Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

    I ran across this, but had seen it prior, and it is the basis for much of my own arguments against our materialistic view of reality, which atheism is grounded in. Except, it seems materialism has been debunked. The problem lies in the fact, that many in science ignore it, and the public at large are ignorant of it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    And so it seems, the scientific evidence tells us today, that consciousness creates the universe, instead of consciousness being created by matter.

    So, the universe comes into existence, when there is a consciousness that looks at it. And so, matter comes from consciousness, not vice versa.

    And this is science, not faith. And so myself and another has said here, that one day science and religion will not be enemies, but will be able to agree. Looks like that day has been here for quite awhile, and its our own refusal to accept science that is the problem. Which illustrates again, the great power of a belief in the false, which will not concede to the science.

    I find this quite hilarious, that the atheistic balloon, founded and grounded in something like faith, has been punctured, and it has blown up, destroyed.

    Materialism is apparently dead, which means all of he arguments based in it are now invalid. I just wonder how long it will take the world to catch up with what reality actually is? A creation of consciousness, of MIND. Which is the Divine Mind that all religions have believed in, even when materialism said it didn't exist at all.

    Looks like we had it right for thousands of years, as with many other things. It seems that intuited knowledge is more intelligent than some want to believe.

  • #2
    Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    I ran across this, but had seen it prior, and it is the basis for much of my own arguments against our materialistic view of reality, which atheism is grounded in. Except, it seems materialism has been debunked. The problem lies in the fact, that many in science ignore it, and the public at large are ignorant of it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    And so it seems, the scientific evidence tells us today, that consciousness creates the universe, instead of consciousness being created by matter.

    So, the universe comes into existence, when there is a consciousness that looks at it. And so, matter comes from consciousness, not vice versa.

    And this is science, not faith. And so myself and another has said here, that one day science and religion will not be enemies, but will be able to agree. Looks like that day has been here for quite awhile, and its our own refusal to accept science that is the problem. Which illustrates again, the great power of a belief in the false, which will not concede to the science.

    I find this quite hilarious, that the atheistic balloon, founded and grounded in something like faith, has been punctured, and it has blown up, destroyed.

    Materialism is apparently dead, which means all of he arguments based in it are now invalid. I just wonder how long it will take the world to catch up with what reality actually is? A creation of consciousness, of MIND. Which is the Divine Mind that all religions have believed in, even when materialism said it didn't exist at all.

    Looks like we had it right for thousands of years, as with many other things. It seems that intuited knowledge is more intelligent than some want to believe.
    Science and "religion" are not enemies, today. Advocates for the exclusivity of each are the ones doing battle.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

      Ok, when we have any form of evidence for the existence of God I may start to take notice.
      How does this debunk atheism in any shape or form as we have had scientists who also believe in God since the beginning of of science.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
        Ok, when we have any form of evidence for the existence of God I may start to take notice.
        How does this debunk atheism in any shape or form as we have had scientists who also believe in God since the beginning of of science.
        Well, going by what BD is saying, the universe doesn't exist unless something is looking at it, therefore the chicken (Godish sort of thing) came before the egg (universe).

        If it must be perceived to exist, then the perceiver exists first.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

          As with everything in science this will be explained eventually and God can piss off again back to nonexistence.
          I don't think this debunks materialism at all it just makes the universe even more complex than we thought it was.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
            Ok, when we have any form of evidence for the existence of God I may start to take notice.
            How does this debunk atheism in any shape or form as we have had scientists who also believe in God since the beginning of of science.
            Just look around you. How can you possibly believe that everything around you just happened by chance?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
              As with everything in science this will be explained eventually and God can piss off again back to nonexistence.
              I don't think this debunks materialism at all it just makes the universe even more complex than we thought it was.
              This is what Rupert Sheldrake refers to as "promissory materialism".

              Peter, materialism proclaims that matter is the ground of reality, that is, solids. Yet we already know this just isn't the fact. So, if you take away what materialism is grounded on, it is debunked, its basic premise, its basic assumption. How clearer does this need to be?

              Now, whoever made the linked video, is using the implications of QM, to make claims. In the same manner as materialists made claims about the non existence of anything outside of matter, i.e. God, with its various definitions.

              You won't find many QPs who would talk about the implications of QM, for materialism is still entrenched in the academic community, and these QPs have to retire in order to even speak about the implications. Implications are still viewed as "woo woo".. Yet this did not stop the scientific materialists from voicing the implications of materialism. See the hypocrisy here? If your science denies the existence of some God, then talk about it, but if it doesn't? Shut up.

              When QM was young, QPs would try to talk about the implications, but were basically told to shut up and just work with the equations. And that is still the attitude that is present within the academic community of QPs.

