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 (), 213 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
Yesterday at 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 53 of 120 < 1 2 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#32107 - 09/22/09 12:19 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: exnihilo]
Kyra M Offline
Member

Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 91
Rev,
'God' as a computer to be programmed - brilliant!
Rev, you are doing great work - I'm sure all will be well for that family you helped. Well done.

ps to carry your analogy further, re: my Concept of the Whole and Threadism, the Internet is like our (Threadism) connection. But some have better servers than others and therefore (like yours) have better/faster connections!

Top
.
#32108 - 09/22/09 01:26 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: exnihilo]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
exnihilo, thanks. May I ask: what is your theology? And when I ask you this I am not asking you to agree with me.

Have you read that I call myself a unitheist? And that I use the acronyms G zero D and/or GOD--all that is good, orderly and desirable--when I write the divine name.

When you get time, you might want to check out www.about.com--the section on agnosticism. There I am surrounded by many atheists and agnostics who are strictly into physicalism. Most of them like to knock religion rather than use science--like Daniel Dennett in his latest book--try to understand the nature and function of healthy religion (spirituality). Yes, I agree that religion can be of the sick kind--the kind that divides people.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx...;replyToTsn=475
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#32109 - 09/22/09 02:24 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: entropic42]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: entropic42
Well i'm going to try to be respectful here, but I may slip up. I'm truly sorry if I offend anyone it's not my intention.
Your personal beliefs are welcome. As I have said often: Dialogging is about the sharing of ideas without any personal attacks. If you want to tell me that I am an arrogant S&*#@%^# use the personal message system.

You say:
Quote:
My philosophy on religions...is basically that they do more harm than good...
If you said "sick religion" and then gave us a true example or two, I could agree with you.

Quote:
"...religion is helpful to those who don't want to deal with the harsher parts of life.
"Harsher parts of life"? Have you ever read about the crucifixion of Jesus and others? And what happened to Christian martyrs in the early centuries? In many parts of the world it is still happening. The minister who baptized me lost his life, when his mission boat sank, in Newfoundland. My wife and I almost suffered the same fate in Labrador.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#32110 - 09/22/09 07:21 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Kyra M Offline
Member

Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 91
Rev,
'God' as a computer to be programmed - brilliant!
You are doing great work - I'm sure all will be well for that family you helped. Well done.

ps to carry your analogy further, re: my Concept of the Whole and Threadism, the Internet is like our (Threadism) connection. But some have better servers than others and therefore (like yours) have better/faster connections!

Kyra

Top
#32113 - 09/22/09 05:03 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: exnihilo]
exnihilo Offline
Member

Registered: 09/11/09
Posts: 48
Kyra__

Your comments are very insightful. I wonder if you know how much. See more addressed to Revigking.

Top
#32114 - 09/22/09 06:18 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
exnihilo Offline
Member

Registered: 09/11/09
Posts: 48
Revigking__

I relate to everything you say, and expanding on my previous comments may to some extent reveal my theogy. I refrain from discussing theology directly because it invites many of the things you fear of contentious verbiage. So I stick to a purposeful track that guides my intent. I wasn't sure how you might receive my previous response to you and now I decided to take it a step forward. I believe you will find it interesting.

My comments before made a statement about science because it is a target of mine. A personal one to be sure but grounded. There is a long history behind my efforts and I have contacts in the scientific community. I have been attempting to coax their inquiry into physical phenomena to a very different perspectice regarding energy. If one studies energy and the man-made structure imposed on it, it is obvious there isn't any idea what energy is. If there was an absolute frame of reference for energy much of the uncertainty and paradox throughout theory would dissapate. I believe that frame of reference exists and it is very much an essence of something unlike anything engineered by man. Energy is not "particles" or anything above that level, that is all manifested energy. But of what?

