You are here

Are there any creationists here?

Sorry if this has been done before but I'm curious if there are any?
And if so why are you vegan/vegetarians?

Also I've just watched this brilliant debate. I have never seen him before, only heard about him. He has been very polite and understanding however this woman just doesn't seem to understand what evoultion is.

A debate between him and a creatish. Perhaps there are one where he's not so polite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

i love topics like this, spirituality inclined....

while i do not personally believe in creationism, i do believe in "intelligent design".  

i've often wondered why society has a difficult time marrying the two concepts of "God" and "Science". I don't see faith in science being as a stance against God or faith.  For me, there is a science that explains the laws of the world that we live in - but further, i believe there's a science behind the science which encompasses more along the "God" spectrum, if you will.

I believe in the power of prayer, positive thinking, pyschic (sp.?) phenomena etc - things that i believe are outside the realm of science (or there could be simply - an unknown science that hasn't explained these yet - but that latter is not my opinion - just an openness to things that i myself do not comprehend at this time).  I believe in synchronicity, i believe in some type of karmic system (though i certainly do not believe i understand it).

To me, the notions touched upon above - are but a small part of what lead to my faith in intelligent design.

====
edited to add: another aspect that encourages my belief in intelligent design is "memory" - because i don't believe that our memory is a physical component (i don't believe it's something that can be tracked down, removed, transplanted, etc) and if so - the essence of memory would have to exist outside of our physical body...

0 likes

i love topics like this, spirituality inclined....

while i do not personally believe in creationism, i do believe in "intelligent design".  

i've often wondered why society has a difficult time marrying the two concepts of "God" and "Science". I don't see faith in science being as a stance against God or faith.  For me, there is a science that explains the laws of the world that we live in - but further, i believe there's a science behind the science which encompasses more along the "God" spectrum, if you will.

I believe in the power of prayer, positive thinking, pyschic (sp.?) phenomena etc - things that i believe are outside the realm of science (or there could be simply - an unknown science that hasn't explained these yet - but that latter is not my opinion - just an openness to things that i myself do not comprehend at this time).  I believe in synchronicity, i believe in some type of karmic system (though i certainly do not believe i understand it).

To me, the notions touched upon above - are but a small part of what lead to my faith in intelligent design.

====
edited to add: another aspect that encourages my belief in intelligent design is "memory" - because i don't believe that our memory is a physical component (i don't believe it's something that can be tracked down, removed, transplanted, etc) and if so - the essence of memory would have to exist outside of our physical body...

From a science point of view surely what happens is we look at empirical evidence, and then base conclusions on that evidence. There can never be too much evidence. It seems to be based entirely on inductive reasoning, which is surely generally justified by saying it's worked in the past and thus works now, which is, circular. Furthermore the conclusions can always be changed by more evidence (this is all Hume but I agree with it).

If we do take inductive reasoning as a given though, I'm not sure how you can base there being something behind everything and call that science. Is there some empirical evidence that I'm missing?

Furthermore when you talk about memory how do you justify it when brain damage has been shown to have in many cases adverse effects on it. I think the exception being a case of monkeys where by if you take away a large ammount of their brain they're said to be able to function as if you had not. I do not condone animal testing of course. However to bring this study up before someone else does, this would only show that that part of the brain would not be necessary if taken away at an early age, and not make a comment on memory.

The brain isn't al that well understood as far as I'm aware but could there be a mix between certain ammounts of brain tissue in certain areas (I presume there are many different types of brain tissue) and electrical current keeping memoies as memories instead of, I guess, lost data. After all electricity can carry data.

If it can't be tracked down and lives outside of the physical body does memory actually require the physical body?
Is memory seperate from the rest of the conscious mind or do you take it to mean our minds, not just that part of them?

What do you mean by karma? As there are many different belief systems involving different definitions of karma.

And by definition nothing is outside the realms of science as science doesn't start with the conclusion, but just looks at evidence and hints at it, sometimes moreheavily than other times.

I'm sure you've come across these questions before and whilst there's no pressure, I'm expecting a rather cunning and thought provoking reply (no-pressure-at-all :>).

0 likes

All right... until we have observable, recordable evidence of a god or gods, please leave it out of the science class room.

Most scientists have no problem with the idea of someone believing in God. As long as they do not let that belief cloud the observable facts. Religion can shape your worldview, but don't let it taint your data.

My problem with "intelligent design" is that it says - in a classroom setting - that there is something unscientifically provable at work, and presents it as sound science. It's contradictory. And let's not get started about those who would use it as a back door for creationism.

I want schools to teach comparative religion courses - there's a great place to discuss karma, creationism, yin, yang and whatever.

But keep science, science.

0 likes

i love topics like this, spirituality inclined....

while i do not personally believe in creationism, i do believe in "intelligent design". 

i've often wondered why society has a difficult time marrying the two concepts of "God" and "Science". I don't see faith in science being as a stance against God or faith.  For me, there is a science that explains the laws of the world that we live in - but further, i believe there's a science behind the science which encompasses more along the "God" spectrum, if you will.

I believe in the power of prayer, positive thinking, pyschic (sp.?) phenomena etc - things that i believe are outside the realm of science (or there could be simply - an unknown science that hasn't explained these yet - but that latter is not my opinion - just an openness to things that i myself do not comprehend at this time).  I believe in synchronicity, i believe in some type of karmic system (though i certainly do not believe i understand it).

To me, the notions touched upon above - are but a small part of what lead to my faith in intelligent design.

