They're Marching Against God - Your .02
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clara
But you're forgetting - the thought process (associated with decision making) is NOT instantaneous, so it can be tracked. The decision may be instantaneous, but the effect of the decision (the thought process to put it into action) is not and the decision cannot be executed instantaneously.
In any event, why can't thought be instantaneous? It appears that there are a variety of processes in physics that happen instaneously, like the "collapse" of a wave function in quantum mechanics. The point at which an alpha particle escapes the potential well of the strong force in a nucleus is a well-defined instant in time -- the time at which two curves cross (I'm taking non-rigorous liberties here). That time is hard to measure, sure -- but it's an instant in time. Pleas to Zeno of Elea will be summarily discarded.
- Warren
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]
JonBoy, I guess I just have to admit to myself, that, despite your speaking ability, you really just don't grasp the most basic tenets of logic or science.
The reason scientists don't believe in ESP or faith healing is because the effect has never been demonstrated in a controlled setting.
[B]
JonBoy, I guess I just have to admit to myself, that, despite your speaking ability, you really just don't grasp the most basic tenets of logic or science.
The reason scientists don't believe in ESP or faith healing is because the effect has never been demonstrated in a controlled setting.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clara
I don't remember anyone saying there is a God who lives outside of "logic and Truth." Why would one who commanded another to not speak for him, speak for others as well? And are you suggesting that scientists do not live with paradoxes and inconsistencies?
When did I speak for anyone? Show me where I said "JonBoy thinks so and so."
Scientists hope to resolve their paradoxes and inconsistencies. Theists will simply have to live with theirs for an eternity.
- Warren
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clara
Can you point it out to me, or will you admit that you too need faith to believe in science?
It wouldn't be faith healing, it'd be scientifically proved healing.
- Warren
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clara
What came before Plank time?
Science currently does not have a model for the unification of all four fundamental forces, which is thought to occur before the Planck time. Our failure to understand this time is due to a failure of our mathematical model. Science is not "done," by any stretch of the imagination. In many ways, science is still in its infancy. We don't have all the answers yet, but it's certainly plausible that we will eventually have a coherent, complete model of the universe that accounts for all observations.
- Warren
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Originally posted by chroot
Do you have short-term memory failure or something? We already went through this. Science requires a belief in some basic axioms. I mentioned one: the sum of the angles in a triangle in flat Euclidean space is always 180. If you'd like to refer to my belief in those axioms as "faith," go right ahead. On the other hand, as I think I said rather clearly, my "faith" in those axioms can be shown to be incorrect if the axioms themselves are shown to be incorrect. You may call it "faith," if you'd like, but the connotation that it is outside the boundaries of the provable is not correct. All of science, even its axioms, are subject to scrutiny.
[qutoe]It wouldn't be faith healing, it'd be scientifically proved healing.
Do you have short-term memory failure or something? We already went through this. Science requires a belief in some basic axioms. I mentioned one: the sum of the angles in a triangle in flat Euclidean space is always 180. If you'd like to refer to my belief in those axioms as "faith," go right ahead. On the other hand, as I think I said rather clearly, my "faith" in those axioms can be shown to be incorrect if the axioms themselves are shown to be incorrect. You may call it "faith," if you'd like, but the connotation that it is outside the boundaries of the provable is not correct. All of science, even its axioms, are subject to scrutiny.
[qutoe]It wouldn't be faith healing, it'd be scientifically proved healing.
So you're trying to prove to us what you have faith in? Why bother posting websites to try to prove to us that faith healing really happens, if you're already keenly aware that there is no way to prove it?
- Warren [/QUOTE]
Yeah, I do have short term memory failure. Is that a problem?
Thank you. Science requires a belief in some basic axioms. Yes, that is faith. Yes, that is all I wanted to hear from you.
I was giving examples of what I believe to be faith healing. I was not giving it so that I could prove to you (as you aptly pointed out, the scientific method wasn't followed), only so that you could see what an example of so-called faith healing is. As for proof, as I just posted, if the parameters and references of our views do not coincide, proof is impossible. Ours are obviously different, so I can't prove it to you in the way you want, the same as you cannot prove what you believe to me in the way I want.