Bermuda Triangle

[Bala]

This notation that religion should deal with religion and
science will deal with the natural world is farcical.

Facts are real, authentic and verifiable or they are discarded. There is no dichotomy between science and religion. If stated facts from either sources cannot be verified than it needs to be abdicated.

Posters JP and hcap poor attempt to redefine randomness and chance are confusing. It is clear specific scientific disciplines define such terms within each discipline. And this is the paradox. Human randomness and chance are ever evolving because the universe shows a pattern of design. An idea that must be defeated my modern atheistic establishment science.

Every effect has a cause. This concept is absolute. Yes, there are absolute rules to science and some religions. {not Buddhism} In order for establishment science not to violate these laws there is a perpetual need to redefine old term to fit current paradigms. Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) wrote a book trying to explain to an intelligent mind if one were walking through a forest and discovered a rolex – that rolex came to be by chance and millions of years. Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould), Dawkins, JP, hcap, etc.... are deluding themselves.

hcap's feeble attempts to find meaning through Buddhism is ultimately futile. Only an absolute intelligence can define moral law. A law that gives birth to civil law. Without God most everything is relative. Charles Manson must be freed for his worldview is just as correct as JP or hcap.

If most human action can be seen in the human genome then behavior like: alcoholism, compulsive gambling, hair loss, gay/lesbian, pedophilia, spouse cheating and even murder {overly aggressive gene} must all be excused. For all the above are a part of the human condition and must be accepted as such. But, we do not excuse bad behavior. Why? Perhaps it is written to our moral consciousness?

If atheism is true >> there is no moral law in this universe.
If agnostic is true >> we are all dazed and confused.

We live in a time of extraordinary human advancement. Using modern scientific principles, it is impossible to come to another conclusion then the universe was/is designed by an intelligence.


Anomalies which completely befuddle science..........

[Bala]

A couple links may have moved. Use http://www.archive.org/index.php (http://www.archive.org/index.php) to retrieve them. Some links are pay per view.

Quote:
CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE VOICES OF THE MIND
Few problems have had as interesting an intellectual trajectory through history as that of the mind and its place in nature. Before 1859, the year that Darwin and Wallace independently proposed natural selection as the basis of evolution, this issue was known as the mind/body problem with its various and sometimes ponderous solutions. But after that pivotal date, it came to be known as the problem of consciousness and its origin in evolution. Now the first thing I wish to stress this afternoon is this problem. It is easy for the average layman to understand. But paradoxically, for philosophers, psychologists, and neurophysiologists, who have been so used to a different kind of thinking, it is a difficult thing. What we have to explain is the contrast, so obvious to a child, between all the inner covert world of imaginings and memories and thoughts and the external public world around us. The theory of evolution beautifully explains the anatomy of species, but how out of mere matter, mere molecules, mutations, anatomies, can you get this rich inner experience that is always accompanying us during the day and in our dreams at night? That is the problem we will consider in this symposium. [continued]
http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/jaynes_mind.pdf (http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/jaynes_mind.pdf)



Quote:
ON A CONFUSION ABOUT A FUNCTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Consciousness is a mongrel concept: there are a number of very different "consciousnesses." Phenomenal consciousness is experience; the phenomenally conscious aspect of a state is what it is like to be in that state. The mark of access-consciousness, by contrast, is availability for use in reasoning and rationally guiding speech and action. These concepts are often partly or totally conflated, with bad results. This target article uses as an example a form of reasoning about a function of "consciousness" based on the phenomenon of blindsight. Some information about stimuli in the blind field is represented in the brains of blindsight patients, as shown by their correct "guesses," but they cannot harness this information in the service of action, and this is said to show that a function of phenomenal consciousness is somehow to enable information represented in the brain to guide action. But stimuli in the blind field are BOTH access-unconscious and phenomenally unconscious. The fallacy is: an obvious function of the machinery of access-consciousness is illicitly transferred to phenomenal consciousness.
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/O...bbs.block.html (http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.block.html)


Quote:
Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness
Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.

To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain. I critique some recent work that uses reductive methods to address consciousness, and argue that such methods inevitably fail to come to grips with the hardest part of the problem. Once this failure is recognized, the door to further progress is opened. In the second half of the paper, I argue that if we move to a new kind of nonreductive explanation, a naturalistic account of consciousness can be given. I put forward my own candidate for such an account: a nonreductive theory based on principles of structural coherence and organizational invariance and a double-aspect view of information. [continued]
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalme...rs/facing.html (http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html)


Quote:
Consciousness and Complexity
Conventional approaches to understanding consciousness are generally concerned with the contribution of speciÞc brain areas or groups of neurons. By contrast, it is considered here what kinds of neural processes can account for key properties of conscious experience. Applying measures of neural integration and complexity, together with an analysis of extensive neurological data, leads to a testable proposalÑthe dynamic core hypothesisÑabout the properties of the neural substrate of consciousness.
http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http.../tononi282.pdf (http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http://ntp.neuroscience.wisc.edu/faculty/fac-art/tononi282.pdf)


Quote:
Consciousness: The Remembered Present
This chapter summarizes a theory of consciousness based on brain structure and dynamics. The theory centers around the notion of reentry—ongoing recursive signaling across multiple reciprocally connected brain regions present mainly in the thalamocortical system. It recognized the fundamental beginnings provided by the complementary efforts of Ramon y Cajal and William James.[continued]
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/conten...ract/929/1/111 (http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/929/1/111)


Quote:
A sensorimotor account of vision and visual onsciousness
Abstract: Many current neurophysiological, psychophysical, and psychological approaches to vision rest on the idea that when we see, the brain produces an internal representation of the world. The activation of this internal representation is assumed to give rise to the experience of seeing. The problem with this kind of approach is that it leaves unexplained how the existence of such a detailed internal representation might produce visual consciousness. An alternative proposal is made here. We propose that seeing is a way of acting. It is a particular way of exploring the environment. Activity in internal representations does not generate the experience of seeing. The outside world serves as its own, external, representation. The experience of seeing occurs when the organism masters what we call the governing laws of sensorimotor contingency. The advantage of this approach is that it provides a natural and principled way of accounting for visual consciousness, and for the differences in the perceived quality of sensory experience in the different sensory modalities. Several lines of empirical evidence are brought forward in support of the theory, in particular: evidence from experiments in sensorimotor adaptation, visual “filling in,” visual stability despite eye movements, change blindness, sensory substitution, and color perception. [continued]
http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http...40525X01410119 (http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0140525X01410119)


Quote:
Toward a theory of episodic memory: The frontal lobes and autonoetic consciousness.
Adult humans are capable of remembering prior events by mentally traveling back in time to reexperience those events. In this review, the authors discuss this and other related capabilities. considering evidence from such diverse sources as brain imaging, neuropsychological experiments, clinical observations, and developmental psychology. The evidence supports a preliminary theory of episodic remembering, which holds that the prefrontal cortex plays a critical, supervisory role in empowering healthy adults with autonoetic consciousness--the capacity to mentally represent and become aware of subjective experiences in the past, present, and future. When a rememberer mentally travels back in subjective time to reexperience his or her personal past, the result is an act of retrieval from episodic memory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)
http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/121/3/331 (http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/121/3/331)


Quote:
the mechanisms of consciousness
A number of recent papers and books discuss theoretical efforts toward a scientific understanding of consciousness. Progress in imaging networks of brain areas active when people perform simple tasks may provide a useful empirical background for distinguishing conscious and unconscious information processing. Attentional networks include those involved in orienting to sensory stimuli, activating ideas from memory, and maintaining the alert state. This paper reviews recent findings in relation to classical issues in the study of attention and anatomical and physical theories of the nature of consciousness. [continued]
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...gi?artid=44408 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=44408)


Quote:
Temporal binding, binocular rivalry, and consciousness.
Cognitive functions like perception, memory, language, or consciousness are based on highly parallel and distributed information processing by the brain. One of the major unresolved questions is how information can be integrated and how coherent representational states can be established in the distributed neuronal systems subserving these functions. It has been suggested that this so-called "binding problem" may be solved in the temporal domain. The hypothesis is that synchronization of neuronal discharges can serve for the integration of distributed neurons into cell assemblies and that this process may underlie the selection of perceptually and behaviorally relevant information. As we intend to show here, this temporal binding hypothesis has implications for the search of the neural correlate of consciousness. We review experimental results, mainly obtained in the visual system, which support the notion of temporal binding. In particular, we discuss recent experiments on the neural mechanisms of binocular rivalry which suggest that appropriate synchronization among cortical neurons may be one of the necessary conditions for the buildup of perceptual states and awareness of sensory stimuli. Copyright 1999 Academic Press. [continued]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10447995&dopt=Citation)


Quote:
Attention, self regulation and consciousness
Consciousness has many aspects. These include awareness of the world, feelings of control over one's behaviour and mental state (volition), and the notion of a continuing self. Focal (executive) attention is used to control details of our awareness and is thus closely related to volition. Experiments suggest an integrated network of neural areas involved in executive attention. This network is associated with our voluntary ability to select among competing items, to correct error and to regulate our emotions. Recent neuroimaging studies suggest that these various functions involve separate areas of the anterior cingulate. We have adopted a strategy of using marker tasks, shown to activate the brain area by imaging studies, as a means of tracing the development of attentional networks. Executive attention appears to develop first to regulate distress during the first year of life. During later childhood the ability to regulate conflict among competing stimuli builds upon the earlier cingulate anatomy to provide a means of cognitive control. During childhood the activation of cingulate structures relates both to the child's success on laboratory tasks involving conflict and to parental reports of self-regulation and emotional control. These studies indicate a start in understanding the anatomy, circuitry and development of executive attention networks that serve to regulate both cognition and emotion. [continued]
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/a...lts,1:102022,1 (http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=ege9fdwyyr5wujaxvcby&referrer=parent&backto=issue,13,15;journal,76,104;linkingpublicati onresults,1:102022,1)


