I'll respond to your points when I have time. I've actually responded to many of them already by providing you definitions. You're welcome!
for the record, there are a lot of scientific theories that I believe in. however, i put science in the right place in society, as an augment to my knowledge. let me ask you something cometswin, is there currently an experiment going on that explains where the first particle of matter came from? can science explain that - I'm not being sarcastic, I want to know honestly is there. Educate me.
I don't personally have a firm position on the mind-body debate, but this is a poor argument. No one says consciousness exists in individual chemicals that make up our body. It would be an emergent capability.
As an atheist, I accept the absurd. That there is no inherent meaning to life beyond what is meaningful to me individually. That was in lieu to believing in a creator to give universal meaning to life. I get having blind faith in a creator. However, believing in something because it can't be proven doesn't make sense. A lot of things can't be proven. Especially considering the fact that you seem to believe in the Christian god, which is a very specific concept amount a myriad of others. All of which share the fact that they can't be reasonably proven more true or false than the other. Thats why believing in something "because be proven" doesn't make sense. That's why the choice is defined as faith, but not why you chose the brand.
i don't believe in something because it can't be proven. my belief is based on my relationship with god. however, i accept that I cannot PROVE to you why I have faith in something that I can't see, just that I have faith in it. I think you are twisting up two meanings here.
Great point. Exactly why current project to create artificial brain simulation is so fascinating. The US BRAIN Initiative and the EU Human Brain Project could potentially provide some additional insight on the mind-body relationship. I love living in a time where I can so closely follow various research projects that could change my entire perception of the universe in an instant
You literally said the opposite in these two statements, but I guess I was understanding what you meant when I responded to Comets in this post. Again, I don't mean to offend people who are religious. I often take offense with how some people practice it or their usage of religious text as justification for imposing on the lives of others or the common confusion of faith and fact or blindly attributing anything difficult to explain as divine intervention.... but not for simply having faith in something.
you can't prove it so you have to have faith in it, is what i said. what you said i said is that the reason i believe is because i can't prove it? really? you can't be that dense. stop trolling my post if you can't see the difference.
I'm not trolling your posts. Just having a discussion, so there's no need to get defensive. Single words change the entire meaning of a statement. is very different from I'm trying to be clear. Not attack you. Your original statement is saying that the fact god's existence is why you have faith. The other is saying what I think you were trying to convey. It's ok to say "yea, I meant to word that differently" and move on in the conversation. Christ...
Not so sure he grasps the concept of gathering sufficient evidence of an event to prove that it did in fact take place at some point.
so that contraption has created a human being, the sun, moons, vegetation, from a single particle? that's pretty freakin amazing
The experiments on Higgs Boson at the Hadron collider are trying to explain the nature of particles I think. They apparently contribute to a theory on the destruction of the Universe. You should follow the news a little bit. Apparently billions of years from now the Universe will implode or something.
the fact of the matter is cometswin that even hawkin thought higgs boson was bull****. but aside from that, i am not sure how scientist resolve the idea of where matter came from, in the beginning. it seems to me to be a Russian nesting doll dilemma. at some point matter appeared. I don't think you get my general point about this, but at some point scientist (no matter how far they go back with mathematics) have to grasp the realization that matter appeared out of thin air with NOTHING to aid it. Do you get what I am saying, or do you dismiss it as ridiculous because of all the intelligence built into science naturally deflects idiot questions like mine because they are so learned with their theories and my question is frankly beneath them.
The fact of the matter is that you are far more often completely wrong than anything resembling right. The Higgs boson, named after University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs, was first hypothesized in the 1960s. Since then, researchers have attempted to find evidence of the particle by smashing protons together in particle accelerators. The search has been fraught with claims—mostly by science journalists—that the particle’s discovery is just around the corner, while others have said that it will never be found. Hawking, for instance, predicted that tiny black holes would mask the existence of the Higgs. This, it is said, led to the bet with Kane. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...t_is_about_to_lose_another_bet_probably_.html "I had a bet with Gordon Kane of Michigan University that the Higgs particle wouldn't be found. It seems I have just lost 100 dollars," Hawking said. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/05/stephen-hawking-i-lost-10_n_1650395.html I think you're a horribly uninformed poster and I could probably spend hours every day debunking what you say but someday, hopefully soon, when the nature of the Universe is fully explained I will post a link for you.
I think it is no coincidence that you brought the mountain of evidence against that specific point about hawkin. you don't think i read that higgs FOUND what he thinks is the higgs boson? That I just walked into that. no, i didn't son. My point was a more subtle point: that two highly regarded scientists could disagree about an experiment, and yet it's okay because they aren't claiming bs like religious folks do. but it is pretty funny that after all the questioning that i put out there that you pounce on the one point that I left wide open. predictable.
