Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

Who is the "International Institute for Advanced Studies of Space Representation Sciences" anyway?

Google isn't coming up with much except that it was founded in 2002 by Giuseppe Maria Catalano; if anybody else is connected with this "institute" I can find no mention of them.

I believe there is a global network of loosely connected "sindonlogists". I have recently read a revised book on the shroud written by the military historian Robert K Wilcox.

From what we know, the shroud once wrapped the body of a man who was tortured (crown of thorns, >100 lash marks on back, large (spear?)wound on rib cage, and crucified (large iron nails in hands, feet). At the present time, we are unable to positively date the shroud any earlier than a Knights Templar castle in medieval France. The image produced on the shroud is very poorly understood. As far as we know, it could not be produced by any technology known to be available in medieval times.

 

[W3H5]

Geez Dotini ... I am a believer in God, among these a christian, among these a catholic and I have to say I won't watch a 53 minutes video about the Shroud of Turin. My attention span is too short for such a task ... would you mind to write a short post about whatever the video is about?

I know this is off topic but to save time watch YouTube videos at 1.5x speed (doesn't work on mobile). Faster and once you're used to it it doesn't feel any different.

 

[BobK]

I believe there is a global network of loosely connected "sindonlogists". I have recently read a revised book on the shroud written by the military historian Robert K Wilcox.

From what we know, the shroud once wrapped the body of a man who was tortured (crown of thorns, >100 lash marks on back, large (spear?)wound on rib cage, and crucified (large iron nails in hands, feet). At the present time, we are unable to positively date the shroud any earlier than a Knights Templar castle in medieval France. The image produced on the shroud is very poorly understood. As far as we know, it could not be produced by any technology known to be available in medieval times.

So, who is the "International Institute for Advanced Studies of Space Representation Sciences" anyway?

Google isn't coming up with much except that it was founded in 2002 by Giuseppe Maria Catalano; if anybody else is connected with this "institute" I can find no mention of them.

 

[Dotini]

Amazon has a biography page on him:


From the institute's website, I find these names on the Responsabili list:
http://istitutorappresentazionespaz..._content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=53&lang=it

Responsabili

|

|

Scienziato Fondatore: Giuseppe Maria Catalano

• Ricerca Scientifica: Giuseppe Maria Catalano
  • Curriculum Scientifico
  • Scoperte
  • Teoria
  • Teoremi
  • Congressi
  • Perizie
• Ricerca Storica: Marida Musso
• Relazioni in lingua inglese: Dawn Caseby
• Relazioni in lingua spagnola: Meritxell Catalina Janer Barber
• Relazioni in lingua russa: Irina Koleva
• Relazioni in lingua russa: Ivan Lebowski
• Relazioni in lingua araba:
• Relazioni in lingua tedesca: Gerda Sepp
• Collaborazione tecnica informatica: Fabio Valenza
• Collaborazione tecnica: Tommaso Alioto

 

[Famine]

Responsabili

|

|

Scienziato Fondatore: Giuseppe Maria Catalano

• Ricerca Scientifica: Giuseppe Maria Catalano
  • Curriculum Scientifico
  • Scoperte
  • Teoria
  • Teoremi
  • Congressi
  • Perizie
• Ricerca Storica: Marida Musso
• Relazioni in lingua inglese: Dawn Caseby
• Relazioni in lingua spagnola: Meritxell Catalina Janer Barber
• Relazioni in lingua russa: Irina Koleva
• Relazioni in lingua russa: Ivan Lebowski
• Relazioni in lingua araba:
• Relazioni in lingua tedesca: Gerda Sepp
• Collaborazione tecnica informatica: Fabio Valenza
• Collaborazione tecnica: Tommaso Alioto

You will post all messages in English.

 

[Dotini]

Sorry about that.

Responsibles
| |

Scientist Founder: Giuseppe Maria Catalano

• Scientific research: Giuseppe Maria Catalano
  • Scientific Curriculum
  • Discoveries
  • Theory
  • Theorems
  • Congress
  • Expert reports
• Historical research: Marida Musso
• Anglosaxon peoples relations: Dawn Caseby
• Spanish peoples relations: Meritxell Catalina Janer Barber
• Russian people relations: Irina Koleva
• Russian people relations: Ivan Lebowski
• Arabic peoples relations:
• German peoples relations: Gerda Sepp
• Computer technical collaboration: Fabio Valenza
• Technical collaboration: Tommaso Alioto

 

[Imari]

I know this is off topic but to save time watch YouTube videos at 1.5x speed (doesn't work on mobile). Faster and once you're used to it it doesn't feel any different.

It's still 35 minutes of video without any description of a point from a member that has a history of posting tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

One could argue that even if you're interested in the Shroud, there are ways to spend 35 minutes that are more likely to leave you informed than that.

