romansh

OK ... I see where you have taken this.
Just as an aside in science we don't actually prove things. Either a theory fits the evidence or it does not.
and now?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Nick Treklis

I know I've explained the reasoning behind all of these statements to you in our past discussions. Did you honestly forget everything I've said to you already, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

romansh

1) You have never explained the nature of God... or I missed it.
2) I don't actually recall any evidence. I would appreciate your good humour.

So if you could ...one more time.
thanks

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Remster

Rom

I realise that! I happen to think that because we can't 'prove things', we can't 'know things', but if you look back at my 04-22-2008, 07:05 PM post, you'll see that I was willing to put this controversial view to one side and talk about evidence rather than infallible verification (i.e. proof). It's because of your reply that I continued along the proof line, but that's been fine by me.

Well, I need to ask you a few more questions:

• Do you believe that the pseudo-Newtonian theory is false?
• If so, do you believe that certain features that a scientific theory has but the pseudo-Newtonian theory lacks make a scientific theory better, more likely to be true, more rational to believe, etc.?
• If so, what are those features and what do they make a scientific theory (better, more likely to be true, more rational to believe, etc.)?

Rem

Remster

I'm just checking – that's the point of my questions.

Nick Treklis

romansh,

God is Nature, it is omnipotent, infinite, formless, the creator of all things. It bares no resemblance to the christian god, or any other finite/pagan god one can imagine.

As for emotions being delusional, here is a simple scenario which should prove to you why this is so. Imagine you are suspicious that your wife is cheating on you, going through all of that emotional turmoil, and then one day you realize the truth of the matter, and the truth is she is doing no such thing, she has been completely faithful the whole time. All that emotion you were experiencing instantly disappears because you now realize the scenario you were imaging didn't exist beyond your mind. It's the same thing with everything else once you realize no thing inherently exists. So once one understands this fact, their emotional investment in them greatly diminishes, or disappears all together.

romansh

Hi
Do I believe the pseudo theory is false? Tricky. A semi-omnipotent being manipulating Newton's laws? Hmmmn. Instinctively my answer would be 'yes', but a more considered answer, would be I with-hold belief or disbelief.

My problem with the pseudo theory is that the only way to disprove it, like you said, is to find an exception. Good thing about science is we always find exceptions to our theories, (at least eventyually). Assuming the pseudo theory is true .... we will never be able to disprove it.

OK? interesting and now?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

romansh

OK ... I think I understand .... I have had personal an experience where I was I was very angry, in that moment I realized that I did not have to have that anger, the anger faded, as did the situation that I thought was causing the anger. So now I try make a conscious decision whether to experience anger, sadness etc. Never much worried about love.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Remster

Rom

Just to make sure you're not using 'belief' in (to my mind) an unusually narrow sense:

Do you think (after consideration) that the pseudo-theory is false?

More questions (thanks for your patience – I'll move on soon):

Do you think, after consideration, that we always eventually find exceptions to our scientific theories?

Do you think, after consideration, that it's good that we always find exceptions to our scientific theories?

Rem

PS I'm not sure I said quite that about the pseudo-scientific theory. My thought was that the pseudo-scientist can keep creating a new theory by adapting an old one to fit whatever evidence comes up – which is what creationists are often accused of doing, for example. But you're close enough.

romansh

Rem

I know I'm not answering the first question exactly, but intuitively I would dismiss it (ignoring the fact that you just made it up). To all intents and purposes lets say I believe the theory is false.

Based on past experience the sun always comes up; so we will find flaws (or improvements) in our theories.

As a scientist finding flaws keeps me gainfully employed.
I would say it is neither good nor bad ... just is.
Rom

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams