Martial Arts & Religion

[Syn7]

Science can make a statement on what an orange is, but not WHY it exists NOR what it means to any one individual NOR can it comment on why it tastes like this to one person and different to another.
Science does NOT deal with abstracts like that nor should it.

It does at the quantum level.

I don't understand why folks can't just believe diff things but be friends. It's those differences that move us forward. I love differences. I seek differences. I don't believe in any creationist theory but I'm glad it's there. Part of an evolution IMO. And like SJ was saying before, we can't even really conceive what god really is therefore we wont ever find proof till we clear that hurdle. A mouse won't bake a cake because it isn't able to understand what a cake even is. Maybe when we evolve into our higher mindsets we will be able to prove or disprove god, but till then it isn't even worth trying. God is infinite and we don't really have a handle on the infinite. It's a real mind bender for us. Even the brightest of us have to simply accept infinity and work within that framework. Infinite universes, infinite dimensions, infinite realities, we aren't very close to really grasping that. To think that infinity doesn't start or finish is a mindfukc for realz. As small children we all(those of us that have the capacity anyways) marveled at the fact that time goes on and what could be after something that doesn't have an after? Same with space. Where does it end and what's on the other side? We learn it doesn't end and we have to simply accept that. As adults we can frame the equation better and collect our thoughts and file them better but we don't actually grasp infinity any more than we did when we first asked those questions at the tender age of 5.

[Syn7]

Every scientists that discovers anything was, before he proved his discovery, a theoretical scientists.
The whole religion VS science thing only exists in the minds of those that THINK there is a conflict or WANT there to be one.
The complement each other, at least I see them doing do.
Science is doing its part to "find God" and explain God's creation, it makes comments on ONE of the ways that God reveals "Himself" to us, the universe around Us.
The more science finds out and knows, the closer we get to understand God and how God has chosen to reveal "himself" to Us.
Some of the greatest scientists of the past were religious ( some Christian) and it was that religion that drove them to see an order in the universe, to thirst for the HOW of things.
Religion has nothing to fear from Science and neither should science from religion.
It at times reminds me of the MA "debate" between the old Traditional methods being replaced by the new "scientific methods" and how there are supporters on either side and who they don't realize that it ISN'T an either/or situation at all.

Word. Even the big bang theory was originally proposed by a priest looking for a scientific explanation for genesis. A ton of scientific knowledge was created by Christians who really did have faith. Of course everyone was Christian back in the day. Practically punishable by death to not be. But a lot of them only paid lip service. I'm not talking about those scientists. I'm talking about very religious mathematicians and scientists. Huge contributions. Especially in astronomy and medicine.

[Syn7]

Honey Badger deserves it's own thread.

Honey Badger aint scared! Honey Badger don't give a sh1t about your thread!

[Syn7]

Gene... I DARE you to try fighting a honey badger. No weapons... man vs. beast. Let me know how that goes for you!

I watched a squirrel absolutely destroy a full grown man. They are scary when they growl too. It's so load and deep. If a squirrel can do that, I don't want none of Honey Badger!

[Syn7]

I was just responding to the idea that comparing calculus and linear algebra to theoretical physics was a stretch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E...range_equation

The Standard Model is what we already know and can observe it doesn't have anything to do with parallel universes, membranes or any other exotic theories about space and time. . .yet.

I was just reading Euler's Gem. Interesting read.

[Scott R. Brown]

I've seen a black hole. I know they exist. They may not be exactly what we think they are, but I can assure you that we have seen them. And before we saw them we knew they existed because of earlier data and math. There is no data or mathematical evidence of any sort of god. That analogy is no good. Nobody ever said they felt like maybe a black hole existed based on nothing more than a belief that it existed. In science that is laughable. Religion calls it faith.

You cannot see a black hole, you infer it from its effects......just like God!

[Syn7]

Umm, no. It is not the same thing. Not even close. Bad analogy. I'm not gonna go back and forth about it though. I said mine. Black holes actually exist. It is not a crutch, or a belief. It really is there.

[Scott R. Brown]

Umm, no. It is not the same thing. Not even close. Bad analogy. I'm not gonna go back and forth about it though. I said mine. Black holes actually exist. It is not a crutch, or a belief. It really is there.

uh they are black holes nothing escapes from them. they affect the space around them. that is how they are perceived.

i love how people who do not believe in God consider themselves experts on the matter. when you want to understand a topic you go to the experts on the matter not people who don't know anything about it.

if you want to know about god read the writings of mystics who have made it their life's work to investgate the matter, not scientists who research only objectively measurable phenomena and know nothing about the topic.

