May The Forces Be With You(es)

[MerlinsByte]

A BABBLE DELUX BUT A TRUE BABBLE IT IS


I believe in God or an intelligent designer. However playing the devils advocate is easy because of the tidal wave of (incomplete) theories that abound. One to the most promising is the universe coming into existence from a virtual Quantum zero point energy flux. However even that demands that a vacuum of empty space be present.

We all should know from high school physics 101, that there is no such thing as an empty vacuum, a theoretical "empty" vacuum is a "something." So when thinking about the creation of everything in the universe we must first consider nothingness from whence it came. The awesome concept of "nothing" is difficult for the western mind to comprehend. Much more difficult than infinity. Think of it this way, nothingness encapsulates infinity, and God encapsulated and created nothingness.

What one must complete when trying to understanding the creation of everything is that you must accept that the answer will be of an impossible to prove nature. The creation force (go ahead call it God), IS THE POWER THAT CREATED ORDER FROM NOTHING. IT LIES OUTSIDE OF THE NATURAL LAW DRIVEN UNIVERSE AND IS THEREFORE INFINITE IN POWER AND INFORMATION.

To believe in this force is called FAITH. Scientists are fond of saying that faith (As in the belief that God is "real," or even a simple truism that the next day will bloom into existence) is a quaint notion but is useless to science.

I would beg to differ, pointing out that today's most dearly held theories are accepted on FAITH, that is, a faith of scientific methodology.

We have beautiful elegant (incomplete) theories that explain all manner of natural phenomena. To accept an incomplete theory is to take this theory on FAITH! As distasteful and down right repugnant to some men of learning this is nevertheless a fact. The scientists are priests of a scientific method, their God is the belief in themselves.

It is my belief that to belief in a creation force a God that created everything logical. Consider the newest theory of the day. The universe sprang into existence from nothing. And we live in one universe out of a finite number of universes that just happens to support (semi) intelligent Life!

It that is your wish believe that wicked crap. I live in one out of the infinite universes that has a living God in it!

mb

[LogicaLunatic]

MB,

You're assuming that belief is required.

I have no beliefs and I contend that most of the things people claim to "believe" are not beliefs.

For example, if you drop a rock from a ladder do you believe that it will fall or do you think that it will fall?

If you replace the word believe(s) with the word think(s) then we can more accurately determine what requires faith and what does not.

No scientist believes that the universe sprang into existence from nothing. They think that The Big Bang may be a good possibility (but certaintly not the only one).

One to the most promising is the universe coming into existence from a virtual Quantum zero point energy flux.

Not the leading theory anymore (don't think it ever was). See 'branes'. The only thing it's being looked at seriously for is as an energy/propellent source for deep space travel. If I've missed the peer reviewed article in a scientific journal that contends ZPE have been involved in the creation of the universe please let me know.

(paraphrased) FAITH!...faith...FAITH!...BLAH...FAITH!! Since science can't explain everything then scientific theories require faith, therefore science is a religion.

Old and tired BS.

And we live in one universe out of a[n in]finite number of universes that just happens to support (semi) intelligent Life!

You write that sarcastically but really, do you think we'd be alive to ponder these things in a universe that didn't support intelligent life?

:)
LL

[MerlinsByte]

For example, if you drop a rock from a ladder do you believe that it will fall or do you think that it will fall?

Terminology isn't the issue here! You must believe that the rock will fall. To think the rock will fall is only that the assumption that your belief is correct. Your faith in the assumption that the rock will fall may be 100%, but this is still a belief that gravity will cause the rock to fall that requires faith.

No scientist believes that the universe sprang into existence from nothing. They think that The Big Bang may be a good possibility (but certainty not the only one).

MERLIN REPLIES...The big bang is of course an old theory but all new theories (of the creation of the universe) try to explain what lit the fuze and describe the (much later) mechanisms of star and galaxy formation. So the zero point tries (and fails miserably) to explain how the universe began and how it this hyperspatial energy (the zero point being the scaffolding or the anchor, a "pop in space time" or a tear in the fabric of space time, allowing everything we see today., to burst forth in our old early empty universe. Yes, a brane is simply part of the (mem) brane which is a variation or part of the overdone super string theory. I suggest you read up on hyperspatial energy flux zero point energy .and how it could relate to the creation of the universe. This theory was first espoused in the spring of 2004.

The (Quantum) zero point theory does Indeed say that the universe come from empty space, dear sir.

