*** Science Or God? ***

[Faun]

Re: ***science Or God?***

science is certainly not the absolute truth when u have theory of relativity and uncertainty equations.

Neither the blind belief will do any good.

 

[legolas]

Re: ***science Or God?***

For instance, just because a drug treatment seems to eliminate a specific symptom doesn't necessarily mean that it is "effective." In fact, getting rid of a specific symptom can be the bad news. Aspirin may lower your fever, but physiologists recognize that fever is an important defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection. Painkilling drugs may eliminate the acute pain in the short term, but because these drugs do not influence the underlying cause of the discomfort, they do not really heal the person, and worse, they can lead to physical and psychological dependency, addiction, tolerance, and increased heart disease. Sleep-inducing drugs may lead you to fall asleep, but they do not lead to refreshed sleep, and these drugs ultimately tend to aggravate the cycle of insomnia and fatigue. Uncertainty remains for the long-term safety and efficacy of many modern drugs for common ailments, despite the high hopes and sincere expectations from the medical community and the rest of us for greater certainty.

You question to this extent something that researches for 20 years and writes the side effects of the drugs on hte cover itself. My question is, why would you believe the claims of Homeopathy just because it CLAIMS to work without doing the least of what allopathy does?? They have nothing... none of these tests... utterly nothing, other than basis of a belief that it works. Instead of questioning the credibility of something that doesn't do anything to prove its efficacy, you question something which takes immense efforts to deliver the best possible.

And you did not answer my previous question and I would like to bring to notice again: If Homeopathy is as good as it claims, why isn't there a ground breaking research or finding that it is much better in terms of cure and side effects say for 1 particular disease and win a nobel prize??? because, the doctor himself doesn't know why NaCl when diluted million times should cure knee pain!!

One other question, Do you believe in Astrology?

science is certainly not the absolute truth when u have theory of relativity and uncertainty equations. Neither the blind belief will do any good.Neither the blind belief will do any good.

I am agnostic too. But, I would rather have an argument against one's beliefs which would better me in gaining more perspective than obtaining the final conclusion of this debate in a much earlier stage.

 

[karnivore]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Those who have doubts about "lunar landing", may refer to this thread, specially the last few pages. U might learn something, or nothing, depends on what you choose.

As for my good friends, who are eternally attracted towards crackpots of the scientific / philosophical world, they may refer to crank.net. This site lists all the crackpots and cranks all over the web world. This might save them the time from "googling".

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

@srivirus : I must say, I am really exhilarated to read that pdf file. But don't mind, I really don't give any importance to forums as source!! So lets discuss this pdf....

I discuss this equation at length in my OP papers, so it is not his "new idea". That equation has certainly been around in the literature for a while, so I do not claim to have discovered it, nor do I know who came up with it first. Quite independent of McC's work I have applied this well-known formula that McC calls a "Geometric Orbit Equation" in a creative new way to resolve the major problem astronomers are having with the rotational dynamics of galaxies. Current attempts to fit the observational data on galactic rotational dynamics to the ST (in this case Newton-Kepler Gravitational Law)
seem to require huge amounts of invisible Dark Matter to make things work out. Milgrom has proposed an alternative approach that requires an ad hoc assumption with no theoretical grounds -- basically forcing the data to fit the formula.

I wud like to ask why the reviewer is trying to bring something hypothetical as "Dark Matter" to make things work out??

We can describe gravitational dynamics relying only on relative velocity and distance and do not need to know about any forces or masses. Therefore this is a proper equation of Observer Physics. McC is right on here, and he is also correct to say that gravity is not really a force.

All forces that you can experience are expressions of resistance by your Will as an
Observer. You have decided to participate in your creations by pushing them around. If
you totally relax, you will find yourself floating in space at the level of density
equilibrium for the medium you have chosen to experience AS -- e.g. your body will float
somewhere in your environment. For this reason Newton's second law (F = MA) is
wrong. All situations that involve mass (M) and force (F) necessarily involve the
observer participating from the viewpoint of a non-inertial reference frame. But F =
MA assumes an inertial frame. This is a fundamental contradiction. Therefore there is
no way that a person can be sure what the real forces and masses are. He can only see
the whole picture if he steps out of the experiment into a state of perfect equilibrium.
The ancients called that condition YOGA. Of course, in that perfectly balanced and
detached condition there are no masses or forces to be experienced. They all vanish like
magic. This is the place that the zero-point technology people are really talking about.
Now we are ready to see clearly where gravity comes from. Lean against a wall. Feel
the wall lean against you. Now you understand that the leaning of the wall toward you
and its pushing against your body comes from your deliberate decision to approach the
wall and lean against it. The wall simply exists and has no opinion about you until you
make an opinion with regard to it and initiate a physical interaction with it. This
experiment tells us that the tendency of the earth to expand toward us or push against our
body (or to pull us toward it by some mysterious attractive force) is simply a reflection of
our decision to exist as a body living on this earth. We choose to interact with it, so it
interacts with us..

May be someone can explain this whole para in clearer terms!

Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity
endlessly without draining a power source?
A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to
today's science. It certainly takes tremendous energy to
cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against
gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge
magnet clings endlessly to the fridge by magnetic energy.
And, as both our science and our experience tell us, such
an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be
drawn upon to support such effort. Yet a permanent magnet
not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or text-
book shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent
magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t
even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy
apparently emanates from permanent magnets without
any explanation in our science. The only explanation that any
physicist will give for this mystery is that there is no mystery
since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if
you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawed
diversionary tactic that was exposed above. No physicist will
acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny
the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a
power source is required to cling energetically against gravity.

