Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 302 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 8 of 11 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Topic Options
#35680 - 08/01/10 02:06 AM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: kallog]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Kallog wrote:
There's some evidence for the existence of dark matter. There's no evidence for the existence of God. So they're totally different.

In my opinion they are not TOTALLY different, in that neither are proven facts ... but, however, some people believe in the existence of one or the other (perhaps both!) There are many people who believe that they have proof of the existence of god- or of the supernatural and there are others who are sure that dark matter exists. The similarity between the two groups is their belief in the existence of one or the other, and at the moment neither of those groups can prove that this belief has a basis in fact. Belief is the key. Many of us believe something and we assume either that everyone believes the same way, or else that they should! Uncertainty seems to be something that upsets us.

Personally I believe that dark matter has a chance of being proven to exist, but as I do not believe in the existence of any form of god I personally do not think that his/her/its existence will ever be proved.

And on the point of the insignificance of humanity.... our discoveries are all we have to work with. Our science and our religion, as well as our art and our literature are all we have. Our culture is our own human construction and we see the vastness of space and the cosmos through our own human eyes and interpret the information with our own limited human intellects. So far there has been no Star Trek style higher intellect to help us... we seem to be on our own! And that is a very sobering thought indeed!

Top
.
#35681 - 08/01/10 03:55 AM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Ellis, existence--in all its forms--does not exist; it simply IS!

a growing number of people are beginning to realize: Totality--self-evident existence--and GOD are one and the same. Do you reject existence?

Now smarten up! If you refuse to pay your dues, we will cancel your membership!!!! smile laugh
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#35682 - 08/01/10 06:12 AM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Ellis]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Ellis

In my opinion they are not TOTALLY different, in that neither are proven facts


Then you have to lump them both in the same basket as the claims that the Earth is round, and that there are flying monkeys on the moon. Perhaps what you mean is they're both ideas that some people have about reality. That's such a broad category that it's nearly useless. You might as well rank ideas according to the letter of the alphabet their names start with.

A more useful distinction is whether they comply with scientific principles or not. Which claims are falsifiable? Which ones are the simplest explanation that fits observations? Which ones are based on information that can be verified by others?

This is what makes science different from religion. It's nothing to do with being right or wrong.


Quote:

same way, or else that they should! Uncertainty seems to be something that upsets us.

Uncertainty upsets religious people. Scientific people accept that it's inevitable so they don't believe in those things, just tentatively accept their possibility when evidence suggests they exist.


Quote:

discoveries are all we have to work with. Our science and our religion, as well as our art and our literature are all

There's still a fundamental difference between science and those other fields.

Science takes information from the outside world and forms an imaginary model of reality to fit that information.

Religion and art take information from their audience's existing ways of thinking and create imaginary realities to fit those ways of thinking.

Top
#35683 - 08/01/10 09:24 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: kallog]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Kallog: Let's appreciate the points we are all making. I trust it will help all of us communicate, better. Agreed? smile

Friends at SAGGO:

Beginning tomorrow, August 2, I will be visiting Newfoundland. I will be flying to and visiting (August 2-16) St. John's, NL, Mount Pearl and area,
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=St.+John's,+NL&oe=utf-8&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=St+John's,+NL&gl=ca&ei=Ta5VTOWeMcP58AbJtoi5BA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA

including, bellisland.net where I was born.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4435482937916771266#

http://www.bellisland.net

========================
Meanwhile, lots of fulminating is going on at:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=44735.228&webtag=ab-atheism

Anyone! You are welcome to join the tag-team-wrestling match at the site above, while I do my best to spread the word, in Canada (Our Community), east, about holism (somatology, psychology and pneumatology--body, mind and spirit--working as one) and holistic economics: http:///www.UFANA.org

Believe it, or not: Interest-free, but not dividend-free, banking is a Judaeo-Christian idea. Our friends in Islam (which means, accept what is, for the reality it is!) did not come along until after 622 years after the birth of Jesus--a Jew.

Interestingly, the mother of the closest relatives of my wife and me--our three grandchildren--is Farah, a Muslim. Our son, Turner, met her at York University, when he was a music student. She was studying maths. For years now, he (now 51) has been a pro in the Toronto music scene.

Farah is a beautiful person--in body, mind and spirit. Also, she is a Sufi (a meditative) Muslim, from Tehran, Iran. Her family escaped from Iran when, sadly, the fanatics took over. We metapray that things will improve.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#35684 - 08/01/10 11:47 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Kallog: Let's appreciate the points we are all making. I trust it will help all of us communicate, better. Agreed? smile

Aren't I?

Anyway, have good trip, or welcome back if there's no internet on that island :P

Top
#35685 - 08/02/10 12:30 AM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: kallog]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Kallog-- Would you define 'an imaginary model of reality' and explain how that imagination is different from the imagination that underlies the search for answers that fuels religious and artistic thought please?

There is nothing 'special' about the creative 'scientific' thought. The original impetus to go to the moon owes as much to romantic yearning as it does to hard science.... actually perhaps more, for example the yearning for space, for flight, for exploration that powers scientific discovery is based on altruism as well as fact. It's only much later that research grants become more important than ideas as motivation.