You write that sarcastically but really, do you think we'd be alive to ponder these things in a universe that didn't support intelligent life?

Merlin replies........we are alive and self aware by the grace of God. It is our destiny to learn from this vast information processor we call the universe. Perhaps If we come to this wonderful and truly infinitely perplexing question as a child might, that is, with a open mind free of ego , we may have a pittance of a chance to discover why we are here, and what our true destiny is.

and thanks for your response(es) ....

MB

[LogicaLunatic]

Terminology isn't the issue here! You must believe that the rock will fall. To think the rock will fall is only that the assumption that your belief is correct. Your faith in the assumption that the rock will fall may be 100%, but this is still a belief that gravity will cause the rock to fall that requires faith.

You're right, terminology isn't the issue but we should at least agree to call apples apples and oranges oranges. Do I need to believe that a rock will fall? No, I've seen it happen. Do I believe rocks fall? No, I think they do. It's a slight difference but it IS a difference. Based upon previous experience I come to the conclusion that the rock will fall. I'm basically Remembering the Future. A conclusion is not a belief. We come to conclusions every day about thousands of things. For example, I concluded that the previous sentence should be included in this reply. Do I have to invoke belief for that? No.

Commonly, belief is something that's required when there is little evidence to support something. As In, "You do believe me, don't you?" I don't need or use belief in any part of my life. Everything is merely a conclusion that could easily be wrong. There are conclusions that I want, sometimes desparately, to be true, but there are only that, conclusions.

Not all conclusions are beliefs, but all beliefs are conclusions.

Faith is a belief taken to the EXTREME where there is NO evidence to support the idea in question. Faith can only lead to trouble which is why I say that faith isn't moral.

I suggest you read up on hyperspatial energy flux zero point energy .and how it could relate to the creation of the universe. This theory was first espoused in the spring of 2004.

Espoused or published? If published, where?

we are alive and self aware by the grace of God. It is our destiny to learn from this vast information processor we call the universe. Perhaps If we come to this wonderful and truly infinitely perplexing question as a child might, that is, with a open mind free of ego , we may have a pittance of a chance to discover why we are here, and what our true destiny is.

In my experience, a child left to his or her own wonderings will not discover your god until it is inserted there by a trusted adult. In fact, almost everything a trusted adult pumps into a child's head usually gets stuck there. Given that I'd have to say it isn't wise at all to approach questions of this magnitude like a child would. Children believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny and Monsters under their beds. Forgive me if I'd rather not base my beliefs on what may develop in a child's mind.

And dropping my Ego is exactly what led me down the path to Atheism. I realized that humans DON'T hold a special place in the universe created by a God that will take US up to heaven with him. Atheism is the antithesis of Ego and Self Centeredness.

I know why I'm here. My destiny is being fulfilled as I type. I'm a daddy.

[Rounddaworld]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I would beg to differ, pointing out that today's most dearly held theories are accepted on FAITH, that is, a faith of scientific methodology. We have beautiful elegant (incomplete) theories that explain all manner of natural phenomena. To accept an incomplete theory is to take this theory on FAITH! As distasteful and down right repugnant to some men of learning this is nevertheless a fact. The scientists are priests of a scientific method, their God is the belief in themselves.

I think you are confusing scientific methods which are intended to explain and study our experience of reality in an objective manner with what could be called scientism.

Scientism usually means the acceptance of scientific theory and scientific methods as applicable in all fields of inquiry about the world, including morality, ethics, art, and religion. Here, science is held to be the ultimate recourse in questions of public policy and even religion. However, contemporary usage is usually in a pejorative sense, implying that this acceptance of the universality of the scientific method is a dogmatic and uncritical assumption analogous to the dogmatic and uncritical attitudes of religious True Believers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Incomplete theories may have an element of hope that they will lead to greater discoveries but they are not based on faith as in, "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

I find that often when science demonstrates what is false in a set of religious beliefs (such as the earth being the center of the universe) that the religious conveniently move the goal post and go on about what science cannot demonstrate.

[MerlinsByte]

Merlin's note to LogicaLunatic.....I read your response a few times to determine if you truly wanted to engage in serious debate. In any debate forum, much time is wasted on nuisances with no consequential value. However I determined that you are serious. Also all forum members, I do have a weird and alternative way of thinking. I can assure all of you that I take everything serious regardless of my writing thinking style.

