Post Reply
Page 7 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Switch to Forum Live View QUESTIONS FOR WHICH PHYSICISTS HAVE NO ANSWERS - AYAD GHARBAWI - DAMASCUS, SYRIA
4 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2010 - 8:41PM #61
nicoletate
Posts: 3,398

Jan 14, 2010 -- 1:30AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 4:20PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 1:29AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:14AM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 1:11AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 3:00PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Cryano wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 1:41AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 10, 2010 -- 8:46AM, teilhard wrote:


But again ... "Religious Faith" Experience - Traditions


HISTORICALLY are Evolutionarily RECENT Developments,


so are "Advanced" Human Characteristics -- NOT "Primitive" ...



 In light of the fact that man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, the notion of a flat earth at the center of the cosmos is a "recent development" too.


On the other hand, the human propensity for self-delusion is hardly likely to be an "advanced" or recently evolved characteristic of man either.


Religious faith, and the experiences it begets, along with religious tradition are products of man's imagination likely inspired by existential fear and insecurity.



Indeed our fear of ghosts goblins and things that bump in the nite is doubtless left over from a time when we understood very little about the natural world and imagined it more mysterious and hostile than it is. We overlaid this primitive fear with all kinds of intellectualisms and mythologies but at root religious faith is the same mental process as the cave man cowering in shock and awe at the thunder.




Well, an "understanding" about the natural world is what drives my belief, understanding very little would mean "nothing" so there's no way I could believe "something". The reasons for such beliefs a thousand years ago, was for a thousand years ago. They were wrong, and today man could still be wrong assuming that what was thought a thousand years ago, is actually what "creativity" of the world would be.


If one is going to have a belief that "creativity" happened, one can't cower, awe, and believe that what they don't understand means a creation. If we are not supposed to have an understanding of the natural world around us for a "creativity" to have accured, we are no more knowledgable today, than we were a thousand years ago,....there is no evidence that what was mythically claimed a thousand years ago, is what creation actually would be.


So,..we now understand the world around us,..so what,...why the heck shouldn't we???




 


I might respond to this if I could make head or tail of it!


 


That post was VERY CLEAR and obviously,..you KNOW that.




 


It was about as clear as mud, nicoletate, and not for the first time either.


 





As I said,....my post was clear, and that's indeed obvious.




 




Yea right,..too obvious Dude! You have no answer, because you could be just as wrong.

Moderated by rangerken on Jan 17, 2010 - 10:16PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2010 - 8:43PM #62
nicoletate
Posts: 3,398

Jan 13, 2010 -- 6:44PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME of our Siblings


seem to be "Oblivious" to the "Obvious,"


eh ... ???




Oblivious,...indeed!!!

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2010 - 9:05PM #63
Namchuck
Posts: 10,795

Jan 15, 2010 -- 8:41PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 14, 2010 -- 1:30AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 4:20PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 1:29AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:14AM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 1:11AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 3:00PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Cryano wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 1:41AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 10, 2010 -- 8:46AM, teilhard wrote:


But again ... "Religious Faith" Experience - Traditions


HISTORICALLY are Evolutionarily RECENT Developments,


so are "Advanced" Human Characteristics -- NOT "Primitive" ...



 In light of the fact that man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, the notion of a flat earth at the center of the cosmos is a "recent development" too.


On the other hand, the human propensity for self-delusion is hardly likely to be an "advanced" or recently evolved characteristic of man either.


Religious faith, and the experiences it begets, along with religious tradition are products of man's imagination likely inspired by existential fear and insecurity.



Indeed our fear of ghosts goblins and things that bump in the nite is doubtless left over from a time when we understood very little about the natural world and imagined it more mysterious and hostile than it is. We overlaid this primitive fear with all kinds of intellectualisms and mythologies but at root religious faith is the same mental process as the cave man cowering in shock and awe at the thunder.




Well, an "understanding" about the natural world is what drives my belief, understanding very little would mean "nothing" so there's no way I could believe "something". The reasons for such beliefs a thousand years ago, was for a thousand years ago. They were wrong, and today man could still be wrong assuming that what was thought a thousand years ago, is actually what "creativity" of the world would be.


If one is going to have a belief that "creativity" happened, one can't cower, awe, and believe that what they don't understand means a creation. If we are not supposed to have an understanding of the natural world around us for a "creativity" to have accured, we are no more knowledgable today, than we were a thousand years ago,....there is no evidence that what was mythically claimed a thousand years ago, is what creation actually would be.


So,..we now understand the world around us,..so what,...why the heck shouldn't we???




 


I might respond to this if I could make head or tail of it!


 




That post was VERY CLEAR and obviously,..you KNOW that.




