Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 356 of total 356 in this topic |
Jody
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 9, 2008 - 02:32pm PT
|
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, 'Let me explain the problem with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.'
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes.'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent.
'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er...yes,' the student says.
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes.'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes.'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'
'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'
'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'
'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
Jody, Science Profs and Philosophy Profs are as different as the student's night and day.
Cute read, though. I heard similar stuff from a biker philosophy professor at MSU.
By the way, philosophy is about as much "science" as is Political Science, my chosen degree. Both are as full of shite as it comes, but both provoke thought and discussion, which is good for humans in the long run.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
We live in a expanding Universe and have no idea of what exists outside it. That is a fact. How can one believe in a God if no evidence exists, that is kind of crazy would not you say.
But why do we need to trust in a higher power.
If this is my only life and I knew it for a fact, I would still try to do no harm to others and help those I could from suffering.
Our Universe contains 500 billion Galaxies (Hubble Deep Field), A single Galaxy contains a few hundred billions Stars. Each star has planets. That is a lot of life in the Universe.
Lost Arrow
|
|
randomtask
climber
North fork, CA
|
|
So...where was the science??
-JR
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
Is God opposed to science?
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
Will there be a sequel?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Is Satan good?
On the relative platform no.
On the absolute platform, Yes!
|
|
KuntryKlimber
Mountain climber
Rock Hill, SC
|
|
you can't smell or taste CO either, but black diamond still says not to cook in your tent. was that an english professor?
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
About 200 posts from now, Werner and Jody will agree to meet in person to carry on the real discussion.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Jody...was that taught in fifth grade Sunday School??
I really like the last part. The absented of god makes you evil. That should really scare the little buggers into believing.
|
|
ontos
Boulder climber
Washington DC
|
|
Absence of god???
Isn't god supposed to be infinite; which is to say without limit; which is to say everywhere. Ergo god is either not infinite or part evil QED; either way you're a heretic.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Yes he/she is, he/she is also suppose to be all-loving, all-caring, all-knowing...just don't cross him or her...your ass is grass.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
Nice OP.
Here's the "course description" related to the link JdF posted above:
Course Overview:
"This class is designed to be an up to date summary of the last 10-20 years of observations relevant to Cosmology. During this period several new kinds of theories and observations have come into existence and our expectations of a simple and well-behaved large scale universe are proving to be naieve. Also gone is our perception of a quiet expanding local universe and a sensible large scale galaxy distribution. Theory today is bombarded by a vast array of observational data but there remains no clear and preferred model for the origin and evolution of structure in the Universe. This will be the principal theme of the course: to outline in understandable terms what the latest observations are and how they are either consistent or in conflict with competing cosmogenic scenarios. In particular, we will focus on why structure formation scenarios are largely inconsistent with the observations. This is particularly evident when you look at the power spectrum of the galaxy distribution." Maybe the generally accepted easy answers aren't quite adequate after all.
To my mind Science and Religion aren't at war with each other, but a fundamentalist understanding of religion and a fundamentalist understanding of science are incompatible.
Naive is a good word. Scientism has produced too many BS's in biology or physics that don't understand the more profound issues in their respective fields. So you get the half educated propounding half thought ideas as an ideology, not open minded science seeking Truth.
Similarly with simplistic theists.
The question I like to pose is "what is the source of reality?" The theists say "God", ie. generally understood as a conscious being. Perhaps naive and far fetched no doubt but plausible. The materialists insist NO, the source of reality is the big bang. Then they put on their self-confident mortarboards and try to walk out of the room. But the issue of ultimate causation isn't so easily dismissed. Any smart 12 year old would ask the next obvious question: "What was the cause of the big bang?" So round and round the conversation goes. The two chioces are "First came conscious being then matter", or "first came unconscious matter then consciousness". When dealing with the origin of origins no one can prove anything. Everyone is guessing and hoping and projecting their own desires to a degree. Some prefer the teachings of the elders, others have confidence that they will find answers in their telescopes.
Personally I find fundamentalist scientists boring; as are simplistic religionists.
But if there is a God, the very ambiguity of his location and nature and desire is also part of his perfect creation. Only humility can harmonize it all.
Undermining the whole argument my own spiritual teacher has said, "ultimately the divine being lives in the hearts of the saints." There is no "out there" in which to find him. No telescope can spy on God. Only a sea of consciousness in which we swim.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
Doesn't God believe in evolution?
|
|
Paulina
Trad climber
|
|
DMT, it's one of my favorite books!
I love how Gaiman treats the whole gods thing as literal creations of the human belief, who are just as strong as the humans make them, and who crave worship any way they can get it. Like the Isis episode in Sandman.
As for the whole 'evil = absence of god' thing, isn't it funny? Some people will interpret it as "if you see bad things, people who do them are bad", and others will interpret it as "if you see ungodly people, whatever they do is bad".
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
"I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The thread might be better titled "Science AND Religion". Though it seems much more that religion has to accommodate its beliefs to physical reality, rather than the reverse.
Somehow the believers have to figure out how they fit in - if they want to deny the validity of scientific theory, then they have to be prepared to disavow many technologies we take for granted.
There was a picture in the paper the other day of your presidential candidate, Huckabee, who is a Christian fundamentalist. It showed him using his Blackberry - a device based on advanced technologies, that are in turn dependent on "theories" that fundamentalists claim are "only theories". No theory of quantum mechanics = no microprocessors = no Blackberries/computers/airplanes/advanced weapons etc etc etc.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
"In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him. And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord over all the earth when it was suited to Man. And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good. And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles did rule over all the earth." - Ian Anderson
|
|
tradcragrat
Trad climber
|
|
So there is no such thing as climbing...just the abscence of gravity?
No such thing as a splitter crack...just the absence of rock there?
Or perhaps, no god, just the absence of evil?
|
|
plund
Social climber
OD, MN
|
|
Dingus, you devil you, are you quoting Scripture for your own purposes???
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
I refuse to post in this thread on the grounds that I may get into a philosophical discussion that takes too much time away from climbing.
|
|
Brutus of Wyde
climber
Old Climbers' Home, Oakland CA
|
|
As the cholesterolophile said,
"Get behind me statin!"
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Hey, what happens to my fist when I open my hand? I agree with DMT, that's one dumbass professor! He's dumb for saying that there is such a thing as cold, because anyone wth any knowledge of physics knows there is only heat. With evolution we have millions of pieces of evidence for it in spite of the fact that you can't "see" evolution happening. You can't "see" electromagnetism per se, but you can see it's effects and reproduce them every time. To somehow equate these things with faith/belief in God is not even close to compelling.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Come on, it's a serious but flimsy brew of BS rhetorical logic tricks to make right wing religious feel people both happy, and like they have a good argument to use.
|
|
screelover
Mountain climber
Canuckistan
|
|
I don't mind you folks talkin about god and sex and stuff.
So long as there's no dancin.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
Sure there is such a thing as cold. It's biochemical reaction inside our bodies caused by the temperature dropping below some varying point. This biochemical reaction produces measurable affects, such as shivering.
"Cold" is just a word used to describe certain things. The fact that it may sometimes be used inapproriately from a thermodymanics point of view doesn't mean all definitions of the word are inappropriate. And it certainly doens't mean that there is no difference between faith based systems of belief and the scientific method.
|
|
Mr. Spock
climber
Planet Vulcan
|
|
Hot off the press (1.3 MB):
http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf
The main focus is on evolution but along the way it includes a nice summary of how science works.
Incidentally, the original post here did not attribute the source of the story, but it's been floating around in anonymous emails and on various web sites since at least early 2006.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
In Heaven, he went to see God.
Well, .... how can he be dead?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
I am a reformed micropaleontologist, I have clearly and unequivically seen evolution happen, it's recorded for all time. Ask your local micropaleontologist, and you can see it too.
-Doesn't mean you have to give up on god, if that works for you, and especialy if, you accept faith as evidence.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
How can one give up God?
Impossible.
Even atheist can not give up God.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
If you want to elaborate, Werner, that would be good for all of us, I bet.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
"The simple believeth every word." - Proverbs 14:15
|
|
malabarista
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
"God" and "Jesus" should be replaced with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Bible" with "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" in Jody's original post. Then it begins to make perfect sense!
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
Some people believe in a God.
Others believe you only got one shot on this rock.
If you only have one life to live, selfishness is the way to go. Lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to make your time the best, because its all you got, baby!
I'm a little more scared of a Godless world. Imagine what life would be like if 4 billion people (a guess, at least, probably more) didn't have saint hoochie coochie, or whatever coconut, to worship to and hope for something better after they dead.
Heeby Jeebies.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
Question - If God does not exist... what then?
Next subject.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jody - this is a very important issue to you, and so we see it again. I am not sure what you are searching for in this discussion in this forum but I will engage as I find the issue very important.
For those who don't know of the past history of posts on this subject you can do a search and find a vast literature on this on the STForum.
Also, for full disclosure, I am an atheist physicist , have been for most of my life... I don't agree with Werner that "Even atheist can not give up God."
But I will start my response with an interesting observation. John F. Nash won the 1994 Nobel Prize in Economics for his development of game theory applied to economics. Some of may have known that, some of you saw the movie "A Beautiful Mind" which was pretty good, and hopefully many of you read the excellent book by Sylvia Nasar "A Beautiful Mind" which inspired the movie (the book is infinitely more nuanced and more complete and is an excellent read).
From this we learn a painful fact about Nash that he was essentially insane, suffering from sever schizophrenia during the same time he was having deep mathematical insights that lead to his work which was awarded the prize. When we look at the person from our perspective from the outside we can see the different behavior, the brilliance of the mathematical thought, distinct from the paranoid, obsessive behavior of the schizophrenic.
Nash was asked about this, essentially, why didn't you know the difference between the two thoughts? His reply shows a level of introspection probably way beyond the capability of most people; he said that the thoughts came from the same place. From his point of view, he could not distinguish the validity of one thought from the other.
What does this have to do with God and Science?
Both of those concepts come from our thought, our mind. They are constructions of our thought, they are learned. God exists in all of us, even me, at least as an idea. Perhaps I contradict myself here and agree with Werner.
Of science, we know our ideas are provisional, that our ideas of what the physical universe is, and how it works, what it is composed of, the mathematical description of the universe, the logic of it... those are all ideas and we readily admit that they describe things as well as we are able to know them.
For science I have a way of testing whether or not my ideas on physical reality conform with what is in nature. I do this by observation and experimentation, by the application of the scientific method. I believe that this provides a separate, objective test of my scientific ideas. I don't just have to believe that, I can apply what I know to predict the outcome of other experiments or to explain observations. If what I predict is not confirmed, or I can show that I fail to be able to explain, then the thinking that lead me along is false.
I don't have an independent way of verifying my belief in my ideas about God. Those ideas, as all ideas are, can be beyond the natural... while ideas are the result of natural processes, they may have no correspondence to physical reality. They are not so constrained.
In this sense God can exist and science can be true.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
"God exists in all of us, even me, at least as an idea."
You're sounding rather Catholic to me. Too bad the related dogma gets lost on most. This is the failure of modern religion.
J
|
|
Dave Tapes
Trad climber
Silverado CA
|
|
According to the original post.
Faith Isn't
DW
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The external energy of the Supreme absolute truth is material nature. The atheist can not escape the laws of material nature.
Thus: even the atheist is subordinate to the Lord.
If this was not true then "so called modern science" would be able to keep the human body from aging and death.
Modern science may say: "In the future we will"
They will fail ......
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
"If you only have one life to live, selfishness is the way to go"
I interpret this idea the opposite way, seems to me it would make you honor bound to be on your best behavior, no one else to blame, no excuses.
In a theist scenario there is always a convient scapegoat (diety of choice) to pin whatever you want on.
If there is a higher/ being /force/ authority /whatever (I'm not saying yea or nay here) is it possible to take responsibility for your own actions? or anything?
these kind of questions have been known to keep me up at ngiht.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners… But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me… Jesus Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life."
-Jeffrey Dahmer
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jaybro
It is very, very easy to understand.
Just like in a office, if you work for the satisfaction the proprietor, then you have no responsibility, either loss or gain, you are free.
But if you create your own plan and work for, under your own responsibility, then you'll suffer or enjoy.
|
|
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
God vs. Science? Sort of like the Easter Bunny vs. Piton Ron.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 12:01am PT
|
How can "God vs. Science" happen?
Since everything is part parcel of the the Supreme Absolute truth, then there never really is any separation nor challenge.
The challenge only occurs due to illusion.
The master magician is Supreme, and revels his secrets only to those he deems worthy.
Are you worthy?
|
|
elcap-pics
climber
Crestline CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 12:35am PT
|
These discussions are a waste of time.... the scientist says... show me the proof or I won't accept your hypothesis... the believer says... I have faith and that is all I need, so if you will just accept things on faith then you too will believe.. And so it goes... rational people require more than an ancient text.... believers in that text (whatever one you pick) reject anything that varies from it, no matter what, and proof is not necessary for belief ...
So... why waste your time trying to convince each other to change their views as they are really just incapable of such a thing? Why can't we all just get along? I will agree to let you have your beliefs if you will let me have mine without trying to change each others... simple enough.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 12:40am PT
|
(Very crude example)
If I challenge you in something that you are superior and I have no knowledge of that then I'm in illusion (puffed up and arrogant) and thus am not worthy for your instruction.
Unless of course you can exhibit some causeless mercy upon my wretched arrogance. Or I humbly request.
Challenging the Supreme and him submitting to us will mean we are supreme. He always maintains his supremacy.
Challenge George Bush right now to come out on the white lawn and you'll instruct him.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 12:47am PT
|
In the universe that I have come to know, there is no need for anything more than what exists to our senses (often extended by our instrumentation) explained by mathematical logic.
Mathematics is something deep and very interesting. How does it exist? Some mathematicians would state that the existence of mathematics is proof of a god. I am not so sure of that, I do believe that we can understand what it is about the physical universe that allows mathematics to exist.
But that is yet another creation of a mind, ideas. Which ideas are "true?" Which "false?" How do you tell? What sense do you trust? I think the methodologies of science address these questions and are objective.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 12:52am PT
|
And what about the soul?
Is there any science of the soul? The materialists have none.
Material science has advanced to the study of the ether, or the mind and intelligence, but there is no advancement beyond that.
Beyond intelligence, they do not know what exists.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 12:54am PT
|
What does it matter what I believe, or what my neighbor believes, or what you believe? We all share the same small place on this planet. We are all nanoseconds in eternity, the life of the universe, whatever you may want to call it. Can’t we focus on our what we share in common rather than our differences? Is science God, or is God science?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:03am PT
|
"if you work for the satisfaction the proprietor, then you have no responsibility, either loss or gain, you are free.
But if you create your own plan and work for, under your own responsibility, then you'll suffer or enjoy."
Makes sense to me, mostly, except, I'm not clear in some respects, on the "free" part.
-also sounds kinds like,
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose," K Kristoferson. -which I can interpret in either a good way, or a bad way
or
"Freedom from choice," Devo, same conundrum.
|
|
marky
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:04am PT
|
Jody, that really is a wretched argument. Just awful.
|
|
Lost Arrow
Trad climber
The North Ridge of the San Fernando
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:11am PT
|
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:17am PT
|
Werner wrote: And what about the soul?
Is there any science of the soul? The materialists have none.
Werner...your mind allowed you to THINK you have a soul.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:21am PT
|
So I have no soul?
So I only think I have a soul?
So James Brown"s mind made soul?
I know Charles Cole made sole .......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:33am PT
|
First one, ... Not!
But anyways, where the fuk is Jody? It's his thread.
Did he run away?
I'm absolutely under no illusion of trying to change anyone.
I'm trying to learn logic and reason towards a very difficult subject matter. It's very difficult.
But this place is good because most everyone rejects the conclusion.
There is GOD and he is a Person.
So they will burn me at the stake of logic and reason.
But the magician is always there .........
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:04am PT
|
werner wrote: So I only think I have a soul?
You tell me.
Your views so far have only been that...speculation.
Good discussion.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 09:40am PT
|
GDavis wrote: Some people believe in a God.
Others believe you only got one shot on this rock.
If you only have one life to live, selfishness is the way to go. Lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to make your time the best, because its all you got, baby!
I'm a little more scared of a Godless world. Imagine what life would be like if 4 billion people (a guess, at least, probably more) didn't have saint hoochie coochie, or whatever coconut, to worship to and hope for something better after they dead.
Heeby Jeebies.
This is very interesting!!! And it ties into what Ed brought up about Nash and game theory.
Read some game theory and you will see that the above premise - that it's the belief in a higher power that makes people "behave", and without that, with pure selfishness, people would just be bad and trample over each other - is simply wrong.
Game theory doesn't prove that there is no god, or that "goodness" isn't real. But game theory does explain human behaviour, including selflessness, goodness, and cooperation, perfectly well, without any *requirement* of there being a god. At least after factoring in the gene's struggle for survival.
Incidentally, you cannot prove a lack of god with science. I say that as an atheist, by the way. The two (the scientific method, and faith in god) are simply different *types* of things. It's like trying to cut an orange with a math proof, or trying to water your lawn with a pastrami sandwich. It simply cannot be done, because they do not relate.
GO
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 09:43am PT
|
werner wrote: where the fuk is Jody? It's his thread. Did he run away
Jody's just trolling under his own account. Throw some chum in the water and wait.
Oh, by the way - the original post definitely goes back further than 2006. I'm sure I saw it first in the 90s or early 00s.
GO
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
arlington, va
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:13am PT
|
Werner,
You most definitely have a soul.
Whether or not there is a god, I don't know, but
the individual soul, that I believe.
|
|
Paulina
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:04pm PT
|
re: GO's points about game theory
And evolutionary theory (specifically, group selection) predicts the development of altruistic traits, damping of aggression and other social behaviors through gene selection at group level rather than individual level. Oversimplifying, groups compete for resources and groups whose members help each other out at less personal benefit (altruism) fare better than those whose members also compete against each other.
Among not only people, but species such as chickens who I think it is safe to assume do not believe in any gods.
Of course, evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive, to an individual's behavior. And game theory is prescriptive to a rational individual. But of course, people are either not rational, or we don't know what they're optimizing anyway.
In any case, there is room for all manner of good in a godless universe.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:35pm PT
|
K-wrote:But I'm still wondering how you can be so sure that "There is a GOD and he is a Person".
Because (in his mind) he wants to believe there is a God.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 01:44pm PT
|
How can you be sure that God doesn't like Science?
Maybe God is a Coleopterist.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:14pm PT
|
Paulina - very well said. You clearly know a lot more about it than I. Fascinating stuff, though!
All in all, science cannot prove the non-existences of God. All science can do is prove that God's existence or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant and non-causal to anything and everything that happens in the observable universe. In other words, it can prove that God is outside of the realm of science.
Now why should this be upsetting to those who believe in God? Only because many of them belong to religions that have very specific theories, which, when disproven through the scientific method - show the fallibility of their leaders. I can see how this could be disturbing!
And why should the claimed existence of God be troubling to those who wish to engage in the scientific method? Again, it shouldn't, except inasmuch as believers have faith in specific theories which are at odds with the observed universe, but are not considered to be subject to the scientific method. You can see how that could be disturbing, too!
But there need not be any conflict between the two. Galileo, arguably the founder of the modern scientific method, was a staunch Catholic (despite significant persecution by the church) throughout his life. He simply considered science to be a method for learning more about God's universe, and refused to countenance any dogmatic teachings from the church.
GO
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:20pm PT
|
Go wrote: All in all, science cannot prove the non-existences of God. All science can do is prove that God's existence or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant and non-causal to anything and everything that happens in the observable universe.
God hasn't disproved that man hasn't created him (God) in their minds.
This circle jerk can go on forever.