====
edited to add: another aspect that encourages my belief in intelligent design is "memory" - because i don't believe that our memory is a physical component (i don't believe it's something that can be tracked down, removed, transplanted, etc) and if so - the essence of memory would have to exist outside of our physical body...

From a science point of view surely what happens is we look at empirical evidence, and then base conclusions on that evidence. There can never be too much evidence. It seems to be based entirely on inductive reasoning, which is surely generally justified by saying it's worked in the past and thus works now, which is, circular. Furthermore the conclusions can always be changed by more evidence (this is all Hume but I agree with it).

If we do take inductive reasoning as a given though, I'm not sure how you can base there being something behind everything and call that science. Is there some empirical evidence that I'm missing?

Furthermore when you talk about memory how do you justify it when brain damage has been shown to have in many cases adverse effects on it. I think the exception being a case of monkeys where by if you take away a large ammount of their brain they're said to be able to function as if you had not. I do not condone animal testing of course. However to bring this study up before someone else does, this would only show that that part of the brain would not be necessary if taken away at an early age, and not make a comment on memory.

The brain isn't al that well understood as far as I'm aware but could there be a mix between certain ammounts of brain tissue in certain areas (I presume there are many different types of brain tissue) and electrical current keeping memoies as memories instead of, I guess, lost data. After all electricity can carry data.

If it can't be tracked down and lives outside of the physical body does memory actually require the physical body?
Is memory seperate from the rest of the conscious mind or do you take it to mean our minds, not just that part of them?

What do you mean by karma? As there are many different belief systems involving different definitions of karma.

And by definition nothing is outside the realms of science as science doesn't start with the conclusion, but just looks at evidence and hints at it, sometimes moreheavily than other times.

I'm sure you've come across these questions before and whilst there's no pressure, I'm expecting a rather cunning and thought provoking reply (no-pressure-at-all :>).

Hmm, we each might be referring to slightly different things in usage of the word “science”. If the following helps at all - when I talk about science – I’m just saying “how things work” or in simpler terms “explanation”.  I think (w/o wanting to speak for you) your definition of science is the whole detailed processed of “theory/test/results”, no?.  If it helps to read better – instead of saying “the science behind the science” maybe I can reword to “I believe there is something behind that science – that dictates the nature of the science itself”.  Maybe let know if that makes any further sense or not.

I can potentially provide what I think to be a good example of “science behind the science”.  There’s seems to be an understanding that the physical world we live in – is based on certain scientific principles, physics, chemistry, etc.  However, it seems that there is an even deeper layer of science – just below that science, referred to as quantum physics – which at this point I believe humanity is only on the cusp of learning about.  It seems that below the surface of physics as we understand it, stands a whole new science with rules and laws of a different nature.

Sometimes what we believe – is not always based on empirical evidence per’se – but more of what we see, feel, experience in the world around us.  I have had quite a few dreams that come true to one sense or another.  I believe there is a phenomena, a greater understanding that I cannot account for – that accounts for these dreams.  It’s not something I can necessarily test, because I can’t will it to happen (at least, if I can – I do not know or “remember” how), I can’t capture it in a bottle and apply testing methods to it.  I could same the same about synchronicity.  It’s something I experience relatively often, sometimes to an acute degree.  It too, is not something that I can necessarily test, per’se – but it’s something that I experience.

Now, at the same time – the examples I provided above – are my personal perception.  It goes w/o saying that someone else might dismiss things as coincidence (which is not something I believe in) – so when talking about religion/spirituality – I think it’s something outside the realm of science (as we understand it today) – but instead based on a more subtle but perhaps infinitely more substantial concept (in my opinion) … faith.

My theories is that the brain is not the receptacle of memory – but instead is the receiver.  I believe the brain is akin to a finely tuned spiritual radio – the signals are broadcast from outside the physical mind – but rec’d and interpreted by the mind. This could potentially explain one reason why brain damage could affect memory retention – because perhaps the wiring becomes damaged.  I don’t profess to give a be all end all answer though – there’s so many incidences for which we cannot account for with any one theory – possibly because we don’t have the right theory or aren’t yet at a point in our evolution where we could comprehend such a theory – I honestly don’t know. 

In regards to your question about whether “memory requires the physical body” – it goes w/o saying that I don’t know.  I guess it depends on what type of memory we’re referring to.  It’s one of those old adages right, about what happens to us when we pass on – what parts of uf, if any – continue forward.  Our intellect, our relationships, our memories, our emotional states, I don’t know.  If presuming we do not fade from existence when passing on – and we go on in some form – I would imagine that whatever memories necessary – would remain, sans physical body.

In regards to karma, I think there’s this general western perception of karma as “what goes around, comes around” but I don’t know if that perception is exactly in line with the eastern perception of karma.  I once read in a Sylvia Browne book – her take on karma, which I liked very much.  She said that karma is not the “punishment/reward” system that is typically viewed in western society.  Rather, it’s more about learning lessons and negating destructive behavior.  So for example, if a child is being bad – and you’re reprimanding the child – it’s not soley for the sake of “punishment” but moreso – for the sake of helping to correct that child from engaging in negative behavior.

To me, karma is a type of universal law.  Something along the lines of we get out of life that which we put into it.  But I don’t believe it’s a law we intricately understand – I imagine for that to happen, we’d have to have knowledge of the source of that law. 

I believe that many people believe in karma – but for karma to exist –I  would think just as laws are created by man, some type of universal law – would had to have been put into place by …something.  otherwise what would be the basis for the law.