 


It was about as clear as mud, nicoletate, and not for the first time either.


 





As I said,....my post was clear, and that's indeed obvious.




 




Yea right,..too obvious Dude! You have no answer, because you could be just as wrong.




 


As for being wrong, well, I've always acknowledged that possibility. The thing is, though, I'm not speculating as you are. I'm simply sticking with the facts and the well-established principles of the scientific method while awaiting further evidence.

Moderated by rangerken on Jan 17, 2010 - 10:17PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 16, 2010 - 9:51PM #64
nicoletate
Posts: 3,398

Jan 15, 2010 -- 9:05PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 15, 2010 -- 8:41PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 14, 2010 -- 1:30AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 4:20PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 1:29AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:14AM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 1:11AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 3:00PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Cryano wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 1:41AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 10, 2010 -- 8:46AM, teilhard wrote:


But again ... "Religious Faith" Experience - Traditions


HISTORICALLY are Evolutionarily RECENT Developments,


so are "Advanced" Human Characteristics -- NOT "Primitive" ...



 In light of the fact that man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, the notion of a flat earth at the center of the cosmos is a "recent development" too.


On the other hand, the human propensity for self-delusion is hardly likely to be an "advanced" or recently evolved characteristic of man either.


Religious faith, and the experiences it begets, along with religious tradition are products of man's imagination likely inspired by existential fear and insecurity.





So,..we now understand the world around us,..so what,...why the heck shouldn't we???




 


I might respond to this if I could make head or tail of it!


 




That post was VERY CLEAR and obviously,..you KNOW that.




 


It was about as clear as mud, nicoletate, and not for the first time either.


 





As I said,....my post was clear, and that's indeed obvious.




 




Yea right,..too obvious Dude! You have no answer, because you could be just as wrong.




 


 


As for being wrong, well, I've always acknowledged that possibility. The thing is, though, I'm not speculating as you are. I'm simply sticking with the facts and the well-established principles of the scientific method while awaiting further evidence.




It's indeed obvious,... my post was very clear. Of course you could be just as wrong as the people were a thousand years ago, they think supernatural and you do too. How is it known that what man defines as natural, is not evidence of some sort of natural creativity? 

Moderated by rangerken on Jan 17, 2010 - 10:18PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 16, 2010 - 10:54PM #65
Namchuck
Posts: 10,795

Jan 16, 2010 -- 9:51PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 15, 2010 -- 9:05PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 15, 2010 -- 8:41PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 14, 2010 -- 1:30AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 4:20PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 1:29AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:14AM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 1:11AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 3:00PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Cryano wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 1:41AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 10, 2010 -- 8:46AM, teilhard wrote:


But again ... "Religious Faith" Experience - Traditions


HISTORICALLY are Evolutionarily RECENT Developments,


so are "Advanced" Human Characteristics -- NOT "Primitive" ...



 In light of the fact that man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, the notion of a flat earth at the center of the cosmos is a "recent development" too.


On the other hand, the human propensity for self-delusion is hardly likely to be an "advanced" or recently evolved characteristic of man either.


Religious faith, and the experiences it begets, along with religious tradition are products of man's imagination likely inspired by existential fear and insecurity.





So,..we now understand the world around us,..so what,...why the heck shouldn't we???




 


I might respond to this if I could make head or tail of it!


 




That post was VERY CLEAR and obviously,..you KNOW that.




 


It was about as clear as mud, nicoletate, and not for the first time either.





As I said,....my post was clear, and that's indeed obvious.




 




Yea right,..too obvious Dude! You have no answer, because you could be just as wrong.




 


As for being wrong, well, I've always acknowledged that possibility. The thing is, though, I'm not speculating as you are. I'm simply sticking with the facts and the well-established principles of the scientific method while awaiting further evidence.




It's indeed obvious,... my post was very clear. Of course you could be just as wrong as the people were a thousand years ago, they think supernatural and you do too. How is it known that what man defines as natural, is not evidence of some sort of natural creativity? 




 


*****************************************************************************


Of course it would would be "obvious' to you -  


For instance, I'm hardly likely to be as wrong as someone who lived a thousand years ago about the issues under discussion. There was very little understanding of nature back then. We now have highly successful methods with which to tease out the nature of Nature.


What those methods reveal is that Nature is self-explanatory, consequently, there is simply no need or warrant to postulate any sort of "creativity". We can dismiss the notion as a mere indulgence until advocates of the proposition can advance some evidence that Nature is insufficient to explain itself without a creator.


 


 

Moderated by rangerken on Jan 17, 2010 - 10:20PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2010 - 5:26PM #66
nicoletate
Posts: 3,398

Jan 16, 2010 -- 10:54PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 16, 2010 -- 9:51PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 15, 2010 -- 9:05PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 15, 2010 -- 8:41PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 14, 2010 -- 1:30AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 4:20PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 1:29AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:14AM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 1:11AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 3:00PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Cryano wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 1:41AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 10, 2010 -- 8:46AM, teilhard wrote:


But again ... "Religious Faith" Experience - Traditions


HISTORICALLY are Evolutionarily RECENT Developments,


so are "Advanced" Human Characteristics -- NOT "Primitive" ...



 In light of the fact that man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, the notion of a flat earth at the center of the cosmos is a "recent development" too.


On the other hand, the human propensity for self-delusion is hardly likely to be an "advanced" or recently evolved characteristic of man either.


Religious faith, and the experiences it begets, along with religious tradition are products of man's imagination likely inspired by existential fear and insecurity.





So,..we now understand the world around us,..so what,...why the heck shouldn't we???




 


I might respond to this if I could make head or tail of it!


 




That post was VERY CLEAR and obviously,..you KNOW that.




 


It was about as clear as mud, nicoletate, and not for the first time either.


 





As I said,....my post was clear, and that's indeed obvious.




 




Yea right,..too obvious Dude! You have no answer, because you could be just as wrong.




 


As for being wrong, well, I've always acknowledged that possibility. The thing is, though, I'm not speculating as you are. I'm simply sticking with the facts and the well-established principles of the scientific method while awaiting further evidence.




It's indeed obvious,... my post was very clear. Of course you could be just as wrong as the people were a thousand years ago, they think supernatural and you do too. How is it known that what man defines as natural, is not evidence of some sort of natural creativity? 




 


*****************************************************************************


Of course it would would be "obvious' to you -  




LOL,...

Moderated by rangerken on Jan 17, 2010 - 10:22PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2010 - 10:25PM #67
rangerken
Posts: 15,810

I just edited seven posts!! It's a lot easier to just remove them you know! Now come on folks... knock off the personal attacks. The topic is interesting, and a lot of good comments have been made. There's no need to go after each other... go after opinions, NOT those who post them.


Please!


Rangerken, beliefnet community host

Conservative, Libertarian, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:25AM #68
Namchuck
Posts: 10,795

Jan 17, 2010 -- 5:26PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 16, 2010 -- 10:54PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 16, 2010 -- 9:51PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 15, 2010 -- 9:05PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 15, 2010 -- 8:41PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 14, 2010 -- 1:30AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 4:20PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 13, 2010 -- 1:29AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:14AM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 12, 2010 -- 1:11AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 3:00PM, nicoletate wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Cryano wrote:


Jan 11, 2010 -- 1:41AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 10, 2010 -- 8:46AM, teilhard wrote:


But again ... "Religious Faith" Experience - Traditions


HISTORICALLY are Evolutionarily RECENT Developments,


so are "Advanced" Human Characteristics -- NOT "Primitive" ...



 In light of the fact that man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, the notion of a flat earth at the center of the cosmos is a "recent development" too.


On the other hand, the human propensity for self-delusion is hardly likely to be an "advanced" or recently evolved characteristic of man either.


Religious faith, and the experiences it begets, along with religious tradition are products of man's imagination likely inspired by existential fear and insecurity.





So,..we now understand the world around us,..so what,...why the heck shouldn't we???




 


I might respond to this if I could make head or tail of it!


 




That post was VERY CLEAR and obviously,..you KNOW that.




 


It was about as clear as mud, nicoletate, and not for the first time either.


 





As I said,....my post was clear, and that's indeed obvious.




 




Yea right,..too obvious Dude! You have no answer, because you could be just as wrong.




 


As for being wrong, well, I've always acknowledged that possibility. The thing is, though, I'm not speculating as you are. I'm simply sticking with the facts and the well-established principles of the scientific method while awaiting further evidence.




It's indeed obvious,... my post was very clear. Of course you could be just as wrong as the people were a thousand years ago, they think supernatural and you do too. How is it known that what man defines as natural, is not evidence of some sort of natural creativity? 




 


*****************************************************************************


Of course it would would be "obvious' to you -  




LOL,...




 


True, though, huh?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 21, 2010 - 1:13PM #69
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

At least Physicists have the intellectual honesty to admit what they don't know yet; answers will come in due time.


Not so with Metaphysicians, when they get backed into a corner they just define a new term and the problem goes away.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 22, 2010 - 2:19AM #70
Namchuck
Posts: 10,795

Jan 21, 2010 -- 1:13PM, Marcion wrote:


At least Physicists have the intellectual honesty to admit what they don't know yet; answers will come in due time.


Not so with Metaphysicians, when they get backed into a corner they just define a new term and the problem goes away.




 


Crisply stated, Marcion

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook