sinequanon:


Learning to relax the physical brain. It is the brain that is aliased to TIME.

Can you dream? If you can, then you can relax the brain and engage something deeper.

Let me give you an example...

A group of us were trying to recall the six main characters in the game of Cluedo.

They are...

Miss Scarlett
Professor Plum
Mrs. Peacock (the blue piece)
Reverend Green
Colonel Mustard
Mrs. White

ALL but Mrs. Peacock are names of colours, and we got those 5 immediately. Nobody could remember Mrs. Peacock. They started to discuss it, and prompt each other vigorously.

I left the group and went to "think" by myself. Half a minute later, I produced the answer, much to their surprise.

I had left because I knew that the "logical" brain was not going to produce the answer. The logical brain and logical thinking was going to BLOCK the answer.

I relaxed my thinking and went into a perceptive state -- NO LOGIC.

The word "TURQUOISE" just came to me! I could feel it channel to my brain from my consciouness.

I remember thinking "no, that's not it", and relaxing again.

Then the word "TURKEY",and then "PEACOCK" came to me. There was no thinking involved, just relaxation. And I could FEEL the words entering, and my brain picking them up and deciphering them. It is not something you can understand, unless you have made the effort to develop it. I could feel something deeper, my consciousness, prompting my logical brain with things it could understand.

(NB the link TURKEY sounds like TURQUOISE, but is also the name of a bird, with some similarity to a peacock.)

OMG!!! Who is this guy? I didn't even see this post I wouldn't have responded to his other post, I thought I was having a discussion with you I didnt know I was talking to my self. WHAT?? you've got to be kidding me. This is what you think? WTF... I'm done

Thsuperiorman:


If god created time, does it mean that God and the universe (whatever it was) were at a freezed state (absolute stagnation)? Even if that is true (which is evidently far from it). Don't you think there is an interval between when God comes out of being freezed to being unfreezed? That duration is time. What about the interval between when God did not create time and when he did, that too is an interval, which we call TIME gdmit.

And yet you boldly say that's what you believe. Your belief is irrelevant to the facts. Just like I said to the OP, How can you tell me how tooth ache feels when you don't have tooth ache?

I fail to see your point.


What are you disagreeing with?

That God created time or what?

AllNaijaBlogger:



I fail to see your point.


What are you disagreeing with?

That God created time or what?

If you fail to see my point how did you know I was disagreeing?
Anyway, Yes God(if it exists or existed) couldn't have created time because the interval or difference between non-existence and existence is Time.

PastorAIO:


This sounds a lot like, 'judge christianity for itself and not by looking at christians'.

The point which perhaps sinequanon is trying to make is that Human activities will always remain human activities. We humans are filled with such pretensions. in the case above it is the claim to cold, rational, objectivity.

science is practiced by Humans, as religion. You cannot separate science from the humans that do it. As you cannot separate religion from the humans that do it.

It is a nonsense that christians spout when they say: religion is man's attempt to reach god while christianity is god's attempt to reach man. or words to that effect. It is a totally pretentious nonsense. It all comes from man.

It is a nonsense that scientismists spout when they claim that they are being purely objective.


As Nietzsche put it: Human, All too Human.

I understand what he is saying. But the shortfall of his suggestion will send us on searches into the individual souls of each and every scientist to the point of absurdity. We would have to concern ourselves with how Carl Jung, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Darwin etc did their science. We will lose sight of the larger picture of science, which is a sum of efforts, and a standard for truth

Kay17:


I understand what he is saying. But the shortfall of his suggestion will send us on searches into the individual souls of each and every scientist to the point of absurdity. We would have to concern ourselves with how Carl Jung, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Darwin etc did their science. We will lose sight of the larger picture of science, which is a sum of efforts, and a standard for truth

It's what people say about religion. They talk about their particular "big picture" and "standard for truth". They will claim that it would be absurd to scrutinize their prophets, leaders or followers, or the writers of their holy books. You are rather drawing attention to the similarity.

I have not missed the implication in your phrase "standard for truth" vs "the truth".

