People do not Understand Science, yeah I'm talking to you Creationist so bring it!

Yeah but i think the very act of being a creationist means you assign an answer to something that is unknowable, rather than simply saying you don't know (as you suggest creationist do).

guy incognito said:

Yeah but i think the very act of being a creationist means you assign an answer to something that is unknowable, rather than simply saying you don't know (as you suggest creationist do).

Click to expand...

...well sure, but the act of creation is the mystery. Remember that I said life is a/the mystery. What does the act of creation create? Life, the mystery.

...enjoy the morning, gi

I didn't even read the whole post or thread. I was caught off guard by the oxymoron.

eye exaggerate said:

...what is cool is that we all have an understanding that is unique to ourselves. "questions that may never be answered" = "mystery" (ok, good)

...what is cool, also, is that this 'uniqueness' we all share is a unique whole that cannot be separated (God). So, now, relationship plays a key role. Like us and breathing, f.e. (ok, also good)

...the mind separates (creates division) for the benefit of the flesh. It compartmentalizes every single event it is aware of (etc.). The compassionate mind creates by not creating (sorry )strife.

It is almost like saying 'un-divide and be conquered' (by the real self - the rightful 'king')

Click to expand...

how do you even know if there is a separation between mind and matter? and remember, there is only one true definition for god, which is all powerful omnipotent being that created everything who dabbles in mortal affairs.

maybe instead of using the word god, you could use something like... togetherness?

guy incognito said:

I didn't even read the whole post or thread. I was caught off guard by the oxymoron.

Click to expand...

... I was also semi winging it as per Brick Top's post.

Zaehet Strife said:

how do you even know if there is a separation between mind and matter? and remember, there is only one true definition for god, which is all powerful omnipotent being that created everything who dabbles in mortal affairs.

maybe instead of using the word god, you could use something like... togetherness?

Click to expand...

...sure, but aren't we just smudging the board with semantics in that case?

*the part I've bolded is really cool. It points to the gnostic 'demiurge' - which I happen to think is the human race (the blind creator togetherness )

Zaehet Strife said:

how do you even know if there is a separation between mind and matter? and remember, there is only one true definition for god, which is all powerful omnipotent being that created everything who dabbles in mortal affairs.

maybe instead of using the word god, you could use something like... togetherness?

Click to expand...

...and another important question comes of this. What would matter be if we weren't here to observe it? Do we energize it by observation? (Bubba Cush, btw...THAT'S what I'm smokin' )

[video=youtube;0ElSXo1HWS4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ElSXo1HWS4[/video]

it seems as if the more and more we learn about existence and the universe (especially on the quantum scale), the more we discover just how much we really dont know.

to tell yourself you do know...hehehe. bah, you have an idea... no, what you have is worse than that... because you have changed the idea into a belief.

...thanks Strife, I've studied my share of all kinds of physics. Just want to point out that I'm not making claims. I'm relating my understanding. Belief is not a category in which I place ideas. You can't hold mundane physicality to a belief. So, you lean to the material so you can compute it. I think that's how it goes anyway, right?

...and really, isn't belief evolution by your description?

Imagination, Incubation, Manifestation...Repeat.

belief is taking an idea, and making it into a truth instead of leaving it as it is... an idea.

belief is the evolution of stupidity and ignorance. (attempting to tell yourself you know a truth when you do not)

(speaking of theistic and metaphysical beliefs)

I was born and raised in the US Bible Belt (southeast). I held very conservative Christian beliefs until I went off to college and met different people with different views. Today, I consider myself an agnostic. I don't know what to think about the existence of God. I certainly have my doubts.

But I don't discount the possibility of the existence of God either. Even if He was/is just an extraterrestrial being who planted life on Earth. Hell, I don't know. I certainly can't say for sure.

I'm also a believer in science. I'm a Computer Scientist myself. I have a degree in Applied Mathematics, and a Master's Degree in Computer Science. But I doubt that science can account for everything in our universe; especially not in ourselves.

What is love?
Why do we get sad?
Why do we laugh?
Why do we cry?
Why do baby animals like to play?
If pro-creation is indeed among the greatest of human desires, then why are so many people gay? (I'm not bashing gays here; I'm just asking a logical question).

Science as we know it is as far from answering those questions as religion is.

