Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

Well he will have had correspondingly gone through the motions

Example other than the fact that you go through the motions? We can allow the if but see no then to compare to. The fact we can see is lip service or going through the motions.

 

The correspondence would be the result of the ritual. The basic tenet of "Magickal Theory" would be that you conduct a ritual and get a desired result from what you want to manifest in the ritual...via the focus and imaginative will of your Consciousness.

It's no different than that a chair will not move unless you pick it up and move it with your will. Now apply all of this to the power of the mind and Consciousness (Hermetic Mentalism), and you have Magick.

 

So how does this account for the Quantum Theory that the observer (the Scientist creating the hypotheses) plays a role in the outcome of the hypothesis?

in theory anyone could replicate said test/experiment...is this because of objectivity or because of collective subjective agreeability?

How can the Theory of Evolution be replicated by anyone?

 

In science, there is a principle called "Occam's Razor". The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

So, two points. Does assuming that plants and animals have this knowledge lead to better predictions than the opposite? I don't think so. Also, this idea is a more complicated solution, so science rejects it unless and until it is shown that it yields better predictions.

 

define "better" predictions.

 

The observer in quantum experiments can be a measuring device and not necessarily a person. Quantum Mechanics is quite strange, however due to decoherence that occurs by the time we get to simple cells, it's not really much of an issue with most scientific studies.

Following the particular method is agreeability but the findings are what can substantiate objectivity.

'Simpler' Modern techniques would probably be analyzing DNA and perhaps working with simple organisms in labs but you could likely still gather fossils and what not like Darwin as well.

 

In summary....I would rather believe that you can be the master of your own body, person, etc, to an extent...but if your intent involves others in your wishes and things......I would hope that power is not there....It would not be fair....and only fair if the feeling is mutual.

 

well considering all that you presented is essentially old news to me and topics like evolution have been beaten into the ground here, I chose to just let it slide.
Plus I never care to really get into these silly tit for tat type of "debates", especially whenever the topic can not be settled by ANYONE, it just becomes another war of differencing opinions.
Your condescending attitude doesn't do much to help the conversation along either.

You did mention more than once that our knowledge and understanding of how entropy may work in living systems is very limited, which is of course true the same as any branch of science, it is always tentative and subject for revision based on new information.
If that is the case, why go on to make the assertion that your particular view and understanding is the "correct" one. You know no better than I do, nor has anything you presented negated the idea of the existence of a God.
Still don't know how folks think that if they prove evolution that somehow disproves the existence of God?

in 40+ years that I have been investigating concepts like this, I have yet to find anything in science that unequivocally negates the existence of God, nor will you.
As has been stated in these lame assed threads countless times, the existence of God is something that can not be proven to be true or proven to be false.
I can accept that, can you?

I have no problem saying "I don't know" so no ego issues here,
have you checked yours recently?

 

I don't know.

 

Okay that is the theory where are the test results?

 

The test results manifest as delusion, obviously.

 

What do you say about Newton's theory of gravity, or Einstein's General Relativity? Surely, you do not deny the existence of gravity as fact?

 

Some say God is inconceivable, beyond definition. Advaita Vedanta for example.

 

Just to complicate matters, Occam was a medieval Christian philosopher. So we can probably assume that he had some belief in some concept of God.

 

China, is this magic, as you call it have to do with witchery or black magic by any means....trying to control something?......I have to say no to something like that. However I do believe that we master our own selves to a certain extent, as i have said before......I think unpredictalbeness in all things is a factor, as well.

 

ha ha...unless it is magic like this which just came on the radio....OMG!.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV1szduuJoM

 

Complex systems appear unpredictable when we lack knowledge of their internal workings. The more we know about something and generally the more intelligent we are the more predictable these things appear. Human behavior can seem unpredictable because humans are highly intelligent, but a person with an IQ or say, 500 might find average people, or even those that were two or three standard deviations above the norm to be very predictable in our behavior and boring. Generally, the more well you know someone, the more predictable their behavior is to the knower; we now have more knowlege of this system that drives that person's decisions and actions that make up their behavior.

Pseudorandom number generator algorithms (PRNGs) will generate seemingly random and unpredictable numbers, and they are often used when an unpredictable input to a function is needed. If one has knowledge of the algorithm however, as well as one piece of key information, that is the seed, the value that was used to initialize the PRNG it's possible to predict the entire sequence of output, essentially replaying it.

You can compute f(x) only if you have knowlege of x.

 

I agree that the more we understand anything...we more understand something. Is that what you are trying to say?

500 IQ?...does that even exist?

 

Yes, the more we understand the less mysterious what we didn't understand before becomes.

I don't think there is anyone with an IQ of 500 that we know of, though there are a few people with IQs well into the 200s. It was mostly a hypothetical situation where a person exists with such vastly superior intelligence that the complexities of normal human behavior appear trivial. Of course, this hypothetical person would appear to be extremely unpredictable often behaving in ways that didn't make sense to meet their goals which they have thought out and analyzed using such superhuman intelligence.

 

Yes, i thought of other life in other worlds and the unpredictable persuasion of some sort they could have on our species, but that is hypothetical, as we do not know. We don't know. How simple is that?

Also, pets such as cats and dogs.....mainly dogs can become very predictable to us, when we have them......but that is not boring.....if you love them.....

Also, animals or people can get very sick with very unpredicatable behavior, so there are other unpredictable variables to always consider.