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:22pm PT
|
Scuffy B. It's you again!!! Did you make up that word? I can't find it in the New World dictionary. Hey, maybe your computer spelled it wrong! You should take it in for repairs.
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:38pm PT
|
When one looks back across human history - one can find literally thousands of gods that to the people of those times were real and in existence.
Until such time as they ceased to believe.
Yet while the belief was alive - cannot one say that these gods existed?
Is it not possible that our current god is yet another construct of group imagination and that it too will be cast away in favor of another?
|
|
matisse
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:40pm PT
|
I like this commentary.
KPBS COMMENTARY 103
EVOLUTION AND GOD by Tom Scott, Dean of Sciences at San Diego State University.
Students occasionally object to the fact that I assume the correctness of evolution in my courses. "It's only a theory" they say, as if that were tantamount to a guess. "And besides, I believe god created all life." So a word about the perceived competition between evolution and creationism.
A theory is an explanation for a series of observations. A theory organizes facts. It can never be proven the way a logical argument can be brought to a definitive conclusion. At best, it can only be strengthened by additional facts that support it. So a theory lives its life vulnerable to destruction by the discovery of some indisputable fact that it can't explain. A theory is always on trial.
Given this, there is no theory in all of science that organizes so many observations or that explains so much of the natural world as the theory of evolution. It has itself evolved to accommodate recent data, but the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory have not been shaken in nearly 150 years. Biology only makes sense when viewed through evolution.
Now, the second point, that god created life on earth.
The only direct conflict between Judeo-Christian theology and science occurs when one reads the Bible as a literal document. A theologian once assigned himself the task of determining exactly when god created the earth and went back through the Old Testament adding up the years. As I recall, he concluded that the earth was created at 9 a.m. on Friday, October 26, 4004 B.C.
With the exception of such verifiably invalid interpretations, there is no essential conflict between the existence of god and the correctness of evolution. God is an agent, evolution is a process. A god could have decided to use evolution as a mechanism for distributing life. Evolution could be divinely inspired.
But science won't comment on that possibility. It has nothing to say about the existence of god because its domain is one of measurement, and there is no theometer, no instrument for measuring a deity.
So evolution and theology can coexist in parallel worlds of fact and faith. One should be taught in schools, the other in houses of worship.
For KPBS, this is Tom Scott, Dean of Sciences at San Diego State University.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:42pm PT
|
Phantom X,
You're not the only one who thinks I need a new computer.
I had thought that the sentiment I expressed by the application
of the term you find puzzling could be attributed to Charles
Darwin (RIP) himself. I'm pretty sure somebody no longer living
said something like that.
As a former spelling champion, I am reluctant to allow my
computer to spell "words" on my behalf, preferring to shoulder
all blame for mistakes, to balance all the glory that typically
is showered upon me.
The perhaps apocryphal story I heard in the previous century:
Somebody (or other) asked Darwin (or someone) whether he believed
in God. The thrust of the answer was: not sure, but if there is
a God, he must surely be a Coleopterist.
A coleopterist is one who studies beetles (Order Coleoptera)
I'm still working on the high-speed crack adjusting technology.
Best,
sm
|
|
TradIsGood
Recently unshackled climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:47pm PT
|
Paulina - I agree that is interesting. But isn't there a corollary as well to the altruistic behavior that some selfish behavior is required for the health of a group (I.e. "evil" is necessary, too, for survival)?
Robert Axelrod in his book The Evolution of Cooperation (1984) studied this. IIRC, a purely altruistic population is unstable, with respect to invasion by one that was selfish. For those who have not read this book, Axelrod invited participants to write a program that would play the Prisoner's Dilemma game repeatedly. He published the results, which showed that programs that essentially played a tit-for-tat approach, i.e. if you are nice to me I will be nice to you next time, and if you are mean to me, I will reciprocate on my next play, performed best.
After publishing the results, the experiment was repeated. Even when everyone expected that some participants might adopt the strategy (and try to foil it), the approach was stable and optimal.
In short. Perhaps God's first universe failed, because it was only good, and evil was also necessary, which explains the one in which we live today.
(God in the above sense, being whatever "created" the universe, the concept of which seems human?)
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:51pm PT
|
Bob wrote,
"K-wrote:But I'm still wondering how you can be so sure that "There is a GOD and he is a Person".
Because (in his mind) he wants to believe there is a God."
......................
What if you have an experience that appears to go against the norms of science? What if you are so pissed at what you think is God and so you go off railing against everything and in the midst of that railing you experience what can only be described as Love? Endorphins don't explain it because I have never felt this way in all my rages against ordinary everyday life. So what is it ?
Do you ignore this experience? Do you try to fit this experience into some theory that science hasn't discovered yet ? Do you rack it up to just being crazy ?
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 02:57pm PT
|
Scuffy B. Thank you for your explaination champ. So the "B" refers to your spelling prowess. What is the biggest word you ever spelled?
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:07pm PT
|
That story is really about evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane who allegedly said something like:
"If there really is a God, he must have a special fondness for beetles."
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:09pm PT
|
LOL,
Wasn't on any meds at the time.
They don't exist. I looked.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:16pm PT
|
No Problem Dingus. Believe me, I tried a lot of different pharmaceuticals. Both legal and illegal. Nothing comes close to this expereince. Hahaha..... it makes me laugh to think of all the different drugs I did looking for this experience. Yowzer.
Not even close.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:27pm PT
|
John...I have been with my wife since I was fifteen...she is beautiful...she is love.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:33pm PT
|
Allochthonous
Werner cracked me up with the James Brown soul and Charles sole, hah!
|
|
Paulina
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:34pm PT
|
re: TradIsGood
Or, maybe, there is no god, and maybe there was some other kind of universe before this Big Bang, but we can't measure that by definition, right?
I was commenting on something that comes up time and again: that in a godless universe, there's no reason to ever do any good. Therefore, a god must exist. Or something to that effect. My point is: that kind of thinking is flawed: there's plenty of reason to do good without positing a deity.
re: GO and others with similar posts
Agreed. Any deity and any faith is outside the realm of science insofar as they don't make specific verifiable/falsifiable claims about the natural universe. Any explanation of natural phenomena is by the same reasoning outside the realm of theology.
So, as the Xians like to say, render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and leave biology, astrophysics, and climate science to the professionals.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:35pm PT
|
Cool Bob. She sounds like a blessing, but your wife doesn't explain my experience.
At least I don't think so. haha :-)
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:44pm PT
|
Jody's original post reminds of this...
The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
As for me, I'm an atheist concerning the religious names and descriptions that people have come up with to descibe the concept of a god (or gods). I do not think that anyone can know how such a being(s) thinks or what it requires of us (if anything). However, I'm agnostic as to whether such a being/thing/god actually exists. I suppose there is tiny chance that it does. Let's make that extremely tiny.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.
bc
|
|
TradIsGood
Recently unshackled climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:54pm PT
|
Paulina, I agree. And I thought of the example well before GO posted his game theory idea. No way to know if there is a god without defining one within some system.
And I fear any useful definition will either be faith based, tautological, or both - rendering it useless with respect to investigation.
Perhaps the richness of the complexity of our universe is far more interesting than the study of religion. And perhaps its study is simply beyond the capacity of too many?
GOD - an individual concept which explains all that the individual does not, and refuses to try, to understand. ;)
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:54pm PT
|
John wrote: Cool Bob. She sounds like a blessing, but your wife doesn't explain my experience.
At least I don't think so. haha :-)
Funny.
You haven't explained it...but it came from your mind. You thought them.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 03:57pm PT
|
Yes, Phantom X,
the B stands for spelling.
Which is bigger, gigantic or humungous?
Or maybe gargantuan?
By the way, we had a raspberry selection several years ago
which was nicknamed "Gargantua" followed a couple years later
by one nicknamed "Gargantuella" but unfortunately although huge
they were only so-so in flavor and shipping so they never made
it to the big show.
Or was it lateral instability that prompted this?
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 04:03pm PT
|
ZOIKS! Raspberries from OW?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 04:15pm PT
|
'cosmogenesis'
I like the sound of that - may have to find a nice climb to go with that...
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 04:22pm PT
|
Sorry about the lateral instability thing. I guess it could be
considered a Red Herring.
Did you know that Bruno has surfaced in the slab shoe thread?
Did Brian have to evacuate back in the days of scary fires?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 04:29pm PT
|
"You haven't explained it...but it came from your mind. You thought them'
So in a middle of a rage, my mind was able to conjure love ?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 04:48pm PT
|
"The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
As for me, I'm an atheist concerning the religious names and descriptions that people have come up with to descibe the concept of a god (or gods). I do not think that anyone can know how such a being(s) thinks or what it requires of us (if anything). However, I'm agnostic as to whether such a being/thing/god actually exists. I suppose there is tiny chance that it does. Let's make that extremely tiny."
..........................
"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
This statement is not necessarily true. God is able to wipe all evil off this planet but he has given us dominion over the earth and therefore it is up to us to remove evil.
How ? Well certainly not by force, as force is the very essence of evil. Love is the only way to remove evil. Jesus said we must Love our enemies.
We are on this planet to learn how to be unconditional Love. To be Masters. To Be More of God.
God has free will to create what he wants. Free Will is God's gift to us so that we can be made in his image. If he took it away by not allowing us to make mistakes, then how would we have free will ? We couldn't. So the only way to BE like God, is to have free will even though free will creates the possibility that we will make mistakes, ( create evil ) and suffer the consequences of those mistakes.
But God did not leave us bereft with our mistakes. God has given us Grace by which we can correct our mistakes before the laws of the universe, (every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Also called Karma ) can come back and bite us.
It is complicated, yet simple. We are made in God's image, as the greatest gift to ourselves. But we must learn how to create without harming ourselves, which God would not do, or without harming others. Which God also would not do.
Our teacher is either our inner higher self, that still small voice that tells you not to drink that 3rd or 4th or 10th beer, OR the laws of the universe, Karma.
Which you choose to listen to determines the path of your life.
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 04:50pm PT
|
Red Herrings and Swim Fins is a match!
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 04:58pm PT
|
John wrote: "You haven't explained it...but it came from your mind. You thought them'
So in a middle of a rage, my mind was able to conjure love ?
Yes...but that may not be good enough for you.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 05:15pm PT
|
John,
You take a very narrow view of the word "evil". Can we ever hope to stop the "evil" of all current or new diseases? Will we ever be able to anticipate and stop natural catastrophes? "Evil" comes in many forms, not just the many manmade types. Will love stop the next earthquake or tsunami and the many "evils" that they bring? Perhaps "horror" would be a better word.
bc
ps Do you really believe we have been given dominion over the earth???
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 05:24pm PT
|
BC, Yes to all of your questions about what is possible, including ridding the earth of stinging insects ( my personal pet peeve, haha... I don't like how they ruin beautiful place ).
We have dominion. We just haven't learned how to use it. There are physical laws and there are spiritual laws. The spiritual laws supercede the physical laws. But only if you learn to use them. To learn to use them, you must become them. As Paul said, we must put on the mind of Christ. Become the Christ. When you put on the mind of Christ, then you are born in the spirit and become spirit. In which case, you can override any seeming physical law.
You have a very narrow view of the possible.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 05:38pm PT
|
John,
Good luck with that.
bc
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 05:40pm PT
|
A question and a comment for those who consider themselves to be materialist or scientists.
Science is beginning to understand that the consciousness of the scientist affects the outcomes of experiments. If this is true, then how will a scientist who does not believe in the possibility of God ever discover the existence of God ?
Could it be that science has not discovered God because the tool being used to discover God is unable or unwilling to find the Truth ? The " tool " being the mind of the scientist.
God will not be discovered by those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility. God is not subject to experimentation. If God were subject to repeatable experiments, then God would be mechanical. God is not mechanical. God is creative. The true essence of God is found through the heart.
You limit your results by the very nature of your experiments and by the nature of the experimenter.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 05:51pm PT
|
John,
You are not assuming that all scientists are athiests are you? There are lots of believers out there in the scientific community. If god ever raises his head in an experiment (or heck, anywhere else for that matter) someone would be likely to catch it. So far the big guy has been pretty elusive. Like someone posted earlier, his possible existence is probably outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
bc
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 06:05pm PT
|
No BC, I was not assuming that all scientist are atheist. I do not see science as evil, or that belief in God means you can't believe in science. On some levels I am a scientist. My life is my experiment.
I just recognize that on this forum, most of those who call themselves scientist or materialist, do not believe in God because they haven't been able to prove Gods existence.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 06:28pm PT
|
I'd like to comment on what Matisse posted about evolution and God (as well as to tell Phantom X that this is SERIOUS stuff so quit FOOLING AROUND!).
Whereas there is nothing, logically, preventing you from believing in evolution and God, there are some boundaries around the issue that you need to be aware of. Evolution requires no special supernatural intervention at any point since the beginning of the tree of life. By believing in evolution, you believe that you can trace your ancestry back to the beginning - to some primordial replicators, living approximatley 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. We're all cousins more or less, everything that's alive today.
This begs some thorny questions like what is the soul in the context of evolution? Do all animals and plants have one? If they do, how are the ones that aren't us held accountable by God? If only humankind does, how did it come about, since humankind evolved from lower branches on the tree that apparently did not have one? What about the several species of genus homo that died out? Did they have souls? Did God at some point imbue a soul into some part of the tree of life? Why is it that we can kill other species of animal but it is morally wrong to kill other humans? The boundaries seem rather arbitrary through the lens of evolution. It all gets very messy, whereas evolution, itself, is so simple and elegant.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 06:53pm PT
|
Funny, Jaybro,
I've just been reading about allochthonous bodies.
I'm sort of behind on my geological reading (opposite of DMT),
just found out that the red soils in the Mother Lode which have
puzzled me for 50 years now are ancient Laterites.
What a relief.
And eeyonkee, you might want to be more careful prodding
Phantom X like that. He's not the cupcake he used to be, and you
don't know what fearsome technology he may have harnessed by now.
Anathematization is to be avoided if possible.
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 07:17pm PT
|
Scuffy B. Please quit screwing around. Can you not see that we are involved in the Battle of the Minds? Please Grug continue.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 07:36pm PT
|
john wrote: The true essence of God is found through the heart.
John the heart is a organ/muscle.
The mind is where it all starts and ends.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 08:38pm PT
|
Phantom X not the cupcake he used to be? - I don't know, I think I'll take my chances. He's one funny boy though, that's for sure.
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 09:36pm PT
|
You're personality is persuasive, Scuffy B.
I'll enter this thread, asking for slack and a sure belay at the same time. It's quite a challenge to address this wide range of ideas and experiences; hard to do without recognizing the potential for communcating personal disrespect. I've only been tuning into Supertopo for a few months now, after Mike Graham contacted me about the Stonemaster thread. And I've become amazingly attached to people who I've never met, and have only just read their TRs etc.. This morning I awoke from a fitful sleep and there were tears for "Pagan Monkey Boy, " because of the ordeal he is experiencing. Because so many of my climbing experiences and people have defined my personality, I suppose that is natural. I guess, I'm getting at the subject of tone here, as I have been overwhelmed by the many deaths, losses, break-ups, despairs, addictions, and general struggles we have all witnessed along beside the incredible humor and adventures we read. That is just a reminder to all, including myself, that our spiritual lives and personal development are always in a state of evolution, a diminishing one or an ascending one and we should then avoid rash reactions, needless sarcasm and harsh personal judgements that can be cruel and devestating to each other. Yet, the persistance of reasoned dialogues such as these tells me that for Supertopans, life itself is sacred and that perceived false truths about it will be examined.
Earlier in my life I was quite a confident skeptic and so I strongly identify with that experience. As I read the various objections posed to Christian Faith, my opinion is that the subject of Knowledge Sources is close to the heart of the discussion. Some skeptics manage to argue themselves out of existance in Atheism, as I will try to relay. Another consistent idea I'm seeing mentioned is the subject of Theological Relativism, often expressed in the statement, "what's true for you is true." Finally, I'll try to mention a few points on the big subject of ideas concerning Biblical Inerrancy.
In Theology, the subject of Knowledge and it's source is referred to as Epistemology. It is no exaggeration to say epistemology is the subject of the greatest interest today in both Modern Philosophy and Theology. It asks the question, "what can be known about God, about Man and about the Universe. We should not be naive in our discussions of science, because resultant technologies have the capacity to inflict endless misery in the absence of a moral compass. So it is a mistake to think of epistemology, or theology/philosophy as an irrelevant, "ivory tower" subject, a little mouse beneath the 'more important' inquirys of scientific research. Nobody can escape philosophy-you have one, maybe a flimsy one, but a philosophy nevertheless. Modern science is a kind of junior philosophy, often fueled by marketplace considerations and saying relatively little about the big questions of ontology. Consequently it becomes possible to to create a society which is technologically advanced yet humanly primative or ill. I think we are approaching that place in America today. Please do not assume that I am anti science--Not at all. I just believe there are limits of benefit when science is divorced from the guiding foundation of theological inquirey. Copernicus, Newton and Eienstein were convinced Theists and it is Theism that has given rise to our greatest academic instituions. As we observe the shallowness of popular American Church culture, should we rush to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Are you going to allow a low point in history to potentially rob you of eternal life?
The existence of God cannot be proven, either with a Bible or without one. Christian Thinkers often speak of "certitude," rather than "certainty," to which then a step of reasoned faith (as opposed to blind faith), takes or has taken place.
Cornelius Van Til is an example of a 20th century theologian who's epistemology is has been called Presuppositionism. In other words, "pre-assuming" a given world view, how does it comparatively stack-up to our experiences, scholastic inquirey and observations. He influenced a very important culture critic, Francis Schaeffer. His triad series, "The God who is There,", "Escape to Reason," and "True Spirituality" should not be passed over IMHO., if you are seeking an integration of faith with an appreciation of history, the arts and philosophy.
Norman Geisler is an example of a philosopher who represents a different approach called "Verificationism. " The Verificationist starts with an evaluation of the evidence first, and then, arrives to reasonable certitude of God. Evidences include everything from the world's complexity (scientific observation), beauty and design to Human Nature and the truth claims of the Old and New Testaments. His book, "Christian Apologetics," surveys and critiques historical philosophies and in the final chapters, there is the critical examination of Christianity.
C.S. Lewis's book, "Mere Christianity," is a very popular and readable ascent.
I won't fail to mention the man under whom I had the privilege to study, Mark Hanna. His book, "Crucial Questions in Apologetics," is brilliant, but not light reading.
Anyone Snoozin' yet?!
Hanna maintains the existence of God cannot be proven, but is "apprehended," by everyone (reminding me of Ed Hartouni's "born with the idea of God," observation), but that our fallen human nautures cause us to suppress that truth.
One amazing "apprehension," he cites is the dark and silent experience of Helen Keller, who said, after learning to speak, that before she possessed even language itself, she, nevertheless, had awareness of God.
Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating. In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God. This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted.
There are two kinds of Agnostics. The first states that God is unknowable. But again, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge to make that claim. The second kind of agnosticism is a stance of "seeking" and possesses greater logical integrity. It states, "maybe God exists, but I can't be reasonably sure."
On the surface it appears that the rise of Existentialism, and the modern notion of Relative Truth offers a sanctuary, one which is suitably humble, yet all incompassing. But this idea comes at terrible cost. With the loss of Objective Truth, we lose the option to make judgements of human behavior. Thus it becomes immaterial, as Schaeffer says, whether we help an elderly woman across a bridge or else kick her into the drink, because "my truth," says she is merely a meaningless cellular mass. The Relativist ultimately has nothing to say on the subject of war, ethics or morals.