 

[Dotini]

Here is a cheeky article, reprinted in Newsweek, which suggests some scientists think that mathematics and consciousness are strong evidence, even proof, of the probable existence of God. I'm not convinced. But I am amused.
http://www.newsweek.com/god-faith-religion-science-does-god-exist-existence-god-608897

 

[Rallywagon]

That's just simulation string theory with religious BS tied into it.

 

[Imari]

A branch of logic designed to be good at describing things is good at describing things? That's unpossible!

 

[W3H5]

My idea of what may be deemed as "God" in some people's eyes is mathematics and physics (often interlinked). It's not a deity, physical thing or anything tangible, much like the laws of mathematics and physics that govern our universe and evolve as our knowledge of them does. They are there working, doing their thing but the understanding of them requires a conscious mind to observe and measure, though they act upon everything. I don't regard mathematics and physics as a conscious thing; dynamic and versatile though it is.

I don't believe, against overwhelming evidence, of a beginning (Big Bang) but it is claimed that at that point the laws that goven the universe broke down, or didn't exist yet. Mathematics and physics are observable, often quantifiable concepts which hold more sway with me than a supreme being with a consciousness.

That's about as close as I can get to wrapping my head around the concept of an all powerful God.

 

[Dotini]

if inflation produces a multiverse in which, to quote a previous statement from one of the responding authors (Guth), “anything that can happen will happen”—it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about predictions… any inflationary model gives an infinite diversity of outcomes with none preferred over any other. This makes inflation immune from any observational test.

Almost 40 years after their inception, inflation and string theory are in worse shape than ever. The persistence of these unfalsifiable and hence unscientific theories is an embarrassment that risks damaging science’s reputation at a time when science can ill afford it. Isn’t it time to pull the plug?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ular-theory-of-cosmic-creation-pseudoscience/

 

[Rallywagon]

if inflation produces a multiverse in which, to quote a previous statement from one of the responding authors (Guth), “anything that can happen will happen”—it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about predictions… any inflationary model gives an infinite diversity of outcomes with none preferred over any other. This makes inflation immune from any observational test.

Almost 40 years after their inception, inflation and string theory are in worse shape than ever. The persistence of these unfalsifiable and hence unscientific theories is an embarrassment that risks damaging science’s reputation at a time when science can ill afford it. Isn’t it time to pull the plug?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ular-theory-of-cosmic-creation-pseudoscience/

Says the one that just brought that "math and science proves god" article to the table...

 

[Dotini]

Says the one that just brought that "math and science proves god" article to the table...

Yes, I, almost uniquely, bring many things to the table. I like to serve an intellectual smorgasbord.

 

[BobK]

Here is a cheeky article, reprinted in Newsweek, which suggests some scientists think that mathematics and consciousness are strong evidence, even proof, of the probable existence of God. I'm not convinced. But I am amused.
http://www.newsweek.com/god-faith-religion-science-does-god-exist-existence-god-608897

Amusing, indeed, right down to its misleading headline "Does God Exist? Some Scientists Think They Have Proof" which would be better rendered as "Does God Exist? One Author Pushing His Book Seems To Think So".

Essentially the article boils down to a God of the Gaps; "I don't know why this is so it must be God".

Thanks for the chuckle, @Dotini.

 

[Dotini]

@BobK
Not only does God not exist, the universe itself may not exist - except as a hologram. How is that for chuckles, Bob? Perhaps we won't be truly satisfied until we are sure that God, math, science, and matter itself (including ourselves!) in fact cannot and does not exist. Would this require a religion of nihilism? Or perhaps a gentle, general mockery and doubt would do?
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

 

[UKMikey]

Not only does God not exist, the universe itself may not exist - except as a hologram.

The universe may be an interference pattern between two or more 11th dimensional membranes but I don't think this leads to the suggestion that it's an illusion or doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

 

[Famine]

Would this require a religion of nihilism?

No.

 

[Dotini]

No.

Oh, perhaps it might.
FYI, from wikipedia:

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ᵻlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ᵻlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2]Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction,[3] among others, have been identified by commentators[4] as "nihilistic".

Nihilism is also a characteristic that has been ascribed to time periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch,[5] and some religious theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity[6] and many aspects of modernity[3] represent a rejection of theism, and that such rejection of their theistic doctrine entails nihilism.

 

[Famine]

Oh, perhaps it might.
FYI, from wikipedia:

Have a look at the Wikipedia entry for 'joke' while you're at it.

 

[Dotini]

Have a look at the Wikipedia entry for 'joke' while you're at it.

Do you have anything positive to contribute to the discussion?

Do you have any questions to ask?

Can you submit a variety of hypotheses for consideration?

Can you submit any links for consideration?

