IUBio

Creationism and other doctrines. Was Mindforth

Richard Steven Walz rstevew at deeptht.armory.com
Wed Jan 1 00:35:50 EST 2003


In article <6dd87c5d.0212311648.1c61ed2a at posting.google.com>,
geakazoid <azedia at dolfina.org> wrote:
>Dennis Clark <dlc at io.frii.com> wrote in message
>news:<3e11e730$0$181$75868355 at news.frii.net>...
>> In comp.robotics.misc geakazoid <azedia at dolfina.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Your definitions are useful to the discussion, however...
>> 
>> Those stating that belief is the same for science as for religion miss a 
>> key point.
>> 
>> SOMEONE proved a scientific theory.
>
>No, you Believe that SOMEONE proved a theory. In FACT, noone can prove
>anything outside one's Belief.
----------------------------
No, you're confusing a thought with a belief.
The thought that something has occurred is NOT the same as an irrational
belief.


>  To them it is not belief, to those for
>> whom the science is explained, and they also do the experiments,
>
>Yes, and those experiments are Subjective, proving Nothing to those
>who are not Observing.
-------------------------------
Whatever observation occurs, it results in thought, not belief.
Belief is the adoption of preferred notions over experiential ones.
There is a significant difference between merely preferring to 
believe vs recognizing that events have led you to a knowledge.
In other words, the mind and the perceptual field are two totally
different things. Only psychotics don't grasp the difference.


>> not simple belief.  It is knowledge.  
>
>Knowledge is not Evidenced by Proof and may itself not be Proven.
------------------------------------
Proof is a mathematical construct that depends on others of its own
kind, that is, mental. 

Physical perceptive occurrences result in inferences about the rules
of the perceptual world we share, which is different. We can demonstrate
physical knowledge, whereas mathematical proof is merely rule-based,
where rules are agreed upon, like a board game or card game, a virtuality.


>> Anyone can gain that knowledge with 
>> enough work and effort, no faith or groundless belief is required.  
>> 
>> The pope himself believes in god without a single piece of objective proof.
>
>Actually that is not true. What you are stating is out of ignorance of
>what the Pope. You are positing the assumption that
>
>A. You know what the Pope Thinks
>B. Since you know what the Pope Thinks
>______________________________________
>C. You know what the Pope Believes
>
>That is false logic and there is no evidence of proof in it.
-------------------------------------
We have seen that kind of belief before,and we can read it in church
liturgy and literature.


>What you do not realize is that there is Evidence in Religion and it
>is Logical.
------------------------------------------
No, there is no such thing. Evidence does NOT lead us any particular way
toward anything "unseen", and it is NOT "logical". 


>> IOW, science == science whether you believe it or not.  
>
>I know for a Fact that Science Evolved out of Religion.
-----------------------------------
You know no such thing.


>You may assume that Logic came from Science but it came from Religion.
------------------------------------------
Who trained you in this repeated re-entrant form of idiocy?


>The separation between Logic and Belief came merely at a Time when
>Sorcerors were losing their Heads for working with the Invisible
>Forces - Alchemy, Magnetism, Star Gazing... etc...
-----------------------------------------
No, their persecution came at a time when the church was feeling threatened
by people investigating its fraudulent claims about the world. It had
become sufficiently cocky that it expressed phony assertions about the
physical world and rested its reliability upon them in a way that could be
tested, t's BIG MISTAKE!  Monolithic religions always fall into such a
trap.

>Even Guass who invented the Sum of Squares and used it to predict the
>sighting of a Planet knew that he was a Heretict and would not publish
>his own Formulas.
------------------------------------
The church proved wrong.


>Prior to the Renaissance Period, Freely thinking about the Forces of
>Nature was no longer Dictated by the Church. However, the Church had
>always contained the Logic of the Ancient Civilizations and was afraid
>to release it else it would lose Political Power. The discovery of the
>Ancient Language systems of previous civilization demonstrates that
>the knowledge was always evolving. Atomic Theory began in 500 B.C.
----------------------------------------
If the church had remained in the virtual realm it would have had no
trouble, but Science was threatening it by disporving old beliefs that the
church had wed to itself and couldn't relinquish for reputational reasons.


>Now, the Scientists are the Ones who Hold the Knowledge as if it were
>Their Secret; they have created an Elitist Band of Priests who Act
>like they Are Mightier via their Words, use of Language, when in fact
>All Language is Logical. Language itself is Logic and there would no
>Sensible Communication if it was not. So, Logic is inherant to the
>Nature of Communication. Just as the Bees communicate their patterns
>of flight to the flower, so do we communicate.
-----------------------------------------
You're a moron and an idiot.


>If Scientists are so Egotistical to Believe that Science somehow
>proves anything and that prior to Science as a Academic Discipline
>everyone else was living in a Day Dream, then it is those Scientists
>who are living in a Day Dream, or Self-delusion that Science is
>somehow separate from Human Thinking and Experiencing of the World.
-------------------------------------------
Your take on reality is an absurdity that requires a lot of work.
You're unable to distinguish between the personal mind and the
perceptual world we share. Both may be virtualities in the final
analysis, but they are different in qualities and rational nature.
If you don't realize this then yo're psychotic. Unfortunately you
seem to simply be stupid.


>The idea that one can prove that Religion is not tested by experience
>is a false assumption. How can you know that there is no Truth or
>Reality in the Religous Experience if you have not Tested it? A Real
>Scientist would set a Laboratory Experiment that would test Precepts
>of Religion. The Ideal of Science is to isolate the phenomena from the
>nuemenon. However, there is no phenomena without nuemena. That is the
>meaning of the Tao. Yang is the Phenomena and Yin is the Nuemnena.
------------------------------------------------
There is nothing unseen that can be merely inferred accurately from the
seen, for the simply obvious logic that there is no way to test its
accuracy. Thus the inaccuracy about strictly unseen things is absolute,
they cannot BE determined. So you're speaking stupid gibberish that you're
using here to posture, without any ability to actually reason.


>According the Ancient Taoists, phenomena continually changes its
>properties. Thus Yang is constantly becoming Yin and Yin becomes Yang.
>The rules of the Yin/Yang are that there is no Stable Yin or Yang but
>an ever transformation process of movement. This actually is not all
>that different than the Scientific properties of Quatum Physics. And,
>hum... the Modern Quantum Physicists borrow their ideas from the
>knowledge that is more than 4,000 years old.
--------------------------------------
That isn't "knowledge", that is belief, perhaps poetry, perhaps useful
to real life, but it is NOT itself "knowledge".


>Rene Descartes, one of the Fathers of Sciences, was a Jesuit Jew. And,
>he worked on combing Hebrew Religious Ideals with Ancient Greek
>Philosophies (the roots of Christianity). It is in his Belief that
>Science would Prove the Existence of God.
-------------------------------------
Yes, he was wrong. He failed to properly separate belief and knowledge.


>Descartes, was explaining the the Role of the Scientist was to
>discover the operative forces of God's Creation. Thus, Science was
>originated to become closer or to commune with the Creator not to
>Replace the Creator. The Catholic Church lator sanctified Science when
>it realized that it could no longer suppress it.
-----------------------------------------
Descartes was a mathematician, NOT a Scientist.


>The mythical story of Lucifer is that of an Angel of God, who fell
>from being withing the Domain of the Creator to desiring to be the
>Creator.
---------------------------------
You're just full of meaninless little fragments, aren't you?


>Einstein left many writings about his fear of discovering the
>Wormholes in the Cosmos. He realized that once Science had explored
>the Forces that underlie the Universe, we might in our Knowledge
>Destroy It.
--------------------------------------
Einstein couldn't accept QM either. He had limits, as we now understand.


>Who would have the wisdom of wielding the Power of the Atoms?
----------------------------------
You're blathering. You just keep rattling on and on without meaning or
point. You don't grasp what the subject matter is.
Steve





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net