Christians believe the the Old and New Testaments to be infallible in the "original autographs only, not necessarily perfect in our present archaelogical findings. But they are still considered trustworthy via the science of Textual Criticism. An excellent source of data on New Testament texts, though quite technical, is Bruce Metzger's, "The Texts of the New Testament."
Leaving authenticity, Fallibility in respect to truth is another subject, though obviously related. I don't think it is necessary to accept a high doctrine of Inspiration to recognize the amazing credibility of the Old and New Testaments: Unique, among religious writing, the multiple authors constantly appeal to and record historic data and geography. There are some contradistinctions, but no proven "tight,"contradictions. Most modern objections fail to appreciate the context of very harsh ancient world. Jesus revealed that some Old Testament precepts were concessions to primative sensibilities, and went on to teach the deeper truth. Almost every aspect of human life is addressed and then unified by the continuing thread of the subject of the promised Messiah. In fact, over 300 prophesies in respect to the Messiah are fulfilled by the life of Jesus in the Gospel accounts, including the lineage and virgin birth, childhood home, mairacles of healing, rejection, death by crucifixion and not least, the Resurrection, all foretold dramatically by mind-blowing, hated prophets hundreds, even thousands of years previously. That is why Jesus said to his detractors, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me." And also "You search the Scriptures, for it is they which testify of me."
Textual Criticism examines variences in ancient manuscripts, which are predominantly varient spellings and word omissions. If all the varient readings were tossed into the Black Canyon of the Gunnison, it would not alter the defining teachings of Christianity in the slightest.
In short, the Bible is far and away the most impressive literature of all time, no close seconds. What compares to it? Shakespeare? I think the Bard himself would have set us straight.
Read it as you would anything, searching for the intended meaning of the author. Orthodox Christians have never believed in "wooden literalism." When Luke starts his account by saying, "In the days of Herod, the King of Judea, a certain Priest named Zechariah, of the course of Abia; and his wife was of the daughtes of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth...," the references to time, people and place indicate a book of history, not just some airy metaphor. The actual allegories are extermely evident and are usually announced and also interpreted for the reader, such as in the writings of Isaiah, Jeremaiah, Ezekiel, etc.. Mataphor and Simili are everywhere in the Books of Poetry which are set in parallelism, and repetition, like American Blues: The Psams, Proverbs, Song of Songs and Job. Is there any mistaking the pendantic purpose and literary nature of the Parables? I think skeptics might be shocked to observe the clarity of genre in the Bible. I was.
I'm so sorry if this has been too ambitious. We are discussing the most important, and vast subject on earth though. We can't approach K2 the same way we would a boulder problem, can we? There are plenty of issues and objections remaining (!), but I hope I have helped to provide some reference points on the subject of Epistemological starting points. Thank you for your indulgence my higly esteemed friends!
Bruce Adams
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 09:52pm PT
|
just heard on the news, Edmond Hillary died today, at 88. Let's have a moment of silence.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:22pm PT
|
Bruce, I figured it would have to come down to this at some point. Let me tell you everyone, Bruce Adams (Brunosafari) is one of the kindest, most interesting, nicest, smartest, funniest (although a distant 2nd to his brother, Kinley), overall best human beings I have ever met in my life's journey. He happens to be a devout Christian, I am an atheist.
I absolutely think that Bruce is my better in so many ways. I'm lazy, vain, a poor basketball player for all that I have invested in the sport, at best a middling climber. Bruce may suck as much as I do in basketball (I can only hope), but that would be all that I could ever hope to have over him. And yet I absolutely believe in my position and am incredulous that Bruce can be believe in his, in spite of his superior attributes. Go figure!
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:38pm PT
|
Bruce...long...but nice post.
Proving there is or isn't a God mean little to nothing to me.
How you live life here means so much more.
Greg...how are you? I didn't suck at basketball...what does that mean?
Bruce wrote: In short, the Bible is far and away the most impressive literature of all time, no close seconds.
That is an opinion...not a fact.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:42pm PT
|
bob d': "Proving there is or isn't a God mean little to nothing to me."
Until you're dead.
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:43pm PT
|
Yes explain the basketball theory. Are we talking about counter-prayer?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:51pm PT
|
Here's the basketball story - no, I mean basketball 'moral'. "I think that your basketball ability is probably the best indicator of your overall athletic ability. I suck at basketball, ...therefore, I suck, you know, athletically".
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:02pm PT
|
werner wrote: bob d': "Proving there is or isn't a God mean little to nothing to me."
Until you're dead.
From Webster...Dead...1: deprived of life : no longer alive
Werner...dead is final...it won't matter.
I rather talk about this....The law of conservation of energy states that energy is never created nor destroyed.
Energy in the universe is a constant.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:06pm PT
|
Are you sure?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:15pm PT
|
Werner, here's my whole take on the immortality or not thing. The older I get, the higher sleeping gets on the list of things i'd rather be doing. When I was 20, it was, maybe 29th on the list, now that I'm 51, it's maybe third, right behind sex and climbing. By the time I'm 70, maybe it will move up to No. 1. When sleep is nO 1, it's not a big stretch to think of the "big sleep" as pretty much the best thing you can strive for.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:19pm PT
|
That means you are already close to death.
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:20pm PT
|
Kind of you Greg! My list of confessions probably beats yours by far, and I guarantee you can whip me in basketball. As we age, let's change that metaphor to shuffleboard.
P.S. Phantom X for president!
B
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:36pm PT
|
Poor Bruce wrote:
"Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating. In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God. This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted. "
This is nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about.
First you make a [specious] claim, "Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating.".
"You offer nothing that supports this claim.
"In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God."
WHY????
Dude, this is not how logic works. Go back to school. Only, don't take logic from philosophers or theologians, who barely grasp it, take from mathematicians.
You are confused. First, possessing exhaustive knowledge is not needed to disprove a theorem. You only need ONE counter example. Second, possessing exhaustive knowledge is not possessing all knowledge. Third, you need to state that IF god exists, then he and he alone possesses all knowledge, and show that it is true. But before that you have to prove that god exists. So, you make unproved statements and present them as proved. That makes a faulty argument.
"This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted."
Don't go bandying about terms from mathematics here.
Math/logic is a game, and also offers a way of looking at the world, based on certain assumptions that all serious mathematicians agree on. These are called axioms. When two sides in an argument can't agree on the basic assumptions (axioms), there can be no meaningful logical argument, because the first rule is already broken.
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:54pm PT
|
Hi Dirt! I've been considering your God as retard idea for several days now. It is a form of Henotheism. Won't you grant a little indulgence (of time in thought) before the ad hominem attacks! I did not invent the refutation of Atheism though I agree with it. I'm just relaying it, as I stated. Thankyou Sir, Bruce
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:21am PT
|
Pascal’s Wager
If one believes in God but is eventually proven wrong, one loses nothing.
But if one believes and is proven right, one gains just about everything.
And what if one disbelieves in God and is proven wrong? What if one lives an atheistic life and then finds out there is a God?
That’s going to be trouble for sure. Hehehe
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:23am PT
|
Bruce, you need to go learn what an ad hominem attack is.
I attacked your (and the author's)lack of reason, not you.
Now, deal with what I said, if you can.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:25am PT
|
Sir Bruce's reasoning was pretty good.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:27am PT
|
Werner, I suggest that you SHOW how it is good, and show that what I said is wrong.
Show means prove by the way.
Otherwise, you may sit down, as opinion doesn't really matter in a logical argument.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:30am PT
|
so far I haven't seen any serious discussion of my initial thesis, that is, that god exists in thought, as a product of the mind.
I don't see any diminution of "god" in this construction, and it gets around the necessity of explaining how god exists without being a part of the physical universe. The fact that god is an idea does not necessarily confine god to a particular physical process, either, as there are generalizations of that process. Thought is mechanical, the result of thought, however, is not necessarily predictable.
As for the power of thought, we know ideas that are strong enough to move whole civilizations.
It does turn things around a bit, but preserves the essential nature of god, and permits the physical universe to exist as we believe it does... as a physical system, no more, no less.
Everything we know about god we have learned from other people. We know nothing about god beyond our own thought.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:34am PT
|
Ed wrote: so far I haven't seen any serious discussion of my initial thesis, that is, that god exists in thought, as a product of the mind.
Where else would it come from? That has been the basis for my posts.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:52am PT
|
Dirt
Sir Bruce's post is self explanatory. I like it.
"In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God."
I don't need to show what you said is wrong.
Since I never made any reference to anything you said.
Now! you go prove that God doesn't exist
Show means prove by the way, Dirt.
Otherwise, you may sit down, too.
LOL See how stupid this can get.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 03:04am PT
|
yes Bob... I meant, perhaps, refutation?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:36am PT
|
Well, hmmm. It would appear we now have two learned apologeticists onboard - one Christian, one Vedic. Both mount ardent defenses of the veracity of the respective tracts underlying their religious beliefs and perceptions of God. Which is correct? Or, is one simply describing the tail of God while the other his trunk? How are less learned men and women to choose?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 08:16am PT
|
Ed, what's the point? Seems like it brings up more complications then solves problems. Think of all of the different ways that people have perceived God or gods over the ages. I'm thinking you're twice as smart as me, so I'm probably missing something. As far as I'm concerned, God needs no explaining. The reasons that so many cultures have come up with the notion of God I'm sure can be explained, again, through the lens of evolution (how could it not?). Humankind has a penchant for assigning meaning to things and intention to behaviour. It had survival value.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 08:17am PT
|
Vedic tradition actually had a sort of tentative grasp on some of the tenets of science, if you look at the ideas of kundalini and the bodhi as intimations of neurobiology, for example.
Judeo-Christian-Islamicism gets failing grades on all counts. This is why its various forms are still so appealing to the uneducated.
Fear of death is the root of all religion. It is a form of denial.
People believe what they want to believe.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 09:37am PT
|
Ed said: so far I haven't seen any serious discussion of my initial thesis, that is, that god exists in thought, as a product of the mind.
Well, I don't have too much to say about it. I agree wholeheartedly, of course. And perhaps there's some value in adding nomenclature to this somewhat nebulous concept, and stating that the concept of God(s) is a tremendously powerful meme (or family of memes). So powerful that it has taken on its own evolution, and in addition to propagating its kind, has also spawned thousands of other sub-memes called religions out of it.
But where does this take us? Certainly nowhere closer to an understanding, a reconciliation, with the world of the True Believer. Because to all of them, it is absolutely imperative that God be a "real", a "true" force outside and independent of their own mind and consciousness.
Actually, this notion that to a true believer, no matter the faith, "God" must be a mirror of our mind; must be an entity outside of us - fascinating! It's the only thing I can think of that's a vehemently held commonality between deist philosophies.
Anyway, if you're looking for a way to bridge the gap between believer and non-believer, I think you're looking in the wrong direction.
GO
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 10:32am PT
|
Werner, your comments show that you don't know anything about logic, or logical argument.
You can't support what you say, and so you claim you don't have to.
You fail to offer a counter argument, because you have not got one.
BAH.
One more time, SHOW where what I said is wrong. OR, show how what Bruce quoted is right.
IF you can't do that, there's nothing more to discuss on the issue.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 10:56am PT
|
"so far I haven't seen any serious discussion of my initial thesis, that is, that god exists in thought, as a product of the mind. "
Carl Jung talked about the archtypes. Joseph Campbell found common threads in religion and mythology around the world in civilizations that had no contact. So the minds have something innate in common. Similar father rolls, similar heros, similar dreams, similar demons. Is there really anything more? Religion, to me, adds a structure, a way of life, a best-known-recipie for civilization, happiness, etc, on top of this, based on eons of tradition. As one would expect, certainly in modern times, not everyone gets it. I also say much of the dogma has become outdated and lost on the modern mind as science becomes more sophisticated.
J
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 11:00am PT
|
I only now read Brunosafari's long post. I goota say, a couple of things bear pointing out.
Copernicus, Newton and Eienstein were convinced Theists
 Wrong for sure, in the case of Einstein. With respect to the other two, who wasn't a theist back then?
Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating. In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God. This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted.
Sheesh, where do you start with this one? I would say this is not "logic" in any sense of the word. It's God that needs explaining (if you believe in him), not the other way around. In fact, I prefer the word humanist to atheist. The word atheist makes it seem like you are going out of your way to actively refute deism - I don't think that's necessary. Believing in God is the unnatural state that needs explaining - my world view is consistent and whole, thank you very much.
One other point; "proof" of God from the "how could this complicated thing exist without a designer?" can be explained, relatively easily, within the context of evolution.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
i am of the universe and you know what it's worth.
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 11:21am PT
|
People have been arguing this crap and variations of it for thousands of years and there is no resolution. We still make the same mistakes people have been making for the entire life of the human race. No amount of technological progress seems to change this. The Greeks had just as heated discussions concerning philosophy and their gods and it preceded them. There has never been any collective resolution concerning gods and philosophy or "science". There never never will be. Every lifetime gets to try it all again and the jury is still out.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:06pm PT
|
John "I just recognize that on this forum, most of those who call themselves scientist or materialist, do not believe in God because they haven't been able to prove Gods existence."
Werner "Now! you go prove that God doesn't exist."
The burden of proof lies with the religious to verify their wild claims (gods existence and desires, reincarnation, virgin births, worldwide floods, etc. etc. etc.), not the sceptic. One cannot disprove lots of things (sun orbiting teapot, pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, etc. see below). Why should nonbelievers be required to provide negative evidence when believers can't provide any positive evidence at all? Unless you have some and aren't sharing with the rest of us. Wishful thinking, ancient texts and anecdotal stories is about all you have, but these hardly count as evidence for the existence of any supernatural being.
From Wikipedia:
"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?",[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
In his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into humorous, more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
bc
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:22pm PT
|
We can argue all day over whether darkness exists or whether it is just the absence of light.
But the real question is why "someone" doesn't just turn on the light. No one has come up with a good answer to that.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 01:26pm PT
|
Nita, thanks for that.
GO
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 01:44pm PT
|
"But the real question is why "someone" doesn't just turn on the light. No one has come up with a good answer to that."
The warden does not free the prisoner at his own request.
The prison term must be finished first. Otherwise the prisoner must be superior to the warden.
This applies the same logic in a crude way to Sir Bruce's statement below.
"In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God."
|
|
Paulina
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 01:55pm PT
|
Hanna maintains the existence of God cannot be proven, but is "apprehended," by everyone (reminding me of Ed Hartouni's "born with the idea of God," observation), but that our fallen human nautures cause us to suppress that truth.
This is a pretty bold, and potentially verifiable/falsifiable hypothesis. Let's take some babies and compare the way they pay attention to something regarding some god vs. no god. Like the way they study how babies pay more attention to their mothers' voices. I doubt very much that the results will be conclusive.
Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating. In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God. This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted.
This is silly, whether you came up with it or not. At worst, atheism is as logically untenable as any sort of theism. Since you cannot affirm "with certainty" either that God does or doesn't exist, by your own argument (since doing so would imply exhaustive knowledge), therefore taking either the position of atheism or theism is exactly equivalent in terms of logic.
Of course, actually, in terms of the way close-to-logical inquiry works, again by Occam's razor, atheism fares slightly better than theism, since it doesn't posit any extra entities (that is, a deity).
So no, you cannot refute atheism logically. At least not if you haven't already started with some axiom about the existence of a god (and that would be very circular logic in that case).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:00pm PT
|
Therefore God cannot be understood, approached or dispelled simply by logical arguments.
What comes after logic?
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:03pm PT
|
Werner wrote: Therefore God cannot be understood, approached or dispelled simply by logical arguments.
What comes after logic?
Voodoo...mysticism! Am I close???
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:06pm PT
|
LOL Bob
Logically the route won't go.
Bridwell said: Yeah logically, but I have faith we can do it.
|
|
TradIsGood
Recently unshackled climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:12pm PT
|
As long as we are talking about "proofs", there is that inconvenient little theorem that Kurt Gödel proved.
|
|
Paulina
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:24pm PT
|
Oh no, someone mentioned Godel's theorem! Everybody run!
Listen children and repeat after me: Godel's theorem applies only to formal mathematical systems expressive enough to include arithmetic. I shall not invoke Godel's theorem in vain.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:25pm PT
|
Yes the sneaky Gödel heh heh
Truth means to be led outside the logical box.
Truth leads us from logic to meta logic to meta meta logic.
Ultimately Truth is transcendental.
In a nut shell; Godel's essence
A conscious person with awakened intelligence can appreciate that Truth is different from all logical systems.
|
|
TradIsGood
Recently unshackled climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:30pm PT
|
Ha. Ha.
That is because Kurt only did what was easy.
He left the hard work as an exercise.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:31pm PT
|
Well
All logical systems sooner or later end up chasing their own tails.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:45pm PT
|
"Well, hmmm. It would appear we now have two learned apologeticists onboard - one Christian, one Vedic. Both mount ardent defenses of the veracity of the respective tracts underlying their religious beliefs and perceptions of God. Which is correct? Or, is one simply describing the tail of God while the other his trunk?"
Round two...
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 02:59pm PT
|
The last refuge of the religious apologists, fuzzy language that means little or nothing. I know, I know, we are all blind to the ultimate, awesome, really cool "Truth". If only we could see.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 03:03pm PT
|
Werner wrote: Bridwell said: Yeah logically, but I have faith we can do it.
Which is really the foundation of your thinking...faith. I respect that and hope all is well you Werner. It has been a good discussion.
Later, Bob
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:00pm PT
|
Tweet! We must stop the game momentarily to mop up some blood on the court. Hello again Thinkers. That was a cute reference to an event in Poway which happened to Greg (ee-onk-ee) on the basketball court in high school. Seems a very large scab on his elbow earned from Mt. Woodson OW's was knocked away during a game.
May I please back up just a little...honestly I sometimes wonder when some posters get any work done--I can't keep up. I feel rude though if I don't respond to some comments.
But first I want to say, "BIG GROUP HUG!" Where is Crimpie when we need her? Neebee?
Greg: Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe," a clear theistic statement. Along those lines, I'll mention Oppenheimer's spiritual leanings are better documented.
"Atheism is logically untenable."
I'm staying with that despite the murmurings. There is no such thing as a second tier kind of math logic. God's existance cannot be proved OR DISPROVED formally by a syllogism of logic because such arguments are self annihilating. I think Dirt tripped on the word I used, "exhaustive (knowledge)," a synonym of omniscience. Omniscience would be required to catagorically prove with CERTAINTY the existence or non-existence of God.
You just muddy the water and set up equivocations by suggesting the terms "humanism," or "deism" instead of atheism and theism. I consider myself a Christian Humanist, a Christian who affirms the arts and sciences.
Dirt: The very first word of your post "Poor (Bruce)," could be an Ad Hominem attack, for it connotates a word picture of unkempt wantoness. The aggessive tone and discounting statements seem confirming as to the overly personal afront. When I encounter conversations which resist reciprocities of respect, I wonder if the motives lie somewhere besides an honest inquirey of truth, in the realm of private emotions and harsh experiences such as are common to all of us.
In any case, once again, my point is precisely the limitations of logic alone for leading us to truth. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or even ourselves with certitude, without a recourse to further empirical evidence and a step of attendant faith. We cannot prove with certainty the existence of a chair (it might be an hullucination), yet. further empirical evidence and a step of faith leads us to sit... and possibly watch those Sanford and Son reruns.
In that sense, I'm in agreement with Bob, who's not very interested in proving God's existence.
Ed: I hope I was not responsible for the side-tracking of your concept of a kind of dualism, matter and the idea of God. I think that echos some of the tenets of Gnosticism. We can see gnostic systems in modern movements such as Theosophy, Christian Science, and Unity School of Christianity.
