Dr. Funkenstein

A Dr. Rocket posted a peice on the definition of God, which basically concludes after various definitions as either illogical in science or unobtainable by the process of the same. Might i interject that out science walks the same path as Dr. Rockets definitions of God, when it is held to the standards of all existence encompasses. In fact a good 95 percent of all, is quite frankly unknow or doesnt really conform to what we gleened from our little corner here on this planet or should i say dimension/program etc . The house (moderator) posted Dr. Rockets dogma as law, thereby diluting the point of having a page devoted to the abstract concept, entitiled Religion. In light of all we don't know about either subject god and science why is it law to take the one over the other. Suppose I defined God as the material cause of all things, whatever that material may reveal itself to be in science, who can disagree. Perhaps that material is beyond our science like the factual definition of dark matter, what becomes of discovery with this censorship.

The context of Revenge and Justice, I believe is not related. Justice being of a compassionate nature as in charity and aid to those needing the same. While revenge concerns balance in commited acts.

Too be clear, my hypothesise does not contend with the philosophical nature of Good and Evil, in Form. My facts dictate that Good is an inherent trait of everything in exsistence, while Evil is a product of Man's own design, by means of his base senses out of porportion. In war which could be called the ultimate evil, the good if totaly blameless in the inception of, must either submit to the particular gruesome which wars brings, or take part in the war, hoping for an different ending. In doing so must Good then become Evil or is there a balance which the Good can cling too in order not to become the opposite of the thing that it is. Which then in turn would make the participation in war of no avail to the good, since it seeks nothing in effect of the blameless cause. If it does not participate, Evil will not relent, since it's cause is generally purposeful, and thus goodness becomes a mere stepping stone for the evil of no contention. So is Good then just aspiration, while Evil a mechanical contrivance of it's possesor. In the formlessness of the two?

I suspect that physics already exist without Mathematics, the breadth of our physics mathematically are local, that's to say that they are applicable to this state of being (Nature). however the girth of the universe defies our math on every level, the processes' that brings particular matter or forces to reality have no equation that we can confidentially claim to be in the realm of our math. Take the pressure of the upper atmospheres surrounding earth, How does or does it effect gravity, or is it a aspect of gravity, in any circumstance, what's the math on that?. If Math is so integral to physics, what are it's universal constant? What is the exact thermal output of the Sun? Cold water to the touch is equal to cold water to the gage. Physics at best may be a distance cousin of Math, useful on this playing field, but wholly inaccurate in the wider, bigger, 10X more complicated arena.

@ Arc, We indeed have a predictive aspect on evolution, it's of the same quantity which science has laid bare through it's many ology's. The environment will morph at some point into one which may require wholesale adaptation, just as history has showed that happened before. Therefore diversities purpose, may very well be the mechanics of a eventuality, cellular structures over eons may have come to anticipate all to well. And what exactly is a random event, are you saying man made? otherwise how do equate random having nothing to do with purpose. Name a natural random event.

Purpose = accounts for, behavior is merely the starting point for inquiry.

Gravity is the recoil of energy to it's source. Things of the earth or any object of the universe, may leave it's source. However, the object/energy, can only escape but so far, before it's connection to it's source, acts upon it. Pulling it back to it's itself, since it's energy and its connection with it's source is stronger, then the distance it can escapes too. Electric magnetic radiation generally escapes gravity, so light is not effected by gravity, unless it's captured by a black hole, whose gravitational pull is strong enough to effect even light. All other energies recoil back to it's source, and that recoil is what we call gravity. Think of it like a compressed spring, void the compression and the spring escapes wait a while and the spring recoil back to it's original parameters (Source of energy). Pull the spring and its escapes in accordance with the source pulling it, let it go and it recoils back. The Key here is it's connection to it's source. Source should be taken litereally. Dr. Funkenstein think on his own. Fire away.

Secret of the ages, by Manly Hall.

