The magic of Cosmos

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

Janic wrote:
Only when we refer to the discourse on progressive evolution with the transition from horizontality to verticality. As a creationist, humans are created vertically, so no evolutionary passage!

All humans are both horizontal (genetic determinism) and potentially vertical.
The latter is not acquired, hence the notion of an evolution (as mentioned by the Maharshi) of man towards something else, Nietzsche spoke of "superman".

This is philosophical-metaphysical discourse, nothing scientific about it. It recalls the Catholic discourse with its crucifix and its: in the name of the father, etc ... like what " traditions are good "!

Quote:
Re bombastic speech; updated rather than created! But let's move on! Nowhere is it mentioned that humans have an ability to create in the manner of God,

Hence the term update rather than creation.

Obviously since the philosophical approaches are different, even opposite. But the terms also have a particular meaning. An update FOLLOWs an abstract idea or an achievement, it does not replace it. The human is an imitator more than an inventor from where this point of view which he is unable to create IN THE MANNER OF GOD which starts from nothing, from nothing

When you make a cake, you create absolutely nothing, you inform about the already existing material, it is the same for all our inventions.

Not really ! The idea of ​​making a cake does not come from nowhere, but from the concept of cake already existing by cultural transmission, just like creating an engine (like Turbi) comes from the already preexisting idea of ​​it (inventions are not in general only improvements). In the case of god, there is nothing before, it is this postulate which prevails in creationism!
So you hardly seem to be an inventor yourself.

What is quite funny is that you have been striving for around thirty messages to explain that God created the Universe just as man creates objects, except here you explain that this is not the case , so thank you for sharing my vision!

Any analogy to its limits is the search for meaning that prevails!
What makes an invention unique isidea, which is virtual, abstract, the will of ....!. The rest is only the concretization of this idea, this will to; this " and god said and the thing was" In your language you call that information, in my language it is creation, it is white cap, white cap.
You mentioned, some time earlier, the works of artists in which we can see only paint, canvas, stone and hammers and that's it! Or appreciate the idea of the artist concretized by matter. In creationist discourse, it is the idea and the artist that take precedence over the work itself. " my god how beautiful your works are! "As some will rave about the Mona Lisa or the victory of Samothrace. (Which are ONLY testimonies of the existence, current or past, of the artist)

Quote:
thus emphasizing that god is the chief, the father, the demiurge of all his creation and the maintenance in state and asks the human to do the same.

The literalist interpretation of passing from genesis has done a lot of harm to our animal friends ...

And keep doing it! But as the text says: " they twist the scriptures for their own ruin ".and elsewhere " they take their word for my word, I didn't order them anything about it " or "their belly is god"It challenges twisted interpretations, but not the will expressed by an 'inspired' text.

This reading of the texts is typically primate, God is the dominant, man is subject to God and animals are subject to men..hum hum!

Materialistic reading without actually seeking meaning!

Fortunately, the deeper meaning is more subtle!

This is what I also try to emphasize from the start, without falling into pseudo-initiatory discourses which only serve to establish classes which, in turn, will undergo the same perversion for caste interest (the great lessons Of the history !)

Quote:
Inevitably! It is concrete, verifiable biology!
(about the chicken and the egg).

The hen comes from the egg which is laid by another hen ... if we go back very far we come to a previous volatile species, itself laying eggs, then to a reptile ascendant, fish until the first forms of lives ... themselves resulting from biochemical, chemical and atomic constituents born in the stellar furnace and fruit of nucleosynthesis all this until the initial singularity, "beyond" which neither space nor time have meaning ... in all cases the mental perception loses all reference, and no referencing is then possible ...

Again, this is repeating a lesson well learned in evolutionary discourse! (it's just a statement; to each his own!). Lack of luck, no biologically certified missing link so this is only a view of the mind, no evidence in the usual sense. Evolution is an unverifiable myth ... like creation, you would say!

Quote:
Nice philosophical discourse when one seeks to know if there is a primary cause or not.
(about the quote from R.Maharshi).

Simple speech?
Whether one is an atheist or a theist, every step of authentic research of origins, whether scientific or empirical, leads humans irreparably to their deep nature.

That's what I said, a nice (not a simple) philosophical speech (in relation to scientific evidence, not in relation to other philosophical discourses, of course!)
But indeed it shows that the search for the father, the mother, his origins, remains one of the major philosophical and technological subjects. Hence all this technological debauchery to discover the origins of our universe, that of psychoanalysis to decode the ill-being of individuals in relation to their parents. And the anguish of atheism which, in denial of the "father", seeks in matter and the ego the answer to its lack. It is the syndrome of children born under X, abandoned, adopted or rejected for lack of love.
It is the risk of knowing the good and the bad whose fruit, so good in taste, creates bitterness in digestion.

[sen-no-sen]

This is philosophical-metaphysical discourse, nothing scientific about it. It recalls the Catholic discourse with its crucifix and its: in the name of the father, etc ... like what " traditions are good "!

Philosophy and science have always coexisted closely, moreover there are philosophers of science (like E.Klein).
There are, however, two forms of metaphysics:
-1) Metaphysics of a scientific nature based on scientific facts.
-2) Idealistic metaphysics based on the belief of a few and which can give rise to all forms of irrationalism.

Thus the theory of the multiverse responds to this first step, although being speculative, a certain number of facts makes it possible to consider it as being plausible.
Belief in a demiurge corresponds to the second point, it is not based on any scientific facts, moreover it has historically tended to reject scientific facts by qualifying them as reductionists.

As for the idea that man is an animal with vertical development, there is on the contrary an undeniable scientific fact that everyone can see: while a young turtle emerges from the egg entirely autonomous and determined by instinct, the little man as for him needs a memetic construction, mixture of nature and culture it is the information that he stores in his brain that will make him an individual with a free choice or no...

An update FOLLOWs an abstract idea or an achievement, it does not replace it. The human is an imitator more than an inventor hence this point of view which he is unable to create IN THE WAY OF GOD which comes to him from nothing, from nothingness

And what is nothingness?
How can something come out of nothing?
Where does God come from?
All his questions come from the intellect and have as a principle to answer questions badly asked.

"God created man, and man created God, they are both the creators of names and forms, but in reality neither god nor man was created." Ramana Maharshi.

Not really ! The idea of ​​making a cake does not come from nowhere, but from the concept of cake already existing by cultural transmission, just as creating an engine (like Turbi) comes from the already preexisting idea of ​​it (inventions are not in general only improvements).

Hence my remark on the notion of information of the material, the ingredients of the cake exist somewhere: flour, sugar, eggs, yeast, humans have at best produced their ingredients (breeding, culture) but have not create Out of nothing.

In the case of God, there is nothing before, it is this postulate which prevails in creationism!

Thank you, I understood the creationist vision!
The creationist vision does not fundamentally diverge from the atheist vision contrary to what many might believe, because it is based on the idea that the Universe came from ...
For creationists the universe comes from God, for atheists the universe comes from the big bang.
The theistic position is very easy to hold: whatever the discoveries made, it will always be possible to say that God is "in".

Basically there is no difference, the esoteric reading of the Torah via gematria clearly indicates positions entirely in accordance with the atheist vision.
Where things get complicated is when it comes to interpretations of the facts, and that's where conflicts and dogmas arise.
For some God is a thinking entity endowed with a project, for others it is only a vague concept ...

The rest is only the concretization of this idea, this will to; this "and god said and the thing was". In your language you call that information, in my language it is creation, it is white cap, white cap.

