Well if you have not read it...

The main topic is not really in essence about religion per se, but more about what is storytelling and what is real. A quite interesting topic, would you not agree?

At the most ask OP to change the title to more represent this. Maybe "What is real and not?" would be more fitting. The discussions are really very well thought through and interesting though. And maybe ask the couple of people to stop shouting stop stop stop, when they clearly have not read and understood what the topic is all about.

 

You have showed that rationallity is secondary to your preoccupations and that you would rather stick to your belief.
Beside that, well to each his own. If people see the manifestation of truth in your unproved statements, they have the right to. After all, it's the base for religion, faith and all.
They also can read what every one brought to this conversation (not really one since you didn't even respond to one point of all my undeniable scientific truth i've gently enlightened you with)), and this way have a chance at embrassing this debate in a wider scope, much smarter and pertinent.,<

 

C'mon man. Let say I am wrong in that I might have misunderstood something. But know then that I read all you wrote and in all honesty think I have answered every and all critique you have expressed about the challenge in this post:

My post

Would you as a favor, if I ask you nicely, please tell me what in that post you agree and/or disagree with. Would you at least give me that courtesy?

 

"MMJ I'm not meaning to be offensive whatsoever but one reason I personally don't give much credit is that every time you seem to faced with a concept you are unsure about you appear to simply state "I don't Know what you are asking here" and swiftly move on. One of the first things I asked about was your position with regards to explaining singularities in Science?

An example, consider possibly the most widespread example -

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

If you quote with certainty that science is "absolute" in its totality and very real description of the universe then how can you possibly hope to use those same laws to accurately describe those areas whereby the very laws that science creates cease to operate?

Does that itself not take a degree of faith?

or put more simply and not badly worded lol - When the very laws that science creates break down, does it not then take a certain degree of faith, "fiction" or "Story-Telling" to keep using them as absolute and certain?"








"
"MMJ I'm not meaning to be offensive whatsoever but one reason I personally don't give much credit is that every time you seem to faced with a concept you are unsure about you appear to simply state "I don't Know what you are asking here" and swiftly move on. One of the first things I asked about was your position with regards to explaining singularities in Science?
"


it is okay ,its fine i don't take offense.












"r but one reason I personally don't give much credit is that every time you seem to faced with a concept you are unsure about you appear to simply state "I don't Know what you are asking here" and swiftly move on."


no, what is actually taking place in reality is someone writes a sentence for which i cannot understand the exact meaning and significance for which they expect me to, usually it is ambiguous, that is i could take the sentence to mean many conflicting things and im not in their head so i make no assumptions instead i let them know i dont know what they mean, and if it is important to them i expect them to go into full detail explanation in such a way as I can only take it to mean ONE thing, the thing they intended.






""I don't Know what you are asking here" and swiftly move on. One of the first things I asked about was your position with regards to explaining singularities in Science?"
what about singularities? you see i cant know what you mean just by saying singularities, when you say the word i picture everything about them that is demonstrable but i dont know what you are saying the significance of them is or what your suggest the implications are because i am not inside your thoughts with you im outside in reality. if you go into detail such a way as to only mean one thing then it is possible for me to know what you mean, the last thing i want to do is mistake your position or what you are saying , if the answer is " i d ont know" even if it regarding what YOU mean, then that is the truth and i state it.








"An example, consider possibly the most widespread example -

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate."


i follow you so far








"If you quote with certainty that science is "absolute" in its totality and very real description of the universe then how can you possibly hope to use those same laws to accurately describe those areas whereby the very laws that science creates cease to operate?"


again the real answer is " i dont know" what YOU MEAN when you say


""If you quote with certainty that science is "absolute" in its totality and very real description of the universe"

because knowledge through science is tentative, learning is tentative

you are saying something for which is not my position it makes no sense to me is not rational


"with certainty that science is "absolute" in its totality and very real description of the universe"

this makes no sense to me i understand the concept, but reality does not work that way, humans don't learn that way, science never worked that way etc. so when you ask me about a way for which reality does not work and humans don't learn i dont know for what reason you are asking.




"Does that itself not take a degree of faith?"


i dont know what you mean again '

learning is tentative, science is tentative
we test and probe reality to get back an answer , as time goes on we learn more get better picture. so i don't know how faith has any connection i take faith as meaning trust in normal life usages but the way your using it i would call faith believing in fiction. yet demonstrable evidence is the opposite of faith.





"or put more simply and not badly worded lol - When the very laws that science creates break down, does it not then take a certain degree of faith, "fiction" or "Story-Telling" to keep using them as absolute and certain?""


see this is the problem you are having you do not inside of your thoughts differentiate between fiction and not fiction regarding what my own position is, this allows you to make a story about me and what i believe, when instead you could have asked or read to find out the exact words i use and its context. when you say



"does it not then take a certain degree of faith, "fiction" or "Story-Telling" to keep using them as absolute and certain?"""

do you think that I hold that position? where did i say I did? why did you assume it? why are the words "absolute and certain" part of your vocabulary at all when i nor the topic has anything to do with them?

to mean absolute is not something that applies to reality but instead slang used , and certain is same thing just slang used by huamns these dont apply to anything else.

 

just out of curiousity...
@MMJ2017 why are you not using the /quote function?
your quoting style is not very friendly to follow.

 

"In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.


or put more simply and not badly worded lol - When the very laws that science creates break down, does it not then take a certain degree of faith, "fiction" or "Story-Telling" to keep using them as absolute and certain?""


the laws are not "breaking down" a singularity is a rip in space-time because space-time is like a fabric when you squeeze enough mass down to a small enough size, space time gets heavily distorted to the point of a singularity, it isthe laws of nature that create singularity it is how gravity works at the extreme it is why galaxies from why the universe formed there would be nothing else if not for singularities that is not some "breaking down" of the laws of nature, it is the laws of nature creating everything we know of primarily because of how the laws work how gravity works at that extreme, all galaxies exists because the black hole at the center happened first , when it comes to the big bang model the universe came from a singularity of the same type sort, these not breaking down of laws they are the laws in action, that is why there is galaxies and solar systems.

 

Ahh you've answered ok cool :-D as I said I worded it badly

and "rips in space time apply" and explain all other examples?

 

"
just out of curiousity...
@MMJ2017 why are you not using the /quote function?
your quoting style is not very friendly to follow."



im not getting the visual of the way to respond a couple times it showed up but most it does not maybe it my browser

 

And it is a shame really, since a lot of it is really worth reading.

 

".[/QUOTE]

As i said badly worded

You talked about fiction? So in your opinion what does it mean when the very laws that science creates break down.
Is it possible that that those very same laws may contain some "Fiction""




the laws of science don't break down ( that we have seen of know of anyway)
you are misunderstanding what is happening and associating them as " breaking down" i explained it in above posts

 

"
ehrwaldt kunzlich said: ↑
just out of curiousity...
@MMJ2017 why are you not using the /quote function?
your quoting style is not very friendly to follow.
And it is a shame really, since a lot of it is really worth reading.

"


if anyone can help me get it to show up consistently that be great, i am new here too so i might make some mistakes haha

 

i might have to uninstall and reinstall firefox BRB

 

LOL...

 

is that the right one?

im getting everything now cool
no missing html

it was happening on most pages on me some c++ issues i suspect

i installed some packages on the system for coding vst but it corrupted some things

 

yup.
you can even do multiquotes, also quoted persons gets an alert now...

 

"Ahh you've answered ok cool :-D as I said I worded it badly

and "rips in space time apply" and explain all other examples?"



well there is a difference with the big bang it is the other end of a black hole or "white hole"

 

ehrwaldt kunzlich

thank you, i wish i had fixed it before :C

 

well there is a difference with the big bang it is the other end of a black hole or "white hole"


of course i am using general language i suggest get into the 2nd order non linear equations of Einsteins theory of relativity and special relativity , as that is getting into a complex and time consuming area to learn you can go at your own pace with calculus


science talks about black holes from our perspective sometimes, if you hear " the laws breakdown" they saying from our point of view of not being able to investigate it. that is way different than saying " the laws are violated" it is laws gravity at work that make black hole exist.

 

Last edited: Apr 21, 2017

Kloud

please bring up more cases you asked and i responded with " i dont know what you mean"
and we can go into them. thanks for your time

 

Please forgive, I don't have time tonight but will read with interest and respond with some thoughts next day or so