Gnosticism, along with Judaistic legalism were the primary subjects of conflict within the early Church and both are dealt with at length by the Apostle Paul. Some people might tbe surprised to consider that Paul of Tarsus has been called the most powerful and influential intellectual of the first century. Gnosticism has always had great appeal to intellectuals, because of it's systemic tidiness, as you have observed. His "Epistle to the Colossians," in particular, addresses Gnosticism. In it he belabors the legitimacy of the material world by referencing it to the Spiritual Realm: For example, his radical statement,
"In Christ (transliteration of the Hebrew term, Messiah), dwells the fulllness of God bodily." echoing the the claims of Jesus Himself, when He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM."
But fellow seekers, I too feel neglected since introducing the subject of the Scriptures and their attestation of truth, and particularly the uniqueness of Christ. Isn't it a cheap shot to toss the star witness out of the courtroom? Jesus is indeed a "thorny" problem, eh?
I have so much work to do to get on track following the Holidays so I probably can't respond until the weekend, if then. But I want to thank and applaud every single person who is interested enough to post or thoughfully read everybody's posts and to treat their persons and arguments humbly, reserving time for contemplation. It is a difficult challenge and a worthy one.
Bruce
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:03pm PT
|
Healyje: okay one more comment before I go. You are alert and I'm always impressed by your thoughts and wit. And I've only read the "Gita," so am hesitant to get into particulars of Pantheism or Panentheism. I believe all the major World Religions should be respected however, and they all contain amazing challenges. But for this discussion I think it is enough to just consider the general idea of Theism alone. Did you notice my brief comment about Relativism?
Shake and Bake,
Bruce
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:22pm PT
|
I would very much disagree with your line of reasoning:
"Atheism is logically untenable."
I'm staying with that despite the murmurings. There is no such thing as a second tier kind of math logic. God's existance cannot be proved OR DISPROVED formally by a syllogism of logic because such arguments are self annihilating. I think Dirt tripped on the word I used, "exhaustive (knowledge)," a synonym of omniscience. Omniscience would be required to catagorically prove with CERTAINTY the existence or non-existence of God.
for instance, give an example of a "self annihilating" argument. If you say that one cannot disprove the existence of "god" because one cannot perform an exhaustive elimination of all of what that might be, well, I think it is a bit absurd.
It is certainly possible to conduct the investigation as one might for understanding the universe. The existence of "god" implies certain things, what are those things, let's go look for those things or measure those things. This line of argument is usually met with one of the following:
-"god" is not measurable
-"god" is not a part of the physical universe
-"god" is a subjective experience
-we can never understand "god"
all of which call into question the corporal existence of "god." The dilemma for a scientist, and for a believer of "god" is to construct some way which that might be true. The only thing I can come up with is that "god" is a thought. It satisfies everything. Now so far I would anticipate the objection to this argument as the believers in "god" would insist that that is not real enough. No one has objected in that way, which makes me think I have not explained myself, or perhaps I have and everyone agrees.
Everything we know about "god" come from our thinking about the subject, and creating a series of explanations based on thought alone. We have denied the possibility of any objective physical investigation. Some here would even argue that the ideas are beyond logic. The only thing that I know that can exist apart from the physical world is what is created through thinking.
That was my Nash simile, his "real world" was a product of his thought, and he was not able to distinguish what was real from what was not.
So we cannot disprove "god" given the way the definition of "god" has been constructed (by our thinking). Very convenient for those who would argue that "god" exists. However, the only way that can happen, is if "god" exists in thought alone.
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:40pm PT
|
Ed - I would like to spend more time and though on your comment. But still, precisely, such arguments are absurd on the basis of logic alone. Thanks for recognizing what "exhaustive knowledge," entails.
But once again, is there no comment on the reports of empirical evidence, the Scriptures? Are they simply speculations? They are subject to inquirey.
Thanks
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:41pm PT
|
Poor Bruce.
Poor Richard's Almanac.
YOU didn't read what I wrote (again) or you'd see that the last bit says you can't prove or disprove god with logic.
but I am surprised that you say so, because you used an argument that at least pretended to use logic in dealing with god. Implicit in that garbage you quoted in the need to prove that god exists. See, that's logic. Real logic, not the kind you and Werner like.
You, and Werner, just see what you want to see, and ignore the rest.
say that god is a matter of faith, and be done wiht it.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:47pm PT
|
the scriptures are written by people, no matter what the religion
they may have been "inspired" by "god" but that inspiration, as far as I know, took place through thought and meditation (and prayer)
one could assert that there was a higher authority which directed the scriptural writing, but all we know is that they are some person or persons product
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 04:58pm PT
|
Honest guys, I have to git. But I'm happy that I think Dirt and I might have agreed on something. But saying the evidence of Scripture is garbage (Dirt) seems quite absurd, unfair and unsubstantiated. Similarly, I wonder if an examination of the Scriptures might lead Ed to reconsider his gnostic leanings.
I really do have to go now friends, may I call you that?
In a friendly way,
Bruce
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:18pm PT
|
I thought I was done with this but the Type A in me just won't let it go.
I find it degrading, ignorant and rude to think as a believer in a mystical being that you have the goods...so to speak, to a better life/afterlife than someone else who doesn't believe in that same being. The God you speak of is no better than you if this is what he/she taught you to believe.
We are all on a journey and to me it what you do the from the day you are born to the day you die that defined who you are and what you did on this earth.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:45pm PT
|
I think the difference between scientists and apologeticists is [roughly] scientists consider the observable and ask, "how can this be?", where apologeticists consider the inobservable and ask, "how can this not be?" The essential activity of the former is to generate questions and of the latter to provide answers.
We require questions to better understand a world as uncomfortable as our questions. We value answers which provide control and comfort over that world above all others. And we seem to be the only creature genetically predisposed to an interest in either. Given life on Earth at all levels in the food chain is a cyclic and chaotic matter of consumption - consume and in turn be consumed (see recent articles on the role of insects in the demise of dinosaurs). That we value answers which provide us leverage as a species should come as no surprise.
What I do find surprising is the enormity of role of unverifiable answers in the self-organization of our species. This is likely a survival mechanism centered around resource acquisition and defense. A simple look at the yellow pages under 'Churches' illustrates the pull to organize, and act of organizing, is far more important to our species than what we organize around (hence the Teapot and CotFSM conjectures) - nearly any sufficiently abstract, communicable concept will suffice. I would even go so far as to posit that for a concept to be useful for this binding purpose, it has to be sufficiently abstracted from daily life as to be deliberately unverifiable. Why? Because power among our species is based on an undeniable survival imperative of marshalled defensive resources - allowing people to have individually verifiable judgments about the binding supposition would lead to divisive behavior weakening the whole. Collective ruthlessness towards indivuals who diverge from even the most ludicrous binding proposition is simply a fear-based disincentive; promoting it is a staple of human leadership. All Gods, from my perspective and by definition of their univeral utility, are designed to be unverifiable.
And I personally can't find a more compelling justification for God than swiping a petri dish with two competing bacterial strains - the imperative and rationale are intuitive and obvious - the consequences are equally so. When I see a listing for the names of God throughout human history, I see a one-to-one taxonomy of petri dishes which always makes me curious as to the recipes of the various culture media.
[ Bruce, I'll take another look re: Relativism... ]
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:53pm PT
|
Ah yes
It's OK dirt, we still love ya dude.
So after a couple of nice pitches on the rock I see you're all still here.
I like this man Brunosafari (Sir Bruce).
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:55pm PT
|
Bruce, I fail to see how reading the scriptures will change my thinking about this, in fact, my reading and thinking about it is exactly what I'm talking about here... that what ever I decide, it is subjective, not objective.
So let us postulate that "god" only exists in thought, "god" exists.
If that is true, how can it be a problem?
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 06:10pm PT
|
"When a person dies – or, in Scientology terms, when a thetan abandons their physical body – they go to a "landing station" on the planet Venus, where the thetan is re-implanted and told lies about its past life and its next life. The Venusians take the thetan, "capsule" it, and send it back to Earth to be dumped into the ocean off the coast of California. Says Hubbard, "If you can get out of that, and through that, and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK. And you just eventually just pick up a baby." To avoid these inconveniences, Hubbard advised Scientologists to refuse to go to Venus after their death."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetan
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 06:31pm PT
|
I didn't realize you could just say no to Venus.
maternity wards, wandering the streets...
too inconvenient, for sure.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 11:13am PT
|
Bruce, hopefully you are still playing on this thread. If someone else had written what you did, I would have discounted it out of hand. But you are my friend and a great guy and a Poway Mountaineer.. I would contend that you are who you are DESPITE your religious convictions. Anyhow...
With respect to the "God does not play dice with the universe" statement. Not to beat a dead horse, but Einstein ABSOLUTELY did not mean God in a theistic way. He wrote a famous paper justifying his statement, "I don't believe in a personal God". Back then, all of the religious folks went out of their way to condemn him for it. Now they cherry pick and misinterpret the God does not play dice quote and claim him as one of their own. Sheesh!
Back to your "Atheism is logically untenable" statement.
"God's existence cannot be proved OR DISPROVED formally by a syllogism of logic because such arguments are self annihilating." Fair enough, I suppose, but how does this have ANY bearing on whether God exists or not? Why single out the atheist side and not the theist side as untenable? Where's the logic in that? Why should the atheist have to disprove God and not the other way around?
"I consider myself a Christian Humanist, a Christian who affirms the arts and sciences". - On this one, I'd just like to explore those beliefs, a little bit.
1. Do you believe that the earth is on the order of 6,000 or 4.5 billion years old?
2. Do you believe in evolution?
3. Do you believe that Muslims and/or Jews (without converting) will also be "saved, or is that something exclusively for the Christian believers (I'm assuming that we atheists will most certainly be left out).
4. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, would you likely be a Christian, and, if not, how would you go about insuring that you are "saved"
You sort of join at the hip philosophy and theology and infer that someone who isn't a theist is also not a philosopher. Not true. I very much consider myself a philosopher. Some of the hardest and most interesting problems we have on the planet involve ethical considerations. Ethics is in a higher realm than religion. I would contend that the take on ethics that an atheist has is far superior to that of a theist, because the arguments are free from the arbitrariness of faith-based beliefs.
|
|
elcap-pics
climber
Crestline CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 12:23pm PT
|
Religion has never overturned a scientific finding while science has constantly overthrown religious dogma, created in the name of some unproven god... God vs Science? No contest!
|
|
Colby
Social climber
Ogdenville
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 02:27pm PT
|
First, the OP is probably fabricated. If not, the philosophy professor know little about science - specifically evoloution.
Bruce: Einstein's "theism" becomes a matter of semantics. Not to say you made this assertion, but he did not believe in the supernatural god that is concerned about human's daily affairs. Sounds like this quotation is more of a rhetorical device to communicate that the workings in the universe are not random; these workings are properties of action and reaction with regard to physics and chemistry. Like many quotations are, this is probably taken out of context.
Quote: "Atheism is untenable." - Yeah, I'd like to see you try and disprove it. Besides the burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion that there is a god and we are supposed to live by his/her/its directives.
This argument will, and has, gone on and on because you can't prove or disprove either side. You can, however, make strong judgements based on probability.
Arguments I have against a God:
1) Believers are invoking a complex being (way more complex than the world) to explain the complexity of the world. When asked what created the complex being, the usual reply is "somethings are out of our realm of knowledge". So, you're not willing to admit the universe could be created after BILLIONS of years of (mostly) small incremental changes, but you're willing to accept that a supernatural being much more complex than the universe created itself?
2) Throughout history, there have been millions of fabrications of what God is. If you were born somewhere else, very likely, you would have a different perception of God. Why do you assume that your fabrication is correct? God is a product of culture and fear.
For reasons explained above, I usually hate quotation. But here's one for you - "Spirit shine...all the time...can render you blind".
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 02:28pm PT
|
Jesus raised the dead, calmed storms, and walked on water. Show me where science has done that. Other saints have done this too.
I don't want a science vs God world. I believe the two should work in conjunction. The original purpose of religion was to help set humans free from the suffering that they have created. This is the altruistic purpose. But religion has been hijacked. This is why revelations says ( I forget the exact numbers ) that something like 7 out of 8 churches have lost their first Love.
Altruistically, science is also here to set us free from suffering. Lots of times it does so by creating work saving inventions. Sometimes it creates more suffering when it creates pollution.
Neither science nor religion are perfect. Yet I believe in both God and science.
|
|
Colby
Social climber
Ogdenville
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 02:38pm PT
|
Moosie: I don't think that Jesus did any of that. Yes, I have read the bible. I believe the bible has about as much authority as Harry Potter.
"I don't want a science vs God world. I believe the two should work in conjunction."
That's the point is they don't work in conjuction and are irreconciliable.
"The original purpose of religion was to help set humans free from the suffering that they have created." You think so, huh? I would disagree. Is constant contrition being set free?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 02:51pm PT
|
About 40 BC, when asked to condense the Torah, Hillel said "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. All the rest is commentary."
What any of us believes, assumes a real extension only when we allow it to affect the way we treat others. Over many thousands of years history suggests those believing in gods have a blemished record as regards their treatment of others. Perhaps even more blemished than the record of the non-believers.
Christ or someone like that surely lived then just as similar people have existed since. Gandhi springs to mind. If he were to see what exists today, he would surely repeat what he is believed to have said then. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do."
God versus science is not the question. Our specie is not advancing.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 03:04pm PT
|
John Moosie -
the historic accounts we read in any historic text may represent a more complex story than accepting what was written as literal truth. And what is written is written by a person.
One can accept the authority of something as given. Science, as I have said many times before, accepts the authority of nature alone. This is very limiting, but it provides an absolute test for determining what is true and what is false in science, and quantifies the limits of our ability to make statements regarding truth and falseness.
I can sit with a copy of Newton's Optics on my bench and reproduce each of his experiments, exactly as he did. It is a central tenant of science, reproducibility, and a central requirement: that we are able to describe our observations and experiments in such a way that they can be reproduced by anyone. Our work in science strives to be objective.
There is much in our experience of reality which is subjective. Our subjective experience is real, but it may not be representative of physical reality. What is generally true about a subjective experience, however, is that it is not reproducible, it cannot generally be evoked by a written description or prescription; which is nearly a definition of "subjective experience." Our confusion with the reality of the experience as the experience of reality is at the roots of this debate.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 04:34pm PT
|
" You think so, huh? I would disagree. Is constant contrition being set free?"
As I said, religion has been hijacked by the ego. It no longer represents true teachings. God does not wish you to be in constant contrition. God wishes you to be Free. The problem is that our ego has confused what true freedom is. Some think that being free to drink beer all day is true freedom, yet because they are not conscious of what true freedom is, they are not aware that there is so much more.
.......................
Ed, my teachers are much further along the spiritual path them I am. They are experiencing more of the abundant life that Jesus told us about. The experiment is ones life. Just because the results take years to reproduce does not invalidate them. We have spent years and years and even lifetimes creating our hell. To undo that takes time. One must balance ones Karma and one must cleanse ones subconscious from all untruth to be truly free. This is a process. It doesn't happen overnight.
If witnessing the abundance that God promises is part of the scientific experiment, then I have witnessed it. I have seen healings that are not explained by science.
There is more.
..................
Earlier Bob said that the heart is just an organ. For him the mind creates everything. In part this is true, yet there is more. For what creates the mind. Is it contained in the brain ? Yet the brain is just an organ.
Bob, you wrote,
"I find it degrading, ignorant and rude to think as a believer in a mystical being that you have the goods...so to speak, to a better life/afterlife than someone else who doesn't believe in that same being. The God you speak of is no better than you if this is what he/she taught you to believe."
How many things in life do others know that you don't ? How many of these things could possibly make your life better ? Do you begrudge them their knowledge ? What if they offered it to you freely, yet you failed to see the significance of it ? Would it be their fault that you failed to grasp what they were offering you freely ?
It is only your ego that feels degradation. Your ego is not Truth. It is a construct of your fear. Your higher self does not feel degradation. When you learn to be in contact with your higher self, then you will be on the path to freedom from these feelings. The true path to God offers freedom. Anything else is a false path.
And yes, I do believe that I will be free. I already feel a great relief from my burdens plus I see the joy that others have and I want that joy.
Read, "The Christ is Born in You" by Kim Michaels. Or " I Love Jesus, I hate Christianity".
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 05:02pm PT
|
John wrote: How many things in life do others know that you don't ? How many of these things could possibly make your life better ? Do you begrudge them their knowledge ? What if they offered it to you freely, yet you failed to see the significance of it ? Would it be their fault that you failed to grasp what they were offering you freely ?
It's been offered...I didn't want what they were asking for in return. You folks can't seems to grasp that! I am a fairly stable human being, I have lived a good life, married for 33 years to the love of my life, three great children and wonderful parents. And that just the tip of it...Science has answered more of my questions than religion has come close to0...
I don't need Jesus or God to love or accept me on their terms or to tell that I am a worthy or unworthy human being...I know how I live and how I treat others will be the judge of that. I have had love my whole life.
As to ego...your a hypocrite and I think you know why.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
|
Bob, You seem to be confusing me with religion. You are perfectly free to believe and feel any way that you wish. I do not condemn you. As for me being a hypocrite, if you mean that I still have ego, then I agree with you. But this does not mean that I do not see the ego in another, much like a person who is overweight can begin the process of losing weight and still be able to help another even though they have not lost all the weight they wish to lose.
The path back to wholeness is a process. I am glad that you feel whole and that you feel your life is good, but this does not change anything I said.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 05:26pm PT
|
John...condemn me or not condemn...that laughable. Reading to much of the bible??
Sad...you seems like the lost one here. Hope you find what your looking for.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 05:40pm PT
|
You are the one who claims to feel degraded. How does that line up with the freedom you claim? That feeling is what I was commenting on because that is what condemns you, not me. That is why I mentioned condemnation. If you wish to continue with that. Then go for it. I just offer a way out of that feeling.
As for me. I am finding what I need. Thank you. And no, I do not think that I am perfect. LOL, That notion cracks me up. :-) I really do hope that you can see that I wish you no ill will.
John
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 07:18pm PT
|
John Moosie said The problem is that our ego has confused what true freedom is. Some think that being free to drink beer all day is true freedom.
Now, this is getting personal...
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 07:26pm PT
|
john wrote: I really do hope that you can see that I wish you no ill will.
No all you wish is that everyone sees the world through your eyes...kinda like nuns and priests I had in school. LOL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 07:35pm PT
|
"And the Lord did grin."
- Armaments, 2:9-21
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 08:20pm PT
|
hey there... say, i skimmed through here and noticed someone mentioned my name and wondered where i was.... well, seemed there was a huge avalanch here it seems .... wow... so i took the side trail:
what is god....
say, but as to science... god knows all about it... so i'll leave this avalanche in his hands...
wow, you all HAVE been busy here, so much to read! :)
|
|
elcap-pics
climber
Crestline CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 08:38pm PT
|
Neebee... you said that god knows all about science... what evidence to you have to support that statement? Do you have some secret connection to what god knows? You know only what your imagination can conjure up. God is totally unknown by man, and there is no evidence that He/She/It even exists, just texts written many hundreds of years ago by people who knew nothing too... all you have is your fabrications... that is why there some 3000 religions.. none of them know anything but what they have devised, and all demand belief through unquestioned faith. Believe what you like but when you suppose to know what god knows your are living on fantasy island.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 08:47pm PT
|
Yes, yes she has secret connection for sure. She's an angel.
"but as to science... god knows all about it....."
She said it perfectly.
Those that are demanding proof that God reveal himself to them will never see him.
The challenging attitude will never work.
Only God can reveal and prove himself to you.
Are you worthy?
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 08:56pm PT
|
hey there el-cap pics.... say, this might solve the mystery as i to why i happen to think that god knows all about science:
why, i even think that you something about science, too... but i dont know how much you know--as i dont know you, naturally...
