Science 'versus' God?

[Mohan.C]

Hmmmm........but does energy serve it's own purpose?

Labelwench

Does energy have a purpose?

[labelwench]

Does energy have a purpose?

All the natural forces that I am capable of observing and intuiting, appear to work through harmony and discord to sustain the whole framework that supports our species.

For all that we purport to know, we are not long out of the caves in our understanding of how all the pieces of the puzzle of life fit together.

Interesting that most people, at some point in their life, question for what purpose they exist...

Life is energy, energy is life, Both in many forms.

To a purpose.

Why else would we want to know how all began and how matters may end?

Regards,

Labelwench

[Profpat]

Does energy have a purpose?

Yes to fulfill it's potential of doing WORK. That is why things are constantly moving. Energy just doesn't want to take a break or go on vacation.

[Unreal Zelta]

Yes to fulfill it's potential of doing WORK. That is why things are constantly moving. Energy just doesn't want to take a break or go on vacation.

Except when students make a mathematical mistake in their physics course.

regards

Zelta

[austintorn@aol.com]

New article by Sam Harris about Francis Collins:

http://www.reasonproject.org/archive...ncis_collins2/

Excerpt:

The world’s religions are predicated on the truth of specific doctrines that have been growing less plausible by the day. While the ultimate relationship between consciousness and matter has not been entirely settled, any naïve conception of a soul can now be jettisoned on account of the mind’s obvious dependency upon the brain. The idea that there might be an immortal soul capable of reasoning, feeling love, remembering life events, etc, all the while being metaphysically independent of the brain becomes untenable the moment we realize that damage to the relevant neural circuits obliterates these specific capacities in a living person. Does the soul of a completely aphasic patient still speak and think fluently? This is like asking whether the soul of a diabetic produces abundant insulin. What is more, the specific character of the mind’s dependency on the brain suggests that there cannot be a unified subject lurking behind all of the brain’s functionally distinct channels of processing. There are simply too many separable components to perception and cognition—each susceptible to independent disruption—for there to be a single entity to stand as rider to the horse

The soul-doctrine suffers further upheaval in light of the fatal resemblance of the human brain to the brains of other animals. The obvious continuity of our mental powers with those of ostensibly soulless primates raises special difficulties. If the joint ancestors of chimpanzees and human beings did not have souls, when did we acquire ours?

Most religions ignore these awkward facts and simply assert that human beings possess a unique form of subjectivity that has no homolog among lower animals. Indeed, Collins asserts this. He claims that the human mind cannot be the product of the human brain or the human brain the product of unguided evolution: rather, at some glorious moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components—including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc. This claim makes a mockery of whole fields of study—neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, behavioral economics, among others—and, if taken seriously, would obliterate our growing understanding of the human mind. If we must look to religion to explain our moral sense, what should we make of the deficits of moral reasoning associated with conditions like autism, frontal lobe syndrome, and psychopathy? Are these disorders best addressed by theology?

[Exsoteric]

Hi,
The above excerpt from Reason Project dot org supposes so many false assumptions it’s almost funny, if it weren’t so sad.
There is so much in this universe we don’t understand. Even greater, there are so many things we don’t even know exist! The words astonishing and amazing don’t even come close to describing this unknown.
We hear sounds and sometimes have sensations of light and touch; we’re actually still in the womb.
TOE will be that day, when we are born and pushed into a greater awareness, seeing light for the first time.
With all due respect, to use science or religion to nullify or limit the transcendental nature possessed by all sentient beings, simply means we do not understand the true (fundamental) nature of science or religion.
regards,

[melanie]

Are these disorders best addressed by theology?

Theology does not exist, except in this conception as an idea known.

''Disorders'' are nothing more that manmade concepts of a non-existent ''apparently'' existing mind.... (Imagination)

What is ''Imagination'' ? ...... could be called '' The Vast Emptiness'' ?

Disorders are ideas formed in the ''pseudo mind'' this attempts to claim ownership of something that is not really there.
This is purely psychosomatic phantasy--of or relating to the interaction of mind and body.

On a 'deeper' level, no one is born and no one dies.
There is only the Unborn.(Infinite Consciousness)

Every character, and every organism is one of the temporal ways in which the Infinite appears to ItSelf.


Like waves in the ocean, forms appear and disappear in the Unborn.
Such appearing and disappearing is often accompanied by emotions of pleasure and pain or ''psychopathic disorders''
They come of their own accord and dissolve in the same manner.

Much like our own thoughts.

We become our thoughts.

And thoughts are??? ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS......

OR.....

THE VAST EMPTINESS.

It's a story full of fury and noise, signifying nothing...

[melanie]

At some glorious moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components
—including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc.
This claim makes a mockery of whole fields of study—neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, behavioral economics, among others
—and, if taken seriously, would obliterate our growing understanding of the human mind.

