|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 7, 2019 11:29:11 GMT
Both Einstein and Tesla (and there are others) are on record as saying they believe there is a vast intelligence that created everything out of the non-material. There you go again--when scientists disagree with your bullshit, they can't be relied upon because someone is paying them to disagree with you. Then you forget you said that (because you have the intelligence and attention span of a bumblebee), and cite scientists as authorities because in your bottomless ignorance, you think they support you when they don't. Problem number one: Telsa was an engineer, not a scientist. Problem number two: if they are on record saying what you believe, then why can't you quote the record of them actually saying it? Could it be that your diseased mind is just making up more bullshit?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 11:39:35 GMT
Both Einstein and Tesla (and there are others) are on record as saying they believe there is a vast intelligence that created everything out of the non-material. There you go again--when scientists disagree with your bullshit, they can't be relied upon because someone is paying them to disagree with you. Then you forget you said that (because you have the intelligence and attention span of a bumblebee), and cite scientists as authorities because in your bottomless ignorance, you think they support you when they don't. Problem number one: Telsa was an engineer, not a scientist. Problem number two: if they are on record saying what you believe, then why can't you quote the record of them actually saying it? Could it be that your diseased mind is just making up more bullshit? 1. He was still a quantum leap more intelligent and knowledgeable than you in many fields.
2. I have posted quotes by them that you twits spun to your convenience.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 7, 2019 11:52:46 GMT
More ignorant bullshit with no basis in reality. You don't even believe it yourself, otherwise you wouldn't cite scientists when you are stupid enough to think they support your idiotic beliefs--as you did in this thread. Both Einstein and Tesla (and there are others) are on record as saying they believe there is a vast intelligence that created everything out of the non-material.
And both were a quantum leap more intelligent and knowledgeable than YOU are.
You have great respect for Einstein in his beliefs about this vast intelligence that created everything out of the non-material. Do you have great respect for his views on free will?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 7, 2019 12:03:24 GMT
1. He was still a quantum leap more intelligent and knowledgeable than you in many fields. That's beyond debate, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel better as you lose argument after argument while making a complete ass of yourself. In other words, they never said what you claim they did and you are making up complete bullshit. Of course, everyone here knows this, because bullshit is your only currency.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 7, 2019 12:33:22 GMT
Both Einstein and Tesla (and there are others) are on record as saying they believe there is a vast intelligence that created everything out of the non-material. There you go again--when scientists disagree with your bullshit, they can't be relied upon because someone is paying them to disagree with you. Then you forget you said that (because you have the intelligence and attention span of a bumblebee), and cite scientists as authorities because in your bottomless ignorance, you think they support you when they don't. Problem number one: Telsa was an engineer, not a scientist. Problem number two: if they are on record saying what you believe, then why can't you quote the record of them actually saying it? Could it be that your diseased mind is just making up more bullshit? The best I can find is this supposed rsp of Einstein to a little girl. But I have yet to find anything about him saying that a "vast intelligence created everything out of the non-material."
In 1936 Einstein received a letter from a young girl in the sixth grade. She had asked him, with the encouragement of her teacher, if scientists pray. Einstein replied in the most elementary way he could:
It is curious when supernaturalists glom onto this or that scientist/expert who is admittedly brilliant in some area/field when they say something that agrees with some pet conspiracy theory, but eschew other sometimes equally brilliant scientists when they cast aspersions on said theory. While everyone should hold Einstein in high regard for his contribution to science, I see no particular reason to "hold in high regard" his views on the supernatural/spirit world and I would guess he would agree with me that his views are no more pertinent than mine in an area where he fully admits "The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds." He assumes there is some spirit behind the laws of nature. Why? Does he follow that assumption to its logical conclusion? That creates the question of what is behind the laws that underpin that spirit? One would have to admit that such a spirit "just is" and no further explanation is needed or could even be discovered/studied. But if one is to simply assume such a thing, such a vast intelligence, can "just exist" then why not remove the middle man and assume the natural world "just is" and can "just exist" that all that we experience is somehow, in ways we may never know, all due to the natural world? Both positions are equally probable and both represent some things be taken on faith or just "assumed."
I note is that the word "non-material" is used. What does THAT mean? I think of material as tables, planets, atoms and particles. But I assume they are all dependent on fields which, since they themselves are not particles, are non-material. They are natural, but non-material. So, since I believe all matter (planets, stars, atoms and particles) are dependent on fields and fields are non-material, I also believe the material is dependent on and arose from the non-material. However I don't believe that that "non-material" is intelligent...just that it operates in very regular ways.
