Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
Of course, that doesn't explain why acceleration and mass affect time.
it's to do with our intuition that space and time are different and independent, ie that there is 'time' and there is 'space'. Einstein, Minowsky et al taugt us that there is only one thing - 'spacetime'.
When we are 'standing still' we are still moving in 'spacetime' - imagine it like being carried along on a moving walkway in an airport. But because it's an analogy and not an airport walkway you can't walk along it! But you can move from side to side(imagine it's a VERY WiDE airport walkway!).
If you did walk across from oneside of the walkway to the other your actual motion would be at an angle to the direction of the walkway. You could use pythagoras to work out how far and how fast you actually moved due to the combination of your walking and the walkway moving. Obviously your actual speed (ie distance moved divided by time) would be a little higher than your walkling speed.
UNLESS YOU ARE A RAY OF LIGHT! Light has to go at the speed of light - it's the law! So there is a seeming paradox - a light beam shone from one side of moving walkway to the other 'has to' go faster than light and can't go faster than light!
The resolution of the paradox is that time runs more slowly for moving objjects - the faster something is moving the slower time time goes.
I leave further explanation to resources that support diagrams!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Commonly refers to the transcendental nature of our experience...what we experience apart from the physical sense perceptions alone. Spirituality refers to that whole field of expertise.
I am very concerned that we establish a 'common reference frame'. Let me suggest that the difference between the physical/scientificand the spiritual is akin to the differnce between lust and love... science can explain lust but love is spiritual. That analogy may not be perfect, but is it the sort of thing you have in mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Has to be unprovoked or it's cheating, mind!
I wonder who is challenging for the championship?
I bet I get a point any minute!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Think of it as a game - every unprovoked insult by pw gains you a point. You are probably winning and ahead of Castin by a dozen points!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Ok - the robe is optional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I seek only to learn at the feet of the Masters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
you correctly pointed out that in these polarised and adversarial terms some people are unnwillig to yield anyting to 'the other side'. I don't think fine tuning should be dismissed just because it seems to offer theists some crumbs!
We don't know how the fundamental constants got the values they do. We don't know if was an incredible fluke, the only possiblity or someting in between. I doubt they were hand-tweaked by an old beardy bloke in a robe, but you never know. Unless you are a theist in which case you do 'know' it was indeed an old beardy bloke with a beard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The question is obvious, but can it be answered?
What do you mean by 'spiritual'? I've spent a fruitless period discovering it has multiple and inconsistent meanings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
If the calcuation in 1993 was which title will sell better 'the god particle' or 'the higgs boson' it was no-brainer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What are you beliefs? Preferably bullet points rather than a wall of text!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I concede you don't think atheists are as deluded as Mopac thinks we are! I rarely read mopac's stuff any more - he's tediously monomaniac.In response to post #353
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Read my topic "Another Point of View" thoroughly and you will see I never did that.
is 'that' saying atheists are deluded?
You did write in this thread
They're mainly "deluded" in the sense they have been programmed or instructed to accept only a single form of existence or experience....that being the physical layer alone. It's only a perception though, delusions come in many forms but in atheism the delusion comes from accepting only one examination of our experience which makes it more limited than deluded per say because they base it on direct experience and that being the physical sense experience. They aren't deluded in the sense they believe in something that is fiction but rather accept a reality that is temporal and uncaused, in other words they accept a lesser reality and in doing so they limit their potential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Spiritual facts, and my own encounters, if I were to accept atheism I would be lying to myself, and I'm not about that.
Yet you would have me lie to myself about my facts and experiences - you call them delusions. You demand I am flexible, but seem reluctant to reciprocate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Which facts and experience would that be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You have not learned that it is true.Lol, I'd be happy to learn and be more flexible about atheism or materialism, only there is nothing left to learn :
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Do you countenance that I could be right?You claimed no God or gods exist. That is due to your atheism, not what is true about reality.
However little i know about gods, I know about people because I am one! It's not hard to work out why people have believed - and continue to - believe in gods; without going into detail, it comes down to psychology and tradition. When i look around I see no sign of gods - only signs of belief in gods.
Its not like that for, say gravity. If i release a hammer it falls - it is not merely a belief that it falls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Of course I throw the same back to you!
If atheists are the result of 'programming and instruction' as you claim, shouldn't you consider the same about theists? I am damn sure that you were encouraged to believe in God all your life. No-one programmed or instructed me to be an atheist - where do you get that idea from?
