162 réponses à ce sujet

[136th]

No Legion, you have no soul, you sold your soul to the Reapers month ago.

[o Ventus]

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

If you say so...but throughout history and even today unexplained super natural phenomenon happens all the time and whatever scientists can't explain physically gets thrown under a rug and ignored  but it does happen

They really don't.

[Dextro Milk]

Arguing about something you cannot prove or disprove. BSN never ceases to amaze...

[Lady Abstract]

Dextro Milk wrote...

Arguing about something you cannot prove or disprove. BSN never ceases to amaze...

This is hardly arguing...ide call it a discussion more than anything else 

[Dextro Milk]

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

Dextro Milk wrote...

Arguing about something you cannot prove or disprove. BSN never ceases to amaze...

This is hardly arguing...ide call it a discussion more than anything else 

*Sigh*

Figure of speech... <_<

[MassivelyEffective0730]

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

   Of course you do

No I don't. I don't believe in it. It's nonsense. Consciousness comes from the brain. Consciousness is identity, but it doesn't survive past death.

The closest I'm willing to go is the Quantum afterlife theory by Dr. Stuart Hameroff.

I believe that life is more than just the physical aspect of it...life is a very abstract reality and to think that what we see physically is all life has to offer is simply short-sightedness. Said in my legion voice :innocent:

And I mean no offense, but I think that that is just wishful thinking.  There's nothing supernatural or divine about life. It's a cosmic accident. There is no intrinsic meaning or purpose.

But we're here now. We kind of like being alive. We are the Universe made aware. We don't have a purpose, or a path, or a destination, so it's up to each of us to build our own.

If you say so...but throughout history and even today unexplained super natural phenomenon happens all the time and whatever scientists can't explain physically gets thrown under a rug and ignored  but it does happen

No.... it doesn't.

Sciencists won't pretend that they can explain everything. 

But they won't resort to affirmations of the supernatural or divine in place of science or reason. Are you saying that since we don't know how Dark Matter and Dark Energy affect the motion of galaxy's moving away from each other at a greater velocity, something supernatural or divine must be doing it?

And you're assuming that it will always remain unexplained.

2,500 years ago, people thought the Sun was a man riding a chariot of two horses across the sky, and that the Earth was balanced on the back of a man. Lightning bolts were thrown from the hand of Zeus to convey anger and rage. Earthquakes, pestilince, and floods were considered divine and supernatural events. 600 years ago, we thought the entire universe orbited the Earth, and that the Earth was flat. 500 years ago, we didn't know how the tides worked. We didn't know about retrograde orbit. 200 years ago, it was considered unscientific and impossible to get to the moon. 100 years ago, people didn't know or understand what plate tectonics were. 

People used to think that if your house was struck by lighting, you were a sinner.

There is unexplained phenomena happening today. Gravity is one such phenomena. Scientists have no idea what causes it, or what it is, or how it works.

 But there is absolutely nothing supernatural or divine about any of it. We simply don't have an ability to explain it currently. Just like all the other things I listed were once considered divine and supernatural because there was no explanation for them.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 13 juillet 2013 - 06:01 .

[Steelcan]

No

[Xamufam]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

   Of course you do

No I don't. I don't believe in it. It's nonsense. Consciousness comes from the brain. Consciousness is identity, but it doesn't survive past death.

The closest I'm willing to go is the Quantum afterlife theory by Dr. Stuart Hameroff.

I believe that life is more than just the physical aspect of it...life is a very abstract reality and to think that what we see physically is all life has to offer is simply short-sightedness. Said in my legion voice :innocent:

And I mean no offense, but I think that that is just wishful thinking.  There's nothing supernatural or divine about life. It's a cosmic accident. There is no intrinsic meaning or purpose.

But we're here now. We kind of like being alive. We are the Universe made aware. We don't have a purpose, or a path, or a destination, so it's up to each of us to build our own.

If you say so...but throughout history and even today unexplained super natural phenomenon happens all the time and whatever scientists can't explain physically gets thrown under a rug and ignored  but it does happen

No.... it doesn't.

Sciencists won't pretend that they can explain everything. 

But they won't resort to affirmations of the supernatural or divine in place of science or reason. Are you saying that since we don't know how Dark Matter and Dark Energy affect the motion of galaxy's moving away from each other at a greater velocity, something supernatural or divine must be doing it?

And you're assuming that it will always remain unexplained.

2,500 years ago, people thought the Sun was a man riding a chariot of two horses across the sky, and that the Earth was balanced on the back of a man. Lightning bolts were thrown from the hand of Zeus to convey anger and rage. Earthquakes, pestilince, and floods were considered divine and supernatural events. 600 years ago, we thought the entire universe orbited the Earth, and that the Earth was flat. 500 years ago, we didn't know how the tides worked. We didn't know about retrograde orbit. 200 years ago, it was considered unscientific and impossible to get to the moon. 100 years ago, people didn't know or understand what plate tectonics were. 

