When man comes up with a tool that can scientifically measure something which is Eternal, Unlimited, Absolute and not of a material nature, sure thing...those who put their faith in materialism, go for that. Those who put their faith in God, go for that. Since, according again to eastern thought, the path to God is one of humbleness and submission to God, anyone who would even think of wanting to being equal to God would not get very far on that particular journey... The reason is that the nature of the ego identity is to stay separate from God, to feel self, to feel pride, to have individualistic separate existence. The path to God is to unify completely with God, which runs counter to the nature of ego. This is according to mostly eastern thought, not Judeo Christian stuff...though most religions do suggest humility is good, and vanity is not great, etc. This is really not as far out of human experience as people initially think, the general idea is experienced in a shadowy temporal manner in the deep love between say mother and child, husband and wife, etc. when there is a feeling of such deep love that the degree of separation between people is reduced as the hearts melt into each other. When the mother hugs her child, she feels less and less separation and greater unity, and upon first meeting after being apart from each other, it is a common experience in that first moment's embrace to completely forget that there is a "You" and "I" and there is just a profound and dominant feeling is "we." The feeling quickly fades though. Something like that to an infinite degree between man and God all the time forever eternally is what eastern thought is expresses as the goal of life. There is both separation and unity in the sense of different individuality of God and the individual, man does not become God, yet man experiences absolute and complete unity and oneness with God upon enlightenment, and experience the same bliss as God. Not going to make much sense to pure materialists, but what the hey... I am not saying anyone should follow any particular path or a belief, people will do whatever they like. It is all what people want, then they seek for that. Not for me to say what is right for others, or what path they should follow in life, as long as it does not impact my ability to follow my own path. As I have said before, I would just like to see more acceptance and less dogmatism in the world.
You know...I like you. I really appreciate that you have taken all this time (from your boredom) to explain this to me. You are the second atheist I've ever spoken to that was willing to communicate reasonably to try to get mutual understanding, so I really respect you for that. If I'm understanding you correctly then, we are speaking from two totally different vantage points, ie: philosophy and science. Correct? Are you saying then, that science makes absolutely no use of any philosophy in formulating the theories devised within the methodology? It seems to me that there must be some philosophies utilized in the process of theorizing. If that is the case, how then could any scientic theory be based on a completely fixed point or fixed variables? I understand what you said about the fact that God is unmeasurable, and the scientific method utilizes fixed points in its calculations. I'm clear on this. But, you gotta understand...I'm a word/art person, not a science/math person. I'm lookin' at what youâre sayin' and I still see a correlation. If the scientific method is derived at infancy from a theory, and a theory (per dictionary.com) is a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; and philosophy (per dictionary.com) is the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them, ie: the philosophy of science; how are they so vastly different? I see the process of conceptualizing in both, and wouldn't that be based on one's core beliefs or ideals? The only difference I see in what you have stated is that a part of the scientific method does involve "fixed points." But not every equation or variable studied in science is fixed...is it? When you spoke of the string theorists, you mentioned that they are attempting to narrow their philosophy by staying within certain bounds in order to be able to test their theory. So this makes me curious on another front. If one knows that science has certain fixed limitations and boundaries per se, and one also knows that God is limitless, how then can one base their conclusions on the reality of God on such a limited system? It sounds to me like boxed in thinking. And mind you, I say what I say, because I think you understand where I'm coming from, just as I am coming to a more clear understanding of your perspective as well. It doesn't mean, however, that I won't question it. I like questioning things...and God for that matter. See....I'm not being facetious, but when you say that the end of a problem is, âthe answer is forever undetermined...â this is what makes me think along the line of boxed in, or limited thinking; because how then can any thing within a continually changing spectrum such as science, then be concluded as factual? In my mind, when you say factual, you are saying that it is THE truth. I don't see how that can be; when as traderNik said, â...it is constantly being disproved...â to get to the truth. How then can it be factual? In that case, it could be said that it never reaches the truth. It may reach a truth, but not the truth. Do you see my point? He did not get what I was saying, and apparently neither did james_bond. Neither of them actually addressed my point. Both got contentious with me; on the one hand accusing me of trying to come off like an expert, after I had already openly stated I was not, and then on the other hand, telling me I was showing my ignorance, and had overstepped my bounds in questioning what is deemed as factual. Itâs not a personal attack... and I have no problem admitting that I donât have knowledge in a certain area, because I am quite secure in who I am, and what I believe. I was simply trying to make a point, which I think you would understand because you are the most mature and rational person in here. "So, what variable would you use in an equation for God? It would simply be a symbol which would always be there in every equation..." This is true and the symbol would stay the same because God is unchanging. I can agree with this. And yes, I am starting to see how your mind works. I believe you are starting to see how mine works as well; therefore, I can respect your philosophy...no problem. I'll get back to you later on your other response. Peace.
