sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You’re forgetting Putin’s disturbing veneration, yes?
-
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!
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, solipsism and absurdism
- Thread starter mikkel_the_dane
- Start date
Methinks 'tiz the other way round. But i still see no religion there
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1) Ooh! Now I want one!
2) Lucky!
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well... yeah.
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
was just reading this before i logged in:
"We have always held that the key to evolution lies in the creative portion of the brain.
Some people will say that they are inherently uncreative,
however I want to point out that everyone is creative in “some” way;
it’s just that the creative potential in some people is more [or otherwise] developed than in others.
Everyone has that part of their brain, and this leads me to the point of this paragraph;
I think that the most powerful weapon we have to increase our magickal ability is creative innovation."
To believe any one thing is to automatically disbelieve its opposite
- in fact, belief as a magickal thing in itself isn't so much noteworthy as it is (as McKenna puts it)
a poverty of language.
What is the difference between Zeus & Jesus,
the talk show on channel three & the talk show on channel six, Andromeda and Sirius?
Sure, switching from Xtianity to Satanism in a day would be a nice trick to play on your friends,
but what of the internal self?
Even a child may feign belief in anything at all to the point that it becomes true (to the mind)
- though, when Everything is True, the message at large decrypts itself,
and the whole of the mess of experience may be seen as the Tao it is truly composed of.
(The realization of the mind’s kaleidoscope,
that is, as switching from one "belief sphere" to another
does not make a previous "truth" any less true
based on the current inhabited sphere of any sort of condensed belief structure.
If anything, you're fooling yourself into thinking that any & all belief isn't the exact same thing to begin with
- And that's quite a liberating thing to realize -
that every perceived sphere is not actually in constant conflict with each other,
[they are inventions; thought-machines]
and they may be taken in as a whole, viewed from the standpoint of a man on the moon observing the earth.)
ecco
Veteran Member
Since President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, some religious and political leaders have pondered God’s role in his rise to power. Trump’s former energy secretary Rick Perry has said the president is “here at this chosen time because God ordained it.” Evangelist Franklin Graham has said that “God was behind the last election.”
Jesusism AKA Christianity wasn't much of a religion during Jesus' lifetime.
I think people believing irrational things their leaders say is a sign of religiosity.
Like the woman who, when asked why she wasn't wearing a mask at an indoor Trump rally replied: I trust my President.
Theists believe that scientists will destroy faith, and that they have wacky ideas that they call theories with no basis in reality. Any attempt to apply science to religion gets posts moved out of most religious forums and into physics forums. Theists remain blissfully uninformed. I believe that science is true, and that it doesn't seem to interfere with religion, as long as the religious are willing to slightly alter their thinking.
Mass is made of trapped energy. Some physicist claim that there is also a glue that holds it together (made of gluons and quarks). Scientists have determined that gluons and quarks are not point particles, but elongated (strings?). I claim that gluons and quarks are merely oscillations of energy that bond matter. There are two schools of thought in quantum mechanics (chromo-dynamics (subatomic particles) and electrodynamics (photons and electromagnetic waves)). Each of those two theories explains "some" of the things that we observe, but none explains all. I claim that the subatomic world is likely a mixture of subatomic particles (trapped electromagnetic waves) and electromagnetic waves that are not trapped within particles (such as gluons and quarks). Pair production happens when an electromagnetic wave makes a particle and antiparticle (such as an electron and positron pair). Annihilation happens when a particle and its antiparticle collide to produce pure energy. Oddly, we are in a real matter (not real and antimatter) universe.
Noting that subatomic particles are made of energy, and that energy is oscillating, the wave function (also called state function because it describes the position, energy, and other state of the particle) is complex. Complex means that it has both real and imaginary components. The imaginary component, to me, indicates temporary energy storage (like the complex math to describe reactive electrical components, such as capacitors and inductors, and even more bizarre components derived from Kuroda's Identities).
Some feel that imaginary parts of the calculation don't exist in reality. Hence, this uses science to address your assertions (about reality) directly.
The probability of finding an electron at a particular location and at a particular energy is obtained by multiplying the wave function by its complex conjugate (thereby eliminating the imaginary component). Thus, a complex wave function produces a real probability of finding a subatomic particle.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, using the Robertson-Shaw inequality, derives a limit of probability. It asserts that if we know more about position, we know less about energy. It is based on the idea that bouncing light off of a particle changes the energy of the particle. That is, if we look at a particle we move it or change it. One requirement of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is that the particles must be random and, as the Einstein-Podowski-Rosen (EPR) paradox proved, they must also be statistically independent.
