The Question Of Reality

In response to:The battle begins

Sun, 24 May 2009 20:16:42 +0200

Sorry, I'm not prepared to give a lecture on epistemology but if you care to start with, say, Eratosthenes and go on through Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Einstein then even though I don't actually "know" very much I'm prepared to "believe" that the modern accepted view of the universe is "true" but will continue to be modified as theories are improved and based on more actual experiments. All through this history the church has fought against the spread of knowledge.
Bertrand Russell said that rationally it is possible that there is a God. He also said that as we speak it is possible that there is a blue and white teapot orbiting the sun, but he's not going to give it a lot of thought.

In response to:Should we prefer the scientific model of reality?

Sun, 24 May 2009 10:44:02 +0200

thank you

In response to:Should we prefer the scientific model of reality?

Sun, 24 May 2009 10:40:34 +0200

The answer has always been!!
and science will always be looking for it... :roll:
and will make on~going wonderful discoveries and mishaps
along the way!!
Indeed science is wonderful that I do not dispute ...
Awe~and wonder!! :yes:

The inspiration is the main awe and wonder
what has always been!!
:wave:

In response to:The battle begins

Sat, 23 May 2009 23:50:25 +0200

how do YOU know that the earth is not the centre of the universe?

In response to:The battle begins

Sat, 23 May 2009 23:42:04 +0200

I think we are living on a plate balanced on an elephant that is standing on the back of a turtle. That is a belief. When I say that the earth is not the centre of the universe but with other planets is circling the sun which is one of a few billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy which in turn is one of a few billion galaxies, that is reason.
Church attendance is peaking? At what? 4%?
If a lot of people are frightened and start going to church is that supposed to prove that the supernatural exists. The church always resists progress.

In response to:Should we prefer the scientific model of reality?

Sat, 23 May 2009 23:09:24 +0200

and you seem to have the answer

In response to:Should we prefer the scientific model of reality?

Sat, 23 May 2009 22:13:07 +0200

Yes that is the question ... :yes:

In response to:Should we prefer the scientific model of reality?

Sat, 23 May 2009 20:11:00 +0200

who?

In response to:Should we prefer the scientific model of reality?

Sat, 23 May 2009 20:09:46 +0200

And who inspired scientists to discover their wonders!!
???...Ponder not!! :>>

In response to:Should we prefer the scientific model of reality?

Sat, 23 May 2009 18:55:43 +0200

Actually, I just like the painting!

I will leave the science to all the scientists...and I am definitely NOT a scientist and I do not know about waves...other than the waves in the sea...

Sorry
Pip

In response to:The battle begins

Sat, 23 May 2009 17:51:34 +0200

I think that you may be confusing reason with the scientific method. The Greeks did lots of thinking, reasoning and debating to reach the theory that everything was made from 4 (or 5) elements. This was later supersedes by newer discoveries, but it started as science and reasoning.

Alternatively, think about the great leap from believing in physical deities to believing in an abstract God (which for most people is not abstract at all, but simply an unseen guardian :>) This leap, just as well, was based on deep philosophical thinking.

The same can be said about Astrology, and every set of beliefs I am familiar with.

And I agree with you, that reason by itself is completely meaningless. It's a tool. What makes it useful is how you use it, and what you use it on.

And I don't agree that most English people don't believe. They just can't be bother when things are good. However, just see the peak in church attendance since the start of the recent crisis. :>

In response to:The battle begins

Sat, 23 May 2009 13:40:36 +0200

If everything we do is based on reason then reason doesn't mean anything. If I say that man is made of earth, wind, fire and water it is just a belief, no reason involved. You said that astrology is not a science. I agree because astrology is not based on reason. But according to you astrology is like everything else, based on reason. I don't believe in God, angels, devils, heaven, hell, etc. etc. because they are not based on reason, just fragments of a bygone age. English people, well, the majority, don't actually believe, they just think it's rather a nice old traditional thing. I do regret the passing of Christmas carols and that children don't know the Lord's Prayer but it really is all for the good, children will eventually be rational and use reason to work things out.

