It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
What's your stance on infinity?
Have you got faith that infinity is not true and that it is some super entity with rules matching man-made religion's rules?
You make up a theory regarding any issue, physics, maths or the cause of the universe, then it is up to you to back up your claims with evidence, otherwise YOU are the person with faith. Not the non-believer in your theory.
Do you have faith in regards to the flying spagetti monster? By your logic, you do.
It's either faith or a lack of faith - Learn that before you use that old chesnut again.
Since "infinity" has never been observed by anyone in any form it's existence must rely on faith. "Eternity" on the other hand is outside the space time dimension, I have faith it exists because we have an integrated message system from a source outside the space time dimension. Einstein showed us that time is a physical property, it's affected by gravity, mass and acceleration.
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by sinohptik
My own education was of a rather liberal type, where I learned to learn, rather than passively absorbing data. But I'm still glad for the formal aspects, because they have given a possibility of understanding the basic positions of various models or systematic methodologies.
Quote: [" It would seem in such experiences as "enlightenment," that literally nothing changes except for the individuals perspective on the universe. nothing!"]
You won't find me a stranger or opponent to either trans-mundane or anomaly experiences. Quite the contrary. But I like to have 'inclusive' approaches, where also e.g. 'objective' positions can be considered. So while I privately accept anomaly/trans-mundane phenomena I don't want to push them publicly.
Quote: ["Oh, dont be fooled, i have hidden agendas"]
Hehe again. No not anymore, you don't . I ofcourse still don't know their precise character though.
Generally I agree with much of what you say about the direct experience of existence (if that's the proper way to compress your words).
Maybe the following small thread I'm participating in can add something on this. Because of my lousy computer-skills, I'll both write the name of the thread and try to create a link.
"Christians, why are you afraid of adapting other philosophies too?" (On religion, faith and theology)
"Love one another as God loves you"
Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
You can't prove Eternity exists (Infinity may be possible and may have a start, or there may not be a start, no causation), infinity is a concept, and YES it would require faith to believe infinity was reality and that there were no "finite" boundaries to existence as a whole. It would require faith (whether it's true or false)
God is the same, except God isn't even a mathematical concept, there's no logical or empirical evidence that leads to that conclusion, no theory that i can find deserving of credibility in regards to "GOD".
You have "Faith" in a particular theory, a theory which has no evidence (LOGICAL OR EMPIRICAL) I don't have faith in it, it's as simple as that.
You can't prove God, you have to accept that you could be wrong, being wrong is an inherent risk you take when you have "faith" in a theory. I don't consider faith a virtue. "Faith" is just a guessing game.
Something is either "true" or it isn't. if you are unable to know, then you should suspend judgement and belief.
I won't argue further with you as you are committed to your beliefs and ideologies.
Something is either "true" or it isn't. if you are unable to know, then you should suspend judgement and belief (or accept that if you have belief without evidence, you may be proved wrong in the future.)
Originally posted by awake_and_aware
You can't prove Eternity exists (Infinity may be possible and may have a start, or there may not be a start, no causation), infinity is a concept, and YES it would require faith to believe infinity was reality and that there were no "finite" boundaries to existence as a whole. It would require faith (whether it's true or false)
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by sinohptik
Nope. You're trying to be clever, but a single letter rebuts your entire point here. An s
The court system is nothing like science. It has no peer-review, it is not founded in repeatable, testable claims. The courts also only rule on law, just like science only rules on the natural world. The rest is handled by philosophy.
You can admit it to me, you just like arguing semantics and doing mental gymnastics
Nope, I'm not arguing the semantics, the courts are wrong.
I have not called anyone intellectually bankrupt, because even the most ardent believers have some level of intellectual prowess, some even excel. I do call positions intellectually bankrupt, which is an entirely different matter.
I actually happen to know quite a bit about Constitutional law, though I do admit that my memory of court rulings has gone away as I've not flexed it. I even considered going into it as my career at one point.
I do know a few other things, like the definition of the word: "semantics".
For example, do you believe that the universe was created, or just is? If the second, then this is a notion of eternity.
Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen
For example, do you believe that the universe was created, or just is? If the second, then this is a notion of eternity.
I don't profess a belief in either theory - i don't have evidence - i don't know the truth.
1) Reality had an initial spark, there was a beginning but there is no end, from 0 to infinity.
2) Reality has and always will be, it's immeasurable, it's infinite.
Besides, a creator/source always begs the question, what was the creator of the creator, or the reality that the creator existed on. It's an infinite regress
Fine, but you're ducking the question. What was reality created out of -- something or nothing? If something, where did that come from, if nothing, the laws of physics say that's impossible, so how does that work?
Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen
Fine, but you're ducking the question. What was reality created out of -- something or nothing? If something, where did that come from, if nothing, the laws of physics say that's impossible, so how does that work?
You should rephrase that to our "based on current understanding of the laws of physics"
And i don't know. I'm certainly not going to assume one specific possibility and assert a belief structure in that direction alone.
Originally posted by awake_and_aware
God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis but it's a fictional antropomorphisation of reality, an attempt to personify and rationalise without any evidence to do so. GOD can only be rationalised by means of philosophical circularism.
I'll leave with another favourite of mine:-
The problem with your statement is that you start out rationally ("God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis") but then jump to a speculation ("it's a fictional antropomorphisation of reality") that refutes your prior rational statement.
That is my point, i suspend judgement or belief, i certainly don't accept unfalsifiable hypothesis or have any particular faith in them.
It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, ...
... Again, you must consider you run the risk of being proved wrong.
Faith is exactly that, an assumption of truth.
Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Big Bang isn't an unfalsifiable hypothesis (see. Red Shift)