EPR argues that a row of spin 1 particles broken in half would have a random partial spin of top halves, and the bottom half, added to the top half would be 1. So each spin 1 particle, split apart, would be sum to 1. The top row would be random, and the bottom row would be random, but the top is statistically dependent on the bottom row, so would not be guided by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
The Correspondence Principle says that any theory of the small world of quantum mechanics must correspond to the same math as the large world (as size and distance is increased). So, the weird world of quantum mechanics, which is totally dependent on probability, merges with the big world that we experience. In the large world, Newton could calculate precisely how long it takes for an apple to fall from a tree and hit someone's head. In the small world, that speed is a probability calculation, and sometimes it is faster, and sometimes it is slower.
You assert that we can't sense unreal things in a real world. I counter-assert that we can sense consequences of them.
We cannot speculate or we will have to believe in Santa and Fred Flintstone. Belief has be to proven, peer reviewed, and tested.
Some theists set out to scientifically prove religion. But, their science is corrupted by the drive to prove their points (prove religion is true). A real scientist avoids bias and merely seeks the truth. When confronted with the unknown, some scientists wildly speculate (for example, some speculate that there is something called Dark Energy, and so far no one has found, that is responsible for the metric of the universe accelerating and expanding).
Mass is made of trapped energy. Some physicist claim that there is also a glue that holds it together (made of gluons and quarks). Scientists have determined that gluons and quarks are not point particles, but elongated (strings?). I claim that gluons and quarks are merely oscillations of energy that bond matter. There are two schools of thought in quantum mechanics (chromo-dynamics (subatomic particles) and electrodynamics (photons and electromagnetic waves)). Each of those two theories explains "some" of the things that we observe, but none explains all. I claim that the subatomic world is likely a mixture of subatomic particles (trapped electromagnetic waves) and electromagnetic waves that are not trapped within particles (such as gluons and quarks). Pair production happens when an electromagnetic wave makes a particle and antiparticle (such as an electron and positron pair). Annihilation happens when a particle and its antiparticle collide to produce pure energy. Oddly, we are in a real matter (not real and antimatter) universe.
Noting that subatomic particles are made of energy, and that energy is oscillating, the wave function (also called state function because it describes the position, energy, and other state of the particle) is complex. Complex means that it has both real and imaginary components. The imaginary component, to me, indicates temporary energy storage (like the complex math to describe reactive electrical components, such as capacitors and inductors, and even more bizarre components derived from Kuroda's Identities).
Some feel that imaginary parts of the calculation don't exist in reality. Hence, this uses science to address your assertions (about reality) directly.
The probability of finding an electron at a particular location and at a particular energy is obtained by multiplying the wave function by its complex conjugate (thereby eliminating the imaginary component). Thus, a complex wave function produces a real probability of finding a subatomic particle.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, using the Robertson-Shaw inequality, derives a limit of probability. It asserts that if we know more about position, we know less about energy. It is based on the idea that bouncing light off of a particle changes the energy of the particle. That is, if we look at a particle we move it or change it. One requirement of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is that the particles must be random and, as the Einstein-Podowski-Rosen (EPR) paradox proved, they must also be statistically independent.
EPR argues that a row of spin 1 particles broken in half would have a random partial spin of top halves, and the bottom half, added to the top half would be 1. So each spin 1 particle, split apart, would be sum to 1. The top row would be random, and the bottom row would be random, but the top is statistically dependent on the bottom row, so would not be guided by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
The Correspondence Principle says that any theory of the small world of quantum mechanics must correspond to the same math as the large world (as size and distance is increased). So, the weird world of quantum mechanics, which is totally dependent on probability, merges with the big world that we experience. In the large world, Newton could calculate precisely how long it takes for an apple to fall from a tree and hit someone's head. In the small world, that speed is a probability calculation, and sometimes it is faster, and sometimes it is slower.
You assert that we can't sense unreal things in a real world. I counter-assert that we can sense consequences of them.
We cannot speculate or we will have to believe in Santa and Fred Flintstone. Belief has be to proven, peer reviewed, and tested.
Some theists set out to scientifically prove religion. But, their science is corrupted by the drive to prove their points (prove religion is true). A real scientist avoids bias and merely seeks the truth. When confronted with the unknown, some scientists wildly speculate (for example, some speculate that there is something called Dark Energy, and so far no one has found, that is responsible for the metric of the universe accelerating and expanding).