LogicaLunatic writes...You're right, terminology isn't the issue but we should at least agree to call apples and oranges oranges. Do I need to believe that a rock will fall? No, I've seen it happen. Do I believe rocks fall? No, I think they do. It's a slight difference but it IS a difference. Based upon previous experience I come to the conclusion that the rock will fall. I'm basically Remembering the Future.

we should at least agree to call apples, apples and oranges oranges

Merlin replies.....if we were talking of everyday objects you would be correct. However in discussing matters of faith, of belief and religious experience, one must consider that his or her everyday experiences and even reality is not as it seems. The slight difference of belief faith and "thinking something will happen are all one in the same. If you applied your theory to Quantum particles (as in Quantum field theory) the theory would fail, as the particles do not behave in the manner that they should according to your real world common sense world.

So we aren't comparing real world terms most of the time because of the very nature of this topic (religion and to a lesser extent philosophy). Words utterly fail us when trying to convey metaphysical terms and/or experiences. This is why intelligent conversation is so difficult on this subject. I will be happy to attempt clarification on anything that I write.

You are not flawed in your logic, you are flawed, or maybe limited would be a better word, in your interpretation of logic. That is the western methodology is the only possible outcome for a set of observable facts. I am of course western, but have had (by the grace of God) some infusion of eastern knowledge and learned to view any problem or circumstance from more than one head on view. Just as in a set of plans there are many views and they all are correct.

So with the above in mind

Faith is a belief taken to the EXTREME where there is NO evidence to support the idea in question. Faith can only lead to trouble which is why I say that faith isn't moral.

This is another example of comparing apples to apples etc. Where exactly does belief become faith? Even If you could point to an imaginary scale and say "this right here is where belief becomes faith" It would be a subjective measurement and therefore an impotent, and rather useless, measurement.

When does art become obscene? Or when is pornography become porn? Define this, in concrete precise terms and I may agree with you.

Faith is a belief taken to the EXTREME where there is NO evidence to support the idea in question. Faith can only lead to trouble which is why I say that faith isn't moral.

This is such a broad assumption as not to be answerable, and in fact illuminates why 90% of true critical thinking has vanished from most western minds.

What type evidence do you need? The very gist of what I was trying to communicate is that the western mind accepts flawed information and stamps REAL EVIDENCE with their approved theory of the day rubber stamp!

This approved information always incomplete, at times fraudulent, and intentionally misleading. Who builds a paradigm foundation on this corruption of factual information?

I've been lied to and conned by better flimflam artists than our indoctrinated tenured scientific and political high priests. You must learn have FAITH in your own intellectual ability and reject what is obviously flawed or down right corrupted information. This paranoia (I call it healthy paranoia) crucial for free thought and is nearly in absentia today.

Now for the latest take on the pitiful and much modified big bang theroy....its getting on to the shank of the morn...but i will be back....


mb

[LogicaLunatic]

Merlin,

Just so we know where this is to go....

Are we arguing over the definitions of Faith and Belief or should we define them before we continue?

Thanks,

LL

[Samildanach]

Belief becomes faith when you have no prior evidence that said belief is true. IF you for example say "I believe this will happen", its not a definite certainty it will, its almost more of an opinion. But when you have faith there is a God without God producing any evidence of his existance then that is faith...ie belief regardless of lack of evidence or arguments to the contrary.

[MerlinsByte]

Merlin, Just so we know where this is to go.... Are we arguing over the definitions of Faith and Belief or should we define them before we continue? Thanks,

Merlin replies.........It seems to me that we have already defined these terms, and I understand your point. but from your post it seems that maybe you dont understand mine, as you fail to reply to specifics....correct me if I am wrong...

I am implying that faith is not definable from belief. And to elaborate, the method used to different between faith and beliefs are subjective.

Now, you may be correct to say that the probability of a belief resulting in a anticipated outcome is greater for a common belief system., While a faith based system results in unanticipated (but not necessarily wrong) outcomes . This does not validate the belief system as being more accurate than a faith based system.

There are many examples of world veiws erroneously accepting a completely false scientific paradigm because of flawed particulars or evidence.

Consider the (Deceased Carl Saga) of his times . Claudius Ptolemaeus believed the Sun, Moon, and other planets circled the Earth. Oh! and this scientific world veiw persisted for 1500 years! If you had lived then and based your BELIEFs on the truths and facts of the day , you would be 100% totally wrong . The faith based (church and religious) system of the was arguably at least as accurate as the common science beliefs of the day. Why should we believe that today’s theories are more accurate than Mr. Ptolemaeus?