(me, i sure dont know too much about science though, sadly, as i dont remember much of my school days)...
but actually god has been very nice to me, so that MUCH i do KNOW....(and through some mighty hard times), so i humbly reckon that if he KNOWS how to help me, that surely he knows all about science, AS I AM part of the science of the world...
i sure hope this helps you understand some, as it is my best shot, dear sir... :)
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 08:59pm PT
|
hey there werner, ol' wbaun.. say, there... a happy and hearty "hey there, at that" to you dear sir!
alwalys so very nice to run into you on the trails and trials of life----say, as to your quote:
"Those that are demanding proof that God reveal himself to them will never see him."
say---a mighty POWERFUL quote, if i ever saw one...
thanks for the share, wbraun.... say hi to yosemite and all its splendor and folks, too, for me...
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 09:16pm PT
|
To Nobodaddy (and Werner and Neebee)
Why art thou silent & invisible
Father of jealousy
Why dost thou hide thyself in clouds
From every searching Eye
Why darkness & obscurity
In all thy words & laws
That none dare eat the fruit but from
The wily serpents jaws
Or is it because Secresy
gains females loud applause
-William Blake
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 09:27pm PT
|
neebee wrote: but actually god has been very nice to me, so that MUCH i do KNOW....(and through some mighty hard times), so i humbly reckon that if he KNOWS how to help me, that surely he knows all about science, AS I AM part of the science of the world...
Neebee...that would be human behavior...he/she might know a little about that.
Most responses on the proof of God fall into a big gray area...or shall we say they are base on faith.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 09:50pm PT
|
A legitimate god would, Have to Know about science, couldn't be god otherwise, it's one of the rules...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 09:55pm PT
|
You're a sharp guy Jay ....
|
|
elcap-pics
climber
Crestline CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 11:03pm PT
|
I don't demand that god do anything... and it has not yet revealed itself to anyone that we know of (except perhaps to G. Bush telling him to go to war with Iraq)... so how can any of you make statements about god doing this or that when it has never revealed itself? .... Could it be that there is nothing to reveal? My good friend Werner said it best somewhere above in this posting.... it is all "specualtion" I recall him writing... so all I am saying is that specualtion is not a strong enough argument for a critical thinking, rational person to base belief on. It would appear to be even less than speculation actually, which usually is based on something, but rather a fabrication based on nothing more than wishful thinking. That is why I wrote in another post on this topic that these discussions are pretty much a waste of time, although interesting... the nonbeliever says "show me the proof" while the believer says "just have faith". Faith and proof can't be reconciled it would seem. It is kind of interesting to see what "seeming" ridiculous (to me that is)things people will believe without the slightest proof. It is not important to me that you think more rationally, as I am sure it is not to you that I accept things on faith... to each his owm! Rock on Dudes!
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 08:47pm PT
|
Just wanted to bump this thread and check in as I had promised earlier. I'm feeling under the weather with a virus that's hurting my eyes so I'm going to wait a little longer to post, hoping to read the recent postings with greater care, and hope the discussion can still be entered. (My painful eyes are a good reminder for me to appreciate being able to "see" your thoughts.)
Many postings here represent some tremendous insights, real patience with opposing points of view, valid experiences and inspiring efforts to communicate amid the modern polarized climate. All of them represent a great deal of personal courage. Thanks.
Bruce Adams
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 08:53pm PT
|
Haven't checked in a while, who is ahead? God, or science? someone has money ridding on this!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 09:36pm PT
|
Neither can be ahead.
The science of God encompasses all of material creation in all Universes.
The material creation is 1/4 of all creation, 3/4 of creation is the spiritual worlds.
Modern science will not like what I just said.
They will demand proof.
Still modern scientist can not even see their own eye ball without an instrument that was manufactured from the material elements.
Just see how they must submit to the superior .......
|
|
elcap-pics
climber
Crestline CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 10:19pm PT
|
Well maybe it is 35% material and 65% spiritual.... or maybe 95% material and 5% spiritual... or maybe 100% material and 0% spiritual... you see man when you make up numbers like you did it shows that you are just making things up, with no basis in reality and that greatly weakens your arguments!... you have no way to know such things! Sounds good however, if faith is all you employ.
But whenever I do have some question about the spiritual world I will be sure to ask you Bro as you seem to be very into it and I have never found you to be anything but an honest and forthright friend... ;) Luv you Bro!!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 10:34pm PT
|
In the "Bhagavad-gita As It Is", you will find:
"...in the brahmajyoti (spiritual sky) there are innumerable spiritual planets. The number of these planets is far, far greater than all of the planets of this material world. This material world has been approximated as only one quarter of the creation (ekamsena sthito jagat).
In this material segment there are millions and billions of universes with trillions of planets and suns, stars and moons.
But this whole material creation is only a fragment of the total creation. Most of the creation is in the spiritual sky."
Yeah, that's life ........
|
|
labrat
Trad climber
Nevada
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 11:26pm PT
|
I'm coming back to read more!!!!
|
|
Cuz
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 11:39pm PT
|
God vs. Science, apples and oranges.
If I meet God face to face ‘I would know He was real’.
Now, how could I prove it to someone else?
I could show them a picture of us but they could say it was Photoshoped.
I could record our conversation but they could say it was faked.
No matter what I did they wouldn’t believe me if they didn’t want too.
If you sincerely go looking for God He will make himself as real to you as anything on this earth.
The Bible, Gods word…
More than 1000 prophecies…
Over 600 have come true to date…
…Just something to think about.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 11:49pm PT
|
"Those that are demanding proof that God reveal himself to them will never see him."
An occasional high five would be nice. Were all of those unexpected hi-fives, God? Thanks to all, whoever they were!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 11:55pm PT
|
You already forgot all about "Lucille"
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2008 - 11:55pm PT
|
hey there jaybro... as to who is ahead in this specific post/thread--the numbers most likely will continually shift on each tally, even as the tides reshape the sand, so to speak...
BUT---as to WHO got the best chuckle, i reckon that would be YOU:
as to your quote:
"A legitimate god would, Have to Know about science, couldn't be god otherwise, it's one of the rules..."
a nice bit of humor, jaybro, sparks a heart to enjoy a smile and be merry! oh, my, ... :)
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 12:18am PT
|
Neebee, too funny, that is exactly what I meant! so to speak...
Werner, we all get too few Lucille™ High Fives! I'm savoring mine!
Leb, now my own conservative sister™ is going atheist on me, what's a boy to do?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 12:26am PT
|
1. Why should we "love" God? Just for you Lois.
The small child due to his curiosity asked his father if he can stick his finger in the moving fan. The small child remained persistent even after his father told him that he would lose his finger.
Obviously the father knew his sons proposal was insane but still wanted to respect his sons curiosity and his independent free will to choose.
Thus he pulled the plug and as the fan motor wound down to a non dangerous level told his son to go stick his finger in the fan.
WHAM! OUCH #@%^##@
He he he
Anyone for number two?
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 12:29am PT
|
hey there jaybro and werner, WOW... sounds like a story, you all.... say, dont rightly know what your "lucille" is... most likely a "great save" it sounds like...
(most folks call a "high five" , "the grace of god"... perhaps that is what you all are talking about...?)
like, for example: something that could have gone wrong, but did not---if so, sure glad to hear you both made it through in one piece...
lol--and then, if not, if "lucille" was just an a song on the radio, that you both fondly remember--------oooopssssss... i was playing in the wronggggggg ball game just now... :)
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 12:36am PT
|
You, called it right, Neebee, except instead of something that could have gone wrong, it was something that went right. Just a climb, but had some resonance in my own life. a footnote of a footnote.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 12:42am PT
|
hey there jaybro... wow...say, nice to know... thanks so much for the share... :)
footnotes = precious memories... :)
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 01:08am PT
|
hey there leb... not sure if this will say much as to your questions, but some folks see it like this:
#2---the worship aspect, as like the example of father and son love, how the son worships the father--as in happy admiration and just thrilled to be with his dad, type stuff... no good dad would demand it from a child, but a good dad sure would love it when his sons feels so wonderful toward him....and this would put you into the grazing-range of:
#1---to do that, or see that, then you'd have to see god as the "father to all things, etc... and then see yourself in the "child" aspect of it, then god wouldnt be the "etherial whatever"... so it makes a relationship out of the whole thing...
now...
some folks, do relate to nature and mother earth, so perhaps it is easier for them to see a concept of thankful worship---not sure... but you could ask them...
naturally, too, as we see here, some folks being more scientific, may not feel a thankful worship to science, but they must enjoy it in some way... it depends on the person...
oh, well... just wanted to through out why this is easier for some folks than others... hope it helped a bit in some way...
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 03:22am PT
|
hey there leb... say, nice to see you, thanks for the share-back...
say, perhaps we need wbraun/werner's second story, or story #2, i think it was, huh....
say, werner... after this quote:
"he he he" ...
we must see your other version to being helpful for lois/leb.... as you have set the path so nice and careful with such a most humble "he, he, he"....
|
|
Mustang
climber
From the wild, not the ranch
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 03:32am PT
|
God vs. Science?
C'mon, that's way too easy, God always wins cause it has the so-called, 'unknown factor'. How the heck can you game plan for that?
Immensely provocative and engaging opinions, many thoughtful and insightful posts everyone. Definately a discussion that will perhaps, never find a 'logical' conclusion.
Seems like some answers only raise more questions. Good stuff, worthy of a bump.
|
|
slayton
Trad climber
Morongo Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 05:14am PT
|
God vs. Science!!!! Place your bets now because the afterlife will be too late.
There has been much good discussion here about the nature of religion, spirituality, about how we can or cannot prove the existence of a deity, and still I ask "why does it matter to you?"
Why is it so important to sway another's opinion/belief/faith to one more becoming to your own?
Are those who "believe" trying to save souls and those who don't believe trying to save "minds"?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 08:41am PT
|
Good points LEB, thought the same thing since my teens.
Are those who "believe" trying to save souls and those who don't believe trying to save "minds"? Never thought about it that way exactly Slayton, but maybe so. I, for one, feel this incredulity that very smart people can believe in these things that to me are obviously fairy tales. And it DOES matter with respect to, say, public policy. I don't want magical thinking to be in the mix and have equal footing with rational thinking. I would never vote for a candidate who believed the earth was 6000 years old. That would be like voting for someone who believed the earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008 - 10:28am PT
|
God vs. Science. I do not think, as some have suggested, that both science and religion are looking at the same things form different angles.
Science attempts to discover the underlying principles that govern the observable universe. The theories that have thus far been conceived using scientific methods have been fairly useful in undersanding what's going on around us and helps us make predictions about what to expect. All the creature comforts we enjoy today are due to science (modern medicine, accurate weather forecasts, cold beer on demand, decent climbing ropes etc.) Science has also given us atomic weapons, but I will leave it to you to judge whether mankind is better off today.
God (if it exists at all) appears to be of the Deist variety. Having created the universe, he has all but disappeared. In a world that is full of suffering and death, where nature seems to care little for the fortunes of human kind, god seems to care little as well. In order to cope with this unending onslaught of misery, religion offers solace to the faithful. Surely we deserve a heaven after all this hell. But in no way is it obvious that any of it (heaven, hell, reincarnatin etc.)is true.
I do not see where science and god (religion) meet at all. Science is helping us in the here now while god seems to be more concerned with what? Our souls? An afterlife? Using up our Sunday mornings?
The arguements in this thread seem to drift into whether god actually exists or not. But in keeping with the original question of God vs science, I pose this question. If you were having a heart attack and you could have only one of the following, what would you choose, prayer or a good paramedic?
bc
|
|
Wolfman
Boulder climber
Fort Worth
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 03:24pm PT
|
Bruce,
I always thought the basketball theory was in reference to trying to get a BJ after you're married. It's like trying to hold a basketball underwater....
Joe
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 05:21pm PT
|
"Science has proved that God does not exist. End of story"
Then you have just declared that you are God, since you have just declared that ultimatum.
That is illusion and egotism .....
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
concord, california
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 07:26pm PT
|
IMHO, God is a creation of man...not the other way around.
Science is a body of knowledge that is based on sensual observations of the physical universe. This body of knowledge can be tested, verified, & revised with repeatable experiments. This is where Science and Religion differ. Science is self-correcting. Religion is rigid and absolute.
God, according to Judeo-Christian or Islamic tradition, is a non-physical entity that created the universe. Because God is not physical, God is not subject to direct observation or analysis by even the most advanced scientific instruments. If God exists, she resides outside the realm of science.
For those who claim God is almighty, all knowing, and all powerful, I pose this question...
Can God create a route that she cannot climb?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 07:49pm PT
|
"Can God create a route that she cannot climb?"
First: God is not a "she" but male.
Next: would be this response - In a high pitch tone of voice with lot's of confused emotion; "Oh how do you know? Where's the proof"
Hahahaha
A man came to the master and asked is there God? The master replied, "yes indeed".
The man said give me proof.
The master said you will clean my toilet, wash the floors, cook my meals and serve me for the next 20 years and I will then show you and prove that God exists and is real.
The man thought about it and looked at the master and concluded in his puffed up mind that the master was just a con man and demanded no more fuking around and tell me now.
The master then told the man it will take him 100 years before he will reveal the truth.
The man demanded again, and the master slammed the door in his face.
P.S. God doesn't need to "create a route that he can not climb".
Because he is self sufficient and complete.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 07:59pm PT
|
God is a concept by which we measure our free time.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 08:09pm PT
|
If it was "free time" then there would be no limit, death.
Yes, the time factor is the representation of the God.
But everyone is under the control of time factor.
Therefore God is Supreme.
Oh how you hate hearing that, hahahahaha
Hey, you can say and think anything you want.
But! will it stand the test of time?
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
concord, california
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 08:29pm PT
|
Werner: OK I accept that your God is a man who is supreme, self-sufficient & complete. He transcends space/time and he doesn't need to do anything.
But I still want to know: Can your God create a route that He cannot climb?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 08:34pm PT
|
He could to deceive you, if you needed to be deceived for your ultimate benefit.
Just like a great master will in rare times make show he was defeated.
But, the real master is ultimately never defeated nor can he defeat himself.
Otherwise defeat will be Supreme.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 08:37pm PT
|
'Love Supreme' is god, heard it today, I know.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
concord, california
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 08:46pm PT
|
OK Werner I think I got it...your God will create a route that He cannot climb to deceive me & teach me a lesson not to ask such questions on the Taco Stand.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 08:57pm PT
|
Werner wrote: First: God is not a "she" but male.
So does he use "little head logic" too??
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 09:28pm PT
|
It's curious to hear people tell us how "God" is just a mental construct, according to science, which is based on measurments of tangible stuff. If it's not stuff and you can't measure it then it sure ain't science. But who said God was a finite quality? And what happens when you try and measure an infinite quality? You end up with a matamatical construct, a mental construct, in essence, so the argumnt comes full circle and goes nowhere . . .
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 09:32pm PT
|
Excellent John
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 09:38pm PT
|
But "mental constructs" are measurable in terms of neuroelectrochemistry, ultimately. There has yet to be shown any proof that consciousness can exist without biology. One can have faith in this pleasant idea, but without empirical evidence it's just a nice comforting story we tell ourselves.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 09:41pm PT
|
Cintune wrote: There has yet to be shown any proof that consciousness can exist without biology.
Bingo!
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 09:44pm PT
|
...Conchis led me a little way to a deep fissure between two boulders, and there suspended a piece of white cloth on the end of a line. I hung like a bird in the water overhead, watching for the octopus he was trying to entice. Soon a sinuous tentacle slipped out and groped the bait, then other swift tentacles, and he began skillfully to coax the octopus up; I had tried this myself and knew it was not nearly as simple as the village boys made it seem. The octopus came reluctantly but inevitably, slow-whirling, flesh of drowned sailors, its suckered arms stretching, reaching, searching. Conchis suddenly gaffed it into the boat, slashed its sac with a knife, turned it inside out in a moment. I levered myself aboard.
"I have caught a thousand in this place. Tonight another will move into that same hole. And he will let himself be caught as easily."
"Poor thing."
"You notice reality is not necessary. Even the octopus prefers the ideal." A piece of old white sheeting, from which he had torn his "bait," lay beside him. I remembered it was Sunday morning; the time for sermons and parables. He looked up from the puddle of sepia.
"Well, how do you like the world below?"
"Fantastic. Like a dream."
"Like humanity. But in the vocabulary of millions of years ago." He threw the octopus under the thwart. "Do you think that has a life after death?"
John Fowles, The Magus
Which, amazingly enough, is online in its entirety at http://a7sharp9.com/Magus.html
A very good read, if you haven't. (But I'm guessing Largo has.)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008 - 09:45pm PT
|
Biology exists due to consciousness.
|
|
Colby
Social climber
Ogdenville
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 12:18am PT
|
"Those that are demanding proof that God reveal himself to them will never see him."
Correct!!!
Because those who want substantiation deprive themselves of having this delusion.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 12:23am PT
|
A zealot by any other name still has smelly feet.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 12:31am PT
|
"Because those who want substantiation deprive themselves of having this delusion."
Only if they are in a challenging demanding attitude.
If he (God) is supreme and one demands and challenges "Reveal Yourself" and he submits to your demands and challenges then you would be superior and supreme.
God always maintains his supremacy.
Actually he's right there in front of you and all pervading at all times.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
concord, california
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 01:19am PT
|
Werner: was God right there in front of all the poor people of the 9th ward when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans?
OR When the Tsunami hit Aceh, Indonesia? Was he there too? Standing by idly while 1,000s of people drowned?
Or how about when the Nazis were transporting train loads of Jews to be exterminated at Auschwitz? Was he right there riding in the trains with them? Why didn't this supreme all powerful God do something to stop these tragedies?
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 01:31am PT
|
Author:
Largo
Sport climber
From: Venice, Ca
It's curious to hear people tell us how "God" is just a mental construct, according to science, which is based on measurments of tangible stuff. If it's not stuff and you can't measure it then it sure ain't science. But who said God was a finite quality? And what happens when you try and measure an infinite quality? You end up with a matamatical construct, a mental construct, in essence, so the argumnt comes full circle and goes nowhere . . .
JL
Re: God vs. Science Jan 21, 2008, 06:32pm PST
Author:
WBraun
climber
From:
Excellent John
ROTFLMAO!!
Confusing tangible and infinite, as if an infinite quantity must be intangible, then confusing math with science, and Finally getting approval from someone who understands even less.
But that's part of how religion works-- confused people huddled together in the dark, wishing for an answer to their fears, and congratulating anyone who says something they like on their veracity and clever thinking.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 01:37am PT
|
We're not even talking about religion dirt, your runaway mind is still speculating in every direction etc etc.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:17am PT
|
JL writes:
It's curious to hear people tell us how "God" is just a mental construct, according to science, which is based on measurments of tangible stuff. If it's not stuff and you can't measure it then it sure ain't science. But who said God was a finite quality? And what happens when you try and measure an infinite quality? You end up with a matamatical construct, a mental construct, in essence, so the argumnt comes full circle and goes nowhere . . .
What I said (don't know about others) is what is physical is measurable in an objective way... almost by definition. If "god" has a physical manifestation, then "god" is measurable. As we have failed to do that I would argue that "god" doesn't exist.
Now what I also said that there thought admits ideas which are not physical. You can imagine something which is physically impossible, or totally without physical basis, or unrelated to reality. If "god" exists in thought, then there is no paradox regarding the non-existence of a physical "god." This "god" is purely subjective.
I am not sure what John means by "an infinite quality," what is an example? And what is the trouble with a "mathematical construct?" Most of our scientific theories are "mathematical constructs" which explain, at some level, the physical universe. The relationship of the construct to what is real may be problematic, e.g. take quantum mechanics, a notoriously difficult construct to relate to reality. Yet that construct is the basis of the most accurate physical theory that we have, we can calculate with precision the outcome of experiments.
