Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Snake_Baker]

1) Never said they did. I said Rosicrucians taught that everything is made up of frequency.

2) See point 1.

3) In Astrology there is. Hence why their frequencies are similar.

4) See point 3.

5) There have been scientific studies done that show that low level radio frequencies can cause headaches and other physical effects in humans.

Yes, but it's the levels of "allusion" you utilise to give this drivel academic imprimatur.

If you want to claim Rosicrucian's have X beliefs, then fair enough, but don't try to marry it with empirical science unless there is a solid basis to support it, otherwise it will deservedly attract critical analysis.

 

[twotooto]

wtf

Science says the brakes, under repeatable, observable, controlled conditions, when pressed will stop the car.

Astrology says you may, or may not, end up causing a 10 car pile up depending on chance and/or 'asking the right questions'. It needs to be a bit more definitive.

As I said before, I would love for it to be as simple as knowing your date/time/and place of birth and getting all of the answers to life. I truly would, it would be ******* awesome, frankly. But it needs to be a bit more definitive in order for me to take it seriously.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Science says the brakes, under repeatable, observable, controlled conditions, when pressed will stop the car.

Astrology says you may, or may not, end up causing a 10 car pile up depending on chance and/or 'asking the right questions'. It needs to be a bit more definitive.

As I said before, I would love for it to be as simple as knowing your date/time/and place of birth and getting all of the answers to life. I truly would, it would be ******* awesome, frankly. But it needs to be a bit more definitive in order for me to take it seriously.

It's an archaic practice that searchers utilised to seek understanding before science really took hold of the world.

There's no rational reason to believe in it any more. It's now for people that like to engage in fantasy.

 

[Janus]

Yes, but it's the levels of "allusion" you utilise to give this drivel academic imprimatur.

If you want to claim Rosicrucian's have X beliefs, then fair enough, but don't try to marry it with empirical science unless there is a solid basis to support it, otherwise it will deservedly attract critical analysis.

Empirical science states that everything has a frequency.

Rosicrucians taught this long beforehand.

There’s no more solid basis than that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Empirical science states that everything has a frequency.

In what context?

Rosicrucians taught this long beforehand.

There’s no more solid basis than that.

Okay, you get a thumbs up for being honest.

 

[Janus]

In what context?



Okay, you get a thumbs up for being honest.

In the context of basic physics? All objects have a natural frequency at which they vibrate.

 

[Snake_Baker]

In the context of basic physics? All objects have a natural frequency at which they vibrate.

Why the question mark? I am asking you the context for which you are utilising this information.

 

[twotooto]

It's an archaic practice that searchers utilised to seek understanding before science really took hold of the world.

There's no rational reason to believe in it any more. It's now for people that like to engage in fantasy.

Have no problem with people seeking understanding. I know I have a few questions, myself

But I just think that astrology is saying it has some answers that it can't back up. And people can believe whatever they want in their own heads. Honestly could not care less but when they put it out there and say, if x = y, then z, and this is a universal truth that applies to all, then they should be able to back it up.

I don't think that's being unreasonable but I dunno, maybe it is.

 

[Janus]

Why the question mark? I am asking you the context for which you are utilising this information.

Because it’s a pointless question due to being pretty obvious to someone so mired in rational thought such as yourself?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Because it’s a pointless question due to being pretty obvious to someone so mired in rational thought such as yourself?

A nice deflection that reveals your ignorance and utilisation of concepts you don't properly understand.

 

[Roylion]

There is a difference between belief and 'knowledge'. A person who believes in god, his belief is just as good as a person who doesnt believe in god. Belief = i don't know.

Belief is not equal to "I don't know."

If you don't know, then how can you accept that something exists or is true, other than through pure faith. That is "belief" in this context.

I don't know (or much care) whether "God" exists, and even in this thread the definition of "God" varys so widely to suit the particular agenda or world view of the poster. Whatever the case, "God" in whatever guise (usually some sort of deity) in my view is not worthy of worship or veneration. If you don't know whether it exists or not, why waste energy worshipping it by following a particular faith.

Plenty of scientists believe in bizarre stuff, from multiverses , to wormholes to simulation hypothesis to alien seeding.

Scientists don't "believe" in any of that. What they do is put forward the possibility of such existing, based on certain supporting scientific evidences. You said yourself that "Science will continue seeking and changing itself....". The reason for that is obvious.

When they open their gob without evidence people listens.

Not without supporting evidence they don't.

 

[nicky]

Have no problem with people seeking understanding. I know I have a few questions, myself

But I just think that astrology is saying it has some answers that it can't back up. And people can believe whatever they want in their own heads. Honestly could not care less but when they put it out there and say, if x = y, then z, and this is a universal truth that applies to all, then they should be able to back it up.

I don't think that's being unreasonable but I dunno, maybe it is.

