1. 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!

Featured Science, religion and the truth

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by mikkel_the_dane, Mar 17, 2020.

  1. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    So you would trust a mechanical robot to tell you about the state of your brain?
    Apparently you´ll never been hit by an intuitive experience:

    From - Intuition - Wikipedia

    "Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning.
    Different writers give the word "intuition" a great variety of different meanings, ranging from direct access to unconscious knowledge, unconscious cognition, inner sensing, inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition and the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning. The word intuition comes from the Latin verb intueri translated as "consider" or from the late middle English word intuit, "to contemplate".
     
  2. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    3,277
    Ratings:
    +1,568
    Religion:
    My Own
    The Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in previously existing space-time dimension.

    God is a word needed for sitting opposite to nothingness where reality is a field of tension in a Unity of opposites is the best theory I can come with as to why anything means anything at all within the context of our language. So God is the first cause for words to have any meaning at all beyond nothingness where the law of conservation of thought comes into play. The theory of creation is ontological not physical. Since somethingness exists the only evidence we have is that it has always existed. There is no evidence nothingness has ever existed. Being and nothingness only exist in our minds. The true nature of reality is beyond our comprehension and certainly beyond the limitations of human language and experience.

    Unity of opposites - Wikipedia
     
    #342 dfnj, Mar 20, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  3. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    It really should not be that difficult, should it? What about this definition:

    "Consciousness is the ability to receive everything via both physical and spiritual senses and act naturally upon the informations"?

    We can´t se anything physical without the quality of LIGHT and we can´t feel anything if the electric impulses doesn´t work in our hands and brains. And even in our dreams electric impulses produces electric images and sentenses.

    As the fundamental range of EM is limitless, our own EM spiritual senses can receive limitless images of cosmos, i.e. get informations of this.

    Edit: BTW: This is the cause how ancient generations did make their very similar Stories of Creation.
     
    #343 Native, Mar 20, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  4. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    OH, so your former statement of "intuition is a poor way of getting knowledge" suddenly doesn´t count anymore?

    You STILL dont get "intuition" correct and you confuse it for "speculations". "Intuition" is immediate knowledge of something and not speculations.
     
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    23,589
    Ratings:
    +29,391
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I'd point out that 'magnetic fields of motion' is a different thing than 'motion in magnetic fields'. The first is nonsense. The second is described by the Lorentz force law.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Putin' on the Blitz!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    10,425
    Ratings:
    +5,752
    Religion:
    None - agnostic with strong atheist tendencies.
    I think there is a chasm between intuition regarding some things (such as events, experiences, other humans, or what might happen or be consequential) and such regarding other things, especially that which we might project or be inherently more likely to believe.
     
  7. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    23,589
    Ratings:
    +29,391
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No. There is a difference between using intuition to get things to pursue further and saying that intuition is a way of getting knowledge. You get knowledge by *testing* those intuitions to see which ones actually work in practice and which ones do not.

    In that case, intuition simply does not exist. There is no 'immediate knowledge of something'. Testing is always required. Observation is always required. Even in math, proof is always required.

    Can you give me an example of an 'intuition' that actually gave *knowledge* without further testing? Not just an intuition that was subsequently verified, but one that gave knowledge?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    23,589
    Ratings:
    +29,391
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Not quite yet with current technology, but perhaps in the near future.

    I've had a great number of 'intuitive experiences'. Some were later verified, some were later shown to be badly wrong. At the time of experience, there is no difference in how they feel. The 'certainty' is there in both cases. The latter is simply wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Of course the body has an true existence - all though just temporary.
     
  10. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    "Intuition" isn´t something "one use"! It is something which comes to you as a solution when your speculative brain have given up on an insolvable problem and has become quiet.
     
  11. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    WhyIsThatSo said:
    Right now, you and others like Polymath257, are "UNCONSCIOUS" .
    Oh, I know you think you are "aware"....and you are "aware"
    BUT you are not aware of your "SELF".
    You could ask yourself and try to listen quietly to your INTUITION :)
     
  12. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    29,541
    Ratings:
    +13,680
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    Yeah, Big Bang also must have had its cause but God (God of Gaps) is a poor explanation for that.
    As we perceive it, otherwise it is constantly changing blob of molecules.
    Polymath has already said that he had great many 'intutive experiences', some proved right, others proved wrong.
     
    #352 Aupmanyav, Mar 20, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  13. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Native said:
    Not necessarily :) In this case of "Big Bang" I just demand the same methodical principle as when I´m postulating alternative cosmological ideas and meet this claim from "standard cosmologists".

    Besides all this, there is no possible "cosmological truth" before cosmological scientists can agree in ONE theory for everything.
    I know these theories "makes predictions" - All according to a special theoretical approach mostly based on just ONE of the FOUR fundamental forces and in this sense the discoveries are all interpreted to confirm just this ONE theory.
    What you feed into a computer comes out again: Confirmations on the different assumptions in your theory based on just ONE fundamental force - which only works contradictionary to all expansive motions, as assumed in the Big Bang.

