• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

God?

omnius said:
I'm just curious what the source of your dislike for that research is in light of the respect it has received? Has there been any credible counter research?
Click to expand...

The principles you've quoted are only respected in two places: pseudo-scientific circles and in a few mathematics circles (especially outside of Russia).

I've already given the reasons why I discount the mathematical side. (Given that I'm as published or more as the next guy, I'm not impressed by a publication beyond its own merits.)

My feelings about it really doesn't rise to dislike, other than when used by the charlatans to sell either products (the Russian orgone energy crowd comes to mind) (see writings by Wilheim Reich to know where the orgone nonsense comes from) and politics (the concept is the darling of the Intelligent Design crowd).

In point of fact, as I recall, Pollack introduced the idea of DNA as language as a metaphor in the early 90s, and it's been run with since then.

And fwiw - the concept of the observer influencing outcome at the quantum level is not at all a new finding - and is not the same thing at all as experimenter-observer bias.

As far as credible counter-research - sorry, can't think of any, just as I can't cite credible counter-research for a vast number of ideas and concepts.

I mean you no disrespect, but if you're really keen on that DNA/language idea, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)
 
Sorry, I've been away for a few days. What'd I miss? Have we proven/disproven the existence of God yet.....

Pffffffffttt... as if!

One thing will always remain constant no matter how many of these threads pop up on the internet, get debated in town halls, or are discussed over coffee... those who know there is no such thing as a divine creature also know without a doubt that those who do believe are completely out of touch with reality, have no common sense, and are utterly & completely insane. While those who know there is a supreme being, also know that those who don't believe have no grasp on reality, are lacking general common sense, and are beyond insane for denying the existence of our Lord and Savior who specifically warned that those who deny his existence would be damned to hell eternal.

Me, I'm not rooting for either side. I enjoy the back and forth. Because no matter what happens, each and every one of us gets to find out for our very own what the truth was all along. There's no escaping that. And at that point, all if this frivolous debating will cease to matter immediately.
 
My Theory of Knowledge teacher laid out these scenarios.

Believe in God/There is God = Safe
Believe in God/Is no God = Safe
Don't Believe in God/Is no God = Safe
Don't Believe in God/There is God = Screwed

"better to have it an not need it, then need it and be screwed" - Mr. Fletcher
 
EarlyMon said:
The principles you've quoted are only respected in two places: pseudo-scientific circles and in a few mathematics circles (especially outside of Russia).

I've already given the reasons why I discount the mathematical side. (Given that I'm as published or more as the next guy, I'm not impressed by a publication beyond its own merits.)

My feelings about it really doesn't rise to dislike, other than when used by the charlatans to sell either products (the Russian orgone energy crowd comes to mind) (see writings by Wilheim Reich to know where the orgone nonsense comes from) and politics (the concept is the darling of the Intelligent Design crowd).

In point of fact, as I recall, Pollack introduced the idea of DNA as language as a metaphor in the early 90s, and it's been run with since then.

And fwiw - the concept of the observer influencing outcome at the quantum level is not at all a new finding - and is not the same thing at all as experimenter-observer bias.

As far as credible counter-research - sorry, can't think of any, just as I can't cite credible counter-research for a vast number of ideas and concepts.

I mean you no disrespect, but if you're really keen on that DNA/language idea, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)
Click to expand...


I can't fault you for that one, I have also witnessed that research being (ab)used by a lot of 'fringe' researchers. But on the flipside, I have read some material that gets rejected by mainstream academia that I personally thought had a lot of merit were politics not involved. But who am I? (Ok, I'll tell you. I'm that guy who drinks beer in the garage and solves all of life's existentialist questions with his neighbors. Garage beer philosophers are smarter than those silly people who get degrees, everyone knows that! :p )

I've also read a lot of material published by people holding respected positions in the scientific community that I can't describe as anything other than pompous narrow minded ladder-climbing politicians in disguise who don't contribute anything to advancing learning other than what his sponsors want to hear *cough* Zahi Hawass *cough*

But either way you want to slice it, you have to find it difficult to discount the parallels being drawn between quantum physics/theory and ancient religious teachings by a lot of well known names in the field: Hameroff, Hagelin, Kaku, Anton Wilson, Susskind.. I'm pretty sure even Einstein commented on this. It's hard for most people to get this though, because really, where are you going to find a lot of people equally interested in both quantum science and ancient belief systems? Hopefully that changes in the coming years. Maybe I'll publish a paper! Going to have to wait until the weather gets nicer in the garage though ;)

Anyway, that's more on track with the point of my earlier post, regarding science proving, rather than disproving the existence of god and my disagreement with the OP.