Similarly religious thought is motivated by the need for knowledge. Why do we exist (or as Rev would say-- why ARE we)? Where did it start? Is there a maker..or not etc; These are all creative exploratory thoughts and many people believe that that answers will be discovered one day as scientific facts. I just see a similarity in both groups.

And not only the religious believers are rattled by uncertainty, it unsettles and motivates many scientists too.

Top
#35846 - 08/25/10 04:38 AM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: kallog]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Kallog: Somehow you're associating God with good.

Why not, Kallog! My World Book Dictionary points out that our word 'goodbye' is a contraction of "God be with you."


Kallog: There's not many religions with good gods!

GOD is not a thing to be possessed; it is Being, or Existence to be experienced.


Kallog: Why not just call it "us collectively"? Otherwise there's no point having the word god because it's got too many meanings and nobody will understand each other.

IMO, there is little, if any, misunderstanding about that which is Good, Orderly and Desirable.

BTW, is it possible for anyone with a healthy mind to deny the reality of being, or existence?
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#35874 - 08/29/10 08:58 AM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
What's reality, being and existance got to do with a good god?

I think your ideas have merged into something so dilute they have no more meaning than common sense. You could just take God out of the equation and everything else would remain the same.

Top
#36662 - 11/21/10 11:46 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
THE LATEST VIDEO FROM FREEDOM COVE--Philosophy, Science and Art can produce the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDqbfiejLdM

Tourists Interested is a Visit to FREEDOM COVE, Tofino, BC? It need not be all that expensive.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36663 - 11/22/10 02:49 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Since this thread has been resuscitated, I'll slip one question in.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
BTW, is it possible for anyone with a healthy mind to deny the reality of being, or existence?


Would you consider solipsism to be a sign of an unhealthy mind, or just a slightly off-track interpretation of infinite reality?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36667 - 11/22/10 04:47 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Since this thread has been resuscitated, I'll slip one question in....

Would you consider solipsism to be a sign of an unhealthy mind, or just a slightly off-track interpretation of infinite reality?
Interesting question. Keeping all our options open--something I always try to do--we need to talk about it.

Perhaps, like the denial of infinite reality or existence, it is a mild form of insanity. I think that solipsism--the theory that the self is the only object of real knowledge; that nothing but self exists--is more of a pneumatological (self-image psychology) problem than a psychological one.

Now, please remind me of your theological position and answer and/or discuss my question:

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
BTW, is it possible for anyone with a healthy mind to deny the reality of being, or existence?
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36668 - 11/22/10 06:36 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Now, please remind me of your theological position and answer and/or discuss my question:

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
BTW, is it possible for anyone with a healthy mind to deny the reality of being, or existence?


I am not avoiding your question about my theological position, but it would take time to do it justice, and other needs are currently pressing.

It is difficult to imagine how anyone with a "healthy mind" could seriously deny the reality of being, or existence, since the person doing the denying would exist. Furthermore, after many years of work with people with mental health problems, I can say that I never met anyone with such problems who actually denied existence. Plenty whose ideas of reality differed from those of most of us; but that raises the question as to whose reality is the more valid. Is it a case of majority vote?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36670 - 11/22/10 07:06 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: kallog
What's reality, being and existance got to do with a good god?
You miss my point, completely.

Ever since I matured theologically--and that was decades ago--I have stopped thinking of "a" god, or "the" god, as if "he" is a male and a supernatural being, like a supreme Santa, one who takes up space and time within being and reality. GOD, for me encompasses total reality, which, using astronomy, astrophysics and all the sciences we are just beginning to explore.

BTW, even most theists--certainly not the sophisticated ones--who speak and write about God, do not think of him as a limited and human-like being, or one who looks like us.

One problem we have in theology is this: We keep using the kind of English that makes it appear that God is a person like us--one with all our bodily trappings. Such a 'god' is such an easy target for atheists.

As a unitheist, when I write the divine name I do not use 'god'or 'God', unless I am quoting someone. I make it clear what I am thinking, by the way I write it. I use two acronyms: G0D and/or GOD. Sometimes I will use both.

When I speak I always make it clear that I am not talking about 'a' god who is 'a' being. GOD/G0D is Being!

You say,"I think your ideas have merged into something so dilute they have no more meaning than common sense."


You are welcome to your opinion, as am I to mine. The only problem I have with common sense is this: ironically, it is not commonly used by many people. laugh

You say, "You (we) could just take God out of the equation and everything else would remain the same."


Yes, if you are you an atheist, you probably do so. So, practically speaking, do many theists, simply because they think of a human-like god they prefer avoid. And I do not blame anyone for making this mistake. All atheists and probably most theists have in mind a Richard Dawkins' definition of 'god' as a supernatural being (See page 31 of his book The GOD Delusion).

As a unitheist, I think of Divine Being as that which encompasses all that IS--from 0 to infinity.