And why should it not? It doesn't represent intelligence to "operate in regular ways." I don't ponder why marbles roll down hill...I don't think, "gee what an intelligent marble." But my experience suggests that barring some other influence, marbles roll down hill. As I said, that reflects NON intelligence. Intelligence that was not underpinned by the material/natural would NOT need to follow regular rules/laws. It would presumably be able to create a world with tendencies to happen differently even under the exact same conditions. THAT is what intelligence could do, that would be evidence of intelligence, NOT just do the same thing every time.
When we see an entity do the same thing every time all the time and act in exactly the same way, we think...robot or simple non-intelligent animal. It's only when it does erratic things and exhibits variable behavior under what appear to be essentially the same situation do we think it is probably intelligent. When a child sits there and monotonously does the same thing over and over, the parents become worried about it's intelligence. But when it demonstrates variability and creativity, they don't have the same worries.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 7, 2019 12:40:02 GMT
They did an experiment with a leaf. They detected an energy field around a leaf. When they cut a piece of it off, that energy field was still around the area where the piece they cut off was. That suggests that that portion of the energy field still existed even without that piece of the leaf there. Also suggesting that the materialism of the leaf was formed first in that energy field. There is no such thing as an energy field, that is just new-age mumbo jumbo used by people who don't know what energy is, which is nothing in itself. Energy is the measurement given to work done on bodies of mass/matter within a physical system, for example: Einstein's equivalence formula: E = mc^2. Energy (E) is meaningless without mass(m) or the movement/speed of the mass(c^2). To say there exists energy fields is the same as saying measurement-of-work-done-on-mass/matter fields which is ridiculous. If indeed there are so-called energy fields then how are they measured? How do we measure the measurement? (yes, ridiculous question. Answering would be even more stupid!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 12:44:15 GMT
not vice versa.
Therefore, it doesn't need materiality to exist.
And yet, all evidence points in the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 7, 2019 12:47:35 GMT
More ignorant bullshit with no basis in reality. You don't even believe it yourself, otherwise you wouldn't cite scientists when you are stupid enough to think they support your idiotic beliefs--as you did in this thread. Both Einstein and Tesla (and there are others) are on record as saying they believe there is a vast intelligence that created everything out of the non-material.
And both were a quantum leap more intelligent and knowledgeable than YOU are.
Dunno about Tesla, but I can tell you Einstein didn't actually think that. I know religious types like to use quotes of his (often out of context) to reinforce their beliefs, but if you did some research and put the pieces you'd see that he was most basically an atheist
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 7, 2019 13:08:22 GMT
He assumes there is some spirit behind the laws of nature. Why? Does he follow that assumption to its logical conclusion? That creates the question of what is behind the laws that underpin that spirit? Given all the times he has denied belief in a personal god and that here he is writing to a child, we can take him as using "spirit" in a very abstract, Spinoza-like manner. That's the only interpretation that is consistent with other things he said. It really is an almost meaningless passage in any case for the reasons you gave. That said, you are right to question whether his qualifications in physics spill over to theology and philosophy. They don't, but on the other hand he was very well read in philosophy so his standing should be considered higher than that of an ordinary layperson.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 7, 2019 13:20:08 GMT
He assumes there is some spirit behind the laws of nature. Why? It strikes me that maybe what Einstein was getting at here was the idea of Weltgeist ("world spirit") - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geist#Weltgeist: "a spiritual essence permeating all of nature, or the active principle animating the universe, including the physical sense, such as the attraction between magnet and iron or between Moon and tide". I think he's not saying that there is a spirit behind the laws of nature (as the Abrahamic God is usually understood), but the laws of nature themselves are a spirit, or at least it can feel that way to a scientist. One could maybe say he was a panenthiest or maybe an atheist with panentheist sympathies.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 7, 2019 13:48:11 GMT
Many experiments have been done proving it.
There is not one single fucking experiment proving this bullshit. That's why you won't be able to cite one. And you were too stupid to understand a single aspect of it, so you made up the results to conform with your 3 year old level of intelligence.