But when you have an exclusive "standard for truth", then you are treating it as "the truth".

And basic unchanging assumptions (materialism in the case of science) + exclusivity = dogma.

Thsuperiorman:


If you fail to see my point how did you know I was disagreeing?
Anyway, Yes God(if it exists or existed) couldn't have created time because the interval or difference between non-existence and existence is Time.

The bold in your comment is false.

Can you perceive time? Do you feel time? If I locked you in a dark room for 3 days, would you know that it was for 3 days that you were locked up, after being released?


Now, tell me, what is the difference between you and a dead man in that dark room? Both of you do not perceive time and both of you will both stink after 3 days

AllNaijaBlogger:



The bold in your comment is false.

Can you perceive time? Do you feel time? If I locked you in a dark room for 3 days, would you know that it was for 3 days that you were locked up, after being released?


Now, tell me, what is the difference between you and a dead man in that dark room? Both of you do not perceive time and both of you will both stink after 3 days

After all this, your point is

plaetton:


After all this, your point is

That time does not separate the living and non-living as TheSuperiorMan claimed.


That was very clear in my post. I wonder why you are confused.

AllNaijaBlogger:



That time does not separate the living and non-living as TheSuperiorMan claimed.


That was very clear in my post. I wonder why you are confused.

Time does not separate the living and non living?
What exactly does that mean?
And how does it prove that god created time?

plaetton:

Time does not separate the living and non living?
What exactly does that mean?
And how does it prove that god created time?

What does it mean? Why are you asking me? Why not ask the person who made the claim- TheSuperiorMan.


I also never stated that as the proof of God creating time.


Please, stop being antagonistic for no reason. There is an easier way to ask about what I believe

AllNaijaBlogger:



What does it mean? Why are you asking me? Why not ask the person who made the claim- TheSuperiorMan.


I also never stated that as the proof of God creating time.


Please, stop being antagonistic for no reason. There is an easier way to ask about what I believe

I am not
A

AllNaijaBlogger:



What does it mean? Why are you asking me? Why not ask the person who made the claim- TheSuperiorMan.


I also never stated that as the proof of God creating time.


Please, stop being antagonistic for no reason. There is an easier way to ask about what I believe

I am not antagonizing you.
I understand what The superior man is saying, I am just trying to understand your points.

sinequanon:


It's what people say about religion. They talk about their particular "big picture" and "standard for truth". They will claim that it would be absurd to scrutinize their prophets, leaders or followers, or the writers of their holy books. You are rather drawing attention to the similarity.

Which would be valid. It is an error to confuse Jesus' Teachings with what a rabid pope did in the 14th century. It is super glaring that in as far as our minds can allow, the concepts themselves are not the same with the practitioners. It is that simple, regardless of how tempting it is to confuse them for one another.

I have not missed the implication in your phrase "standard for truth" vs "the truth".

But when you have an exclusive "standard for truth", then you are treating it as "the truth".

And basic unchanging assumptions (materialism in the case of science) + exclusivity = dogma.

Please! That's an overstretch. Of course, most of the Western world believes in objectivity and that translates to a belief in truths. And I don't understand your phobia for assumptions. I don't see anything wrong with them, they help with making sleep easier. And how do you define materialism?

Kay17:


Which would be valid. It is an error to confuse Jesus' Teachings with what a rabid pope did in the 14th century. It is super glaring that in as far as our minds can allow, the concepts themselves are not the same with the practitioners. It is that simple, regardless of how tempting it is to confuse them for one another.

It is good that you can now see religion and science in the same light.

Your FAITH is in something that does not exist in practice.

We can agree to disagree on the "validity" of that.

Kay17:
Please! That's an overstretch. Of course, most of the Western world believes in objectivity and that translates to a belief in truths. And I don't understand your phobia for assumptions. I don't see anything wrong with them, they help with making sleep easier. And how do you define materialism?

A belief is a belief. Anyone can label their beliefs "truths". Another symptom of religion.

