[InfiniteNow]

You arrogant child. You posit that you will pray for me because I don't believe that a purple unicorn loves humans as special? I advise that pray for yourself to wake up and become part of a mature society, moving beyond this stone age set of fairy tales.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

The whole purpose of Science is to discover (as best we can) a NATURAL explanation for all the phenomena we observe. Not just some explanation or any explanation, but a NATURAL explanation, that is fully compatible with other known and trusted explanations.

God is not a natural phenomenon. Yeah, that's going to provoke some ire, but it's true. God is by definition (it says here in the scripture) "above" natural laws, "apart from" natural laws, not subject to natural laws. So, God cannot be called upon as a NATURAL explanation for anything. As soon as you try, it isn't Science -- it's just religion.

Rather than assume that God has been around forever, why not assume the Cosmos has been around forever? It's easier and simpler, makes more sense, and is no more far fetched. The Cosmos (which may have contained countless universes like ours) doesn't have to be all-knowing, all-seeing, or even alive in any sense of the word. So, it requires fewer assumptions.

Says whose scripture and what makes this scripture the authority on God? I am asking that we stop limiting discussions of God to the God of Abraham, unless we clarify by God we mean the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is one of many concepts of God.

Let us assume for a moment that, there is a God, and then attempt to know something of this God through science. This is abstract thinking. It means theoretical thinking. In theory if there were a God what would be the properties of this God? As best as we can answer this today, the properties of this God would be atomic particles, ordered by forces we can know of through scientific study.

As Cicero said, we study what we can study (nature) and what we learn through a study of nature, infer something about this unknown God. Infer is to conclude by reasoning something known or assumed.

Where we get into trouble is when we are not prepared for abstract thinking, and therefore understanding everything concretely. That is very materialistic; thinking everything has a material existence. We speak of atomic parts as though there were things made of matter that move around, although we can not see them. We do experiements and observe something, and then infer from that observation that these things, we can not see, exist. This is as practical as assume the Greek Gods and Goddess actually exist. Understand, people could explain things with these Gods, as we now explain them with atomic particles, and we should not be too sure of these explanations of gods and atomic particle particles. The gods and atomic particles give us a language and frame work for our thinking, but all are abstract thinking not tangible reality that we direct experience.

So, abstractly, let us assume there is a God, and then see what can learn about this theoretical explanation of creation and our existence. Than we can advance to more productive arguments that actually do end ignorance and superstition.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

You arrogant child. You posit that you will pray for me because I don't believe that a purple unicorn loves humans as special? I advise that pray for yourself to wake up and become part of a mature society, moving beyond this stone age set of fairy tales.

The realm of religion, which can be translated as “linking back to a source of all” is a very vast in scope. Simply dismissing all religions as “purple unicorns” is very narrow view. Buddhism for instance is more of a pure disciple of the mind. At the core of most religion it is a discipline of the mind. Myth that your alluding to as just a nonsensical stories are occasionally rooted deeply in the psyche of a culture giving the people a collective story to draw purpose and meaning. Remember these types of stories predate history and science and still influence us in more ways than you can imagine. You have to ask yourself what is your purpose ? What resides at the center of your life that gets you out of bed in the morning ? Family ? Career ? helping some one else that depends on you?

Deeply religious people are not all idiots, anymore than scientist or all the devils handmaidens. I study all religions, the myths, and have discovered a gold mine of the collective conscious, understanding them is just like deciphering a dream, it gives clues to the source of creation that in many times are more telling than science, you just need to read between the lines.

[Thunderbird]

"gives clues to the source of creation that in many times are more telling than science, you just need to read between the lines."

Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind.

As early as the 1940’s, the pioneering physicist Niels Bohr sensed this congruence between modern science and what he called “Eastern mysticism.” As he investigated atomic physics and searched for a unified field of reality, he often used the Buddha and Lao Tzu in his discussions on physics in his classes. He made up his own coat of arms with the yin/yang symbol on it. The American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer also saw in Buddhism a scientific parallel to the puzzling riddles of modern physics; his cutting-edge discoveries seemed to echo the enigmatic wisdom of the ancient sage. Wrote Oppeheimer:

If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron's position changes with time, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no.' The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man's self after his death; but they are not familiar answers for the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth-century science.