If history is any indication, 1000 years from now the big bang theory will be as quaint as the earth centered universe. And everything that you believe as fact today will be 100% wrong!

With the history of major sciencific theroies being wrong more often than not, doesn't it seem what one must accept scienceific trusisms on faith not fact? And this faith is only faith and not a trusim.

Faith, my dear fellows is what we base our "scientific world view on." That is unless you deny the history science's of sordid half truths and numerous erroneous statements of false facts as truth. Scientific discovery isn't discovery at all, it is more like the medieval church that declares theirs as the only truth and any other non main stream theories as heresy.



The "truth" remains elusive, and may be more akin to religion than science.



faith in science or faith in a deity, its all faith.


mb

[LogicaLunatic]

Merlin,

Hold it. I'll reply to your posts I just want to go about this constructively. If we're not DEBATING the definitions of Belief & Faith then we must agree upon a definition for both before we continue.

You've asserted a great many things in only a few posts. What I'd like is for you to clearly state your assertion and then we'll assume that all posts before this one were an attempt to show that your assertion is true.

Also, since this deals greatly with Belief and Faith please clearly state your definitions.

Thanks.

[MerlinsByte]

Please see edit...

to clarify


faith in science or faith in a deity, its all faith.

[Samildanach]

You could say the same thing about belief.

Belief in science or belief in a deity its all just belief.

[Lilith]

Here is something that I have pondered on many occasion, tossed it around in my brain so to say....

What if evolution is correct in the sense that the physical body is a product of that evolution, but it's the soul that is from *God*, the soul is what is in the image of *God*? That all souls are just little pieces of the bigger whole, come down here to Earth to experience whatever in whatever form it chooses to occupy? We're all interconnected and interdependent? And all the different religions, different forms of God are just our way of trying to describe where we(souls) came from and how to get to back there? Remembering who *we* are...all the info is there encoded in our DNA, brains what have you and we just got to tap into that? I know it's weird....so please don't blast me to badly...but I can sit and think about some way out there stuff.

So maybe in essence there is a Divine plan to the Universe, we are part of that plan and possibly the creators of it, *Children of God*....interesting

[LogicaLunatic]

"faith in science or faith in a deity, its all faith."

You and I both see belief and faith in completely different lights so to prevent bickering over definitions I'd like to suggest a new word that will capture the meaning nicely. Trust. I trust that the rock will fall if I drop it. I trust that I will make it home tonight. You trust that there is a god. You trust that the bible is true. Etc.


==========
Definitions...

Trust: Something in which confidence is placed.
Please note that I'm not using the definition of Trust that means or is related to the word Hope.

Science: The Scientific Method.
Please note that I'm not referring to just the body of knowledge that has accumulated using the scientific method but also to the method itself.

Deity: Religion as it exists in religious texts, traditions and lore. Also includes divine revelation.
Please note that I didn't specify a religion.
==========


==========
Now lets rephrase your assertion...

"faith in science or faith in a deity, its all faith."

TO

Trust in science or Trust in a deity, it's all Trust.

TO

Place confidence in the scientific method or place confidence in religion, no matter what you place your confidence in you will be right just as often. (So why not go with religion since it doesn't change as much as science.)

TO

The scientific method and religion are equally reliable and equally valuable in describing how the universe actually works and in making predictions about the future.

(This is how I've interpreted your assertion. If I'm wrong please let me know. It seems that you could mean that your assertion is true only about the beginnings of the universe.)
==========


This is starting to look like a debatable assertion so here we go...

If your assertion is true then when we tackle an issue using both of them we will get one of the following results...

1) Both science and religion will produce the SAME or roughly the same result and be RIGHT.
2) Both science and religion will produce the SAME or roughly the same result and be WRONG.
3) In all other cases science will have the same hit rate. If science is right 75% of the time then religion will be right 75% of the time but perhaps not on the same issues.

Well just a quick look through history will tell us that none of the three conditions above are met.

But, the assertion could still be true if science and religion both fail. The assertion says nothing about HOW valuable science and religion are, only that their values are equal.

So, it looks like we have actually have to tackle a few issues to find out for sure.

Lets try this....

Where, in relation to the Earth, will the planet Mars be exactly five years from now?

This experiment is going to take a while but we'll finally know which is better. So you search the Bible for an answer and pray for a revelation and I'll use science. Meet you back here in five years.

Thanks!

LogicaLunatic

[LogicaLunatic]

Bumpity bump bump bump. No response MB? At least confirm you're going to perform the experiment with me.

Thanks!

LL