[Tina]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Sorry Tina, I prefer Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchins. There's a major problem with religious differences, in the world___shortly headed for a nuclear problem... I think it will take a fully enlightened anti-christ, to sort out all the bs...

Regards,
Lloyd

But Lloyd all the energy that goes into affirming God and denying God (entertaining as the atheist writers are) is wasted energy and distraction from more important issues. The statement "God's existance is indeterminable" is true and neutralises all the arguments and bs.

If my statement is not true then where is proof for God or No God.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Tina

But Lloyd all the energy that goes into affirming God and denying God (entertaining as the atheist writers are) is wasted energy and distraction from more important issues. The statement "God's existance is indeterminable" is true and neutralises all the arguments and bs.

If my statement is not true then where is proof for God or No God.

Hi Tina,

You are so correct, no one can either prove or disprove God. It's all a matter of faith.

Best to all,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Tina

But Lloyd all the energy that goes into affirming God and denying God (entertaining as the atheist writers are) is wasted energy and distraction from more important issues. The statement "God's existance is indeterminable" is true and neutralises all the arguments and bs.

If my statement is not true then where is proof for God or No God.

Then why are you Tina, wasting so much energy on it...? You see, you posit "god's existance", as though it's a fact, even though you clarify with "indeterminable". To myself, as a purist scientist, the very mention of any statement containing "god" wastes time, and takes everyone off subject, just as the post by Profpat shows. Of course, I participate also, and do the same wasted effort. No statement, even one as excellent as yours, will quiet the insanity of the fanatics, so I try to either ignore them, or insult them. It matters not which, to me... They must mature on their own...

Lloyd

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Then why are you Tina, wasting so much energy on it....... No statement will quiet the insanity of the fanatics,
Lloyd

Yes much energy past and present - I just would like it to be a globally OFFICIAL statement: THE EXISTANCE OF GOD IS INDETERMINABLE

So everyone - including me - will shut-up already!LIFE

[Fredrick]

Actually, I like the scientific approach towards the idea of god, since it shows that the most important aspect in this regard is the human mind itself. Nothing in the outside world will get changed, except for our own human behavior, whether there is a god or not a god (or no gods at all). Human thinking about god changes our behavior, not the reality of god(s) or no god(s). Our own particular vision creates the dictates for the way we view our universe, and subsequently we alter our environment to fit our ideas. Waking up from the particular view(s), we may start to improve the world in a real way.

The same goes for science. Science influences our vision. Science creates ways for us to view our universe, even beyond the point of us not understanding the essence anymore, and only following the paths dictated by scientific information. Waking up from the views science brings us, we may start to comprehend better how the universe is really put together.

The religious analogy is actually a good way to circumvent the way we are trapped by our scientific thinking. What is needed to overcome the many different religious restrictions is viewing all religions for what they are, and seeing how they are merely approaches towards the essence; the ideologies are not the essence itself. Same goes for science; it tells us a lot, and explains a lot, but it cannot capture the essence. Still, we can capture the essence, but we must understood it on its own merits. By letting go of the specific truths as the one and only truths, we can see the overall truth (that then still contains all specific truths but they do not need to be in concordance with each other anymore). And once you've seen it, no specific truths should be able to fully capture you ever again.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

That is your position Fredrick, not mine, and I mean no harm to anyone. I'm simply using the most efficient method, at my disposal. You don't have to like it, but that is what I will continue to use. Since there is far too much crossover from the meta-communities into science, science should take the radical position, to secure its true ground, or we end up just as India, losing its rational ground, long ago.

In my view, Lloyd, those who believe in one way and one way only are often the ones reacting the most to someone else who is close in ideology, but who differs in one or some fundamental way(s). Those far removed from our ideology are often simply left alone. So, thank you for the strong reaction.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

You'd go some selling this one [that early twentieth century scientists figured out all we needed to figure out to understand the entire scientific picture] to all the physicists, since. Remember, we still haven't solved the gravity issue, or the background issue...

There is a synergistic effect; that what are the parts and that what is the whole are two different things — even when added up they are exactly the same. Knowledge alone is not enough, Lloyd. What to do with the knowledge is more important than simply gathering the knowledge.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

That's funny, I wasn't aware this medium of Boolean communication we're using, on this forum, wasn't binary...? The binary seems to express everything, when words and a-priori logic are used...

Seems like we agree fully, Lloyd, though possibly, while I was doing my best not to be facetious, I am not all that certain about your reply. No matter how much we agree, we disagree about the absoluteness of science. Though each path has its own absolute truths, they cannot be applied as absolute truths to the other paths. I wish you well on your path — and I'll keep an eye on you from my path (closeby).