What is true is that science demands rigorous tests of these constructs. We take the predictions of the constructs and subject them to experimental evaluation. We make measurements on physical systems, we take the calculations of the constructs and we compare.
That is not what we do with religion, or a belief in "god." There the experience is required to be personal and subjective. While I don't understand John's "infinite quality," I believe the idea it gets at is the lack of measurability... which defines what is subjective. I don't mean this as a pejorative, rather, as relating to our ability to have thoughts beyond what is real, what is objective.
Now the mechanism we are most familiar with in producing thought is our brain (actually it has to do with the whole body). And while it is an object operating under physical laws, the result of these operations, thought, is not subject to those laws. It shouldn't be too surprising that thought might be very complicated, and certainly it can be manipulated, but it is also very subjective. (I don't see why thought is restricted to a brain, or to human brains, my guess is that it is quite general.)
I have little doubt that "god" exists in this realm, with all the godly attributes we ascribe.
Perhaps that is not an acceptable argument. It seems a reasonable explanation of all of the evidence.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:47am PT
|
hey there wbraun... say, nice to see you are still sharing some interesing stuff with folks here... i just zeroed in on the supreme god, and the "he", aspect...
say, lots of folks get upset enough when god is mentioned or folks try for sorting it, or declaring, or whatever... but wow, lo and behold when folks say god is a "he" and not "she" it throws more conflict in too...
but say, it is interesting to note that in the world around us, the:
"she" gives birth, and nurtures by what should be "a loving, moving, inspriations" and in the face before that, there must be a "spark" to set the "life" into action, which come from the "he"... so, for those that believe god is a "he", they can see such an interesting and great picture-example of this principle, in this way... he, it is...
ps--just an extra note as to world conditions:
yet, going by a verse in the good book, (that some men like to over look in society), being---whether we live here as a he, or she, both are equally special in life... and he's should give EQUAL consideration to the she, as to honor and respect.. whether one is the birth giver, or one is the spark...
this can be sadly overlooked at times...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:50am PT
|
Ed H; If "god" has a physical manifestation, then "god" is measurable. As we have failed to do that I would argue that "god" doesn't exist.
Yes, he will not exist to your measurements. It is not possible to measure the unlimited, infinite, God.
That is not the path to understand God by trying measure him. If that was possible he would have to submit to your measurements and become finite. Therefore you would be superior.
Just like one can qualitatively, quantitatively understand almost everything about some person, you measure them, itemize everything about them, get their DNA, etc, and still, there are unknowns about them that can not be measured or collected because we have the same qualities but not the quantity as God.
There's a lot more ...... the same instruments you use to measure the material world is nothing but an expansion of his inferior energy. But still there is the Superior energy "the soul".
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 03:05am PT
|
hey there wbraun... say, i just saw a mention to the soul, that you just posted.. truly, so , as to man, like you said---you can measure some stuff about him.... but so true in another way---one cannot measure a mans soul...
and yep, one cannot measure god... man sure likes to measure stuff, huh? :) ... curious, man is, i reckon... :)
*edit... that immersurable part, is very special, and it is the "part" of us that is like god, but not equal, as you said...
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 09:45am PT
|
Werner, try to separate god from religion.
Good luck.
I don't see how you can justify spouting all your nonsense as if it were fact.
You love any false argument that supports your view, and offer nothing but mindless platitudes to combat the refutations.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 09:46am PT
|
All of this talk about God being beyond the ability of science to measure seems to miss a big point. Why SHOULD we believe in God in the first place? It's clear that in the past, humans assigned all sorts of natural phenomenon to God or gods until science stepped in with understanding that did not require the supernatural. So why should belief in God now be the de facto position? What, except for humankind's various "sacred texts" do we have as any kind of reason to believe? The only one that I can think of is our own existence and the existence of the universe. That may forever be an enigma, but I do not have to invoke God, particularly a personal God who cares about me to live with this unknowable thing.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 12:38pm PT
|
Science is just an attempt to systematically test questions so we don't keep going around in circles. It is easy to come up with questions or ideas which are impossible to test, such as "Is there or is there not a god?" But it might be possible to test the effects of believing in God or not.
You could pick people at random and by watching their everyday behavior, try to guess whether that person believes in God or not.
You could gather a group of athiests and a group of theists and rank them from highly moral to highly immoral. Pair them up by moral level, then see if observors can guess who are the athiests and who are the theists.
I have seen some statistical studies which looked at rates of various social issues, such as divorce, abortion, crime and such in different countries , and compared them with the rates of religiosity in those same countries.
Such studies cannot answer whether or not there is a God or gods, and it can't answer what is God. It might be possible to explore what are the social benefits and drawbacks of believing in God, having different kinds of beliefs, or belonging to different kinds of religious organizations.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 01:15pm PT
|
"Werner's god is invisible, does nothing, has no substance, is all knowing, and is only described by ancient books and stories."
LOL hahahaha that is a funny line, I must admit.
OK, .... hallelujah ya all saved me now! The great saviors of all mankind, Dirt and Dr. F
Hahahaha
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 01:35pm PT
|
People believe in God because their parents taught them too. It's myth. The one true God of the modern church is no more real than the multitude of Gods that the early civilizations thought were real. We are no different than them in believing what our parents, church, etc.., teach us.
Why does no one (except the atheists of the world) see the similarities between how strongly we believe in our God to how strongly the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc..., believed in their Gods? Why are we as a group so arrogant to think that we are right when all of those others before us were so wrong (besides having more modern works of fiction like the bible)?
Dave
P.S. the God that most of you believe in seems to be so messed up in the head, figuratively speaking, that I don't think I would want that God as my own. The God I would believe in would not throw a dog off a tall building and then blame it for not flying.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:23pm PT
|
Seems to me, there are quite a few atheists here. Supposedly, we account for only 2-3% in the US (although, interestingly, and since this is a God vs. Science thread, well over 90% of Nobel-prize-winning physicists are/were atheists). Seems like the Supertopo population is much higher than 3%. I'd hope so. It's darn right pathetic (and not a little bit scary) that nearly 50% of Americans believe in a 6,000 year old earth and do not believe in evolution.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:43pm PT
|
Earth is not 6000 years old, much much older, they are mistaken.
The start of Kali Yuga was approximately 5000 years ago, some mistaken Christians may have mistaken the start of the Kali Yuga as the beginning of creation.
The atheists are mistaken too. They have very poor fund of knowledge of the science of the soul.
Largo gave example that the dirty eye did not like but it corresponds perfectly with the Vedic conclusion.
There's much more ....... hee hee hee
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:44pm PT
|
Well Werner, sorry, but mankind will just have to save itself.
Starting with each person, one at a time.
The idea that anyone needs an external savior for what we can loosely call spiritual matters is the heart of the problem.
So, save yourself, if indeed you need saving from anything other than bad thinking. It's MUCH easier to save yourself from sin than from bad logic, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:48pm PT
|
Yes every man for himself, and the dirt as the leader?
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:50pm PT
|
Greg..the higher your IQ the less of a chance you believe in a god.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:52pm PT
|
No, every person leading their own selves.
People can choose to be or do good just cause they like it, or want to.
IF you need a god to make yourself behave, fine, but keep it to yourself.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 02:54pm PT
|
Actually... it's rather easy to separate God from religion. Well... you can't if you are within the western philosophies. Head east young man...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 03:01pm PT
|
No leader?
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 03:09pm PT
|
Like I said, lead yourself. And only yourself.
Cut out the middle men.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 03:11pm PT
|
Then why are you submitting to the leader?
Your govt. is taxing you and telling you what to do.
And your post above is leading, you are taking the place of the leader.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 03:23pm PT
|
Render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's LOL.
AS for me taking the place of a leader, hmmm. Nah.
But if you insist, send your money to ME! I'll save you from yourself, and evil, and Thetans, and um, anything else I can think of. Yeah, that's it. Being the leader wihtthe responsibility of saving loyal followers takes big bucks, so don't skimp! Your soul depends on it Werner! (and anyone else foolish, I mean smart enough, to donate!)
Be advised that I may lead you right off a cliff at any time though.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 04:13pm PT
|
"The idea that anyone needs an external savior for what we can loosely call spiritual matters is the heart of the problem"
Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within. So you are correct in saying that one does not need an outer savior. Salvation is found within you as you connect to your true Self.
Many people here confuse the mass consciousness beliefs about what God is to what God really is. Our beliefs do not create God. They often create illusion. God IS. Therefore, to know God one must give up all of ones false beliefs. In fact, the best way is to give up attachments to any beliefs about God and then allow God to reveal Him/Her Self to you.
As Werner said, the world is much older then 6,000 years. Evolution has occurred, but probably not in quite the same way that science says it did. Evolution is the result of a raising or lowering of consciousness. All affects on this planet are a result of consciousness. One day science will finally realize this and then you will see greater advancements. Including what seems to be free energy.
We are everyday and every moment receiving energy. Most just haven't figured out how to use it. Yet some have, including Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Yogananda and others. A good book for nonbelievers to take a look at is "Autobiography of a Yogi " by Paramahansa Yogananda.
................................
For those who rail against God because of such things as natural disasters, you would need a higher understanding of how this universe works and what God has given us to see that it isn't really God who is doing these things. God truly does not want these things to occur, but He has given us free will and dominion over this planet. So it is not God ( meaning the higher aspect of God ) creating these things, but our own choices. We are here to learn how to Be God. This planet is a schoolroom. We do have teachers, we just ran away from school and entered the school of hard knocks, which is Karma. There is a way to learn without suffering from Karmic reaction. This is called Grace. But we must choose this way. God will not force this upon us because God created us to be in His/Her image. This means we have free will. So God respects this free will.
If He didn't, then we wouldn't have free will. The one problem with free will is that our actions have consequences. All action has consequences. This is the law of Karma, or... everything has an equal and opposite reaction. What we put into the world is given back to us.
We each have our own Karma, plus we contribute to the mass consciousness which creates world Karma. So we must deal with both.
God did make us and did make the rules of Life, but it is our choices that bring Karma to us. Just as God made Gravity, to give us something to play with and to challenge us, but it is our choices of how to play with it that create the consequences.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 05:45pm PT
|
Paul raised the question as to measurable effects associated with the existence of a god. This is an old area of study but here is one recent reference:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139373/
Many more can be found. I tried to access the actual scientific report on this study of the power of intercessionary prayer but there was a charge and thus an end to my attempt to access it. Apparently $2,400,000 was spent on the study involving the effect of 1,700,000 prayers upon the recovery of heart patients. Unfortunately the results were anticorrelated. Perhaps some of the participants got their instructions wrong and used juju. If so the study needs to be repeated taking great care to confiscate all needles.
Just so no one gets the idea I would here point out a similar experiment praying for improvement of the economy cannot work. One can make just as much money in a worsening economy as can be made in an improving one. In fact the amounts transferred are exactly the same. In such an experiment you would never know what was being asked for in the prayers.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 05:59pm PT
|
Yeah, jstan
Praying for material gain is not the prescribed method.
During WWII the wives and mothers prayed for the safety of their loved ones that went to battle.
A lot of them got killed. Some of the wives and mothers then became atheists.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 06:10pm PT
|
Very sad.
That is the great weakness of anecdotal data, such as of miraculous cures. You have no measure of confidence in the data, not to mention no proof that one was cause and the other effect.
On the other hand it can be argued direct action can be a cause. As I remember it was 1970 when a million of us went down to the reflecting pool in DC and LBJ decamped shortly thereafter. Something we might ponder today.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
concord, california
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 06:12pm PT
|
Moosie: you talk about Karma..."What we put into the world is given back to us" What about all the undeserved human suffering that exists today in 3rd world countries? How do you account for this enormous imbalance in the global Karmic budget?
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 06:29pm PT
|
Dunno what Moosie might say, but that's where the transmigration of souls, aka reincarnation comes in. Some bad stuff happens to you out of nowhere? It's because you were bad in a prior life! Easy as pie, and about as nutritious, intellectually speaking.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 06:32pm PT
|
It's an illusive target for someone to use scientific evidence to argue about god. You point to a study and the typical response is that MY god doesn't behave like that. MY god would do this in that situation. That is why Dawkins carefully defines in his books the type of god he argues against.
Science doesn't have much to say about the god that doesn't interfere with our daily lives. That's not to say that god doesn't do anything to you in your afterlife. (I get frustrated these days with the abuse of guilt by Karma like tip jars with 'Good Karma' written on them. Do they really think they're selling Karma? I know it's supposed to be cute but I'm sure it's insulting to more than just myself. Anyway...)
Science can only probe certain physical parameters (although the number of things we can measure grows every day). As we discover more about our world the view of god must adapt to what we know in order for us to remain sane. How can we ignore scientific evidence that accurately predicts an outcome because someone translated what someone wrote saying that god told them that it wasn't so? Most believers will argue that it's a test to separate the true believers from the non. So be it.
The argument that an attempt to 'measure' god is in vain because god is infinite and is everything arrives at the same results, physically, as the premise that god doesn't exist. The simplest conclusion is then that god doesn't have a physically measurable presence. The soul and spirituality cannot be quantified and are therefore out of the reach of science (at the present. Who knows where fMRI and SQUID EEG's will take us? Maybe with quantum computing we will be able to reproduce the processes that go on in the mind.).
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Philip K Dick asked an fascinating question that we may one day answer if we create intelligence. Would we then have a god hierarchy where our AI's worship their creators as we worship our own or does the greater god trump all? We will have a physical manifestation in the lives of our creations though.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 06:44pm PT
|
That is why Dawkins carefully defines in his books the type of god he argues against.
What is his definition of "type of God"?
In other words "Dawkins definition of "God"?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 06:54pm PT
|
" What about all the undeserved human suffering that exists today in 3rd world countries? How do you account for this enormous imbalance in the global Karmic budget?"
Who said it was undeserved? I believe in reincarnation. We have more then one physical lifetime, but we only have one spiritual life.
I don't like the tip jars that say it is good Karma either. Its good Karma for them to give me good service. Should I wear a sign saying that? haha... Maybe we should print up a t-shirt.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 07:31pm PT
|
" It's because you were bad in a prior life!"
-too christian* to accept at face value. Except for the multiple lives part.
-still I think it's way more complcated than that.
*(for me at least)
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 08:18pm PT
|
The christian version of karma is original sin, an equally elaborate guilt-tripping snow job.
"It's like those miserable Psalms — they're SO depressing. Now knock it off!" - God
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
concord, california
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 09:50pm PT
|
so Moosie the flip side of your global re-incarnation/Karmic balance sheet is that someone like Paris Hilton OR GW Bush, both born into comfortable, affluent existences, are cashing in on good deeds they performed in a former life?
What could poor folks in 3rd world countries or in this country for that matter have possibly done in previous lives to deserve their current, desperate existence?
If there are more people on the planet today than ever before, then how does that work? Have all these people today acquired their Karma from a former 'life' as some other non-human life form?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 09:57pm PT
|
So why? it's got to be a choice of one or the other? (god v science, worded in a way to imply that science is da debil). Where does that leave people like einstien or Darwin? or other Scientists that go to church, or ministers who drive a car?
BTW, Today, the living outnumber the dead.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 10:41pm PT
|
LOL, okay okay, there is a lot more to it then what can be printed here. I have studied for years to understand this and still don't feel that I know that much.
First off. There are different life streams on this planet. Some started here. Some started elsewhere and ended up here. So there are different age lifestreams on this planet.
There are souls that started out as pure souls that were meant to learn how to be God. This is discribed as Adam and Eve. These souls were given a safe place and teachers. As they refused to accept life and chose to experience life as separate from God, they lost their connection with God and found themselves in the school of hard knocks. This is most of us. Some of these lifestreams learned their lessons and moved on to other realms. These are what are called ascended beings. Most have not. So they keep being sent back here until their time runs out.
Because we have dominion over this planet, we can choose to raise our consciousness or choose to lower it. Most of us chose to lower our consciousness by choosing to experience separation from God. In reality, the spirit realm, we can not truly be separate. But to allow us to experience full free choice, God allows us to experience separation. This is where suffering comes into being.
To make this short, there are also beings who started in the spiritual realm. Beings such as Angels. But some did not want to serve humans. In the spiritual realm, as here, ones choices are what decide ones experience. As these beings rebelled against God, they lost the ability to experience the spiritual realm. God did not kick them out, they kicked themselves out.
Because they had high levels of energy, they needed a place to work out their life. Earth is one such place. It wouldn't be if we raised our consciousness, but so far we haven't achieved much. Yet some have.
So these beings came to earth with high levels of energy. Many highly successful people on this planet are fallen angels. Eventually Karma will catch up with them. Because they had high attainment before they came here, they appear to be more powerful. This is illusion. We all have this power, most of us just haven't figured out how to access it.
There are two ways to leave this planet. One is to finish ones lessons and learn to live and create without harming others, this leads to ascension into the spiritual realm.
The other is to run out of time and face the final judgement. This is called the second death. This judgement is not what current Christianity teaches. What happens is that one is given a chance to turn around and change. If one does, then one can get more time on earth. Most who reach this state do not want to change and so refuse. These souls are sent to judgement where their being is purified of all that is not of God. This energy is then basically sent back into the allness of God. It loses its consciousness, but there is no suffering. The hell most people experience is right here on earth as a direct result of their Karma.
There is a whole lot more to understand, but this is a start. We are here to learn to be One with God. To BE God. If we choose separation, then we eventually end up creating suffering. All suffering is a direct result of choices we made. Not choices our creator made, except the choice to give us free will, power, and a place to learn to be More. This was God's choice. Though God in this case is not what most think of God. It is our higher self. Our higher self already resides in the spiritual realm. It chose to send a portion of itself to earth as a young soul. This is out of a desire to Be More.
The Earth is a young creation as creations go. It is meant to rise into the spiritual realm. Not be a place of suffering. Yet it is up to those who reside on it to raise their consciousness.
Jesus said that he came that we might have life and that we might have it more abundantly. He is a teacher. Most of what he has taught has been corrupted by modern Christianity. We can have an abundant life on this planet. We do not have to suffer. We can change.
Read "The Unseen Power in I AM" by Lorraine Michaels. or "The Christ is Born in You" by Kim Michaels.
Or go here.
http://www.askrealjesus.com/
If you want to learn, then you can. If you want to continue to resist, You can do that also. Both have consequences. In the material realm, both have time limits.
The final exam is on Friday.
Just kidding. :-)
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 10:47pm PT
|
Jaybro, here's what I know about Darwin and Einstein. Darwin started out a Christian (of course, pretty much everybody in Europe was a Christian by birth at that time), but as a result of his curious nature, scientific findings, and scientific and philosophic growth, became an atheist by his 40s until his death. As to Einstein, while the oft-cited 'God does not play dice' quote gets a lot of press, he has written several times that he does not believe in a 'personal' God, and in fact, regards this as naive. Einstein's god was essentially the personification of the laws of the universe.
If your definition of God includes a god who does nothing but create elegant universes and then leaves them to their own devices (Einstein's God, sort of), let's go over the implications:
1. Throw all of the "sacred texts" out the window (and good riddance, I say!)
2. There's absolutely no reason to pray.
3. There's no reason to do good or bad (except for humanistic reasons))
4. There's no reason to act any differently than if there was no God.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 10:50pm PT
|
1. Throw all of the "sacred texts" out the window (and good riddance, I say!)
Yes, let us start off by burning the constitution and then finish with burning all climbing guidebooks.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 10:57pm PT
|
No Werner, we can trace the authorship and authenticy of climbing guides and the Constitution through various, independent channels. The same cannot be said of the sacred texts. In fact, scholarship has shown that all of the sacred texts had various authors and various edits through the centuries. How anyone can think that they represent the word of God is a wonder to me.
|
|
Dick_Lugar
Trad climber
Indiana
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 11:03pm PT
|
Jesus Saves!...Gretzky gets the rebound and scores!!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 11:06pm PT
|
Not true.