Quote:
Beyond consciousness of external reality: a "who" system for consciousness of action and self-consciousness.
This paper offers a framework for consciousness of internal reality. Recent PET experiments are reviewed, showing partial overlap of cortical activation during self-produced actions and actions observed from other people. This overlap suggests that representations for actions may be shared by several individuals, a situation which creates a potential problem for correctly attributing an action to its agent. The neural conditions for correct agency judgments are thus assigned a key role in self/other distinction and self-consciousness. A series of behavioral experiments that demonstrate, in normal subjects, the poor monitoring of action-related signals and the difficulty in recognizing self-produced actions are described. In patients presenting delusions, this difficulty dramatically increases and actions become systematically misattributed. These results point to schizophrenia and related disorders as a paradigmatic alteration of a "Who?" system for self-consciousness. Copyright 1998 Academic Press. [continued]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9787056&dopt=Citation)


Quote:
The neuronal basis for consciousness
Attempting to understand how the brain, as a whole, might be organized seems, for the first time, to be a serious topic of inquiry. One aspect of its neuronal organization that seems particularly central to global function is the rich thalamocortical interconnectivity, and most particularly the reciprocal nature of the thalamocortical neuronal loop function. Moreover, the interaction between the specific and non-specific thalamic loops suggests that rather than a gate into the brain, the thalamus represents a hub from which any site in the cortex can communicate with any other such site or sites. The goal of this paper is to explore the basic assumption that large-scale, temporal coincidence of specific and non-specific thalamic activity generates the functional states that characterize human cognition.[continued]
http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http...lTran_1998.pdf (http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http://www.med.nyu.edu/Sackler/intdevcogneuro/Llinas_etal_PhilTran_1998.pdf)


Quote:
Are we explaining consciousness yet?
Theorists are converging from quite different quarters on a version of the global neuronal workspace model of consciousness, but there are residual confusions to be dissolved. In particular, theorists must resist the temptation to see global accessibility as the cause of consciousness (as if consciousness were some other, further condition); rather, it is consciousness. A useful metaphor for keeping this elusive idea in focus is that consciousness is rather like fame in the brain. It is not a privileged medium of representation, or an added property some states have; it is the very mutual accessibility that gives some informational states the powers that come with a subject's consciousness of that information. Like fame, consciousness is not a momentary condition, or a purely dispositional state, but rather a matter of actual influence over time. Theorists who take on the task of accounting for the aftermath that is critical for consciousness often appear to be leaving out the Subject of consciousness, when in fact they are providing an analysis of the Subject, a necessary component in any serious theory of consciousness[continued]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11164029&dopt=Citation)


Quote:
Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework
This introductory chapter attempts to clarify the philosophical, empirical, and theoretical bases on which a cognitive neuroscience approach to consciousness can be founded. We isolate three major empirical observations that any theory of consciousness should incorporate, namely (1) a considerable amount of processing is possible without consciousness, (2)
attention is a prerequisite of consciousness, and (3) consciousness is required for some specifc cognitive tasks, including those that require durable information maintenance, novel combinations of operations, or the spontaneous generation of intentional behavior. We then propose a theoretical framework that synthesizes those facts: the hypothesis of a global neuronal workspace. [continued]
http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http...nition2001.pdf (http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~mozer/courses/consc/readings/DehaeneNaccache_WorkspaceModel_Cognition2001.pdf)


Quote:
The Link between Brain Learning, Attention, and Consciousness
The processes whereby our brains continue to learn about a changing world in a stable fashion throughout life are proposed to lead to conscious experiences. These processes include the learning of top-down expectations, the matching of these expectations against bottom-up data, the focusing of attention upon the expected clusters of information, and the development of resonant states between bottom-up and top-down processes as they
reach an attentive consensus between what is expected and what is there in the outside world. It is suggested that all conscious states in the brain are resonant states and that these resonant states trigger learning of sensory and cognitive representations. The models which summarize these concepts are therefore called Adaptive Resonance Theory, or ART, models. Psychophysical and neurobiological data in support of ART are presented from
early vision, visual object recognition, auditory streaming, variable-rate speech perception, somatosensory perception, and cognitive–emotional interactions, among others. It is noted that ART mechanisms seem to be operative at all levels of the visual system, and it is proposed how these mechanisms are realized by known laminar circuits of visual cortex. It is predicted that the same circuit realization of ART mechanisms will be found in the laminar circuits of all sensory and cognitive neocortex. Concepts and data are summarized concerning how some visual percepts may be visibly, or modally, perceived, whereas amodal percepts may be consciously recognized even though they are perceptually invisible. It is also suggested that sensory and cognitive processing in the What processing stream of the brain obey top-down matching and learning laws that are often complementary to
those used for spatial and motor processing in the brain’s Where processing stream. This enables our sensory and cognitive representations to maintain their stability as we learn more about the world, while allowing spatial and motor representations to forget learned maps and gains that are no longer appropriate as our bodies develop and grow from infanthood to adulthood. Procedural memories are proposed to be unconscious because the inhibitory matching process that supports these spatial and motor processes cannot lead to resonance. ã 1999 Academic Press [continued]
http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http...onscCogn99.pdf (http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http://www.cvs.rochester.edu/people/j_fiser/PDFs/Grossberg_ConscCogn99.pdf)

[Bala]

A couple links may have moved. Use http://www.archive.org/index.php (http://www.archive.org/index.php) to retrieve them. Some links are pay per view.

Quote:

Near Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest and the Mystery of Consciousness
...Cardiac arrest patients are a subgroup of people who come closest to death. In such a situation an individual initially develops two out of three criteria (the absence of spontaneous breathing and heartbeat) of clinical death. Shortly afterwards (within seconds) these are followed by the third, which occurs due to the loss of activity of the areas of the brain responsible for sustaining life (brainstem) and thought processes (cerebral cortex). Brain monitoring using EEG in animals and humans has also demonstrated that the brain ceases to function at that time. During a cardiac arrest, the blood pressure drops almost immediately to unrecordable levels and at the same time, due to a lack of blood flow, the brain stops functioning as seen by flat brain waves (isoelectric line) on the monitor within around 10 seconds. This then remains the case throughout the time when the heart is given 'electric shock' therapy or when drugs such as adrenaline are given until the heartbeat is finally restored and the patient is resuscitated. Due to the lack of brain function in these circumstances, therefore, one would not expect there to be any lucid, well-structured thought processes, with reasoning and memory formation, which are characteristic of NDEs.

Nevertheless, and contrary to what we would expect scientifically, studies have shown that 'near death experiences' do occur in such situations. This therefore raises a question of how such lucid and well-structured thought processes, together with such clear and vivid memories, occur in individuals who have little or no brain function. In other words, it would appear that the mind is seen to continue in a clinical setting in which there is little or no brain function. In particular, there have been reports of people being able to 'see' details from the events that occurred during their cardiac arrest, such as their dentures being removed. [continued]
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/li...Parnia_nde.htm (http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm)



Quote:
The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind.
The relation between early fantasy/pretense and children's knowledge about mental life was examined in a study of 152 3- and 4-year-old boys and girls. Children were interviewed about their fantasy lives (e.g., imaginary companions, impersonation of imagined characters) and were given tasks assessing their level of pretend play and verbal intelligence. In a second session 1 week later, children were given a series of theory of mind tasks, including measures of appearance-reality, false belief, representational change, and perspective taking. The theory of mind tasks were significantly intercorrelated with the effects of verbal intelligence and age statistically controlled. Individual differences in fantasy/pretense were assessed by (1) identifying children who created imaginary characters, and (2) extracting factor scores from a combination of interview and behavioral measures. Each of these fantasy assessments was significantly related to the theory of mind performance of the 4-year-old children, independent of verbal intelligence.[continued]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation)

1/17/05

Quote:
Précis of: The Illusion of Conscious Will
Abstract: The experience of conscious will is the feeling that we’re doing things. This feeling occurs for many things we do, conveying to us again and again the sense that we consciously cause our actions. But the feeling may not be a true reading of what is happening in our minds, brains, and bodies as our actions are produced. The feeling of conscious will can be fooled. This happens in clinical disorders such as alien hand syndrome, dissociative identity disorder, and schizophrenic auditory hallucinations. And in people without disorders, phenomena such as hypnosis, automatic writing, Ouija board spelling, water dowsing, facilitated communication, speaking in tongues, spirit possession, and trance channeling also illustrate anomalies of will cases when actions occur without will, or will occurs without action. This book brings these cases together with research evidence from laboratories in psychology and neuroscience to explore a theory of apparent mental causation. According to this theory, when a thought appears
in consciousness just prior to an action, is consistent with the action, and appears exclusive of salient alternative causes of the action, we experience conscious will and ascribe authorship to ourselves for the action. Experiences of conscious will thus arise from processes whereby the mind interprets itself—not from processes whereby mind creates action. Conscious will, in this view, is an indication that we think we have caused an action, not a revelation of the causal sequence by which the action was produced.[continued]
http://psylux.psych.tu-dresden.de/al...gner%20BBS.pdf (http://psylux.psych.tu-dresden.de/allgpsy/Goschke/Goschke_Lehre/WS2003/Volition%20und%20Kontrolle/Wegner%20BBS.pdf)

1/17/05

Quote:
What is the Fundamental Nature of Consciousness?
The nature of consciousness is fundamental to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Science has made very promising progress on the "easy problem" (Chalmers, 1996) - the working out of the neural mechanisms of behavior and physiological correlates of mental states. However, despite thousands of years of philosophy and over a hundred years of hard science, the "difficult problem" - the issue of how first-person experience, and the raw feels of awareness can accompany the physical processes of neurobiology - remains intractable. A crucial aspect of this problem in the philosophy of mind is the question of ontology. Does mind or consciousness exist as a real feature of the world? Materialism asserts that only matter and energy comprise the universe, and all phenomena are products of their interactions. In contrast, dualism asserts that the universe also contains "mind", which cannot be reduced to matter or energy, and is responsible for consciousness. Which (if either) of these basic theories is true is an issue that is crucial to the way we understand normal and pathological human cognition, and the nature of the psyche. The data of parapsychology has direct relevance to these and other issues in cognitive science. In this paper I discuss the contribution that parapsychological research can make to the study of consciousness. Besides promising approaches to the "other minds" problem, and possible applications to the evolutionary origins of consciousness, the greatest contribution of parapsychology consists in what it has to say about materialism vs. dualism. I briefly mention a few arguments against materialism
from the mainstream sciences, and then focus on the powerful implications of parapsychological research, some of which are very telling against the sufficiency of materialism as a framework within which to explain consciousness. The paper concludes with major problems which parapsychology must address to flesh out its contribution to ontology. [continued]
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/basuyaux/par...in/ijp2001.pdf (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/basuyaux/parapsy_fr/documents/levin/ijp2001.pdf)