I do these things. And I Stoically bear the criticism from 360 degrees of both believers and doubters. Since I don't believe in God, and I won't deny the possibility of its existence, I suppose this is entirely a fair and equal situation.

 

[Famine]

Do you have anything positive to contribute to the discussion?

Yep, humour.

Well, more like deliberate humour, as in 'laugh with' rather than 'laugh at'. I'm sure there's a relevant Wikipedia page to cover it somewhere that you can copy and paste.

 

[Dotini]

Yep, humour.

Well, more like deliberate humour, as in 'laugh with' rather than 'laugh at'. I'm sure there's a relevant Wikipedia page to cover it somewhere that you can copy and paste.

Perhaps yours is the religion of divine comedy?

The laughing monk

"Some slight play of hazardous phrases about the fringes of the institutional fabric may be tolerated, but after all such playful excursions the conclusive test of scientific competency is a grand and magniloquent return to the orthodox commonplaces".
- from The Laughing Aloud of Sir Dabby (or maybe it was Thorstein Veblen?)

 

[BobK]

@BobK
Not only does God not exist, the universe itself may not exist - except as a hologram. How is that for chuckles, Bob? Perhaps we won't be truly satisfied until we are sure that God, math, science, and matter itself (including ourselves!) in fact cannot and does not exist.

I'm more or less familiar with (or perhaps "aware of" would be a better word choice) some of these "The universe isn't real... " hypotheses and I concede, they're interesting especially when they can point to evidence that may support the conjecture. But for me, "the universe is real" makes a dandy working hypothesis.

Would this require a religion of nihilism?

Not at all, although I can see how it may become much more popular.

and I don't think you quite got @Famine's joke there

 

[Rallywagon]

I think we can put the "do we exist" debate to bed. I think it might just be the oldest out there, and equally, as unprovable as a god. While there are certainly ramifications in everyone's lives that make the religious debate relevant, as much as ever, debating whether we exist or not, well... We are here debating it, so..... I mean, there is a reason it became the number one assumption of philosophy, the universe exists. Cogito ergo sum. Even if you only exist in my mind, or vis versa, you and I still exist as is evident by the mere fact we are here debating.
At least, on this ground, I don't thing we are going to make anymore head way than the likes of Descartes.

 

[Dotini]

I think we can put the "do we exist" debate to bed. I think it might just be the oldest out there, and equally, as unprovable as a god. While there are certainly ramifications in everyone's lives that make the religious debate relevant, as much as ever, debating whether we exist or not, well... We are here debating it, so..... I mean, there is a reason it became the number one assumption of philosophy, the universe exists. Cogito ergo sum. Even if you only exist in my mind, or vis versa, you and I still exist as is evident by the mere fact we are here debating.
At least, on this ground, I don't thing we are going to make anymore head way than the likes of Descartes.

For purposes of the "debate" here in this thread, I'm willing to stipulate that this universe exists - but only if you (and everyone else) are willing to stipulate that a multitude of other unseen and unknowable universes do not exist simultaneously and parallel with our own. In other words, you must rule out the multiverse hypothesis. I doubt you and anyone else is willing to make both those stipulations. So until we agree, I'm going to proceed as I see fit, which may be cautiously or rarely, with the idea of the holographic universe. Is making "headway", or forward movement of some kind, possible or even desirable in this thread? Has any headway been made in the past? Have our poll numbers ever changed in some important way?

 

[Danoff]

For purposes of the "debate" here in this thread, I'm willing to stipulate that this universe exists - but only if you (and everyone else) are willing to stipulate that a multitude of other unseen and unknowable universes do not exist simultaneously and parallel with our own.

What?

Why would you require that? This looks like botched Modus Tollens.

If being able to observe something implies that it exists, then if something does not exist you cannot observe it. (Correct MT)
If being able to observe something implies that it exists, then if you cannot observe something it does not exist (nope!)

Did you have a different rationale for why someone must stipulate this?

 

[Dotini]

What?

Why would you require that? This looks like botched Modus Tollens.

If being able to observe something implies that it exists, then if something does not exist you cannot observe it. (Correct MT)
If being able to observe something implies that it exists, then if you cannot observe something it does not exist (nope!)

Did you have a different rationale for why someone must stipulate this?

I'm not in the business of levying requirements. No one must stipulate anything. Though we could do if we chose. Are you saying that because we observe the universe, the holographic universe hypothesis is ruled out? If it were that simple, why would phys.org and the science press in general be able to publish papers regarding that hypothesis?

 

[Danoff]

Are you saying that because we observe the universe, the holographic universe hypothesis is ruled out?

How do you get that from my previous post?

 

[Dotini]

How do you get that from my previous post?

You said "if being able to observe something implies that it exists..".
But now I hear you saying that no such implication necessarily exists.