              Yet there is still a good list of QPs who have talked about the implications, and most are in retirement, and only spoke after they got out of the academic environment.

              I doubt we will ever understand in any great manner what we have evidence of happening at the smallest level of reality, for perhaps there is a wall which thought cannot climb over, bound by the nature of thought itself. After all, in order for the theories of gravity to remain coherent, we had to invent the idea of dark matter in order that they remain coherent. Yet dark matter cannot be discerned, so an invisible thing keeps the theories coherent. If dark matter doesn't exist, this turns physics on its head. So we don't even understand a very old physics, unless we invent something we cannot find.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                Just look around you. How can you possibly believe that everything around you just happened by chance?
                You know there is a great reticence to even ponder the implications of QM. You don't see the same reticence coming from the materialists, who used materialism to try to prove a "first cause" could not exist for there is nothing in reality except matter and energy. Why is this? It is IMO, simply an illustration of how powerful beliefs are, and that people who will never accept the possibility of God, cannot for human nature reasons, change their minds. This is the power of belief, nothing more.

                The nature of reality is not materialistic, period. Yet these materialists will continue to cling to their faith in materialism, for it excludes the existence of the various definitions of God, something greater than the universe itself.

                QM doesn't seek to prove that existence either, but in its implications there is an allowance for it, and that comes in via the problem of consciousness itself.

                What is most fascinating to me in regards to the implications, is that consciousness itself is the creator of the universe. That it isn't there until consciousness looks. Of course this seems loony, and the first thing some people would say, is that the universe existed billions of years before there was life, with consciousness to look at it. But, even that didn't exist until consciousness was able to look back. The looking backward, made it manifest, and before consciousness could consider it, it wasn't there. Others would say that Cosmic Consciousness was looking 14 billion years ago.

                I think if anyone wants to refute the linked video, one should start by proving each QM point that was covered, as being wrong, non factual. And no one can do that, for it is accepted theory. And there is more evidence of QM, than there is of general physics, as more experiments have been done in QM.
                Last edited by Blue Doggy; 07-12-2014, 07:19 AM.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                  Originally posted by reality View Post
                  Well, going by what BD is saying, the universe doesn't exist unless something is looking at it, therefore the chicken (Godish sort of thing) came before the egg (universe).

                  If it must be perceived to exist, then the perceiver exists first.
                  Not me saying it actually, I am just a parrot, parroting some QPs.

                  But yes, you made it very simple, reducing it down, which is easy to grasp. Thanks! Nice to have philosophers around. (you were a philosophy major I think)

                  There has been a resurgence of late of Bohm's ideas about the Implicate Order, the folding and enfolding of reality, that has a source. This Source is unknowable, just like some religions have considered God to be unknowable.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                    Quantum mechanics does not debunk materialism in the slightest. It is just another natural system we are unable to currently explain fully. That it acts strangely is a good thing as to be honest if we did live in a completely explainable universe it would be depressing as what's left to discover.
                    Quantum mechanics does not mean God exists any more than anything else that science can't explain it's just you putting God into the equation wherever you see even a sliver of a doubt in hard science.
                    As always I await any evidence for the existence of a supreme being.
                    You act like quantum mechanics is a finished field of study when in fact it's only just begun.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                      Ok, here is the fly in the ointment, IMO.

                      If consciousness is independent of matter, and matter isn't there without consciousness, then we just discovered the existence of what some would call God. And that the universe and all that it contains, is a product of consciousness itself. And there isn't 7 billion consciousness' but one consciousness, so in reality, humanity and all of consciousness is ONE. And we exist as separate consciousness, only because a Cosmic Consciousness is conscious of all of these others.

                      That might eventually change the way we view everything, even ourselves and others. So loving others as you love yourself has a much deep meaning, for when you are loving others, you are in fact loving yourself. For your consciousness is the exact same consciousness as found in all men, in all life. These are implications, and we know implications do matter in human existence.

                      ---------DOUBLE POST-----------

                      Ok, here is the fly in the ointment, IMO.

                      If consciousness is independent of matter, and matter isn't there without consciousness, then we just discovered the existence of what some would call God. And that the universe and all that it contains, is a product of consciousness itself. And there isn't 7 billion consciousness' but one consciousness, so in reality, humanity and all of consciousness is ONE. And we exist as separate consciousness, only because a Cosmic Consciousness is conscious of all of these others.