But that aside, I think just as I understand general concepts of the law for which I live (don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t run red lights, etc) – I don’t understand the intricasies (sp.?) of the law – that’s why we have lawyers and judges and such.  I feel it’s maybe the same with karma – I think .. I have .. some sense… of maybe what it is…but it’s not something I really comprehend.

When you mentioned how nothing is “outside of science” – ok, maybe think of it instead as “different layers of science” – each one building on top of the other.

A cunning and thought provoking reply – well, it’s a good thing that I’m quite used to disappointing people…ha ha ha.

Have a great one…

0 likes

All right... until we have observable, recordable evidence of a god or gods, please leave it out of the science class room.

Most scientists have no problem with the idea of someone believing in God. As long as they do not let that belief cloud the observable facts. Religion can shape your worldview, but don't let it taint your data.

My problem with "intelligent design" is that it says - in a classroom setting - that there is something unscientifically provable at work, and presents it as sound science. It's contradictory. And let's not get started about those who would use it as a back door for creationism.

I want schools to teach comparative religion courses - there's a great place to discuss karma, creationism, yin, yang and whatever.

But keep science, science.

i'm not (nor have i actually been in) a classroom setting that taught Creationism or ID so i'm certainly not one to speak firsthand.  I would wonder though - and this is not to question what you're saying but more of a "wondering out loud" - well i guess my first question would be what types of classes actually teach ID?  Growing up in a public school curriculum in Brooklyn - i was never exposed to that.  For such classes that are to exist - do you present the lack of unscientifically provable theory as "sound science" or as something that would take a belief in that beyond "science" to accept/appreciate?

I ask because I can understand and appreciate the latter "class - there is potentially something that goes under the science, that creates the science itself - but it's not something we can readily comprehend or understand - it requires something different to appreciate - it requires faith".  But if a class was to present "God matter" as science - i wouldn't know how to comprehend that because that wouldn't seem to make sense to me.

0 likes

I want to comment on the memory bit.

I took a neurology course and know quite a bit about the brain as it is one of my favorite things to study about.

Memories ARE stored in the brain.  They are not "broadcast in by radio anttena".  I had to get a chuckle from this, I found it pretty funny, the idea, I am sorry, not to offend...

Anyway, memories are created by the hypothalamus (these C shaped things in the temporal lobes of our brains).  We all have two, one on each side...thank goodness.  So if one gets damaged, then you have a back up.  

Without a hypothalamus you would have no way to create memories.  Memories ARE indeed physical but microscopic in size...even atomic in size as they are nothing more than strands of proteins.  These proteins are created by the hypothalamus's (?sp) and then stored all through out the neocortex (the wrinkly part of the brain).  This is why if somebody damages and looses function in a part of their brain they may also loose some...but not all...of their memories.  

As far as creationism...nope, don't believe a word of it.  Don't believe in Adam and Eve, Noah, and I believe that Jesus was a great speaker with a kind heart, not the "son of God".  I don't believe that Mary was a virgin.  I don't really believe in "life after death" either.  

Live is a chemical reaction.  Like a campfire.  It is tough to get started, but once it gets going, it can go and go and go.  When we die, it is like a campfire being put out.  Basically the same thing.

However, I am an engineer and have years of training in math and science.  I am a very rigid scientist.  If something isn't logical, then it goes against all of my training and I will dismiss is as "hogwash" as most of the bible stores are to me.  I am vegetarian because I do not believe that the earth has enough recourses for people to eat meat, dairy, eggs, etc.  To me, vegetarianism is "logical"  (And like most engineers, my spelling is attrocious!  Ask me to calculate pressure drop in a pipe, or to calculate the temperature of a metal disk floating in space 93 Mmiles from the sun, I can do that, spell a word....nope, can't do that!)

(Did you know Vulcans are vegetarians?  I am also a Trekee!  Yeah Star Trek!!!  :-D)

0 likes

I want to comment on the memory bit.

I took a neurology course and know quite a bit about the brain as it is one of my favorite things to study about.

Memories ARE stored in the brain.  They are not "broadcast in by radio anttena".  I had to get a chuckle from this, I found it pretty funny, the idea, I am sorry, not to offend...

Anyway, memories are created by the hypothalamus (these C shaped things in the temporal lobes of our brains).  We all have two, one on each side...thank goodness.  So if one gets damaged, then you have a back up.  

Without a hypothalamus you would have no way to create memories.  Memories ARE indeed physical but microscopic in size...even atomic in size as they are nothing more than strands of proteins.  These proteins are created by the hypothalamus's (?sp) and then stored all through out the neocortex (the wrinkly part of the brain).  This is why if somebody damages and looses function in a part of their brain they may also loose some...but not all...of their memories.  

As far as creationism...nope, don't believe a word of it.  Don't believe in Adam and Eve, Noah, and I believe that Jesus was a great speaker with a kind heart, not the "son of God".  I don't believe that Mary was a virgin.  I don't really believe in "life after death" either.  

Live is a chemical reaction.  Like a campfire.  It is tough to get started, but once it gets going, it can go and go and go.  When we die, it is like a campfire being put out.  Basically the same thing.

However, I am an engineer and have years of training in math and science.  I am a very rigid scientist.  If something isn't logical, then it goes against all of my training and I will dismiss is as "hogwash" as most of the bible stores are to me.  I am vegetarian because I do not believe that the earth has enough recourses for people to eat meat, dairy, eggs, etc.  To me, vegetarianism is "logical"  (And like most engineers, my spelling is attrocious!  Ask me to calculate pressure drop in a pipe, or to calculate the temperature of a metal disk floating in space 93 Mmiles from the sun, I can do that, spell a word....nope, can't do that!)