Responses below... Quote from Ether64: You know...I like you. I really appreciate that you have taken all this time (from your boredom) to explain this to me. You are the second atheist I've ever spoken to that was willing to communicate reasonably to try to get mutual understanding, so I really respect you for that. Response: I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I don't know whether or not there is a god. From my perspective, absolute knowledge of God's existence is impossible for any living being, thus agnosticism is the only possibility which is absent a "belief." And, as previously discussed, I don't "believe" or "disbelieve," anything. I just weigh the existing evidence and search for more. ---- If I'm understanding you correctly then, we are speaking from two totally different vantage points, ie: philosophy and science. Correct? Are you saying then, that science makes absolutely no use of any philosophy in formulating the theories devised within the methodology? It seems to me that there must be some philosophies utilized in the process of theorizing. If that is the case, how then could any scientic theory be based on a completely fixed point or fixed variables? Response: Scientists philosophize all the time. The technical difference between a philosopher and a scientist is that the conclusions drawn by a philosopher do not require verifiable evidence, whereas the conclusions drawn from a scientist do. Clearly, many scientists fail to separate their philosophical conclusions from their scientific conclusions, with the result being that a peer-reviewed scientific paper may say something which does not necessarily follow from the experimental findings. But the scientific ideal is to only conclude from the findings. ---- I understand what you said about the fact that God is unmeasurable, and the scientific method utilizes fixed points in its calculations. I'm clear on this. But, you gotta understand...I'm a word/art person, not a science/math person. I'm lookin' at what youâre sayin' and I still see a correlation. If the scientific method is derived at infancy from a theory, and a theory (per dictionary.com) is a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; and philosophy (per dictionary.com) is the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them, ie: the philosophy of science; how are they so vastly different? Response: You see it the same as me, except that you are using "theory" differently. A hypothesis is a philosophic statement/question (e.g., "The world is flat."). A conclusion is either philosophic, if it is drawn from non-verifiable evidence, or scientific if it is drawn from verifiable evidence). The difference is then in the experiment. Without the experiment, the activity of the scientist is simply philosophy. However, a "scientific theory" is the consensus of many hypotheses, experiments and conclusions, all of which support the theory, whereas a "philosophic theory" is the consensus of many hypotheses and conclusions, but absent any significant verifiable evidence. Astrology is a philosophic theory. Astronomy is a scientific theory. Both may be true. Only one has any verifiable evidence. ---- I see the process of conceptualizing in both, and wouldn't that be based on one's core beliefs or ideals? The only difference I see in what you have stated is that a part of the scientific method does involve "fixed points." But not every equation or variable studied in science is fixed...is it? Response: It doesn't matter what one's core beliefs are. What matters is whether or not you conduct an experiment to confirm those beliefs. If you do, then you're a scientist -- if you don't, you're a philosopher. ---- When you spoke of the string theorists, you mentioned that they are attempting to narrow their philosophy by staying within certain bounds in order to be able to test their theory. So this makes me curious on another front. If one knows that science has certain fixed limitations and boundaries per se, and one also knows that God is limitless, how then can one base their conclusions on the reality of God on such a limited system? It sounds to me like boxed in thinking. And mind you, I say what I say, because I think you understand where I'm coming from, just as I am coming to a more clear understanding of your perspective as well. It doesn't mean, however, that I won't question it. I like questioning things...and God for that matter. Response: The simple test for God, within the scope of science is the experiment. If you can present any experiment which can verify the existence of God, then you will be acknowledged as the greatest scientist who has ever lived -- because God, by definition (at least among Western thinkers) is beyond any possible scientific measurement. This is an impossible contradiction for which there is no logical resolution. Z10, contends that in Eastern thought, God is one with nature, and so is one with humanity. I have to ask why, then can we not measure God, if he is part of the natural universe. I don't think that there is a satisfactory answer to this question. However, I don't hold it against Z10. He sees the answer as self-evident. Maybe it is -- maybe not. That's what makes a horse race. ---- See....I'm not being facetious, but when you say that the end of a problem is, âthe answer is forever undetermined...â this is what makes me think along the line of boxed in, or limited thinking; because how then can any thing within a continually changing spectrum such as science, then be concluded as factual? In my mind, when you say factual, you are saying that it is THE truth. I don't see how that can be; when as traderNik said, â...it is constantly being disproved...â to get to the truth. How then can it be factual? Response: There is scientific truth, and then there is ultimate truth. Ultimate truth lies only in the mind of God, assuming he exists. So, yes, scientific truth is self limiting. If it were not, then no scientist could draw the line between what is measurable and what is not. Once we allow for limitless unmeasurable answers, we allow for Astrology to be true, even though it is demonstrably false. At some point you must draw the line and say, for example, that the bridge is engineered as well as can reasonably be expected given the present state of scientific knowledge. Are there forces acting upon the bridge which may cause its ultimate destruction, and about which we are still entirely unaware? Almost certainly. Does it matter to the first 100 million cars which will cross that bridge? Not in the slightest. When we built a bridge from Earth orbit (scientifically possible, and a very useful project, as well), we may encounter some as yet unknown problems. But, until we do, the bridges from Earth to Earth will still function quite nicely with the science we already have, and without resort to as yet unanswered philosophical questions, which will someday hopefully be converted into scientific answers, via verifiable experiments. ---- In that case, it could be said that it never reaches the truth. It may reach a truth, but not the truth. Do you see my point? He did not get what I was saying, and apparently neither did james_bond. Neither of them actually addressed my point. Both got contentious with me; on the one hand accusing me of trying to come off like an expert, after I had already openly stated I was not, and then on the other hand, telling me I was showing my ignorance, and had overstepped my bounds in questioning what is deemed as factual. Response: The unknown is always part of everything. Before Einstein, the classical physicists only had Newton's equations to go by, and they knew that there was something "wrong" with their model of the universe. Some imputed God into the answer. Then Einstein appeared and answered many of the questions, and removed God from the answer. As time has progressed, other questions have arisen and they too are presently unanswered. Once again, some impute God into the answer. Will we come to the point, someday, when there simply is no other answer to some question except"God?" Maybe. But, until that day, every scientist must plod onward testing for answers without resort to God, because to do otherwise is to be a philosopher, rather than a scientist. ---- Itâs not a personal attack... and I have no problem admitting that I donât have knowledge in a certain area, because I am quite secure in who I am, and what I believe. I was simply trying to make a point, which I think you would understand because you are the most mature and rational person in here. Response: "Now who can argue with that?" David Huddleston, "Blazing Saddles" (1974). ---- "So, what variable would you use in an equation for God? It would simply be a symbol which would always be there in every equation..." This is true and the symbol would stay the same because God is unchanging. I can agree with this. And yes, I am starting to see how your mind works. I believe you are starting to see how mine works as well; therefore, I can respect your philosophy...no problem. I'll get back to you later on your other response. Peace. Alrighty then.
Good post, Kent. It reminds me the saying that those who ponder the unknowable are philosophers, but those who ponder the knowable are scientists.
Well...I just love you! I didn't need to respond to the other post, because I totally understood it, as I did this one. We have more in common than one would have thought at the beginning of this conversation. Thank you! This is really fantastic! I knew we could have a civilized discussion and gain understanding. Since you so clearly explained all this...now my question is...what on earth are these people so combative about, and what are they fighting about? Seriously...I don't get the disagreement, unless it's a situation of people with attitude problems and/or character flaws trying to force their views on others. We are all seeking and/or approaching the same thing, but from totally different perspectives or philosophies and that's all. In accordance with the limited measures your scientific theory utilizes...you could never measure God because He is limitless, and you can't box Him. The theory of philosophy/belief I subscribe to...does not place limitations on the infinite, therefore my belief is supported in that context. Even james_bond cemented your point. In the end, we'll all find out which was the correct perspective, but I would be remiss if I didn't at least encourage you to consider the more philosophic point of view. So I guess my only remaining question at this point is...what caused you to choose the limited scientific method over the expanded philosophical method? Just curious...no insult intended...are you always into placing limitations on things and/or people...or yourself? Peace.
Philosophers existed since the beginning of human civilization. Science only started a few hundred years ago. Why? Because it's hard to know what can be known, and what cannot be known. Once people understand the difference between the two domains, the real progress can be made by expanding the boundary of knowable, encircling an ever-expanding territory from the formerly unknowable domain. Your interpretation that science places limitations on things or people is backwards. Science is what truly liberates people's minds, by expanding the real knowledge, that can be verified through experiment and observation, by converting more and more questions of philosophy into questions of science. Providing real answers to real questions, that is the real wonder of science.
