|
2 registered members (TipmyPip, izorro),
556
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: AlbertoT]
#207113
05/17/08 20:01
05/17/08 20:01
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Some physical constants must have the exact value, with a very narrow tollerance range , otherwise our universe could not exist The explanation of some scientists is....the multiuniverse....my God it is at limit of ridicoulus IMHO And yet, experiments at the LHC are meant to provide some evidence against or for this theory. As well, the multi-universe theorem came not from the fine tuning paradox but rather from quantum superposition so it is not a single solution for a single problem but has the possibility of being a solution to several problems. Besides, remember that according to my philosophy, we scientists deal with HOW not WHY. So it doesn't matter WHY the parameters are what they are, merely how they got to be that way... either by natural or supernatural means. uppose that human beings are just " machines " ..I am not saying they are, I said..suppose The difference between a robot a monkey and a man is just a matter of some bilions neural connections
Would it still make sense for Jesus Christ to die on the cross (salvation)? This is a point I've been wanting to make for a while but feared it would lead us OOT. Could there be a Robot Jesus? That is to say, when and if computers achieve sentience, will they also develop morals and supernatural beliefs? Will they develop some form of computer salvation? It's an interesting question that basically boils down to this: can a computer have a soul? Perhaps this is the crux of our disagreement: I feel it "could"; you feel it "doesn't".
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: fastlane69]
#207121
05/17/08 21:18
05/17/08 21:18
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
can a computer have a soul?
Perhaps this is the crux of our disagreement: I feel it "could"; you feel it "doesn't".
Even though a computer could have a soul, he could not be ,for sure , an immortal soul Even so, religion would not make any sense
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: AlbertoT]
#207123
05/17/08 21:40
05/17/08 21:40
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Even though a computer could have a soul, he could not be ,for sure , an immortal soul Why "for sure"? How can you be sure that if a computer had a soul (already a huge assumption) that it would not be immortal (another huge assumption) Even so, religion would not make any sense It would make sense to the computer even if it didn't make sense to us. In the same way, a computer may find our gods silly (yes, this line of thought is heavily influenced by BattleStar Galactica and it's portrayal of robots and religion).
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: AlbertoT]
#207126
05/17/08 21:54
05/17/08 21:54
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 337
Vadim647
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 337
|
Theoreticaly, everything has a 'soul'. World is built from elemental parts, that cannot be created or destroyed with current technology. So world appears to be quite balanced. And all the modern plagues that affect the humanity are just for balancing the world so somewhere in other corner of universe some civilisation can grow and expand. Computer can have some kind of soul, because maybe you noticed that when you work with your PC (that is used for long time), it lags less often then when your friends\relatives\etc. try using it. 'Does the God exist' is a very old question and most of scientists don't agree with it. While that's thing of logic: If entire universe was created by explosion or something like that, why it happened? Why anything material was created from nothing? Quite logical that someone has created it. The God. Actualy Bible was created to prevent early self-destruction of humanity. Probably there's some kind of 'respawning' in world. I can say some about that 'if we have immortal souls, why we don't remember our previos lives?': Quite simple: if we could, what it would be: many memories about own death can be very painfull (especialy +infinity deaths). Additionaly universe will need to be recreated after while, because if every creature will remember everything from previos lives, the war will come, because technology will spread rapidly over universe and there will be no reason to not to kill because anyway nothing anyone is reborn somewhere. And unstopping killing spree will lead to destruction that will be nonsense. Sorry, if something said by me was already said here, I haven't readed entire thread. Just what i see and think... But just a small part of entire picture...
I switched to other account since marth 2010. Guess which.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: fastlane69]
#207128
05/17/08 22:06
05/17/08 22:06
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Why "for sure"? How can you be sure that if a computer had a soul (already a huge assumption) that it would not be immortal
Well, the big question mark is : Can a sequence of electrical signals carried by special cells called neurons , produce a " coscience " ? In other words can a neural network pronunce the sentence " Yes, I am " and , more important, can he ( or it ?) grasp the meaning of what is saying ? This is the key question Neuro science is far way from providing an answer Suppose for a while that the answer is , yes Would you seriously beleive that this " coscience " can survive after the death ?
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: AlbertoT]
#207133
05/17/08 22:26
05/17/08 22:26
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Can a sequence of electrical signals carried by special cells called neurons , produce a " coscience " ? A conscience or a soul? These are two different concepts. Would you seriously beleive that this " coscience " can survive after the death ? If I was purely of the religious bent, I'd say yes; it is critical that we have a sense of "self" exist beyond so that we can interact or glorify the higher beings, our gods, directly and through all time. If I was purely of the scientific bent, I'd say no; the only data we have are from a few people that die for a few minutes and come back. This data however is contradictory and non-standard and unable to (ethically) experiment and thus it is more likely than not that this is a false hypothesis. As I am human, I say "I don't know". The science side of me knows that there is no evidence; but the spiritual side feels that there is more to life and death than just "this". Rather than deny one side or the other, I instead let them cooexist to see what happens... in effect, that's my personal experiment.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: fastlane69]
#207136
05/17/08 22:46
05/17/08 22:46
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
A conscience or a soul? These are two different concepts.
If science can prove that " matter " by itself can produce a " coscience " than a " soul " would not be necessary any longer and consequently , in force of the Occam's razor , it does not exist
Last edited by AlbertoT; 05/17/08 22:58.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: Vadim647]
#207137
05/17/08 22:47
05/17/08 22:47
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Theoreticaly, everything has a 'soul'. I believe that every mainstream religion disagrees with this and restricts the soul to living, animated beings. Even then, I'm not sure if most religions accept non-humans as having a soul. because maybe you noticed that when you work with your PC (that is used for long time), it lags less often then when your friends\relatives\etc. No. And to my knowledge, neither has anyone else. While that's thing of logic: If entire universe was created by explosion or something like that, why it happened? Why anything material was created from nothing? Quite logical that someone has created it. The God. The question of "Why?" is subjective and never logical. Thus there are as many different answers to these questions as there are people in the world. Logic fails since it power is to reduce the possible answers as much as possible... as opposed to religion whose power is to produce as many answers as possible. In this case, your first and only axiom is "if the universe was created by an explosion". You then immediately ask "why?". This is hardly the way logic works. In actuality, the only logical conclusion, the only thing you can say for certain, the only fact, is that you don't know and nobody else does and if you do think you know, you can't prove it to anyone else. Thus there is no logic in this line of argument for it isn't even a line. In summary, you can't say "quite logically there is a creator" since you have not applied logic to the situation. Additionaly universe will need to be recreated after while, because if every creature will remember everything from previos lives, the war will come, because technology will spread rapidly over universe and there will be no reason to not to kill because anyway nothing anyone is reborn somewhere. And unstopping killing spree will lead to destruction that will be nonsense. That's science fiction! No, I mean it! Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld And again these are just wild assumptions and not answers nor logical. I can just as easily argue that remembering our past deaths would help us understand pain and thus not want to inflict it on others... that it is the exact fact that I can't remember my past lives that dooms me to repeat the same bad behavior over and over. So that god, by giving me an immortal soul but no memory of past mistakes, is dooming me to an eternity of committing the same mistakes. My point is not to argue that my viewpoint is more valid then yours. Rather, it is to impress upon you that it is EQUALLY valid and EQUALLY unprovable and thus either one of us can say anything we want about our particular viewpoints but it will never move us forward in the discussion.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: fastlane69]
#207153
05/18/08 05:37
05/18/08 05:37
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819 U.S.
Why_Do_I_Die
Warned
|
Warned
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
|
"The question of "Why?" is subjective and never logical."
You sure like to anylize things like if we are some type of robotic retards. And thats the way we head , a dehuminized society , of retards who think they are too smart to have emotions . Where showing any sign of a human feeling is considered irrational , where have common sense is irrational , because ilogical reasoning is becoming prevalent , completely ignoring the human foundation , emotions and feelings. We are spiritual beings , experiencing carnal life , but we are living in days where being a human is ridiculed , because machine like behaviour is what has been deemed appropriate. The world is heading towards perdition faster than I can type this , and you would have to be retarded def and blind not to see it. Anyone with an ounce of brain matter can see that, but I find it funny how the people who believe themselves to be the all intelligent ones are always the ones that fail to see the obvious ? Are you too intelligent fastlane to realize the current situation the world is in ? Two things will surely happen , either religion was right , and we will all be saved , or , religion was a false , and we will all die. I Believe there are other beings watching us , and I believe they will save the world , from the people themselves , who believe they are like Gods , because they believe humans are the only living creatures on earth , and they have found a way to reach to top of the chain , giving them the closest to God status , but they are wrong , and they will fail.
Took it off , apparantly was a hoax video , but damn , what a coincidence , damn.
Fastlane , you need to become a more humble person , one day life is going to hit you hard , and you will see the error of your ways.
Last edited by Why_Do_I_Die; 05/18/08 05:44.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#207166
05/18/08 08:01
05/18/08 08:01
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Took it off , apparantly was a hoax video , but damn , what a coincidence , damn. ????? completely ignoring the human foundation , emotions and feelings Absolutely not. As you can see in my other threads, I have plenty of room for both emotion and feelings and spirituality. Are you too intelligent fastlane to realize the current situation the world is in ? On the contrary; it is in my admission of ignorance that I quote "talking heads" to express my answer better than I ever could: "Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...same as it ever was..." Two things will surely happen , either religion was right , and we will all be saved , or , religion was a false , and we will all die. There are many other alternatives than these. To boot: that religion was right and we are all damned or that religion is false and we all live. I Believe there are other beings watching us , and I believe they will save the world Make no mistake and please quote me on this: I hope you are right. I dearly, dearly want it to be this way, to have a over-riding protector/parent/judge that I can look up to. I would like this to be true more than you could ever know. This doesn't weaken me as a scientist; it strengthens me as a human. and they have found a way to reach to top of the chain , giving them the closest to God status Dear dear Why_do. Don't you get that this is not how scientists see ourselves? That we work on the assumption of our ignorance instead of our knowledge; that we are motivated by what we don't know rather than what we do. Thus why would we even want to be gods? Surely having ALL the answers and knowing why everything IS and how everything DOES and where everything LIVE and who everyone KNOWS would destroy our curiosity, our wonder... our humanity. giving them the closest to God status , but they are wrong , and they will fail. I agree. Any scientist who aims to be god-like or a god themselves will fail. Fastlane , you need to become a more humble person , one day life is going to hit you hard , and you will see the error of your ways. As you don't know who Fastlane is, please let me share that life has hit him hard and he has seen the error of my ways... time and time again. It is in fact through these errors that he has grown; it is in fact through these errors that his "Johnny Dangerously" inspired motto comes from: "I make a mistake once... ONCE!" And thus despite his earnest attempts to be a "bad boy", he is still considered a "good boy" by anybodies reckoning, from priests to rabbis to parents to friends to strangers. You don't have to believe this of course; you just need to gather the relevant data to come to your conclusion. But since judgment and "questions as answers" are easier than research and straightforward answers, I expect from you more from the former set and none from the latter.
|
|
|
|