(Did you know Vulcans are vegetarians?  I am also a Trekee!  Yeah Star Trek!!!  :-D)

so, asking the following in sincerity - how might your post above - account for non-standard memories.  I'll give 2 examples of what i would personally consider "non standard" memories:

1 - child/human prodigy - where an immediate talent is displayed without really having every practiced or having had to drill certain skills into one's memory

2 - memories that the experiencer had no logical reason to have.  There have been many well documented cases where say, a child had the memory of someone that had previously passed on.  They remembered that person's life, that person's family, the language that person may have spoken, the surroundings, even - the emotional attachments etc.  This being, from a child that had no way to access such facts.  Would there be an explanation of how such memories could come to exist for a child?

0 likes

sorry - one more question. I'm also interested to know the scientific reasoning for how psychic phenomena relates to memory.  I can speak for myself when I can say that i've had many dreams that have come true, quite decisively.  Given the stance that we are all a chemical reaction - it would stand to reason that there is no "future" until it unfolds.  Life being just one sequential moment .. after another.

However, if i'm personally having dreams that later come true - there would have to be a rationale, scientific explanation - but how can i dream of something, create a new memory - of something that hasn't happened, but yet .. does happen?  If science is one sequential moment after another, a series of random events that took place for which life happened to happen - each moment leading into the next - none of those moments being predefined in any way - from a scientific perspective, i would like to inquire what explanation would be offered for my own personal experiences and any experiences, by anyone - of a psychic phenomena type nature.

thanks....

0 likes

lol I can't post here.

Apparently I can, but when I put my responce in it won't let me put it in. It diverts me onto an odd page, I've reported this to the admin.

0 likes

well !!! if that's the way you want to be about it :P

0 likes

About what kind of classes ID would be taught in:
I know it was brought up with the Kansas school board that intelligent design should be presented as a theory along with evolution..not sure if anywhere actually does do that, but I just remember reading about it and how that one guy responded by writing the KS school board a letter saying they should also teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It is possible that some places teach it..there were quite a few students in my bio class last year that said that evolution was so stupid, why did we need to learn it, etc because ID was right. That surprised me. Even though I went to Catholic school through 8th grade, we were still taught evolution and there wasn't really a lot of Darwin bashing going on. So the fact that people just dismissed evolution shocked me.

0 likes

well !!! if that's the way you want to be about it :P

I think it's karma :-D

even editing already existing posts so it goes in won't work.

0 likes

About what kind of classes ID would be taught in:
I know it was brought up with the Kansas school board that intelligent design should be presented as a theory along with evolution..not sure if anywhere actually does do that, but I just remember reading about it and how that one guy responded by writing the KS school board a letter saying they should also teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It is possible that some places teach it..there were quite a few students in my bio class last year that said that evolution was so stupid, why did we need to learn it, etc because ID was right. That surprised me. Even though I went to Catholic school through 8th grade, we were still taught evolution and there wasn't really a lot of Darwin bashing going on. So the fact that people just dismissed evolution shocked me.

Thank you for that information.  If ID is offered at all, i definitely believe it should be offered only as theory, nothing more.  I think it should maybe be offered as part of a junior high or high school "theology" type class.  I agree with "and_it_spoke" - such a class should be taught as a well-rounded, no specific agenda - type class.  I believe there can be risks involved with teaching ID because i believe ID "can" be used as a front for creationism.  and in the wrong hands, the concept of ID can be abused and distorted (distorted, from the personal aspect of what I believe it should be taught as).

I don't get dismissing of evolution either.  I don't see why a belief in God would prevent someone from believing that God then made the laws of the Universe, which beget scientific discovery as man became curious about those laws and how they work.

0 likes

posted in 2-3 parts.

Hmm, we each might be referring to slightly different things in usage of the word “science”. If the following helps at all - when I talk about science – I’m just saying “how things work” or in simpler terms “explanation”.  I think (w/o wanting to speak for you) your definition of science is the whole detailed processed of “theory/test/results”, no?.  If it helps to read better – instead of saying “the science behind the science” maybe I can reword to “I believe there is something behind that science – that dictates the nature of the science itself”.  Maybe let know if that makes any further sense or not.

What I would call science would be the following:

Looking at evidence (possibly through, and in most cases through experimentation)

Looking at different possibilities that would reveal why the evidence occurs as it did.

Finding flaws in those possibilities. If none are found, then that would be a valid theory. However science can only give theories, as more evidence can always be added (at least according to David Hume).

Science relies upon inductive reasoning, we look at something happening, we look at it again to make sure it wasn’t a one of so to speak, we look at it in different circumstances.

For instance:

Two balls A and B.

I may note that when ball A hits ball B, ball A loses speed and ball B gains speed (at least for a while). That when ball A is moving and does not come into contact with ball B that ball A does not lose speed and there is no visible effect on ball B.

I may also note that when both balls are at a stand still, nothing happens to either.

Therefore I may have a theory that when Ball A hits Ball B energy from ball A is transferred into Ball B from the contact.

However this is not a closed case, as we may one day experience ball A hitting ball B with no effect, or that ball B grows legs, so on so forth.