1/11/05

Quote:
God as an emergent property
Treating conscious states as emergent properties of brain states has religious implications. Emergence claims the neutral ground between substance dualism (perceived as hostile to science) and reductive physicalism (perceived as hostile to religion). This neutrality makes possible a theory of human experience that is religious, yet lies wholly within the natural order and open to scientific investigation. One attempt to explain the soul as an emergent property of brain states is studied and found wanting, because of a dogmatic assumption that God is ‘beyond all material form’. Reflection on the central Christian claim that Jesus Christ was human and divine suggests the alternative view that God and the soul are both emergent properties. Unlike the philosopher's or physicist's remote and isolated ‘first cause’, this God is immediate and personal and social. [continued]
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search.../F0020009/1233 (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://imp/jcs/2001/00000008/F0020009/1233)


Quote:
A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter
ABSTRACT: The relationship of mind and matter is approached in a new way in this article. This approach is based on the causal interpretation of the quantum theory, in which an electron, for example, is regarded as an inseparable union of a particle and afield. This field has, however, some new properties that can be seen to be the main sources of the differences between the quantum theory and the classical (Newtonian) theory. These new properties suggest that the field may be regarded as containing objective and active information, and that the activity of this information is similar in certain key ways to the activity of information in our ordinary subjective experience. The analogy between mind and matter is thus fairly close. This analogy leads to the proposal of the general outlines of a new theory of mind, matter, and their relationship, in which the basic notion is participation rather than interaction. Although the theory, can be developed mathematically in more detail the main emphasis here is to show qualitatively how it provides a way of thinking that does not divide mind from matter, and thus leads to a more coherent understanding of such questions than is possible in the common dualistic and reductionistic approaches. These ideas may be relevant to connectionist theories and might perhaps suggest new directions for their development. [continued]
http://members.aol.com/Mszlazak/BOHM.html (http://members.aol.com/Mszlazak/BOHM.html)


Quote:
Mind and matter as asymptotically disjoint, inequivalent representations with broken time-reversal symmetry
Many philosophical and scientific discussions of topics of mind-matter research make implicit assumptions, in various guises, about the distinction between mind and matter. Currently predominant positions are based on either reduction or emergence, providing either monistic or dualistic scenarios. A more-involved framework of thinking, which can be
traced back to Spinoza and Leibniz, combines the two scenarios, dualistic (with mind and matter separated) and monistic (with mind and matter unseparated), in one single picture. Based on such a picture, the transition from a domain with mind and matter unseparated to separate mental and material domains can be viewed as a result of a general
kind of symmetry breaking, which can be described formally in terms of inequivalent representations. The possibility of whether this symmetry breaking might be connected to the emergence of temporal directions from temporally non-directed or even non-temporal levels of reality will be discussed. Correlations between mental and material aspects of reality could then be imagined as remnants of such primordial levels. Different conceivable types of inequivalent representations would lead to correlations with different characteristics. [continued]
http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/echo4.pdf (http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/echo4.pdf)


Quote:
"implicate Order" and the Good Life: Applying David Bohm's Ontology in Human World
In an attempt to formulate a coherent view of quantum reality, the theoretical physicist David Bohm has proposed a new concept of order to supplement the mechanistic Cartesian order of traditional physics. The "implicate" order is a subtler and deeper order that emphasizes "unbroken wholeness in flowing movement," in contrast to the coarser and more superficial, "explicate" Cartesian order of distinct phenomena. This dissertation attempts to develop a meaning for the idea of implicate order in the world of human experience. First is offered an account of some evolutionary episodes in terms of implicate and explicate order which draws on compatible work in cosmology, embryogenesis, visual perception, brain memory, decision making and phenomenology. Two important characteristics of the implicate order are then identified: in an implicate order, the whole is enfolded (or represented) in its parts; and all parts render different perspectives of the whole. Using arguments from decision making, the study of "flow" in human consciousness, and a model of skill acquisition, it is suggested that these characteristics manifest themselves in the human world as the "unity experience" and the "diversity experience," respectively. The former is the experience that a given part of one's life reveals a larger wholeness or unity; the subject-object distinction is transcended and one becomes absorbed in the flow of whatever activity is pursued. The latter is a deep appreciation of the diversity of ways in which people may seek the unity experience. These experiences are proposed as general values: social and psychological conditions ought to be such that these experiences are enhanced in all people. A two-by-two matrix of the two experiences demonstrates the danger of pursuing one to the exclusion of the other. The experience of unity without diversity turns into absolutism, the insistence that one's chosen activities or beliefs are the only right ones. The experience of diversity without unity becomes relativism, the excessive tolerance of and indifference to other people's pursuits. The good life lies in the simultaneous realization of both, unity-in -diversity. Lastly, it is suggested that this so-called unity-diversity matrix may be used as a personal compass the meaning of which is negotiated and calibrated in a community of users. [continued]
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...02R&db_key=AST (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1989PhDT.......102R&db_key=AST)


Quote:
From Matter To Mind
The relation between mind and matter is considered in terms of recent ideas from both phenomenology and brain science. Phenomenology is used to give clues to help bridge the brain-mind gap by providing constraints on any underlying neural architecture suggested from brain science. A tentative reduction of mind to matter is suggested and used to explain various features of phenomenological experience and of ownership of conscious experience. The crucial mechanism is the extended duration of the corollary discharge of attention movement, with its gating of activity for related content. Aspects of experience considered in terms of the model are the discontinuous nature of consciousness, immunity to error through misidentification, and the state of 'pure' consciousness as experienced through meditation. Corollary discharge of attention movement is proposed as the key idea bringing together basic features of meditation, consciousness and neuroscience, and helping to bridge the gap between mind and matter. [continued]
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search.../00000004/1266 (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://imp/jcs/2002/00000009/00000004/1266)


Quote:
Quantum Ontology and Mind-Matter Synthesis
The Solvay conference of 1927 marked the birth of quantum theory. This theory constitutes a radical break with prior tradition in physics, because it avers, if taken seriously, that nature is built not out of matter but out of knowings. However, the founders of the theory stipulated, cautiously, that the theory was not to be taken seriously, in this sense, as a description of nature herself, but was to be construed as merely a way of computing expectations about future knowings on the basis of information provided by past knowings. There have been many efforts over the intervening seventy years to rid physics of this contamination of matter by mind. But I use the reports at this Symposium to support the claim that these decontamination efforts have failed, and that, because of recent developments pertaining to causality, the time has come to take quantum theory seriously: to take it
as the basis for a conception of the universe built on knowings, and other things of the same kind. Quantum theory ensures that this conception will yield all the empirical regularities that had formerly been thought to arise from the properties of matter, together with all of those more recently discovered regularities that cannot be understood in that mechanical way. Thus I propose to break away from the cautious stance of the founders of quantum theory, and build a theory of reality by taking seriously what the incredible accuracy of the predictions of the formalism seems to proclaim, namely that nature is best understood as being built around knowings that enjoy the mathemat ical properties ascribed to them by quantum theory. I explain why this idea had formerly been incorrectly regarded as untenable, due to a failure to distinguish signals from influences: relativistic quantum field theory ensures both that signals cannot travel faster than light, but that influences, broadly conceived, cannot be imagined to enjoy that property. Failure to recognize this fact had made a realistic interpretation of quantum theory seem impossible. I then explain how our conscious knowings can play a causally efficacious and binding role in brain dynamics without violating the statistical rules of quantum theory, and describe how these features provide a foundation for understanding how consciousness could have evolved by natural selection from primitive beginnings.

Invited Paper: The X-th Max Born Symposium “Quantum Future”.[continued]
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9905/9905053.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9905/9905053.pdf)


Quote:
Mind over matter? I: philosophical aspects of the mind-brain problem.
OBJECTIVE: To conceptualize the essence of the mind-body or mind-brain problem as one of metaphysics rather than science, and to propose a formulation of the problem in the context of current scientific knowledge and its limitations. METHOD AND RESULTS: The background and conceptual parameters of the mind-body problem are delineated, and the limitations of brain research in formulating a solution identified. The problem is reformulated and stated in terms of two propositions. These constitute a 'double aspect theory'. CONCLUSIONS: The problem appears to arise as a consequence of the conceptual limitations of the human mind, and hence remains essentially a metaphysical one. A 'double aspect theory' recognizes the essential unity of mind and brain, while remaining consistent with the dualism inherent in human experience.[continued]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11531729&dopt=Citation)

[Bala]

A couple links may have moved. Use http://www.archive.org/index.php (http://www.archive.org/index.php) to retrieve them. Some links are pay per view.

1/23/05

Quote:
The Scientist :: The Biological Basis of the Placebo Effect

Dec. 9, 2002
Imaging technologies bring empirical rigor to the study of a mysterious medical phenomenon

The placebo effect baffles patients, confounds clinicians and frustrates drug developers. Until now, relatively little empirical evidence existed for the biological mechanisms that underlie the effect. But recently, researchers have begun approaching the challenge with methodological rigor. This new area of investigation, straddling basic and clinical realms, has evolved largely because of the novel, detailed window of observation offered by modern imaging technologies. "What we're getting," says Harvard Medical School's Ted Kaptchuk, "is good preliminary evidence that describes the hardwiring of the placebo effect--that is, the impact of symbolic treatment, and how it's mediated through the neurobiology of the brain to produce physical effects in illnesses." [continued]
http://www.forensic-psych.com/articl...fect12.02.html (http://www.forensic-psych.com/articl...fect12.02.html)


Quote:
Placebo to credebo: the missing link in the healing process
The placebo effect has long been something of a mystery. The response of researchers has broadly been of two kinds: either to dismiss it as an artefact; or to view it as an important, but unknown, component in treatment. The thesis of this article is that the latter view is supported by the weight of evidence. After describing and evaluating a range of evidence relating to the placebo effect, it is concluded that placebos are active and potent elements in a complete theory of healing. Central to the effect is the interaction of the patient’s and the clinician’s beliefs in the efficacy of the process of healing. This permits a redefiniton of the placebo effect in terms of the therapeutic alliance and a shift of emphasis away from the passive treatment of susceptible patients by clinicians to the mutuality of what is termed a joint ‘credebo’ effect. [continued]
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search...00002/art00002 (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://arn/pr/1999/00000006/00000002/art00002)



Quote:
The powerful placebo effect: fact or fiction?
In 1955, Henry K. Beecher published the classic work entitled "The Powerful Placebo." Since that time, 40 years ago, the placebo effect has been considered a scientific fact. Beecher was the first scientist to quantify the placebo effect. He claimed that in 15 trials with different diseases, 35% of 1082 patients were satisfactorily relieved by a placebo alone. This publication is still the most frequently cited placebo reference. Recently Beecher's article was reanalyzed with surprising results: In contrast to his claim, no evidence was found of any placebo effect in any of the studies cited by him. There were many other factors that could account for the reported improvements in patients in these trials, but most likely there was no placebo effect whatsoever. False impressions of placebo effects can be produced in various ways. Spontaneous improvement, fluctuation of symptoms, regression to the mean, additional treatment, conditional switching of placebo treatment, scaling bias, irrelevant response variables, answers of politeness, experimental subordination, conditioned answers, neurotic or psychotic misjudgment, psychosomatic phenomena, misquotation, etc. These factors are still prevalent in modern placebo literature. The placebo topic seems to invite sloppy methodological thinking. Therefore awareness of Beecher's mistakes and misinterpretations is essential for an appropriate interpretation of current placebo literature. [continued]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9449934&dopt=Citation)


Quote:
Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment
...CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.[continued]

[Bala]

http://kjmatthews.users.btopenworld....roduction.html (http://kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/cult_archaeology/introduction.html)

this is a quote from Lawrence Kusche, a reference librarian at Arizona State University... results of his research in the Bermuda Triangle (The Bermuda Triangle mystery — solved, New English Library) 1975>quoted from above site:

"No theory so far proposed has been able to account satisfactorily for all or even most of the incidents. It has been suggested that to solve the mystery once and for all the area should be closed for a time to allow the government to send in remote-controlled vessels with monitoring equipment that would detect unusual phenomena. It has also been suggested that clairvoyants be called in to give their impressions of forces at work."

Such measures are not necessary.

"My research, which began as an attempt to find out as much information as possible about the Bermuda Triangle, had an unexpected result. After examining all the evidence I have reached the following conclusion: There is no theory that solves the mystery. It is no more logical to try to find a common cause for all the disappearances in the Triangle than, for example, to try to find one cause for all automobile accidents in Arizona. By abandoning the search for an overall theory and investigating each incident independently, the mystery began to unravel..."

"The Legend of the Bermuda Triangle is a manufactured mystery. It began because of careless research and was elaborated upon and perpetuated by writers who either purposely or unknowingly made use of misconceptions, faulty reasoning, and sensationalism. It was repeated so many times that it began to take on the aura of truth."

[hcap]

Bala.Facts are real, authentic and verifiable or they are discarded. There is no dichotomy between science and religion. If stated facts from either sources cannot be verified than it needs to be abdicated.You will have to discard any scripture that claims to be divine. Or cannot be subject to strict rules of scientific verification

Posters JP and hcap poor attempt to redefine randomness and chance are confusing. It is clear specific scientific disciplines define such terms within each discipline. And this is the paradox. Human randomness and chance are ever evolving because the universe shows a pattern of design. An idea that must be defeated my modern atheistic establishment science.

Every effect has a cause. This concept is absolute. Yes, there are absolute rules to science and some religions. {not Buddhism}Absolute rules to religion? Cause and effect? How can there be absolute rules to any religion that is split into 100s' of sects? Is the pope catholic?

If you are walking off the top of a tall buiding, and break your neck, what is the cause?

1-The impact with the ground.
2-The force of gravity.
3-The end of the roof
4-putting one foot after another on the top of the building
5-The decision to walk
6-The argument with your boss
7-The medication you took the night before that screwed up your morning big time

[Show Me the Wire]

Bala.You will have to discard any scripture that claims to be divine. Or cannot be subject to strict rules of scientific verification

Absolute rules to religion? Cause and effect? How can there be absolute rules to any religion that is split into 100s' of sects? Is the pope catholic?

If you are walking off the top of a tall buiding, and break your neck, what is the cause?

1-The impact with the ground.
2-The force of gravity.
3-The end of the roof
4-putting one foot after another on the top of the building
5-The decision to walk
6-The argument with your boss
7-The medication you took the night before that screwed up your morning big time

Yes the Pope is catholic. All catholic means is universal. It is not a specific denomination. Labeling a person is a genarility and there are no absolute rules to generalisms.

And walking off the building is due to being in a some place you should not be, that is the cause of the fall. The incorrect exercise of free will will set in motion forces beyond you control and result in unattended results, ie. gravity, hard ground, etc.

Yes there are absolute rules to specific religions. As we agreed before there is only one truth and everyting else is a lie. The argument is aove what is the truth. As there was an absolute truth as to the reason for falling off the roof.

[Show Me the Wire]

Verifiable facts. Facts are verifiable through eye witnesses, the person that personally observed the event. Isn't that a basis of empirical evidence, something has to be observed (verified by another witness) through recreating the experiment.

Holy Scripture it is the telling of observations (eye witnesses) of groups of people through the ages. Therefore, the contents can be considered factual.

[Indulto]

Verifiable facts. Facts are verifiable through eye witnesses, the person that personally observed the event. Isn't that a basis of empirical evidence, something has to be observed (verified by another witness) through recreating the experiment.

Holy Scripture it is the telling of observations (eye witnesses) of groups of people through the ages. Therefore, the contents can be considered factual.:bang: ;)
I think you're misapplying the term, "repeatable." :D

[Show Me the Wire]

:bang: Observed by many so verifiable under eye witness. Two different ways of verifying either by many observing the event or being able to repeat it.

The Scriptures satisfy the first, many eye witnesses to the events. :bang:

[Secretariat]

Wonder if Tom will get on you for copyright quotes Bala as he generally does me.

[hcap]

SMtWYes there are absolute rules to specific religions. As we agreed before there is only one truth and everyting else is a lie. The argument is aove what is the truth. As there was an absolute truth as to the reason for falling off the roof.What if the medication you took the night before you took by mistake? Is that free will or accident? Maybe you believe car accidents are free will as well? There is no absolute cause to certain events. There are chains of cause and effect. And although the preceeding cause is immediate and obvious, it usually only shows a small picture of reality.

From the Secretariat thread I saidThe ultimate first cause may not be knowable along with the associated first intent.

...But the role of the larger mind in creation is not something I can describe. Assigning it first cause may be as deceptive as thinking the acorn came first.
This why people fight wars. The missinterpretation of this is We have the truth, and everyone else does not

But you are missing the cosmic dance. In many eastern philosophies, yes there is one truth, but it takes myriad forms. The manifestation of one to the many and the return of many back to the one. Unfortunately, we live in the many. And mistake it for the source.I was comparing the whole ball of wax to a tree. The source as trunk. And myriad forms to the layers of branches and leeves. So to sumarize that I agreed to one truth and everything else is a lie is totally misrepresenting what I said. And I never implied any scientific rational for believing in one truth or myriad forms. Only philosophical.

Catholic as POPE is not the same as protestant as Jerry Falwell. But Bala was implying that the SAME kind of rules that comprise the scientific method, can be applied to religion facts are real, authentic and verifiable or they are discarded. There is no dichotomy between science and religion. If stated facts from either sources cannot be verified than it needs to be abdicated.Now you sayYes there are absolute rules to specific religions. Are you talking about rules for prayer, ceremony or ritual? I thought we were talking about science. And as science the belief systems of different divisions of religion show 100 times the divisions that exist in say, evolution.

Difference between the natural sciences and religion is that experimental empirical evidence is required to sort thru the sciences and lead to testable hypothesis. How can you test validity of justification, or any other dogmatic doctrine? Let alone specific interpretations of scripture?Verifiable facts. Facts are verifiable through eye witnesses, the person that personally observed the event. Isn't that a basis of empirical evidence, something has to be observed (verified by another witness) through recreating the experiment.

Holy Scripture it is the telling of observations (eye witnesses) of groups of people through the ages. Therefore, the contents can be considered factual.You gotta be kidding. This may be the stuff of myths and legends. Sometimes very worthwhile. Sometimes not. Science no. The roots of archeology possibly.
Are you a cargo cult believer as well?
How about walking under a ladder, or breaking a mirror. I bet I could round up some of more let's say "accepting" dogmatists that will assure you of all sorts of things. I mean there is the internet

My question to you and Bala, is why do you struggle so hard to PROVE what cannot be proven?. Don't you trust your religious faiths enough to fill in the gaps of "not knowing".

[hcap]

From one of Balas' articles.
Quantum Ontology and Mind-Matter Synthesis
The Solvay conference of 1927 marked the birth of quantum theory. This theory constitutes a radical break with prior tradition in physics, because it avers, if taken seriously, that nature is built not out of matter but out of knowings.

.... I then explain how our conscious knowings can play a causally efficacious and binding role in brain dynamics without violating the statistical rules of quantum theory, and describe how these features provide a foundation for understanding how consciousness could have evolved by natural selection from primitive beginnings.

Invited Paper: The X-th Max Born Symposium “Quantum Future”.[continued]
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9905/9905053.pdf

[betchatoo]

Verifiable facts. Facts are verifiable through eye witnesses, the person that personally observed the event. Isn't that a basis of empirical evidence, something has to be observed (verified by another witness) through recreating the experiment.

Holy Scripture it is the telling of observations (eye witnesses) of groups of people through the ages. Therefore, the contents can be considered factual.

I've heard eye witnesses tell of being abducted by aliens and experiencing interplanetary travel. Does that make it factual?

[46zilzal]

I've heard eye witnesses tell of being abducted by aliens and experiencing interplanetary travel. Does that make it factual?
how about those reports of the 900 year old people as well.

[Bala]

hcap -- regarding post # 13;
I want to be clear. I never said my religion is beyond reproach. In the interest of fairness I posted said link because the subject matter is complex. I'm from the Ronald Reagan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html) school, trust but verify.


.........Facts are verifiable through eye witnesses........ A lucid and cogent response. Thank you.
There are three types of evidence. {1}The most absolute is mathematical. 2+2 is always immutable. {2}Statistical probabilities suggest a possibility but does not guarantee it.

The third kind of evidence and most often used is historicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_(Bible_Studies)). Used everyday in courtrooms around the world. {Historicity of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus)}

How do we know of Cleopatra or Pharaoh Tutankhamun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun) or Emperor Nero (http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/nero-index.html) et el. All evidence are based on ancient historical documents. The exact same historical methodology is used to verify the Christian Bible. {Legal Rules of Evidence Examine the Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Evangelists-Simon-Greenleaf/dp/0825427479/sr=1-3/qid=1168640201/ref=sr_1_3/102-2326129-4972123?ie=UTF8&s=books)}

how about those reports of the 900 year old people as well. Now 46, you of all people know of the advances in Human Genomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomics). As we glimpse into our DNA we see an enormous database of information. Information, when properly understood may hold the key to immortality. At the very lest, a disease free existence.

God created all things to perfection. For various reasons which I will not discuss here, we have been de-evolving from creation forward. Remove the {intentional} flaws in our genetic code and......immortality???






______________________________________________
What would be the use of immortality to a person who cannot use well a half an hour.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

“I believe in the immortality of the soul because I have within me immortal longings” ~ Helen Keller

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying.” ~ Woody Allen

“I do not believe in revealed religion - I will have nothing to do with your immortality; we are miserable enough in this life, without speculating on another” ~ Lord Byron

[hcap]

Please Bala, All evidence are based on ancient historical documents. The exact same historical methodology is used to verify the Christian Bible. {Legal Rules of Evidence Examine the Gospels}This link takes us to a review for "Testimony of the Evangelists, The (Paperback)"
by Simon Greenleaf

as one reviewer of Testimony of the Evangelists you cite by directing us to Amazon.com, says....

"the standards for human testimony can simply not be applied to an alleged "inerrant word of God."

Now trying to lump together ordinary historical studies with that of supernatural historical events is absurd. Do we accept the literal story of the flood, because it was written? After all Noah and his family,( not to mention representatives of all species ) were witnesses.

I had these discussions with Boxcar about these very same issues, in fact he started a thread called The Bible on Trial, using the courtroom as an anology.

So I had this to say about "Legal Rules of Evidence Examine the Gospels" Historically, the recording of bible texts suffers from many problems. Not only dissagreements on words and how to translate them, but on which entire books to include or omit. Old historical documents. In many cases handed down originally in verbal form. Written by men.

Inspired by God?

Well Box this is the first hurdle you must pass. How can you demonstrate that unlike other historical documents the myriad transcribers and translators of all these biblical books were all straight "A" stenographers, and not subject to mortal frailities like their own world views and prejudices?

Inspired by God. That would be the exception to how ordinary authors write, for sure. And although we might be willing to take an ordiniary authors recipe in a cook book on face value, the events and stories, contained within the bible, naturally lead to skepticism. Extraordinary claims, contrary to the laws of nature first require some corroborating evidence . Therefore a jury trial and particulary a jury instructed to presume "innocence", that the Author is really the Author of the bible must ignore the normal laws of the universe, physics, all the sciences, and actually suppress their innate understanding of how things work. So right of the bat, the claim that there is an Author and indeed the same Author is also the Author of the Cosmos, could not even be judged by any jury.

Unless of course the defense could first supply evidence that God does exist, and unless the defense can show how external events have been influenced in ways that cannot be explained by ordinary laws of nature, that miracles do exist, or prophecies have been accurately cast, I'm afraid that we are dealing in the realm of FAITH, not subject to empirical analysis. So the burden of proof shifts back to the defenseAnd the trial. The so-called witnesses cannot be questioned as to miracles or other supernatural feats, the only record of the witnesses testimony is contanied in a book that is theoretically innerant. First you must prove innerancy.Or why else attempt to accept miracles? Normally any witness in our ordinary court system that says he witnesses a supernatural feat would be cross examined all day long. So far no court has allowed the supernatural in as un-verrified testamony.

Unless you count Miracle on 34th St.

[Tom]

how about those reports of the 900 year old people as well.

Strom Thurman?

[BIG RED]

:ThmbUp:

[Bala]

....supernatural historical events is absurd..... How did the universe come into existence? Something cannot come from nothing.
The mere fact that there is anything at all implies a supernatural cause.

The law of causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) is absolute. Certainly, even you must concede this?

_________________________________


Simon Greenleaf's book was written over 150 years ago. It is still used by some legal scholars to debate the logic of law. http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html
http://www.av1611.org/resur.html



from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf):
"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defence of Christian belief. Greenleaf's book The Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists. He is distinguished as one who applied the canons of the ancient document rule to establish the authenticity of the gospel accounts, as well as cross-examination principles in assessing the testimony of those who bore witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. His style of reasoning is reflected in the apologetic works by John Warwick Montgomery, Josh McDowell and Ross Clifford."

"Greenleaf's principal work is a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (15 vols., 1842-1853). He also published A Full Collection of Cases Overruled, Denied, Doubted, or Limited in their Application, taken from American and English Reports (1821), and Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence administered in the Courts of Justice, with an account of the Trial of Jesus (1846; London, 1847). He revised for the American courts William Cruise's Digest of Laws respecting Real Property (3 vols., 1849-1850)."


_____________________________________


.....Do we accept the literal story of the flood...... Don't you find it the least bit curious that most every ancient mythology has their version of the flood story. The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Was all of humanity smoking the same wild weed?
{Flood Stories from Around the World (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html)}










________________________________________
“What is the appropriate behavior for a man or a woman in the midst of this world, where each person is clinging to his piece of debris? What's the proper salutation between people as they pass each other in this flood?” ~ Budda (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)


The only thing that stops God from sending another flood is that the first one was useless. ~ Bala

[Show Me the Wire]

I've heard eye witnesses tell of being abducted by aliens and experiencing interplanetary travel. Does that make it factual?

Then we better release all those people in prison convicted of factual crimes based on eyewitness testimony.

you are missing the point, is the witness credible. The witnesses in the New Testament were credible apparently in their time. The time close to Jesus' life.

The problem with alien abduction and believeing it, is the struggle with credibility of the witness.

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

I do not believe my statement was a misrepresentaion of the belief in one truth. I understand you believe in one truth and it takes many forms. I made a general statement you believe in lne truth, as do I, but I did not say we agree on the same truth. We only agree there is one truth.

Maake sense?

[Bala]

Hcap – if Darwinian evolution is true then:


There is no evidence for God.
There is no life after death.
There is no absolute foundation for right and wrong!
There is no ultimate meaning for life! {Buddhism and existentialism are figments of human imagination.}
Free will is a non existent. {Your will is predetermined by you DNA}


Non life produces life.
Life created itself.
Nothing produces everything.
Randomness produces fine tuning.
Chaos produces information.
Unconsciousness produces consciousness.
Non reason produces reason.
Preeminent atheist Anthony Flue said creationists have posed a serious challenge to every single evolutionary detail. However, evolutionists have no response to the science put forth by creationists. Anthony Flue is now a deist. Most people are not aware of the evidence contrary to evolution. Also look into the changes by astrophysicist Owen Gingrich - Top scientist at Harvard. He has also changed his tune.

It is amazing how we look at things like architecture and technology that we {humans} make and are certain they could never have happened on their own.

Yet things far more complex like human life -- happen on their own. Why is that? This is the usual disregard for facts. The fact is science, religion, and philosophy create a very comprehensive picture. Leave out one, and your really left with an incomplete picture. There is no dichotomy between science and religion.







______________________________________
It's choice--not chance--that determines your destiny.

“No victor believes in chance”

"I like mathematics because it is not human and has nothing particular to do with this planet or with the whole accidental universe - because, like Spinoza's God, it won't love us in return.” ~ Bertrand Russel

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy” ~ Jonathan Swift

[highnote]

How did the universe come into existence? Something cannot come from nothing.

How do you know something can't come from nothing? We haven't discovered all the science we need to understand everything about the universe. There is now some scientific evidence that light may exceed the speed of light in certain cosmic events. Yet, in most cases light has a speed limit. I am not prepared to say with absolute certainty light can not exceed the speed of light just because the science has not been developed, yet.

The world is flat, right? Of course, not. We have the science to prove it. But before we had the science, we thought it was flat.

Maybe some people don't understand calculus. Does that mean answers derived from calculus are false? Some people who don't understand calculus may believe the answers that calculus provides are false, but that does not make the answers false to someone who understands calculus.



The mere fact that there is anything at all implies a supernatural cause.


Why? Maybe it implies a natural cause? Maybe the natural world gave rise to beliefs in the supernatural? What is supernatural? Maybe supernatural is natural, as in, supernatural only exists in the minds of people and the minds of people are part of the natural world. Supernatural may be an illusion of the mind. Then again, maybe not. Who is to say with any certainty what supernatural is? The best one can do is form a belief. But that belief may be false. Then again, it may be true.

[hcap]

BalaThe law of causality is absolute. Certainly, even you must concede this?The link to Wiki that you provided does not say anything about "THE LAW OF CAUSALITY" It covers "Causality", and gives the history and variations of the philosophy of Causality. The implications in science of causality are stated:
Using the scientific method, scientists set up experiments to determine causality in the physical world. Certain elemental forces such as gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism are said to be the four fundamental forces which are the causes of all other events in the universe. The issue of to what degree a scientific experiment is replicable, however, has been often raised but rarely addressed. The fact that no experiment is entirely replicable questions some core assumptions in science.

In addition, many scientists in a variety of fields disagree that experiments are necessary to determine causality. For example, the link between smoking and lung cancer is considered proven by health agencies of the United States government, but experimental methods (for example, randomized controlled trials) were not used to establish that link. This view has been controversial. In addition, many philosophers are beginning to turn to more relativized notions of causality. Rather than providing a theory of causality in toto, they opt to provide a theory of causality in biology or causality in physics.So there is no one "THE LAW OF CAUSALITY" for me to dispute. In fact the the mention of experimental methods, and statistical observations is what science is.

What you are doing is using philosophy to support your first cause argument. Not the scientific method. If you attempted to measure or perform repeatable experiments to TEST for God, you would be probably be denied peer review-another requirement in science.

The definition of scientific method.....

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena,experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study andexperimentation. It is concerned with facts provable by systematic observation under established principles. By its nature it is limited to the material realm, and has no disciplines for the spiritual or supernatural realms.

I ask you about literally interpeting the flood story and you say..
Don't you find it the least bit curious that most every ancient mythology has their version of the flood story. The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Was all of humanity smoking the same wild weed?Smoking weed or not smoking weed?
Maybe we should question some 3000 old witnesses to determine the truth?
Both to the literal happenings of the flood and the annual consumption rate of ancient Israelite marijuana.

So, are these literally true?

1- Was the earth was created in 7 days?
....and therefore The immediate appearance of man on earth?in 7 Days?

2- Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat?
....literally?

3-Is the earth older than 6 or 7,000 years?

4-Is the Bible Inerrant?

[betchatoo]

Then we better release all those people in prison convicted of factual crimes based on eyewitness testimony.

you are missing the point, is the witness credible. The witnesses in the New Testament were credible apparently in their time. The time close to Jesus' life.

The problem with alien abduction and believeing it, is the struggle with credibility of the witness.

Actually, if you talk to law enforcement officials, they will tell you that eyewitness testimony is often the weakest evidence. People are not always sure of what they have seen. However, I don't deny the existence of a man called Jesus. I believe there is plausible evidence he lived. Whether he is the one true son of God and the Savior, I can't say. Whether he worked miracles, I don't know.

There are followers of modern day cults who have claimed their leaders have worked miracles. Are they less credible simply because you don't believe in the same things they do?

[Show Me the Wire]

betchatoo:

People may have a hard time describing every detail, because it is a trumatic experience, however, a person can tell you a robbery happend and if enough people identify the suspect the identificationit is credible. In fact earlier societies were more acutlly aware of this fact than ours. The usual criteria had to be at least two witnesses to prove identity, they never took the word of only one witness, unlike us.

I agree eye witness identification of an unknown person is weak, but if you know the person he is easy to identify, but that is not the discusssion, we are talking about establishing an action not a person.

Facts are established by actualling witnessing the fact.

[Tom]

Actually, if you talk to law enforcement officials, they will tell you that eyewitness testimony is often the weakest evidence. People are not always sure of what they have seen.

Just look at this board - how can peopple see everything so completely different from others? It's like we live in two different worlds and come here to talk about things not knowing. :rolleyes:

[highnote]

Just look at this board - how can peopple see everything so completely different from others? It's like we live in two different worlds and come here to talk about things not knowing. :rolleyes:


Yeah. I agree. Why is it that almost no one sees things correctly here? I do. :D

[RBrowning]

I don't even know what the debate is about anymore.





Are they even still debating?

[Bala]

How do you know something can't come from nothing? I cannot speak to an illogical question. Every effect has a cause that precedes it.

.....scientific evidence that light may exceed the speed..... I answered this question in post # 129 here (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33398&page=9&pp=15)


The world is flat, right..... I do not know where or how this urban legend came to be. It is not historical! Ancient people looked up at the moon, sun and other celestial bodies and recognized the obvious fact the earth must be round as well. Whether it was the Egyptians, Greco-Romans or Mayans and Aztecs, all portrayed the Earth with circular geometry in their drawings. Why this folklore is still repeated today is a mystery. You must be a product of a public school education. Yes – Columbus was absolutely certain
the earth was round.




_________________________________________
There are two sides to every question. ~ Protagoras (485 BC - 421 BC)

Criticism comes easier than craftsmanship. ~ Zeuxis (464 ~400 BC)

The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God. ~ Euclid 325 BC ~ 265 BC Egyptian mathematician.

Though bitter, good medicine cures illness. Though it may hurt, loyal criticism will have beneficial effects. ~ Sima Qian 145 BC ~ 86 BC, Chinese Historian

[highnote]

I cannot speak to an illogical question.

Why not? You're the one who said so confidently that something can come from nothing. If you are sure that is true, all I want to know is how you know.


Every effect has a cause that precedes it.

Then what preceded the supernatural?

I do not know where or how this urban legend came to be.

I agree with you that lots of cultures knew the Earth was round -- the ancient Greeks, for instance.

But urban legend or not, it is irrelevant to my point.

[Bala]

What you are doing is using philosophy to support your first cause argument. Not the scientific method. Naturally. When it comes to first cause I have no other choice. Science cannot step outside this universe. That is why I stated this:
The fact is science, religion, and philosophy create a very comprehensive picture. Leave out one, and your really left with an incomplete picture. There is no dichotomy between science and religion.


I ask you about literally interpeting the flood story and you say.....some 3000 old witnesses to determine the truth...... With this logic perhaps we should revive Brutus and ask him if in fact he murdered Julius Caesar. Do dead men tell any tells? There is not a serious scholar alive who could not prove the existence and teachings of Jesus {the Jewish messiah} using only secular historical methods.

I was using a little hyperbole to answer the flood query. Most every ancient civilization has a flood myth. Historians would conclude dead men do tell tales. In this cause a worldwide climate catastrophe. One that may have killed off the dinosaurs. Yes – the book of Job speaks of leviathans, behemoths and giant lizards!!!! The word “dinosaurs” originated around 1820. It is easy to forget just how young archeology and paleontology actually is.


So, are these literally true?

1- Was the earth was created in 7 days?
....and therefore The immediate appearance of man on earth?in 7 Days?

2- Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat?
....literally?

3-Is the earth older than 6 or 7,000 years?

4-Is the Bible Inerrant? The Christian Bible is not an encyclopedia. The holy book is more an instruction manual for the human race from the Creator. I did not mean to leave the impression that all 66 books of the Bible are literal. Some books are – others are allegorical, poetry, hyperbole, and of course parables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable).

In no part of the Bible does it mention how old the Earth or universe is. Only vain, self important, smug preachers say such time scales. What is known >>

>> the very first created things must have been already mature. First man {Adam} and first woman {Eve} would have to fully mature to name all other things in creation. If they were created infants they would have most certainly perished.

In the same vain, the universe was created in a mature state of existence.

Regarding your 7 day inquiry…. The more important question is what kind of God do I worship? My God is infinite in knowledge and wisdom. Infinity in all directions… past, present and future. God could have created all things in 7 nanoseconds if it so pleased his divine will.

Noah saved all the species >>>
How familiar are you with ancient figures of speech? If today I told you I have a frog in my throat, would you believe me? Or, could you conclude using today figures of speech – my throat was horse?

The bible was written for the common man/woman of that day. Not for the well educated king and his court. Are you aware of all the principles of literature used my the ancients? Could all the animals mean…..all common livestock?

Rhetorical question. This is precisely what it means in today’s parlance. Most of the farm animals were eggs not live mammals. Much easier to carry eggs on board then care for live animals.

Bible Inerrant? >>>
The arrogance of modern man is far more fallible.






_____________________________________________
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. ~ Plato

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." ~ Jimi Hendrix

Common sense is not so common. ~ Bala

[Bala]

Why not? I don’t know how to answer such a preposterous question. Life cannot arise from non life! Do you also believe Elvis is still alive on some UFO?

If you really believe nothingness can give birth to something {the universe} the burden of proof is on you.

Then what preceded the supernatural? Of course I understand the endlessly circular logic.

God in infinite. The only uncaused first cause. The best models of big bang cosmology agree – our universe is finite. Our universe had a beginning, God has always existed.




______________________________________
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ~ Albert Einstein

Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all. ~ Albert Einstein

[highnote]

If you really believe nothingness can give birth to something {the universe} the burden of proof is on you

I didn't say I believed that. You're the one who said it.


God in infinite. The best models of big bang cosmology agree – our universe is finite.

It seems to me God and the universe are not two separate things. Perhaps God did not create the universe, perhaps He/She/It expanded the universe. So perhaps the primordial soup that scientists think existed before the big bang was created by God and God existed around or outside of that soup.

Other than through faith, is there really any way of knowing? You either believe or you don't

But just because one believes in the existense of God doesn't mean God exists. And just because one doesn't believe in the existence of God doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

But I wasn't trying to argue the existence of non-existence of God. Initially, I was just trying to find out where your beliefs came from. Now, we're so far off topic, I don't even remember what belief of yours I was interested in and at 4:00 in the morning, I'm too tired to look it up. :D

[PaceAdvantage]

Wonder if Tom will get on you for copyright quotes Bala as he generally does me.

Did he quote more than a paragraph or two from any one source?

[hcap]

Bala, in your first post you say..Facts are real, authentic and verifiable or they are discarded. There is no dichotomy between science and religion. If stated facts from either sources cannot be verified than it needs to be abdicated.And then we have this discussion

Originally Posted by hcap
What you are doing is using philosophy to support your first cause argument. Not the scientific method.You say
Naturally. When it comes to first cause I have no other choice. Science cannot step outside this universe. That is why I stated this:

Originally Posted by POST#23
The fact is science, religion, and philosophy create a very comprehensive picture. Leave out one, and your really left with an incomplete picture. There is no dichotomy between science and religion.
So right there you admit science cannot work it's way back to the existence or non-existence of God. Exactly my point. But if you agree on limits in scientific investigation versus none in philosophy-you are using philosophy not science to propose first cause-how can you say there is no dichotomy between science and philolosphy?

dichotomy:

Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.

In other words, it is a mutually exclusive bipartition of elements. i.e. nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts, and everything must belong to one part or the other. They are often contrasting and spoken of as "opposites

Q.E.D.

So why then why do we continue disageeing?
Furthemore, "THE FIRST CAUSE" is not fact. It is a supposition based on your philosophical observations. It cannot be tested as normal natural processes using the scientifis method. There are philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, but there are no scientific proofs, based on testable hypotheses, and experimentation. For instance if you could prove the innerancy of any scripture you could wrap up this discussion, 1,2,3. And you could also answer my questions about literal value of stories in the bible, instead of ducking the issue. You sayThe Christian Bible is not an encyclopedia. Maybe not but who decides the factual content? remember you said this right of the bat in post #1Facts are real, authentic and verifiable or they are discarded. There is no dichotomy between science and religion. If stated facts from either sources cannot be verified than it needs to be abdicatedScience is not allegory or parables. Neither is science poetry. None are subject to the scientific method. But you continue to duck The holy book is more an instruction manual for the human race from the Creator. I did not mean to leave the impression that all 66 books of the Bible are literal. Some books are – others are allegorical, poetry, hyperbole, and of course parables.You can't prove scientifically any of this. We may use other means. But not science. And your Mr Geenleaf who may be a Christian apologist, cannot define which books are to be taken literally, which should be taken as parable, and which are hyperbole using the scientific method. So in keeping to your statement,If stated facts from either sources cannot be verified than it needs to be abdicated,I would submit very little of parable or allegory can be VERIFIED Neither are even open to verification in the scientific sense. The word dichotomy is useful here. Religion is VERY different from science in it's approach. Although I agree they are both trying to understand larger issues.


You know if I didn't know better I would get the impression that you are not as logical as you claim, and your modus operandi is to throw as much links and inappropriate exerpts from all sorts of questionable sources up on the wall, and see how many stick. Many of the sources you cite in a flurry of "scholarship", don't have much to do with your main contention.

Oh yeah one more thing, you condescendingly attempt to tutor mehcap's feeble attempts to find meaning through Buddhism is ultimately futile.

Every effect has a cause. This concept is absolute. Yes, there are absolute rules to science and some religions. {not Buddhism} Again if I didn't know better, I would think you were throwing more shit on the wall.
I seem to remember someone saying "Judge not and ye shall not be judged"

[Bala]

hcap - I recall a quote from our intelligence agencies regarding 9/11…
“we had the information but no one could connect the dots”

You are compartmentalizing various disciplines; I am attempting to connect the dots. Science does have limits. Over the past 30 days we have been discussing cosmological evolution and Darwinian evolution. Not just first cause.

Preeminent physicist Stephen Hawking has said first cause is problematic to current paradigms. To solve this dilemma, Hawking and his contemporaries have invented the multiverse concept. It is modern science who has abandoned verifiable facts and stepped into the twilight zone.

Your attempts to redefine first cause are not consistent with known laws of physics.

Additionally, Darwinian mutations have been observed in the wild. Doctors call such mutations cancer. Mutation to the genetic code which is harmful to an organism or mammal. In order for a specious to move forward – new and unadulterated information must be added to DNA. Things do not self assemble without an established blueprint.


Re Bible;

The same historical methods used to establish Alexander the Great {or any ancient figure of significance} military conquests are also used to verify the Christian Bible. Manuscript evidence, archeological finds, and statistical probabilities of an event likely to have occurred based on the preponderance of the available evidence.

For crying out loud - this is what historians do. Such evidence is not the same as 2+2=immutable.

And your Mr Geenleaf who may be a Christian apologist, cannot define which books are to be taken literally..... The same methods {above} are used to canon (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xn-canon.html) a book. There is no mystery as to which book are to be included in the bible and which are to be left out. The methods of interpretation {allegory, symbolism, parable, etc…} of the individual books in the bible are clearly established using standard literary techniques. The same techniques to properly interpret William Shakespeare’s works.

your modus operandi is to throw as much links and inappropriate exerpts from all sorts of questionable sources Your opinion. Perhaps the sources were ‘questionable’ because they did not fit with your biases. However, I was merely demonstrating that science does indeed have limits.

.....I would get the impression that you are not as logical as you claim.....Your faith in science is misplaced. Science is mostly probabilities with only a handful of absolutes. You have consistently mischaracterized the few immutable laws of physics and chemistry.

You and I will never agree. But the debate will go on with or without us. Do we teach the next generation that homo sapiens evolved from pond scum or the strong probability the universe has been fine tuned for human life by a designer?

I seem to remember someone saying "Judge not and ye shall not be judged" We most certainly are instructed to judge behavior which has a counter productive impact on society. {murder, pedophilia, etc…} Can the same be said for Buddhism? I think not. Charles Manson claims to be the enlightened one.


_____________________________________________
Since everything is but an apparition, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter.
—Longchenpa(14th century Tibet)

[hcap]

You sayYou are compartmentalizing** various disciplines; I am attempting to connect the dots. Science does have limits. Over the past 30 days we have been discussing cosmological evolution and Darwinian evolution. Not just first cause.Yes we are discussing both cosmological and Darwinian evolution. But connecting the dots is philosophical, not scientific. You are masquerading one type of argument as another. You are the one that attempts to include "first cause" a philosophical argument, as a "scientific" demonstration for the impossibility of Darwinian evolution. You say Naturally. When it comes to first cause I have no other choice. Science cannot step outside this universe. It cannot. Nor can it prove one way or the other the connection between the supernatural and the natural. So although we are discussing cosmological and Darwinian evolution, you are not being scientific. You are being philosophical. Simply own up to it, and accept it. But it seems you won't because you have staked out the usability of science as a larger vehicle in these matters. In contradiction to your many own admissions about scientific limits.

Your major contention is science has shown us everything IN this universe has causal relationships, THEREFORE we can extend this scientific fact OUTSIDE the Universe. Not as a philosophical argument, but as a scientific fact. Specifically in regards to Darwinian evolution. Consequently every so-called scientific objection that you have to Darwinian evolution is bogus by your own admission.

I am not "compartmentalizing various disciplines**". Set theory would say philosophy includes science and even religion, as subsets.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Philosophy

Applications

Different non-philosophical disciplines are often associated with one or more philosophical schools of thought.

Science

Science is a systematic epistemology based on theory and experimentation. Scientists formulate hypotheses (the first stage of theory) with testable predictions and then carry out experiments to help determine the truth or untruth of the hypothesis.

Mathematics

Mathematics, or quantitative logic, is a formal system of logical axioms and inferences that they prove.

Religion

Different religions are often based on different ontological assumptions. Generally the common philosophical thread tying together most religions is the use of a faith-based system of epistemology as the primary justification for ontological assertions
.................................................. ....................

Your attempts to redefine first cause are not consistent with known laws of physics.Once again you are guilty of projecting science outside the universe in a vain attempt to define what God is or may not be.

Preeminent physicist Stephen Hawking has said first cause is problematic to current paradigms. To solve this dilemma, Hawking and his contemporaries have invented the multiverse concept. It is modern science who has abandoned verifiable facts and stepped into the twilight zone. We won't be able to answer this definitively without scientific verification. The theoretical is just that. Theory. But I'm sure Hawking would not claim proof of anything without evidence and testable hypothesis. So if his theories about the multiuniverse are to be held up to scrutiny, so must yours. Hawking has had maybe 10 years? Hawking just came out with this as speculation. Whereas you and the church had thousands of years, to prepare your case. The existence of God, the first cause. By now your side should be able to prove it.Re Bible;
The same historical methods used to establish Alexander the Great {or any ancient figure of significance} military conquests are also used to verify the Christian Bible. Manuscript evidence, archeological finds, and statistical probabilities of an event likely to have occurred based on the preponderance of the available evidence.

For crying out loud - this is what historians do. Such evidence is not the same as 2+2=immutable.I never claimed that there is not historical evidence of the existence of historical figures. I was speaking about historical evidence of the supernatural. There is none. Provide scientific evidence. That any of the miracles, prophecies in the bible occured. Alexander the great only rode a herd of elephants and had a library named after him.The methods of interpretation {allegory, symbolism, parable, etc…} of the individual books in the bible are clearly established using standard literary techniques. The same techniques to properly interpret William Shakespeare’s works..???There's a huge difference between an author who never claimed innerancy and divine inspiration and those that interpret a collection of books that proclaim it's author was God. First prove that. Miracles and prophecies and the supernatural are not claimed as true by the Bard. We know Shakespeare wrote fiction. You are claiming NON-FICTION big time.


I say....your modus operandi is to throw as much links and inappropriate exerpts from all sorts of questionable sources.

You say....
Your opinion. Perhaps the sources were ‘questionable’ because they did not fit with your biases. However, I was merely demonstrating that science does indeed have limits. Once again you admit science has limits. How many times must I say that is my point! So why don't you see that "first cause" derivation is an example of one big limit. Your faith in science is misplaced. Science is mostly probabilities with only a handful of absolutes. You have consistently mischaracterized the few immutable laws of physics and chemistry. Name one mischaracterization

I said in reference to your slighting of Buddhism.....

I seem to remember someone saying "Judge not and ye shall not be judged"

Then you babble....

We most certainly are instructed to judge behavior which has a counter productive impact on society. {murder, pedophilia, etc…} Can the same be said for Buddhism? I think not. Charles Manson claims to be the enlightened one.Now are you implying that Buddha who is called the enlightened one is the same as Manson? If I said Jesus who is claimed to be the son of God and fought the devil is the same as...

1-Sheriff: Texas woman says God told her to kill sons
2-Andrea Yates, drowned her five children She told authorities that Satan told her to kill the children
3- Reverend Jim Jones the son of a Klansman, considered himself the reincarnation of Jesus

What would be your reaction? Well let me tell you mine. Screw you.
An apology is due

[Bala]

....testable predictions and then carry out experiments to help determine the truth or untruth...... Darwinian macroevolution cannot pass this test without the help of some gross assumptions. The Cambrian explosion will be the death blow to this theory. Nor can biological evolution explain abiogenesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/).

...Whereas you and the church had thousands of years, to prepare your case.... Actually 2007 years. The Jewish Messiah was crucified by Roman authorities, was buried and rose form the grave. All this in front of hundreds of witness. Including Roman guards. The secular Roman historian Flavius Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus) recounts this incredible story outside of the Christian Bible. This Jewish Messiah {Jesus} physically conquered no one yet transformed the western world.

Name one mischaracterization Your freewheeling definition of randomness and chaos. You have said “randomness does not mean without form or structure.” In order for anything to self assemble it needs to have the necessary information to do so. DNA is a warehouse of data or blueprint for assembling a human. DNA database is filled with information on protein sequencing as if it were designed intentionally.

To believe that randomness can determine the right set of circumstance and right information to construct anything is absurd. I'd rather believe a hurricane can rummage through a junkyard and assemble a space shuttle by accident.

Modern evolutionist seem to hold randomness with almost mystical powers to continue to redefine the term over the past 100 years. Mathematical randomness is nothing more than a set of probabilities. Mounting evidence suggests that the conditions necessary for complex life are exceedingly rare, and that the probability of them all converging at the same place and time is minute.

Dr. W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed by Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash. You may recall Nash in the film “A Beautiful Mind.” Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarked:

<<quote>> Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist. Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.


Once again you admit science has limits. How many times must I say that is my point! So why don't you see that "first cause" derivation is an example of one big limit. Why must you {all evolutionists} go out of your way to make this giant assumption? It is probably correct to think first effect – the birth of the universe – had a cause. You may say I'm violating Occam's razor. However, my position is the more reasonable one.

It has been said the need of a creator is convenient. It solves the conundrum of first cause. What would the practical logic of Arthur Conan Doyle {Sherlock Holmes} have to say? Perhaps it is convenient because it is the most practical. What did Einstein say about the universe and physical reality? “Keep it simple but no simpler.”

Of course the above is an oversimplification of logic. However, the most sensible position is every effect has a cause in all time frames.

Andrea Yates........Reverend Jim Jones......... Those lunatics and others like them are not living a life which is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

What would be your reaction? A Somber one.

Well let me tell you mine. Screw you. Would you believe me is I told you I understand your hostility? Never the less, in the three monotheistic religions, right and wrong are clearly defined and well understood. No politically correct BS. The same cannot be said for Buddhism. Although, the current Dali Lama of Tibet has suggested the presecution of his people by China may be wrong. I suspect this is more a means of gathering sympathy from the outside world.

An apology is due Is it possible you're to sensitive? From your face painted avatar one could conclude you're a poster of deep feelings. Would it surprise you I also have empathy for my fellow man?

.......I don't think I was rude to you. I'll go back and reread some of my posts. It is society at large that needs to apologize to Christians for continually deification on us!!!!!




________________________________________
Dali Lama - Instructions for Life;

Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.

Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.

Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.

When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.

Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.
{ values here is undefined and relative. ~ Bala }

[Bala]

....continually deification on us!!!!! These late nights are killing me. I meant >> "defecating"





________________________________
HBO - "OZ"
Beecher: You've got to transfer me to another cell block.
Tim McManus: All the other cell blocks are full.
Beecher: Well transfer me to another prison.
Tim McManus: Do I look like a travel agent to you?

[Bala]

other news.........

Global warming may be caused by a natural cycle of thawing methane from permafrost; http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html?fark


Stonehenge was once part of a much larger complex; http://in.news.yahoo.com/070115/139/6b54r.html


New 'Hobbit' Galaxies Discovered Around Milky Way; http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070115_mm_hobbit_galaxies.html

[hcap]

Once again, I said in reference to your slighting of Buddhism.....

I seem to remember someone saying "Judge not and ye shall not be judged"

Then you babble....
We most certainly are instructed to judge behavior which has a counter productive impact on society. {murder, pedophilia, etc…} Can the same be said for Buddhism? I think not. Charles Manson claims to be the enlightened one.
Now are you implying that Buddha who is called the enlightened one is the same as Manson? If I said Jesus who is claimed to be the son of God and fought the devil is the same as...

1-Sheriff: Texas woman says God told her to kill sons
2-Andrea Yates, drowned her five children She told authorities that Satan told her to kill the children
3- Reverend Jim Jones the son of a Klansman, considered himself the reincarnation of Jesus

What would be your reaction? Well let me tell you mine. Screw you.
An apology is dueSo not knowing how much of a Buddhist I may or not be, don't you think you should have been more respectful? Comparing Manson to Buddha?

Although I may disagree on literal interpretations of the bible, I consider those who believe honest and faithful. I have never compared Jesus to murderers.

[Bala]

hcap,

I have reconsidered my position on Buddhism. To the best of my knowledge the main and plain creeds are in fact peaceful. I do not know of any time in history in which Buddhism was directly involved in the enslavement and persecution of my fellow man. Nor are there any precedent for war based solely on mainstream Buddhism.

For those practicer's who I offended I truly am sorry! It was based of a rudimentary understanding of Buddhas teachings. (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.) Although the philosophy is not my cup of tea, I do see how it would appeal to gentle people.

For this poster Buddhism represent to much relativity. The definition of “good” and “bad” are obscure. The Dali Lama will not criticize the murderous Chinese govt. even though China has been on an extermination campaign since Mao Tse Tung. Perhaps when Mao is reincarnated (http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-buddha.htm) he will see the error of his ways? Occasionally, in order to protect the innocent, conscientious people must go to war.

....disagree on literal interpretations of the bible, I consider those who believe honest and faithful.... All 66 books of the bible taken in complete panoply with all literary styles {literal, allegory, hyperbole, symbolical and parable} are a dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic) tool. A common teaching method used by the Greco-Roman world. All 66 books properly interpreted leads to God. Unfortunately, Americans are so ignorant of history, and explicate the bible according to modern standards. We must not impose the standards of today onto Ancient people.


_______________________________________________


The beginnings of this universe begs the question how/who was the cause.
All of modern science implies a cause equal to or greater then the big bang.










___________________________________
A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering. ~ Buddha.

[chickenhead]

The Dali Lama will not criticize the murderous Chinese govt. even though China has been on an extermination campaign since Mao Tse Tung.

The DL has criticised them repeatedly, in pretty much every venue. I guess what you're saying is he doesn't say what you want him to say? Either that or you're just off base?


Dalai Lama criticizes “repressive” China
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=&section=theworld&xfile=data/theworld/2006/November/theworld_November459.xml

Dalai Lama criticizes China but notes positive developments on Tibet
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=3887&t=1&c=1

In fact, read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516584/posts

does that sound like your representation?

[Bala]

The DL has criticised them repeatedly........ Thanks for those links. However, I am aware of similar links.

This is not political exegesis, it is rather, about right and wrong. The DL has not said it is plain wrong. I have somewhat addressed this in post #40:
....the current Dali Lama of Tibet has suggested the presecution of his people by China may be wrong. I suspect this is more a means of gathering sympathy from the outside world.

[chickenhead]

So he has campaigned tirelessly against the human rights violations of the Chinese against his people, yet somehow you are unclear on whether he thinks they are wrong?

You seem very bright, but lacking common sense maybe.

[Tom]

You seem very bright, but lacking common sense maybe.

Try this - You seem very bright, but lacking in common sense you are.

That goes better with your avatar. :lol:

[hcap]

Bala,

I accept your apology.
For this poster Buddhism represent to much relativity. The definition of “good” and “bad” are obscure. IMHO Absolute-ism is the weak point of the interpretations of many religions. The reason one sect will war with others both metaphysically and with guns.
All 66 books of the bible taken in complete panoply with all literary styles {literal, allegory, hyperbole, symbolical and parable} are a dialectic tool. A common teaching method used by the Greco-Roman world. All 66 books properly interpreted leads to God. Unfortunately, Americans are so ignorant of history, and explicate the bible according to modern standards. We must not impose the standards of today onto Ancient people.Don't you suspect that that "properly interpreted" is the sticky point. Without going into specific contradictory views of the bible, how can you even contend that there is one proper interpretation?


From Wiki...The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion. One way — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth. Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis.

Although all religions may include rational debate, ultimately they revolve about and depend upon a simple matter of faith.

The wisdom of our constitution is allowing all faiths to coexist, without trying to rationally or dialecticaly analyse the merits of one religion versus another. Why continue the old world absolutism that caused european Christians to war among themselves and spread relgious intolerance?

"The need for simple human to human relationship is becoming increasingly urgent.... Today the world is smaller and more interdependent. One nation's problems can no longer be solved by itself completely. Thus, without a sense of universal responsibility, our very survival becomes threatened. Basically, universal responsibility is feeling for other people's suffering just as we feel our own. It is the realization that even our enemy is entirely motivated by the guest for happiness. We must recognize that all beings want the same thing that we want. This is the way to achieve a true understanding, unfettered by artificial consideration".-The Dalai Lama, Tenzin GyatsoYou say

....the current Dali Lama of Tibet has suggested the presecution of his people by China may be wrong. I suspect this is more a means of gathering sympathy from the outside world.
Politically motivated? A major tenet of Buddhism is compassion. Just as it is in Christianity. Rome was an unjust regime towards the Jews and then the early Christians. Yet we have "render unto Caeser". This does not imply that Caesers' empire was just, or that Jesus was politically motivated.