And I'm afraid the emotional side of things and "phobia" is all yours. All I am doing is calling an ASSUMPTION an ASSUMPTION. It is you and your attendant trolls, who try to dress them up as "truths".

You can look materialism up in Wiki.

Thsuperiorman:


Lol... Do you know what being objective means for crying out loud? Subjectivity is the artificial knowledge OBJECTIVITY on the other hand is an independent existence. How on earth can someone claim to be objective? Or better still, Name JUST ONE scientist who claims to be objective. Lmao

Let's go back to school.

objectivity
ˌɒbdʒɛkˈtɪvɪti,ˌɒbdʒɪkˈtɪvɪti/
noun
the quality of being objective.
"the piece lacked any objectivity"
synonyms: impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality

subjective
səbˈdʒɛktɪv/
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionistic; More

Now, what I don't understand is ... if you don't think any scientist can be objective then what is your argument. We are saying that science, a means of enquiry practiced by humans cannot be purely objective and you protest by reiterating the same thing.

1+1=2 is an objective fact. On the other hand, every nonsense you cough out that contradicts that or any other fact for that matter, is SUBJECTIVE. For god's sake

one plus one equals 2 is mathematics. Maths serves Science but it is not science. I hope I don't have to go into a long thing to break this down for you. Maths is a system that can be explored and developed without any reference to the real world, just by sticking to the rules of Maths.

PastorAIO:
one plus one equals 2 is mathematics. Maths serves Science but it is not science. I hope I don't have to go into a long thing to break this down for you. Maths is a system that can be explored and developed without any reference to the real world, just by sticking to the rules of Maths.

LOL!

Yesterday, I was going to reply, myself, but d ting weak me.

The 1 + 1 = 2 argument is only regurgitated. The internet warriors who do it have no idea about the nature of mathematics to be able to discuss the argument.

Good luck trying to break it down for the likes of Thsuperiorman!

plaetton:


Agreed.
But science, unlike religion, never assumed or promised to take humankind to anywhere. It never even assumed or promised to bring out any good in humans. It is just an open system of enquiry that could lead in any direction at any given time.

There's a false dichotomy here. Science as a method of enquiry cannot be compared to Religion as an ideology. Scientism on the other hand, and any claim to deserve more of society's resources because science is more worthwhile than any other activity ... is a different story.

I wonder who spoke on behalf of all of religion to claim that religion will take mankind somewhere, or bring good in humans. I happen to know of individuals (a lot of them not even scientists) who have spoken on behalf of all of science to claim to take mankind somewhere. Dawkins springs to mind.

sinequanon:


You've heard the expression, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

Ironically, science spends a lot of time talking about empirical evidence yet wishes to be assessed in the abstract. What science IS, IS a standard of practice for PEOPLE. Science, as we are defining it, leverages human social organization, peer structure, social and philosophical exclusivity and philosophical universality in its standards. It defines soundness and validity in terms of these human factors. The benefit of science is to be judged in its practice.

I think a mistake would be to take the words of certain people who claim to speak for Science and then say " Science ...talk....about empirical evidence....."

These people are not Science itself, and many of them are not even scientists. It's like the many MOGs and pastors that we have that speak on God's behalf.

PastorAIO:
Science as a method of enquiry cannot be compared to Religion as an ideology.

Both are dogmatic.

Both are about control. It is a fundamental principle in science that you only investigate what you can potentially predict, nail down and control. Science also deems anything that cannot potentially be controlled as non-existent. Of what use, scientists ask rhetorically, would such knowledge be?

plaetton:
^^^
And the point we continue to emphasize is that science has evolved a vetting system , a system of introspection, a process whose primary purpose is to weed out prejudices and maintain as much objectivity as possible.
That is good enough, and sets it worlds apart from religion.

You cannot compare a hotly debated scientific topics like TOE or global warming to a Papal Bull or an Islamic fatwa, or Joshua's vision where he supposedly watches European league soccer match with god.

It similar to democratic nation and a fascist dictatorship. But are run by humans, both are imperfect, but both are worlds apart on they achieve their goals.

