Comedy gold. The holographic principle is an idea that tries to explain some mechanisms of black holes. I think the theory is that no information can ever be destroyed, but if matter gets absorbed by a black hole, its composition, i.e. information is lost because nothing ever escapes a black hole. So this led to the theory that the information of all matter is concentrated at the event horizon, i.e. a 2D surface. This is what roughly what the holographic principle is about. I'm just casually curious in these things so I might not explain it all correctly. But here you have some idiots who hear "holographic", then look at the credit card and go "ooooh, holographic, too!" and then go on to phantasize about how we are all holographic and not really real and there must be a God. Give me a f****** break. This is the same kind of people who understand nothing and fill the gaps with God, same s**t as ever. Here's a hint: every time real scientists come up with a mysterious idea that you don't understand, you don't automatically have proof for a god because he somehow fits into that idea. Stick to what we know and stop your monkey brain from making stuff up that's not real. Edit: I saw a debate recently where some guy in the audience couldn't even remember exactly what the debater had said 30 minutes ago and tried to prove some of his stuff with the bible. Hilarious.
No no no, you made a statement and I provided a link, and you reply in 3 minutes? Did you even look into what I provided? Its a pretty extensive list of "gap fillers" surely you couldn't have studied it in 3 minutes? But then again ...maybe your God?
But you haven't provided any evidence to study. You provided a list of scientists that believe in a god. What a scientist believes is meaningless. It's what stands ground against peer review and experiment and is actually falsifiable that counts.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell...I wouldn't say thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat. Ahem, peer-what? Let me give you a smaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall peer-whatever example(s): it's a known fact (proven countless times over) that cannabis CURES cancer, but the pharmaceutical & deny that. it's a known fact (proven!!!) that mounting solar panels on a 254 km2 (aka 98 sqmiles) would give FREE energy to THE ENTIRE WORLD, but yet, the so-called peer-t***s ignore it. I can give you countless examples like this where the so-called "peer-reviews" are worthless. Thus, spare us with this peer-crap. It's very interesting how the self-proclaimed scientists hide behind the "peer-review" blanket exactly like the so-called religious people hide behind their "book". I see a pattern here: the blind leading the blind.
The fact is that you provided NO evidence as to what the Bible says, I'm interested to see where it says all of this that you claim ? The other article has nothing to do with whatever you believe the Bible says since you haven't provided anything from the Bible.
Sources? You know, I have nothing against people hitting the bong, as long as they keep their mouth shut while high. Edit: "Cannabinoids may have benefits in the treatment of cancer-related side effects." -- http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq So cannabis can help reduce the side effects that _real_ treatment unfortunately has. Good job, genius. /facepalm Uhh, since when was that a scientific theory up for debate? It may be scientifically possible, although I'm not taking these numbers for granted right now. What's economically or politically possible is a whole other debate.
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGsSEqsGLWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAJQUtX2LoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrYCCr78UE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvKQrATZ6bU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTh4NjL40vo - this guy fought AMA 25 years in court and WON!!! But, sadly, you won't see it. So, why bother?
Politically? Seriously???? Well then...now I see your point: politically, the existence of God hinders you. Economically, too.
This is personal AND stupid! Sorry and sad kind of exchange with somebody who did not attack you personally!!!
Attack? Are you being serious? If I was attacking someone, then why a post or two later, which was only a matter of a short time "attacking" another poster who had a different view than mine? He even went so far as to say "Comedy Gold" and such, did I attack him too? I meant no insult or disrespect. R29K makes some great posts, especially his posts in the Linux forums, which his comments here surprised me, as I said. If I attacked him it was not intended and he hasn't said anything to me about it, and if he did I would remove/edit and apologise. I guess some peoples skin is thicker than others ...
To be honest I took you for a 10 year old which is why I said nothing, loads of those around making fools of themselves.
There was a meeting between the Dali Lama and 5 theoretical quantum physicists. He spoke at length with them, and they realized that many of the tenets of buddhism have parallels in the world of Quantum Physics. I was born and raised Catholic, but I moved away from Religion because it did not hold the answers that I sought. Is there an afterlife? I'd like to believe so. Especially at this point in My life, when I'm watching my loved ones leave this world. The question that I ask myself is how do I cope. How do I deal with the pain of loss. And the helplessness of not being able to intervene. That pain will be with Me till the day I die. But that's the price of love, and of loving another. For Me, my faith and spiritual beliefs are all I have. My belief that there's a master plan, and something wonderful after this life. Without my faith, Life would hold no meaning for Me, and wouldn't be worth living. And I suspect that many of us hold onto our faith for that very same reason. To cope. If You don't need a spiritual belief system or faith to cope, I'm happy for You. And I would never criticise Your beliefs, because they work for You. Is there a GOD? I don't know. If there was a GOD, would GOD be omniscient? Maybe, but how could You prove it? Trying to prove matters of faith is an exercise in futility. That's my answer.
The "trick" is very simple and is called free will. If you believe that there's no God, then God respects your free will and IT won't "show" itself. If you believe there's God, then, again, God will respect your free will and you will "know" ITS presence. Is that simple, folks. Unfortunately, the mind likes complicated stuff such as: my right ear is itchy, thus I could ease that itchiness with my right hand, but the mind says: nooooooooooo, it can't be that simple: you have to draw up a sketch, then go to the store, buy materials, build a "scratching device" which you test extensively and, finally, when you want to use it...the itchiness is GONE. Now the mind gets angry and frustrated because it could not prove its "superiority". @TCM: politically and economically it hinders you that you could use your right hand to scratch your right ear, that's why you're...over-thinking.
The scientific ego does not tolerate that there is something above which cannot be proven by it. This would mean to admit not to be superior. Only those who have the opportunity to put the barriers created by the ego aside can get rid of the illusion to be a separated ‘object’. Then the concept of the absolute beyond anything relative can shine through. Science cannot because they raise their ego to god’s concept itself. Science reasons itself there is no place for another god.
I don't think this is entirely correct, sure there are scientists with loads of ego issues. However science cannot have theories with no facts and there is no fact for God so it simply won't fit in with anything.