alexie

Dear Og

You stated,"You can ask "do you love this person" and they can answer "yes"... That is what is called a measurement. It could be true or false, but it is still a scientific measurement."

Do I (or anyone) believe in God? Yes, I do! Ok, I have, by your saying, been involved in science. This may or may not be true you say. So then you are saying science cannot prove anything to be right or wrong? (because you stated the answer to do you love someone may or may not be true.) But on the other hand you may be implying that you need more science to prove the survey you took about love, as you cannot prove it is true or not thus making the survey inadequate. Science at a basic level tests and proves things to be true or not. It can reproduce the same experiemtn or test and get the same results making something true and provable. So I am still waiting for this measurement about love you mentioned that can show love in a scientific testable measurement that actually proves love exists and not some survey which you then mention cannot prove whether love is true or not. By the way you can use surveys for science but your example was far too simplistic and these surveys have many criteria and rules to make them scientific. These surveys measure tangible things that are observable and actually measurable.

alexie

alexie

Hello Og

Time and matter do relate as you say. Matter has 3 dimensions of length, wit=dth and hieght. But we also have another dimension called time. Time is also not linear as we humans see it. Time is a physical property and that it varies with mass, acceleration and gravity. God is not subject to time, the universe or gravity. Of course soemthing can sit outside space and time. It is similar to a road full of cars and all are stopped. There is an accident uo ahead and you, sitting a few kilometres back cannot see it but God in his helicopter can view you, the car crash and ahead of it all in one moment.
In fact there are ides that maybe we live in 10 dimensions.

As for your nuero scoence text books, can they show me love in a tangible physical way. You have still not asnwered this and other questions.

As for the weight of love being a silly question, yes that was the idea!
It is silly and so it is silly for you to say love is measureable if it has no weight. Love cannot come from material process if you believe in materialism and say there is no God, no spirit, no soul (as many do when they say there is no God) and then try to say love (non-material) comes from material.

alexie

Og

Yes, but you have shown nothing other than the fact that you say that you believe in god. Gathering data is the first part of the scientific process. Observing. But this is nowhere near a conclusion of any type.

This is full of the word "proof" which science does NOT deal with. Science does not ever prove. It only "fails to disprove." That's why the theory of evolution is called a theory even with the MASSIVE body of evidence supporting it. It has been refined. The scientific body of knowledge is chipped away at like a sculpture. You remove what is NOT true. That is the entire process of science. What remains is the truth, but it is never addressed directly. This is the essence of the non-dogmatic and self correcting approach of science and is the distinction between it and dogmatic myth based literalist religions.


No. Science begins with observation. Asking someone if they love a thing is a measurement. It is fundamentally a measurement. That is the beginning of the scientific process. There need be no constraints at all. It is a piece of data.

As for surveys measuring tangible things... well this is just an expression of the gibberish your posts seem to be full of. What would you consider an exit poll during an election? Seems to me that its a survey of the public opinion towards candidates. Tangible? Hardly. Real? Yes. Materlialism and idealism are indistinguishable. You seem to be putting forward the notion that no systems can have behaviors.

You give me a definition for "love" that you're talking about and we'll talk about a way to provide evidence (not proof) of its existence. I am not a materialist or an idealist... I believe that those distinctions are useless.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Og

This is utter gibberish. You are fabricating this or repeating a fabrication you have been taught. This is a completely illogical analogy and it's ridiculous to talk about something existing "outside" space and time. Space and time are not bound entities. Speaking of "outside" is a provincial perspective that just illustrates your ignorance of the nature of the universe. You assume that "outside" applies because you can be inside or outside of your home.

Yes, they can. Love is the behavior of a tangible pattern of complex biological structures that are described in these texts.

Saying that love is not material is just ignorance and poor communication. Is the screen saver on your computer "not material"? OF COURSE IT IS MATERIAL. It is a complex behavior of photons and electrons and wires and atoms and LEDs and transistors and currents and voltages.

You seem to confuse the idea of properties of objects with objects. I can't imagine the confusion you must have if you truly transfer this misunderstanding into your every day life.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

alexie

dear og

you said,"Saying that love is not material is just ignorance and poor communication. Is the screen saver on your computer "not material"? OF COURSE IT IS MATERIAL." I agree, the screen saver is material but this is nothing to do with love. Bad example Og.

You said,"Yes, they can. Love is the behavior of a tangible pattern of complex biological structures that are described in these texts.". Well. explain it then!


You said,"You assume that "outside" applies because you can be inside or outside of your home." Errr, hello. Thats what i mean. Can you prove that you cannot be outsie of the universe. You yourself said we cannot prove anything so what are you saying?