As mentioned just above, the two visions come together in absolute terms.
However, words possess us, and each idea, although conceptually identical to the origin, ends up - through a phenomenon of successive reinterpretations - by becoming a belief whose cultural impact is hardly imaginable.

From the point of view of reductionist materialism, the universe is an immense physical process, the idea of ​​pleasing a creator is therefore without foundations, here only the rules of physics are necessary, the problem is that this vision of things lead irreparably to scientism and its contemporary inclination: techno-scientism ... the purpose is a totalizing system.

With regard to theism, the idea that a demiurge is created the Universe leads believers to an idea of ​​submission to the "almighty", with the fear of not respecting the divine laws. 'adds the cultural constraints of the moment leading to terrible problems.

Beyond theism comes in strict opposition to reductionist materialism, creationism. Based on a literal reading of the Bible, such a vision tends to put a lead base on scientific discoveries at odds with dogma, such a model ends irretrievably by given a totalitarian system ...

His two points of view are therefore wrong ...

Lack of luck, no biologically certified missing link so this is only a view of the mind, no evidence in the usual sense. Evolution is an unverifiable myth ... like creation, you would say!

So we don't age, there are no variations through the ages, the species are frozen, the universe is static, of course ...

That's what I said, a nice (not a simple) philosophical speech (in relation to scientific evidence, not in relation to other philosophical discourses, of course!)

It is not a philosophical discourse but a does.
Where do you think the search for origins is?

"There are a great number of theories and they all serve to indicate that creation has a cause; then the hypothesis of a creator must be put forward in order for the cause to be sought. The emphasis is on the objective of the theory and not on the process of creation. In addition, creation is perceived by someone. There is no object without the subject. In other words, objects do not come and tell you what 'they exist.; Objects are therefore what the viewer actually sees them. They have no existence independent of the subject. Discover what you are and you will discover what the world is. theories. "
Ramana Maharshi.

[Janic]

Sen no sen

Janic wrote:
This is philosophical-metaphysical discourse, nothing scientific about it. It recalls the Catholic discourse with its crucifix and its: in the name of the father, etc ... like what "traditions have good"!

Philosophy and science have always coexisted closely, moreover there are philosophers of science (like E.Klein).

Fortunately, it is that I also support: pluralism of ideas. The only stumbling block is this constant solicitation of "evidence" even when philosophy does not resort to it by its very nature. So that the two coexist it is even necessary, even mandatory. It is also necessary to be clear on which plane we place ourselves each time: or science and proof; or philosophy and view of the mind.

There are, however, two forms of metaphysics:
-1) Metaphysics of a scientific nature based on scientific facts.

There it seems that there is incompatibility

Metaphysics: 1 ° -Part of the philosophical reflection which has for object the absolute knowledge of the being as being, the research of the first principles and the first causes.
2 ° - Intellectual speculation on abstract things and which does not lead to a solution of real problems. Larousse

-2) Idealistic metaphysics based on the belief of a few and which can give rise to all forms of irrationalism.
Thus the theory of the multiverse responds to this first step, although being speculative, a certain number of facts makes it possible to consider it as being plausible.
Belief in a demiurge corresponds to the second point, it is not based on any scientific facts,

This same discourse is also held by creationists who consider the real material world as proof of the existence of its author and creator just as a painting is proof that there is indeed a painter at his origin. We keep going in circles!

moreover, it has historically tended to reject scientific facts by qualifying them as reductionists.

What does this mean: reductionist speeches? The scientific facts are the same for all scientists, creationists or not. On the other hand (once again) their interpretation can diverge according to the criteria chosen by each. It is the freedom of choice and conscience!

As for the idea that man is an animal with vertical development, there is on the contrary an undeniable scientific fact that everyone can see: while a young turtle emerges from the egg entirely autonomous and determined by instinct, the little man as for him needs a memetic construction, mixture of nature and culture it is the information that he stores in his brain that will make him an individual with a free choice or no...

Another common place! The huge literature on the animal world shows its extreme diversity and humans make little difference with other animals. For the record, the animal was, so recently, considered as soulless, without feelings, without sensitivity, without pain, a piece of furniture according to French law. The woman had a status barely higher and in any case much lower than the man, etc ... the verticality ... hum, hum!
So you mix the growth period necessary for autonomy with the type of animal considered.

Quote:
An update FOLLOWs an abstract idea or an achievement, it does not replace it. The human is an imitator more than an inventor hence this point of view which he is unable to create IN THE WAY OF GOD which comes to him from nothing, from nothingness

And what is nothingness?
How can something come out of nothing?

That's the right question! which can be matched with: was there something before this something sort of we do not know where?

Where does God come from?

And where does the physical universe come from ... (and do not invoke it from all eternity by the very fact that this eternity is unknown to us as the absolute, time, infinity, nothingness) and the information quoted by quotation marks ?

All his questions come from the intellect and have as a principle to answer questions badly asked.

“God created man, and man created God, they are both the creators of names and forms, but in reality neither god nor man was created Ramana Maharshi.

It's just ! As with all the words invented by men who, moreover (it is a fascinating little game) self-define each other or start from an obvious principle. Maharshi himself enters this game using these same words supposedly full of meaning and which are the subject of a purely philosophical reflection.

Quote:
Not really ! The idea of ​​making a cake does not come from nowhere, but from the concept of cake already existing by cultural transmission, just as creating an engine (like Turbi) comes from the already preexisting idea of ​​it (inventions are not in general only improvements).

Hence my remark on the notion of information of the material, the ingredients of the cake exist somewhere: flour, sugar, eggs, yeast, humans have at best produced their ingredients (breeding, culture) but have not create Ex nihilo.

Hence my reflection: the human is not as god (the initial information) since he is taking the train in motion, not at the departure station. The evoked resemblance cannot even be imagined in a concrete way except by interposed images of the genre " you will rest the 7th day as god rested from his works"4 ° cdt

Quote:
In the case of God, there is nothing before, it is this postulate which prevails in creationism!

Thank you, I understood the creationist vision!
The creationist vision does not fundamentally diverge from the atheist vision contrary to what many might believe, because it is based on the idea that the Universe came from ...
For creationists the universe comes from God, for atheists the universe comes from the big bang.

Not really ! The universe (which we know or think we know) is only a tiny part of the possible (and therefore unimaginable) work of God. A bit like a clock knows the clockmaker only, which does not limit its creator to this single object.

The theistic position is very easy to hold: whatever the discoveries made, it will always be possible to say that God is "in".

This is partly true! But it comes from the human spirit which would like that only what is known is the work of the creator. In reality ; everything that is knowable (and man will never succeed) is part of the work. We went from the discovery of the cell (the first cell leaving the original soup) to its complexity well known for the most part, then to the chromosomes, DNA, the molecule, the atom, etc… each not done, only discover the existing and therefore, by definition, obviously god is from the beginning of his creation in the blow, it is we who are only handymen full of vanities who continue to take us for small discovery geniuses, when we are only in their infancy: human vanity that has shifted from the religious to the scientific!

Basically there is no difference, the esoteric reading of the Torah via gematria clearly indicates positions entirely in accordance with the atheist vision.

It is characteristic of Judaism to be open to all possible and imaginable dimensions without one dominating the other. However, they do not aim to contradict each other, but to complement each other in the nuances of interpretation, which gives these endless discussions between rabbis and Hebrew scholars who escape us, unfortunately, when we do not know this language. and its subtleties.

Where things get complicated is when it comes to interpretations of the facts, and that's where conflicts and dogmas arise.