The bonafide system disiplic succession can be traced back to the Supreme absolute truth and that truth will stand the test of time eternally.
Haphazardly and whimsically declaring you have knowledge about something you have no clue about will eventually lead to your downfall.
|
|
Dick_Lugar
Trad climber
Indiana
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 11:10pm PT
|
I can prove God doesn't exist...but I'll have to kill you to prove it!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 11:15pm PT
|
Luger
I wasn't responding to you, but since you want to play fool ....
You already failed.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 11:16pm PT
|
"humanistic reasons" are everything! Why is that? Does the existence of 'god' or various other dieties affect that? at all?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 11:19pm PT
|
The original version: Jesus Saves! Esposito Scores on the Rebound!!!
Shrieked, of course, by Foster Hewitt on Hockey Night in Canada. Which is not only the world's oldest sports-related television program still on the air, but the name of an alternative start to the Dawn Wall of El Capitan.
Esposito was notorious for what critics called garbage goals - rebounds, deflections, front of the net scrimmages. But he held the most goals scored in a year title for over a decade, until Gretzky topped it. Gretzy got his share of garbage goals, but also got a lot of elegant ones.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008 - 11:24pm PT
|
Jaybro, I would say that humanistic reasons are the ONLY thing we have. If you didn't see it, get last Sunday's New York Times Magazine (it's in the NY Times Sunday paper). There's a great article by Stephen (Steven?) Pinker on Morality. Best thing I have ever read on the subject and it's clear that morality is independent of any god.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2008 - 11:07pm PT
|
Straight out of the Veda; Srimad-Bhagavatam
evam prasanna-manaso
bhagavad-bhakti-yogatah
bhagavat-tattva-vijnanam
mukta-sangasya jayate
[SB 1.2.20]
So the Absolute Truth is scientific knowledge. It is not sentiment -- "I accept somebody as God by votes." That is not bhagavat-tattva-vijnanam. One must know what is the definition of God. It is not that somebody comes forward with a long beard and says, "I am God," and we rascals accept him as God. No, not like that. It is vijnanam. Vijnana means science. Without scientific knowledge, one cannot understand what is God. Bhagavat-tattva-vijnanam. And who can understand this vijnana, this scientific knowledge? Mukta-sangasya. One who is liberated from the contamination of the three modes of material nature, he can understand.
Those who are contaminated with tamo-guna, rajo-guna, they can create their own God. There are different types of "God" also. In one sense everyone is God. God means the controller. So everyone is to some extent a controller. But as I have explained several times, real controller means who is not controlled by others. That is God. If I am controlled by the material nature, daivi hy esa gunamayi mama maya duratyaya... [Bg. 7.14]. Birth, death, old age and disease, if I am controlled by these conditions of nature, then how I can become God? God is never controlled. Therefore one who can understand God must be free from the contamination of this material nature. Mukta-sangasya.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 12:49pm PT
|
Ed wrote:
That is not what we do with religion, or a belief in "god." There the experience is required to be personal and subjective. While I don't understand John's "infinite quality," I believe the idea it gets at is the lack of measurability... which defines what is subjective. I don't mean this as a pejorative, rather, as relating to our ability to have thoughts beyond what is real, what is objective.
This assumes there is only two poles of experience and reality: physical and subjective. I'm not sure you can separtate theese insofar as most any subjectgive experience has a physical or biological fingerprint. You think and brain waves reflect this, as seen on a regular EEG. Anothbeer interesting thought along these lines (not myh own, BTW) is that thinking or subjectgive experience is not something the brain "does," rather it's what the brain IS.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 02:57pm PT
|
John, I agree that the process that the brain engages in, roughly termed "thought," is a very important part of how we perceive reality.
I wouldn't so much define two poles, but rather propose that there is a something which exists beyond brain function (thought). In some sense, the methodology of science gets us beyond what is thought and to what is "beyond thought." There is an idealization of the physical universe that exists and we in it. But our understanding of that universe is formed by the very process of knowing it, that is, our perception and our ideas.
Science is one way of moving beyond what is happening in our heads.
That is a better description of what I am saying above. Now the way I have described it, the way science attempts to reveal the "truths" of the physical universe isn't so much different than a statement you'd expect from various humanistic disciplines handed down to us through history. It is my understanding that the empirical aspect of science differentiates it from those other ways of thinking. That is, the belief that one can trust that empirical knowledge, e.g. experimental results, can provide a connection with the actual universe.
One can raise the objection that somehow we have just reached a consensus among scientists which is as much a fiction as any other. However, but requiring rigorous and quantitative prediction, and then testing that prediction, that science distinguishes itself.
Blowing up a nuclear weapon in the desert was not the result of a bunch of scientists convincing themselves that their particular construction of reality was correct.
My ideas about "god" above actually have changed by the discussions on STForum, and right now I am aligned with your observation that thoughts are real... and that "god" is at least a thought, and therefore real because of that. But then there are a lot of thoughts that we have which are not realized beyond thought, they do not manifest themselves in the larger universe. The thought is real, even if the physical realization of the thought is not. Use and mention.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 03:23pm PT
|
So, Ed, using your newfound ideology, think up a bridge between two peaks.
Think on it really hard.
Then step out on it.
But just in case, wear a parachute.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 04:22pm PT
|
it's not so much an ideology, dirt, but actually just thinking about the irreducible contradictions.
You could argue that if thought were just the result of an electo-chemical process that it could not do the things that we know it does... imagine the unreal, for instance... but I would say that the ideas themselves have an existence and reality beyond the thing that has them.. take mathematics, for instance. My point in bringing up Nash's own observations of his thoughts were that he could not separate what was real from what was not, in fact, he was trained (or trained himself) to do mathematics by a way of thinking which he could not distinguish between fantasy and reality.
The point is that these things took place in his head, in the way he thought.
The idea of "god" is very much real, and there have been agreements among many people on what this idea is. There is also a lot of disagreement. But what is true is that there is no way of demonstrating which of these ideas is correct, is the truth. There is no empirical way to determine that truth. It doesn't make the ideas less real, and by not insisting on physical manifestation of the idea, there is no paradox.
It is strange to me that the people who insist on a physical manifestation would also argue that it is irrelevant... so "god's" reality may be in thought alone. Why wouldn't that be good enough?
Now I haven't come to the point where I have a belief in "god." I am just grappling with a particular logical construct which I think is a bit more subtle than "god vs. science" which is a very real battle going on, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
For myself, I always try to put myself in the other person's place and act to them as I would want me to act if I were them... it is not a hard thing to do, really. Empathy is part of our wiring.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 04:42pm PT
|
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html?ex=1358917200&en=804a7c62cbba0dba&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" target="new"]Scientists Take New Step Toward Man-Made Life[/url]
January 24, 2008
Taking a significant step toward the creation of man-made forms of life, researchers reported Thursday that they had manufactured the entire genome of a bacterium by painstakingly stitching together its chemical components. Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome. While scientists had previously synthesized the complete DNA of viruses, this is the first time it has been done for bacteria, which are much more complex. The genome is more than 10 times as long as the longest piece of DNA ever previously synthesized.
The feat is a watershed for the emerging field called synthetic biology, which involves the design of organisms to perform particular tasks, such as making biofuels. Synthetic biologists envision being able one day to design an organism on a computer, press the “print” button to have the necessary DNA made, and then put that DNA into a cell to produce a custom-made creature.
...
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 05:07pm PT
|
Ed - I think you're exactly right, except for this: It is strange to me that the people who insist on a physical manifestation {of God} would also argue that it is irrelevant... so "god's" reality may be in thought alone. Why wouldn't that be good enough?
To those who believe in God, it will never be enough to be told: "it's all in your head". You might as well ask why it's not sufficient to tell me when I see a cup in front of me, that I am delusional. Because by you denying the physical reality of this God, you are doing exactly that (to those who believe).
The whole point of God is that it is real, outside of us, affecting our lives (or at least what happens after we die) - while *also* being personal.
GO
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 06:11pm PT
|
What is it about god that, according to the believers of all religions, a common man or woman cannot experience a universally verifiable, physical, face-to-face converversation with a god. You know, one where someone walking by could say, "hey, I saw you were talking with god yesterday..." The fact that no religion in the history of mankind has never employed a 'common', verifiable physical manifestation of god is quite remarkable. Instead, it's always inside someone's head, or an unverifiable 'miracle', or only done in secret by someone 'priviledged'.
If any god were real and had the powers ascribed to them by an endless litany of religions, then there should really be no obstacle at all to having dinner with god, or god car pooling with me to work, or even doing lunch. And, hey, if I'm made in god's image, then I figure he must be a lot like me and, being the considerate and polite guy I am, I'd be happy to do lunch if I were god. I sorry, but I personally just will always call bullshit on the whole loonie, manipulative, and desperate fear-based concept of your gods.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 06:25pm PT
|
Healyje
"The fact that no religion in the history of mankind has never employed a 'common', verifiable physical manifestation of god is quite remarkable."
Buddha was bona fide incarnation of God in this age of Kali and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Now Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu came disguised as a devotee and never really claimed he was God but he was the Supreme Absolute Truth Lord himself.
In the Vedas all the Bona fide incarnations are given for each age.
They stand the test of all time.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 06:30pm PT
|
So where do I have to go tomorrow to talk to god and what's his Earth name at the moment.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 06:41pm PT
|
You follow the bona fide instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Just as one here in the material world goes to a bona fide school to learn for example physics.
Do you go to Chongo Chuck?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 07:20pm PT
|
"So where do I have to go tomorrow to talk to god and what's his Earth name at the moment."
In this age we are entering, many people are meant to embody the Being of Christ. It was what Paul meant when he said we must put on the mind of Christ.
http://www.askrealjesus.com/
On the left side of this page as you scroll down, there are a number of descriptions of types of seekers. Pick the one you think matches you best and read.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 10:45pm PT
|
You follow the bona fide instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
He's been on sabbatical for 475 years? So who is god today?
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 10:57pm PT
|
Werner wrote:Buddha was bona fide incarnation of God in this age of Kali and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
You might want to ask the Christians about.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 11:02pm PT
|
No need to ask the Christians as Caitanya Mahaprabhu is a perfect Christian.
Healy you seem to have troubles with instructions.
100 years hard labor for you.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 11:07pm PT
|
hey there all... just stopped by to see how all this is going... wow... say, this is getting more and more complicated, huh... oh, my....
well, i am doing homework now, so i must press on to the next trail, post/thread, or homework page--our even feed the cats... god bless to all ... :)
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2008 - 01:20am PT
|
Science vs. [_]
“Science wins by forfeit of no-show…”
In response to John Moosie, bc wrote:
“John,
You take a very narrow view of the word "evil". Can we ever hope to stop the "evil" of all current or new diseases? Will we ever be able to anticipate and stop natural catastrophes? "Evil" comes in many forms, not just the many manmade types. Will love stop the next earthquake or tsunami and the many "evils" that they bring? Perhaps "horror" would be a better word.
bc
ps Do you really believe we have been given dominion over the earth???”
This one has been stewing in the back of my head for over a month now. bc, I believe that you have a misconstrued view of the word “evil” with respect to disease and the natural phenomena of the Earth, as does John (or at least in my view…). No offense; I simply wish to use this as an excuse to ramble and possibly discuss.
Why are diseases “evil” if they thin out the weak in an overpopulated society/species and promote evolution? Is this not a good thing in the long run? Is this not how we have become what we have become today, as the modern human? Or would we prefer to trend towards the devolution that our modern, politically correct society seems to embrace? Why is it so sad and terrible when humans leave us prematurely as a result of their own wrong doings? Accident or human error? Has Darwin been banned from the playing field?
And, why are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc. considered to be catastrophes, in the human sense? We refer to sudden major events in the geologic record as “catastrophic”, but should these events really be viewed as evil or horrible catastrophes? I think NOT!!! Neither gOD, nor Love has anything to do with the workings of this immense and complex sphere that we (temporarily) inhabit. And it is purely a matter of our ignorance of these beautiful workings that causes us to view them as bad or negative. You can look at it through the eyes of a soldier and say… “Know thy enemy. Kill thy enemy.” Or, you can look at it through the eyes of one who tries to understand and appreciate Earth and say, “Know, Respect, and Love thy Mother. Work with her, not against her.”
Hell, it wasn’t until college that I had a chance to study geology and the Earth (the real world) – definitely not the case for such futile studies such as the human-conceived study of “economics” and the EVILS that it has brought us (and might bring...). Maybe if humans spent a little more time and effort to actually understand the (real) world that they live in, they wouldn’t view such catastrophic events as evil because they UNDERSTAND them and have learned where to build structures and where not to build structures, so on and so on, etc., etc., or rather, how to adapt to the realities of planet Earth – to live with the Earth rather than fight it in an attempt to conquer, to attempt to emulate the perfection of nature. Do natural geologic events bring evil, or are they merely a complex, yet simple cause and effect? Has life on this planet not been exposed to REALITY for the past three billion-plus years, with the results of evolution (you) to show for it?
Can any of you “creationists” honestly give me an argument (here or in person) as to why I shouldn’t believe that the dozens of pounds of silicified mammal fossils that I have found out in the desert are not the petrologic remains of beasts and creatures that lived here tens of millions of years ago, and suffered their ultimate demise by sudden volcanic activity? Did these beasts not evolve from their predecessors of the past and are the beasts of today not an “updated version”?
As someone who feels that he knows Mother fairly well and has a Love for her that is FAR greater than that for any human being, including himself, I say to all humans… Pull your head out of yer ass and pay attention to REALITY, not yer damn imagination… and quit destroying MOTHER!!!!! Without her, you are NOTHING!!! And if you are nothing, then your gOD is NOTHING!!! Stop the Hand of Human Intervention!!!
Dominion is temporary, as is our existence!
Ed Hartouni (physicist) and Tom “elcap-pics Ansel” Evans (retired physics teacher), you science dudes KICK ASS!!!! All due respect, plus a lot more!
|
|
dfrost7
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2008 - 01:38am PT
|
Ever read C.S. Lewis's, Mere Christianity? He answers most of these questions from both Atheist and Believer.
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2008 - 03:17am PT
|
Yeah, as cute as the Hand of Human Intervention. Why can’t wolves stay wolves and humans keep to themselves? F*#k domestic animals!!! F*#k domestication!!! …And all of the cows that trample and sh#t all over the desert!!! I’d rather see people is zoos… oh wait, they’re called prisons…
|
|
OhYeah!!!
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 02:25am PT
|
I know evoloution to be true and here are a few reasons why. First of all you are not exactly like your parents, right? Your descendants will never be exactly like your parents, right? Therefore, even in your family there is change over time (aka evolution). Another good example is the flu or common cold. Each year you take a different flu vaccine. Do you know why??? It is because the Virus's changes genetically over time (even recordable time) and we monitor it to prevent the flu in humans. Since I believe in evolution I wondered what humans are closely related to. I know that we have a genetic similarity to the great apes. We must have a common ancestor somewhere in the rescent past. We also evolved from fish in the more distant past and even worms and single celled organisms(deduced from evidence of the fossil record and my evidence of evolution), and since none of our ancestors has a religion then we can assume that religion was made up by humans, right? Even humans that have agreed on religions in the past have changed thier beliefs (this is evolution of thought, is it not?). Religion is unreliable and variable, science can be tested.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 10:44am PT
|
Minerals, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear in that post (obviously I didn’t if you’re lumping me into the creationist camp. I am an atheist/agnostic). My comment was in response to John and other faith-heads who claim that god is in control of everything but obviously lets some really bad things happen. They talk about evil and suffering as if it could be eradicated by greater faith or really good prayer (note John’s comment following the one of mine you referenced). I realize they are mostly talking about the evil people do, but this ignores the greater amount of suffering we face due to natural causes. Why do religionists cry “miracle” or “God watched over him” etc. whenever somebody is found to have survived some disease, disaster or accident? If god was really around why didn’t he stop the disaster in the first place? God (or angels) always seems to arrive just in time to save the day ala Superman or Mighty Mouse, but never stops the actual disaster. Thousands may be killed, but a lone survivor becomes god's miracle?Presumably he knows when bad things are going to happen since he knows everything. But why does he let them happen? Religionists haven’t come up with any convincing answers as to why god lets us suffer to the degree that we do suffer. Couldn’t he make earthquakes or tsunamis just a little bit weaker and less widespread? Couldn’t he make diseases a little easier to defeat or just get rid of some of the nastier ones? The answer is, there is no god watching over us, it’s all natural as you say. It’s the way things are and we should deal with it on those terms and not waste time appealing to some imaginary sky fairy. If you’ll notice I recommended using the word “horror” instead of evil.
bc
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 11:21am PT
|
From the evidence one would think he prefers our suffering.
The bigger assumption of course being thar "he" exists at all.
bc
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 12:21pm PT
|
"Evil" is an emotionally loaded version of "bad."
"Horror" is fear of the unknown.
"Terror" is fear of the known.
"God" is an imaginary entity created to assuage the horrors and terrors of evil.
"Science" is a method of objectively demystifying all of the above.
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 01:37pm PT
|
bc, I didn’t mean to lump you in with the creationists; for the most part, I think we’re on the same page. Sorry about that. Yes, I did notice that you instead used the word “horror” but from my perspective, it’s not much different than “evil.” My comments were not directed at you personally, but to a general audience. For some reason, our society seems to view catastrophic events with a fair amount of negativity – this is where I disagree.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 02:33pm PT
|
pc, like you I would prefer not to be lumped in or generalized. If you have a specific question for me, then I would be happy to try and answer.
As for why does God not stop all physical disasters? This is a complex subject but it revolves down to free will. We are meant to learn how to be God. We are much like children, who have all the aspects of their parents, but are not yet their parents.
When your child is truly young, you do a lot to protect them from their mistakes. You make their play area very safe. Yet as they mature, you allow them greater and greater freedom. You understand that this puts them in some danger, but you also understand that this is the only way they can truly learn.
Then there comes a point where the child is old enough to go out on their own. You are always there to help them, but you realize that they must attempt things on their own if they are to learn anything.
All suffering on this planet is a direct result of choices we made. Either in this lifetime or in past lifetimes. This includes natural disasters. They are a direct result of our mass consciousness. They do not need to occur.
Let me ask you this. How do you know that God has not stopped disasters from happening? Would you even be aware?
Yes, disasters happen. They are a direct result of our choices. If you have a reluctant child who refused to learn, at some point you would realize that they will have to learn from the school of hard knocks. You do everything you can to protect them, but you realize they must grow up, so you put them out in the world, even knowing that they will make mistakes and possibly do some things that appear to be truly disastrous.
Yet what if you truly were God and you knew that what appears to be a disaster is not really a disaster. As a human example. Your child drives too fast. You know this and you have done many things to get them to slow down, but they refuse. Now they are a young adult with their own car. They go out and drive too fast and wreck it. Bad. Yet they survive and finally learn to be a bit more careful.
Was this a bad experience for them, or worthwhile? Now what if you knew there was no such thing as death. That death was an illusion. Would you worry about some mistake that might lead to the physical death of your child?
It is spiritual death that is the primary problem. Yet even that is not that big of a problem because there is no permanent hell. There is only the hell that we as God's children create, and it is not permanent. I do understand that many religious people believe in a permanent hell. This is why I would prefer not to be pigeonholed.
There was as study done a number of years ago in the Washington DC area. In it, if I remember correctly, 8,000 people decided to meditate on a daily basis for peace in the DC area. They were able to reduce crime by 25 percent over the length of the experiment. This reveals the mass consciousness.
Another experiment was done where a group of people prayed for specific people to get well. It appeared to show that prayer did not work. This is correct because prayer doesn't work against Karma, unless the person doing the prayer is willing to take on the karma. This is much the same as a parent wanting to take the illness of a child, but can't. Many think they would, but what if they realized that the illness was there to help the child learn a lesson that child was refusing to learn? And what if this lesson was a very important lesson, one which would keep the child from experiencing even more difficult times ahead. Much like a parent lets a child fall when learning to walk, so they can really learn to walk and not have to crawl for the rest of thier lives.
It is much more complicated then this and I would have to write books on this, but I hope this helps some.
We are responsible for what we experience. If God took the experience away from us, then we wouldn't have the opportunity to learn. Even from so called natural disasters. Which aren't truly natural but are a direct result of our group consciousness. Even global warming is a direct result of our mass consciousness. The greed, the arrogance, the fear we put out in the world is reflected back by the world in the only way it can, physical experiences.
This is explained in these two short videos titled "The Greatest Secret about the Universe".
Part one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O5TJFw2CXc
Part two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uvavCc2lTo
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 04:08pm PT
|
I'm getting sucked into long posts today.
Re: http://www.gosai.com/science/failure-of-science.html
The article's thesis:
" Scientists generally insist that all phenomena can be described, in principle, in terms of measurable quantities which can be calculated using simple mathematical laws, thus reducing the universe to a mechanism and humans to complex submechanisms whose will and feelings correspond to nothing more than patterns of chemical interaction among molecules. The vast majority of these scientists are bent on eliminating the concept of God from all descriptions of reality and it's creation."
That article is as flawed in arguing against science as Dawkins 'The God Dillusion' is at arguing against god. The author defines his version of science and then argues against that. The very thesis is a straw man argument with little basis in reality IMO. The underlying theme is that we don't have a complete concrete understanding of the way the world works therefore all science is wrong or at least misguided. I also believe that he misrepresents Einstein and other great scientific minds in his interpretation of their words. It argues on the semantics of the word theory which has a different meaning in science than in common usage as pointed out earlier in the thread.
Inconsistencies in a theory are what drives the improvement in our understanding of the world. It is not what we understand that makes science interesting but what we don't understand. If we knew everything there would be no research. People have been trying to advance the Standard Model of particle physics for decades because we know that it is a simplistic model and that there is more to learn. When we show there is something beyond the Standard Model that does not make it obsolete. It will still make tremendously useful predictions about physical processes.
The article points out that Newton's theory of gravitation has been superseded by Einstein's theory of General Relativity and that Quantum Theory has been improved by Quantum Field Theory. The author seems to think that an inadequacy in a theory is reason to give up on all science. Of course theories will never be perfect and although science aims at complete understanding it is no different that wanting to achieve Nirvanna or becoming the perfect subject in God's eyes.
Similarly it is the evidence that counters Evolution theory or Big Bang theory that will drive us to improve on them so that they can be used to predict future physical events. At the present these theories have been very successful.
The article states that scientists tend to try to pull out the results that they want from their experiments and in individual cases this can be true but repeated experiments by those who are skeptical always show which results most accurately predict the true outcome. A classic example is Cold Fusion in a Test Tube. The originators of the theory made claims of cheap unlimited energy from water which is very desirable by all, but experiments (which are still ongoing) have repeatedly shown the claims to be false. You might say that we want the results to be negative but the end result is that cold fusion doesn't happen.
The article makes all kinds of wild claims like "However, when concepts such as consciousness, a creator intelligence and soul are introduced as viable concepts, the scientists demand that they be detectable by experimentation." Viable concepts of what? When you try to argue against scientific theory but don't provide a testable alternative it is the same as arguing against faith by discounting that faith exists. Science endeavors to make predictions in the physical world based on things we can measure. If you present an alternative theory, such as creation by a higher power, then the scientific community is going to ask how this theory predicts the outcome of what we can test. If it can't be tested then it can't be disproved. That is fine. Creationists often seem to want to discount science without presenting an alternative theory that accurately answers a question that puzzles the scientific community.
The following statement is just patently false:
"When Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, imaginary numbers and other non-verifiable conceptual models are accepted by our scientific friends, what is the problem in considering such concepts as the spiritual soul? Consciousness is the symptom of the spirit soul's residency in the body of the living entity. It is a fundamental aspect of reality which cannot be ignored in any valid scientific explanation of reality."
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has been used with great success in predicting the outcome of experiments whereas the Theory of the Soul(?) has been, let's say, less successful. Again this goes back to the Dawkins argument. You can't discount science outright and then demand that science prove something that can't be proven with science. What has the Theory of the Soul predicted that would make it a 'scientific explanation of reality'?
The article then goes on to point out a bunch of shortcomings of Big Bang theory and Evolution theory but doesn't point out any of the successes or any alternative theories. This is an incomplete argument against science and if anything just shows that we have lots of work to do in improving our understanding. The greatest success of Inflation Theory, for example, is in predicting the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. As discussed above, Evolution Theory does a good job of explaining elephants with short tusks and the domestication of foxes. Are we to ignore these results because we can't conclusively present a transitional fossil or create life from a simulated primordial ooze or even state without question the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang?
My understanding of Einstein is that he had an attitude of humble amazement at how elegantly the universe works. I find that the religious interpretations of his words really bridle this enthusiasm and belittle his views of the world. His use of the word god is far larger than a personal god or a creator and can't be contained within such a structured definition.
If you couldn't tell, reading that article really pissed me off. It epitomized all of the ignorant arguments against the scientific method that don't hold any water (although in the same spirit I find scientific arguments against god to be in vain as well). I could very well be misguided in thinking that science has improved our physical wellbeing and that ones spiritual life can be worked on in parallel with science.
I hope that the author shuns all the fruits of modern technology since he seems to think Quantum Mechanics is wrong, without which we wouldn't have computers. Why the divisive attitude? Although I don't agree with many of the views of Fritjof Capra expressed in his book 'The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism' I agree with the sentiment from the epilogue that states 'Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both.'
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 04:17pm PT
|
"I could very well be misguided in thinking that science has improved our physical wellbeing and that ones spiritual life can be worked on in parallel with science."
This is Not misguided.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 04:23pm PT
|
Apart from being a good hook to sell books, that's absurd. What good has mysticism ever done that couldn't have been done without it anyway?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 08:31pm PT
|
Life is a jigsaw puzzle. The material scientists will never find the missing pieces, for they did not make the puzzle.
But the puzzle maker holds the missing pieces ......
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 08:54pm PT
|
Lois, there are plenty of mystical parasites out there who would be glad to take your friend's money in exchange for some nebulous snake-oil or other. Sounds to me like the dude might just need to form some genuine interpersonal relationships to create the missing meaning in his lifestyle. But then, some people just aren't capable of that, so they stock up on their stocks and toys instead. Not everyone necessarily reaches self-actualization.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 09:12pm PT
|
Well, I don't know the guy, but as a card-carrying humanist, I just shy away from the mumbo-jumbo and cosmic debris that gets passed around under the aegis of mysticism and metaphysics and whatnot. Bottom line is that all we've really got is ourselves and each other, and what we make of our lives is a matter of how we impact others for good or bad. "Getting right with God" is a cop out for a bad conscience, as far as I've ever seen. Like the creeps on death row who found a new friend in Jesus, I mean, big effing deal, it changes nothing.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 09:44pm PT
|
There's always SSRIs to help with that sort of thing, too.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 10:38pm PT
|
He wrote: "Bottom line is that all we've really got is ourselves and each other."
How do you know that is all we have?
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 11:10pm PT
|
It all just comes round to the god vs. science thing again. Neurochemistry is a strange thing, admittedly. So is gravity.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 11:18pm PT
|
It's not god vs. science.
It's god = science.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 11:19pm PT
|
Largo, I think it's a kind of a metaphor.
All we have is each other meaning that we need to get along nd work together towards a common goal of perfection. This is impossible by definition but the road to achieving it is enriching enough.
If we can't learn the basics of working together, we're screwed and will have to live until we learn it.
/God
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 12:01am PT
|
"All we have is each other meaning that we need to get along nd work together towards a common goal of perfection. This is impossible by definition but the road to achieving it is enriching enough."
I totally agree. However, the deepest drive for many people (some would say for ALL people) is transcendence, for a connection with a power greater than themselves. When this connection is sought from other human beings, impossible expectations are set in motion that can cause us all kinds of havoc.
What part of this is all or nothing, black or white, this verses that? If it were only that simple . . .
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 12:07am PT
|
I was actually thinking more literally. An imaginary superfriend will only get you so far, but if that's all you've got, I guess it's better than nothing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 12:11am PT
|
An imaginary superfriend.
Only to you ...... cintune
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 12:15am PT
|
"I was actually thinking more literally. An imaginary superfriend. . ."
"I have never had an experience or encounter that would suggest to me that there is anything beyond the material world."
Isn't this what you are really saying? Why overreach yourself and call it a plain and self-evident fact? I suspect it's that pesky drive to be "right."
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 02:37am PT
|
Overreaching myself? That's an amusing way to look at it.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 08:13pm PT
|
It's always fascinated me per the process by which people draw their conclusions or convictions. What do you think can be the outcome of the self telling the self what it is? Will it (the ego) not simply say, "I am everything. There is no more, now or ever." When this is backed up by the super-ego (Inner Critic) insisting there is nothing beyond the ego, is it any wonder that most people remain convinced, at the deepest level of their being, of what the self/Critic says is reality?
Of course, the self is entirely correct - but only on the level of the self. Such is the trance of self-absorbtion. I know it very well. The great irony here is that when the trance is broken - if only for a flash - we are prone to consider the experience as "imaginary."
And what do you make of those neuroscientists and students of consciousness who would tell us that the brain is not some kind of mechanism that is capible of thinking, rather, the brain IS thinking, and that thinking and consciousness are not the same things, or things at all.
Go figure . . .
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 08:35pm PT
|
John, you never sent me those tapes!
anyway, I'm not sure that I would agree with you, thinking and consciousness are things, but the results of thinking and consciousness are not the same things...
...that is, we are certainly capable of thought that has not physical counterpart in the universe. Most of our descriptions of the universe are approximate, and are really only a provisional, schematic model explaining a set of observed phenomena. If the observation is only sensual, then we have an even harder time getting at the physical essence of that phenomena, often fooling ourselves with erroneous assumptions about how our consciousness works.
The practice of science is all about obtaining information on the universe which is not biased by our ways of thinking or the peculiarities of how consciousness works.
However, there is a whole interesting line of investigation regarding thinking and consciousness. I think of it as playing around with the things themselves, thinking, consciousness, but not confusing the results with what I would term "reality." Here the duality is slightly different then the classical western mind-body duality.
Your a very busy... just send me the reference (I forget the name of the person who made the tapes)... I'm still interested.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 08:50pm PT
|
things?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008 - 10:48pm PT
|
Hi Ed,
The CD's are available at Openfocus.com
Per the brain and thinking not being a "thing," I'm not entirely clear what these folks are driving at. My sense of it is that the brain can objectify physical reality into composite functions and parts that may be considered as "things" but said things are inseparable from the matrix, so at some level, the "thingness" is an abstraction. And what of the nothingness from which these things arise and eventually return.
But the most interesting idea (to me) is that thinking is not something that the brain does, but what the brain IS. Quite unsure exactly what this means.
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 09:29am PT
|
JL, you might have that quote a little mixed up. Neurobiologist Stephen Pinker wrote in 1977 that "the mind is not the brain, the mind is what the brain does," in his book How the Mind Works.
Another top reseracher in this sort of thing is V.R. Ramachandran:
Phantoms in the Brain
Part 1: http://www.guba.com/watch/2000937292
Part 2: http://www.guba.com/watch/2000937299
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 09:47am PT
|
The views of the brain in 2008 are quite a bit different than those in 1977, at least to some. As evildenced by your quote from 77, they used to consider "mind" as a function of the brain, or brain generated, meaning that mind was an evolutionary product of matter. There are some other opinions about this presently, though I don't claim to know much about how they were arrived at though the subject is fascinating.
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 09:56am PT
|
Whoops, that was a typo, Pinker's book was 1997. It has been criticized, but everything about this topic is fairly contentious. Ramachandran generally gets props all around, though.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 12:53pm PT
|
Does Ramachandran admit that the soul which is seated in the heart of every living entity is what drives the brain? The brain is material and the soul is spiritual, the driver which controls the brain.
The brain is the instrument of the soul. Just as the driver of the vehicle (automobile) controls and manipulates from the steering and peddles the speed, engine, brakes, of the car.
Still the driver of the automobile is not the car.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 01:51pm PT
|
Here's what he says about that:
The notion of a private self that inhabits your brain and is aloof from the rest of the world, that engages in a lofty inspection of events, as at the cinema — saying, Here’s me, I’m important, I’m watching the world — Hinduism has always maintained that this is an illusion. It’s called Maya. In fact, you are part of the universe, part of the ebb and flow of events, and once you give up the illusion of a separate soul residing in you and realize you are really one with the cosmos, that you are part of God, part of the rest of nature — that’s like a religious experience. You ‘lift the veil of Maya.’ So, to that extent, our findings are consistent with religious belief, in that we are saying there is no real so-called self, it’s really a construct — an illusion if you like. And when that happens — the lifting of the veil — you lose the fear of personal death, because it’s saying there is no ‘person’ to start with. How can you fear personal death if you are really part of God?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:19pm PT
|
Ramachandran is giving the mayavadi interpretation originally expounded from Ādi Śaṅkarācārya (Shiva) which is one of the most dangerous philosophies ever expounded.
Even Śaṅkarācārya in the end preached against his own philosophy because he knew it was utter total nonsense. He was originally instructed to preach that bogus philosophy by the lord himself to mislead those that desired to be one with god.
It is better to be an atheist than fall under the mayavadi philosophy.
The Mayavadi theory is that the ultimate spirit is impersonal.
__
We are all individuals. Never there will be time when we shall not exist." That means in the past we existed as individuals, in the present there is no doubt we are existing as individual, and in the future also, we shall continue to remain as individuals.
Then when the impersonal conception comes at all?
In the past, present, future, there are three times. Huh? In all the times we are individuals.
Then when God becomes impersonal or I become impersonal or you become impersonal?
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:25pm PT
|
Guess I'm safe then.
But why, oh why, does this lord of yours spend all of its time playing these endless games of hide-and-seek, with himself? I mean, what a prankster. Reminds me of those annoying uncles who delight in stealing the noses of toddlers.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:39pm PT
|
You are fool,
Alongside the soul (the individual, atma), in the heart of every living entity there is the supersoul the Lord himself (Paramatma), who instructs the soul.
Where is he is hiding then. You are the one playing the games.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:50pm PT
|
Werner Ji, God is One, and so vast and beyond human concepts that the Mayavadi, vishistadvaita and Dwaita are all describing the same truth from their own limited perspectives. Walking around India, as I am at the moment, you can't feel the difference in the Hearts of sincere persons of any faith. It doesn't matter what we THINK, it matters who we are in our hearts.
Regarding consciousness. It's funny that folks want to put it into the "Random thing" box along with blood and rocks. The fact is, you have absolutely no real proof the world out there even exists as everything, and I mean, everything, every moment, that you have ever experienced, has come to you through your consciousness. You could be living in a huge, consistent dream of the Great consciousness, and never prove otherwise.
Both science and religion would be better off admitting they know less, and adopting better priorities on how they spend their time.
Peace
Karl
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 02:53pm PT
|
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 03:40pm PT
|
God is One and still he is an individual.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:00pm PT
|
Wes, explain what you mean by "many".
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:09pm PT
|
'>1' .... And ?
Wes -- Individuals don't evolve
Where do you that idea?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:48pm PT
|
That's material evolution.
I was speaking of spiritual evolution and that does not require material nature which is inferior to the spiritual energy.
God has two major energies Spiritual which is superior and material which is inferior although both emanate from him.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:49pm PT
|
"It is an observable fact of nature. Evolution requires the interaction of multiple entities"
For the being who believe he/she is the body, then this is correct.
For one who knows that the body is only a reflection of a current state of consciousness, then it is incorrect. One can evolve ones body merely by raising ones consciousness.
Edit: Werner beat me to the point.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:51pm PT
|
So why doesn't everyone automatically know this? Why the big secret? What exactly is the point?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:58pm PT
|
So why doesn't everyone automatically know this?
We do know it, we've forgotten it and fallen under the spell of Maya (illusion) the material energy.
Now ......
The Mayavadi theory is I am God. Now I am overpowered by maya, and as soon as I become free from maya, again I become God.
If you are God, then why you became under the control of maya (illusion)?
The Mayavadi theory is the last nasty trap of the materially conditioned soul to fall into.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 04:59pm PT
|
Philosophy has amused people for millennia, but the following has always struck me. People discuss philosophy at length( for centuries) using words, without first coming to an agreement as to the definition of those words. To make matters worse the objective of a discussion is often that of creating yet another word. The concept of parsimony seems often violated.
Over the last couple of centuries we have been moving closer and closer to understanding how life may have actually come to pass at the atomistic level. If we do not sink into a new dark age before that objective is reached, an understanding of how life itself came to exist should cast a very bright light over all of philosophy. On some level, it may even be possible this knowledge, palpably drawing closer, is the reason a dark age now approaches.
Perhaps we fear the light.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:02pm PT
|
We do not fear light jstan.
There would be absolutely no knowledge without light either materially or spiritually.
Kill the sun and then you'll really have fear ....
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:05pm PT
|
The false self fears the light, for the light reveals its falseness. Our true selves do not fear light. So any fear is because we have given ourselves over to the false self.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:07pm PT
|
Then who or what set the trap? This is the hide-and-seek scenario again. Godhead playing an elaborate game with itself, but with no particular purpose. Very much like natural selection in that respect. No end, just endless means.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:19pm PT
|
One purpose is to experience separation and then reunion. This can seem odd, but when you look at the desire to be More, then it starts to make sense. God wishes to always be more. It seems impossible if God is infinite that can can be More, that is the inexplicable nature of the infinite. The ability to make oneself less in order to experience becoming more.
The key to understanding is that each of us chose to experience this, because we are God. God outside yourself didn't create this experience. God that is You, did.
Once you understand this, then many things can start to fall into place and the way out of suffering becomes more clear.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:21pm PT
|
Ibuprofin still works for me.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:22pm PT
|
We set the trap and God does not play games with it's self.
The line "play games with it's self" is right out of the mayavadi text book which has been vigoriously defeated a long time ago even by it's own so called creator.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:24pm PT
|
Okay, then who are we?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:35pm PT
|
We are children of God. Aspects of God. Meant to learn to be More of God. To grow from ignorance to All-knowingness.
At one point we were fully protected ( like babies) yet as we grew up, then as all parents must do at some point, we were allowed to experience the consequences of our actions. Yet we were not left alone. Help exists.
There is a saying, when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. The teacher can be the school of hard knocks, or it can be grace through wisdom. Proverbs says, with all of thy getting, get understanding. The Truth shall set you free.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:36pm PT
|
It's already been explained many times in this bloated thread.
We are the spiritual soul.
In the Bhagavad-Gita it is stated:
dehino smin yatha dehe
kaumaram yauvanam jara
tatha dehantara-praptir
dhiras tatra na muhyati
As the embodied soul continually passes in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death.
The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.
"O son of Bharata, as the Sun alone illuminates this universe, so does the living entity [the soul], one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness." [Bg. 13.34]
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 05:51pm PT
|
OK
Whatever you say man .....
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 06:03pm PT
|
Heh, yep, that's a tough act to follow. Best of luck with the eternal life gig, guys.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008 - 06:06pm PT
|
You'll be back .... there's no escape.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 356 of total 356 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!