Heh heh... the christian boogeyman has been exceptionally successful in keeping the church coffers filled... but strange that not a single christian has stopped to contemplate the ridiculous paradox of an infinitely powerful being having an adversary... because if you are actually all powerful then an enemy is not really an enemy but obviously a human construct... I mean please, the pagan god Pan was transformed into the devil because christians were trying to stamp out that religion... that tells you how contrived the entire thing is
If I may offer my opinion, there is no substantive evidence, that's what's wrong with your "evidence". Not true. Observing positron pairs demonstrates their spontaneous appearance (uncaused) for very brief periods (non-eternal.). That 50 year observation from the principles of Quantum mechanics, could soon make it possible for your computer to work at unimaginable speed with awesome processing powers... So we have non-etrnal things observed to exist uncaused, which can cause something else to come into existence. In the mind can be conceived, all kinds of incredible things of so called truths. God cannot do that? An "all powerful" God cannot exist and not exist simultaneously? Won't that truth be a serious disapointment and problem for God believers?. That's that then, damning proof!. God is not all powerful or all knowing otherwise It would know how to overcome that eternal truth of yours. Hang on you said.... "a thing cannot be both existent and non-existent simultaneously.",,,well sorry to spoil this but, there is your cause for that "self-evident truth" . Obviously not. Whoa there... God now needs a cause, or is it two causes. The non-abstract and eternal it seems are now the causes for God. The universe too is the "ultimate cause" then. It needs to just be eternal. Only by a previous demonstration of yours, the universe has the added onus of existence, which you say is required. Your are the one ruling in a causeless cause, nowhere have I proposed all things are caused. vehn is right....for no real reason and for no purpose other than something abstract conceived in the mind, you are babbling,, ..no offense intended.. Believing in a super fairy is fine within limits, but your trying to "rule one in" is, babblingly and childishly silly.
First this: And then this: And all in the same post! First you conclude that God cannot be defined or conceived, and then you proceed to do just that. Cheeky.
Thats probably because the church states that not all is god. But if all is god, then all we would need to do is look around and ask what is knowable. If the only knowable thing about god was love, it might be just enough to work in our favor to resolve some problems. We have to consider whether schismatic thought processes eminating from the church(s) is productive enough to solve any problems...let alone reference in any way to add weight to an argument. JohnnyK
Hate to tell you Johnny but occult science also states that nothing may be known of the great unmanifest... the absolute simply is... the most common metaphor an adept will use is darkness, or space... or pure living mind... none convey the true meaning because the answer is formless and we exist in a plane of form... this is why Hermes Trismegistus when asked this question by his students pressed his fingers to his lips
Maybe I'm not understanding this approach to science...to shush us up even before we ever get started. Should we stop looking then? Or, should we look only far enough to prove this to be true? This is a legacy of Plato, a pillar of influence in formulating the logics of separation. This was accomplished by postulating the "idea" to be archetypal and reality to be a frail, imperfect substitute. The problem with idealistic philosophy is that it considers truth to be an archetypal idea, from which reality, in a somewhat imperfect form, is derived. According to that viewpoint, reality matches the ideal only randomly, approximately and imperfetly. Intellectual idealism postulates truth to be primal and perfect, reality to be derivative and imperfect. From a scientific viewpoint, such an approach to the universe has two fatal flaws. First, it will nullify objectivity by preconceptions of the universe. Second, the expected imperfections in reality become an excuse for careless observations, dishonest reports, and self-serving justifications. This especially becomes apparent when discrepancies can be disregarded as predictable margins of error concerning the "fixed idea" being upheld. The purpose of science is to verify reality, not to prove theory. Its not really science to go out and postulate a truth or theory as an idealized concept and then go out and extract from reality patterns of evidence suitable to substantiating the theory....because you can always find a match to theory if you leave out enough evidence and tolerate a wide enough margin for error. Reality is where you start. Truth is what we distill through observing patterns of constancy. Though truth is a constant, it's constancy must be confirmed though experience. So, everone's path to transcendent awareness will be unique. Truth has it's roots in a common reality, but it is not archetypal. Truth is the consummation of understanding which has proven to be workable, useful and progressive toward life. Science is a dialogue between truth and reality. We have the whole universe in front of us, but until we understand the crucial relationship between truth and reality, we don't have science. JohnnyK
Quote from trainr: Interesting you should bring that up. Anyone reading that thread has to notice how you were shot down there, as well. Thanks. ________________________________________ How you got shot down was when you quoted some off the wall study about Larry Williams having been in collusion with the futures broker who operated the contest he won. You forgot the degree to which these brokerages are regulated â that sort of thing would be investigated rigorously and found out eventually were it true, number one. Number two, you couldnât offer the same aberrant belief regarding the fact that his daughter won the same contest ten years later, using the same methods. I'm still waiting for you to explain numbers one and two above. Failing that, I have to ignore the rest of your equally meaningful posts as too much wasted time. Should you get around to substance I'll be happy to reply.