Raj Mohan K
Does anyone here believe that, the existence of a supreme being is unnecessary and completely out of Quantum logic?? Kindly ignore my question, if it does not belong here:

 

Tom Lanzillo

Everything is a matter of perception- quantum is real, we see it is real. But it’s just a word. Just like god, is a word? Spirit is real-but does not exist in the religious mind of atheism.

Alex G Barredo

Perhaps, there is a being made of special or supreme particles which has the potential to manipulate lesser particles. 😉

Sharla Smith Hardin

Atheists can’t be spiritual? Define spirit.

Grok Grokkster

Darwinian evolutionary theory utterly dispensed with the need for ‘Prime Movers’, LONG ago — and that was in the *biological* sciences. Where this question lies. Because only higher-order organization of matter truly concerns the issues which motivate the religious mind. ‘Quantum logic’ may mystify the Human mind at this point — but I think many people consider that, at root, it is actually pretty simple stuff.

Grok Grokkster

Find proof of THAT…

Kel Van Der Meel

Define spiritualism, define love……the list goes on. Most spiritualists I have talked to describe it as a feeling of a deeper connection to the universe. But because spiritualism is an idea, that originated from a feeling that was inspired by certain philosophical interpretations. It can’t actually be defined as anything other that a preferential view.

What is felt when regarding the feeling of spirituality, or a heightened sense of enlightenment, is just one’s desire to feel it. And in some way transcend this reality. Every little thing you feel inside your body is just physical. It is the desire to interpret it as something else that brings up the subject of spirituality. And even when you feel you have gained some higher form of understanding or knowledge. It is meaningless, because if spirituality was part of our understanding, we wouldn’t need to invent the idea to experience it.

WE WOULD ALL JUST FEEL it! Even if we preferred not to 🙂 ~

Sharla Smith Hardin

Alex isn’t that what CERN is for? LOL

We shall now all bows to the LHC. LOL

Mazikeen Morningstar

Of COURSE it is illogical and unnecessary

Sharla Smith Hardin

Which part?

Mazikeen Morningstar

Don’t you remember your question?

Sharla Smith Hardin

Define spirit?

I have many atheist friends who are full of spirit. By my definition of spirit.

Kel Van Der Meel

Your definition of spirit, doesn’t define everyone’s idea of spirit though. Enthusiastic is a better word. It saves the confusion.

We are all enthusiastic about our beliefs. But not all of us would be described as having spirit, or zest. :)~

Sharla Smith Hardin

And vice versa. Semantics. But I’m glad you picked up on that.

Grok Grokkster

Avoid the word ‘spirit’ if at all possible. It’s just not worth the trouble.

Sharla Smith Hardin

I grew up with horses. Spirit has an entirely different meaning to me. It can mean the difference of ending up in your ass or dismounting gracefully depending on the degree of spirit you choose in a mount.

Orlando Jackson

Not via imaging. It’s a LOOONG draw out discussion… 9.17.12

Grok Grokkster

As said many times: ‘context is everything’. Problem is, much of the tragedy of life comes with the willful misuse of meaning by all sorts of vested interests.

Romananda Loitongbam

do u guys forgotten what sir Einstein said “science without religion is lame religion without science is blind” do u get ma point

Raj Mohan K

Einstein also said “Cosmological constant was the biggest blunder of my life”. It proves he was prejudice about some concepts

Romulo Binuya

Yes, quantum physics for the meantime ruled out supernatural causes, nature apparently is capable of genuine spontaneity… and you must have faith to accept that: D

Philippe Herzet

In the light of the following definition of God, the answer is obvious… The “Real” “God” has no name, gender, preference, shape or form. It is the Infinite Consciousness of All Possibility. God is everything and anything you can and can’t imagine, no matter how unacceptable that may seem to our imagination and our indoctrination.

God Is All That Is Not And All That Is. Any Possibility You May Come Up With Is Part Of What Humans Call God.

Romananda Loitongbam

Okay lets end up this god thing let’s talk some abt QM

Romulo Binuya

Perhaps that is the reason why Michelangelo depicted god and entourage riding in a giant floating human brain… one attribute of god is like our thoughts? The thoughts produced by electrochemical firings of neurons in our brain has no dimension, neither matter nor energy, yet thought exists and capable of transcending time and space.

Romulo Binuya

Yes, the science that we know couldn’t tackle the unknown and unknowable, and some people might be offended by the word faith.. So let’s change that into “beyond reasonable doubts” like, it’s beyond reasonable doubts that a photon is mass less: D

Raj Mohan K

One more question, is quark indivisible? I just want to know the possibility of finding small components inside quarks,,

James Maxwell

Like an electron, quarks are thought to be indivisible. In the future we may find we are wrong, just like atoms were once thought to be indivisible.

Romananda Loitongbam

@raj jest like universe is still expanding

Matthew Fields

On the original posting on this thread: Um, I think I can parse it as a grammatically valid sentence, but I’m not sure I can compile a meaning for it.

Raj Mohan K

Mr. Matthew Fields, I think you said something about my English,, I am not sure, I’m just a kid who cant digest hard English sentences,, kindly excuse me, if I said anything grammatically invalid,, (I am still not sure what you meant)

Romananda Loitongbam

Correct raj we are not an English or American..Any way in science language doesn’t matter it’s the knowledge

Raj Mohan K

I’m still not sure what he actually meant, 🙂 🙂

Grok Grokkster

I’m getting real sick of these religious ‘Science’ posts.

Romananda Loitongbam

Just stop this…An English speaking person can’t speak other country languages as their mother tongue! At least they should excuse us!

Marek Masleyko Maslancik

Hmm I am not native English speaker and I can speak English almost native. When you want to discuss you should at least know basics… and I don’t believe… Evidences have shown gods are not necessary… Anyway science group here.. Not religious

Marek Masleyko Maslancik

Actually… Magnetic stimulation of parts of frontal lobe caused vivid dream, illusions and feeling of some higher deity or principle…Check current research… and about definitions… my opinion is… How can someone talk exactly or specifically about something what doesn’t have exact definition? Like spirit or god… First propose some definition of what u actually understand under that word… than you might find more exact answers…
from some unknown reasons explaining these basics here in QP group kind of drives me crazy

Grok Grokkster

This post should have been deleted at the beginning, IMO.

Marek Masleyko Maslancik

I’m not always around as prompt eraser 🙂 but now it’s having nice discussion 🙂 so…

And btw more exact answer to question: experiments proved something like god its not necessary…
and I would say despite that…Idea of higher principle isn’t illogical… but when its not needed it lacks the reason , and that is kinda violates causality .. More extreme example… Would you stand up from your chair without reason, just like u stand up w/o reason and sit back down in 2 seconds? Without reason or purpose? I guess you wouldn’t

Grok Grokkster

AFAIC, people constantly asking these same questions over and over simply choose not to understand what Darwin’s discovery of *evolution by natural selection* actually MEANS.

Matthew Fields

I’m not convinced the original posting would be something to reason about or answer even if the author spoke English as a native. Perhaps it would be good for meditation. And it might serve as an illustration of one of Gödel’s theorems, perhaps, in that a sentence which can be quickly proven to be syntactically perfect may not be semantically analyzable at all.

Grok Grokkster

I’d think the very logic of the question itself would be syntactically in error, if we were strict about these things.

Click Here:  Comment This Post