Please lay out this vetting system for us. And specifically those aspects of the vetting system that cannot be found in religious discourse.

A Papal Bull or an Islamic fatwa are not debated at all, as far as I know. However there are religious issues that do get hotly debated. You are comparing a lot of false dichotomies.

PastorAIO:


I think a mistake would be to take the words of certain people who claim to speak for Science and then say " Science ...talk....about empirical evidence....."

These people are not Science itself, and many of them are not even scientists. It's like the many MOGs and pastors that we have that speak on God's behalf.

Science has a system of accreditation and authority as a fundamental part of its method.

Authorities in science define what science is. Even if the authority becomes corrupt, it still defines what science is. Corruption is implicitly acknowledged in the methodology. So when top scientists defend science from its outcomes, that is the voice of science.

Ministers and Pastors don't often claim to have created god, so I don't see a good parallel. Scientists developed science, and it is "validly" theirs to define and speak for. However, it doesn't mean that their words are truth, just because it carries the label and connotation that is science.

AllNaijaBlogger:

The bold in your comment is false.

Can you perceive time? Do you feel time? If I locked you in a dark room for 3 days, would you know that it was for 3 days that you were locked up, after being released?

Considering your very little knowledge about the subject matter (no offense) you got A LOT of nerves calling that statement false. I never related time to anything, I never said you could feel time, I'm sorry if that's how you understood it. But yes, you can perceive time and even within your perception of time, time progresses. Even if you lost track of the conventional progression of time your actions are still bounded by time in a different dimension but, still progressive.

You clearly do not understand what time is. Let me explain. (I really hope you get it this time) Time is ANY interval between occurrences. Whether or not I perceive time however is irrelevant. The thing is there exist an interval between when I was locked up and when I came out that interval is time. While being locked up, I blink my eyes - the duration between when I blink my eyes and open them can be measured with time. The duration between when my hand was still and when I moved my hand is time. That progressive space between occurrences (as long as the world doesn't pause) is time. EVERY progressive occurrence whether subjective or objective is based on TIME. Time is independent, my perception of time is irrelevant to the fact that time progresses. I lost track of time while locked up doesn't mean time does not progress.

If you don't understand that, I don't know how else to explain it, but if you do, think about it and answer yourself if God could have created time.

AllNaijaBlogger:

Now, tell me, what is the difference between you and a dead man in that dark room? Both of you do not perceive time and both of you will both stink after 3 days

You clearly do not have basic knowledge of how to lay down arguments. Do you even read what you write?

PastorAIO:


Now, what I don't understand is ... if you don't think any scientist can be objective then what is your argument. We are saying that science, a means of enquiry practiced by humans cannot be purely objective and you protest by reiterating the same thing.

My bad, I'm sorry. What I meant to say was, which scientific theory is subjective (not purely objective)?

PastorAIO:
one plus one equals 2 is mathematics. Maths serves Science but it is not science. I hope I don't have to go into a long thing to break this down for you. Maths is a system that can be explored and developed without any reference to the real world, just by sticking to the rules of Maths.

Who said maths was science? I said 1+1=2 is an objective fact.

And again you said... "With no reference to the real world? Are you saying if I have 4 oranges and give 2 to you and 2 to your brother I didn't share them equally? Maths is an expression used to explain or understand quantitative relationships of the real world.

sinequanon:


It is good that you can now see religion and science in the same light.

But do you?

Your FAITH is in something that does not exist in practice.

Faith in what? What's the something?

A belief is a belief. Anyone can label their beliefs "truths". Another symptom of religion.

And I'm afraid the emotional side of things and "phobia" is all yours. All I am doing is calling an ASSUMPTION an ASSUMPTION. It is you and your attendant trolls, who try to dress them up as "truths".

You can look materialism up in Wiki.

Where did I ever insist assumptions were truths?!

But how materialism affect me?!

Kay17:


But do you?

See title.

Kay17:
Faith in what? What's the something?

Your abstraction of science, that does not exist in practice.

Kay17:
Where did I ever insist assumptions were truths?!