    What if the standard cosmic measuring method is wrong? You probably know that cosmological science first had one velocity measurement of the assumed expansion and then they thought to have discovered that the Universe expanded with a still increasing velocity? Where on Earth - and Universe - should that increasing energy come from? Oh yes, from an unscientific invention of "dark energy".
    Everything here speaks of a wrong distance measuring method in general. Measuring cosmic distances via the luminosity of light and local "redshift" of objects is clearly incorrect as it leads to a force which isn´t there in the first place.

    Cosmic light disperses on its way to the telescopes thus fooling scientists to basically believe on "the smaller sources or frequensies of light = the longer cosmic distances", which is cosmological nonsense coming from an idea of "light constants" which leads to the very idea of an rapidly and still increasing expanding Universe.

    When thinking of all different luminous sources of stars and planets in cosmos, it is nonsense to pick out a special source and take this as a "cosmological distance measuring standard".

    I would go about it all and state the Universe to be eternal and everywhere and claim an eternal change between formation, dissolution and re-formation in the entire Universe. A kind of a Steady State Theory which "rests in itself".
     
    #353 Native, Mar 20, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  14. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Well then the wrong ones wasn´t intuitive enough to be right :)
     
  15. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    This is just oppositional nit picking just in order to be just oppositional :)
     
  16. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    12,309
    Ratings:
    +3,422
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Hi Mock Turtle. This is also for @Polymath257
    That is a case of dualism. Some of you do that a lot. You operate with a duality as a dichotomy of the universe versus subjectivity. So for now forget science as you are used to it. We now go wide as *ell.
    Now I will use a very simple version of cause and effect. Everything now is caused by everything in past.
    So here we go. Big Bang -> arrow of time -> time passes and we have several generations of stars -> our solar systems forms out of parts of former stars and original hydrogen and helium -> assume the development of life -> us and our subjectivity.
    So as matter the universe is in us and we are in the universe. So if we are subjective, the universe is in part subjective or and now I go reductio ad absurdum. If subjectivity is not natural as a part of the universe, then subjectivity is non-natural and thus supernatural as not part of the natural.
    Now choose; either you are functionally naturalists or you are supernaturalists, because the universe is not involved subjectively and thus subjectivity is in effect supernatural as not part of the natural.

    Yeah, I know how to do this. I have been doing this for 25+ years now and it is one of the first things I learned to spot in some modern western humans. The duality of subjectivity versus the real objective and true universe.
    Now I will explain to you what always happens: Someone subjectively to the effect of the bold above says this: I subjectively think that the objective is the really real. The joke is that the sentence is only subjectively real. It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively. That is another version of this kind of fun, because "It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively" is subjective. It is only real in the mind, because you can't show it with objective empirical evidence.

    That is the game, when dealing with you as a group. Not you two, but you as a group. It has nothing to do with atheism or non-religion. It has to do with that you believe subjectively in a weird form of dualism, where it subjectively to you is really real that the subjective is not real really, because it has nothing to do with the universe.
    I am a skeptic and I know how to do reductio ad absurdum. The joke is that absurdum is subjective and it always ends with you guys about what makes sense to you subjectively.
    Now own that and learn that apparently that is with truth how the universe in part works.

    Regards and love
    Mikkel
     
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    23,589
    Ratings:
    +29,391
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No, it is requiring precision of language in a context where such precision is useful and important.

    You rejected using numbers above. But you seem to fail to acknowledge that even the galactic rotation curves are only relevant because the *numbers* as calculated don't fit the *numbers* as observed. It is ultimately the *numbers* that determine whether a physical theory is correct of not.

    So, simply ignoring the numbers (such as the gravitational energy in a gas cloud) ignores the *whole* point.
     
  18. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    With your excellent PhD degree you should be able to read a text both forwards and backwards and thus have understood the meaning instead of nit picking on details.
    You easily could have come to the factual conclusion just by taking the telescopic observation seriously. And when you fiffle with numbers of an invented dark force, in order to get all numbers right in an observational contradicted theory, I don´t give a daim for your numbers of darkness.

    Yes your numbers fits nicely - but the Universe shows differently all over the places and even as "dark energy" and "dark matter" is thought to fill 99.99 % of the Universe, there is not sufficient amounts of dark excuses in "Standard Cosmology" for not to understand cosmos.
     
    #358 Native, Mar 20, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  19. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,141
    Ratings:
    +574
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    IMO "dualism" is a "devilish" term invented by some poor confused individuals who have difficulties of "simultaneously looking at both sides of things and phenomena" - a skill which is needed in order to understand causes and effects.

    Edit: Even ancient and historic native people all over the world perceived everything to be interconnected and unified - which says a lot of modern "educated" humans.
     
    #359 Native, Mar 20, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Putin' on the Blitz!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    10,425
    Ratings:
    +5,752
    Religion:
    None - agnostic with strong atheist tendencies.
    All you seem to be saying is that life cannot exist by chance, is caused, and hence there must be a God. Not new, and you are welcome to such. But if life has arisen by accident then how is subjectivity involved, when really it just belongs in the human domain. As I said, everything just rolls on regardless of us, and no doubt will if we vanished from existence.

    You are going to have to find others to play games with.
     
Loading...