0 likes

I can potentially provide what I think to be a good example of “science behind the science”.  There’s seems to be an understanding that the physical world we live in – is based on certain scientific principles, physics, chemistry, etc.  However, it seems that there is an even deeper layer of science – just below that science, referred to as quantum physics – which at this point I believe humanity is only on the cusp of learning about.  It seems that below the surface of physics as we understand it, stands a whole new science with rules and laws of a different nature.

It wouldn’t be a new science but a new sub heading in science, e.g. physics, biology, chemistry, all of them are applicable in some way or another to the other, if you get me. When you say new science in this context it sounds more like you’re talking about a science that just ignores those, but by sciences very nature it cannot, as any evidence has to be used if it’s applicable to the experiment/theory.

Sometimes what we believe – is not always based on empirical evidence per’se – but more of what we see, feel, experience in the world around us.  I have had quite a few dreams that come true to one sense or another.  I believe there is a phenomena, a greater understanding that I cannot account for – that accounts for these dreams.  It’s not something I can necessarily test, because I can’t will it to happen (at least, if I can – I do not know or “remember” how), I can’t capture it in a bottle and apply testing methods to it.  I could same the same about synchronicity.  It’s something I experience relatively often, sometimes to an acute degree.  It too, is not something that I can necessarily test, per’se – but it’s something that I experience.

It sounds like you’re saying:

This appears  to have happened, I don’t understanding it, thus meta physical theories, as they fit in a convenient way, will do just fine.

Now, at the same time – the examples I provided above – are my personal perception.  It goes w/o saying that someone else might dismiss things as coincidence (which is not something I believe in) – so when talking about religion/spirituality – I think it’s something outside the realm of science (as we understand it today) – but instead based on a more subtle but perhaps infinitely more substantial concept (in my opinion) … faith.

Why do you not believe in co-incidence?

Are you telling me, if I’m  thinking of chocolate spread, and my mum happens to have had some, and left it out, without knowing I want any, that wouldn’t be a co-incidence?

My theories is that the brain is not the receptacle of memory – but instead is the receiver.  I believe the brain is akin to a finely tuned spiritual radio – the signals are broadcast from outside the physical mind – but rec’d and interpreted by the mind. This could potentially explain one reason why brain damage could affect memory retention – because perhaps the wiring becomes damaged.  I don’t profess to give a be all end all answer though – there’s so many incidences for which we cannot account for with any one theory – possibly because we don’t have the right theory or aren’t yet at a point in our evolution where we could comprehend such a theory – I honestly don’t know. 

Can you give me some evidence to back this up and refute the current theory that it holds it? Or why your theory is more likely to be correct?

Which incidences?

In regards to your question about whether “memory requires the physical body” – it goes w/o saying that I don’t know.  I guess it depends on what type of memory we’re referring to.  It’s one of those old adages right, about what happens to us when we pass on – what parts of uf, if any – continue forward.  Our intellect, our relationships, our memories, our emotional states, I don’t know.  If presuming we do not fade from existence when passing on – and we go on in some form – I would imagine that whatever memories necessary – would remain, sans physical body.

What do you mean by what type of memory?

Have you ever seen mental abilities continue for a being once the physical body has died?

If not then why do you just presume that they continue?

Which memories would be necessary?

Sorry I just don’t seem to be able to get sense out of this.

0 likes

In regards to karma, I think there’s this general western perception of karma as “what goes around, comes around” but I don’t know if that perception is exactly in line with the eastern perception of karma.  I once read in a Sylvia Browne book – her take on karma, which I liked very much.  She said that karma is not the “punishment/reward” system that is typically viewed in western society.  Rather, it’s more about learning lessons and negating destructive behavior.  So for example, if a child is being bad – and you’re reprimanding the child – it’s not soley for the sake of “punishment” but moreso – for the sake of helping to correct that child from engaging in negative behavior.

To me, karma is a type of universal law.  Something along the lines of we get out of life that which we put into it.  But I don’t believe it’s a law we intricately understand – I imagine for that to happen, we’d have to have knowledge of the source of that law. 

I believe that many people believe in karma – but for karma to exist –I  would think just as laws are created by man, some type of universal law – would had to have been put into place by …something.  otherwise what would be the basis for the law.

The concept of karma in the west of the most part seems to be, you doing something bad you get punished etc. As if there’s a higher being at work. However in the east it seems to be more causation. If you do something bad, you will have bad karma that will affect you. It won’t do it as a punishment, it will just happen, in the same way that if I push a ball, it will move. I don’t believe it exists outside of a concept.

But that aside, I think just as I understand general concepts of the law for which I live (don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t run red lights, etc) – I don’t understand the intricacies of the law – that’s why we have lawyers and judges and such.  I feel it’s maybe the same with karma – I think .. I have .. some sense… of maybe what it is…but it’s not something I really comprehend.

It appears that you’re saying that karma explains something for us? I guess you need to go into more detail about what you believe in in terms of karma to explain that. However judges are there as far as I’m aware to decide what is fair, not to explain the law. If you don’t understand something then drawing theories seems intelligent, infact looking at the evidence and seeing what might cause it, that looks at science, but then believing those metaphysical beliefs based on the fact that the theory fits despite a limited understanding seems absurd, as we could surely make many theories, why do you believe one is right and another is not?

With regards to memory  do you think Plato was wrong when he said that we recollect everything and learn nothing in our human form? He speaks of a world of forms etc.

When you mentioned how nothing is “outside of science” – ok, maybe think of it instead as “different layers of science” – each one building on top of the other.