It is inevitable whether we like it or not! Each of us is not just a combination of knowledge, it is also a combination of inheritance, training, sensitivity, experience, etc., which leads to many differences like those we see in our debates.
To illustrate: I had an office colleague (already cited) who was thoroughly anti-god and, after many exchanges, he turned out to have been fiddled, being a child in a religious institution, by a religious teacher covered by his hierarchy just as religious. Hence his detestation of everything related to religion, priests and finally to God himself considered responsible and supporting (by non intervention) of this state of affairs. How and why to blame him for such a traumatic experience? On the other hand he was more generous, more in the service of others than many believers he knew and therefore he considered religion as hypocrisy (in what he does wasn't really wrong)

For some God is a thinking entity endowed with a project, for others it is only a vague concept ...

"It all depends on where you stand, etc.."

Quote:
The rest is only the concretization of this idea, this will to; this "and god said and the thing was". In your language you call that information, in my language it is creation, it is white cap, white cap.

As mentioned just above, the two visions meet in theabsolute.

From the point of view of reductionist materialism, the universe is an immense physical process, the idea of ​​pleasing a creator is therefore without foundations,
Another ready-made idea, of course! Where does the idea of ​​pleasing a designer come from? To the human dimension; pleasing someone offers two possibilities
a) By hidden interest,
b) Out of affection.
the bible excludes the first possibility by a rejection without appeal. The second does not dissociate love from action " he who has faith but does not have works is a liar " and " liars will not enter the kingdom of heaven »

With regard to theism, the idea that a demiurge is created the Universe leads believers to an idea of ​​submission to the "almighty", with the fear of not respecting the divine laws. 'adds the cultural constraints of the moment leading to terrible problems.

Another image of Epinal that sticks to the skin, there too! It is not a question of submitting (in the sense of slavery or of machismo so widespread) as to a chore chief, but of get under as a child under the authority of his parents because he has more experience of life and the world around us. Both are submissions. It is therefore unfortunate that only the first solution is systematically adopted.

Quote:

Lack of luck, no biologically certified missing link so this is only a view of the mind, no evidence in the usual sense. Evolution is an unverifiable myth ... like creation, you would say!

So we don't age, there are no variations through the ages, the species are frozen, the universe is static, of course ...

Resume your term: variation ! There are variations in each family as for all companion dogs and cats: in size, in colors, etc ... but no evolution from one to the other. It is this notion of evolution that is disputed and scientifically verified.

Quote:
That's what I said, a nice (not a simple) philosophical speech (in relation to scientific evidence, not in relation to other philosophical discourses, of course!)

It is not a philosophical discourse buta fact.
Where do you think the search for origins is?

To be reassured probably! to support beliefs! To support theories! these are not the reasons that may be missing depending on each individual and his experience.

"There are a great number of theories and they all serve to indicate that creation has a cause; then the hypothesis of a creator must be put forward in order for the cause to be sought. The emphasis is on the objective of the theory and not on the process of creation. In addition, creation is perceived by someone. There is no object without the subject. In other words, objects do not come and tell you what 'they exist.; Objects are therefore what the viewer actually sees them. They have no existence independent of the subject. Discover what you are and you will discover what the world is. theories. "
Ramana Maharshi.

It is a philosophical discourse, not scientific and therefore it is within his right to express his beliefs according to his sensitivity and his culture. However, we must not confuse point of view and fact.

[sen-no-sen]

Fortunately, it is that I also support: pluralism of ideas. The only stumbling block is this constant solicitation of "evidence" even when philosophy does not resort to it by its very nature.

As mentioned above, there is no need to oppose science and philosophy, on the contrary, the two go hand in hand.
For example, the famous materialism was born from the conclusion that the mind had matter as its support (it is a postulate!), It is therefore a philosophy which is directly developed with the rise of the sciences.
Same with the realism,eternalism etc ...
A large number of philosophies have seen their rise thanks to and jointly with scientific discoveries, the famous philosophies of science.

There it seems that there is incompatibility

Metaphysics 2 ° - Intellectual speculation on abstract things and which does not lead to a solution of real problems. Larousse

Metaphysics is not at all considered to be incompatible with science, it is however considered a kind of "prospective of knowledge", this is exactly the case of theory like the eternal inflation of Andrei linde or the principle of cosmological selection of Lee smolin, multiverses, parallel universes etc ...

This same discourse is also held by creationists who consider the real material world as proof of the existence of its author and creator just as a painting is proof that there is indeed a painter at his origin. We keep going in circles!

With the immense difference that the multiverse could have left traces in the cosmic microwave background, irrefutable proof no, clues yes.
In the case of creationism, no demiurge on the horizon, even cosmological!

What does this mean: reductionist speeches?

Reductionism is the fact of reducing the nature of reality to a few fundamental principles, it is one of the pillars of scientism.

The scientific facts are the same for all scientists, creationists or not.

The facts yes, their origins obviously no!

So you mix the growth period necessary for autonomy with the type of animal considered.

In this case quote me the name of the animals capable of destroying life on earth by pressing a button, of modifying the genomes of plants or animals, of going to space etc ... consequence of our cultural capacity, and no longer simply from our instincts.

Maharshi himself enters this game using these same words supposedly full of meaning and which are the subject of a purely philosophical reflection.

He used the word "creation" because his audience (1940s) was not made up of theoretical physicists specializing in the question, but for the most part, believers from various backgrounds ...
How many people use the term "updating" in their daily life these days ... hardly anyone!

Resume your term: variation! There are variations in each family as for all companion dogs and cats: in size, in colors, etc ... but no evolution from one to the other.

Multiply its variations by thousands, mix everything with a profound environmental change and look at the result over 100 years and will talk about it ...

It is a philosophical discourse, not scientific and therefore it is within his right to express his beliefs according to his sensitivity and his culture. However, we must not confuse point of view and fact.

(about the quotes from Maharshi)

And that's where you make a huge mistake, but that's normal, since 99,999% of people would say the same thing.

Unscientific spiritualist discourse, let's take a closer look ...

This is what explains Stephen Hawking in his book "The Great design" (le grand dessein), (translated into French under the title "Is there a great architect in the Universe".

"Since Plato, philosophers have not ceased to debate reality. Classical science is based on the belief that there is a real outside world whose properties are clearly determined and independent of the observer who studies them. Certain objects exist and are characterized by physical properties such as speed or mass, which have well-defined values.
It is at these values that our theories, our measurements and our perceptions attach when we tend to account for these objects and their properties. The observer and the object observed both belong to the world which exists in an objective way, and it will be vain to 'try to distinguish between them.
In other words, if you see a herd of zebras fighting for a parking space, it's because a herd of zebras is actually fighting for a parking space. Any other observer will measure identical properties and the flock will have its properties, whether an outside individual measures them or not. In philosophy this doctrine is called realism.
Even if realism seems beforehand attractive we will see later that our knowledge of modern physics makes it hardly defensible ".



"Reality does not exist as a concept independent of its image or of the theory which represents it" this is called model dependent realism.

Stephen Hawking is an eminent scientist and he is not really, but then really not considered as a spiritualist, on the contrary he defends a strong materialist vision and rather atheistic .... and yet he mentions the same thing as the venerable master, thing based on the experimentation and reproduction of confusing phenomena for our vision of everyday life!

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

Janic wrote:
Fortunately, it is that I also support: pluralism of ideas. The only stumbling block is this constant solicitation of "evidence" even when philosophy does not resort to it by its very nature.

As mentioned above, there is no need to oppose science and philosophy, on the contrary, the two go hand in hand.

I'm not talking about opposition but about distinctions like oil and water or yin and yang.

For example, the famous materialism was born from the conclusion that the mind had matter as its support (it is a postulate!), It is therefore a philosophy which is directly developed with the rise of the sciences.

Tardily ! The biblical text (and probably not the only one), thousands of years before, already specified that the mind was independent of matter, but expressed through it as my thought expressed through a keyboard and what follows it. Just as the driver of a vehicle is independent of it but expresses himself (moves, in this case gives it life) by this machine. Hence this eastern belief in reincarnation (and therefore the independence of matter) or resurrection in biblical monotheism.

A large number of philosophies have seen their rise thanks to and jointly with scientific discoveries, the famous philosophies of science.

Which philosophy, does not mix the two, it tries (with more or less happiness) to establish links, not to replace one or the other. Hence the expression of exact Sciences for that of matter and thought, belief, for that of the spirit.
So, of course that spirit and matter are combined (in our material world) but the two do not have the same function. In a clock the gears, springs and ratchets have no worries about the time but only to be functional, it is the mind of the user which determines the direction of the information that the mechanics gives, that is to say ie the subjective (and seemingly objective) hour.
Which brings us once again to the watchmaker and his clock.

Quote:
There it seems that there is incompatibility
Metaphysics 2 ° - Intellectual speculation on abstract things and which does not lead to a solution of real problems. Larousse

Metaphysics is not at all considered to be incompatible with science, it is however considered a kind of "prospective of knowledge", this is exactly the case of theory like the eternal inflation of Andrei Linde or of the principle of cosmological selection of Lee Smolin, multiverses, parallel universes etc ...

What remains a view of the mind, not evidence as often claimed by rational minds. It is you who constantly ask for evidence, but if we are content to be in the subjectivity, the assumptions, the wandering mind, then there we can meet.

Quote:
This same discourse is also held by creationists who consider the real material world as proof of the existence of its author and creator just as a painting is proof that there is indeed a painter at his origin. We keep going in circles!

With the immense difference that the multiverse pourrait having left traces in the cosmic microwave background,irrefutable evidence not, clues yes.
In the case of creationism, no demiurge on the horizon, even cosmological!

Again this return to religious simplism. When Gagarin was sent into space, he looked out the window and said idon't see god, which made him laugh. And why not Santa Claus on his sleigh? What did he expect to find? a big bearded man lying on a cloud stretching his finger towards a Gagarin stuck in his jumpsuit. The problem is that he was far from the cosmological horizon as much as our philosophers of science under the guise of physicists. Stop simplicity!
Then and finally between " pourrait " and " a », There is a cosmological gap between the two! The postulate of a creator is based on the visible evidence of this concrete world : the world of life! Which completely escapes the rationalism of evolutionists.

Reductionism is the fact of reducing the nature of reality to a few fundamental principles, it is one of the pillars of scientism.

So the evidence that some claim is reductionism ?!

Quote:
The scientific facts are the same for all scientists, creationists or not.

The facts yes,

Finally ! It took a long time to give birth!

their origins obviously not!

Obviously since in the two cases they are different philosophical approaches. Individuals start by saying; " I believe thatAnd then try to demonstrate the validity of their belief is that which places believers on the same level as unbelieving scientists.

Quote:
So you mix the growth period necessary for autonomy with the type of animal considered.

In this case quote me the name of the animals capable of destroying life on earth by pressing a button, of modifying the genomes of plants or animals, of going to space etc ... consequence of our cultural capacity, and no longer simply from our instincts.

It is to have a too reductive look on the world of the living. Genocides, competition with the natural environment have existed since the creation of life.
The multitude of documentaries that invaded the audiovisual world brings us back to a more realistic vision of the animal world. thus some animals use tools when their natural means prove insufficient. Culture or non-instinctive adaptation? The human is situated in a specific framework which is called cultural and which he uses to gauge himself as judge and party, which inevitably distorts the problem. The reality is that most of the inhabitants of this earth do not have an atomic bomb to make toys, do not tinker with the genome, nor go into space. It's just the fact of some mad scientists (replacing the wise men of yesteryear) who have appropriated (largely supported by powerful economic means not devoid of financial interests because money is the nerve of research) these means of destroying life. Humans are more concerned (as long as they are not fortified by lots of fireworks) about the animal need to survive, to feed themselves, to raise their offspring.

Quote:
Maharshi himself enters this game using these same words supposedly full of meaning and which are the subject of a purely philosophical reflection.

He used the word "creation" because his audience (1940s) was not made up of theoretical physicists specializing in the question, but for the most part, believers from various backgrounds ...
How many people use the term "updating" in their daily life these days ... hardly anyone!

This underlines that these are just word games by substituting one word for another because the first is already loaded with meaning. Meaning that the author is not necessarily willing to appropriate it. Therefore, it is true that the term "actualization" is rather nebulous unless it is said that it is synonymous with creation. As a surface technician rather than a sweeper! Ah, that the human mind is twisted!

Quote:
Resume your term: variation! There are variations in each family as for all companion dogs and cats: in size, in colors, etc ... but no evolution from one to the other.

Multiply its variations by thousands, mix everything with a profound environmental change and look at the result over 100 years and will talk about it ...

And this will give a result like the coelacanth and the other forms maintained almost unchanged from their supposed fossils dated millions of years ago (one of the big problems of evolutionism by the way)
When the first phylogenetic trees were established each form of life was linked to the others by dotted lines (normal caution) which were then replaced by links in strong lines thus replacing a probability by an unscientifically established certainty.
and it is this last tree that has been imprinted on people's minds, through school and university conditioning.

Quote:
It is a philosophical discourse, not scientific and therefore it is within his right to express his beliefs according to his sensitivity and his culture. However, we must not confuse point of view and fact.
(about the quotes from Maharshi)

And that's where you make a huge mistake, but that's normal, since 99,999% of people would say the same thing.
Unscientific spiritualist discourse, let's take a closer look ...
This is what Stephen Hawking explains in his book "The Great design" (translated into French under the title "Is there a great architect in the Universe" .......
Stephen Hawking is an eminent scientist and he is not really, but then really not considered as a spiritualist, on the contrary he defends a strong materialistic vision and rather atheist .... and yet he mentions the same thing as the venerable master, something based on the experimentation and the reproduction of confusing phenomena for our vision of everyday life!

Except that Maharshi, like Hawking, have taken a preliminary position on the non-existence of a great architect. The purpose of the reflection can therefore only coincide. To balance it is necessary to compare these points of view with those of the believing scientists quoted previously and whose scientific value cannot be more questioned than that of Hawking.
What can be retained (by my gaze of course) is that he considers that: Classical science is based on belief that he…. As I have been saying for a long time: everything is a question of belief, including inevitably for itself.

[sen-no-sen]

I'm not talking about opposition but about distinctions like oil and water or yin and yang.

(about philosophy).

In this case it is a question of philosophy of science.
His last are philosophical applications of conclusions from scientific formalisms.
They therefore rest on the premise that the so-called scientific conclusion made upstream is correct.
For example, materialism takes into account the idea that the world around us is made of matter, and that this is the support as well as the generator of consciousness, it therefore advocates the primacy of matter over the mind. ..until proven otherwise!

What remains a view of the mind, not evidence as often claimed by rational minds. It is you who constantly ask for evidence, but if we are content to be in the subjectivity, the assumptions, the wandering mind, then there we can meet.

You don't seem to make the distinction between what is possibly imaginable and in agreement with observations, and irrational speculation.
All the sciences are based at one time or another on speculations, these are then confronted with experimentation which then allows, if necessary, a validation.
Our future is a vast speculation, nevertheless our experience of everyday life allows us to project ourselves into it (which we all do permanently), however we have little evidence of what will take place precisely.

Again this return to religious simplism. When Gagarin was sent into space, he looked out the window and said I don't see god, which made him laugh. And why not Santa Claus on his sleigh? What did he expect to find? a big bearded man lying on a cloud stretching his finger towards a Gagarin stuck in his jumpsuit. The problem is that he was far from the cosmological horizon as much as our philosophers of science under the guise of physicists. Stop simplicity!

I refer you to your own assertion on the idea that God is like a watchmaker who makes clocks, stop simplisms!

Then and finally between "could" and "a", there is a cosmological gap between the two! The postulate of a creator is based on visible evidence of this concrete world: the world of life! Which completely escapes the rationalism of evolutionists.

As mentioned above, all sciences have a speculative basis where it is possible:it could be that ..., one can think ... it is possible that etc ... it is only the confrontation with the experiment which makes it possible to validate a theoretical model, which in any case is never certain.
Creationism is based on a dogmatic position, there is no question of saying that God "could have created the world", not here the assertion is peremptory ... and meaningless, given that the term God is a portmanteau word which may eventually and according to the desire of believers agree with science, as they please!

In addition, the syllogistic reasoning which consists in saying "science is not able to explain the appearance of life so God exists and so creationism is the truth is only a sort of moral or even emotional bulwark to comfort oneself in one's belief ...

So the evidence that some claim is reductionism ?!

To put it simply, reductionism is the fact, for example, of saying that the universe was created from four fundamental forces and nothing other, which excludes the famous "hidden variables", it is therefore for some a reduced vision of reality, hence the term "reductionism".

It is to have a too reductive look on the world of the living. Genocides, competition with the natural environment have existed since the creation of life.
The multitude of documentaries that invaded the audiovisual world brings us back to a more realistic vision of the animal world. thus some animals use tools when their natural means prove insufficient. Culture or non-instinctive adaptation?

Culture is not the only prerogative of man for sure, nevertheless there is a threshold where culture ends by going beyond instinct, such a barrier remains blurred, but it clearly appears that humanity is has been liberated for a long time, unlike other forms of life.

Humans are more concerned (as long as they are not fortified by lots of artifices) about the animal need to survive, to feed themselves, to raise their offspring.

It is indeed part of our determinism, necessary for our survival. But humanity is not just reduced to this.

Therefore, it is true that the term "actualization" is rather nebulous unless it is said that it is synonymous with creation. As a surface technician rather than a sweeper! Ah, that the human mind is twisted!

No it is not a buzzing term from a twisted mind, it is the richness of language, this richness can only be used according to the level of understanding of the audience, hence the possible necessary simplifications leading to amplifying inaccuracies.
The whole history of religions and based on this idea!

And this will give a result like the coelacanth and the other forms maintained almost unchanged from their supposed fossils dated millions of years ago (one of the big problems of evolutionism by the way)

Explained 4 times already! Coelacanths have evolved, but very slowly (evidence to support), ditto with sharks, crocodiles etc ... the evolution of characteristics is not systematic, when a species is adapted, why change? (Absence effect of the red queen).

Except that Maharshi, like Hawking, have taken a preliminary position on the non-existence of a great architect. The purpose of the reflection can therefore only coincide.

What great architect?
This notion is only defended in certain lodges of Freemasonry, no reference of its kind in the Torah, the Bible or the Koran ...

Hawking and the Maharshi are situated at philosophical antipodes, the first advocates a strong materialism, the second an enlightening spiritualism.
One studied in one of the most renowned Western universities, the other to meditate in a cave ... on the contrary, we should have noticed a total differentiation in the discourse! And yet ...
Hawking's claims are scientific and based on experimental evidence, how could a man living in a cave affirm before him such a thing?
In addition, the position of the Maharshi is not - as you mentioned - a simple unscientific spiritualist vision! the proof!

To balance it is necessary to compare these points of view with those of the believing scientists quoted previously and whose scientific value cannot be more questioned than that of Hawking.

Believing scientists will defend the same position as Hawking, except that they will add the idea of ​​a God, that's all.

Classical science is based on the belief that it…. As I have been saying for a long time: everything is a question of belief, including inevitably for itself.

Shade! Humanity is based on belief in ... nevertheless it is necessary to differentiate between idealistic belief and belief based on experimentation, in your case it is obviously easier to reduce everything to the same thing to defend your point seen ...

[Janic]

Sen no sen

For example, materialism takes into account the idea that the world around us is made of matter, and that this is the support as well as the generator of consciousness, it therefore advocates the primacy of matter over the mind. ..until proven otherwise!

Obviously if you speculate that a musical instrument will give sounds, you are not in the error. This will not however give a Bach cantata which requires a creation independent of the instrument.

Quote:
What remains a view of the mind, not evidence as often claimed by rational minds. It is you who constantly ask for evidence, but if we are content to be in the subjectivity, the assumptions, the wandering mind, then there we can meet.

You don't seem to make the distinction between what is possibly imaginable and in agreement with observations, and irrational speculation.

Again: irrational in relation to what? Laboratory tests? and compared to whom? atheistic rationalists?

All the sciences are based at one time or another on speculations, these are then confronted with experimentation which then allows, if necessary, a validation.

Except, and there again the rub: by whom and on what bases will be decided on the validity of a particular point? By qualified experimenters on the subject or by speculators foreign to the subject. Homeopathy is the typical example of this even when those who have decreed its ineffectiveness, its impossibility, its deception, the placebo effect, etc. were and still are by therapists without practical experience in this discipline. Acupuncture, which has become fashionable, has thousands of years of existence and evidence of its effectiveness and was nevertheless considered as quackery until recently by scientists ignorant of the subject and these cases are numerous in this area and no other domain, subject to subjectivity, escapes it.

Our future is a vast speculation, nevertheless our experience of everyday life allows us to project ourselves into it (which we all do permanently), however we have little evidence of what will take place precisely.

Speculation because of our ignorance, no one, (except the one who masters the time called god by traditions) does not actually know his future. Yet it is inscribed in space time before it even takes place in our limited lives.

Quote:
Again this return to religious simplism. When Gagarin was sent into space, he looked out the window and said I don't see god, which made him laugh. And why not Santa Claus on his sleigh? What did he expect to find? a big bearded man lying on a cloud stretching his finger towards a Gagarin stuck in his jumpsuit. The problem is that he was far from the cosmological horizon as much as our philosophers of science under the guise of physicists. Stop simplicity!

I refer you to your own assertion on the idea that God is LIKE a watchmaker who makes clocks, stop simplisms!

The conjunction of subordination AS indicates a resemblance, an imitation, not an identity. "Do like papa" does not mean that the child is an adult, but that his imitation will lead him to maturity. Simplicity is to believe that " as " and " is Are synonyms.

Quote:
Then and finally between "could" and "a", there is a cosmological gap between the two! The postulate of a creator is based on visible evidence of this concrete world: the world of life! Which completely escapes the rationalism of evolutionists.

Creationism is based on a dogmatic position, there is no question of saying that God "could have created the world", not here the assertion is peremptory ... and meaningless, given that the term God is a portmanteau word which may eventually and according to the desire of believers agree with science, as they please!

Wrong interpretation. The idea of ​​God is based on speculation, the postulate, the experimentation which lead, after these three stages, to a conclusion.
1) Speculation: because the human being has no material means of describing the invisible to our eyes and with our means like the beyond of the cosmological horizon or the big bang.
2) Postulate: who considers that any work to an author (whatever the idea that everyone can have or not)
3) Experimentation: through the experience of the individuals concerned. To use the example of acupuncture: without practical experience, any preconceived idea is false!

In addition, the syllogistic reasoning which consists in saying "science is not capable of explaining the appearance of life therefore God exists and therefore creationism is the truth only constitutes a sort of moral or even emotional bulwark to comfort oneself. in his belief ...

What would strongly resemble evolutionism which takes refuge in an apparent rationality, by self-justifying itself by so-called scientific selections intended to support an equally subjective discourse. White cap, white cap once again. We are going around in circles!
However your reasoning is lame in the sense that it is not a question of saying that science is incapable since science is the demonstration of the physical world and therefore the same for all, unbeliever or not! For the moment this science is unable to explain what life is, the living hence the speculation that it could not have appeared by chance and therefore scientists and non-scientists are considering an intervention outside. Which is simply logical.
Then to affirm that it is no longer science, but faith linked to the experience and experience of thousands, millions of believers of all religions or not, it is obvious!
If a person is cured by therapy, they can say " I believe in it "And even assert" she healed met ". It is an act of faith based on experience, experimentation. Some believe that it is the products used that are the cause, others that it is faith that made it possible.
Then: so creationism is the truth. This is not a truth, it is simply an observation by comparison with evolutionism which is itself a lie because hiding behind an arbitrary selection of material facts and automatically eliminating everything that goes against the dogma. (I am talking here about human nature seeking to credit its beliefs from a specific selection.)

Quote:
It is to have a too reductive look on the world of the living. Genocides, competition with the natural environment have existed since the creation of life.
The multitude of documentaries that invaded the audiovisual world brings us back to a more realistic vision of the animal world. thus some animals use tools when their natural means prove insufficient. Culture or non-instinctive adaptation?

Culture is not the only prerogative of man for sure, nevertheless there is a threshold where culture ends by going beyond instinct, such a barrier remains blurred, but it clearly appears that humanity is has been liberated for a long time, unlike other forms of life.

It is obvious for certain aspects only! The question is: why? The answer might be that the animal is wiser and is content with what it has and especially its need to survive. Humans believe they have protected themselves from this world of combat between life and death and therefore have time to screw up everything that keeps life… alive. The result is visible: destruction of the natural environment, excessive social disparities, wasting of energy and financial resources in scientific projects while millions of people die of hunger and disease. The world is crazy, crazy, crazy!

Quote:
Humans are more concerned (as long as they are not fortified by lots of artifices) about the animal need to survive, to feed themselves, to raise their offspring.

It is indeed part of our determinism, necessary for our survival. But humanity is not just reduced to this.

All these devices are not necessary for our survival, quite the contrary. They weaken us physiologically, mentally and spiritually. It is only a mirror with larks! unfortunately it has become our usual living environment, a mental drug!

Quote:
Therefore, it is true that the term "actualization" is rather nebulous unless it is said that it is synonymous with creation. As a surface technician rather than a sweeper! Ah, that the human mind is twisted!

No it is not a buzzing term from a twisted mind, it is the richness of language, this richness can only be used according to the level of understanding of the audience, hence the possible necessary simplifications leading to amplifying inaccuracies.
The whole history of religions and based on this idea!

These were times of high culture, except for a few rare spirits. The openness to all cultures has reduced this state, however we will not raise the level of understanding by blurring the usual language (moreover, it would be interesting to know how many use this terminology.)

Quote:
And this will give a result like the coelacanth and the other forms maintained almost unchanged from their supposed fossils dated millions of years ago (one of the big problems of evolutionism by the way)

Explained 4 times already! Coelacanths have evolved, but very slowly (supporting evidence)

Simple guess! We must be clear about the use of the terms used. The minor modifications which one notes in well defined families are not evolutions (passage from one family to another) but adaptation to the environment. The fish remains a fish, the bird a bird, the lion a lion and the elephant an elephant.

, idem with sharks, crocodiles etc ... the evolution of the characteristics is not systematic, when a species is adapted, why change? (absence of effect of the red queen).

It's called hanging on dead branches. What criteria do our scientists use to determine whether a given environment has changed or not since a characterized change generally leads to the disappearance of species.

Quote:
Except that Maharshi, like Hawking, have taken a preliminary position on the non-existence of a great architect. The purpose of the reflection can therefore only coincide.

What great architect?

It is an image which has nothing to do with masonry, it is a simple observation by comparison, it is like saying intelligent design, or creator, or information outside of space time, etc…

Hawking and the Maharshi are situated at philosophical antipodes, the first advocates a strong materialism, the second an enlightening spiritualism.
One studied in one of the most renowned Western universities, the other to meditate in a cave ... on the contrary, we should have noticed a total differentiation in the discourse! And yet ...
Hawking's claims are scientific and based on experimental evidence, how could a man living in a cave affirm such a thing before him?
In addition, the position of the Maharshi is not - as you mentioned - a simple unscientific spiritualist vision! the proof!

Meditators have filled heaps of places of withdrawal from the world, their spiritualist vision led them to recognize a creator god as scientists having made the same observation: where is the difference?
But it doesn't matter! It is a starting postulate in both cases: by automatically eliminating from the equation the idea of ​​a creator, the conclusion will therefore go without saying. (Eliminate from a legacy a future beneficiary in power, will make it shared between the other heirs lying on the will, that's obvious!) It would have been different if everyone had put in parallel the different possible options leaving to the reader or listener, the possibility of choice.

Quote:
To balance it is necessary to compare these points of view with those of the believing scientists quoted previously and whose scientific value cannot be more questioned than that of Hawking.

Believing scientists will defend the same position as Hawking, except that they will add the idea of ​​a God, that's all.

Indeed that's all ... and this is the major difference in the conclusions of each part.

Quote:
Classical science is based on the belief that…. As I have said for a long time: everything is a question of belief, including inevitably for itself.
Shade! Humanity is based on belief in ... nevertheless it is necessary to differentiate between idealistic belief and belief based on experimentation, in your case it is obviously easier to reduce everything to the same thing to defend your point seen ...

« Classical science is based on the belief that ... This is a quote from the author in question! I'm just expressing my agreement! For the experimentation see above!

[sen-no-sen]

Sen no sen

For example, materialism takes into account the idea that the world around us is made of matter, and that this is the support as well as the generator of consciousness, it therefore advocates the primacy of matter over the mind. ..until proven otherwise!

Obviously if you speculate that a musical instrument will give sounds, you are not in the error. This will not however give a Bach cantata which requires a creation independent of the instrument.

I am not speculating, I never mentioned that the materialist vision was correct, I just explained what this notion referred to.

Again: irrational in relation to what? Laboratory tests? and compared to whom? atheistic rationalists?

To observable measurable facts, like heliocentrism, radioactivity, expansion of the Universe etc ... etc ...

Except, and there again the rub: by whom and on what bases will be decided on the validity of a particular point?

Same answer as above ...

The idea of ​​God is based on speculation, the postulate, the experimentation which lead, after these three stages, to a conclusion.
1) Speculation: because the human being has no material means of describing the invisible to our eyes and with our means like the beyond of the cosmological horizon or the big bang.
2) Postulate: who considers that any work to an author (whatever the idea that everyone can have or not)
3) Experimentation: through the experience of the individuals concerned

1) okay
2) Postulate, I would even say peremptory affirmation based on a literalist reading of Biblical texts ...
3) quote me precisely how the experience of some people validates the idea of ​​a creator in the sense you mean. (testimony, solid argument etc ...)

What would strongly resemble evolutionism which takes refuge in an apparent rationality, by self-justifying itself by so-called scientific selections intended to support an equally subjective discourse. White cap, white cap once again.

With this immense difference that the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, is a attempt to explain the real, there is no peremptory assertion like creationism does, everything is only doubt and permanent questioning.

However your reasoning is lame in the sense that it is not a question of saying that science is incapable since science is the demonstration of the physical world and therefore the same for all, unbeliever or not!

If my reasoning is lame then yours is schizophrenic!
You have been trying for hundreds of messages to explain that evolutionary science is false, so science does not have the same value for everyone it's obvious!

For the moment this science is unable to explain what life is, the living hence the speculation that it could not have appeared by chance and therefore scientists and non-scientists are considering an intervention outside.

I explained (X3) that life apparently did not appear by chance, it is a highly improbable positioning, ditto with the idea of ​​a universe so finely regulated.
the idea of ​​an external intervention, Divine or ET does not bother me, on the other hand it becomes dangerous when it is a question of patching up theses aiming to invalidate observations, this is called rewriting history.

Which is simply logical.
Then to affirm that it is no longer science, but faith linked to the experience and experience of thousands, millions of believers of all religions or not, it is obvious!

Believers believe ... in God, in the Devil in Stalin or in Marx, this in no way represents a proof of anything, just that man is easily possessed by memes.

This is not a truth, it is simply an observation by comparison with evolutionism which is itself a lie because hiding behind an arbitrary selection of material facts and automatically eliminating everything that goes against the dogma.

I love this sentence, I'm going to frame it!
Evolutionism a lie? What an abuse of language!
When I speak of creationism I do not speak of a lie, but of a misinterpretation, lying meanwhile introduces the idea of ​​deliberately deceiving, this is not at all the case of evolutionism!

Evolutionism is simply an observation by comparison with creationism which is a misinterpretation because it hides behind an arbitrary selection from a literalist reading of the Bible, automatically eliminating everything that goes to against his dogma. This is more consistent say like this!

It's called hanging on dead branches. What criteria do our scientists use to determine whether a particular environment has changed or not since someone characterized change generally results in the disappearance of species.

Not necessarily, do a research on the selection K and the selection r ...

Meditators have filled heaps of places of withdrawal from the world, their spiritualist vision led them to recognize a creator god as scientists having made the same observation: where is the difference?

God or Gods? what is your definition of God?
As mentioned several times, the term God is a suitcase word which covers a whole lot of concept sometimes at the antipodes.
In Buddhism there are no creators, ditto in Hinduism purged of its folklore, and the same in Kabbalah ...
What are the arguments that allow you to defend the idea of ​​a creator?

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

Quote:
Again: irrational in relation to what? Laboratory tests? and compared to whom? atheistic rationalists?

To observable measurable facts, like heliocentrism, radioactivity, expansion of the Universe etc ... etc ...

Who disputes among heliocentrism scientists and the rest? however there are sectors which do not go through rational explanations linked to measuring instruments.

Quote:
The idea of ​​God is based on speculation, the postulate, the experimentation which lead, after these three stages, to a conclusion.
1) Speculation: because the human being has no material means of describing the invisible to our eyes and with our means like the beyond of the cosmological horizon or the big bang.
2) Postulate: who considers that any work to an author (whatever the idea that everyone can have or not)
3) Experimentation: through the experience of the individuals concerned

1) okay
2) Postulate, I would even say peremptory affirmation based on a literalist reading of Biblical texts ...

A peremptory statement can only be made on facts, not ideas. However, it is (in MY intervention) a postulate based on a supposition compared with another supposition which is evolutionism. Now when one becomes peremptory how can we be surprised that the other does not do the same ?!

3) Tell me precisely how the experience of certain people validates the idea of ​​a creator in the sense that you mean it (testimony, solid argument etc ...)

As widely quoted many times! What allows me to quote the experience of certain people validating the idea that there is a creator of the automobile in which they drive? This could only be the result of self-organization. But nobody of sense would believe it! However the creator, the inventor of this vehicle is unknown, invisible to the eyes of the user. Likewise, what would allow me to cite the experience of all the people who see the achievements of painters, sculptors, engineers, architects whose works could, there too, be only self-organization or d 'a spontaneous generation that has evolved over millions of years. There too nobody would believe it! Any work bears the testimony of its author (even if some would designate this author by terms such as: chance, nature, information beyond space / time which only cover the same concept) afterwards call it what you want !

Quote:
What would strongly resemble evolutionism which takes refuge in an apparent rationality, by self-justifying itself by so-called scientific selections intended to support an equally subjective discourse. White cap, white cap once again.

With this immense difference that the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, is an attempt to explain the real, there is no peremptory assertion like creationism does, everything is only doubt and questioning. permanent cause.

Sorry! This is the idealization of the concept. The reality is that this single discourse is held in schools, universities (places of conditioning of thought and supposed knowledge) and prohibition of contesting dogma under the pretext of separation of church and state; even though it is not a question of religion, but of scientific facts common to the two beliefs in opposition. This is what is called single thought (totalitarianism thereof) condemned by all defenders of freedom of thought and expression thereof.
quote:

However your reasoning is lame in the sense that it is not a question of saying that science is incapable since science is the demonstration of the physical world and therefore the same for all, unbeliever or not!
If my reasoning is lame then yours is schizophrenic!

And here are the big words released again. I never allowed myself to call you (or anyone else) mentally ill, so do the same.
I do not see what is schizophrenic in saying that the facts are common to all.

You have been trying for hundreds of messages to explain that evolutionary science is false, so science does not have the same value for everyone it's obvious!

This is called the response of the shepherd to the shepherdess to the extent that creationism is considered false, it is nothing extraordinary to return the ball to its sender.
This does not call into question the science that it is neutral (unlike its interpreters). It is like the opposition between the left and the right in politics: each party recommends itself to hold the truth, the only solution to the crisis, when it is only a question of points of view different based on different starting options. Just as politics is a principle necessary for the management of a country, political parties are only systems subject to human subjectivity. It's the same between creationist and evolutionist: no one has THE truth, but each one simply defends points of view by different approaches.

Quote:
For the moment this science is unable to explain what life is, the living hence the speculation that it could not have appeared by chance and therefore scientists and non-scientists are considering an intervention outside.

I explained (X3) that life apparently did not appear by chance, it is a highly improbable positioning, ditto with the idea of ​​a universe so finely regulated.

reread your first interventions which strongly supported chance. I'm glad to read that you put water in your wine.

the idea of ​​an external intervention, Divine or ET does not bother me,

Well ! The gap between our positions is therefore narrowing.

on the other hand, it becomes dangerous when it is a question of patching up theses aimed at invalidating observations, this is called rewriting history.

Except that the debate at which JE participle does not refer to systems, but to ideas. I am not an advocate of ideologies to which I do not subscribe like religions with their advantages and disadvantages. The problem is that you constantly refer (to use an image I have already used) to old rotten cars, polluting the atmosphere abundantly and peeing oil everywhere. I am talking about the vehicle leaving the chains and intended to operate in the best conditions of use. Since we are not talking about the same thing, there is no risk of reaching an agreement on ideas. On the other hand, old rotten cars have a significant interest in analyzing the causes and providing different study and design conditions to improve the product. This does not mean rejecting the Automobile (regardless of any ecological consideration!) But giving it back its real function; allow movement with maximum safety.

Quote:
Which is simply logical.
Then to affirm that it is no longer science, but faith linked to the experience and experience of thousands, millions of believers of all religions or not, it is obvious!

Believers believe ... in God, in the Devil in Stalin or in Marx, this in no way represents a proof of anything, just that man is easily possessed by memes.

Re-mix! And here comes the demand for evidence: which ones? Like Gagarin? what you ask for evidence must be consistent with your idea of ​​what the evidence in question should be, then you contest if the evidence does not seem to be a priori on it! We don't get out! I took the example of homeopathy as a characteristic of this situation and that has not moved an iota among allopathic fundamentalists: a priori denying what others call experimental evidence, only emphasizes conservatism in ideas (usually out of low material interest most of the time!)

Quote:
This is not a truth, it is simply an observation by comparison with evolutionism which is itself a lie because hiding behind an arbitrary selection of material facts and automatically eliminating everything that goes against the dogma.

I love this sentence, I'm going to frame it!
Evolutionism a lie? What an abuse of language!

It's just a response from the shepherd to the shepherdess with the assumption of a claim to a truth. I just reversed the speech by mirror effect!

When I speak of creationism I do not speak of a lie, but of a misinterpretation, lying meanwhile introduces the idea of ​​deliberately deceiving, this is not at all the case of evolutionism!

Sorry, but literally lying is the opposite of the truth! Creationism and evolutionism being in opposition, it allows to say that if one is truth (without presuming which) the other is a lie.
Now I agree with you that there is a nuance of importance between lying and error (this is the title of one of my works " Errors or lies of Christianity ») What exactly sets them apart? Because how do we know if such a speech or claim is in the area of ​​error or already in that of lying? Lying is perseverance in error with the awareness that it is indeed a mistake. Evolutionism, like all isms for that matter, starts from hypotheses, assumptions, research plan, etc. which, (if it was done by a soulless and lived computer) could be accused of perfect neutrality, but it is not the case of humans who carry a whole experience that influences research as much as conclusions. So an evolutionist or creationist seeking to establish a hypothesis will, almost inevitably, result in the confirmation of the path taken as an automobile researcher will see that the result will be a confirmation of the automobile.

Evolutionism is simply an observation by comparison with creationism which is a misinterpretation because it hides behind an arbitrary selection from a literalist reading of the Bible, automatically eliminating everything that goes to against his dogma. This is more consistent say like this!

That's what I said: the mirror effect! As for being more consistent ... that's another story!

Quote:
It's called hanging on dead branches. What criteria do our scientists use to determine whether a given environment has changed or not since a characterized change generally leads to the disappearance of species.

Not necessarily, do a research on the selection K and the selection r ...

I saw and read! It does not answer the question, but establishes hypotheses, theories, simplifying because in the inability to master ALL the parameters involved. It was Darwin's main problem! Miller had taken the same reductive and simplifying approach and that made a flop!

Quote:
Meditators have filled heaps of places of withdrawal from the world, their spiritualist vision led them to recognize a creator god as scientists having made the same observation: where is the difference?

God or Gods? what is your definition of God?

Without immediate importance! Either the individual believes in a self-organization automatically excluding any external intervention, or there is external intervention and there the words cannot describe the phenomenon for lack of appropriate means. So this word god or gods only serves to personify this external in question

As mentioned several times, the term God is a suitcase word which covers a whole lot of concept sometimes at the antipodes.

It is not the word suitcase used that counts since it indicates a state, a function, (as we say policeman to represent the authority of the law) rather than a particular idol. This is not the only catch-all word we commonly use.

In Buddhism there are no creators,

This is what makes the originality of all possible and imaginable concepts. The question is: why this choice between personalizing this external and internalizing this non-external. Historically, we must go back to the origins (when possible!) Of all these concepts and we generally come across self-justifying systems with the names of various divinities which are only means of dominating others (but this n is not specific to religions, all human systems are like that). Monotheism has reduced this dispersion to a single pole of interest (called whatever you want) or else, other anti-religious systems, will reject all so-called religious forms to eliminate this domination (example the French revolution which broke the systems religious and monarchical, to reproduce them immediately elsewhere with other fellows, other rulers, other authorities, other demiurges) and therefore should and should still fill the gaps left, by d other philosophical-religious systems. White cap, white cap!

ditto in Hinduism expunged from its folklore,

It seems, however, that polytheism is characteristic.

and the same in Kabbalah ...

The Kabbalah (from the Hebrew קבלה Qabbala “reception”, an anglicized form written rather Cabbale or Qabale in French) is an esoteric tradition of Judaism, presented as the “oral and secret law” given by YHWH (God) to Moses on the Mount Sinai, along with the “Written and Public Law” (the Torah).
I don't know if you can call it without god?

What are the arguments that allow you to defend the idea of ​​a creator?

Already seen and reviewed many times! no product, without producer!

[sen-no-sen]

Janic wrote:

A peremptory statement can only be made on facts, not ideas.

It's a new postulate!
In virtue of what?
Peremptory:"Which presents a decisive character, excluding any discussion."
This word fits well with fact and ideas.
The ideas being difficult to explain, we can on the contrary consider them as being doubly peremptory!

However, it is (in MY intervention) a postulate based on a supposition compared with another supposition which is evolutionism.

I am going to translate what you noted: "I base myself on an unverified idea which I consider to be correct itself based on a supposition which I confront with a scientific theory resting on thousands of tangible proofs and in agreement with the laws of physics..hum hum!

As widely quoted many times! What allows me to quote the experience of certain people validating the idea that there is a creator of the automobile in which they drive? This could only be the result of self-organization.

Anyone supposed to notice that the sun works alone, that the oocyte divides alone, and that trees grow alone (without the intervention of a creator) in interactions with their biotopes.

Regarding the origin, we can only say one thing, all the elements of the Universe come from ... this concept, that of prior art is a spatio-temporal observation of our reality seen through the prism of our brain, but nothing deduces from this that this vision is correct.
By deduction of the subsets, many consider that our Universe is a fractal subset of a larger reality which could be limitless, infinite, religions have anthropomorphized this theme and named it creator because it was at the time the simplest way to popularize the idea.

Sorry! This is the idealization of the concept. The reality is that this single discourse is held in schools, universities (places of conditioning of thought and supposed knowledge) and prohibition of contestation of dogma under the pretext of separation of church and state;

I have already widely explained the reasons which push scientists to refute the creationist thesis:complete absence of facts.
And I do not reiterate the historical-critical theological arguments that go against this ultra-simplification of religious texts!

And here are the big words released again. I never allowed myself to call you (or anyone else) mentally ill, so do the same.

I never called you crazy! I noticed that your argument was schizophrenic, not you, psychiatric nuance!

reread your first interventions which strongly supported chance. I'm glad to read that you put water in your wine.

Not at all!
I noted that one could not dismiss the idea of ​​chance.
Even if there is a chance in billions, a chance remains a chance, so it would not be scientifically sound to dismiss it.
On the other hand the notion of appearance of life by probability (quantum superposition) is in my opinion the best arguments on the explanation of the appearance of the Universe.

Well ! The gap between our positions is therefore narrowing.

Your vision of things is not conceptually false, but culturally abusive, nuance!

Sorry, but literally lying is the opposite of the truth! Creationism and evolutionism being in opposition, it allows to say that if one is truth (without presuming which) the other is a lie.

Pure fallacy!

It does not answer the question, but establishes hypotheses, theories, simplifying because in the inability to master ALL the parameters involved.

We can explain nuclear fusion very well without understanding the fundamental substrate of matter ...
All sciences are based on the study of subsets, hence the desire of many scientists to formulate a theory of the Whole.