You say "Be willing to change your mindset and be flexible with what you think you know about reality.". Well, most atheists did go through a period of religious indoctrination as children and were "willing to change their mindset and be flexible in what they think about reality." . The result was they rejected theism.
I put it to you that it is you, not I, that is inflexible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
They're mainly "deluded" in the sense they have been programmed or instructed to accept only a single form of existence or experience....that being the physical layer alone. It's only a perception though, delusions come in many forms but in atheism the delusion comes from accepting only one examination of our experience which makes it more limited than deluded per say because they base it on direct experience and that being the physical sense experience. They aren't deluded in the sense they believe in something that is fiction but rather accept a reality that is temporal and uncaused, in other words they accept a lesser reality and in doing so they limit their potential.
Atheists believe gods, or god-like entities, don't exist. A reality without gods is not a lesser reality because there is only one reality - and in reality there are no gods.
So if thereare no gods, why are they believed in? one reason is in your post - people are programmed and instructed to believe in gods. That programming and instruction begins almost from the moment of birth. It's no accident that children almost always adopt the religion of their parents.
Another attracation of theis is that it seems to give answers to the big questions - why are we here? Why be good? Ateism ofers no redy madesolutions - it isdown to individual conscience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Created:
Posted in:
I guess natural selection does not operate in humans any more !
I note the link to
It is interesting to see the correlation between per capita spending on education and iq in the table.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Two different natures Keith, the physical and the conscious spiritual. Yes, we are star dust as they say, but only in our experience through material forms. As you shed the physical body your experience reflects that as well, because the conscious soul exists independent of any physical form and always has, it always will.Spirituality is the application and observation of the reality that transcends the physical boundaries, it is the objective nature of Theism.
I am sure you tried hard to communicate something, but I got absolutely nothing at all out of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I would say that we don't know everything about the big bang and we never will know everything about it. But we do know enough to say that the truth is much closer to a 'big bang' than, say, a steady state universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What we know is that 13.8 billion years ago something happened that produced a universe with hydrogen and little else. Gravity caused the hydrogen to clump into stars which produced the heavier atoms needed to produce life on planets orbiting subsequent generations of stars.
We know that not by reading books of creation myths - they tell very different stories - but by the slow and difficult method of observation and scientific enquiry. No creation myth tells of a cosmic background radiation or neutron stars. Compared to what we have discovered, creation myths show how unimaginative we are. What scripture would dare to propose our atoms were cooked in the heart of stars?
What does spiritual mean, anyway? isn't the fact our atoms are the ashes of long dead stars a spiritual lesson? Surely it cannot be unspiritual just because it is true?
Created:
Posted in:
Abnormal chromosomes apart, people are born as 'biologically male' or 'biologically female'. Traditionally people were expected to accept being defined by their birth sex and abide by social rules based on their biological sex alone.
That meant that individuals that did not conform to the approved stereotype faced ostracism and persecution for breaking those rules. One was a heterosexual or an outlaw.
A more enlightened view recognises that people are not defined by their biological sex alone but a by a more complex concept of 'gender' which tkes into account that not all biological males are 'masculine' in their nature nor are they all attracted to females (and conversely for biological females). In the old model, anything other than heterosexulity was a perversion; the new model is much more realistic.
but I would say that the concept of gender is still under development. There is no agreement how any genders there are, and care is required because while it is right that homosexuals and lesbians are are not stigmatised it would clearly be wrong to invent a gender for paedophiles - the theory and philosophy of the new model needs a lot of work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
A fundamental consciousness would exist prior to the physical universe.
I'm happy not to quibble over details! I agree that what matters is whether the universe is the result of a conscious act or a mindless, planless accident.
It seems to me you reject the latter because it implies there is no point to anything. But not having any point or purpose isn't grounds to reject that is exactly how things are!
Why do we have kids? There's no reason! But if there were two species one of which reproduced and one which didn't obviously only the reproducing one would exist after one generation. But the universe doesn't care either way - there's no conscious plan involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
i think that is the 'puddle' argument, right?
The problem is that suppose the varied laws meant carbon could not form. Basically that means you'd have to make conscious entities out of nothing but hydrogen and helium. I'm not saying that can't be done, but I think a mix of H and He gas will be exactly the same after 13.8 billion years and won't be thinking any deep thoughts!
That universe would end well before a structure capable of thought could come about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The 'god particle' meme seems to have originated as the title of a book written in 1993, but I don't remember anybody taking about 'god particles' until very recently, ie before the discovery of the higgs boson round 2013, twenty years later.
I think physicists have done their best to disown that nickname dredged up from the past when it was a publishers idea of a good comercial title for yet another another routine pop-sci book.