Instead of different layers I’d say different sub headings as that implies that they all effect each other without over riding one another, whilst layers sounds more like you’re saying that if something is found in another layer it might not go hand in hand with the first layer.

A cunning and thought provoking reply – well, it’s a good thing that I’m quite used to disappointing people…ha ha ha.

I don’t feel disappointed at all, sorry to erm, disappoint you in not being disappointing you...if that makes erm, sense.

Have a great one…

Same to you :)

To the trekkie:

I did not know that about vulcans, I knew it about tapol, from enterprise (the new one) but not that it was universal. Infact I thought from the kirk episodes that spock sometimes ate meat...

...What about tuvok in voyager, is he definitely one?

I think Riker has said some pro vegetarian things although he's also been known to eat real meat, which is confusing

0 likes

sorry - one more question. I'm also interested to know the scientific reasoning for how psychic phenomena relates to memory.  I can speak for myself when I can say that i've had many dreams that have come true, quite decisively.  Given the stance that we are all a chemical reaction - it would stand to reason that there is no "future" until it unfolds.  Life being just one sequential moment .. after another.

However, if i'm personally having dreams that later come true - there would have to be a rationale, scientific explanation - but how can i dream of something, create a new memory - of something that hasn't happened, but yet .. does happen?  If science is one sequential moment after another, a series of random events that took place for which life happened to happen - each moment leading into the next - none of those moments being predefined in any way - from a scientific perspective, i would like to inquire what explanation would be offered for my own personal experiences and any experiences, by anyone - of a psychic phenomena type nature.

thanks....

As far as talent, genetics, physical make up, there are a lot of explanations for that.  For example, somebody who is taller will naturally be better at basketball than somebody who is short.  Somebody with long narrow fingers would be better at playing the violen or guitar than somebody with short fingers.  Then there is genetic make up.  Different parts of our brains do differnt things.  For example, the amigdala is responsible for anger.  If a person has a large amigdala then they would TEND to be more of a "quick to anger" type of person.  This could be a good and bad thing.  If you have a larger than normal, or more developed cerebellum than you would have more coordination than someone with a less devoloped cerebellum, probably be better at gymnastics and sports in general.  You can combat your genetic makeup through training, that "quick to anger" person with a large amigdala can do nothing about their amigdala size but can learn to control it with anger management.

Depression for instance, is a lack of either (or both) seratonin or norepinephrine (nora-pin-ef-rene).  Lack of dopamine is responsible for parkinsins disease, just like lack of seratonin is responsible for depression.  Lack of norepinephrine can cause ADD and depression, a fluxuation of norepinephrine is a cause of bipolar disorder (something I was diagnosed with but I don't believe it!)  Epinephrine is responsible for the "fight or flight".  Conclusion, brain chemicals also play a huge role.  Neurons do not touch eachother.  They communicate through microscoptic gaps called synapsis.  A faint electrical impulse causes by positively and negetavely charged sodium and potasium ions is transferred at near the speed of light down the axion of a neuron.  When it gets to the end, depending on the signal, a chemical is released, for  instance, if it is a signal to be happy, it may be seratonin that is released into the synapse.  The next neuron has receptor cells that can feel the chemical and when it does it releases its own eletrical impulse into its own neuron, and the signal goes on and on from neuron to neuron in this matter.  The seratonin in the synapse then drains out, and is reabsorbed by it's host neuron.  But the longer it is in the synapse, the longer the impluse is active.  So if you take a "seratonin reuptake inhibitor" then you inhibit the neuron, or slow it, from reabsorbing seratonin, making that "feel good" feeling last longer and be stronger.  This is what anti depressants do.

Okay, sorry, got carried away, I love neurology, love to talk about.  Just tell me to shut up! :-D

As far as memories that people have that they can't account for.  There is probably a logical explanation for that.  De-ja-vu can be explained easily, you most likely were in a place that looked just like the place that gave you de-ja-vue, a similar explanation probably could be given for the un-explained memories thing.  Either that, perhaps the child saw something on TV, or something of that nature, in a book...

Dreams of the future, easy to explain.  The brain is very selfish, as are dreams.  The dreams of the future are most likely what you want to happen..or not...but somehow you probably made the said event happen subconcously because you dreamed about it.  OR, it is something like your mom dying in a car crash and you had dreamed that would happen, you probalby had noticed at some point that your mom was a bad driver and thougth "she is going to die in a car crash" but forgot about it two minutes later...but your brain did not forget.  You dreamt about it because it is something you feel strongly about.  

Now if you dream about somebody ELSES future then that is something a bit harder to explain.

There are lots of logical explanations.  

0 likes

To the trekkie:

I did not know that about vulcans, I knew it about tapol, from enterprise (the new one) but not that it was universal. Infact I thought from the kirk episodes that spock sometimes ate meat...

...What about tuvok in voyager, is he definitely one?

I think Riker has said some pro vegetarian things although he's also been known to eat real meat, which is confusing

Don't know about Tuvok.  But the vulcans in Star Trek may eat "meat" because in Star Trek it isn't meat.  It is synthesized in food replicators.  So no animals were killed.  They create matter from pure energy.  As the physics theory goes, if you take pure energy you can split it and get matter and anti matter.  And if you combine matter and antimatter you get pure energy (that what the space ships run on, matter/anti matter, but if you get a leak in your anti matter containment you explode).  As Riker said in one episode "we no longer enslave animals for food".  And gave a disgusted look at the thought of killing an animal for food.  It was great, I loved that part in that episode.  I think it was in the second season because Tasha Yar was still alive and she was killed in the second season.

0 likes

About what kind of classes ID would be taught in:
I know it was brought up with the Kansas school board that intelligent design should be presented as a theory along with evolution..not sure if anywhere actually does do that, but I just remember reading about it and how that one guy responded by writing the KS school board a letter saying they should also teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It is possible that some places teach it..there were quite a few students in my bio class last year that said that evolution was so stupid, why did we need to learn it, etc because ID was right. That surprised me. Even though I went to Catholic school through 8th grade, we were still taught evolution and there wasn't really a lot of Darwin bashing going on. So the fact that people just dismissed evolution shocked me.

A couple of things... as a medical professional who has taken (some would argue too many!) extensively in-depth biology/ anatomy/ physiology courses at a graduate study level, let me clear one thing up: evolution is not a theory. Evolution observably occurs-- look at cars from the 1940s and cars manufactured this year; look at the average height of Americans today compared to the average height of Americans a hundred years ago; consider that the Great Dane and the Chihuahua belong to the same species (the differences are due to selective breeding, a human-controlled mechanism of evolution).... Evolution is defined as 'change over time,' which clearly occus; it is usually used to refer to change over time within a population of living beings, which also clearly occurs. The point that intimidates those who don't want it taught in science class is that (a) they think it conflicts with their (already believed-in) version of how the human race got started, & (b)the bible doesn't seem to mention it. How life got started on the planet-- or how human life got going-- can be a point of faith if you want it to be; but that doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs. Refering to evolution as a theory is like insisting that gravity is just a wild & crazy hypothesis.

As for ID, ok- not sure i can go with you down that path, but hypothetically if there were an an omniscient deity in charge of things, wouldn't you hope it would be one smart enough to design a system as freakin' brilliant and beautiful as evolution? Sure seems to me like you'd have more, not less, awe for a deity that could set that up; I don't fully understand why so many people get so bent out of shape about it...

UNLESS your whole religion and way of life depend on making your conclusions first, and then bending the facts to justify the conclusion you want to reach-- which is the opposite of science, and should not masquerade as such.

To go back to the original question: my hypothesis would be that there aren't terribly many vegan creationists, because if you have learned to form conclusions first and bend the facts to support them, the line of reasoning would go like this: "I like bacon; bacon must be good for me; bacon has protein in it; humans need protein to be healthy; so bacon is good for me." Maybe a huge number of creationist vegans will respond to this thread, providing data that would not support my hypothesis; in which case, I would consider revising my view of reality, and be glad that I knew more than before...

In my mind, there's no reason for science and spirituality to not get along. My dogs and cat live together quite happily; but they aren't the same creature, and should not be treated as such.

0 likes

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
This appears  to have happened, I don’t understanding it, thus meta physical theories, as they fit in a convenient way, will do just fine.

There does not exist - an explanation for everything that happens in the universe or even closer to home – in our day to day lives.  I don’t have a deep need to understand everything that happens nor necessarily to categorize it.  Something may happen in my day and I may think “oh – this is probably because of so and so”.  It may just be a random theory I have, I may be introduced to new ways of thinking that my affect that theory – or I may even come against fact to completely change my way of thinking.  When it happens, it happens – but it’s not something that I think about to such a great extent.  It’s like walking through the wind, I don’t necessarily need to have a college degree in “weather” to appreciate the cool wind blowing across my face.

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
Why do you not believe in co-incidence?

Are you telling me, if I’m  thinking of chocolate spread, and my mum happens to have had some, and left it out, without knowing I want any, that wouldn’t be a co-incidence?

It’s hard to give a “why” – as faith isn’t about science, it’s about “feeling”.  I believe there is an order to the universe – that things happen with an intent.  I have felt what I would define as synchronicity many times – which for me, helps shape a sense of order. 

When we hear people talk about how we don’t know how to talk to “God” – I think it’s not that we don’t know how to talk, but rather that we forgot to listen.  For me, dismissing things as coincidence is losing a valuable opportunity to “listen”.  Again, it’s more of an inner feeling – so if you’re looking for something scientific – there’s nothing I can offer you, it’s not something I feel the need for myself.

As far as your example w/the chocolate spread – I’ll say that my opinion would be that interacting with the universe is a very personal experience – each person will interpret differently.  I’m nobody to tell you, nor do I have any interest in dictating to you what is/can be considered/should be … a coincidence – that’s for you, as an individual to decide. 

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
Can you give me some evidence to back this up and refute the current theory that it holds it? Or why your theory is more likely to be correct?

No, because it’s a personal theory, not a scientific one.  I can give you factors that influence my personal views – but i have no evidence to give you “evidence” because I have no desire to “prove” something.  I enjoy having a discussion for the sake of discussion.  If the intent of the discussion is to prove who might be more wrong, or more right – I don’t have an interest in that.  I think too much time is wasted on trying to prove someone’s theory wrong/right instead of just … listening…

As “weird” as it may sound to think of the brain as a “transmitter” – I think that for anyone who believes in life after death – that concept would make perfect sense.  While I understand that you may not believe in life after death – many others do.  Many believe that when they pass, they’ll meet with their loved ones that have already passed (family, friends, pets, etc).  If that were to be the case, in order to remember that “so and so” was your mother – that memory would have to follow you – outside of the body, the memory of this person being your mother, what defined her as your mother, etc.  While I imagine there’s more to the after-life then just that, that’s an example for the sake of simplicity.

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
Which incidences?

Sure - I actually supplied some in my previous post to SnowQueen690.

In regards to your question about whether “memory requires the physical body” – it goes w/o saying that I don’t know.  I guess it depends on what type of memory we’re referring to.  It’s one of those old adages right, about what happens to us when we pass on – what parts of uf, if any – continue forward.  Our intellect, our relationships, our memories, our emotional states, I don’t know.  If presuming we do not fade from existence when passing on – and we go on in some form – I would imagine that whatever memories necessary – would remain, sans physical body.

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
What do you mean by what type of memory?

Meaning, if I pass on – do I retain memory of my personality, the history of all events that occurred in my life, etc – or do those memory fade but rather whatever *I* am, is left with imprints of emotions and lessons learned. 

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
Have you ever seen mental abilities continue for a being once the physical body has died?

If not then why do you just presume that they continue?

Which memories would be necessary?

In order for that to happen, there would have to be contact with the being that previously inhabited a physical body.  There can be many different ways of defining “contact” – it can be a dream visitation, can be an event that occurred at just such a perfect time to make the experiencer relate that event with a loved one that has passed, it can be a conscious experience of actually seeing an apparition, or perhaps even – a haunting from entities that oneself was not personally familiar with.  While there are many people that claim to have experienced a wide range of events listed above – you were asking about *me* personally and for me – the answer is “yes”. 

I could sit here and list them - for the time being, I’ll say that while I *feel* these personal events were related to beings that may have passed – it’s one of those things that is, again – a personal experience.  There’s no amount of me saying “I feel this or that” that would make anyone else feel the same.  Writing them down doesn’t prove any legitimacy – and being human I sometimes wonder, “is this what I think it was?”.  Similar to what I said above, these are things that need to be “felt” on a personal level – it’s not something that one can say “oh yeah, well this and this happened – so it proves Conclusion “A””.

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
Sorry I just don’t seem to be able to get sense out of this.

Which is my point – you don’t have to get sense out of this.  We’re having a discussion, not trying to convince one another of anything (speaking for myself, that is). If you don’t get sense out of it, that’s ok.  You don’t have too.  It’s like if I was talking to someone that couldn’t see and I told them about something random, say “mountains”.  Maybe they would say “that’s nonsense – I can’t see mountains – so they don’t exist”.  Now, I can take them to the mountain, and they can feel and experience and make their own observations – but they won’t see … what I see. 

So my advice is don’t try to get sense out of anything, just discuss with open/honest intentions – without need to convince/prove/disprove – and don’t feel the need to get anything from the conversation, per’se.

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
The concept of karma in the west of the most part seems to be, you doing something bad you get punished etc. As if there’s a higher being at work. However in the east it seems to be more causation. If you do something bad, you will have bad karma that will affect you. It won’t do it as a punishment, it will just happen, in the same way that if I push a ball, it will move. I don’t believe it exists outside of a concept.

For me, karma w/o ID doesn’t make sense.  If the world is just an accidental blip, as are humans, just something that happened – it’s just science and science is “matter” – karma is not something that affects matter – it’s more ambigious.  It affects “our actions” or the results of our actions. If you push a ball – yes it will move – but the movement has absolutely no bearing on the ramifications of your actions, nor of the balls actions. 

If however – you do something bad, let’s say you murder someone – this “causation” you speak of, will in turn bring about a reaction commensurate with the act of the murder you committed. 

What about people that commit atrocious acts against humanity – and then they die – a happy peaceful death.  Where is the karma there?  Did it skip them?  In a universe of simply matter – how would this system of “causation” ever take place. 

For ever action – it results in a resulting action, on simple terms – you eat – you crap, you drink – you piss, you walk – you step on a bug, etc…  But if the universe is simply “matter” – nothing else – there’s then no accountability for any of those actions.  I kill someone – great day to me!  I steal your car – sucks to be you!  I eat animals – who cares - ..the environment, screw the environment – I’m here, then I’m gone – same for everyone – all action – no consequences – we just “do” and then “caustic shit happens” but happens only as a reflex – having no ties whatsoever to the nature of any action that we have committed. 

This doesn’t make any sense to me.

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
It appears that you’re saying that karma explains something for us? I guess you need to go into more detail about what you believe in in terms of karma to explain that. However judges are there as far as I’m aware to decide what is fair, not to explain the law. If you don’t understand something then drawing theories seems intelligent, infact looking at the evidence and seeing what might cause it, that looks at science, but then believing those metaphysical beliefs based on the fact that the theory fits despite a limited understanding seems absurd, as we could surely make many theories, why do you believe one is right and another is not?

I already did – about karma serving to break us from negative habits.

I’ll accept that you find certain concepts absurb.  I have no desire to convince you otherwise.

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
With regards to memory  do you think Plato was wrong when he said that we recollect everything and learn nothing in our human form? He speaks of a world of forms etc.

Sorry, I’m not familiar with the works of Plato and I’d have to research the exact text you’re referring to and also – the context in which the text was presented to give anything resembling a viable opinion.  I’m not able to understand based on the example you provided above.

author=asleep on a sunbeam wrote:
Instead of different layers I’d say different sub headings as that implies that they all effect each other without over riding one another, whilst layers sounds more like you’re saying that if something is found in another layer it might not go hand in hand with the first layer.

My point was only in attempting to find a middle ground so that we can both have a common point of reference to make communication a bit more straight-forward.  In the end, I would say to interpret science/layers/foundations as however it tends to make sense to you.

Cheers!

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments

More Posts Like This