It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The Church at one point opposed the notion of atoms because they represent finality in the breakdown of matter and finality cannot be a part of something perfect. (The surprising contradiction is that the same Church overruled the notion of an infinite universe, but I digress.) I'm merely taking over such foolish logical fallacies and turning them against their originators.
What did they even mean by that? Atoms aren t particles, but vortex rings of energy organizing themselves into a complex reality.
That's something we have only begun to understand about a thousand years later, @Thunderfinger.
lets go over why the question scientists pose is not If god exists but what Kind.. think I am crazy well humor me for a moment and I will prove once and for all atheism is indeed a joke and quite a bad one
first lets get rid of materialism straight off the bat
"P1. Materialism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them.
P2. The explanatory resources of materialism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes.
P3. Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in light of nonlocalizability) the identity of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or characterized if the explanatory constraints of materialism are preserved.
P4. These quantum phenomena require an explanation.
____________________________________________________________
C Therefore, materialism/naturalism/physicalism is irremediably deficient as a worldview, and consequently should be rejected as false and inadequate. "
https://www.namb.net/apologetics/why-quantum-theory-does-not-support-materialism
simply saying Quantum Phenomena exist without going into why is either bad science or a lack of understating of the implications
Now Darth can probably explain this a bit better but the classic understanding of Quantum Mechanics is the Copenhagen Interpretation (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/) which essentially indicates that in order for any action to happen there must be an observer. So Copenhagen makes the (in my opinion correct ) assertion that there has to be a Cosmic onserver in order to indicate that we are alive (looking at the Cat experiment in the vid I posted earlier)
Now let me play the Greek chorus of WIz Lud etc
"Even if Copenhagen is correct it still only leaves us with a Clock maker god rather then a personal one" this is true but again it's pushing the argument of what kind of god versus if there is one. for what kind of god one must re look at my arguments on religion and of course the videos and links posted of NDE. but lets go into a point Lud completely missed (hey in your respons to this comment you can argue that I used the word Quantum to often there forth its grbage because you don't like Quantum of Solace) Women can indeed be fooled my point of the fact that all 4 gospels have the Women finding the empty tomb is that really the idea of Women being that important to Christianity is only a modern day concept of women power etc. if you wanted to simply invent a religion in the 1st century you would
NOT MAKE WOMEN BE THE FIRST DISCOVERES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR STORY BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED CITIZENS AND WERE NOT CONSIDERED TRUSTWORTHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again only an Idiot would not see the socio implications here what it states is A God sees women as equal and B the only reason one would include something of that nature was if it was true. Again the only competing theory I can think of is in order for their religion to look more appealing to MODERN DAY HISTORIANS they included the bit in as a way to bring others in. As a selling point it only works at best in the last 40 years. but no again continue to have faith in Materialism because its easier to have faith in a debunked philosophy of the 1800's then it is to believe in god. I guess
Say, if women are indeed inferior to men in the Bible, perhaps the authors want us to think of them as unreliable narrators... Perhaps their natural tendency for emotional and irrational behaviour makes them delusional. Thomas was a man, and he had his doubts. Shall I go on?
What is the evidence that convinces @Risico007 that god exists?
That women are reported as having been the first to find the empty tomb and therefore as they are the inferior of the species it defies logic why the writers of the bible would have them as the conduit for this news if they wanted to convince people.
We'll overlook the need for any evidence for supernatural intervention to empty the tomb in the first place, the fact that the bible itself was written by believers so is hardly likely to say 'Jesus rising from the dead is all a load of bollocks', the women could have been having a laugh at the disciples expense and a multitude of other possibilities. The bible writers thought it would have seemed implausible to have the ragbag troop of ex fishermen turned cultists reporting that the guy they followed was alive so by cunningly getting women to do it no one can argue. If they wanted to be really convincing why not have lepers do it then as they come even further down the scale than birds?
And as the woman most consistently mentioned as being the ringleader of this group of women (the bible accounts obviously can't agree on anything) is Mary Magdalene, @Risico007 doesn't even stop to consider that she is hardly an impartial third party who just happened to be passing by.
But I have to say that this news that women only ever tell the empirical truth has cheered me up no end as all those times when I thought they were lying when they said I had satisfied them in bed they were actually being entirely truthful. It seems I am a bit of God myself between the sheets despite what I previously thought was pretty damning evidence to the contrary.