PS: No offense taken, I was actually just genuinely curious why you didn't like the DNA research, and like I said, I completely understand after seeing some pretty whacky characters use it to sell either a product or a book. I'll agree to disagree with you as well though, because I do think the original research itself has enough merit to be explored more thoroughly given that it hasn't been dis-proven either.
 
omnius said:
I've also read a lot of material published by people holding respected positions in the scientific community that I can't describe as anything other than pompous narrow minded ladder-climbing politicians in disguise who don't contribute anything to advancing learning other than what his sponsors want to hear *cough* Zahi Hawass *cough*
Click to expand...

Well, at least he's just not as blatant about it as he was in his younger days - srsly. ;)

But either way you want to slice it, you have to find it difficult to discount the parallels being drawn between quantum physics/theory and ancient religious teachings by a lot of well known names in the field: Hameroff, Hagelin, Kaku, Anton Wilson, Susskind.. I'm pretty sure even Einstein commented on this. It's hard for most people to get this though, because really, where are you going to find a lot of people equally interested in both quantum science and ancient belief systems? Hopefully that changes in the coming years. Maybe I'll publish a paper! Going to have to wait until the weather gets nicer in the garage though ;)
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the parallels in spades - back in the early 70s, there was a rather popular course on Zen, consciousness and quantum physics taught by - wait for it - physics departments - at a number of leading universities. If the fog lifts, I may even know where to look for the syllabus for the one I took.

Caution tho - it's been precisely the enlightened thinking that have led to physics breakthrus that has also led to some of the greatest blunders by the same physicists.

Human perfection is the outcome of control, and control is nothing more than a petty illusion (unless as applied to a circuit).

PS - Beer fridge in my garage is already stocked, come over anytime, this week after the lawnmower, I'll believe it'll be the carbs on the motorcycle.
 
omnius said:
But either way you want to slice it, you have to find it difficult to discount the parallels being drawn between quantum physics/theory and ancient religious teachings by a lot of well known names in the field: Hameroff, Hagelin, Kaku, Anton Wilson, Susskind.. I'm pretty sure even Einstein commented on this. It's hard for most people to get this though, because really, where are you going to find a lot of people equally interested in both quantum science and ancient belief systems? Hopefully that changes in the coming years. Maybe I'll publish a paper! Going to have to wait until the weather gets nicer in the garage though ;)

Anyway, that's more on track with the point of my earlier post, regarding science proving, rather than disproving the existence of god and my disagreement with the OP.
Click to expand...

There's a fairly famous book about the parallels between Eastern mysticism and quantum theory, called the Tao Of Physics. Haven't read it since the eighties but I remember that by the end of it I was left feeling that it was all a bit emperor's new clothes and I wasn't sure exactly what point the author was trying to make. One of the things about finding parallels is they never meet up!

My own opinion is that science can never prove or disprove the religious point of view. Science deals in emperical evidence, repeatable measurements of the material world that can be used to support or disprove theories about how the world works. Religion deals in faith i.e. belief without proof or evidence; or direct experience i.e. gnosis, which is personal and therefore unrepeatable. Neither viewpoint invalidates, or needs, the other as far as I can see and both can happily co-exist.

EDIT: Where things tend to go wrong is when people use a (pseudo) scientific argument to try to support a religious point of view (usually just bad science from a scientific point of view, unnecessary from a religious point of view if you have faith in your beliefs), or when people try to use a scientific argument to "prove" the non-existence of anything spiritual.

OK I'm done!
 
Only way to find out is to wait and die. Then if you are lifted and placed in front of god. Then you know he truly exists. THen how do you tell the living your findings?

But what if you die and you just cease to exist. You are snuffed out like a candle.

SO its pointless to debate the existence or non existence of God. As the only way to find out is to die and once your dead how do you get your findings back to the living world?

Just believe in what you want and keep it to yourself and not try and force your beliefs on to others that dont have your view points.
 
EarlyMon said:
I've heard there's a very old tombstone in Germany with an inscription that translates to, Now I know more than the wisest among you.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the open crypt in Belgium with the skeletal remains of some fellow from antiquity there for all to see. A sign says, in French (quoting from old Roman tombs): "You are what I once was. I am what you will be." ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom