Can someone explain this visual or lens phenomena?

[Farmer]

We regularly measure things that are completely outside the human capacity for experience.  We can measure temperatures that would simply atomise us.  We can detect particles which only exist at certain high energy states through inference due to their effects on other particles, we can detect planets around distant stars, and so on.   We also have many more than 5 senses.  We have a sense of balance, we have a sense of motion, we have a sense of heat, a sense of pain, a sense of time, a sense of proprioception, a sense of air pressure, a sense of humidity.  Some people have displayed a sense of echolocation.  The list goes on.  Some are related, but clearly the traditional 5 are not adequate to cover the whole of human experience, let alone all animal and plants.

The assumption that what we can measure is limited by our senses is wrong.  Yes, we translate into something that is meaningful to us (but not necessarily to everyone - some of the levels of mathematics are beyond most people, for example), but there is no logical nexus that the measurement itself is limited by us.

An inertial frame of reference is a concept of a frame of reference which is essentially perfectly still compered to everything else.  It's a concept required to discuss relativity and special relativity.  The fact that you rely on time dilation to explain away the two photons moving away from each other means relying on special relativity.

Rather than the universe being limited by our physiology, it seems far more likely that our physiology is limited by the universe.  Our photo-electric reactions are limited by the universal speed limit of the speed of light, not the speed of light limited by our physiology.  Placing us at the centre of the universe is something we managed to grow out of centuries ago (give or take a few inquisitions and enduring extreme literalists).

So, again, provide some repeatable, falsifiable, observational data and theories to support the notion, or else there's nothing to support Chan's hypothesis (which is rather simply dismissed with a few logical considerations of the premise, as per above).

[Telecaster]

That's a strange metaphor but I think it is spot on.

If I were inclined to try digging myself out of my own semantic tangle here I could say: "the more complete picture will be painted with cow's blood."    But I think that would only land me in other cow product.

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

Rather than the universe being limited by our physiology, it seems far more likely that our physiology is limited by the universe.  Our photo-electric reactions are limited by the universal speed limit of the speed of light, not the speed of light limited by our physiology.  Placing us at the centre of the universe is something we managed to grow out of centuries ago (give or take a few inquisitions and enduring extreme literalists).

This! (Well, the entire post but this part in particular.) In our particular post-modernist, solipsistic moment humility is IMO a precious commodity.

-Dave-

[N80]

Placing us at the centre of the universe is something we managed to grow out of centuries ago (give or take a few inquisitions and enduring extreme literalists).

That sort or smug pejorative is exactly what I have referred to above in regard to the popular misuse of science. The irony is that it amounts to the same thing being ridiculed: faith. It turns science into a religion. You believe something that you cannot support with evidence. As I have stated above, I'll state again, nothing in science, math or philosophy presents any significant challenge to the idea of a creator god or the importance of humankind that such a god entails. The smugness of your comment suggests that you know of some such evidence or argument. If it is that simple and straightforward, let's have it and be done with it. The ball is in your court.

[Ray]

We regularly measure things that are completely outside the human capacity for experience.  We can measure temperatures that would simply atomise us.

Well, I would challenge that statement in respect of the word completely. A creature which could not experience changes in temperature would not be able to measure temperatures or even design thermometers. It is because we can experience the differences between hot and cold, as humans, and are able to witness the devastating effects of high temperatures in fires and smelting factories and so on, that we are able to extrapolate those effects and imagine the consequences of being exposed to exceptionally high temperatures which would cause a painful and sudden death. We can also observe the effects of even higher temperatures which can turn solids such as metals into vapour. That observation is itself an experience.


To extend the analogy, would a race of blind creatures, unable to detect through any sense organ any part of the electromagnetic spectrum, ever be able to develop a telescope?

We also have many more than 5 senses. We have a sense of balance, we have a sense of motion, we have a sense of heat, a sense of pain, a sense of time, a sense of proprioception, a sense of air pressure, a sense of humidity. Some people have displayed a sense of echolocation. The list goes on. Some are related, but clearly the traditional 5 are not adequate to cover the whole of human experience, let alone all animal and plants.

Sorry for being less than clear. I should have added 'and so on' at the end of my sentence. I never stated there were only 5 senses. That's a separate subject. Considering that the portion of the human genome we originally 'cracked', represented only  2 to 3 per cent or so of our total DNA (the rest having been considered 'junk DNA' which we are now beginning to realise might not be junk), I suspect we might be able to define in the future even more 'senses' than are currently listed.

On the subject of DNA, recent Russian research on this so-called 'junk' DNA, has revealed some fascinating associations between the apparently useless junk DNA and the types of languages that human communities speak. It seems there is evidence suggesting that even the characteristics of our written and spoken languages, including the rules of grammar, might be a reflection of our inherent DNA.

"Russian researchers' findings and conclusions are simply revolutionary! According to them, our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body but also serves as data storage and in communication. The Russian linguists found that the genetic code, especially in the apparently useless junk DNA follows the same rules as all our human languages. To this end they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar. They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. So human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA."

The assumption that what we can measure is limited by our senses is wrong. Yes, we translate into something that is meaningful to us (but not necessarily to everyone - some of the levels of mathematics are beyond most people, for example), but there is no logical nexus that the measurement itself is limited by us.

You seem to have some concept that there can be a measurement of something which is independent of human existence. Such a concept seems totally illogical to me.
All measurements are expressions of human activity. Even if a thermometer is linked to a computer and is automatically programmed to record a temperature every minute in the middle of the Sahara Desert, or on the planet Mars, every stage of the entire process is limited by our capabilities; the design of the thermometer, the accuracy of the thermometer, the robustness of the thermometer and related devices, and our ability to retrieve the data, and interpret the data, and so on.

An inertial frame of reference is a concept of a frame of reference which is essentially perfectly still compered to everything else. It's a concept required to discuss relativity and special relativity. The fact that you rely on time dilation to explain away the two photons moving away from each other means relying on special relativity.

I don't personally rely upon it. I find it very puzzling. Kenneth Chan's explanation simply makes more sense to me, which is why I raised the subject.

Rather than the universe being limited by our physiology, it seems far more likely that our physiology is limited by the universe. Our photo-electric reactions are limited by the universal speed limit of the speed of light, not the speed of light limited by our physiology. Placing us at the centre of the universe is something we managed to grow out of centuries ago (give or take a few inquisitions and enduring extreme literalists).

Sounds like you've misunderstood all along the main point I've been making. I assure you I make no claims that the universe is limited by our physiology. Rather, it is our perception and understanding of the universe that is limited by our physiology. Do you see the difference? 

[N80]

Correct. Even our ability to process information is physiological.

[Ray]

Correct. Even our ability to process information is physiological.

Yes. It seems to me a very obvious and undeniable fact that so many people seem unable to grasp. I suspect this is the root cause of much of the trouble and conflict in the world, an unfounded certainty which excludes not only the general effects that our physiology has on our beliefs, attitudes and perceptions, but the effects of the conditioning that takes place through our particular culture (including 'brainwashing', for want of a better word), from the time we were in our mother's womb.

[Farmer]

That sort or smug pejorative is exactly what I have referred to above in regard to the popular misuse of science. The irony is that it amounts to the same thing being ridiculed: faith. It turns science into a religion. You believe something that you cannot support with evidence. As I have stated above, I'll state again, nothing in science, math or philosophy presents any significant challenge to the idea of a creator god or the importance of humankind that such a god entails. The smugness of your comment suggests that you know of some such evidence or argument. If it is that simple and straightforward, let's have it and be done with it. The ball is in your court.

It's not smug, except I guess in your eyes.  I have something that is wholly supported by evidence.  Observation, falsifiable theory, prediction and testing.  As I already said, that doesn't mean that it's locked as the only explanation, only the current best explanation.  If you want to replace it, then provide a theory that better describes and predicts.

I'll state, for the first time, that the concept of a creator god or the importance of humankind that such a god entails (which god, by the way, of the dozens that have been widely worshipped in the last 2,000 years?) has no evidence.  God is a construct of society (all societies which create a god) to help them to rationalise things which they cannot explain.  Faced with the inexplicable, the creation of a supernatural entity as the explanation gave satisfaction to a thirst for knowledge and understanding prior to gaining / improving the ability to seek out more suitable answers - ones which can be tested, used to make accurate predictions, and so on.

Your premise that it's my responsibility to disprove your hypothesis of god, rather than your responsibility to demonstrate evidence to support your position, is typical.  You want me to prove a negative, but you're not willing to prove your positive.  Instead, you provide faith - something that is intrinsically untestable.  I have no problem with faith.  I have faith in many things/people/ideas/etc.  Faith, however, doesn't explain the universe anymore than saying the explanation is 42.  It's also absurd that scientific method is accused of being anything other than a method.  That method demonstrates to us that we're not even the centre of the galaxy, let alone the observable universe (and if we're not the centre of either of those, why would it follow that the whole universe is created for us to be the centre of it?).

Originally, it made some sense to consider ourselves as the centre, but as evidence has shown this not to be the case, such notions are nothing but remnant ego.  If there's any smugness or pejoration, it's from those who say they have the answer as a simple "god", and that nothing else could possibly be correct and, more than any other aspect, that the particular god of favour of that person is the right interpretation.

There may or may not be a creator.  I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that it's a question that can't be answered and I'm happy to accept the possibility.  That in no way provides any evidence to support the notion of a human-centric universe or that our scientific method isn't currently the best one we have for gaining knowledge about the universe.

If you want to have a sensible discussion about any of this, stop smugly waiving your hand and dispensing poetastrical sophistry as if that's any sort of worthwhile or logical point.  Stop setting a fallacious premise from which to argue - if your ego will allow it.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Our perception can change our reality...."I think, therefor I am".
 Since our brain works on frequency, this can also be altered. The discussion is here, while there are a number of groups already using it. A resigned FBI chief has already done a video discussion of such operations in practice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfdX7duuFsM&list=PLa7W3bV_yw5iho0iKEJ6X_iFFJkvn7Ik3&index=39
Hard to imagine, but I certainly cant doubt it.
Even TV programming has much to do with how we shape what we think.

It not only influences our precetion, but it also remains in memory. This is proven in neurosciences with the mapping of the brain activity and how it alters perception. Sending signals can stop brain activity, and "control how it functions to a degree, at least alter its output and physical actions. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is just touched upon in neuro, yet its progressed further in undisclosed testings. If you get lazy and don't control your mind, something or someone else will control it for you. Just like atoms  have energy, so do our thoughts.
https://www.google.com.au/patents/US6506148

[Farmer]

Well, I would challenge that statement in respect of the word completely. A creature which could not experience changes in temperature would not be able to measure temperatures or even design thermometers. It is because we can experience the differences between hot and cold, as humans, and are able to witness the devastating effects of high temperatures in fires and smelting factories and so on, that we are able to extrapolate those effects and imagine the consequences of being exposed to exceptionally high temperatures which would cause a painful and sudden death. We can also observe the effects of even higher temperatures which can turn solids such as metals into vapour. That observation is itself an experience.


To extend the analogy, would a race of blind creatures, unable to detect through any sense organ any part of the electromagnetic spectrum, ever be able to develop a telescope?

We have no capacity to detect radio waves through our physiology.  None.  Nor x-rays, and other high energy particles.  Yet we developed devices that could both detect and create these things.  As we had no possible way to experience them directly, then it would appear to be demonstrably the case that you do not need to be able to directly experience something in order to develop a device to experience it.  Of course, many explanations preceded the current theories which led to our ability to harness these things.  There are things that a 4 year old today understands which could not even be conceived by a genius 100 years ago.  Just because we don't currently have a capacity to understand or detect something, doesn't mean that we can't and there is no evidence that our physiology impacts on this.  If physiology played a part in the speed of light, for example, then it would be different for different people with physiological variations.

You seem to have some concept that there can be a measurement of something which is independent of human existence. Such a concept seems totally illogical to me.
All measurements are expressions of human activity. Even if a thermometer is linked to a computer and is automatically programmed to record a temperature every minute in the middle of the Sahara Desert, or on the planet Mars, every stage of the entire process is limited by our capabilities; the design of the thermometer, the accuracy of the thermometer, the robustness of the thermometer and related devices, and our ability to retrieve the data, and interpret the data, and so on.

The design is limited by our capabilities.  Yes.  And as our capabilities increase, so does our ability to measure things.  If the limits were physiological, how would we continue to increase them?  Our physiology hasn't changed.

Sounds like you've misunderstood all along the main point I've been making. I assure you I make no claims that the universe is limited by our physiology. Rather, it is our perception and understanding of the universe that is limited by our physiology. Do you see the difference? 

I see the difference - I'm not misunderstanding, but the discussion has moved on (or so I thought) and an extrapolation of your view is that since we can only perceive within the limits of our physiology, and since our existence is entirely perceptual, for all intents and purposes the universe is limited by our physiology.  If not, then how can we reasonably accept the premise that only our perception and understanding are limited and that the universe mysteriously exists in unfathomable ways all around us without our ever having any ability to know it.

Consider, also, that our current understanding does not preclude super-luminal velocities.  Such particles would, however, according to the current model, necessarily travel in the opposite direction in time.  That would make detection difficult, but theoretically not impossible.  So if we already grasp the possibility of super-luminal velocities, where's the limitation?  Also, bear in mind that the phase velocity of x-rays through glass can exceed the speed of light.  It's just that the phase velocity doesn't represent the velocity of the transmission of information.  So, there's a very simple example of a super-luminal velocity which doesn't break special relativity and removes the concept of not being able to measure/sense/etc. super-luminal velocities because of our photo-electric physiology.  There are many other examples of observed super-luminal velocities.

[Ray]

The design is limited by our capabilities.  Yes.  And as our capabilities increase, so does our ability to measure things.  If the limits were physiological, how would we continue to increase them?  Our physiology hasn't changed.

Even Socrates could have answered that over 2400 years ago. Know thyself. It's a long process. 

As I mentioned earlier, just a few decades ago we succeeded in decoding just 2 to 3 per cent of our DNA which we thought served a purpose because it was protein-encoding DNA, and we mistakenly thought the remaining 97%, which is non-protein-encoding DNA, was junk.

Also, a few decades ago we thought the expansion of the universe was already in the process of slowing down. Then, through our expanded sensory perception resulting from the development of the Hubble telescope that we sent to outer space, and through our physiologically-dependent interpretation of the data received, we were surprised to find that, according to our current theories of astrophysics, the expansion of the universe appeared to be accelerating. It's a total mystery. What's the explanation?

Either our theories of physics are wrong on the very grand scale of the universe, or there exists some type of matter exerting a gravitational effect, which we can't detect. To explain this accelerating expansion (inferred by our theories), the amount of undetectable and completely invisible matter and energy, known as Dark Matter and Dark Energy, represents as much as 95% or even 96% of all matter and energy in the universe.

So, after many centuries of scientific endeavour we are at the stage of having decoded about 3% of our DNA, and are able to design instruments that have the potential of being able to detect about 4% or maybe even 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. That's progress. 

However,  I confess that I feel no certainty about the truth of Kenneth Chan's explanation for our inability to detect any photon travelling faster than the speed of light, and/or detect any photon travelling slower than the speed of light in a vacuum, in circumstances, for example, where we were travelling in a rocket with our measuring device, at an enormous speed chasing a beam of light travelling in a similar direction or opposite direction.

