An honest answer for a newbie, please.

quote:

---

The theory stated that every time a memory or a thought happens a virtual black hole is formed in the brain. And if this other dimension were infinitely large, that would account for the infinitely large memory capacity of our brains.

---

But if we have not lived an infinite length of time, we really have no way of knowing if we have an "infinitely large memory capacity". What evidence is provided that our brains have an "infinitely large memory capacity?I can think of memory research that contradicts the idea that our memories have an infinitely-large capacity.How can something be "formed in the brain" if it is virtual?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2002]

quote:

---

seldom is there a paradigm shift in the scientific community, at least not of the type where you see large groups of disciplines abandoning their presuppositions in order to embrace, or even reflect upon, the new paradigm... the mini-debate in another forum on red shift and humphreys is an example... if a new paradigm seems to conflict with a belief system held my most members of a community, adherents to the new paradigm find their numbers growing slowly, if at all... sometimes they shrink... peer pressure never stops working our entire lives

---

Are you implying that scientists tend to resist new ideas because they feel pressure from their peers to continue to think the way the group thinks?If so, you don't have a very accurate view of the competative nature of science.Many scientist's careers are made when they overturn part or all of some past scientist's important work.Gould and Elderidge are famous, in part, because they made a large modification in Darwin's theory. Einstein is famous, in part, because he modified Newton. It is considered a particularly excellent coup to overturn the findings of a famous past scientist in your field.Have you ever been to a scientific conference? Scientists rip each other's ideas up, as to how they do or do not reflect the evidence, as a matter of course. It is the way of science. It is quite vigourously contentious and not monolithic.

quote:

---

Are you implying that scientists tend to resist new ideas because they feel pressure from their peers to continue to think the way the group thinks?

---

quote:

---

no, i know it's competitive, even within disciplines...

---

Actually, it is very nearly only competitive within disciplines (and frequently within sub-disciplines. Molecular Neuropsychologists usually don't get into heated debates over the particulars of, say, childhood language acquisition with the Developmental Psychologists, even though both groups are Research Psychologists.), because only those with the specialized knowledge to be able to understand the particulars of the evidence and arguments are going to be able to disagree with each other.

quote:

---

i'm saying that scientists are human too, they bring their own presuppositions to the table...

---

The only presuppositions permissable in all of science are,1)that nature is goverend by natural laws which are more or less constsnt, and2) that these laws are knowable. [QUOTE]those who believe in macroevolution, for example, know it's not "scientific" (repeatable, falsifiable, etc) so they aren't going to be quick to adopt a new paradigm if it includes a disbelief in macroevolution.. that's just an example, by the way[/B][/QUOTE]Other posters demolish this nicely. I have nothing to add.

quote:

---

to avoid possible future misunderstandings over semantics, what do you consider "evidence?"... also, are your standards for evidence the same regardless of the discussion, or do they vary depending on whether or not the subject fits within your worldview?

---

Please read through this short but excellent explanation of science, what it is, how it is conducted, and what it isn't.science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comIt will clarify what we are talking about wrt standards of evidence.

quote:

---

concerning your first paragraph above, what if i said, "Yes, creation is falsifiable. Like astronomy, we have to wait for and look for the evidence to do so, rather than design and build an experiment in a sealed lab." it seems to me that believing something to be true, when the fact of its truth is yet to be established, goes equally across lines of presupposition... maybe you can tell me why astronomy, for example, is acceptable as an example (given the context of your statement) and creation isn't...

---

creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"creationism as a scientific theoryReligious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin?s time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own ?scientific? tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists."

quote:

---

Compmage,

​

Funk posted something very interesting in another thread that I think would be beneficial for you to read. Sometimes I think we ask God to talk to us and then get so busy looking for what we think is going to be the way, that we miss Him altogether.

​

Don't you think that the reason forgiven is here talking to you about the Lord might be God reaching out to you.

---

How do you tell the difference between "the Lord God reaching out to you" and "God talking to us", and our own imagination and our own emotions?How do you know you are not fabricating a fantasy inside your own mind which is very reassuring and comforting, but completely imaginary?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
How do you tell the difference between "the Lord God reaching out to you" and "God talking to us", and our own imagination and our own emotions?

​

How do you know you are not fabricating a fantasy inside your own mind which is very reassuring and comforting, but completely imaginary?

---

​

That's an excellent question schraf and perhaps if all the "things I heard" (for lack of a better phrase in such a few words) were always reassuring and comforting, I might be inclined to believe that it was a fantasy. As a matter of fact, that's usually when I really wonder whether it is God I hear or just myself "self-talking." Man, I wish I was better with words!

​

The times when I know for sure that I am "hearing" God is when I am prompted to recognize sin in my life, or when He is asking me to do something that is contrary to what I would normally do.

​

Having said that, there is a real great danger is just listening to inner promptings and thinking that everything that I "hear" is from God, and that is where the Scriptures come in. Measuring the impressions, thoughts, etc. against the revealed will of God. Do they line up?

​

I pray that I have made some sense in this reply, or at least made myself understood.

---

I understand how you do things a bit better, but I am afraid that your response is still extremely vague. Not to mention that "the revealed will of God" as described in the Bible is also very vague and can be interpreted in very nearly any way one wishes it to be, depending upon who you ask or which of the hundreds of translations of the Bible one uses.It still sounds to me as though your thought processes are your conscince and your social training which you have internalized just like everybody else, Christian or not, religious or not.I mean, I have similar thoughts about how I might have, say, behaved poorly towards someone, but why attribute this to God?{Fixed quote structure - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-10-2002]