Of course, when we come to school/University/Academia we are totally there NOT to be convinced, we come with our minds, ears and eyes closely shut and God forbid anyone tries anything of the sort, we immediately leave the school/University/Academia/Research facility... We are there solely for the purpose of being left alone to cement our prejudices, the very same one we brought with us to those institutions offf.....eeerrrmmm... learning... and errmmm... advancing.... ermmm... in our Spirit.... Shoot, this is all wrong! Can you feel it? We, Humans, can only learn and study if we are open to being persuaded and this is exactly what we do all the time... Oh, boy, can you imagine what kind of task Tesla had in front of him, trying to persuade the whole world, that the whole world didn't get it but he did... Mama mia!!! Oh, well... I think I have just converted myself... as Yen can't possibly be open to any such palaver.... "The Lady is not for turning!"
No. I contribute here a lot because science is my profession and spirituality an important part of life. I reply a lot but not with 'answers' made for anyone. You need to consider if there are some which could be 'useful' for you. I have no demand that they are useful. There is 'understanding' to some beyond words, recognized in own life experiences, to others it is just incomprehensible, let's name it directly: BS. I got asked to reply conform to scientific methodology, because 'spiritual' stuff has a rather bad reputation to some. Then I pointed to papers which describe a phenomenon at which information is communicated without time. When asking for that then I expect that one is willing to deal with the results. Either a particle behaves as wave (and has the attribute of interference) or particle only (dualism) and Einstein is wrong because the communication went without time that had been observed, or Einstein is right but then the scientists have to find a third state. Physicists as Champell already have accepted that as evidence and had developed a model of virtual reality. Others who are more conservative are protecting Einstein and "believe that such a viewpoint (of dualism) should be given up entirely". Actually that what those who blame 'spiritualists' for to have a believe system, that is mostly the fact at their own. They believe science is right. But how could there be any progress when science is right from the very first beginning? I want that own curiosity is addressed, nothing more nothing less.
Maybe if you stop mixing up science with the results of science, it'll make more sense to you. I think you actually mean the results so that didn't make much sense. What I mean is, if you sit on a mountain of research, it requires tremendous effort to push that mountain over, even if pushing it over is the right thing to do. According to e.g. Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is usually true, so what you do when you have a spectacular phenomenon in front of you is try to apply all theories to explain it, before you try to come up with a new one. This could be seen as a resistance to change, but it's actually a very effective method. When no other explanation is left, the journey into the unknown begins, but not before.
Logically, this statement would be correct. Full Omniscience would require God to know not only all our past and present actions, but also all our FUTURE actions, which would be possible only in a situation where all our future actions are pre-determined and fixed already. What this means for free will, is that we only think that we have it, while in fact all our actions are perfectly programmed and pre-determined, and there is no way to deviate from this SCRIPT, even if we think we can, or that this script doesn't exist.
And does this sound like a likely scenario to you? Being a puppet in a script? Every attempt to "fool" the script by deciding just the opposite right before you are about to do something is also pre-arranged? I'd find absolutely no comfort in such a thought.
Yes that experiment could be a candidate for it. A particle behaves either as wave or as particle. That is current knowledge of science. The participating scientist 'believes' that is is better to give up this original idea. Time for a new journey or not? This is the curiosity I wanted to communicate. It also affects the inconsistency of the big bang theory. How could 'space' include a phenomenon that as fast as light without to 'expand' faster than light? There Einstein already got a 'bonus'. Stay curious is the message. I stop here since it went far off topic, sorry for that.
Whatever it will be, there won't be handwaving or spirituality. If we can't remodel our current knowledge to this potentially new idea, it won't last long. There won't be sessions in dimlit parking lots or mind journeys across the galaxy by one guy whose word we have to take from then on. That's also what I want to communicate.
This is OK to me. The papers I have posted are conform to scientific methodology, nothing spiritual. During my professional experience I have encountered that is mostly more comfortable to science if things remain as they are. Just a point to consider, too.
If this were an exercise in logic, this statement would hold true. Perhaps the future is not cast in stone as we would think it is. In life, we always have a choice. Whether or not the choice makes sense is not the issue; we still have a choice. To me, that's free will. Your statement only makes sense if GOD is a meddler and moves us along a predetermined path. I don't think that's true. But that's a reflection of my beliefs; yours may be different. @Kronz: Please understand that I am -NOT- trying to force a specific belief system on you. I'm just sharing my beliefs with you. This was a misconception that took place earlier in this thread, and was the cause for some heated exchange.