Try to make a point someday without coming off as an angry pessimistic douche-bag.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 7, 2019 15:17:20 GMT
Well no, obviously it does since we know the consciousness comes from the brain, which of course is material. I'm not sure what Heeeeey's stance is here, but it's actually difficult to demonstrate that matter exists. You could take a radical Berkeleian stance and say that perception exists but there is nothing extra that is perceived - when you are examining a brain, there's no actual brain that exists outside of the minds of those examining. This would make what we think of as matter a projection of consciousness rather than a substance per se. This stance is so counter-intuitive that there's no real reason to endorse it other than to be a bit contrary or because it adds credence to one of your faith-based pre-conceptions about the world (for instance it combines very well with some variants of Hinduism), but it's very hard to refute. Then there's also more dualistic stances that say that consciousness can exist without matter. Again this is hard to refute - how can we test whether there is non-material consciousness when science relies on investigating matter? Less extreme dualists are those that say matter is needed for consciousness, but is not by itself sufficient for consciousness - that one can envision an outwardly functional human that has no subjective experience and posit that there is something non-material that must cause that subjective experience. These stances are more compatible with Christianity. Of course, why Heeeeey seems so certain about the topic is beyond me. Certainly materialism can explain the mind as well as these alternative theories can whilst being less counter-intuitive than Berkeley's subjective idealism and simpler than dualism. I have no doubt that philosophers can turn a simple question of whether or not there's a traffic light at the intersection into something really complicated.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 7, 2019 15:25:55 GMT
I'm not sure what Heeeeey's stance is here, but it's actually difficult to demonstrate that matter exists. You could take a radical Berkeleian stance and say that perception exists but there is nothing extra that is perceived - when you are examining a brain, there's no actual brain that exists outside of the minds of those examining. This would make what we think of as matter a projection of consciousness rather than a substance per se. This stance is so counter-intuitive that there's no real reason to endorse it other than to be a bit contrary or because it adds credence to one of your faith-based pre-conceptions about the world (for instance it combines very well with some variants of Hinduism), but it's very hard to refute. Then there's also more dualistic stances that say that consciousness can exist without matter. Again this is hard to refute - how can we test whether there is non-material consciousness when science relies on investigating matter? Less extreme dualists are those that say matter is needed for consciousness, but is not by itself sufficient for consciousness - that one can envision an outwardly functional human that has no subjective experience and posit that there is something non-material that must cause that subjective experience. These stances are more compatible with Christianity. Of course, why Heeeeey seems so certain about the topic is beyond me. Certainly materialism can explain the mind as well as these alternative theories can whilst being less counter-intuitive than Berkeley's subjective idealism and simpler than dualism. I have no doubt that philosophers can turn a simple question of whether or not there's a traffic light at the intersection into something really complicated. Gotta justify those research grants somehow
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 15:35:16 GMT
They did an experiment with a leaf. They detected an energy field around a leaf. When they cut a piece of it off, that energy field was still around the area where the piece they cut off was. That suggests that that portion of the energy field still existed even without that piece of the leaf there. Also suggesting that the materialism of the leaf was formed first in that energy field. There is no such thing as an energy field, that is just new-age mumbo jumbo used by people who don't know what energy is, which is nothing in itself. Energy is the measurement given to work done on bodies of mass/matter within a physical system, for example: Einstein's equivalence formula: E = mc^2. Energy (E) is meaningless without mass(m) or the movement/speed of the mass(c^2). To say there exists energy fields is the same as saying measurement-of-work-done-on-mass/matter fields which is ridiculous. If indeed there are so-called energy fields then how are they measured? How do we measure the measurement? (yes, ridiculous question. Answering would be even more stupid!) Some say his equation is wrong, but that's not what I was referring to anyway. I was referring to his acknowledgement of a vast intelligence undetected by the limited human senses that exists throughout the cosmos. To believe that the perfection of everything in the cosmos is 'by accident' is sheer idiocy, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 15:37:20 GMT
I'm not sure what Heeeeey's stance is here, but it's actually difficult to demonstrate that matter exists. You could take a radical Berkeleian stance and say that perception exists but there is nothing extra that is perceived - when you are examining a brain, there's no actual brain that exists outside of the minds of those examining. This would make what we think of as matter a projection of consciousness rather than a substance per se. This stance is so counter-intuitive that there's no real reason to endorse it other than to be a bit contrary or because it adds credence to one of your faith-based pre-conceptions about the world (for instance it combines very well with some variants of Hinduism), but it's very hard to refute. Then there's also more dualistic stances that say that consciousness can exist without matter. Again this is hard to refute - how can we test whether there is non-material consciousness when science relies on investigating matter? Less extreme dualists are those that say matter is needed for consciousness, but is not by itself sufficient for consciousness - that one can envision an outwardly functional human that has no subjective experience and posit that there is something non-material that must cause that subjective experience. These stances are more compatible with Christianity. Of course, why Heeeeey seems so certain about the topic is beyond me. Certainly materialism can explain the mind as well as these alternative theories can whilst being less counter-intuitive than Berkeley's subjective idealism and simpler than dualism. I have no doubt that philosophers can turn a simple question of whether or not there's a traffic light at the intersection into something really complicated. That is debatable considering that the human mind perceives but a fraction of all that's actually around us, and that nothing is truly solid.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 15:43:59 GMT
Both Einstein and Tesla (and there are others) are on record as saying they believe there is a vast intelligence that created everything out of the non-material.
And both were a quantum leap more intelligent and knowledgeable than YOU are.
Dunno about Tesla, but I can tell you Einstein didn't actually think that. I know religious types like to use quotes of his (often out of context) to reinforce their beliefs, but if you did some research and put the pieces you'd see that he was most basically an atheist As I have said before, I'm not in the least bit religious. What I say isn't based on any religion.
The problem that Western science has is its stubborn insistence on leaving out the non-physical component that affects matter. And that's why they haven't solved any problem facing the planet. The planet is more polluted, more diseased -- the food supply gets worse and worse, and it goes on and on. Why haven't your brilliant scientists found a way to solve those issues? It's because they are in the pockets of institutions that are making billions and don't want those problems and illnesses to go away.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 7, 2019 16:10:54 GMT
Dunno about Tesla, but I can tell you Einstein didn't actually think that. I know religious types like to use quotes of his (often out of context) to reinforce their beliefs, but if you did some research and put the pieces you'd see that he was most basically an atheist As I have said before, I'm not in the least bit religious. What I say isn't based on any religion.
The problem that Western science has is its stubborn insistence on leaving out the non-physical component that affects matter. And that's why they haven't solved any problem facing the planet. The planet is more polluted, more diseased -- the food supply gets worse and worse, and it goes on and on. Why haven't your brilliant scientists found a way to solve those issues? It's because they are in the pockets of institutions that are making billions and don't want those problems and illnesses to go away.
"What I say isn't based on any religion." You use the same talking points as Christian fundamentalists and creationists. "The problem that Western science has is its stubborn insistence on leaving out the non-physical component that affects matter." Western science? You mean all science? Anything that tries to study the "non-physical" (or the metaphysical to be more specific) by defintion isn't science. It can be detected, observed, tested, etc. "And that's why they haven't solved any problem facing the planet." Science has cured diseases and made new techniques for growing food to curb starvation. It's also currently working on alternative fuels so we can hopefully stop man made global warming. "The planet is more polluted" That's only because of increase in humans and carbon emmissions, science has nothing to do with that. "more diseased" Literally the exact opposite is true. Notice how polio, smallpox, and the black plague are no longer a thing? Life expectancies have gone up dramatically in the last 100 years so. "the food supply gets worse and worse" If you're refering to processed garbage that people eat, again that has nothing to do with science, that's the fault of the food industry that keeps pushing them and consumers that keep demanding them. "Why haven't your brilliant scientists found a way to solve those issues?" Because those are largely political and cultural issues, not scientific ones. "It's because they are in the pockets of institutions that are making billions and don't want those problems and illnesses to go away." Proof? Oh that's right you have none, just baseless assertions and conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 16:55:46 GMT
As I have said before, I'm not in the least bit religious. What I say isn't based on any religion.
The problem that Western science has is its stubborn insistence on leaving out the non-physical component that affects matter. And that's why they haven't solved any problem facing the planet. The planet is more polluted, more diseased -- the food supply gets worse and worse, and it goes on and on. Why haven't your brilliant scientists found a way to solve those issues? It's because they are in the pockets of institutions that are making billions and don't want those problems and illnesses to go away.
"What I say isn't based on any religion." You use the same talking points as Christian fundamentalists and creationists. "The problem that Western science has is its stubborn insistence on leaving out the non-physical component that affects matter." Western science? You mean all science? Anything that tries to study the "non-physical" (or the metaphysical to be more specific) by defintion isn't science. It can be detected, observed, tested, etc. "And that's why they haven't solved any problem facing the planet." Science has cured diseases and made new techniques for growing food to curb starvation. It's also currently working on alternative fuels so we can hopefully stop man made global warming. "The planet is more polluted" That's only because of increase in humans and carbon emmissions, science has nothing to do with that. "more diseased" Literally the exact opposite is true. Notice how polio, smallpox, and the black plague are no longer a thing? Life expectancies have gone up dramatically in the last 100 years so. "the food supply gets worse and worse" If you're refering to processed garbage that people eat, again that has nothing to do with science, that's the fault of the food industry that keeps pushing them and consumers that keep demanding them. "Why haven't your brilliant scientists found a way to solve those issues?" Because those are largely political and cultural issues, not scientific ones. "It's because they are in the pockets of institutions that are making billions and don't want those problems and illnesses to go away." Proof? Oh that's right you have none, just baseless assertions and conspiracy theories. Bullshit.