@ Phil for all, Science has took us to the Big bang, a new theory came out in the last day or two that states we are the product of a Black hole on some dimensional plane. The point is we can only go but so far, at that point creationist by whatever name they choose, say a deity made it all happen. I agree that this is a belief based view, however neither side has the ability to prove the other absolutely wrong, and neither side has gone to causality. So can we say that something happened, and thus that something is in fact the deity, on whatever side of the argument it reveals itself to be on.

@ Zapatos, The purpose of gravity it seems is too hold things in place, within the confines of it space, it's scale may be universal and lacking complete understanding but it's purpose is clear. Rocks are a combination of elements reacting from fusion, it's purpose it would seem is too solidify said elements from their original gaseous form, from there you can make a sandwich out of it. Erosion is movement, it's purpose it seems is to transform the environment. @Arc So diversity is merely a by product of adaption. As environments transform, diversity flourish. seems plausible philosophically, scientifically more investigation is needed. The various way in which a animal may/may not diversify then depends on environmental stability or lack of, and "Other" (For lack of a better word). The point of which is unknown. As people of science don't you think it's weird that the only explanation for diversity is found in the Bible, where it states that "things were created after their own kind" I do not have a religious viewpoint.

@ Zapatos. If there is no point or purpose to diversity, that would make it a anomaly. Diversity would be the "only" thing in this whole world that is, for no reason at all. I cant even name another thing that fits into that category, therefore logically that statement cant be factual.

AS often happens in these types of discussions, the terms outweigh the values and thus the gist becomes lost. let's say "something happened to something" that is the value, Let's add God was the cause, that's the term we know best to describe one variable of the two something's. Lets say that at present we can't know rather one something in wisdom started it all or scientific process, But we can surely say that something happened. Whatever that something was equal the term of God, even if it stem from a scientific process.

@ Arc. We can agree that environment is a factor in diversity, but to make the leap that it is solely the only cause, seem faulty. From what we know, varying eras of earths ages, were many. Each lasting billions of years, so it's safe to say that on some of these eras/ages the environmental picture was steady for long periods of time. During such a period, why would a animal in general have cause to diversify. If as you suggest predation may be a cause, would that not be more a tactic of the ant for survival, and in the grand scheme of things of that world, that tactic would then be negated, since then the ant eater would merely devise another way to get at them. the same can be said for habitat, under ground or in a above ground home the adaptation is negated at best, by the very thing that caused the adaptation in the first place. So if diversity is based on just those factors then diversity would have no real purpose or point.

The why question purports to science like the how explains works, therefore why does it work. there are many species of ants, if environment, which is another way of saying evolution accounts for diversity. Then what trigger would turn a ant into a termite, or diversify one ant group from another. Is it genetic structures seeking perfection of form.? Take trees all are of wood but why the diversity since the three essentials are the same for them all, sunlight, soil and water.

What accounts for diversity. ( No conceptual variables please) If we say evolution as in adaptation, then the question is why adapt. If the one thing is capable of sustaining it's life, then what reason would it have too become something different yet similar.or diversify.?

just jumping in here. Truth or what is true is a vocabulary tool used to certify it's accompanying Fact. No accompanying fact, no truth/true. In and of itself it means nothing. Therefore what is true, factually is indeed correct. morality is a play generally staged by society on the members of that society. So right and wrong are actors, neither are valid at all times in all situations, we give it more credit for its acting then what it deserve. Is it right to kill a man who killed a man, or is it wrong to kill a man who killed a man by mistake. Lets take the actors out, what do we have, A man is dead, another man killed him. The dead mans death must be accounted for, that is the determining factor, what measure of accounting is generally left up to a judge. The authors' post doesn't seem to even approach a right or wrong, take the trip with your buddies or forgo the trip and feel unselfish, the former and latter is a decision, if it rise to a right or wrong, then perhaps the facts of who you consider yourself to be is tilted. no disrespect intended.

Who amongst us ever had a thought completely devoid of a goal or response, or a question looking for the same, a answer. Thinking is not a singularity unto itself without purpose. Some would say it is the balance of the incoming senses or cognition of circumstances, but it is never independent.

The tracing of a thought form inception to completion, give s solid intell on what a thought is. Some one downs a plane in Ukraine. the thought is who. Ukraine is at war, Russia supports one side in the conflict, the other side doesnt have the capability to pull off such a feat, russia therefore must have supplied the equipment needed to the rebels, and maybe the rebels downed the plane or Russia. This thought is heavenly invested in material facts, so thoughts pulls togeather variables in concrete intakes of knowledge, and yet they could be wrong, so thought is the reasoning abilty to make some sense out of experences, based on the variables. But lets suppose that the ukraine army downed the plane, would we have thoughts on that, if we didnt have prior knowledge of ukraine acting in devious ways, or would this even be a thought. This suggest that thoughts are more reasoning abilities, Moot without prior experence and opinions etc.

No to conception. It is all three. The present. In effect tangible. Thought is the progenitor of action, it proceeds everything from innovation to emotional states, it is the highest of Mans attributes.

Space being what it is, can we then extrapolate that theoretical Dark Matter has as a quality of Cold tempeture. If so, then can we hypothesize that the interacting of some form of heat/energy and cold tempeture is the birth for matter.?

@ Delta Sorry i do not. However current tatics of current Goverments/Military powers may be of help; The purpose of a scout, most armies have a regiment solely dedicated to recon. Purpose, where they going, what they doing, where they at, what they have with them. Political Espionage, at present Germany is in a twist because the U.S. has been spying on them (Ally). From the U.S. and historical perspective, Germany is too be observed. In the middle east ISIS correctly determined the fighting will of the Iraq army, and invaided the country amoungest the turmoil in Syria, annexed the conquered land and most likely will create a new state in Iraq. All these moves are common sense driven, out flanking tatics.

Both Science and Religion are offshoots of Philosophy. Philosophy asked the question, science went that way with it, and religion went the other way. Now in 2014 we see that science has reached a point (Quantum mechanics) where it dissolves into a mystery. Religion has remained in that mystery since man invented it. The original philosophical question which spurned these two viens was/is, "Why are we here?". In search of that answer, they are both comparable to each other. But science is of a more practicle value. religion has made no gains since its inception, indeed it doesnt try to prove it's point, it relys on Faith. Science goes where empirical evidence takes it, thus is their difference.

The study at best is what I call a "Trupic Falsum". While in some form the premise may be true in the particular, it is false in assuming its a general rule. there is no improvement on nature, a biological Father and Mother is the best for any child, a homosexual couple could indeed be an asset to a childs growth, but the standard parents, or step parents, must be correctly viewed as the norm. The right wing would correctly ignore this study, An any attempt to give credence to homosexual parenting over normal parenting, is an excercise in mootness.

@ Barf I have read many books over a period of 40 years, often the same book over again, but this speaks only of my personal desire to grasp the message of the book in totality, It helps to grow my understanding of the material over time. If my method for grasping the gist of a book is obnoxious to you, then I suggest you do your understanding differently. I have read the bible many times, i have redueced it too baby food, for the spiritual seeking heart. @ Delta The enemy has built these ramparts to abridge the walls surrounding the castle, an outflanking maneuvor would be too have a movable defense like boiling hot oil set aflame at the points where the ramparts interact with the wall, a classic outflanking tatic, the objective being not to allow the wall to be abridged. come up with any scenario which requires an advantage or at best a stalemate, and that would be your out flanking move. on whatever area of the war you need to have an objective of.

@ Barfbag. Common sense for tactics of war is correct. lets consider that Sun Tzu oldest copy of the art of war stem from the Han Dynasty 206 B.C.- 220 A.D.. The community of territorial man has been in existence for thousand of years prior to this period historically. Fair then to say that war was old news by the time Sun Tzu wrote the book, also fair to make the leap that warfare was conducted all over the known world, and that these participants were very fimilar with out flanking maneuvors. Thus over time application of tactics would indeed be common sense.