Astrology isn't a science so it is a bit unreasonable to expect that it can be proven to your satisfaction. People that follow astrology usually do so because astrology is accurate, i can't explain why it is though so there is an amount of faith involved. This isn't going to be enough for some people but it's enough for me.

Also, astrology is extremely complex and noone with any kind of genuine interests follows horoscopes in magazines. I could see why people would get irritated when their whole person is reduced to the month they were born in. Anyone that says you're a leader because you're a leo and crap like that has no understanding of astrology.

If you're genuinely interested then pay a guy in the US $70 and give him your time of birth, in 3 weeks he will produce a long word document that will probably surprise you.

I don't agree with alot of what Janus says about astrology.

Janus, the outer planets absolutely affect people when they aspect their personal planets.

 

[Total Power]

Belief is not equal to "I don't know."

If you don't know, then how can you accept that something exists or is true, other than through pure faith. That is "belief" in this context.

I don't know (or much care) whether "God" exists, and even in this thread the definition of "God" varys so widely to suit the particular agenda or world view of the poster. Whatever the case, "God" in whatever guise (usually some sort of deity) in my view is not worthy of worship or veneration. If you don't know whether it exists or not, why waste energy worshipping it by following a particular faith.

Thanks for your reply, much appreciated.

I couldn't agree more with the bolded part. It's devolved shells of the religion that is the problem and this is why i have a problem with both atheist and catholics for example. Instead of picking on the devolved shells of religion, examine the source of it (mythologies for example). Back then there was no wikipedia, so mythologies were used to propagate spirituality and symbolism.

I also agree with the last bit of your sentence, worshipping etc is an invention of Westerner religions. This is why when Sagan was asked if he is an atheist he answered "depends how you define god". However that is still ' a belief' .You cannot define 'nothing', which i explained last time. This is why i said, its still a 'belief'. Back in the ancient times in India, there was no "word" called "god", only "devas", which were higher dimensional "beings". The vedas mentions creation and god which was atheist and also states "no one knows", which Sagan picked up on.

My suggestion is stop hanging your hat on the word "god". I am willing to concede that "god" as defined by organised religion doesn't exist.

Scientists don't "believe" in any of that. What they do is put forward the possibility of such existing, based on certain supporting scientific evidences. You said yourself that "Science will continue seeking and changing itself....". The reason for that is obvious.

Of course they do. There is zero evidence of simulation, yet noted scientists like Tyson, Musk, Hawking have stated we "might" live inside a simulation. If we are inside a simulation, there is no way to prove we are in it, unless you are an independent observer.

 

[Admiral Byng]

There is a difference between belief and 'knowledge'. A person who believes in god, his belief is just as good as a person who doesnt believe in god. Belief = i don't know. People are unwilling to utter the 3 words ' i dont know'. Only if you admit ' i dont know' you will begin to know. Stop believing and start 'seeking'. This is why before the greeks invented the scientific method, there was no such thing as 'knowledge'. There were 'methods' (specially in india and china) where you 'seek' the truth.

I am stunned by the misuse of science specially by well known militant atheists in this thread. Science is one method of seeking in the material world but has severe limitations. Almost all the science that we knew from 100 years ago is now invalid. Science will continue seeking and changing itself, for good. Somehow relating science to atheism is criminal. It got nothing to do with atheism and never will.

Plenty of scientists believe in bizarre stuff, from multiverses , to wormholes to simulation hypothesis to alien seeding. When they open their gob without evidence people listens. If a mystic says the same thing it's dogma! there are higher dimensions where ALL the science we know is invalid. .ALL of it. But i can't prove it to you as i can't meditate for you.The most sophisticated machine of all, is our human body, use it! I cannot show you under lab conditions or in a computer, look here is another dimension. You have to do it yourself, but dismissing it without trials is not very scientific minded. I have stated many times not to 'believe' in anything including what i am telling you. This knowledge is available to everyone if you choose to 'seek' it. The path isn't easy and it takes a lot of time and patience.

I think my approach is pretty much what you are talking about. There are things I understand and accept about science, and those things are based on facts and proof, so very easy to accept. There are other things we just don't know, for these things I accept "we don't know" as a valid answer. The job of scientists is to explore these things, to put forward hypotheses and possible solutions and then test them to see which is the correct one. My approach is the opposite of the religious believer who fills in the gaps with imagination and then puts utter belief in the truthfulness of this plug-in without evidence or proof. I am happy for scientist to muse about multiverses and string theory if it leads to a better understanding of the truth, sometimes an idea needs to be invalidated so that it opens a window on something else hidden behind it. I am quite content to plod along without meditating upon the great unknowns and coming up with the wrong explanations myself to plug in the knowledge gaps, I am quite accepting of the "I don't know" gaps.