G0D is like the 0 in mathematics. Does G0D-like common sense--the useful kind, that is--tell us that 0 makes no difference to mathematics and its use in calculating the nature and function of reality is of no value.

Similarly, I like to use the acronym GOD. Here, the O is the symbol of infinity and eternity. Again, using GOD-like common sense, would anyone say that O has nothing to do with reality or existence?

Nietzsche--the son of a Lutheran minister--was one of the first modern philosophers to write "God is dead". If he were a member of this forum, today, here is what I would tell him:

With due respect sir, the 'God' you write about never really lived. What is dead is the old theology and the old dying religions that came out of it. Let us give it a decent funeral. Then we can move on to a New Theology, one which sees GOD as spirit-based agape-love sown like a seed (G0D) in hearts of all people willing to have it there and to live by that which is Good, Orderly and Desirable and in moral and ethical service of each other.




Edited by Revlgking (11/22/10 07:39 PM)
Edit Reason: Always a good idea!
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36679 - 11/23/10 01:08 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: kallog
What's reality, being and existance got to do with a good god?
You miss my point, completely.

Ever since I matured theologically--and that was decades ago--I have stopped thinking of "a" god, or "the" god, as
if "he" is a male and a supernatural being, like a supreme


Hello again. I can't quite remember what we were talking about but what you say reminds me of how I used to think of God. Everywhere all the time. Of course the 'he' part is just a convenience, perhaps because it's usually rude to use 'it'.

I still don't see the point in your everywhere GOD. Why have it? Why is it connected with people any more than it's connected with rocks and atoms?

Have another go explaining please

Top
#36684 - 11/23/10 02:26 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: kallog]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Hi, kallog, have you been on holiday?

Quote:
I still don't see the point in your everywhere GOD. Why have it? Why is it connected with people any more than it's connected with rocks and atoms?


Not trying to answer for Rev, but, surely, the whole point of the GOD concept he seems to espouse is that it is connected with everything; people, rocks, atoms and the lot. Perhaps the stumbling block is the use of "GOD". If I recall correctly you once suggested that I use "ugbugu" instead of infinity, to avoid confusing people who had preconceptions about the meaning of infinity. We could be looking at another "ugbugu" situation here.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36691 - 11/24/10 05:46 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
kallog and Bill: Thanks for the invitation to have a dialogue, Kallog (poetic, eh?). And Bill, thanks for your comment. You got it! IMO, "G0D" is in the ITS, including atoms and atomic particles. I have no problem saying that "GOD" is IT--immediate and transcendent truth in all that is, including us. I will be saying more on this.

Meanwhile, it would be nice to know, theologically speaking, your story--agnostic/atheist/theist? whatever. If you prefer not to put it in your public profile, feel free to send me an e-mail. My e-mail is lindsaykin@gmail.com note that the 'g' is in the mail. smile my URL is www.lindsayking.ca

BTW, IMHO, the LHC will not find a god-particle. I would not be surprised if does find that at the core of all matter is ELOHIM--the Hebrew (see Genesis 1:1) for all the energy and power that one can imagine, and more. I call this energy and power G0D (at microcosmic level, the quantum level) and GOD (at the macro-cosmic level)



Edited by Revlgking (11/24/10 11:02 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36699 - 11/25/10 03:20 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Of course, just to confuse the issue, or explain things better, Elohim is plural. Perhaps this marks the transition from polytheism to monotheism. Which, it seems, they may have picked from Amenhotep IV (I think it was IV)while they were in Egypt.

What goes around, comes around. :P
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36703 - 11/25/10 09:13 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Of course, just to confuse the issue, or explain things better, Elohim is plural.
Bill, the Hebrew alphabet has no capitals. Therefore, to create proper nouns Hebrew writers use a special type of Hebrew called "majestic plurals".

"... why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic plurals. The meaning of the plural suffix in the majestic plural is not that there is more than one of the noun, but that the noun is "great, absolute, or majestic".

http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm
=======================================
BTW, I can accept that there are no archaeological proofs that the Bible stories in the book of Exodus, and in other books of the Bible, are historically true. At the same time, like in many historical novels, I can accept that there are basic truths--life-lessons, so to speak--which can help us understand who we are, why we believe what we do believe and they can help us to be better people.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#36891 - 12/25/10 11:55 PM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: samwik]
Kyra M Offline
Member

Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 91
Good point, Samwik, and thanks Rev too. Kalog I can see where you are coming from. I haven't been on here for some time but it's great to see my theory being discussed and questioned.
My ideas are all supposition of course, one thing I am fairly sure of is Threadism - the connection of all things - especially strong in the same (generic) group ie flock of birds, colony of ants or bees.

Top
#36892 - 12/26/10 12:11 AM Re: The Concept of the Whole and Threadism [Re: Revlgking]
Kyra M Offline
Member

Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 91
Thanks Samwik, good point, and thanks too, Rev. Kallog I can see where you are coming from. I haven't been on here for some time and my ideas are all supposition of course, so it's great to see my theory being discussed and questioned.

Top
Page 8 of 11 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.