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Tina

In an attemt to bring the thread back to topic - especially in view of Lloyd G and Fredrick's recent posts - Protheory offers solution to the problem of determining TRUTH:

According to Protheory the TRUTH value of any given statement has three (3)
potentialities of being either

True (+)
Not True (-)
Not true but not false either (0)

The equivalent to black - white - grey. Science can identify the grey areas and examine them without negating the established true and false aspects of the problems being investigated. True/False are not reality's only options. We can say "the answer is indeterminable/partly true /or something else yet to be determined".

Hi Tina,

Thanks for trying to get us back on the three path. I don't think I was veering off too far, but three has this uncanny way of pushing people in various directions.

As you may recall, I am not that far off from what you are saying. I do see how three appears to be the fundamental aspect. Appears to be... because others have stated (like Aristotle) that duality is the fundamental structure.

My pyramid structure is not based on 2 nor 3 parts, but on 6. Naturally, talking about 6 should be an appropriate thing to do in a three thread, agree? To be precise, the pyramid theory is made up of 6 positions, but only 5 of them have contents: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. My mathematical evidence, discovered when focusing on the prime numbers, shows a matrix of these six positions. Though others have portrayed prime numbers in sets of six natural numbers each, too, my delivery differs in that the first set is not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, but begins with zero.

My question to you now is, in similar fashion as my question to Lloyd, whether you state that protheory and protheory alone delivers the final structure or does protheory allow for other theories to also deliver the correct overall view?

Originally Posted by Tina

POK - that is brilliant information - my friend Protheory is going to be extatic. As I said before the TOE is going to feature 3 in a significant way. Evidence is mounting everyday.

How does protheory view the knowledge, Tina, that light comes in three ways also, but that there are two versions to light (one is red, green and blue for direct light, the other is red, yellow and blue for reflected light)?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick, there is no scientific approach towards the idea of god___any such approach is illusory. The human mind is the least important aspect of reality, as it only operates on ego___sometimes accurately, and sometimes not.

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Actually, I like the scientific approach towards the idea of god, since it shows that the most important aspect in this regard is the human mind itself. Nothing in the outside world will get changed, except for our own human behavior, whether there is a god or not a god (or no gods at all). Human thinking about god changes our behavior, not the reality of god(s) or no god(s). Our own particular vision creates the dictates for the way we view our universe, and subsequently we alter our environment to fit our ideas. Waking up from the particular view(s), we may start to improve the world in a real way.[I'm not saying god believers can not change the world for the better, but to do so, they must keep their immature metaphysical god views, separate from their science views, maths and logics.]

The same goes for science. Science influences our vision. Science creates ways for us to view our universe, even beyond the point of us not understanding the essence anymore, and only following the paths dictated by scientific information. Waking up from the views science brings us, we may start to comprehend better how the universe is really put together.[In your dreams, Fredrick...]

The religious analogy is actually a good way to circumvent the way we are trapped by our scientific thinking.[Nobody is trapped by scientific thinking. Such thinking frees the mind of the chains of false egoistic-metaphysics...] What is needed to overcome the many different religious restrictions is viewing all religions for what they are, and seeing how they are merely approaches towards the essence; the ideologies are not the essence itself.[Try perceptronic logic, and you'll get further...] Same goes for science; it tells us a lot, and explains a lot, but it cannot capture the essence.[It already has. Please study the cognitive sciences of molecular biology, evolution, and its related bio-chemical physics...] Still, we can capture the essence, but we must understood it on its own merits. By letting go of the specific truths as the one and only truths, we can see the overall truth (that then still contains all specific truths but they do not need to be in concordance with each other anymore).[When you can see the scientific truth, holding the metaphysical non-sense, then you will know, and not until...] And once you've seen it, no specific truths should be able to fully capture you ever again.

You are just too, far too religious, Fredrick. I know science seems to be less to you than it is, but that's because you can't capture its counter-intuitive truths. Feynman was the best at explaining science to the layman___check out his newest old book of QED, "The Strangeness of Light and Matter...? It easily explains counter-intuitive thought to the layman...

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
Sometime I'll do a thread on the fallacies of the metaphysical, to deeply explain my science to everyone...

[dipayankar]

Many folds of human being have died fighting over God. If God was the saviour, then why does He/She let the human race continue this way. It simply proves that God ha turned blind or does not exist... take your pick

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Fredrick, there is no scientific approach towards the idea of god___any such approach is illusory. The human mind is the least important aspect of reality, as it only operates on ego___sometimes accurately, and sometimes not.



You are just too, far too religious, Fredrick. I know science seems to be less to you than it is, but that's because you can't capture its counter-intuitive truths. Feynman was the best at explaining science to the layman___check out his newest old book of QED, "The Strangeness of Light and Matter...? It easily explains counter-intuitive thought to the layman...

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
Sometime I'll do a thread on the fallacies of the metaphysical, to deeply explain my science to everyone...

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

You are just too, far too religious, Fredrick.

It has been a truly long time ago since anyone called me religious, Lloyd, so thank you for that (it's amusing).

Nice posting, Dipayankar.