I have an imagination, and it's not limited by the requirement of a scientific experiment. That is, I don't say to myself, that because my scientific mind recognizes no verifiable test for the existence of a magical land, located at the second star to the right and straight on till' morning, that this means I can't close my eyes and "see" Never Never Land with the eyes of a child. But, if you want me to build you a bridge to drive your car across, then the only things that are going into that construction are those things which I can scientifically measure, because your car cannot dependably drive across a philosophical construct -- and my responsibility is to ensure that your journey will be as safe as reasonably possible.
This is a matter of remembering. You can remember by offering miracles to this world. They will remind you of what is real. You are qualified even before you are "ready"...if you are willing. As I said, love is not known in this world. And if perfect love is the only thing that exists, it seems there will be a problem discerning reality from the illusion of fear generated states such as this universe...while you think it is real. Miracles mirror God's eternal Love. They are the lamps that light your path out of illusion. To offer them is to remember Him. To remember Him is to remember reality. When I said, "do this in remembrance of me", I was asking for cooperation from miracle workers. Whether you are turning water to wine, or walking on water, you are remembering how perfect love "casts out fear". Time and space bow to the reality of love. Miracles literally collapse time and space. I remembered the reality of God by seeing the face of Christ in everyone. What I mean is I could literally see right through bodies to the reality beyond. I saw the "light" rather than the "bushel" hiding the light. It is the most beautiful sight you ever saw, and if you could see it but once, you would want to see it always. Then you will remember what's real and what's not. You can have this Vision if you want it above all else. Because you are the Son of God, what else can you do but remember who you are? You are the Heaven where God's love resides. The body is part of this universe. It is a product of fear, and is therefore not real. What better way to remember reality than to raise it from the dead? That is why I said, "Know thyself". You can know yourself by seeing the Son of God in others. This is "forgiveness"...cutting through the thin veil of illusion. That is why I suggested you forgive your brother "seventy times seven times". Your memory depends on your forgiveness of others. What you forgive becomes a part of you, as you perceive yourself. You will see that the Son of God incorporates all things within himself. What you are is unaffected by your unreal thoughts. What you look upon are their direct result. If you see bodies in time and space, your thoughts are unreal. If you envision something awesome beyond description, you have accessed your real thoughts by your desire to do so. This is what is meant by, "remove the plank in your own eye before you remove the splinter in your brother's eye". In other words, "be the change you want to see". Your sinless brother is your guide to peace. Your sinful brother is your guide to pain. Which you choose to see you will behold. Forgiveness looks on sinlessness alone, and judges not. Judgement binds the eyes and makes them blind. When you see the reality of your brothers, you give them the freedom that you seek. This is what I meant by, "give and thou shalt receive". As you give miracles, you shall receive them. Giving as you would receive, you learn that healing miracles belong to you. This is the means by which you can "prove" the unreality of hell to yourself. The key is in your hands. Let forgiveness rest upon all things by letting reality be as it is. Forgiving, you forget illusions in the blazing light of truth, as memory of the reality of God returns to you. Each miracle you give returns to you, reminding you the law of love is universal. On earth, a miracle is the closest thing to reality that you can give. They are already given to you. Miracles are everywhere...behind every "problem", behind every "body". Give them every day and let them light the way that you must travel to remember the reality of God. Forgive me for this lengthy post of more than 490 words. The good news is that you can delete at least 290 of the words. Then you can edit the other 200 according to the lens you look through, number each verse, and call it the "gospel" truth. But then, why would you do that? Meanwhile, let reason guide you to the recognition of truth. Reason is stronger than logic through the lens of fear. There is nothing to fear. That's what I meant when I said, "Fear not". Jesus
Well...I just love you! We have more in common than one would have thought at the beginning of this conversation. Thank you! This is really fantastic! I knew we could have a civilized discussion and gain understanding. My only question is: If I offer miracles consistently every day, does that qualify as science? Or, is that still just philosophy? For example, on Monday, before noon: turn water into wine. Tuesday: multiply bread and fish for lunch for bridge construction crew. Wednesday: let the blind see and the deaf hear. Thursday: calm a storm. Friday: raise a little girl from the "dead", move mountain of dirt for bridge construction crew. Saturday night: turn more water into wine for bridge construction crew. Sunday: let lame walk and do consulting work for lame fishermen. Suppose this is a typical work week. Would this kind of evidence verify anything? Unverify anything? Or, should I just not work on Sundays? Jesus