The universe is working to an ingeniously mastered piece of remarkable clockwork perfection-- as it should at all times --

It's all hunky-dory---with or without the story.

The only way to 'really' understand the human mind --is to realize there isn't one.

When 'you' get out of your own way....out of your mind ---so to speak.
The universe works through 'you' effortlessly, synchronously,
and in perfect harmony with the rhythm of all life.

[everymansmedium]

New article by Sam Harris about Francis Collins:

http://www.reasonproject.org/archive...ncis_collins2/

Excerpt:

The world’s religions are predicated on the truth of specific doctrines that have been growing less plausible by the day. While the ultimate relationship between consciousness and matter has not been entirely settled, any naïve conception of a soul can now be jettisoned on account of the mind’s obvious dependency upon the brain. The idea that there might be an immortal soul capable of reasoning, feeling love, remembering life events, etc, all the while being metaphysically independent of the brain becomes untenable the moment we realize that damage to the relevant neural circuits obliterates these specific capacities in a living person. Does the soul of a completely aphasic patient still speak and think fluently? This is like asking whether the soul of a diabetic produces abundant insulin. What is more, the specific character of the mind’s dependency on the brain suggests that there cannot be a unified subject lurking behind all of the brain’s functionally distinct channels of processing. There are simply too many separable components to perception and cognition—each susceptible to independent disruption—for there to be a single entity to stand as rider to the horse

The soul-doctrine suffers further upheaval in light of the fatal resemblance of the human brain to the brains of other animals. The obvious continuity of our mental powers with those of ostensibly soulless primates raises special difficulties. If the joint ancestors of chimpanzees and human beings did not have souls, when did we acquire ours?

Most religions ignore these awkward facts and simply assert that human beings possess a unique form of subjectivity that has no homolog among lower animals. Indeed, Collins asserts this. He claims that the human mind cannot be the product of the human brain or the human brain the product of unguided evolution: rather, at some glorious moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components—including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc. This claim makes a mockery of whole fields of study—neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, behavioral economics, among others—and, if taken seriously, would obliterate our growing understanding of the human mind. If we must look to religion to explain our moral sense, what should we make of the deficits of moral reasoning associated with conditions like autism, frontal lobe syndrome, and psychopathy? Are these disorders best addressed by theology?

Hi Austin:
I just had to put in my 2 cents worth.
If you had 2 computers, one on the moon and one in your living room. The one on the moon is the one that runs the main program, the one in your living room is just a terminal program. The terminal program contains all of the interfacing necessary to access the speech I/O and the vision I/O and the tactile I/O. If you cause damage to the system in your living room that is only a terminal. Will your system still operate correctly? There is nothing wrong with the one on the moon it is still doing its best to communicate with you, but it is doing it through a broken terminal. When different parts of the terminal are broken it will cause different symptoms just as if the real thinking was being done in your living room.

THERE IS NO FACT THAT CAN ELIMINATE THE POSSABILITY OF THE EXISTANCE OF THE SOUL.

You have no way to prove that even what you believe to be your own thoughts originate in your own mind, never mind your own head.

The best that can be said for any of this is
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION!

When you discover that something is impossible and you keep trying what does this say?

I can not prove what I think is real either but at least my ideas produce a singularity that COULD EXPLAIN ALL and it is coherent. Not easy to understand but coherent all the same.

you can read my new preface page at

http://unit-unity-community.com/preface.htm


John EMM

[everymansmedium]

Does energy have a purpose?

Hi Mohan:
Energy is a convenient excuse for movement, heat and light.

In a growing block There is no movement. In place of movement there is continuous dynamic creation that occurs at NOW.

Then gravity is just a reaction to the action of creation. All creation is the result of (Time/Consciousness/Creation)

Time/consciousness/creation is one single entity.

The time/consciousness/creation effects the new space that is a result of time/consciousness/creation. This is the observer effect that is seen in QM and QP

When the new block results at every Planck instance in every Planck length of space, the effect of the observer causes an effect by way of his/her consciousness in the next creation wave.

In plain English: WE ARE THE UNIVERSE!

See: Reason is an excuse for faith. Faith is everything!

http://unit-unity-community.com/PBS-post.htm

Do not forget! The concept of a continuum is a convenient platform for all of the macro sciences, and it does not exist as of itself. It only exists as an image of the digital system that does exist. A digital system is the direct opposite of
a continuum. Because it is the exact opposite my guess is that it is the result of an IMAGE. Maybe this is the image that we are created within.
If that is the case then it is the digital system that is real and the continuum is just an image of the reality that exists in the digital system. This is why we can not find nor will we ever find the continuum.


John EMM