In the 1970s, in The Tao Of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Fritjof Capra expanded on some of Bohr’s and Oppenheimer's tentative impressions. He argued that modern science and Eastern mysticism offer parallel insights into the ultimate nature of reality. But, beyond this, Capra suggested that the profound harmony between these concepts as expressed in systems language and the corresponding ideas of Eastern mysticism was impressive evidence for a remarkable claim: That mystical philosophy offers the most consistent background to our modern scientific theories.

http://http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/...ismScience.htm

[InfiniteNow]

Nutronjon - You are still approaching this assuming that your imaginary friend is better than someone else's imaginary friend. That's just silly.


Thunderbird - I appreciate that there are inherent differences in religions of various types, but they are still all social manipulation. I'm arguing for critical thinking and the release of fairy tales written before we understood that the earth was spherical. Either way, this thread is about god, whatever you choose to call it, not religion itself.

No between line reading required.


"Well, if you squint, and turn your head 90 degrees, you can kind of see a boob."


There's a plain difference between the numinous and the mystical.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Nutronjon - You are still approaching this assuming that your imaginary friend is better than someone else's imaginary friend. That's just silly.


Thunderbird - I appreciate that there are inherent differences in religions of various types, but they are still all social manipulation. I'm arguing for critical thinking and the release of fairy tales written before we understood that the earth was spherical. Either way, this thread is about god, whatever you choose to call it, not religion itself.

No between line reading required.


"Well, if you squint, and turn your head 90 degrees, you can kind of see a boob."


There's a plain difference between the numinous and the mystical.

My gosh, I find the lack of thinking your replies astounding. I thought you were a good thinker, and am concluding you don't actual think, but just have knee jerk reactions. You still don't get the difference between abstract thinking and concrete thinking. This is pathetic, because evidently you are incapable of thinking outside of the box, in which your mind is trapped.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

My gosh, I find the lack of thinking your replies astounding. I thought you were a good thinker, and am concluding you don't actual think, but just have knee jerk reactions. You still don't get the difference between abstract thinking and concrete thinking. This is pathetic, because evidently you are incapable of thinking outside of the box, in which your mind is trapped.

How about instead of attacking me personally with ad homs you attempt to show where my logic is flawed?


I welcome a challenge to my position, and I'm confident I will be able to successful defend it. Bring it on.

[Chacmool]

Originally Posted by wddycus

What have you got to lose in believing in God if you are wrong you really have not lost a thing but if I am right you have gain eternity.

Surely it's more noble to be a good person because it's the right thing to do than to pretend you believe in God because you're afraid of going to hell...

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

My gosh, I find the lack of thinking your replies astounding. I thought you were a good thinker, and am concluding you don't actual think, but just have knee jerk reactions. You still don't get the difference between abstract thinking and concrete thinking. This is pathetic, because evidently you are incapable of thinking outside of the box, in which your mind is trapped.

Okay, guys --
I am a MODERATOR.
Whatever you're doing, STOP.
Whatever you're thinking, DON'T.

I happen to know that InfiniteNow is adept at both abstract and concrete thinking. And you happen to be edging way too close to the "insulting and rude" line.

More to the point, "ASSUMING" is not critical to either abstract or concrete thinking. In fact, careless assuming undermines both.

Example:
"Let's assume that 1+1=3 -- now what can we deduce about the validity of the Binomial Distribution as applied to the flipping of weighted coins?"

Nothing can be deduced at all. Assuming an irrational statement ("1+1=3") destroys any hope at all of having a meaningful conversation.

You cannot criticize InfiniteNow for being "unable to tell the difference betwen abstract and concrete thinking" until you first demonstrate the rationality of assuming there is a god.

And what kind of god? What makes a god? Does a god have to be omnipotent to be a god? If a god isn't all-powerful, is it still a god?

Isn't it amazing that the invisible and the non-existent look so much alike?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

How about instead of attacking me personally with ad homs you attempt to show where my logic is flawed?


I welcome a challenge to my position, and I'm confident I will be able to successful defend it. Bring it on.

I find what you saying in response to what I write a personal attack.

You are still approaching this assuming that your imaginary friend is better than someone else's imaginary friend. That's just silly.

The term friend, implies human qualities and I have never said God has human qualities. In fact I repeatedly argue against a God with human qualities, who can rule by whim, depending on if he is pleased or not. Now your turn to defend your comment.