[SoCo KungFu]

I have never seen a black hole, but apparently they exist!, Perhaps God exists too! To say outright God does not exist is almost as extreme as saying outright that he does exist.

Rational people usually require objective evidence, but just because there is no objective evidence is not proof something does not exist. The infrared spectrum existed regardless of whether mankind had the means to measure it objectively. But it could not be proven to exist without the objective means to demonstrate it.

Black holes, while not completely understood, exist because their effects are not only observable but their physical properties are becoming increasingly measurable.

As Huxley would say, black holes are soluble.

As far as any god is concerned, to paraphrase Hitchens, any assertion presented without evidence can be dismissed just the same. The burden of proof is on you.

[SoCo KungFu]

Science can make a statement on what an orange is, but not WHY it exists NOR what it means to any one individual NOR can it comment on why it tastes like this to one person and different to another.
Science does NOT deal with abstracts like that nor should it.

Yes it can. Evolution of fruit is quite well understood thanks (selection pressure via herbivory on such plants producing fruit, thereby increasing that plant genetic reproduction via increased seed dispersal). We can also quite clearly explain why it tastes in such a way (chemical composition) and furthermore the benefits such a structure brings to both the plant (reproductive benefit via seed dispersal), in this case an orange tree, and those organisms which feed off it (nutrition). Additionally, we do understand why things taste the way they do from person to person (frequency of various chemical receptors on sensory cells of the tongue). None of these are even remotely abstract.

[SoCo KungFu]

uh they are black holes nothing escapes from them. they affect the space around them. that is how they are perceived.

i love how people who do not believe in God consider themselves experts on the matter. when you want to understand a topic you go to the experts on the matter not people who don't know anything about it.

if you want to know about god read the writings of mystics who have made it their life's work to investgate the matter, not scientists who research only objectively measurable phenomena and know nothing about the topic.

Are you an expert in the some odd 10,000 or so estimated dieties that have been worshiped thoughout human history? What makes you think you're any more equipped to speak on the subject than anyone else here? Arrogant much?

You want to know why its so easy to dismiss god? Every religion and every set of claims such religions have made have been in near entirety debunked as being utter bullshit. There are no blood drinking vampire gods. There are no giant, interstellar space worms. There are no talking snakes, people that can walk on water, mammals reproducing via parthenogenesis or rib women. There is no great flood. There is no giant boat.

On the other hand, our understanding of the true physical nature of our universe is steadily piling up.

This is ultimately a matter of yes or no. There is no in-between, half god. That wouldn't be an all omnipotent, omnipresent being now would it? The god camp makes claims based on utter non-existence of evidence, that is the very definition of faith. It is not lack of objective evidence. It is lack of all evidence. And as such it can be summarily dismissed.

Not only is there no evidence for such claims, there are refutes to such claims and counter explanations that are founded in some sort of scientific reasoning that are far more rigorous (although not all entirely correct). Furthermore, everyday we utilize technology that has been developed and implemented in absence of total understanding of its function. Despite the lack of total understanding, we knew enough to make a conclusion and put it into practical use. That, in effect, blows this idea that science can't deduce a conclusion based on lack of total varifiability to bits. We do make conclusions from scientific discovery. Practicality demands such.

So, given the incredible number of false claims that all religions have made throughout history it is easy order to simply dismiss any god as just another in the long line of failed ideas.

On the contrary, given the number of far more plausible hypotheses (and that is giving the god camp to much credence, god isn't a bad hypothesis, its not a hypothesis at all) as to the origination of all this that we have now, given our knowledge of the physical evolution of the universe, of organisms, of the laws of nature and the fact that all these patterns are far more intuitive in absence of deity; it is far more realistic to simply conclude there is no god. This is a yes or no question and the answers are not even remotely close to 50/50.

The only god to exist is the one you've created in your own mind.

[SoCo KungFu]

You cannot see a black hole, you infer it from its effects......just like God!

All effects having been attributed to a deity have been more suitably explained in other, more rational ways.

[White_Ape]

I often wonder why threads like these come about.
You believe what you believe and if someone wants to know why you believe in that particular thing, you explain why and leave it at that.

It always, always turns out to be "Well, I believe in this because blah blah blah, so what you are saying doesn't logically make sense, blah blah blah, its been scientifically proven that blah blah blaaaaaahhhh"

F**k.
Does it really matter? I have my beliefs, and sometimes when someone says they believe in something and I get get curious as to why, I ask (politely and tactfully) and when they explain why, even if they say "it just feels right to me" then thats all that matters.
Why try to convince someone to stop believing what they believe?
And why try so hard to defend what YOU believe in against someone who believes something else? Let them spout off. It Doesn't Matter
Peace to everyone, no matter what y'all believe,

[rett]

I often wonder why threads like these come about.
You believe what you believe and if someone wants to know why you believe in that particular thing, you explain why and leave it at that.

It always, always turns out to be "Well, I believe in this because blah blah blah, so what you are saying doesn't logically make sense, blah blah blah, its been scientifically proven that blah blah blaaaaaahhhh"

F**k.
Does it really matter? I have my beliefs, and sometimes when someone says they believe in something and I get get curious as to why, I ask (politely and tactfully) and when they explain why, even if they say "it just feels right to me" then thats all that matters.
Why try to convince someone to stop believing what they believe?
And why try so hard to defend what YOU believe in against someone who believes something else? Let them spout off. It Doesn't Matter
Peace to everyone, no matter what y'all believe,

People are different. Some people enjoy discussing ideas. If they also grew up in a school system and social climate that encourages testing ideas then they may enjoy it even more.

Someone else who may have grown up in a school system that teaches them to shut up and respect the teacher and repeat everything the teacher tells them by rote, and where they are beaten by their older siblings to learn not to stick out, talk back, or think they are anybody, might behave differently. Just as one example.

It's not a little bit ironic that you a criticizing other people for being different than you when your message is supposed to be just let people be what they are.

I'll leave it to others to decide which approach to discussing ideas that leads to intellectual and scientific progress.

Peace

[Scott R. Brown]

Just because a notable person comes up with a witty aphorism does not make their point undeniable.

It can just as easily be said, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Generally, for any witty aphorism that can imply one point of view, another may be found to imply the opposite.

"When the cat's away the mice will play", yet "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"!

"Opposites attract", yet "Birds of a feather flock together"!

Having said that, I am not making the claim that God exists. I am stating that the previous implication made here that, God "obviously" does not exist is just as foolish a statement as saying he obviously does exist.

Some of you semi-concrete thinkers here are apparently unable to make the distinction between a metaphor used to illustrate a phenomenon or principle and the phenomenon/principle it is meant to illustrate. That is all that is implied with the blackhole metaphor. Some here are confusing the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself.

There is a clear distinction between the concrete/contrived world of matter and subjective experience. Both are real, but each are experienced differently. Our experience of life/creation is a function of a foundational belief system that influences our experience and limits what we allow ourselves to experience. For a well known metaphor that illustrates this point please refer to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

No one here can prove to me they have an "idea" in their mind, I understand your concept of "idea" because I have ideas myself.

Thus, any person claiming God does not exist cannot make that claim with any reasonable certainty, because, since they have not had the experience, they cannot judge it with any valid argument. Just because one has never eaten an orange or seen an orange does not mean a person reporting they have eaten one has not eaten one. If another who has eaten an orange hears someone else report having eaten a tangerine states, "That was not a tangerine it was an orange!" Does not mean the other had eaten and orange and not a tangerine.

We must be careful not to redefine another's direct experience for them when we have no basis for it.

Explaining away another's direct experience as having been explained more easily, is not a valid argument. Occam's razor is a reasonable principle to follow, it is not an absolute principle of existence.

There are many many reports throughout history of mystics from different cultures and historical periods having similar transcendent experiences. There is enough consistent anecdotal information available from widely diverse sources to warrant the avoidance of making a blanket statement that God does not exist.

Having said that, when the word God is mentioned, each person brings to it their own preconceived notions of what is meant by the word. Many people automatically believe it is a reference to the Biblical theological description of God. I make no effort at the moment to define just what God is. Only that there is enough evidence to suspect that there is something to the fact of the existence of a Supreme Intelligence commonly referred to as God.

Anyone who does not want to accept that is merely ill-informed on the subject. It is better to inform ourselves on the subject at hand instead of blindly accepting the notions of scientists who do not research the subject and are skilled in other fields of study. If one wants to understand the experience of God, one needs to study those who have claimed to have had the direct experience, and I am not referring, "necessarily" to television evangelicals, but to mystics of ALL religions, including those commonly referred to as native religions.