I would love to know that a loving God exists who will give us an eternal life of bliss. I would also love to know that reincarnation is real, and that I'll get a chance to live again from youth and fix all the stupid mistakes I've made in my life. And I'd hate to think that the perpertrators of 9/11 are in heaven right now with 40 virgins apiece.

But the truth is, I don't know. No one does.

Peace to you. And good growing.

I think part of the answer to the gays question has to do with uncoupling the sex drive from the mandate to procreate.
It is ime a uniquely Abrahamic perspective that the only holy/authorized expression of sex is to have kids. The real world is more complex and wondrous than that. cn

cannabineer said:

I think part of the answer to the gays question has to do with uncoupling the sex drive from the mandate to procreate.
It is ime a uniquely Abrahamic perspective that the only holy/authorized expression of sex is to have kids. The real world is more complex and wondrous than that. cn

Click to expand...

I certainly don't discount that you may be right. I have absolutely no problem with gays. I have gays relatives and friends. But science claims that pro-creation is what drives us to want sex. And the reality of homosexuality is not in line with that. And I don't think science will ever have an answer for that.

WileyCoyote said:

What is love?
Why do we get sad?
Why do we laugh?
Why do we cry?
Why do baby animals like to play?
If pro-creation is indeed among the greatest of human desires, then why are so many people gay? (I'm not bashing gays here; I'm just asking a logical question).

Click to expand...

1. Multiple chemical reactions in order for us to pro create, and protect our offspring. It's all a matter of survival.
2. Because we are out of weed... Or probably so we know what to do to make ourselves happy and prosperous.
3. Chuck Norris never cries.
4. It's fun. If you had no feelings, no happiness or sadness... life would be bland. You wouldn't care about anything and you would die easily.
5. Probably natures way of saying "stop over fucking polluting me with humans, assholes"

To say Science is as far from answering questions as religion is, I think is a big stretch. Religion does not create knowledge, it is not a source of knowledge, It is only a source of speculation twisted to serve itself.

I would appreciate a link to what science says.
Imo presenting "science" as a monolith of authority misrepresents what is more like berobed Greeks squabbling in the Agora.
It's very difficult to do science of any sort on the nature of the human sex drive. I would be very very wary of sociologists and those even less rigorous than that profession passing themselves as "scientists". Jmo. cn

WileyCoyote said:

I certainly don't discount that you may be right. I have absolutely no problem with gays. I have gays relatives and friends. But science claims that pro-creation is what drives us to want sex. And the reality of homosexuality is not in line with that. And I don't think science will ever have an answer for that.

Click to expand...

Turtles and roaches don't love. Yet they procreate.
Why is playing fun for for baby animals?

You're right in saying that religion does not create knowledege. And that science does. But Heisenberg's (sp?) Uncertainty Principle guarantees that science can't explain everything. There are some things that just can't be known.

WileyCoyote said:

Turtles and roaches don't love. Yet they procreate.
Why is playing fun for for baby animals?

You're right in saying that religion does not create knowledege. And that science does. But Heisenberg's (sp?) Uncertainty Principle guarantees that science can't explain everything. There are some things that just can't be known.

Click to expand...

How do you know what animals love? I'm sure for some it's just pleasure. There are a lot of questions we will always have and a lot that we can't answer. This is just how it works. In past times we had many questions and the church answered them and it was all wrong. We can't explain things with "God did it" just because science hasn't answered it yet.

We also have to learn to be content with not knowing, or caring! What difference does it really make? Stop dwelling on it, have fun with life, live it, love it, do good things and you should die happy knowing you made the most of it no matter what comes, or doesn't come next.

The church certainly has wrongly impeded science in the past. No doubt about that.

Why care? It's fun to look for evidence and just plain speculate sometimes. Friendly discussions among non-combative people with wildly different views was one of my favorite pasttimes in college. While high and tripping. Hell yes!

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says something quite other than that. cn

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

The key quantity here is half of h bar.

Heisenburg's uncertainty principle basically says that "not everything can be known". Information at the sub-atomic level is many times hidden from us because of what we have to do to obtain it. Find out where a particle is? Then we must scatter and reflect light light from it; thus impacting it's velocity. Therefore we can't know both it's location AND velocity at the same time.

I'm certainly no expert in physics. But if you have a better "layman's" explaination of Heisenberg, I'd love to hear it. I've read a lot on the subject, but I'm open to challanges to my understanding.