 

[Total Power]

I think my approach is pretty much what you are talking about. There are things I understand and accept about science, and those things are based on facts and proof, so very easy to accept. There are other things we just don't know, for these things I accept "we don't know" as a valid answer. The job of scientists is to explore these things, to put forward hypotheses and possible solutions and then test them to see which is the correct one. My approach is the opposite of the religious believer who fills in the gaps with imagination and then puts utter belief in the truthfulness of this plug-in without evidence or proof. I am happy for scientist to muse about multiverses and string theory if it leads to a better understanding of the truth, sometimes an idea needs to be invalidated so that it opens a window on something else hidden behind it. I am quite content to plod along without meditating upon the great unknowns and coming up with the wrong explanations myself to plug in the knowledge gaps, I am quite accepting of the "I don't know" gaps.

I agree, i personally am opposed to any belief system. At least you are honest, much appreciated.

 

[Boston tiger]

The earth isn't 6000 years old. Anyone who actually believes that should be not allowed jobs in fields of engineering and science. I wouldn't personally let them fly a passenger jet either.

Wouldn’t that be the best place for them ? Or would you prefer they all became educators ?

 

[Boston tiger]

Empirical science states that everything has a frequency.

Rosicrucians taught this long beforehand.

There’s no more solid basis than that.

So with Astrology is there any claim of divine intervention/ revelation in regards to the knowledge of how it works ? Or is it purely a human construct in how the planets etc effect us ?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Scientists don't "believe" in any of that. What they do is put forward the possibility of such existing, based on certain supporting scientific evidences. You said yourself that "Science will continue seeking and changing itself....". The reason for that is obvious.

Some folks take theoretical scientific modelling too literally, particularly when it's utilised to support a "belief" system.

Theoretical physicists are basically employed to play mental gymnastics.

They throw stuff up in the air and pick up what lands.

 

[Total Power]

Some folks take theoretical scientific modelling too literally, particularly when it's utilised to support a "belief" system.

Theoretical physicists are basically employed to play mental gymnastics.

They throw stuff up in the air and pick up what lands.

True however these are important elements as they make up assumptions in many many accepted. scientific theories which cannot be tested. Take for instance M-theory.
for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

It's an axiom (something we just take for granted) that says that the universe ought to be roughly the same everywhere - that things that we learn about the universe here ought to apply everywhere.

Same in maths, axioms can neither be proven or be disproven, only assumed.

 

[Snake_Baker]

True however these are important elements as they make up assumptions in many many accepted. scientific theories which cannot be tested. Take for instance M-theory.
for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

It's an axiom (something we just take for granted) that says that the universe ought to be roughly the same everywhere - that things that we learn about the universe here ought to apply everywhere.

Same in maths, axioms can neither be proven or be disproven, only assumed.

There's no "however" required.

I acknowledge that this grey area of science exists and has it's place.

It's when it is spun in to more literal discussion that it needs to be addressed.

 

[Total Power]

There's no "however" required.

I acknowledge that this grey area of science exists and has it's place.

It's when it is spun in to more literal discussion that it needs to be addressed.

But i dont understand what's your point about theoretical physics though? these concepts are important, Einstein was one and we were not able to test his theories properly back then but now we can and he is correct. There's some basis in those assumptions, it's not totally blind. String theory is entirely theoretical but is backed by strong mathematical theorems.

 

[Snake_Baker]

But i dont understand what's your point about theoretical physics though? these concepts are important, Einstein was one and we were not able to test his theories properly back then but now we can and he is correct.

How many theoretical physics paper end up hitting the mark? 1%?

There's some basis in those assumptions, it's not totally blind. String theory is entirely theoretical but is backed by strong mathematical theorems.

I never stated it was blind, and I actually stated that it has it's place in science, however reaching for ambiguities here and there to support an overall view of the universe is fraught with danger.

My debates with you have basically centered around your hand picking of obscure theoretical physics to support your pre-existing philosophical beliefs, I have not dismissed the entire field of theoretical physics in the process.

 

[Total Power]

How many theoretical physics paper end up hitting the mark? 1%?



I never stated it was blind, and I actually stated that it has it's place in science, however reaching for ambiguities here and there to support an overall view of the universe is fraught with danger.

My debates with you have basically centered around your hand picking of obscure theoretical physics to support your pre-existing philosophical beliefs, I have not dismissed the entire field of theoretical physics in the process.

Here we go again, ad-homs. I do not think you know what theoretical physics is. Let me explain.

You know how the scientific method starts with hypothesis????

well that's basically part of what theoretical physicists do. They find a problem and develop a detailed hypothesis based on the best understanding of the physics they can. this can involve well known theory, or be far more speculative. It can be purely algebraic, or involve extensuve data analysis or simulation.

The experimental physicists then take that idea and tests it some how (another group phenomenologist will sometimes fit in between).

Science, in general, is about making and testing models.

Models are theoretical systems that allow you to make predictions - the models are tested by testing their predictions.

All scientific. Unlike your other examples.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Here we go again, ad-homs.

No, here you go again.

 

[Total Power]

No, here you go again.

Quality reply, again, nothing to say about the matter itself. Getting smashed even in science is what you are used to. Not my fault that you don't know how the scientific method works.