You stated,"This is full of the word "proof" which science does NOT deal with. Science does not ever prove." and "..That's why the theory of evolution is called a theory."
Are you saying that the "theory" of gravity is not proven? Are you saying the "theory" of atomic energy is not proven too? Shall I go on. There is much that is proven as it is replicated and even put into action. Are you serious that yuu believe science proves nothing?
Just because something is a theory does not atuomatically follow it is only half true or requires proof. Many things are true 100%. The thoery of light and why rainbows ocurr. Another proff and even little children in a classroom can reproduce this in an experiment and show it is true. Are you serious about science not proving anything?

You said,"You give me a definition for "love" that you're talking about and we'll talk about a way to provide evidence (not proof) of its existence."
If love comes simply from material processes then I do not need to give you a definition. Follow the hardware to its source and it will define itself. But it will not as it is immaterial.

You said,"As for surveys measuring tangible things... well this is just an expression of the gibberish your posts seem to be full of."
Do you have a short memory because it is you who brought up the survey idea. Maybe the gibbersih is yours.

You said,"I am not a materialist or an idealist... I believe that those distinctions are useless." Useless? So the physical universe does not exist? To be human is to have a believe in materialsim or else you igniore our existance. I believe in materialsim but only alongside the non-material also. I do not believe in only a material world as the athiest believes. Now you confuse me as you do not believe in the material world. Which is it? What do you actually believe in?

I really feel you are all over the place and using words such as gibberish and asking me to look into text books and assuming I am confused. Please explain yourself in this regards please.

alexie

Og

Yes. Science does not prove anything.

Ever heard the famous sherlock holmes quote: "Once you eliminate the possible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

That is the essence of the scientific method. All of the laws/theories you stated are NOT proven. This is the value of the scientific path and why it is so different from dogmatic paths. You can make abstract proofs in mathematics using axioms. Science does not deal with proof, however. It deals with evidence.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Og

No, this is a perfect example. You confuse a description of the behavior of an object for an object.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

alexie

Og, Og, Og

Sherlock was mythical character.
my main point is lets get back to my original point.
Universe had a beginning. you say it did not. Tell me why and what does astrophysics say. This first point you need to reply to Just saying it isnt true is not enough to satisfy my interest in this area.
The expanding universe, light spectrums, birth rates of stars, shape of early universe andnuclear chemistry of big bang lead us to conclude it had a beginning. Science cannot "disprove"(this is for you) that anything created has no cause. We see this in everyday life. If people behave in certain ways to show there is a God then maybe there is. (this is for you again)
Anyway, cause is outside time. this is possible as anything that is expanding is expanding into something. The last premise I had was gthat this cause is quite likely to be God. People can come up with other ideas but so far this is the closest we have.

alexie

Og

I do not say it lacks a beginning. I say that the notion of "Before" the beginning is gibberish. This is what general relativity seems to imply. Time dilates at a singularity. Causality breaks down and we don't have the first clue what the event means.. Just that everything seemed to be in the same place at the same time about 19 billion years ago.

Saying that "the universe must be caused" is expressing your lack of understanding of the properties of the cosmos. That is not necessarily a valid statement. It's more a provincial statement (i.e. from someone who only understands the way the world on earth works).

Oh yeah? What is it expanding into then? what does it mean to be a CAUSE and also be OUTSIDE TIME... putting those words together like that is gibberish! It really is. Causality implies WITHIN TIME. That's what the WORD MEANS.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

alexie

Dear Og

you seem to like the word gibberish.
Look it up!
You seem to use tit to deflect asnd not actually directly discuss the concept at hand fully.

For example,"I do not say it lacks a beginning. I say that the notion of "Before" the beginning is gibberish" So now the universe has a beginning but the rest is gibberish. Do you believe that the universe camer from nothing? If so then this goes against what we know so far that anything created has a cause. But back to the universe. Did the universe come from nothing??

You stated,"Time dilates at a singularity." I agree with you and have stated that time and matter go together. But God, being outside time and space caused the universe. Of course he works within the universe and our time.
But to deny this outright means you know absolutly that this cannot be right and since you believe science only disproves something then you cannot disprove it.

"The phenomenon in question is known as quantum entanglement. Briefly stated, what is happening is this: Particles which are arbitrarily far apart seem to be influencing each other, even though according to relativity this means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view, from another point of view doesn't happen until after the effect being caused."
By Fergus Ray Murray
He also stated,"In particular, quantum systems show correlations over such distances that it is very difficult to reconcile them with the picture of time painted by relativity and the picture of cause and effect with which we are all familiar from the earliest ages."

Do not be so sure you are correct about causes.

On a few occasions now you have made simialr statements to this,"Saying that "the universe must be caused" is expressing your lack of understanding of the properties of the cosmos." But you have not folowed up what the details are of the cosmos and why I am incorrect.

alexie