But it has made people more aware of some obscure science even if very few understand it. I don't understand it, but if it is called the 'god particle' i know it must be important so i want to know more. The 'higgs particle' must be the most boring and uninspiring name imaginable!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
how I understand things:
a)biological sex is the reproductive role your body is physically set up to do.
b)Sexual identity is the role you are mentally set up to do.
c)Sexual orientation refers to the sex you are attracted to.
gender is often used to refer to the combination of a,b and c of an individual, especially how an invdividual varies from a=b<>c.
However not all writers would agree with the above and not all writers use the terms consistently!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I disagree about needing to accept that purpose and meaning are not external to ourselves though.
You've every right to disagree.. i'm not infallible!
if consiousness is internal then consciousness as to arise - somehow - by the operation of the brain. i believe it will turn out to be so. Until we know either way we can disagree and argue for ever but never prove anything about any '<insert grand adjective> consciousness'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'd say your arguments are variations on the neccessity (or otherwise) of conscious intent at the origin of things; 'God' is then the embodient of that intent.
The alternate view is that consciousness and intent are not neccessary and the origin of things was mindless and purposeless.
The latter raises the question: if purpose was not there at the start, where can it come from?
Many people conclude 'nowhere', leading to the bleak prospect that life - and existence itself - would be pointess and meaningless. For that reason they reject a godless origin.
i think we have to accept that meaning and purpose are not 'out there' and imposed on us but must come from within and imposed by us on 'out there'. The problem is to chose meaning and purpose wisely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Oh , The F N C God , he's like a half brother of the Supreme ultimate reality God.
i'm pretty sure I was told 'God is love'. Is that the same one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
In context, 'conditional' and 'unconditional' are technical terms used in theological debates between believers. That is even if belief in Jesus is a given, salvation can be unconditilonal or conditional on other factors. Natually there is no consensus between sects which is correct!That's a condition, no cognitive dissonance allowed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
If they were different, then there would be a different universe with different processes.
A very different universe in many cases! e.g. If gravity was a bit stronger stars would have to burn hotter to balance gravity and pressure.which is what keeps stars stable. Hotter stars burn their fuel faster - possibly too fast to allow intelligent life to evolve on planets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Water is fine tuned to freeze at 32 degrees Farenheit and boil at 212. If the temperature was 33 degrees and 211 respectively, water would not freeze or boil.See how silly that is? That's the fine tuning argument.
That's not quite right. The freezing and boiling points of water could well be 33 and 211 - it wouldn't affect the big picture much so God didn't have to carefully 'fine-tune' those constants.
Where he had to do fine-tuning was in things like setting the mass/charge ratio of the electron, the gravitation constant and the speed of light. Unless those values were very precisely co-ordinated stars might not form, or they'd burn out in few seconds...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I'm happy that the AP/puddle argument is sound, but I can't help hoping something a bit more 'mechanistic' and less like a clever-clever word game will turn up, possibly if/when QM and relativity have been reconciled. It's down to personal taste, i suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'd say your arguments are variations on the neccessity (or otherwise) of conscious intent at the origin of things; 'God' is then the embodient of that intent.
The alternate view is that consciousness and intent are not neccessary and the origin of things was mindless and purposeless.
The latter raises the question: if purpose was not there at the start, where can it come from?
Many people conclude 'nowhere', leading to the bleak prospect that life - and existence itself - would be pointess and meaningless. For that reason they reject a godless origin.
i think we have to accept that meaning and purpose are not 'out there' and imposed on us but must come from within and imposed by us on 'out there'. The problem is to chose meaning and purpose wisely.
Created:
-->
@Grugore
Well, I did have a few rows with my Muslim late wife, but we always made up!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Is the most important thing to you whether 'Islam is a religion of peace'? It's not even a meaningful phrase.
I am disappointed you can't accept the reality of Islamophobia. it is human nature to distrust strangers - so of course there are anti-Muslim bigots in the world - certainly in the UK. You deny being one - I can accept that - but to deny the phenomenon even exists is ridiculous. Islamophobia is not the word I would have chosen, but I am not going to do a King Canute over it!
I seriously doubt you know much more about Islam and Muslims that I do. My late wife was a Muslim (admitedly not very devout!). i was in Nairobi when the US embassy was blown up in 1998 and I saw the reaction of ordinary Muslims to it - which was mainly bafflement! I saw the same on 9-11 2001.
It says - apparently - in the Koran that Muslims should not make friends or allies with 'infidels'. Well, they do. I don't have to study any scholars to know that because I have personal experience of their friendship.
I do not deny that what was a minor strand of a 'conservative' (or choose the word you prefer!) interpretation of Islam has become far more influential over the last 3-4 decades. Why do you think that is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Dr Wafa Sultan https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan one of many leading and influential commentator and authors of Islam has this to say:"In order to understand Islam you have to read the biography of Muhammad. It is very traumatising. It is very shocking. He married his second wife when she was six years old. He was over fifty. His third wife was Sophia. She was a Jewish Woman. It was well documented, well written in our school books that he attacked her tribe. He killed her father, her brother, and her husband, the same day, he slept with her. In order to understand Islam you have to read the biography of Muhammad. It is very traumatising. It is very shocking".
Wikipedia says:
Safiyya bint Huyayy was a noblewoman,[70] the daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, chief of the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir, who was killed at the Battle of the Trench.[71][72] She had been married first to the poet Sallam ibn Mishkam, who had divorced her,[70][73] and second to Kenana ibn al-Rabi, a commander. In 628, at the Battle of Khaybar,[74] Banu Nadir was defeated, her husband was executed and she was taken as a prisoner. Muhammad freed her from her captor Dihya and proposed marriage, which Safiyya accepted.[75] According to Martin Lings, Muhammad had given Safiyyah the choice of returning to the defeated Banu Nadir, or becoming Muslim and marrying him, and Safiyyah opted for the latter choice.[76]
According to a hadith, Muhammad's contemporaries believed that due to Safiyya's high status, it was only befitting that she be manumitted and married to Muhammad.[77] Modern scholars believe that Muhammad married Safiyya as part of reconciliation with the Jewish tribe and as a gesture of goodwill.[78][79] John L. Esposito states that the marriage may have been political or to cement alliances.
There are two sides to most stories, not that you'd think so from reading your posts, Steve!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Muslims are peaceful generally as are ChristiansI agree. It is their scriptures that I disagree with. WOW! we seem to have made some ground.
In that case it's hard to see what we are arguing about! Put another way, you contend the presence of verses such as 8:39 means Islam is not 'a religion of peace'. In support you point to the many acts of terror, violence, war and conquest by Muslims.
It isn't that gus and I are blind to the obvious. But you seem unwilling to go any deeper. What is the context of 8:39? how is it interpreted by scholars and understood by ordinary Muslims? What is its role in radicalisation?
It's a shame forums degenerate into soap boxes. Forums should be where ideas are shared and bounced around - formal debates are on the other page and blogging is free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Well, tell me how an ocean of radiation crystalises into particles and forces just right to produce conscious life! Most combinations of constants wouldn't produce stable atoms, let alone conscious entities.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Without looking it up, how many islamist attacks were there in the uk in 2018?
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
I hope you woudn't say that blacks invented racism or Jews invented anti-semitism! Racism, anti-semitism and islamophobia are different faces of 'xenophobia'.
I am perfectly aware the literal meaning of 'islamopobia' is not 'anti-muslim bigotry' but it's the word that has stuck in English - unfortuntely. tt's unfortunate because now there's no good word for 'analysis and criticism of Islam in the abstract'. But however imperfect th available vocaulary is, we have to do our best with it!
Islam is not ultra-pacifist as quakerism is. Almost all muslim scholars agree that it is a duty to defend the faith and the faithful, but holy war must b defensive, not aggressive. Is islam a religion of peace or not? Yes and no.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I wonder if Nietzsche would have been entirely comfortable with the comparison.
I am not a neitzsche scholar - i usually even spell it wrongly - but i think he would flatly reject RedBeard.
N (as I shall call him) was anti-egalitarian but not a racist nor an anti-semite. N craved a world divided into masters and slaves but didn't assume that who was master and who was slave was matter of race. Race rarely appears in N's writings but Redbeard's racism and anti-semitism is all over MMR.
Created:
Posted in:
Breaking news, keith, thank you.
I'm pretty sure they've both been around for while.
It's certainly possible to over-romanticise the past. I don't think we ever 'stopped to feel the pulse of the earth'. In the past that pulse would have been felt keenly - we we're connected to the world in a visceral way, not 'connected' in a new-agey, hippy-dippy, part-time way.
How would we 'stop' anyway, other than by switching off the heating and sitting in the freezing dark. I think a few days of that and people would have had quite enough 'pulse'!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nd24007
My method is not letting The Corbett Report dig it for me.My only methods is to dig for the truth.
Basic rule: Just because it's not mainstream doesn't mean it's true!
Created: