It makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that there is consensus thinking. I used that very term when I posted a comment in an atheist discussion the other day.
They were all smug and patting themselves on the back about how they sent wide eyed believers running if anyone every accused them of requiring an element of faith to sustain atheism. I brought up certain issues that I have with, for example, the notion that The Big Bang went into effect as a spontaneous emergence of all existence from, literally, nothing, in the form of an immense explosion. I just don’t see how that idea can be taken seriously, and I compare it to an immaculate conception for the universe. As an old song says: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. =) There are a number of things like that in science where I draw a line. As for the consensus thinking, as far as I can tell I am the only non-atheist to crash their party over there. I think I make some of them uncomfortable because I largely embrace science. I just don’t accept every aspect of it as gospel, as it were.
I think many people probably forget to recall that the Big Bang theory is a theory, and further that it is a theory of motion and energy in the universe after the event; not before it.
I have done the same
and have actually been banned from three international science forums
not for being rude
but simply for broaching the metaphysical potentials
in the Nuclear theory and quantum mechanics
and asking why the chemical elements that make up the atomic structure of the human body
produce consciousness
they could not deal with pure metaphysics
they are only comfortable with deriding religious dogma
and do so with all the immature relish of junior school debaters
Motion and energy in themselves are meaningless
thus the only scientific rational for existence
has to be that it is purely the result of a random event
From a metaphysical point of view
The focus of all motion and energy is the evolution of consciousness
there is no scale in the science tool box that can measure it
thus it has to be ignored as an incidental by-product of random event
random or not
consciousness is still central to all existence
and any discussion as to whether consciousness is innately ethical (Go(o)d)
i.e. an attribute of atomic radiation
should be welcomed by any thinking person
being banned from science forums for this reason
is like being banned from a private club
because of one’s ethnicity
it is lose/lose
each ends up preaching to their own choir
while the planet heats up
for lack of unity of focus
Yes. My thinking generally is that while reductionism is, as far as I’m concerned, an undeniably valid tool–Shy of how sadly it falls short of addressing the human condition–it’s weakness it seems to me is a tendency to eliminate anything that doesn’t fit regardless of whether they may be truth to it or not. (All weird night time experiences are the result of “night terrors.”) I have no issue with the gist of The Big Bang theory, but the idea that it or anything can occur from nothing, well, that I have an issue with. Reductionists tend not to want to think about anything prior to their view of reality, (Extending back some 14.7 billion years.), so nothing prior to this presumably accidental event is considered to exist. Not merely something, but literally everything, from nothing. At least the immaculate conception referred to in The Bible has an element of divine intention to make such an unlikely occurrence a little more feasible.
Obviously scientists in themselves are not yet that silly
they have to realize that Singularities do not just materialize out of a vacuum
and some may even privately admit that consciousness may not just be a random by-product
somehow produced out of elemental chemical mixes that are supposedly
in their individual state, consciously inert
but the rules forbid them to think beyond what can be measured
though this arrangement may work well for developmental technology
and keep extravagant claims by charlatans at bay
it is gradually atrophying the imaginative right brain
and suffocating the human spirit
another generation or two of systematically indoctrinating school children via the analytical model
will kill all remaining sense of soul
and produce billions of Dr Frankensteins
bowed before the machines and machineguns of their invention
But then of course
futuristic premonitions
portrayed in movies like The Terminator
and dozens of others like it
are simply right brain fantasies
with not an ounce of probability
Indifference seems more appropriate than selecting randomness.
As I said, the theory speaks of motion and energy following the start of it and not before.
Technically speaking, it doesn’t even account for randomness.
There is no method by which to prove that all physics that occurred following were completely random.
As if one only had data in mathematics that we, separate from the character’s in the model, here know is the instance of a bowling ball hitting bowling pins.
Let’s put this event in slow motion…extremely slow motion.
We have some observing scientists and mathematicians that are microscopically tiny living in the pin alley; just off to the back right above the gutter a bit.
Now let’s start our mathematicians out with noticing the pins gently gliding past them once they notice that the pins aren’t standing still at all; that they are in fact, in motion.