                      That might eventually change the way we view everything, even ourselves and others. So loving others as you love yourself has a much deep meaning, for when you are loving others, you are in fact loving yourself. For your consciousness is the exact same consciousness as found in all men, in all life. These are implications, and we know implications do matter in human existence.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                        That's just your theory though.
                        You are trying to inject feelings into the basic workings of the universe which I have a huge problem with accepting. At the moment the observation mystery about quantum mechanics is something that can cause much debate and may problems like that long continue in science and show us all we aren't as super advanced as some think we are.
                        The next century is going to be exciting as they study and test quantum mechanics to breaking point and beyond.

                        I hope you don't think I'm being rude by saying I think you are completely wrong as you will no doubt say the same to me.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                          That's just your theory though.
                          You are trying to inject feelings into the basic workings of the universe which I have a huge problem with accepting. At the moment the observation mystery about quantum mechanics is something that can cause much debate and may problems like that long continue in science and show us all we aren't as super advanced as some think we are.
                          The next century is going to be exciting as they study and test quantum mechanics to breaking point and beyond.

                          I hope you don't think I'm being rude by saying I think you are completely wrong as you will no doubt say the same to me.
                          Ah, you give this brain far too much credit. I didn't invent what I have written, QPs did.

                          And I don't think you are being rude sir. No way.

                          But one thing is clear, there will come a time when the materialistic views we have held for a couple hundred years or more, will be replaced in common consciousness by the reality of QM, which throws light on reality itself. A paradigm shift of common consciousness when it comes to understanding reality, and yes, this is very exciting. I won't live to see that paradigm shift though. Perhaps you might.

                          But I am sure it took quite some time for the globe earth to replace the flat earth idea. That was a shift in paradigm, as this will be a shift in paradigm within the human population. Our collective view of reality will shift to match the science, and who knows what that will do in human culture. For we will have changed the way in which the human brain views reality itself. And the difference between the materialistic view and the quantum view is tremendous, with all sort of future implications.

                          It is easy to understand why the idea that there is no universe without a consciousness to observe it, that consciousness creates what it observes sounds like Twighlight Zone material. But what is being learned about at the quantum level also looks like twighlight zone material. It's almost impossible to believe. And that creates a rub, I think. For it doesn't seem to be common sense. But much of common sense is materialistically based, I think. So, no surprise there.

                          Of course, if we could actually KNOW, what consciousness is, this would help, yet we simply don't know. Materialism says it is a product of matter itself, i.e. the brain which is made of matter. Yet when we look at matter, we don't find something that materialistic science can understand, for it looks like magic and hocus pocus. Yet it isn't.

                          So for materialism, consciousness has been the hard problem. For we do not know exactly what it is, but we use it to concoct all theory. Perhaps it is just impossible for consciousness to understand itself? That may very well be. But the key here in all of this is knowing what consciousness is. One can say it is just something created by the matter that is the brain, but since this cannot be irrefutably proven, it presents a problem.

                          If we say the brain is doing this or doing that, and this is creating consciousness, then we would know. Yet it could be that the things going on in the brain are similar to what a tv set is doing when it receives a signal. You are seeing the reaction of a brain made of matter, when it receives consciousness. And so far we cannot prove it one way or the other. So the assumptions come in, for when we do not know, we have to assume. Science itself is grounded in assumptions, with many of those assumptions now dogmatic in nature.

                          The key is to keep an open mind, yet there is a great resistance from the materialists, for they don't want an open mind, if their beliefs might be proved to be wrong. Human nature and its influence again. And yes, it even infects science, as many scientists like Sheldrake will tell you, if you care to listen.

                          Yet this intensely interests me, for reality is at stake. And reality does interest me.
                          Last edited by Blue Doggy; 07-12-2014, 08:29 AM.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                            That's just your theory though.
                            You are trying to inject feelings into the basic workings of the universe which I have a huge problem with accepting. At the moment the observation mystery about quantum mechanics is something that can cause much debate and may problems like that long continue in science and show us all we aren't as super advanced as some think we are.
                            The next century is going to be exciting as they study and test quantum mechanics to breaking point and beyond.

                            I hope you don't think I'm being rude by saying I think you are completely wrong as you will no doubt say the same to me.
                            If you believe the scientific consensus, there will be no human life in the next century.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              If you believe the scientific consensus, there will be no human life in the next century.
                              From global warming, or from capitalistic consumerism depleting the earth of its natural resources, needed for consumerism?

                              I heard last night, that if the same percentage of people in china(as in the usa) all own fossil fuel burning cars, that their needs for one week would surpass what we can currently produce in a years time. Who's bright idea was it to turn china into the world's supplier of consumer goods? Did it start with Nixon?

                              Consumerism, on which our economy and most are based, looks to be a deadly cancer on humanity itself. Perhaps the solution for this will come from QM?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X