Kenneth Chan's hypothesis merely resonates with my world view or philosophy and has a certain logic which makes sense to me. But I agree, it's no more than a hypothesis.

[N80]

It's not smug, except I guess in your eyes.

Okay fine. I regret using that terms as it provoked, I guess, a good bit of vitriol at the end of your post. My apologies for setting the wrong tone. There is no reason that this cannot be discussed in a civil fashion.

I have something that is wholly supported by evidence.

What is that something? If that something is that God does not exist, then 1) I think you are mistaken and 2) Then the ball is surely in your court to do so. That is only fair.

If you want to replace it, then provide a theory that better describes and predicts.

Again, we will have to agree on what "it" is. If "it" is the origin of the universe then the notion of God is no more irrational than any other theory of why there is something as opposed to nothing.

I'll state, for the first time, that the concept of a creator god or the importance of humankind that such a god entails has no evidence.

I disagree. As above, I would point out that something exists and most scientists agree that this something had a beginning. Currently, the best science available offers little by way of explanation for why matter/light/energy and time exist. So if the existence of the universe is not evidence of God (and this can be rationally debated) then science offers little better explanation.

God is a construct of society (all societies which create a god) to help them to rationalise things which they cannot explain.  Faced with the inexplicable, the creation of a supernatural entity as the explanation

First, this very premise (which was expanded by Freud) has no real proof of why people believe in a deity. It is a reasonable theory, but lacking in any evidence. Second, and more importantly, it says nothing at all about whether God actually exists or not. Even if the premise is correct it can only tell us why some people believe in a deity. That is all. So this is a logical fallacy in terms of proving, disproving or even understanding the existence of God. Humans have had all sorts of constructs to explain things like disease and gravity that have been wrong. This does not say anything about the existence of  actual gravity.

Your premise that it's my responsibility to disprove your hypothesis of god, rather than your responsibility to demonstrate evidence to support your position, is typical.

I don't think that is my premise. I may have stated it that way, I don't recall. It is a long thread. But, I think it is still valid, yet, it isn't important. let me restate it, if you find it unfair: My premise is that it is perfectly reasonable, rational and warranted to believe in a creator God. I can provide proof that it is and I invite proof that it is not.

You want me to prove a negative, but you're not willing to prove your positive.

I do not know what you mean.

Instead, you provide faith - something that is intrinsically untestable.

You are misrepresenting me. I have not done so. Any argument I make for the rational belief that God exists will be made in a secular, empirical fashion open to refutation by modern secular thought. So again, you are claiming I have said something that I have not.

It's also absurd that scientific method is accused of being anything other than a method.

I agree 100%. I'm not the one who is doing that.

Originally, it made some sense to consider ourselves as the centre, but as evidence has shown this not to be the case, such notions are nothing but remnant ego.

I think this depends on what you mean by 'centre'. Do you mean spatially? If so, no argument here. If not spatially then what? Importance? Significance? If so, science has nothing to say about that. So we need some clarity here.

If there's any smugness or pejoration, it's from those who say they have the answer as a simple "god", and that nothing else could possibly be correct

I agree. It is insufferable. I am not one of those people. The problem is when people substitute science for God in that scenario. They are equally insufferable.

There may or may not be a creator.  I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that it's a question that can't be answered and I'm happy to accept the possibility.

That is not what your statements suggest. If there is a possibility that there is a creator then there is certainly the possibility that he/she/it created humans at the metaphysical centre of creation. You seem to believe that that part is unimaginable. Why draw the line there?

That in no way provides any evidence to support the notion of a human-centric universe or that our scientific method isn't currently the best one we have for gaining knowledge about the universe.

Okay. But historically the best methods we have have been quite unreliable.

If you want to have a sensible discussion about any of this, stop smugly waiving your hand and dispensing poetastrical sophistry as if that's any sort of worthwhile or logical point.  Stop setting a fallacious premise from which to argue - if your ego will allow it.

