Here is a concept for those who think deeply. Imagine that there is a place called Hell. Imagine that place exists eternally. Say you are bad, and as a consequence, you are sentenced to spend 5 years in "eternal" Hell. Being sentenced to "eternal" Hell is quite different than being sentenced to Hell for eternity. So much depends on how you interpret things, doesn' it? That you or anyone else thinks the path to reach God is unreasonable, is of course your choice. Perhaps there is a reason that you are not fully capable of understanding God's reasons, or do you understand everything in this universe? That is a reasonable idea, isn't it, that you don't always understand the reasons and motivations behind what someone does at certain times in life? As a child, did you understand all the reasons behind the actions of your parents? Or did it take time to grow to the level of adulthood to fully understand and appreciate what they did? So why is it such a difficult concept to think that man must grow to the level of God's understanding, rather than God "lowering" himself to man's understanding? Maybe the owness is on us to reach God, not the reverse. It is not that a parent "talks down" to a child, it is that the parent talks to the level of understanding of a child. As the child demonstrates that he has grown to adulthood, adult conversation can begin. However, it is up to the child to accept the responsibility of being and acting like an adult at some point. When the child finally realizes and accepts that it is his free will to be an adult, and not stay stuck in the stubbornness of a child or the unwillingness to take responsibility in life, that is when the child can begin to understand his parents, and their level of adulthood.
What is the proof of that statement? Isn't it your opinion that science "often is" higher intellectually? You are comparing apples to oranges, and saying that often oranges are sweeter than apples, but doesn't the sweetness appear in the mouth of man, not in the apple or the orange? One man's sweet is another man's sour. Or is there some absolute criteria for sweetness and scale that we could use accordingly to measure an apple versus an orange? We could measure sugar content, but not sweetness, and sugar content is measurable, but sweetness is a relative term, that has subjective implications. If you want to say you prefer math to the arts, that is your choice, but how could you say that "math is better than art" for anyone but yourself?
although, i concur with most of what you post concerning these metaphysical subjects, i need to take stu's and the other true believer type atheists side on this one. math is more "accurate" than art, math is the same everywhere, art is not, math is objective, art is subjective and so on. therefore, to an objective mind math is "better" than art. best, surfer
how do you know that faith, if practiced correctly, is not as accurate, or more accurate than math? Math is the same everywhere? Where is math for you when you are sound asleep? Where was math when you were an infant? Where is math when you are sick and your mind is not working right? When you are tired? When you get old and senile? Give me a proof of math, that it exists outside of your own consciousness....
Corso, Your analogy has nothing to do with true religion/spirituality. It is only addressing the animalistic, communalist (lower, base) tendencies and and attempting to call it religion. The same martial traits, with subsequent justification, you mention exist in the entire animal kingdom. One of the more simplistic purposes of religion is to get humans out of that base mindset. Unfortunately, there are many so-called religionists in the guise of spiritual leaders that use religion to keep the ignorant in ignorance. Cheaters and the cheated. Average Muslim mullah = Jerry Falwell 90% of religious rules are meant to uplift humans off of the animalistic plane of communalism that you describe. What to speak of them getting to contemplate the spiritual aspect of life. This is most likely because at the present time 90% of society seems to not have the capacity to discern between matter and spirit. Discerning between matter and spirit is actual intelligence. Remember, society was such that when Jesus preached he had to tell people; Thou shall not kill, thou shall not commit adultery, etc... East Arabic society was even more degraded; when Mohammed preached he had to tell them do not have sex with your mother, let alone another man's wife. Maybe at the present time religious morality influences even the atheistic scientist so that he does not think 'in the name of scientific research we can cut babies heads off'. Even the simpler functions of religion do have a benefit if actually followed. Most religious aspirants are just coming off of or still hovering on that materialistic plane and thus fall terribly short of renouncing communalism. Let alone the numerous other isms that can stop a spiritualist's progress. You could apply the same analogy of the 3 babies/3 islands that you have thought up to 3 hooligans/3 cities and throw in football(soccer) as religion you would get the same result. Hatfields/McCoy, etc... Describe the study of spirit and not misplaced communalism as religion and we can get a discussion going.
777, math IS. it is going on inside our computers/ machines regardless of our personal positions or concious conditions. surfer
How do you know it is going on inside our computers/machines when you are asleep? Prove that anything exists outside your own consciousness. Does the fact that everyone has the same realtive experience dictate reality? Or is reality independent on the confirmation by the experience of others? Who is to say?
GG, __________________________________________________ how about you tell me why what i just said is NOT proof? it's obviously logical. what problem do you have with the concept? __________________________________________________ Why is it not proof? Because it is not proof it is theory. I would think that even fanatical Christians (I maybe wrong) acknowledge the changes in body color, size and attributes in all species that take place over time. I can prove some of that within one lifetime that myself with a bottle of suntan lotion and some protein powder and a subscription to a gym. But a bubbling gaseous soup activated by a lightning strike to humans? I think you are stretching the word "Logic" a little to far on this one. Excuse me, I did not know there was an atheist's definition of the word.
From the current ridiculous generation, which spouts thoughts like these...... Aphie's initial comments that began this thread: "Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence? Does everything have a purpose or is it all just random bullshit?" To the sublime words of from our past: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" To the founding fathers, it was self-evident, that there was a Creator.
Stu, I donât think I inferred that you were pushing science as a religion. I did infer that acceptance of unproven scientific THEORIES is similar to the blind faith of the religious. As far as some relevant benchmarks and definitions of science; Life - matter / sentient â non sentient / mechanistic â non-mechanistic is about as clear as it gets. Is viewing the creation of life from the eyes of the child an example of one-sided viewing? Regarding âwhere it otherwise would not existâ. Again, on this point the life in the seminal efficient existed, so where is the question of creation? Life exists! Placing life in a body is not the creation of life. This understanding is fundamental for being able to discern life from matter. Catholics have trouble with this one too. I do not rely on the inability of scientists to prove that spirit/life exists. Science accepts the fact of there being the sentient and the non-sentient. The fact that science has a lower understanding of the non-mechanistic aspect of our experience simply means that âmodern western scienceâ and its PR machine have not got around to studying it (its much harder to profit from it). But that is changing. As the realms of mundane science get ever and ever more exhausted the natural focal shift to the realm of the non-sentient/spirit/life would be expected. Of course, science might have to drag some of its fundamentalists along, kicking and screaming, all the way. But hey, this inquisitiveness is what makes science so appealing. Isnât it? Or was it its close mindedness? I forgot. You asked for a definition, I gave you one by which its very definition is absolute. As a said to Daniel, you may choose to reject that definition. You may choose to reject that there is a difference between the sentient and the non-sentient. We all have our free will. I have read your definition of absolute and it gets reduced down to the relative of your senses being gratified. Or perhaps sometimes expanding out to the realm of your familyâs senses being gratified. I never knew that atheists held the extreme reduction of selfish communalism as the MOST relative absolute. (Corso would have a field day with atheism, billions of faiths and their Gods/senses) I agree with you that a scientific standard of examination of the Eastern spiritual concepts will bring a better understanding of what is life/spirit and its nature.