![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » February 13th, 2018, 4:35 am wrote:Can deism have scientific background ?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » February 14th, 2018, 6:38 pm wrote:
Anybody can come up with a lot of reasons from the findings
of science to support just about anything.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » February 15th, 2018, 5:09 am wrote:Yeah, but somehow science had progress in technology
leaving the philosophy of science for many speculations.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » February 28th, 2018, 3:00 am wrote:The tendency to understand "God" by physical laws, formulas,
equations using the Quantum Theory ( Physics) never will be ended.
a)
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The law of causality requires physical effects to be due to physical causes. For this reason any theoretical model which replaces physical causes by mathematical objects is creationism, that is, it creates physical objects out of mathematical elements.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » February 28th, 2018, 1:06 pm wrote: Quantum mechanics does not replace physical causes, it simply shows
certain of them to be nonexistent within the premises of Bell's inequality
(which are the premises of the scientific world view).
The most we can conclude is that the system of causality in the scientific
world view is not closed.
This is indeed why QM makes it easier to believe in a spiritual (non-physical)
aspect of reality but it is no proof that such a thing exists and it certainly
lends no kind of support to the belief that the universe was created
by an intelligent being of any kind.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » February 28th, 2018, 7:48 pm wrote: Quantum mechanics does not replace physical ( CLASSICAL) causes, it simply shows
certain of them to be nonexistent within the premises of Bell's inequality
(which are the premises of the scientific world view).
The most we can conclude is that the system of causality in the scientific (QUANTUM)
world view is not closed.
=============
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » March 9th, 2018, 1:45 am wrote:Socrat -
If you can define something then you have some residual "proof" of something.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » March 8th, 2018, 9:38 pm wrote:Question.
Why are we so continuously relinquishing to consider that both the
existence and the nonexistence of God are definitely non-provable?
Answer.
Because our brain works on two levels:
a) conscious - god doesn't exist
b) subconscious - god does exist
==========
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » March 9th, 2018, 2:31 am wrote:socrat44 » March 8th, 2018, 9:38 pm wrote:Question.
Why are we so continuously relinquishing to consider that both the
existence and the nonexistence of God are definitely non-provable?
Answer.
Because our brain works on two levels:
a) conscious - god doesn't exist
b) subconscious - god does exist
==========
Whatever may go on in the subconscious mind,
it is the decisions of the conscious mind which represent
our positions on the matter whether theist like myself or non-theist like BJ.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » March 10th, 2018, 2:59 am wrote:mitchellmckain » March 9th, 2018, 2:31 am wrote:Whatever may go on in the subconscious mind,
it is the decisions of the conscious mind which represent
our positions on the matter whether theist like myself or non-theist like BJ.
a) The conscious mind is just as the " tip of the iceberg "
. . . . the visible 10 percent your Conscious Mind,
and the hidden 90 percent your Subconscious Mind.
socrat44 » March 10th, 2018, 2:59 am wrote:b) The Universe as whole is: matter and dark matter/energy.
visible 5% matter of Universe is just as the " tip of the iceberg "
and the unseen 95% of dark matter/energy is hidden ''under water''.
Conclusion.
Hidden dark matter/energy dominates in the Universe but we don't know
how 95% dark matter/energy can create 7% visible matter.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » March 14th, 2018, 4:13 pm wrote:socrat44 » March 10th, 2018, 2:59 am wrote:mitchellmckain » March 9th, 2018, 2:31 am wrote:Whatever may go on in the subconscious mind,
it is the decisions of the conscious mind which represent
our positions on the matter whether theist like myself or non-theist like BJ.
a) The conscious mind is just as the " tip of the iceberg "
. . . . the visible 10 percent your Conscious Mind,
and the hidden 90 percent your Subconscious Mind.
This is true. But the reason for this is because the conscious mind is focused on the deliberative choices we make while the unconscious mind carries out the pre-programmed work of previous choices. For example, when we learn to walk or drive, it takes our conscious mind to learn how, after which we leave this to the unconscious mind to remember how it is done. Indeed the unconscious mind plays a big part in our memory functions all around, bringing forth things to our conscious mind when needed (hopefully).socrat44 » March 10th, 2018, 2:59 am wrote:b) The Universe as whole is: matter and dark matter/energy.
visible 5% matter of Universe is just as the " tip of the iceberg "
and the unseen 95% of dark matter/energy is hidden ''under water''.
Conclusion.
Hidden dark matter/energy dominates in the Universe but we don't know
how 95% dark matter/energy can create 7% visible matter.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the mind.
I have no doubt that you can see all kinds of rabbits and flowers
in the random patterns of the clouds, but such things have very little
significance for the living of our lives.
Don't get me wrong, I am usually one of the first to point out that imagination
and pattern recognition is a powerful tool even in science. But it can also go too far,
as with schizophrenia. This is not to say that the conclusions you are drawing
from what you see in scientific facts are wrong, only that they are quite subjective
and thus are not a reasonable basis for expecting other people to agree with you.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » March 19th, 2018, 4:07 am wrote:Socrat -
What you've posted above is a "proposal" not a "conclusion."
You are drawing psychological conclusions and then taking the analogy
as a physical manifestation of a literal Ice Berg.
I am not saying it is a silly thing to think, or worth considering.
I think you'd make much more progress with these ideas if you looked
more closely at how you're jumping from one idea to the next.
Explore the other options that could counter this position and look
for the most wacky one you can think up too.
My thoughts are to make sure anything I think can be countered
by some other idea (at least in part), and if they cannot be countered
in any way then I must be at fault due to lack of a broader perspective on the issue.
Anyway, thanks for posting.
Nice to see someone open with their ideas and unafraid to express incomplete thoughts.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » March 19th, 2018, 5:37 am wrote:You were using a analogy of a psychological analogy to ground your proposition in though.
There is no obvious correlation between human subconscious and dark matter.
It is unclear what you mean by making such analogies.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » March 19th, 2018, 6:15 am wrote:
i don't bring analogy of ''correlation between human subconscious and dark matter''
i say that we know as much about dark matter as about subconsciousness.
Wikipedia: Psychologists and psychiatrists use the term "unconscious" in traditional practices, where metaphysical and New Age literature, often use the term subconscious. It should not, however, be inferred that the concept of the unconscious and the New Age concept of the subconscious are precisely equivalent, even though they both warrant consideration of mental processes of the brain. Psychologists and psychiatrists take a much more limited view of the capabilities of the unconscious than are represented by New Age depiction of the subconscious.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » March 19th, 2018, 7:15 am wrote:BadgerJelly » March 19th, 2018, 5:37 am wrote:You were using a analogy of a psychological analogy to ground your proposition in though.
There is no obvious correlation between human subconscious and dark matter.
It is unclear what you mean by making such analogies.
i don't bring analogy of ''correlation between human subconscious and dark matter''
i say that we know as much about dark matter as about subconsciousness.
BadgerJelly » March 25th, 2018, 12:38 am wrote:The issue is I have no idea what you meant
or what you are saying in the OP other than what seems like a proposition of
"We don't know, therefore god."
I don't imagine your position is that simple.
I am not sure what you're saying or expecting.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests