So we know after telling us for the hundredth time... How about contributing some new thoughts and explorations, rather than repeating how we don't believe in something and clicking 'thanks' on posts that say exactly the same thing over and over again? That is not discussion or participation, that is disruption. It is like taking some perverse pleasure in shooting down thought of others, it's very immature and does not contribute anything. Moreover, a discussion is not where you sit and hold out until you can strike against someone. It is not even about furthering one particular stance. It is about exploring possibilities and thoughts and learning to approach age-old questions in a new or previously not thought of way. If not, you are not part of the discussion, you are stalking the discussion of others until you find a suitable moment to inject some negativity.
@Sid The quote that you pulled from the letter is far more revealing of your intention for starting this thread than you may realize .. My choice to quote would be (shown below) thus showing our different intentions here .. Incidently I am not clear as to what point you were trying to make, please clarify .. There is more to be known about Einstein's personal influences and how he approached his work .. as a start I provided this link Einstein's Philosophy of Science "In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary. Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes Yours, A. Einstein" source
Ooh grow up, if I agree with something and acknowledge it then that becomes an issue for you. If it were a point of view you agreed with then I bet we would never have heard a peep from you. This thread is loaded with people trying to say one point of view is right. Just look at who thanked your post, case closed.
The rudeness in your post is no personal attack, it's OK to me. The 'rudeness' consists of your predetermined conditions how this thread should be. You limit the idea of omniscience to your own and hence the possible 'valid' answer is limited. Contributers who have a broader sight on the matter do very well comprehend the posts of each others. Maybe you should ask yourself why that happens here instead of asking them to limit themselves in the same way. I highly doubt that you ever have dealt with Einstein (photoelectric effect, special theory of relativity), still less with Schrödinger, Planck's constant and Heisenberg. (Max Planck resolved the 'ultra violet catastrophe'). And Schrödinger said: "Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of a recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist." 'Egomanic' is somebody who refers on something without to be familiar with the matter, because to the one it is not needed at all. One and only goal is to go after a not tolerated POV. Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and Einstein had been 'responsible' for a huge crisis in Physics. A solid ideology of Newton's determinism (conception of the world) had been blown away. Physics has been shaken at its very root. "all that was established". Are you serious? So we have still the idea of absolute time, the idea of a separation (duality) of energy /matter, space / time? And what's about the quantum theory? It's a bit embarrassing, I am sorry. The narrowness of the determined conditions to think about "what he knows about omniscience" doesn't tolerate an other answer to sid.
You're right here. The thing is that, the so called spiritualist, can mismatch science and spirituality and make testable sandwiches to receive thanks from the fellow spiritual members but when the same applied from the opponent then it became an headache for them. They can post links without analyzing what is inside it and why they posted such links devoid of their own thought and accuse us of doing the same,i.e Mr Redroad accuses me, why I posted that excerpt from Albert Einstein's letter, which was part of my reply to the Bohmian Mechanic. Why this double think? You people can put two contradictory beliefs together and make it right but if other people reply rationally/logically it became intentional.
So what are you arguing? That the ideas in this thread have to ability to "shake Physics at its root"? Do you equate the ideas in this thread to those of the great scientists you mention, just because they are equally outlandish - even more so since they disregard any previous knowledge? Is that supposed to give these ideas merit? This thread is a giant circle-jerk without any results. Challenges are avoided like the plague and science is belittled. If you debate without results, what's the point other than boosting egos?
@Sid did you not post this ? "Yes.please see these links. Divine Providence , Omniscience and Foreknowledge and Free Will "
@Sid In my post I also said "Incidently I am not clear as to what point you were trying to make, please clarify" So will you please clarify what is meant here for me .. I am simply requesting clarification as to your point nothing else .. "The 1st. article shows that, Bohmian mechanics proposes some irreducibly undetectable nobody-knows-what keeping everything in order, acceptance of in- determinism doesn't posit any fantasy elements. I think it's quite clear that Bohm's view is the one that can be characterized as quasi-religious. The fun part is, it is the indeterminists who have to add the fantasy of randomness. Or as opposed to the fantasy of nonlocality? " To address your request, my posting those links was simply to point out there are different points of view .. Simply that .. Currently I am trying to understand your position with no snark just an honest attempt to understand your position '
I have the impression that you have a favor for science without to know what has happened the past hundred years. I refer to current science. You abuse science to 'beat' religion as a personal fight. Science knows all religion is a joke. A challenge even cannot begin because you are lacking of scientific background, otherwise you would not say 'are equally outlandish' Anybody who is familiar with science has to notice that you are defending an artificial idea of a superior science which is unanimous in its statements. It is supposed to give this ideas merit. Yes. Science has neared 'spiritual' experience by giving up pure determinism of Newton. And Schrödinger said what I quoted after he has made his quantum theory. It is his own conclusion outlandish to somebody who is not familiar with his work. The 'trend' of science is to go away from pure deterministic and absolute views. Time is not seen anymore to be absolute it is relative. Matter and energy are two aspects of one content. Space and time also. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, also is away form pure determination of location. I have you to ask. What exactly do you want? You don't inform yourself of what I have posted concerning history of science and you deny my spiritual experiences and say they don't fit to science. And when I simply ask you to use your own mind to think about something, nothing is in return. Can't you come to own experiences, own results which are important in your life? Do you ask science for it if they are right all the time? And when others here are posting own experiences which are shared by others, who is asking for science? Only those who see science to be owner of reality! Let me re-quote one example: "Our mere existence requires those properties we observe, because otherwise we wouldn't exist." I ask you do you exist when you are in deep sleep where no 'properties' are observed? This is a logic and valid objection, isn't it? It doubts the entire approach though. And when I question a separate identity (separated subject) (which is also mentioned at Schrödinger's quote) and I ask you for your curiosity : Where exactly does your identity end? Or where is the location of your 'I' idea? Why don't you think about yourself and post your thought instead of to hide your ego behind your artificial idea of omnipotence of science? Are you afraid you lose something?
[quote="r29k]This thread is loaded with people trying to say one point of view is right. Just look at who thanked your post, case closed.[/quote] Actually, nobody in the "spiritual camp" are arguing that they are right. They simply want to be able to express their feelings without ridicule. This is, after all, a debate.
My thoughts on this "what's the point" are it is an age old exercise of communication .. Where points of view might be better understood if they weren't turned on like cascading waterfalls with word choices that avert any effective sharing of ideas .. What certainly could be argued here is that this online experiment of effective communication has further ramifications then what may be immediately evident .. For example we live in a time where we have through our choices (globally) put ourselves in situations/problems where solutions to those problems can only evolve from a willingness to effectively communicate with each other (globally) .. Will the solutions to those problems evolve directly from this thread ? probably not .. Can we develope an online social skill set that would certainly allow us to be more effective in online communications which could lead to unity of our common best interest and or collective problem solving abilities .. I personally feel that It is a must for my family and future generations that I do my best .. All my relations I know this starts with my part so I take the time to express my concerns and to let you know I'm in .. Let's give it our best shot .. What do you say?
Mr Redroad, had you read all my posts carefully from the very beginning, you wouldn't have asked why I posted those links.
No Sid, nice try, my post was simply to point out that you posted in the same form yourself and then you were pointing out to others (me) what they had done "They can post links without analyzing what is inside it ".. I clarified for you my intention after you objected .. I said "To address your request, my posting those links was simply to point out there are different points of view .. Simply that .." and Sid had you read all my posts carefully from the very beginning, you wouldn't have asked why I posted those links.
It is indeed a new experiment which has started for me 2007 when I became a member of MDL. It has started with purely BIOS related matters which have their own logic way. By becoming admin the responsibility to administrate a online community had been added. I don't think there is an other online forum which consists of such a collection of different topics. Also threads where personal interests can be shared with others. Such as music, travel, pictures, art, movie... Now when debating about really personal matters another aspect has been arrived. Being online we seemingly have another form of identity and communication has other means. We are connected via a server and distance is no matter anymore. Anyway we are restricted compared to personal conversation. It is a learning effect and new experiences are made. As with each learning effect there are also things which are happening in a way that are actually wanted different. I am not excluded here. When a post has been submitted it is fixed and communication is interrupted temporarily. To deal with this way of communication will become more and more important in the future. And the manner of communication will develop. We have the chance to have access of a great amount of experiences, POV's ideas and knowledge around the world. We should take this chance and give our best, I fully agree with you. Thank you for your post.
Who is ridiculing you ? How did this discussion about God and free will become a spiritualist vs science melee ? The way Sid structured the original question implies that there is a God to begin with, however God and religion are not facts. So if you are going to get uptight about the discussion then you will find it very hard to defend your position. The defense of the 'spiritual camp' is to spew info with no factual basis and then try to bash whatever opposing scientific theory there is with even more non factual info. The fact is that you cannot have a proper discussion with people who make up their info as they go along !
I wonder why scientific methodology is demanded at this topic, where god does not exist to science. The result has no other way than to be scientifically biased since we discuss about something that has there actually no place of existence. It's actually absurd to ask for to apply science where the 'object' of discussion has no definition.
So an argument for and against free will with the presence of God is purely a spiritual argument, I don't think so.
If we were able to say that our bodies are instruments capable of measurements/consciousness that Science has not yet been able to define without some outrage from the scientifically minded .. A dialogue could emerge between the two groups where thoughts are not so deeply entrenched .. The Scientific community surely has approached discovery in this manner prior to revelation/break through have they not ?
Assumptions are not very good for business are they now. Remember assume (ass-u-me) make an ass of you and me. If whatever it is does not seem quantifiable by any known means, how can you the 'spiritualist' claim any in depth knowledge of it ? You would be equally ignorant of its properties as the person trying to take a poke at it with scientific method. It's like me having a box with something inside it and each of us can feel the box but we can't look inside. Who is in a better position to guess the contents ? Imagine both of us feeling the same box and you giving a one hour speech on the content of the box and its properties etc with pure assumption. That to me is what this discussion has become.
They are not facts in your universe, nor the universe of the science you hold dear and OP did post cause he heard of others talking about it, not that in the post he stated a belief in God. That is fact! Same things as stated before. If someone can't control or own something they must either destroy it or invalidate it. This is because of insecurity in not feeling complete and feeling complete can only be felt when in the present or when engaging complete information which is what God implies, an complete entity not needing anything to confirm for God to be! If science and the atheist can't confirm of God's existence then there is no debate, on the stance that the discussion is ludicrous to you, TCM and gorki So let the science guys talk about science and let the spiritual guys talk about spirit, this is why I started the MDL sanctuary for spiritual people so without opposition could such topics or experiences be shared And if you wanna talk about science go to the science thread and develop an comprehensive unified field theory so that an ultimate topic such as God might be discussed at that juncture if you guys ever develop an unified field theory (complete science) Otherwise you guys look and sound like you want to accumulate any pertinent spiritual information that might add to a potential unified field theory but after you get some new ideas or original insight from spiritual people here you just destroy those who gave you insight to a bigger view, hence you just want control over ideas and information and in God's universe there is no fee to know God or cosmic information nor is there need for any sacrifices in being enlightened If we use our spirits and bodies as instruments capable of measurements/consciousness then they won't be able to sell us anything to know the universe If they can't market back our souls and the souls information their out of business ...lol These sick false gods these guys channel need worshipers and want to eternally market back the soul to humanity but that time of spiritual slavery has come to an end and those with eyes turned inward will see these false gods as the foundation for false religion, partial science and evil governments for what they are and that is ultimately spiritual slave masters not wanting their slaves to be free, self-informed and autonomous!