They then discover they seem to have a direction of motion that is unified.
Indeed, they do the math after observing for quite a long time and they can arrive at the idea that there was an instance where an incredible amount of energy erupted throughout the pins causing them to move.
They do even more work and figure out the general area where the moment of energy dispersion occurred.
This is all they can discern, however.
They can’t honestly even declare that it is random.
In fact, us, who are looking down on the model can plainly see that indeed, the pins flying by are not random at all.
They have cause; a bowling ball.
They are with intent to their motion; to get a strike.
And they have a thing which caused this; a person that threw the ball.
(I’m not suggesting an entity is a must in the instance of the big bang…an entity only exists in the model because bowling involves one)
So it’s entirely possible, though neither is it verifiable, that the event that caused the big bang was not random either.
It could have had intent just as easily as the bowling pins.
It could also just be absolutely random.
We simply have no way of determining this in measured formats at this time.
Quite right
I should not have said that randomness is a scientific rationale
it is in fact
as you have just shown
entirely irrational
yet scientists are happy to bandy it about as tho it were fact
seemingly unaware that it is a reactionary statement
underlying their religious protest
I do not claim to be an astrophysicist
but it seems to me that the singularity that caused the BB
if that theory is indeed correct
it had to be preceded by a previous cosmic crunch
and so on
ad infinitum
The point being that science has no business
refuting spiritual testaments
and labeling them in any derogatory way
they are not only breaking their own code by doing so
but are also contributing to international confusion
in the most damaging and dangerous manner
Einstein realized this
and tried his best to set an example of spiritual reverence
It would be a great help if he were still alive today
No, I don’t think so. There is two part of our individual brain; that’s right side and left side of our individual brain. http://techreport.com/discussions.x/18472
Patients with malignant tumors in posterior brain regions, including the temporal and parietal cortex, scored higher on the self-transcendence scale on average than did those with tumors in the frontal cortex, Urgesi and colleagues report today in Neuron. Moreover, these posterior tumor patients exhibited even higher self-transcendence scores after surgery. Additional analysis suggested that patients who had lost certain areas of the posterior parietal cortex were the most likely to show increases in self-transcendence. The researchers conclude that these regions normally inhibit transcendent thinking and that the damage caused by the tumor and the surgery weakens this inhibition. The researchers saw no postsurgical change in self-transcendence in the patients with frontal lobe tumors or in a group of meningioma patients, whose tumors in the membranes enveloping the brain could be removed without damaging the organ itself.
That part of the brain doesn’t deal with just spirituality. University of Wisconsin neuroscientist Richard Davidson told ScienceNow the same areas of the posterior parietal cortex “have been implicated in providing awareness of the body’s position and location in space.”
When physicists start to analyze metaphysical potentials
I am always suspect of their methods and conclusions
I would hazard that any study
regarding tumors anywhere in the body
would illicit more spirituality from the patient than normal
the prospect of premature dearth
has that effect on most of us
We have no way of knowing if the future happens auto-mechanically
as the result of Laws of Cause and Effect
or if the whole thing is an amusing illusion of our Collective Cosmic Mind
either way
I believe the right brain intuits all incoming stimuli holistically
unlimited and unbiased by events of past/present/future
It transmits its impressions to the left brain for analysis
which then allows us to act in what we think is our best interests
We tend to ignore or suppress any subsequent feelings of unease
that deny us those wants
The argument I am posing on this thread
is that we do not give enough respect to the subtle nature of right brain input
and give it the attention it deserves
the current one-sided education system trains the left brain
which can only see things sequentially
to make snap decisions
based more on our individual short-term physical wants and desires
rather than our long-term collective spiritual good
we are simply not trained to take our time
and transcend immediate impressions
and design our lives on this planet
with our full creative potential
“Because if men didn’t think with their penes we wouldn’t be here.”
You mean like the time many used their penis to religiously rape innocent people? O.O;; If that’s the case, I’d like to counter that vulgarity by saying it’s the sperm – not the penis that is needed for a woman to create a person.
Lol, please stay on topic.
Otherwise, very refreshing debate and thoroughly informative. My curiosity has been quenched. =D>