This excerpt from an article on magnetism in Discover
Magazine, Dec. 2002, further makes this point:

Moreover, asking that question [why some non-metallic
objects are magnetic] inevitably lets you in on a surprising
secret: Physicists are also a little fuzzy about those bits of
iron alloy attached to your refrigerator. "Only a few people
understand -- or think they understand -- how a permanent
magnet works," says Makarova [a Russian physicist
working at Umea University in Sweden]. "The magnet of
everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a quantum-
mechanics thing ... I'm just working as an engineer, trying
to find out where the magnetism comes from."

In the review the reviewer explains this by first, telling how permanent magnetism works, then how electrons move, then how light goes, little about light coding but where in clear terms is he telling what marc is asking?? Then he says, "There is really only one photon -- The Light. We can also call it Undefined Awareness." May be @karnivore wud like to say something here.


Coming back to FT, I too wud like to know from where the power is coming to cling energetically against the gravity. Then he says...

If you polish two materials until they are very smooth, they will
usually cling together as if bonded even without magnetic properties. The magnetic
interactions of the aligned electrons link the materials as if they formed a single entity.
The fridge metal already has magnetic property, so it aligns temporarily with the
magnet's electrons, even through rough surfaces and a layer of paint. The system
sustains itself due simply to the momentum of the electron spin in the magnet and the
alignment of the spins. Unlike ordinary tops the electrons just keep spinning. []Why
spinning electrons in any type of EM bonding do not lose momentum is something
quantum physics does not explain, as McC mentions. That seems deep because
physicists do not understand the nature of quantum spin. The specialty of quantum spin
is that it is not really spin like the spin of a top, but a vortex motion of photons within
high points of density potential.[/b]

But do they cling forever?? In my simple experiments they cling temporarily and the one I'm not holding drops off. May be I understand what Marc is trying to say.

McC is right that time dilations and length contractions are relative, which means they go
both ways and the effects mutually cancel out. Relativity is a trick of perspective. An
observer riding on the moving clock sees the resting clock slow down in the same way
that the resting observer sees the moving clock slow down. Which clock moves and
which clock rests depends on the reference frame the observer chooses. The dilations
and contractions are all subjective illusions based on observer viewpoint the same way
that a circle seen from an angle looks ellipsoid or even collapses into a line. But we still
must take these distortions into account when we describe our experiences because we
experience the world from different viewpoints. This is the psychological aspect of
physics.

Please read the part I am quoting toooo!

McC bases a lot of his arguments on situations where he says that the current way of
doing physics violates the law of conservation of mass-energy. That law is not well
understood and only seems to hold for closed systems, just like the law of entropy.
Physicists have noticed that QM reveals how conservation of energy is equivalent to
saying that the laws of physics are symmetrical with respect to translation in time. In
short this is Newton's third law. Conservation of momentum ends up referring to
symmetry with respect to translation in space. We combine these notions to see
symmetry in relativistic space/time as conservation of mass-energy..

People here are asking questions how homepaths can practise it without knowing the science behind. I wud like to ask in similar fashion how law of conservation of mass and energy becomes a law if it is not well understood in the first place and "limited" only to the closed source systems??

OP on the other hand provides a comprehensive theory of where gravity comes from and
why. OP provides a clear understanding of both gravity and antigravity. It also
provides a means for us to manipulate gravity and to manipulate our physical experiences
within the context of gravity. McC seems to think that gravity is based on relative size.
OP agrees with McC that notions of mass and force are illusory. However, OP holds
that density is a property that is directly observable and relates in a quantifiable way to
gravitational phenomena. McC therefore misses the opportunity to consider the
principles and technology of density modulation.
I also think McC should include a theory of consciousness. I agree with many of his
criticisms of ST, including his idea that the strong force should not be necessary (his
reason being that charge does not exist, so nothing is needed to hold the nucleus together).
But McC definitely needs to account for how a nucleus without charge stays together and
give us a model for the weak interaction and the production of neutrinos.

In favour of Marc!

One danger of "googling" and blindly copy/ pasting the content without actually going through it and doing a proper research, is that, one runs the risk of being ridiculed. But i will stay away from that, although, i would have expected one to at least, look around, just a little bit.

The first quote is from "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy" by Mark McCutcheon. The author is a certifiable lunatic of his only kind. And the book is equally, a work of fiction. Each and every of his "infantile" proposition has been quite convincingly rebutted, by several, science students (forget the pros). I will leave the job of finding these rebuttals to the poster himself. There are hundreds of science forums where one will find how this book has been ridiculed.

But generally speaking, if our science was so flawed, how come we can predict, lunar cycles, meteorite orbits and other cosmological phenomenon with the accuracy of milliseconds. How come we can, to the accuracy of millimeter, place a satellite in orbit, thousands of miles away from earth. Oh i guess, we just get lucky every time. That must be it. Isn't it.

As with the second quote, i don't even feel bothered to reply. Referencing a blog, where any Tom, Dick and Harry can say anything, is a sign of infantile reasoning. Russell, Darwin, Dawkins, Hume etc. can go to hell. Why ?? Because some Tom or Dick or Harry says so. Got to kidding me.

What baffles me the most is that the poster "urges" all of us to be "independent". But, everytime, he has to prove a point, he doesn't hesitate to reference any site that suits his taste. Hmmmm...... May be its time for him to start reading what he types.

BTW, K is still waiting for some answers raised in the alternative version of the story.

@karnivore dear, it seems u r being utterly sarcastic!! Also I bet u haven't read any of the links I gave until now nor managed to take a peek in the world of spirtualism. Firstly u r telling me about sci-forums?? I thought in any debate we oughta source from standard sites! Secondly, even science doesn't ridicule spiritualism,intuition,ayurveda etc that much whereas u called it a crap straight away?? Thirdly, The author of Final Theory has been agreed by the reviewer i.e Douglass A. White, Ph.D, to some extent. IMO, he is quite intelligent to be called a 'lunatic'. So it certainly doesn't take long for anyone to observe who the real lunatic is and with such lunatics I guess the world is becoming a dangerous place which might get filled with another "tons of superstition".

And if u think I'm googling just for the sake of topic (which I guess u r), then u haven't understood me really. I'm not afraid if I get contradicted in the first place coz such discussions are meant to increase ur knowledge. So I request u to stop behaving like a lunatic and cut out the childishness of calling the subjects u don't undertand as "crap". Thinking about it all, the line in bold really amuses me. And yea, I forgot lunatics like stories. May be thats y the lunatic replied to the story part and not to the relevant thing. In the meantime, atleast read thoroughly as it might enlighten u what the story will be like. Keep waiting and don't cry.

And you did not answer my previous question and I would like to bring to notice again: If Homeopathy is as good as it claims, why isn't there a ground breaking research or finding that it is much better in terms of cure and side effects say for 1 particular disease and win a nobel prize??? because, the doctor himself doesn't know why NaCl when diluted million times should cure knee pain!!

The question u r asking are the general ones and best explained by professional sites! I hope @karnivore wont mind.
Please read!

And yes about astrology, there r mixed opinions actually. I wont give details bt my family, but they knew of the exact month that I will find a job in. They simply didn't tell me. There r several more cases. But IMO, if astrology really works then we cud have run away from all the natural calamaties even from death. My understanding is not that deep in this subject to even talk about. It can also be that the system has been degraded now and merely commercialised. But I certainly don't think that this field too can be a called a crap straight away!!

@Srivirus : Lets keep this on, as others I think are merely repeating now n a few acting like 'lunatic'!!

 

[legolas]

Re: ***science Or God?***

The question u r asking are the general ones and best explained by professional sites! I hope @karnivore wont mind.
Please read!

Mediator, I did not actually have to read that site because, Richard Dawkins asked the same question to the guy who prescribed NaCl as medicine which is diluted 100 or 1000 or any other times for Knee Pain, he could not answer.
Even then, to prove that I do read , ergo my questions,

Now, all homeopathy medicines are given in a very low dosage. This is called as 'potentisation'. Hahnemann discovered that the more the medicine was diluted (with alcohol or lactose), the more potent it became

If he discovered something beyond doubt, then this concept itself should have fetched a Nobel Prize??

The medicines contain an internal energy which is transferred to the vital force leading to cure.

really?? I mean, really?? A scientific explanation?

Right from fever, cough, cold to asthma, skin diseases, cancer and diabetes. All these are not only just curable but the cure is mild(without side effects) and permanent.

When you don't even know how or why the drug works, how can you possibly tell there is no side effect??
Now, another question that popped out, if poison, say Cyanide is diluted 1000 times with alcohol or whatever is mentioned, will you die almost immediately as homeopathy principle works on.

but the sad fact is that homeopathy has lagged behind in popularity

Seems Mahatma Gandhi has been commenting of many things! This is really a sad fact about homeopathy just begging for a reason for its non-popularity. In this telecommunication driven world, if you still say you can't even establish this... you are just another pathetic bragger.

My understanding is not that deep in this subject to even talk about. It can also be that the system has been degraded now and merely commercialized. But I certainly don't think that this field too can be a called a crap straight away!!

Did your understanding in other subjects of science including homeopathy that deep enough to talk about?? The second block is bold to denote that this itself is against God's free will (to those who believe in God). But since you are an atheist, then by principle there is no God. But astrology (Indian astrology at least) claims that God has descended and given means of astrology to help ourselves. How do you justify this???

 

[kenwatts]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Since I have been quoted in this forum, I thought it might be helpful if I clarified a few points.

1. Thank you to Mediator for quoting me and linking to my site. I am always grateful to anyone who finds my work valuable.
2. Although I am truly grateful for the quote and link, I do feel uncomfortable being classed with the writer from thefinaltheory.com. There is nothing in that quote that I would agree with. The author quite obviously doesn't even understand the science he or she is criticizing.
3. To Karnivore, I understand your point about blogs, "where any Tom, Dick and Harry can say anything". It is quite true that a blog carries no inherent authority.
   
   But I would hope that Mediator quoted me, not as an authority to be blindly accepted, but as a reasoned argument to be considered, and then accepted, rejected, or modified as your own understanding and experience demands.
   
   I certainly would want to be read this way. That is one of the reasons that I don't post my credentials anywhere on my blog, though it seems germane to say in this context that I do have them--a Ph.D. in philosophical theology, with an emphasis on secular philosophy of science, (earned at a relatively conservative seminary which would be shocked to hear what I believe now--partly because of the research I spent nine years doing for my dissertation).
   
   My point is that just because any Tom, Dick or Harry can say anything on a blog, it doesn't automatically mean that everything written on a blog is automatically uninformed. You must make up your own mind in each independent case--no matter what drivel is quoted just before it.

Anyone who reads my blog with any consistency will know that I am no enemy of science. I disagree on some very specific points with some of the new atheists, but not on any point for which there is solid scientific evidence--quite the contrary: my disagreement is because they hold these few positions dogmatically, without scientific support.

Science is, after all, just common sense on steroids.

Thanks for your interest--or lack of it, as the case may be.

-Ken Watts,
*www.dailymull.com

 

[Faun]

Re: ***science Or God?***

now what ? lol next come the aliens from mars ??

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

If he discovered something beyond doubt, then this concept itself should have fetched a Nobel Prize??
really?? I mean, really?? A scientific explanation?

Like I have said before also and which u repeating again, I wud myself like to quote again that "Modern science rejects the idea behind homeopathy". And u r asking scientific explanation?? Please READ where we started from.

Seems Mahatma Gandhi has been commenting of many things! This is really a sad fact about homeopathy just begging for a reason for its non-popularity. In this telecommunication driven world, if you still say you can't even establish this... you are just another pathetic bragger.

Bringing faulty modern mathetmatics, lack of understandng of expressions like division by zero, bringing on hypothetical concepts like dark matter and dark energy to explain things.....If u still can't understand what I have said then u r just more than a pathetic bragger.

Did your understanding in other subjects of science including homeopathy that deep enough to talk about?? The second block is bold to denote that this itself is against God's free will (to those who believe in God). But since you are an atheist, then by principle there is no God. But astrology (Indian astrology at least) claims that God has descended and given means of astrology to help ourselves. How do you justify this???

Again I don't even udnerstand how hypothetical subjects, laws bounded by "limitations" can be used as a base to explain a topic further! But yes I understand homeopathy quite well and how body can heal itself with principles behind.

But astrology (Indian astrology at least) claims that God has descended and given means of astrology to help ourselves. How do you justify this???

I think ur defintion of God is very limited one (the one who controls everything??). Modern science calls that god u r referring as "infinite consciousness". So how do u justify that?? Here's an interesting article!!


Neways let me give the basic definition of a few terms.....

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

Read it all. It again reflects the question I raised in previous post and approaches led by modern science!!

now what ? lol next come the aliens from mars ??

I don't reject the possibility of aliens. But seeing the episode of apollo moon hoax, where big western guns from mental asylums made a huge sensation and intoxicated plenty of gullible souls, I guess aliens will soon be coming from mars!

 

[Faun]

Re: ***science Or God?***

^^possibly, I think we are not the supreme power, there is something well above us (aliens or some other entity, but not something orthodox), we are being harvested likewise we harvest crop.

Its just a theory, no proof, no nothing, the same was the plot of Prey.

 

[legolas]

Re: ***science Or God?***

"Modern science rejects the idea behind homeopathy".

I am not even going to argue about this anymore.

But yes I understand homeopathy quite well and how body can heal itself with principles behind.
I don't reject the possibility of aliens.
And yes about astrology, there r mixed opinions actually.

Before continuing the argument, if at all you are interested in continuing with this "pathetic bragger" then I would like to clear my confusions. Read them completely and provide answers to every question as much as possible (there wouldn't be any external links to these questions, I believe, which delays my reply )
I understand you are an atheist. You dont believe in God. And for that matter, Q1: I assume you don't believe in Religion which lineates and converges on how to reach the supreme power God??
Now, my question is, you wrote as a reply to Sreevirus,

Now how can I make a rigid soul understand who has already been told and has read that "modern science" straight away rejects the concept of "vital force". And yes, the answer u r looking for, or shud I say u might have read is equally bizaaaaaarrre.

Q2: Can you please explain me why you dont believe in a supreme force, the God (This is not my definition of God as you had misunderstood in the earlier reply. This is what religionists believe is God) and you believe or in fact you understand vital force??

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Now, here you have misunderstood the explanation, Q3: haven't you? And you should have read the reply by Sreevirus here too. I am happy to see another person who understood the quote.

And finally, you don't believe in God, Religion (guessing), question Science (starting from F = m.a and definition of gravity to an undefined number denoted as infinity, dark energy, dark matter) but understand theories inconclusive as Homeopathy, and you dont know to believe in astrology or not, but believe in spiritualism and you call yourself a spiritual atheist.

This is what I learn to be a spiritual atheist

Atheist Spirituality

An atheist simply doesn't believe in a god. There isn't sufficient evidence, so there is no belief. Contrary to what many think, there is no need for an atheist to disprove that a god exists, anymore than a Christian needs to disprove that the world is ruled by intelligent termites. The burden of proof is always with the person making a positive assertion.

An atheist can recognize the mystery of life, and marvel at how everything learned deepens that mystery, pushing "final" causes further into the distance. An atheist can recognize his or her own limitations, and seek to grow, perhaps even by developing contact with "higher powers." This is an atheist spirituality. How is it different from "regular" spirituality?

The difference is that an atheist feels no need to pretend to understand the mysteries - no need to create gods and religions to explain them. Contacting "higher powers" can simply be tuning into subconscious resources through meditation or other means. Are these "higher powers" nothing more than electrical patterns in our brains? We don't know, and we don't have to know to tap into them.

Is it that atheists don't want to know? It is the opposite. "Understanding" by forcing religious explanations on things short circuits any search for the truth. How can you understand and integrate new evidence when you are no longer questioning? Better to simply use spiritual tools like "intuition" and let them be understood - or not - with time and real evidence.

Look to the past, and we see how narrow-minded people were, and how little they understood compared to us. We will appear that way to people in the future, as they will to people further into the future. We are growing in our knowledge and power, but like that spiritual computer, our circuits are in a box that we need to grow out of. Seeking the way beyond that box is what makes one a spiritual atheist.

Now, you may understand why I asked Q2?? because you seem to contradict even by the terms of a spiritual atheist which makes you a hypocrite??

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Before continuing the argument, if at all you are interested in continuing with this "pathetic bragger" then I would like to clear my confusions. Read them completely and provide answers to every question as much as possible (there wouldn't be any external links to these questions, I believe, which delays my reply )
I understand you are an atheist. You dont believe in God. And for that matter, Q1: I assume you don't believe in Religion which lineates and converges on how to reach the supreme power God??

Don't mind again n again u terming God in the most typical context. I don't mind it. But neways yes I am religious and if u can't even read my past replies and like to make me repeat that frequently then ofcors I won't even explain myself. Read my replies and I assure u will have some idea on "how an atheist can be religious and spiritual"!!

Q2: Can you please explain me why you dont believe in a supreme force, the God (This is not my definition of God as you had misunderstood in the earlier reply. This is what religionists believe is God) and you believe or in fact you understand vital force??

Supreme Force? U mean something theoretical as unified field theory ( coined by Albert Einstein? ) as modern science states?? And yes I 'may' or "may not' believe in supreme force depending on my level of understanding. So I am certainly an observer here. Also, I believe in vital force like chinese believe in yin and yang. Further I believe in intuition tooo. Is that sufficient for ur questions??

And finally, you don't believe in God, Religion (guessing), question Science (starting from F = m.a and definition of gravity to an undefined number denoted as infinity, dark energy, dark matter) but understand theories inconclusive as Homeopathy, and you dont know to believe in astrology or not, but believe in spiritualism and you call yourself a spiritual atheist.

Strange hun? I'm not having "infinite consciousness". BTW, I'm really curious of finding how u percieve "religion' to be?

The link u gave was really nice. People in ancient times thought that earth was flat. Those who questioned it and realised just by 'observing' the motion of stars and that it was always true and quite a pattern that was occuring everyday, were abused and beated. Please understand how astronomy was born and astrology in the same age. Don't u like to know how world behaves just by concentrating all ur senses (modern science says its = 5) to it both intuitively and intelligently??

Now, you may understand why I asked Q2?? because you seem to contradict even by the terms of a spiritual atheist which makes you a hypocrite??

Before characterising anyone, I wud really request u to go and read where we started from. Don't mind u jumped in between a hot topic and started questioning what already was debated. That makes u a lunatic from "mental asylum"?? And if u think I'm a hypocrite then I guess those who r pursuing/teaching or shud I say preaching the subjects of modern science based on their "flawed/limited concepts and "limited laws" are far bigger hypocrites. I guess here we have an oxymoron now, "limited law".

 

[legolas]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Don't mind again n again u terming God in the most typical context. I don't mind it. But neways yes I am religious and if u can't even read my past replies and like to make me repeat that frequently then of course I won't even explain myself. Read my replies and I assure u will have some idea on "how an atheist can be religious and spiritual"!!

Are you really kidding? I have been reading all your replies and the thousands of links that you have been providing. My questions are not to the sites that claim them, but to you who is no more than a person who believes in something and then reads a 1000 sites which tells what he thinks and then get brainwashed to prove his point. There is no rationality in those arguments. I can refer to 1000 sites to again prove there are that many people who agree with me. I read some of your previous replies where you mock a person who has provided links to sites as communists without no brains... ?? :O And what, all the sites you refer to are buddhists or what?

Supreme Force? U mean something theoretical as unified field theory ( coined by Albert Einstein? ) as modern science states??

I mean this: "Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".
Why don't you believe in this power when you settle for an unknown vital force created by internal energy?? Just to make sure I dont get a twisted answer, Why don't you believe in God in the first place?

The link u gave was really nice. People in ancient times thought that earth was flat. Those who questioned it and realised just by 'observing' the motion of stars and that it was always true and quite a pattern that was occuring everyday, were abused and beated. Please understand how astronomy was born and astrology in the same age. Don't u like to know how world behaves just by concentrating all ur senses (modern science says its = 5) to it both intuitively and intelligently??

Abusing and beating were from the people who believed in Religion and God and questioning against him was considered a sin and punishment is death. Don't you remember Galileo was the one who told Sun doesn't go round the Earth and it was the other way round??? Why are you pointing to me which I have to say and you have to object back at me?? Some sort of conversational wizard technique??
regarding concentrating all your senses, I know for sure, farting is one which requires that... (just kidding, no offense, just thought of it )

Before characterising anyone, I wud really request u to go and read where we started from. Don't mind u jumped in between a hot topic and started questioning what already was debated. That makes u a lunatic from "mental asylum"?? And if u think I'm a hypocrite then I guess those who r pursuing/teaching or shud I say preaching the subjects of modern science based on their "flawed/limited concepts and "limited laws" are far bigger hypocrites. I guess here we have an oxymoron now, "limited law".

Please tell me how limited law is an oxymoron.

And, I have been participating in the discussions before, if you have not saw my posts?? I request you to go back and read them. Only then, I was arguing on Topic and not off-topic regarding Homeopathy to respond to you.
And I characterized you by hinting hypocrisy not because you told me a pathetic bragger but,

you are a man who thinks f=m.a is flawed and gravity is not just defined properly. where may be you claim spiritual forces even come into play (again kidding, now don't start arguing that I have not read your previous replies. for the nth time, I have).
The problem then is I don't understand is how you can then measure to pin point accuracy when a missile will land (projectile motion) and explode (recently, an US satellite was bombarded with a missile, you should know) and lots of classical physics were used to construct including centripetal force, centrifugal force, thermodynamics and written in equations (here, there is another funny thing, when told as theory, you argue its just at theory, when written in mathematical form, you say just in 1 equation , basically opposing Science).
How can you measure when a freely falling ball will reach the ground dropped from certain distance using the "flawed equations" to accurate time... (I am sure you have solved problems in this regard and you have found time to experiment them?). How the concept of friction, centripetal force, centrifugal force, torque, friction, sensivity, acceleration, jerk (derivative of acceleration), point of impact and stuffs used to design a CAR or any other locomotive can precisely guide you to the location. I am just confused.. I am a lunatic, ain't I?

However, you should know the definition of hypocrite. you dont believe even in F= m.a or for that matter torque = r x F (for rotational dynamics) and still you starting from the time you get up would be using almost for every minute all the things that science's invention has led to technological advancement based on those laws created by Einstein (well a little destruction(al), but fission/fusion reactions with the conclusion arrived from E = m.c^2) and Newton (1st, 2nd, and 3rd law) who are again just Lunatics...
And when we design a car which has sufficient "internal energy" generating sufficient vital force to carry you to the desired location and no other "limited laws", or when we concentrate sufficiently all our 5 senses to build and run a car without any fuel putting our concentration to better things than farting lets begin arguing again!!

 

[naveen_reloaded]

POLL AGAIN OPENED....

PLEASE PLACE YOUR VOTES.....​

 

[legolas]

you should provide hope for agnostics Your poll states either this or that.

 

[mediator]

Are you really kidding? I have been reading all your replies and the thousands of links that you have been providing. My questions are not to the sites that claim them, but to you who is no more than a person who believes in something and then reads a 1000 sites which tells what he thinks and then get brainwashed to prove his point. There is no rationality in those arguments. I can refer to 1000 sites to again prove there are that many people who agree with me. I read some of your previous replies where you mock a person who has provided links to sites as communists without no brains... ?? :O And what, all the sites you refer to are buddhists or what?

I am not really sure you have read all my replies. Even if u had read the first few of those "tons of para" then u wudn't have repeated so much. Neways whats wrong in reading the sites? @sreevirus posted a pdf containing 33 pages. I didn't mind reading em. If a shorter pdf had been given, then it wud have been much better. And my links aren't even 3 pages long!! BTW, u must really be kidding that I'm brainwashed. I myself take homeopathic pills for the incessant cough I had been having for about 4 months and I must admit that it had been working marvelously from the day 1. It was becoz of this and few pills I used to take some years ago that led me to find more about homeopathy online. Similar is the case with intuition. You can laugh if u want to, I wont mind coz I pity the scientists too who laugh when they hear Indian yogis can stop heart beat for certain period of time which according to "modern science", a person is declared dead if his heart stop beating....no pulse!!

Besides, how does researching on something that works and u r curious to know about translates to brainwashing??

I mean this: "Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".
Why don't you believe in this power when you settle for an unknown vital force created by internal energy?? Just to make sure I dont get a twisted answer, Why don't you believe in God in the first place?

So u mean scientists who argue and base their subjects on limitations and theories like "dark matter" to make things work out shud also believe in GOD?? But it seems u don't even now what Vital force is. Forgive me for quoting another small para and adding to that tons of para.

Remember the line by Will Rogers, or at least attributed to him? "The trouble with most people is not that they don't know much, but they know so much that isn't true." This statement came back to me when I read the two letters to the editor critical of homeopathy published in AMERICAN DRUGGIST.

Those letters also reminded me of an incident a while back where a neighborhood physician came into my pharmacy and, noticing the various homeopathic products on the counter, asked me: "Why do you sell these things? They don't work."

For a moment, I thought that perhaps he had tried some homeopathic product and found it ineffective, or perhaps he had told some patients to try them and they found them ineffective. So I asked him, "Why do you say that?"

His answer was forthright: "My friend, another doctor, told me they don't work." That was it! So much for scientific, probing inquiry. It turned out that neither he nor his friend the doctor had ever read -- let alone studied -- anything about homeopathy.

Perhaps homeopathy's skeptics are critical because there is no "rational" explanation as to how homeopathic remedies work. But I am sure these same critics are familiar with "The Pharmacological Basis Of Therapeutics" by Goodman and Gilman. Goodman has written, "There are few drugs, if any, for which we know the basic mechanism of action. Drug action is not drug effect. The effect results from the action of the drug." Regarding the use of nitroglycerin, Gilman writes: "The mode of action of nitrates to relieve typical angina is not fully understood."

Does it bother pharmacists who criticize homeopathy that the authors of one of the world's most popular pharmacology texts do not understand how many prescription drugs work? Yet these critics of homeopathy always rush to ask "But how does it work"?

Perhaps critics question the dilutions. Back in 1943, Alexander Fleming's experiments with penicillin showed that at dilutions of 1: 100,000,000 -- and even weaker -- streptococcal activity was affected. The amount of active thyroid we have in our bodies must be somewhere in that range also. But homeopathy does not concern itself with quantity of remedy, only the qualities of remedy.

The word "homeopathy" comes from the Greek words "homeo" and "pathos", meaning "similar" and "suffering". From the time that Samuel Hahnemann coined the word, 200 years ago, homeopathy has been maligned, and vilified, and homeopaths have been charged as liars and frauds. All this in spite of 200 years of therapeutic successes.

Over his lifetime, Hahnemann wrote or translated more than 5,000 pages of text, while at the same time maintaining a medical practice or teaching. He spent years of studying ancient texts and his generous dividend was found in the writings of Hippocrates. Written more than 2,200 yeas earlier were the words: "Through the like, disease is produced, and through the application of the like, is is cured."

In other words, a substance that causes a particular symptom or set of symptoms will also treat them. Like cures like. For more than five years -- with the help of medical students and friends -- Hahnemann tested his remedies and developed the principles that remain intact today.

In 1810 when he published his "Organon of Medicine", he presented to the world a new audacious notion of healing called homeopathy. His opening words were: "The physician's highest and only mission is to make sick people healthy, to cure. The highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle, and permanent restoration of health in the shortest, most reliable, least harmful way, according to easily comprehensible principles."

What Hahnemann did was to propose remedies -- free from all harmful effects -- as agents of cure. He offered objectivity, simplicity, originality, and independence in an era of medical arrogance and brutality.

Homeopathy is structured on a distinct set of principles that recognize an innate healing capacity which all people have. It is this energy that promotes, protects, and initiates our defensive mechanisms in response to adverse conditions. It then controls and guides the natural healing process. Homeopathy calls this energy the "vital force". Without this vital force, there is no sensation, no function, no self-preservation, no life. It is the vital force that is the agent of cure.

Medicine, on the other hand, is not and cannot be, the healing curative agent. In fact, as we know, many modern medicines can actually retard healing and alter the nature of the disease to make it more difficult to treat, if not to add further injury as well. The current damage from use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone causes in excess of 10,000 deaths a year. And overall, iatrogenic disease (caused by medical treatments) is responsible for as many as 140,000 deaths a years.

What our bodies need are the favorable conditions to affirm their restorative powers, which through negligence or indifference, has created an environment for disease to flourish. Healing -- the natural restoration of health and body integrity -- is a normal process and its success depends upon the removal of the energy-disturbing elements. It is, in the Taoist sense, that when the body cures itself and becomes well again, it is then in a state of balance and harmony with nature. Indeed, 4,600 years ago, the Chinese medical text Nei Ching, noted "the root of the way of life, of birth and of change; is chi (energy)". And 500 years ago, Paracelsus said the same thing. "Our own nature is itself our physician, which is to say, it has in itself what it needs."

In 1800 Samuel Hahnemann wrote: "In a considerable portion of disease, it would be better for the patients if all medicines were abandoned." Fifty years later, Oliver Wendell Holmes, M.D., voiced the same sentiments. The poet, novelist, father of the famous jurist, and professor of Medicine at Harvard, addressed the Massachusetts Medical Society: "I believe that if the whole Materia Medica as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind, and all the worse for the fishes." A surprisingly harsh assessment for the medicines of the day, considering Holmes was at the same time one of homeopathy's most bitter foes.

Even still, by the mid-19th century, homeopathy had much success. For example, homeopaths treated cholera successfully, long before it was known that the actual cause was a microbe. During the 19th century, there were seven severe epidemics in America, the most serious in 1832. The death rates of people treated without homeopathy were five times those of the homeopaths.

In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent.

In 1832, some 50 years before Robert Koch isolated the cholera bacillus, Hahnemann wrote that cholera is "a swarm of infinite small invisible living organisms hostile to human life". Even today, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this prediction. What Hahnemann treated was not "cholera" but headache, malaise, diarrhea, anorexia, icy coldness of the body, convulsions, staring eyes, sunken face, etc. These symptoms pointed to the correct therapy.

The critics choose to ignore the successes. They would prefer that homeopathy just go away, to be thought of as some fossilized remnant of medical heresy now extinct. Too bad. It exists, is grows -- and in some areas -- even flourishes. In France, one quarter of all pharmacies arc homeopathic. In England, half of all physicians either use or recommend homeopathy; the British Royal Family has used homeopathic physicians exclusively since the 1830s.

In 1811, Hahnemann answered his critics this way: "It is infinitely easier to contradict than to investigate, infinitely easier to mock at realities and to present them is a distorted light by twisting and falsifying, than to sacrifice one's whole life to tireless and conscientious investigation of truth, by faithful observation of the nature of things in the most careful experiments and to the unprejudiced employment of their results for the good of mankind."

A monument in Paris honoring Hahnemann, erected in 1900, bears these words of his: "Non Inutilus Vixi" or "I have not lived in vain". The words are appropriate; he gave the world a safe and effective healing modality. We are all indebted to him.

Source
So @legolas have u ever even glimpsed on the success of Homeopathy apart from criticing it?? I had given accounts on how widely it is being used if u cared to read them. And regarding vital and supreme force, I wud really "believe" in the the thing that works marvels. It has its concepts and principles which I wont reject either. Regarding supreme force and GOD, it doesn't really matter if I shud believe in God or not. I can chose to, but I believe it wont really help me. I won't keep my work stalled just becoz of some belief in GOD, "hoping" that God will make it fine etc. But staying away from or criticising or banish something that works, that has a history of success and known to be easy on patients, just becoz our "modern science" can't explain it wud be just plain stupidity. What do u think??

Why are you pointing to me which I have to say and you have to object back at me?? Some sort of conversational wizard technique??
regarding concentrating all your senses, I know for sure, farting is one which requires that... (just kidding, no offense, just thought of it )

Nope all I am saying is that only a few people observed what was really true. The rest, like followers of modern science not willing to question it, thinking science and our modern scientists are gods and know everything, only followed the tradition. I wonder how much scientific stuff have u questioned.

Please tell me how limited law is an oxymoron.

Sir, I didn't source the definitions and quote the reviewer in the pdf file given by @srivirus for no reason. U can't even follow the train of events that is taking place. And u say u have read it all!!

And, I have been participating in the discussions before, if you have not saw my posts?? I request you to go back and read them. Only then, I was arguing on Topic and not off-topic regarding Homeopathy to respond to you

This is how it works. The thread continues for 6-8 pages and then stalls, then in another season it flares up again. So definitely I have not "saw your posts" and therefore not questioning on what u said. But since u r questioning me, then u oughta read where I started from. In the past I discussed homeopathy, but since it wasn't this much entertaining I didn't mind quoting that para again.

you are a man who thinks f=m.a is flawed and gravity is not just defined properly. where may be you claim spiritual forces even come into play (again kidding, now don't start arguing that I have not read your previous replies. for the nth time, I have).
The problem then is I don't understand is how you can then measure to pin point accuracy when a missile will land (projectile motion) and explode (recently, an US satellite was bombarded with a missile, you should know) and lots of classical physics were used to construct including centripetal force, centrifugal force, thermodynamics and written in equations (here, there is another funny thing, when told as theory, you argue its just at theory, when written in mathematical form, you say just in 1 equation , basically opposing Science).
How can you measure when a freely falling ball will reach the ground dropped from certain distance using the "flawed equations" to accurate time... (I am sure you have solved problems in this regard and you have found time to experiment them?). How the concept of friction, centripetal force, centrifugal force, torque, friction, sensivity, acceleration, jerk (derivative of acceleration), point of impact and stuffs used to design a CAR or any other locomotive can precisely guide you to the location. I am just confused.. I am a lunatic, ain't I?

I think u really have no idea how this all started do u?? The corresponding reply to this para goes like this : The problem is I really don't know how homepathy,accupuncture are so successful even though we don't know the exact science behind it!!

The problem is u and others are ignoring this subject completely whereas the interested scientists are atleast observing and forming theories on it. Even though scientists are experimenting and forming theories, one wise guy without any spirit of questioning or observation or atleast experience, here termed it as a "crap" straight away. So much for the scientific approach!!

On the other hand, it seems u think I'm opposing science completely...No way!! Let me repeat again, all that I am saying is the approaches led by modern science are faulty and filled with errors which even the scientists approve of if u had read the pdf. That doesn't mean everything in science is erroneous or everything is flawed. I thought u were intelligent enough to infer that!!

However, you should know the definition of hypocrite. you dont believe even in F= m.a or for that matter torque = r x F (for rotational dynamics) and still you starting from the time you get up would be using almost for every minute all the things that science's invention has led to technological advancement based on those laws created by Einstein (well a little destruction(al), but fission/fusion reactions with the conclusion arrived from E = m.c^2) and Newton (1st, 2nd, and 3rd law) who are again just Lunatics...
And when we design a car which has sufficient "internal energy" generating sufficient vital force to carry you to the desired location and no other "limited laws", or when we concentrate sufficiently all our 5 senses to build and run a car without any fuel putting our concentration to better things than farting lets begin arguing again!!

U really are behaving like an entertainer now who is bored of discussing and bringing nice little terms like "fart" again n again, repeating again n again and yet telling u have read all my posts, which I guess are representing ur true character in general. So that certainly tells that u r full fledged lunatic. No offence just inference!

Neways, I haven't yet questioned the "F=M.A", but merely brought it to ur notice from the reviewers pdf, that u may like to shower logic upon. What I asked wasn't answered, may be u wud like to answer it. But it seems u, a "modern science" believer are again telling that it works.

 

[kalpik]

OMG! You people have SOOOO much time to type out such long replies!

 

[legolas]

@mediator, As a "modern Scientist", the only thing I reject about Homeopathy and separate it from Science's true goals is that,
Science does provide theories such as "string theory" where the World is 11 dimensional, theory of black holes and as you quoted, black matter and dark energy and even black holes for that matter. But, they remain as concepts which require further probing and investigation before it becomes conclusive and say, 10s of billions of dollars are invested in finding the other 8 dimensions of the world (just to explain it simply) to put into practice. Its like, if you may, in its research phase of testing of medicines. Theories rise out of imagination, there is no fault in it. In fact, its what separates us from Genius(es). I appreciate the concept. BUT!!! the big BUT is,

Unlike Science which does not put into practice until the theory is justified (even you must know that there are that many people losing their interest in String theory as there are not much constructive conclusions coming out of it), Homeopathy tests its medicine without knowing how it works (dilution strengthens, how?) and claims it doesn't have side effects.

Stating a concept "dilution strengthens" still may create criticism in the scientific world as it sounds stupid (at least to me). But, if there is real proof to it and one can provide it, Science will definitely hail it, not as a concept, but would be welcomed to put into practice.

Tell me, if the whole of science starting from classical physics or chemistry or math or whatever explains every concept as, say,
Light is some form of energy which is transformed into vision.
Heat is some form of energy which is transformed into pain when exceeded threshold... and so...
then would you really have built telescopes, mirrors, 2 stroke or 4 stroke engine bla bla bla...

All I am saying is Homeopathy is in the stage discussed above... and I don't claim its invalid, but if you insist it doesn't require anything other than that to prove the credibility of homeopathy, then I insist on telling homeopathy is CRAP with the idea of some1 wanting to prove something at least then.

The lens maker formula which says 1/f = 1/u + 1/v is what we found from the concept of lens' to use it for magnifying glasses or convex/concave lens and how to correct the defects in the lens of the eye.

@Kalpik, This conversation may not have a real conclusion. But I wouldn't dare say I dint gain something out of it. Believe me, scientists who argue against one other's theories (global warming for example) waste years of time in proving others wrong alone (which is not constructive practice of science) wasting billions of dollars and other's time. This is much more constructive, with people who are civil enough and encourage criticism and provide probing facts. I am sorry you consider it that way, while I don't.

All things aside, I know, most probably, you intended as a joke. But, I intended to reply others who flout at us with their assumption about us being cynical lunatics

 

[mediator]

@legolas : Thats more like a general view of yours.
Sure if there's a proof to homeopathy then science will definitely hail it. I don't doubt it. But in today's time, it doesn't!! And calling it a waste or a crap ignoring its success and all that I posted wud be a blunder/stupidity I wud say. But neways, u may rest with what u believe in and I wud question what might intrigue me.

But neways, I will still request u to take a look at a few links that I posted.
vedicganita.org
Scientific temper and Vedic science
n a few more from the past that I posted. They r really thought provoking u know!!

 

[legolas]

@legolas : Thats more like a general view of yours.
Sure if there's a proof to homeopathy then science will definitely hail it. I don't doubt it. But in today's time, it doesn't!! And calling it a waste or a crap ignoring its success and all that I posted wud be a blunder/stupidity I wud say. But neways, u may rest with what u believe in and I wud question what might intrigue me.

Yes, I agree. but still, practicing on humans with out adequate proof is nothing more than an "experimental drug" which people with no other choice adhere to and participate in clinical trials with the last ray of hope as guinea pigs.

To boot, in other terms, just as alcohol if invented today is more likely to be classified illegal, homeopathy if invented/discovered today is more or highly liklely to be declared unsafe and not to be tested on humans and would be declared illegal. Somedays back, people who dint question used it and claim it works and so its practiced still, just like astrology ( specifically tarot, card reading, magic ball reading, mind reading, ghost revelation, divine intervention and gazillion other money-swindling hoax(es)).

 

[mediator]

Well what can I say, seems u still didn't read the para I posted and the 2 links afterwards, or even the parts I bolded specially for u for ur convenience.

Let me repeat a small excerpt from that post...

The current damage from use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone causes in excess of 10,000 deaths a year. And overall, iatrogenic disease (caused by medical treatments) is responsible for as many as 140,000 deaths a years.
..
In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent.
...
..
Even still, by the mid-19th century, homeopathy had much success. For example, homeopaths treated cholera successfully, long before it was known that the actual cause was a microbe. During the 19th century, there were seven severe epidemics in America, the most serious in 1832. The death rates of people treated without homeopathy were five times those of the homeopaths.

Guinea pigs?? Modern medicine or homoepathy? U decide!!