For every disease science has 'cured', there are probably hundreds that they still can't cure, and probably don't want to. You think the medical industry and big pharma would want people to stop getting sick?
I'll just reiterate what I've said before. Considering that the human brain is limited to five senses, and it's proven that there is much more outside of our field of awareness than we know, to say with absolute certainty that materialism is all there is, is the height of arrogance and stupidity, IMO.
And if you don't know the difference between being spiritual and being religious, I'm not going to explain it to you.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Oct 7, 2019 17:20:04 GMT
Great point.
The "wishful thinking materialists" flail away by constantly changing definitions and relying on changing back and forth from "cognition", "self awareness", and "consciousness" in vain attempts to hide from reality, but you simply say "it is what it is", and they still flail away. Incredible. There cannot be a "natural explanation" for their confusion and fear. They themselves prove the existence of supernatural forces.
Now, explaining these supernatural forces is something else. The fact that the world is so confused, and no two people of billions can agree on anything (a bit of exaggeration, but very little bit of exaggeration), says something in itself, and again proves there are supernatural forces at work.
But the materialist is defeated, and you really hit them below the belt with reality. Expect a lot more of the ignorant masses to flail away at you, but I congratulate you for being able to resist their attempts to bring you out of reality and keep sober.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 7, 2019 17:20:58 GMT
"What I say isn't based on any religion." You use the same talking points as Christian fundamentalists and creationists. "The problem that Western science has is its stubborn insistence on leaving out the non-physical component that affects matter." Western science? You mean all science? Anything that tries to study the "non-physical" (or the metaphysical to be more specific) by defintion isn't science. It can be detected, observed, tested, etc. "And that's why they haven't solved any problem facing the planet." Science has cured diseases and made new techniques for growing food to curb starvation. It's also currently working on alternative fuels so we can hopefully stop man made global warming. "The planet is more polluted" That's only because of increase in humans and carbon emmissions, science has nothing to do with that. "more diseased" Literally the exact opposite is true. Notice how polio, smallpox, and the black plague are no longer a thing? Life expectancies have gone up dramatically in the last 100 years so. "the food supply gets worse and worse" If you're refering to processed garbage that people eat, again that has nothing to do with science, that's the fault of the food industry that keeps pushing them and consumers that keep demanding them. "Why haven't your brilliant scientists found a way to solve those issues?" Because those are largely political and cultural issues, not scientific ones. "It's because they are in the pockets of institutions that are making billions and don't want those problems and illnesses to go away." Proof? Oh that's right you have none, just baseless assertions and conspiracy theories. Bullshit.
For every disease science has 'cured', there are probably hundreds that they still can't cure, and probably don't want to. You think the medical industry and big pharma would want people to stop getting sick?
I'll just reiterate what I've said before. Considering that the human brain is limited to five senses, and it's proven that there is much more outside of our field of awareness than we know, to say with absolute certainty that materialism is all there is, is the height of arrogance and stupidity, IMO.
And if you don't know the difference between being spiritual and being religious, I'm not going to explain it to you.
"For every disease science has 'cured', there are probably hundreds that they still can't cure, and probably don't want to" You have no proof of that, thus the qualifier "probably" "You think the medical industry and big pharma would want people to stop getting sick?" You are conflating corporate greed with science, those are two different things. Do you also blame Einstein for unintentionally coming up with the blueprints for the atomic bomb that the industrial military complex would later exploit for money? "Considering that the human brain is limited to five senses" That "five sense" thing is a myth, the human brain actually has more than that (sense of hunger, feeling tired, feeling sick, etc). You don't even have a basic understanding of what you're talking about "and it's proven that there is much more outside of our field of awareness than we know" You've yet to show any proof "to say with absolute certainty that materialism is all there is, is the height of arrogance and stupidity" Strawmanning, yawn "And if you don't know the difference between being spiritual and being religious, I'm not going to explain it to you." You've made arguments for Christianity, I've heard them, do not deny this.
|
|