent while they can watch the Packers, eat some Cheetos, and forget about everything else.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Well, there ya go. Got no evidence to support your beliefs? Can't present evidence ya don't have? No problamo! Just assert you won't present any evidence because I wouldn't see the logic of your evidence.

There is evidence and logic in every one of my posts but you can't see it. You see what you believe.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
It's your prerogative to believe anything you want to. If you want to believe you are right and I have no clue, OK.

I don't think you are any more clueless than I am.

I think you are wrong and aren't trying to understand me.

Science is based in belief or not. Our opinion has no effect on the reality. God doesn't evaporate when an atheist walks in the room and He doesn't reform when a religious person comes in.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don't think you are any more clueless than I am.

I think you are wrong and aren't trying to understand me.

Science is based in belief or not. Our opinion has no effect on the reality. God doesn't evaporate when an atheist walks in the room and He doesn't reform when a religious person comes in.

Here are 2 version of reality:
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

Your claim is of the first one. The problem is that our opinions influence our behavior towards other humans and that takes place in reality, i.e. here is an example from you.
"I think you are wrong and aren't trying to understand me."
That is a part of reality and can have an effect on another human.
When I learned that, I stated using the 2nd one. I don't speak of reality independent of human opinion. I speak of reality including human opinion.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
When I learned that, I stated using the 2nd one. I don't speak of reality independent of human opinion. I speak of reality including human opinion.

We are trying to find answers to mysteries. I believe we can't get there from here. Just as the old Yankee is trying to explain to the tourist you must first go somewhere else to get to the intended destination. In this case we must abandon opinion and belief. We must abandon opinion of all sorts and stick with the reality as derived from experiment and visceral knowledge. Of course, whether I'm right or wrong about "logic" and "reality" being virtually synonymous it still requires "logic" and "reason" to interpret and understand evidence. We each simply need to realize that reason is very much individual and dependent on language and belief.

I don't disagree and we do live in a society. But I still believe we can distill reality from science, reason, logic, and even ancient metaphysics and express it in terms anyone can understand. Any "reality" in terms of opinion is simply conditional on not only the accuracy of the opinion but its perspective.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
We are trying to find answers to mysteries. I believe we can't get there from here. Just as the old Yankee is trying to explain to the tourist you must first go somewhere else to get to the intended destination. In this case we must abandon opinion and belief. We must abandon opinion of all sorts and stick with the reality as derived from experiment and visceral knowledge. Of course, whether I'm right or wrong about "logic" and "reality" being virtually synonymous it still requires "logic" and "reason" to interpret and understand evidence. We each simply need to realize that reason is very much individual and dependent on language and belief.

I don't disagree and we do live in a society. But I still believe we can distill reality from science, reason, logic, and even ancient metaphysics and express it in terms anyone can understand. Any "reality" in terms of opinion is simply conditional on not only the accuracy of the opinion but its perspective.

Try this on for size, what reality is, is like a line of positions within the line. You can't get outside the line, that is the objective part of it, but there is some leeway because there are different potions on the line , where in effect a form of cognitive and moral relativism kicks in. The problem is that there is no one position on the line, that is objectively better, because all positions are part of the line.

I know, but that is how I visualize cognitive and moral relativism. It is not that everything goes, but nor is, that is one single correct answer. I.e. how you view e.g. science can change the position on line.
 
Top