That all seems a bit heavy handed and likely to attract moderator intervention, but I accept the responsibility for using the word 'smug' above. My bad. I hope the rest of this response has been more acceptable?

The bottom line is this: I cannot absolutely prove the existence of God with science, philosophy or math. Likewise neither can science, philosophy or math disprove the existence of God. That being the case, it remains perfectly reasonable, logical and warranted to believe in a creator God given the available evidence provided by observation and logic (which I am happy to discuss). But, the intellectual elites on the agnostic or atheistic side often claim that it is in error, or illogical or unreasonable or stupid or outdated to hold such beliefs. This is a popular notion. Yet, again, they do not hold the evidence to make this claim. On the other hand, among intellectual theists (which include many of the greatest names in science) there is no attack on the tenets of science.

[Telecaster]

My response to all this is the same as it would be to a flat earther, were I ever to encounter one. If you're gonna make specific claims, of the kind that can in principle be empirically tested, you better be prepared to deliver the goods and at a level matching that of your claims. It's not on me or anyone to disprove a claim: anybody can claim anything about anything. No solid ground there. Demonstrate that your claim can play on the field of evidence & analysis and it'll earn the right to be taken seriously. Otherwise it has no place on that field.

I have friends, in the sciences, who are people of faith. But there's no conflict in it for them because their beliefs aren't of the sort that compel them to attempt verifying the unverifiable.

-Dave-

[N80]

My response to all this is the same as it would be to a flat earther, were I ever to encounter one. If you're gonna make specific claims, of the kind that can in principle be empirically tested, you better be prepared to deliver the goods and at a level matching that of your claims.

That cuts both ways though right?

A "specific claim" could be that science has disproved a creator God. Right? And that is pretty much what Farmer suggested. No empirically testable evidence has been presented to support that claim.  He can't. No one can.

A "specific claim" could be that God created the universe. I don't think anyone has made that claim have they? I certainly did not. So it is not on me to provide empirically testable evidence to support this claim. I can't. No one can.

A "specific claim" could be that belief that God created the universe is warranted and rational. That is different from the second claim. It is what I am claiming. I feel like I can support it but the nature of this claim is philosophical, not empiric.

It's not on me or anyone to disprove a claim: anybody can claim anything about anything.

Agreed. See above. The problem is that Farmer has made claims about the existence of God and man's place in the universe. Not me. (I checked.)

Demonstrate that your claim can play on the field of evidence & analysis and it'll earn the right to be taken seriously. Otherwise it has no place on that field.

So who is at bat then? As I see it, the claim in question is that God did not create the universe. I'm all ears waiting for the evidence. But for some reason it seems no one wants to touch that one. Farmer seems to think it unfair. He wants to put the suggestion out there but does not want to defend it. If that is not his claim then he needs to say so. To claim that he has made no claim at all seems disingenuous.

So fine, no big deal. That need not slow us down. I'll step up to the plate and claim that there is sufficient warrant for a person with properly functioning senses and mental capacity to believe that God created the universe and that such belief can be based on the same sorts of evidence and analysis used to form beliefs that we all can agree are valid. If I am able to do so, and maybe I cannot, then it remains unclear about what location in the universe that man happens to inhabit, metaphysically speaking...of course.

But if there is an expectation that I am going to step up to the plate and claim that I can empirically prove that God created the universe then I decline. I cannot.

I have friends, in the sciences, who are people of faith. But there's no conflict in it for them because their beliefs aren't of the sort that compel them to attempt verifying the unverifiable.
-Dave-

That's all well and good. But it seems to suggest that anything that comes under the idea of theism or religion is unverifiable. I reject this notion outright.  It also suggests a specific view of science that is dominated by naturalism. The naturalistic (or materialistic if you will) approach to science is no more than a belief structure that is added to the principles of science and is, patently unscientific in its claims. Many thoughtful scientists and laymen adopt this approach to science almost subconsciously, or possibly because it dominates academia, but without ever really thinking about it. I'd love to discuss that too, but maybe somewhere else.