When you talk about "truth" or "truths".

You don't realize they are based on fundamental assumptions, and are assumptions by association.

Kay17:
But how materialism affect me?!

Not realizing how it underpins your outlook.

sinequanon:


See title.

Your abstraction of science, that does not exist in practice.

But the implication of me seeing Science and Religion together, was as concepts isolated from their practitioners. So i asking if you conceded to that. Apparently that is a no since you don't think Science and Religion are concepts per se but behavioural results.

When you talk about "truth" or "truths".

You don't realize they are based on fundamental assumptions, and are assumptions by association.

Not realizing how it underpins your outlook.

But all these you have said are untrue about my position. I never insisted that assumptions were truths nor associated truths with assumptions. I have not stamped my feet on the ground and asserted 'this and this' are truths. I never did. You must be confusing my handle for someone else.

Neither have I made any ranging assertions about materialism.

You are chasing red herrings.

sinequanon:


Science has a system of accreditation and authority as a fundamental part of its method.

Authorities in science define what science is. Even if the authority becomes corrupt, it still defines what science is. Corruption is implicitly acknowledged in the methodology. So when top scientists defend science from its outcomes, that is the voice of science.

Ministers and Pastors don't often claim to have created god, so I don't see a good parallel. Scientists developed science, and it is "validly" theirs to define and speak for. However, it doesn't mean that their words are truth, just because it carries the label and connotation that is science.

But the science in its earliest years was not science because there was no accreditation authority, right?

Would experiments performed in schools or in the privacy of a home in the absence of an accreditation authority, amount to science?

What if these bureaucratic scientists turn their focus and search for metaphysical entities, would that still be science?

Kay17:
But the implication of me seeing Science and Religion together, was as concepts isolated from their practitioners. So i asking if you conceded to that. Apparently that is a no since you don't think Science and Religion are concepts per se but behavioural results.

I have explained why I say that science without reference to people is a mischaracterization. Science defines a system of arbitration based on people. Science applies people. But we can agree to disagree.

Do you think machines could potentially take over the task of doing science. Maybe you think they would do a better job, avoiding all debate and having automatic rule-based consensus?

Kay17:
But all these you have said are untrue about my position. I never insisted that assumptions were truths nor associated truths with assumptions. I have not stamped my feet on the ground and asserted 'this and this' are truths. I never did. You must be confusing my handle for someone else.

Neither have I made any ranging assertions about materialism.

You are chasing red herrings.

You said that you believe that science is a standard for "truth".

But science makes a basic assumption -- materialism -- so, your "truths" are based on these assumptions.

Just because you are not explicitly calling an assumption truth does not mean that you are not inadvertently implying it.

sinequanon:


Science has a system of accreditation and authority as a fundamental part of its method.

Authorities in science define what science is. Even if the authority becomes corrupt, it still defines what science is. Corruption is implicitly acknowledged in the methodology. So when top scientists defend science from its outcomes, that is the voice of science.

Ministers and Pastors don't often claim to have created god, so I don't see a good parallel. Scientists developed science, and it is "validly" theirs to define and speak for. However, it doesn't mean that their words are truth, just because it carries the label and connotation that is science.

As see I continue to read this thread, I am reminded of the words attributed to Jesus where said " Remove ye the log from your before you notice the speck in another person's eye '.

The extremely narrow minded, dogmatic and irrational hatred for the scientific method is both baffling and laughable.

sinequanon:


Science has a system of accreditation and authority as a fundamental part of its method.

Every discipline has a system of accreditation and authority as a fundamental part of its method.
To single out science is just silly and disengenous.

sinequanon:



Authorities in science define what science is.

Correction: You mean authorities in the scientific method.

Scientific methodology evolves, and is democratic.
Since everyone is not scientifically literate, those who choose to pursue and acquire scientific knowledge obviously have the duty to interpret for the rest.
Again, this is the same with every discipline. The good thing is that science is an open system that allows and gives equal opportunity to everyone.
If the people who pursue and acquire scientific knowledge cannot define what they pursue, who is more competent to define science for them?

sinequanon:


Even if the authority becomes corrupt, it still defines what science is.