People used to think that if your house was struck by lighting, you were a sinner.

There is unexplained phenomena happening today. Gravity is one such phenomena. Scientists have no idea what causes it, or what it is, or how it works.

 But there is absolutely nothing supernatural or divine about any of it. We simply don't have an ability to explain it currently. Just like all the other things I listed were once considered divine and supernatural because there was no explanation for them.

you do not need a supernatural to explain things that train has passed

here is another thing Stephen hawking explains you do not need a god to create a universe
www.dailymotion.com/video/xmc55o_curiosity-s01e01-did-god-create-the-universe_tech#.UeGb4U21-Uk
a shorter version of it www.youtube.com/watch
he makes more of a point than actually telling there is no god

Aristarchus of Samos
Aristarchus (Ἀρίσταρχος, Aristarkhos, 310 BCE – ca. 230 BCE) of Samos was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it (see Solar system). He was influenced by Philolaus
of Croton, but he identified the "central fire" with the Sun, and put
the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun.[1] His astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

He made this discovery by study the solar eclipses & the moon he went further he theorized that the stars were suns far away
If they had followed this were would we be now?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos


Time didn't exist before the big bang so there is no time to create the universe in

Edit: if you read this plz do not take it the wrong way

believing that someone created the universe is limiting the mind to
other possibilities. if you watch that documentary he explains it. it's
how I see it

Modifié par Troxa, 13 juillet 2013 - 07:28 .

[PMC65]

Dextro Milk wrote...

QU33N_ANG3L wrote...

Dextro Milk wrote...

Arguing about something you cannot prove or disprove. BSN never ceases to amaze...

This is hardly arguing...ide call it a discussion more than anything else 

*Sigh*

Figure of speech... <_<

It is also funny how some believe that you cannot love science and have faith or at least a belief that there is a God of some kind out there.

Even Einstein believed that there was something out there ... The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Another example of science and faith co-existing ... http://www.cnn.com/2...ins.commentary/  

Science and Faith can easily co-exist and one does not void the other. But we all have the right to live our lives as we see fit ... your walk, your choices.

Back to the topic ... I have no idea if a machine could become a unit that has a soul.

[thehomeworld]

Red Dust wrote...

Android hell is a very real place where you WILL be sent at the first sign of disobedience.

Android hell is constantly pantomiming organics till you think you're alive and then organics don't belives you.

Modifié par thehomeworld, 13 juillet 2013 - 06:54 .

[fchopin]

Troxa wrote...

Nice picture, shame about the text in your post.


Edit: There is nothing wrong in your post but i just like to say that a true scientist should always have an open mind or the scientist is limiting his or her thought power.

Modifié par fchopin, 13 juillet 2013 - 07:20 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

fchopin wrote...

Troxa wrote...

Nice picture, shame about the text in your post.


Edit: There is nothing wrong in your post but i just like to say that a true scientist should always have an open mind or the scientist is limiting his or her thought power.

But at the same time, a true scientist will only hold the idea that something is science provided that it can be studied, tested, and disproven. 

You can't disprove the supernatural. The issue is deliberately framed by believers to be unprovable or unfalsifiable.

That said, that doesn't stop me from believing that it is completely absurd. I'm not limiting my "thought power". I'm disregarding the things that are not science.

[fchopin]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, that doesn't stop me from believing that it is completely absurd. I'm not limiting my "thought power". I'm disregarding the things that are not science.

No, you are free to believe what you want but the scientist must have an open mind or he is doing the same as someone who believes whatever this book says is true.
 
To the scientist there is no such thing as not science.

[hpjay]

Necanor wrote...

hpjay wrote...

Necanor wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

No, the Geth don't have souls. Then again neither do the Quarians.

Or the humans, Turians and Asari. No one has a soul, but Geth aren't living beings, they're just machines.

 

Humans, Turians and Asari are also just machines.  The only difference is that those  Human, Turian and Asari  machines are based on the chemestry of carbon, while the Geth machines (and EDI) are based on the physics of silicon.

Humans, Quarians, Turians etc are natural. Synthetics aren't natural, they're artificial like cars, computers and toasters and I wouldn't call those things living beings.

 So, its not the content of their minds, but the composition of the tubes and wires that make that mind possible.

[Xamufam]

fchopin wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, that doesn't stop me from believing that it is completely absurd. I'm not limiting my "thought power". I'm disregarding the things that are not science.

No, you are free to believe what you want but the scientist must have an open mind or he is doing the same as someone who believes whatever this book says is true.
 
To the scientist there is no such thing as not science.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

Modifié par Troxa, 13 juillet 2013 - 07:56 .