And ironically, these days, the old chap does exhibit Christ like attributes by requiring three days to rise again. I'm here all week.
Just a perfect example of how religion is so engrained into certain cultures that, without even thinking, it rides over other peoples beliefs. As an atheist, I don't want to be blessed by God and would have preferred "thank you". Just a small example (similar to "what's your Christian name) and many would say I am being overly sensitive but our everyday language is important. To offer someone the blessing of God whilst knowing nothing of their own beliefs is not considerate. But I am sure this never even crossed the gentleman's mind. He would have taken it for granted that God's blessing was something that everyone wants.
No your a failed Science teacher because your ignoring the scientific advancements since 1925.
Again ignoring Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics simply because it destroys your Materialistic point of view is either Intellectually dishonest to yourself or to your students take your pick
Then again everyone has their cross to bear - Risible hasn't got a clue about anything. Swings and roundabouts.
However, quantum physics, if anything, teaches us we don't need a god or a soul or a resurrection to explain the universe. That's why I'm surprised to read such blatant abuse of the quantum theory to claim the opposite of what it stands for.
I bet creationists are getting cold feet, seeing how easy it has become to ignore the supernatural in any scientific explanation of how the cosmos works. Creative creationists are therefore looking for ways to interpret quantum mechanics in such a way that it fits their silly conviction. They used to claim that the planets move because God wants it. They had to bury that idea in shame. They used to claim god puked all life on earth in one swift take. Even the Vatican is currently shying away from that idea. Now quantum physics is under attack. Many learn about it; few understand it. As with the second law of thermodynamics, creationists will stop at nothing to select half-truths and submit them as complete and hard evidence for whatever reason.
Einstein himself struggled with quantum mechanics. In his deterministic views, he considered it absurd to assume that God plays with dice. Others were quick to respond that he should stop telling God what to do, meaning that God needn't be factored in when the fundamental mechanisms of the universe are being considered.
Lest we forget, quantum physics shows that only probabilities can be assessed, never certainties, at least not for individual particles. That's why some people get cancer and others don't. That's why radioactive decay is a matter of chance for any individual atom. That's why mutations are hard to predict and even harder to control. God would be a strange architect if, in his wisdom, he constructed a universe that at its most fundamental levels is a gambler's game.
That quantum physics of all things is now being (ab)used to prove any of that spiritual nonsense @Risico007 keeps referring to, is beyond absurd. That's like applying hardcore mathematics to "prove" that just that once, 1 + 2 didn't equal 3. You'll fail miserably. I bet @Risico007 wants me to acknowledge the fact that those who write some of those assertions are, themselves, scientists. And I do. I have no problem humouring my pal in that respect. However, that makes little impression. They're scientists, not science itself. They are, simply put, people. They may have ulterior motives to write false claims, or they may simply be wrong. Einstein, Newton and many more have been proven wrong about several things. Some of the greatest chemists and physicists once maintained that atoms could carry no net electric charge; they were proven wrong. Many were convinced in the 19th century that atoms aren't made of simpler stuff; they were proven wrong. Some even claimed that atoms themselves weren't real; we have them on photograph now and can manually shift them around, as IBM recently did in an amusing movie. Plate tectonics was, by many scientists, at first considered heresy. For a while, a static universe was the only thing that made sense to several scientists; until Hubble proved them wrong.
Scientists can be wrong! Making mistakes is part of the process. Deliberately making mistakes in order to sell books and make a few television appearances, sadly, is too. And the Internet has made it so darn easy for everyone, scientist or not, to reach half the globe, "fake news" spreads like a disease faster than we can control it. Part of the reason why it takes us many decades before a scientific fact is acknowledged as such, is that every hypthosis has to pass a rigorous set of tests and peer evaluations and more tests before it can be agreed upon. You'll forgive me, once more, for dismissing a few internet links to some iffy claims made by whoever -- scientist or not -- as nothing but unfortunate traps for the ones who, unlike myself, WANT to believe more than anything else. I don't want to believe. I want hard evidence before I can know for sure it's not true.
Ok again I reiterate you say only science is absolute fair enough then explain to me how a neurologist claims to have seen Heaven when his brain was essentially “off”
Again how can I experience a “vision” or “hallucination” when that part of he brain was not functioning. But no I am sure the Greek Chorus will state that they know more about the brain then he does as they did last time...
And again your ignoring the fact that I am saying your view of classic Materialism (the view that this life is it) goes against Quantum Physics even if you argue the multi world theory (which goes against ocums razor but I will humor you for a moment) we are still talking about plains of existence which can not be measured sinking your classic materialist view to depths of the ocean. Again I reiterate your either being intlectually dishonest with yourself or all of us take your pick..
Also a few more looks at science just because Dr Eben Alexander could indeed be a fraud
Seriously we could do this all day Here is the evidence it’s not just the anecdote of one or two but there are 100000’s of stories but let’s go one step further
A large portion of these “stories” happen when the brain was not functioning and there would be no way to explain any of this scientifically.
So please spare me the higher intellectual ground act and realize once again
You are being intellectually fraudulent with either yourself or those around you
Yes, this life of mine is it. If by admitting that, that makes me a "classic materialist", then so be it. I understand the multi worldview that some quantum physicists adhere to, but hopefully you understand it's at best an interesting hypothesis Hugh Everett III proposed to respond to Schrödinger's cat paradox. It's as yet a highly untested (as it is, sadly, untestable) hypothesis; it's not, in its purest form, a theory nor part of "mainstream" quantum physics. I.e., when we conduct experiments with particle accelerators or try to explain how platinum as a catalyst works using quantum chemistry, we really don't contemplate the multi-world hypothesis.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is bogus. Quantum physics defies our intuition and you'll be surprised to find that I like the multi-world hypothesis and in fact accept it as a satisfying way out of the cat paradox. However, to make the jump from there to a god is a bit curious. Scientists who do, are of course allowed to do it. I'd say it's more reason not to. If anything, these curious notions that we have only just begun to explore may put the nail in God's coffin for good as far as I can tell. Maybe we will actually end up with an inherently quantum mechanical explanation for an entire batch of used-to-be mysteries people commonly called "God's will" or a "soul". I'm not contesting the observations, nor even some of their explanations. I am, however, contesting the necessity to link it all to something supernatural. If nothing else, then hopefully this research will lead us into a rational, scientific, testable explanation behind all those curious things people have always called "God".
There are a gazillion anecdotes about ghost sightings and alien abductions too, my friend. That doesn't make them true.
Why so hostile? What's with the "intellectual ground act"? I'm always giving you rational arguments, am I not? I'm not saying, "you're wrong because I say you're wrong and I'm smarter." That's what the bible reading crowd does though.
I'm not being intellectually fraudulent with myself or others. I want people to make reproducible observations, deduce, falsify. But you're almost always bringing up examples of cases where either something was never reproducibly observed (resurrection of Christ) or insufficiently falsified. Merely ask yourself, if these doctors--whom I respect contrary to what you may think--have indeed come to waterproof conclusions, where are the Nobel prices, the clinical and psychological applications, the newspaper headlines? I'm not saying these men are delusional, I'm merely begging for your caution and patience. Some good will no doubt come from this. But let's not jump to conlusions too fast.
Lastly, I'm a good teacher. I never tell my students what to think; I let them experience and observe things for themselves. I'm very careful never to impose my thoughts on them. Whatever you think of me in this thread where I am one of the atheists fighting off notions like resurrected jesuses, in my professional capacities I am a very good teacher. I have nothing against you, @Risico007, but you will not take away my professional integrity. Please don't judge, no matter what the Bible says.
This in spite of the fact that the Federal Constitutional Court declared display of a crucifix in schools unconstitutional ten or twelve years ago, and just about everybody, including both major Christian churches in Bavaria (and the major Munich newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung) declared this a populist plot to instrumentalise the central Christian symbol for political purposes, aka heresy.
Apparently it is an attempt to lure (mostly) Catholics in Bavaria away from the even more right-wing conservative Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) party. I'm sure this will be voided by the Federal Constitutional Court as well, but that will take time, and well beyond the next election.