Again, a silly convoluted logic based on a false assumptions about what science is and what a scientist is.

sinequanon:


Corruption is implicitly acknowledged in the methodology. So when top scientists defend science from its outcomes, that is the voice of science.

Meaningless word salad.

Talk about logic, this is a very poor example of serious logic.

sinequanon:


Scientists developed science, and it is "validly" theirs to define and speak for.

This is perhaps the silliest thing I have read this month, and considering that it is coming from an " Intellectual ", I think It might break the record for the year.

Are there any doubts to anyone now , that this fellow did not, does not , and has belligerently refused to understand what science is ?

Scientists evolved The Scientific Method.
No one created science.

Someone needs to get a copy of " Science for Dummies ".

PastorAIO:


Please lay out this vetting system for us. And specifically those aspects of the vetting system that cannot be found in religious discourse.

A Papal Bull or an Islamic fatwa are not debated at all, as far as I know. However there are religious issues that do get hotly debated. You are comparing a lot of false dichotomies.

The scientific method. The fact that no scientific pronouncement is taken at face value.
Peer review.
The system of democratic, unrestrained and continued testing of theories and ideas, discarding what does not hold up public scrutiny, and following up those that do.

That is a vetting system that tends to weed out personal bias and dogma.

Thsuperiorman:


Considering your very little knowledge about the subject matter (no offense) you got A LOT of nerves calling that statement false. I never related time to anything, I never said you could feel time, I'm sorry if that's how you understood it. But yes, you can perceive time and even within your perception of time, time progresses. Even if you lost track of the conventional progression of time your actions are still bounded by time in a different dimension but, still progressive.

You clearly do not understand what time is. Let me explain. (I really hope you get it this time) Time is ANY interval between occurrences. Whether or not I perceive time however is irrelevant. The thing is there exist an interval between when I was locked up and when I came out that interval is time. While being locked up, I blink my eyes - the duration between when I blink my eyes and open them can be measured with time. The duration between when my hand was still and when I moved my hand is time. That progressive space between occurrences (as long as the world doesn't pause) is time. EVERY progressive occurrence whether subjective or objective is based on TIME. Time is independent, my perception of time is irrelevant to the fact that time progresses. I lost track of time while locked up doesn't mean time does not progress.

If you don't understand that, I don't know how else to explain it, but if you do, think about it and answer yourself if God could have created time.



You clearly do not have basic knowledge of how to lay down arguments. Do you even read what you write?

So this is the atheist arrogance i keep hearing about. Nice condescension. Textbook megalomania.

Now, to the point.

I agree that time is the interval between two events.

But what is that interval? Is that interval real or just assumed?

What is the interval between A and B if
-A is the time earth starts its orbit around the sun
-B is the time the earth finishes its orbit around the sun

The interval is 24 hours.




But what is 24 hrs?

An hour is 60 minutes

But why is an hour 60 minutes?

Why is it not 59 minutes?

Why is it not 120 minutes?

Do you know that ancient cultures divided the day into 12 parts?

Some cultures even had uneven hours- an hour could be 60 minutes or 48 minutes depending on the circumstances.



Why is time calculated with the orbit of the earth? Does that mean that time is different on mars? Different on other galaxies?


Now, we are getting to the fact that time is relative.


But relative to who? If our brains processed things at a faster speed, would we "perceive time" differently?




Time is just another unit of measurement that is arbitrarily decided upon. Kilometres or Miles?

Kay17:


But the science in its earliest years was not science because there was no accreditation authority, right?

It was called alchemy.

Kay17:
Would experiments performed in schools or in the privacy of a home in the absence of an accreditation authority, amount to science?

They would not contribute to the body of scholarship called science.

Kay17:
What if these bureaucratic scientists turn their focus and search for [size=18pt]metaphysical entities[/size], would that still be science?

That is not possible. A metaphysical entity is one that scientists have deemed inscrutable by science.