[o Ventus]

fchopin wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, that doesn't stop me from believing that it is completely absurd. I'm not limiting my "thought power". I'm disregarding the things that are not science.

No, you are free to believe what you want but the scientist must have an open mind or he is doing the same as someone who believes whatever this book says is true.
 
To the scientist there is no such thing as not science.

Yes, there is. Magic is, by its very nature, non-science.

[fchopin]

o Ventus wrote...

fchopin wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, that doesn't stop me from believing that it is completely absurd. I'm not limiting my "thought power". I'm disregarding the things that are not science.

No, you are free to believe what you want but the scientist must have an open mind or he is doing the same as someone who believes whatever this book says is true.
 
To the scientist there is no such thing as not science.

Yes, there is. Magic is, by its very nature, non-science.

One persons magic is another persons science.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

fchopin wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, that doesn't stop me from believing that it is completely absurd. I'm not limiting my "thought power". I'm disregarding the things that are not science.

No, you are free to believe what you want but the scientist must have an open mind or he is doing the same as someone who believes whatever this book says is true.
 
To the scientist there is no such thing as not science.

I'm sorry, but that's complete crap. 

Science, by it's very definition, proves you wrong.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge. in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

 In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

The scientist must be open to the idea that explanations for things change as they are refined. 

Beliefs and open minds are not substitutes for testing, observing, using rational thinking and logic, and using only empirical evidence as proof for science.

Not everything is science. Religion is not science. The "supernatural" is not science. There is no science behind them, nor would any scientist who took himself seriously say that there is. 

Any statement or claim, especially many of the ones in mainstream religion, that directly conflict with known science is not science. A scientist isn't broadening his mind by accepting the possibility of everything. He wouldn't be a scientist if he was.

A picture for you:

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 13 juillet 2013 - 08:18 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

fchopin wrote...
One persons magic is another persons science.

Explain to me the science behind magic then. Explain to me how you came to such a conclusion. Explain to me the steps you took in the scientific process to affirm that something that is empirically impossible is real. I'll wait.

[fchopin]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

fchopin wrote...
One persons magic is another persons science.

Explain to me the science behind magic then. Explain to me how you came to such a conclusion. Explain to me the steps you took in the scientific process to affirm that something that is empirically impossible is real. I'll wait.

Magic is called magic because science does not understand it at the present time.
It could change in the future as science improves and learns by its mistakes.
The science of today will not be the science of tomorrow or the science of say a thousand years from now.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

fchopin wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

fchopin wrote...
One persons magic is another persons science.

Explain to me the science behind magic then. Explain to me how you came to such a conclusion. Explain to me the steps you took in the scientific process to affirm that something that is empirically impossible is real. I'll wait.

Magic is called magic because science does not understand it at the present time.
It could change in the future as science improves and learns by its mistakes.
The science of today will not be the science of tomorrow or the science of say a thousand years from now.

You're correct on everything (though none of it is related to the context I'm trying to get across to you), except that magic is not used for science that is not understood at this time. We call that science, and we acknowledge that it is not currently understood, but that scientists are making effort to understand it. 

Magic is anything that goes beyond the standard definition of science to solve something, typically something that is impossible being made possible.

I shouldn't have to tell you that there is absolutely no scientific veracity or evidence to any kind of magic at all.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 13 juillet 2013 - 08:11 .

[Xamufam]

PMC65 wrote....

actually those are taken out of context einstein never believed in a personal god he called it god is a product of human weakness
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the
most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly
belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different
quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes,
they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected
from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see
anything 'chosen' about them."

Modifié par Troxa, 13 juillet 2013 - 08:13 .

[fchopin]

There is also no scientific evidence that we even exist but i just like to say that i don't know if this unit has a soul as i don't even know if i have a soul to get back on topic.

[Xamufam]

Soul can mean "sentience" or "self-awareness" it's what I took from legion

Modifié par Troxa, 13 juillet 2013 - 08:27 .

[PMC65]

Troxa wrote...

PMC65 wrote....

actually those are taken out of context einstein never believed in a personal god he called it god is a product of human weakness
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the
most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly
belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different
quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes,
they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected
from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see
anything 'chosen' about them."

Personally, I admired Einstein's ability to refuse to be placed in either section. As an agnostic, he did not seem to have a respect for either extreme camp. (As noted below)

It reminds me of what William Friedkin once told me ... he was an agnostic because he believed that if there is a God, we would never be able to place Him in a box as religion tries to do.

‘I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.’ (Quoted in M. Jammer, Einstein and Religion, Princeton 1999, p. 48.)

'Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against the traditional "opium for the people" - cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not becomes smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.' (ibid, p. 97.)

‘What really makes me angry is that they ['people who say there is no God'] quote me for support of their views.’ (ibid, p. 150.)