It would appear you are not comfortable/satisfied unless you are on some level belittling or misrepresenting the nature of someones words in a way where the context and intent they were presented in is stripped of it's true meaning .. It's the same thing as lying because you willfully have misrepresented what I said and or presented by trying to strip the context and the nature of it's intent .. It's not the first time you've done it ..That is what I would like to communicate .. Do you not have any better and or more respectful means to communicate ? or should I assume that is the best you can do .. Why is more emphasis being put on staying on topic then respecting each others point of view .. How is this anymore important than treating each other respectfully and the discussion of any breach there of .. I do not see how we go forward with any "serious discussion" if we can not respect others points of view .. If you do not have currently some measure of self discipline which would allow another to express their point of view without provoking some caustic response however nuanced just simply undermines any efforts for dialogue between each other to emerge in any meaningful way where a better understanding of each others points of view is the prevailing goal .. If we can not point out where that line is being crossed and confront the bad medicine where and when it happens we will consistently get the same result ..
Yen sir, you are able to compartamentalize your minds quite well and there's not much problem holding two incompatible views (spiritual and scientific) at the same time.
Free will exists, and it exists because God didn't make robots with code, he / she wants your free will to choose God, which is also why sh1tty things like murder / rape / terrorists / etc exist, everyone has a choice, God doesn't like people doing bad things but because of his / her choice to allow free will to choose God, with that comes bad choices too What you choose decides where you go at the end of your life on Earth BIBLE = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth Make the right choice
You continue to confuse omniscience, as well as observations and inferences. And then based your arguments on the confusions. And then you confuse that with making a really convincing case. Therefore, where is the confrontation and that is really not to my taste, nor my rational disposition.
Not exactly, if God is all knowing and created us, then why would everything have to be pre-determined ? If God is God, he could see every single possible future depending on the choices we make. You are underestimating Gods abilities, God made man, you think he is limited to our reasoning / abilities ? Just because we can not imagine it, does not make it impossible for God, can you make a planet?
Just because you didn't mean to use credibility by experience doesn't mean you didn't do it. How does "I can understand your reluctance to even consider such matters .. I have lived with it my whole life" not match this? You are placing your opinion higher because you somehow had a change in your life. We are in a thread about the concept of god and you talk about willfully misrepresenting. Hilarious.
Piece of cake. Take an interstellar cloud, stir it, push enough gas particles together so a star forms. Then lump together some dust particles orbiting the star until a planet forms. Or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation
So god makes all galaxies, all star systems and all planets and then, because on one of them there is life evolving, he tracks every decision of it so he knows every possible future of said life. Does he do that for all planets with life? He must have one hell of a job. If I think about how only 128 yes/no decisions of a single entity already lead to more states than the earth has atoms... We are 7 billion humans and growing and make what.. hundreds, thousands of decisions each day. He must have some kind of optimisation. OK, muslims, buddhists and all that crap don't need to be tracked. They end up in hell anyway. Or is god == allah == any other god in the history of humans? If so, why does the afterlife differ slightly between each religion? And if they are not the same, do they play poker each week and determine who can rule for the next week? BTW, why is the devil evil if he punishes evil people? What happened to the old gods of cultures who don't exist anymore? Do they sit there sulking without their toy? So let's say god only tracks the futures of his believers. How can he do that without knowing what non-believers do? Or does he track "foreign" believers, too? What does the department of omnipotence say about meddling in the affairs of other gods? Also, tracking all possible futures would require orders of magnitudes of order of magnitudes of orders of ... more energy than the universe has. How does he do it? Maybe he doesn't? What purpose does he have if he doesn't? Maybe he doesn't even exist? I'm getting confused.
Well that's the whole point of religion, you believe what you believe, who is right? Who is wrong? That's up the the individual to choose. But again, you are comparing God to human, yes we could not perform those tasks, billions upon billions, possibly many more planets too, but if there is a God who made all that, what says he couldn't keep up with it all ? He made it after all. We have unification programs that give us notifications for many different apps, we can keep up with that and we're only human