In response to:The battle begins

Sat, 23 May 2009 09:05:52 +0200

of course religion is based on reason. Everything we do is based on reason. But reason depends on our fundamental assumptions, and this is what people disagree about

In response to:The battle begins

Sat, 23 May 2009 09:03:21 +0200

it confuses me

In response to:The battle begins

Tue, 19 May 2009 11:23:55 +0200

There is no rivalry between church and science. From the earliest times to the present day the church has been against science. The purpose of science is to explain: the purpose of church is to pretend. Recently the Pope actually said that religion (his) was based on reason.

In response to:The battle begins

Tue, 19 May 2009 11:18:53 +0200

That could confuse a stupid person.

In response to:The battle begins

Sat, 16 May 2009 17:54:19 +0200

bricks seems to have an answer to most things

In response to:The battle begins

Wed, 13 May 2009 15:09:15 +0200

Briefly, no. It's an idea put forward by people who can't let go. I've just come back from a holiday in Israel and Jordan, not religious, just looking at the various sites of where this and that was supposed to have happened.
A journalist was watching a man praying at the wailing wall and when the man had finished the journalist asked him if he would mind saying what he was praying for. The man said that he prayed for peace and goodwill between the Jews, Muslims and Christians. The journalist asked if he thought it did any good. The man said, "No, i might as well be talking to a brick wall."

In response to:The battle begins

Wed, 06 May 2009 16:39:27 +0200

so can't you have a religion with no church?

In response to:The battle begins

Wed, 06 May 2009 10:09:47 +0200

Got back her by putting tsunamicharlie in google; oh, vanity, vanity. Something ranfuck said caught my eye, 'the church have always abused religion". The church is religion. As soon as someone says something new on the supernatural they are starting a religion. Whether it's the RCs or the evangelicals in the US, it's money,politics and power

In response to:Model 3: The World as a Simulation

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:26:46 +0200

:yes: I Will! If I can resist 'selling it on':>>:)) Still reflecting on your post.

In response to:Model 3: The World as a Simulation

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:45:46 +0200

if you know of a way please tell me.

In response to:Model 3: The World as a Simulation

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:05:35 +0200

Fascinating post 'Ran'! I am also left with those last two questions....especially the 'Last' one......"Is there a way we can ever test or disprove it..." To coin a phrase, "Aye, there's the rub!"

In response to:Science and the World of Ghosts

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:52:17 +0200

It was not violent but freaky.
It upset her whole family and within months
they moved home.
I was not the better of it for some time.
But when your that young ... you tend to forget and
leave well alone.
Now I ponder on that incident often and am very curious
indeed. many years have passed to overcome the upset.

In response to:Science and the World of Ghosts

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:43:32 +0200

wow. This sounds scary. Was it ?

In response to:Science and the World of Ghosts

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:35:57 +0200

I am not totally sure exactly what they are
but they are said to be different to ghosts.
and are known to be attracted to young females.
It is said they are mass forms of energy which makes
objects move in a very agressive manner.
An individual can be a magnet for the activity.
I can not break a confidence but will say I witnessed
an incident which involved one of my close friends
experiencing a poltogeist experience when she was a
teenager. It has not happened since.

In response to:Science and the World of Ghosts

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:06:12 +0200

What are they?

Are they energy in the way physics understands energy, then I have not seen any reliable proof to their existence. This does not mean they don't exist. I simply have no way to know. Find a way to capture them, measure them, bring them in.

If they are not energy, then I have a big problem because the fact that we can see them, hear them, feel them, contradict my understanding of physics.

It's the interaction between the world and the spirits I have problem with. Not the existing of things beyond the physical.

What was your experience?

In response to:Science and the World of Ghosts

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:19:19 +0200

so what is your view of poltogises...
out of interest
as I have experienced a situation involving this
many years ago!!

In response to:Model 2: Late Creation

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:15:09 +0200

yes, found it

In response to:Model 2: Late Creation

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:12:45 +0200

Posted on my Poetry blog! Called: Where From Here!