[Ray]

My response to all this is the same as it would be to a flat earther, were I ever to encounter one. If you're gonna make specific claims, of the kind that can in principle be empirically tested, you better be prepared to deliver the goods and at a level matching that of your claims. It's not on me or anyone to disprove a claim: anybody can claim anything about anything. No solid ground there. Demonstrate that your claim can play on the field of evidence & analysis and it'll earn the right to be taken seriously. Otherwise it has no place on that field.

I have friends, in the sciences, who are people of faith. But there's no conflict in it for them because their beliefs aren't of the sort that compel them to attempt verifying the unverifiable.

Dave,
The 'flat earth' arguments, as presented through video links in this thread, are in a different category to a belief in a God. All the flat-earth arguments I briefly noted in some of the videos I watched were not only amusing but interesting because they were good examples of a type of superficial and specious argument that can be so easily debunked through sound scientific evidence and mathematical calculation, and yet they are still believed by some folks, apparently. I imagine that similar specious arguments on all sorts of issues are also accepted by many people, which is the source of much confusion and conflict in the world.

The concept of a Creator God is clearly beyond the realms of scientific verification or falsification. My attitude is similar to that of some of the ancient sages of China, such as Confucius and Lao Tzu, and Gautama Shakyamuni of the Shakya  clan in ancient India (or Nepal). Don't waste your time speculating on the existence of something which basic common sense should tell you is beyond our abilities to comprehend. Rather, we should attend to matters that have the potential to improve our circumstances at the present time on this planet.

There's an interesting story attributed to the Buddha (but who knows), which attempts to clarify this issue through analogy or parable. The parable is claimed to be the Buddha's response to a questioning monk who was rather troubled by the Buddha's silence on matters such as 'life after death', the origins of the universe, the existence of a Creator God, and so on.

Here it is:

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.'

The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."

[Ray]

By the way, is it not possible to edit the title of a thread? There's no such word as 'phenomina'. It's phenomena. Has this been mentioned already? I haven't read every post.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

By the way, is it not possible to edit the title of a thread? There's no such word as 'phenomina'. It's phenomena. Has this been mentioned already? I haven't read every post.

But the typo does manage to make the thread harder to find in a search on keywords. Surely that's a bonus?

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

That sort or smug pejorative is exactly what I have referred to above in regard to the popular misuse of science.

But don't you think it's a misuse of faith if they tell you to unlearn or disbelieve scientific results because it doesn't align with their beliefs?
I have no problem with faith and the existence of a "God", but when it's sliding down to a power struggle of "who is right" I lose faith [pun intended].

[Ray]

But the typo does manage to make the thread harder to find in a search on keywords. Surely that's a bonus?

Cheers,
Bart

Well, I am surprised at your slightly sarcastic attitude, Bart. 

I thought you would relish the opportunity to debunk all those silly arguments put forth in support of a flat earth. You could have listed them, 1 to 20 or so, and pulled each one apart, using your great understanding of maths and science, for the great benefit of all those deluded flat-earthers. 

[N80]

But don't you think it's a misuse of faith if they tell you to unlearn or disbelieve scientific results because it doesn't align with their beliefs?

Of course. But in regard to this thread, have "they" or anyone else even suggested that? Has anyone even suggested using faith as evidence here? It seems to me that I have automatically been lumped together with whoever "they" are just because I suggested that science cannot disprove God. Which is really all I ever did. Again, I went back and checked. I haven't brought faith into the fray and I never claimed that God created the universe. These have been attributed to me, it seems, due to stereotyping....maybe.
 

I have no problem with faith and the existence of a "God", but when it's sliding down to a power struggle of "who is right" I lose faith [pun intended].

I get that. But in the end someone "is right".