Wizard and his band of brothers “only idiots would believe in god”
Me “actually several smart people believe in god
Wizard and his brothers “well scientist don’t and they are very smart”
Me “actually wrong again several scientists believe in god”
Wizard and his brothers “well no Nobel peace winners believe in god and they are smarter then scientists”
Me “once again your wrong there are several nobel prize winners who believe in god”
Wizard and his brothers (including you darth) “well if you knew more about science you would give up god”
I then do research and if not only strengthens my point but makes me ask various scientific questions and my response is “don’t judge me I’m just a scientist”
Come on darth don’t leave now when I am winning
That sounds like mayor (ex mayor) Tremblay from Saguenay who I mentioned on this thread. Confusing patriotism and identity with faith.
So to find really really clever people who beleive in God (or Father Christmas) speaks volumes for the fact that their cleverness is overidden by their fears. To be able to overrride these fears and see the World for what it is, is something that not everyone can do (from genius to idiot).
As a trend, people who work in science tend to be less religious. I guess because they have learnt the value of hard, cold evidence and have learned to reflect on the lack of that re religion. But there will always be some that just cant handle their fears and choose to construct a more comforting, fictional World to make their lives easier.
You keep banging on about stuff like quantum physics as if you are an authority and ridiculing a bloke who teaches science for a living but it might be better if you started with mastering the basics of scientific method first. Talk about running before you can walk; you haven't even mastered crawling yet.
How is this anecdotal, unverifiable account of the afterlife evidence of anything? I don't doubt the guy's credentials as a neurologist (well in terms of having the requisite letters after his name) but I do doubt his credentials as a scientist if he concludes that the only feasible explanation for all this is that God exists. I shouldn't have to tell a neurologist that the one certainty we know about the workings of the brain is that we know bugger all. To make the leap that what he experienced was direct evidence is highly speculative. It's almost as if he has some sort of vested interest, like he was, I don't know, perhaps planning to write a book to fleece gullible idiots out of their cash? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/0749958790/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524822245&sr=1-1
Also (obviously I don't need to tell you this @Risico007 as you're a man who takes the scientific method seriously and doesn't just grasp ever more desperately for sources that back up your increasingly untenable position but actually conducts proper research) the guy seems to have credibility issues: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/
I ask myself if all the videos you post are rock solid evidence of the existence of God then why does it take less than a minute on google to fatally hole every source be they Polish artists who claim to particle physicists in their spare time or a guy who was on his uppers who saw the potential to turn a life threatening illness into an earner? This can't really be all you have in your locker can it?
There really is nothing I can say to that? You're even doing my work for me now Mr Risible.
Anyway let's step off Risible's Tiresome Youtube Carousel of Proof™, which I think we have all realised is going nowhere, and debate something else.
Is anyone following the case of Alfie Evans? I hadn't been paying too much attention to be honest as these stories are ten a penny. All very tragic and all that but nothing particularly interesting.
However I'm concerned that the case has been hijacked by a sinister rabble to further their own agenda: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/alfie-evans-parents-activists
Disgustingly taking advantage of the parents' vulnerability and desperation to get their names in the paper. Here's their thoughts on the case:
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-issues/life-and-bioethics/why-alfie-matters
'Gendercide' (sic) who knew that was a thing? They are lawyers? Would you want them arguing your case with such a mastery of English and keen attention to detail?
These people are obviously not interested in what is best for Alfie merely just trying to make themselves relevant. The pope has been chipping in too which I find equally nauseating.
One question for the Christian Legal Centre and, indeed the pontiff, if God cares so much about the poor little lad why doesn't he just cure him or better still not give him the disease in the first place?
Obvioulsy, it ignores the core question of why God made him so ill in the first place?
"We must instead call on God to make things right"...good luck with that.
For some balance:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/nhs-palliative-care-alfie-evans-die-with-dignity
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/alfie-evans-parents-activists
But none of that is quite what the judge meant. His concern centres specifically on the way the Evans family has been taken under the wing of a hitherto little-known evangelical group called the Christian Legal Centre, which has supplied the parents with a barrister and, somewhat dubiously, the services of a law student named Pavel Stroilov. A statement drafted for Alfie’s father was, according to Hayden, loaded with “vituperation and bile” against the hospital, which had not helped the baby’s case. At one point, Stroilov apparently became party to an attempt by Alfie’s father to have the doctors prosecuted for murder.