Suppose I suggested energy is whatever space is. What does that conjure up in your thoughts? In other words what is responsible for all that we can observe and all that we can't, resides in space. This is very key; it is also an absolute frame of reference for motion. That will put paid to the scientific inquiry of truth. It is there our common meeting ground rears up exposed and it will beg the question; what is behind that? It will be acknowledged that whatever drives many to seek truth in God and those who seek truth in the physical really stand together facing the "same" essence of creation. How can what I'm saying do all that? None of this is by accident, both disciplines of which we discuss are guided by the same thing. Clues abound which keep the scientist's moving toward a particular target. This target all along has been saying if you want to find me in the physical the door is opened wide for you to find me. That's enough for now. Trust me, the support for this is abundant. Hope this helps. Heb 6:18--Mat 13:14







Edited by exnihilo (09/22/09 06:34 PM)

Top
#32117 - 09/23/09 06:36 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: exnihilo]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: exnihilo
Revigking_

Your request for clarification of my comments means you must have peered a litle deep into the content. I appreciate that.

Truth is elusive no matter the track followed, and science and religion are at a standstill in their engagement with each other. If there is any final truth in what both are pursuing than by necessity it must be an absolute truth. Time will prove one or the other is right, thus one must already possess absolutes. Both sides argue aritrariness in the other which gets nowhere. The uncertainty both sides experience and attribute to the other can be resolved at a coomon understanding.

Sir, nature is beguiling but it is benevolent. It is coaxing both sides on a particular path whether they know it not, and one or the other is going to have to acquiesce to the other. There is a lot of uncertainty in theoretical physics and the main reason is it is not even known what energy is. It is known to exist by its manifestation but it is reduced to fewer and fewer parts until there are only a few parts, and there may be just one part. Science is approaching the point of encountering that part and it isn't anything like the parts they have managed to construct and label thus far. I am prepared to say there is indeed only one part and it is responsible for everything we experience, and it can be proven with the tools of science, namely math. But that does not mean there is no God that engenders a religious pursuit purposefully, because science is going to discover, and what they are going to confirm, is that energy is an "essence" of something. At that point science will have to acknowledge that existence is greater than ourselves and not the sterile construction that has been manufactured. I suggest science is going to find themselves, genericlly speaking, exactly where religion is. That is the common meeting ground.

This is a little different rendering of what I have said. I hope it helps you out. There is so much more to it, I wish this forum could handle it.



Ex, my (delayed) reply is almost rendered moot by your most recent post, but I'll include it here below anyway:
===

I very much like the way you put this quoted above. I'd suggest a different take on some of your assumptions.

You say, "...science and religion are at a standstill in their engagement with each other," but I think both science and religion continue progressing--both individually--and within their relationship with each other. Heck, even the Pope acknowledges evolution theory as a valid way of understanding the creativity of Creation.

When you say, "I suggest science is going to find themselves, genericlly speaking, exactly where religion is," it sounds as if you place religion in an fixed, unyielding place; somewhere science must "find."

Earlier you said, "Time will prove one or the other is right, thus one must already possess absolutes."
I like to suggest the possibility that both are right and that the absolutes are the same for each; it's just that we don't fully understand either yet--it's hard to see from different perspectives that the absolutes are the same.
===

...and please don't confuse science (the evolutionary, newtonian, atomic, QED, relativistic, thermodynamic, or whatever sort of model/system) with reality--science is only a tool to model reality; and similarly don't confuse religion (the various mainstream, or whatever sort of system) with reality--religion only reflects reality. As with science, religion seeks to provide a way for us to better see, understand, and model the higher dimensionality that manifests as reality; but neither should be confused with the actual reality of the Creation.

...or words to that effect. I might need to restate that last paragraph; not sure if it conveys my intent--so I'll stop--but I like your last post.
Yes, space is the key we don't understand; ...and what about spin too!
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#32130 - 09/23/09 08:54 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: samwik]
exnihilo Offline
Member

Registered: 09/11/09
Posts: 48
I too believe evolution "might" be viable and may be validated, but surely the Pope's accession is guided by the Church's original capitulation to the big bang, suggesting a beginning iniated by God. If space is our source of energy it changes what can be said about Einstein's general theory of relativity and places the bang in jeopardy. Then what?

Religion has already "discovered" the reason for existing, and by faith accept is as a God of spiritual nature. When science "rediscovers" space as the source of existence solely as an "essence" of "something", an ultimate finding, it will be forced to consider the spiritual. It will be at a crossroads of belief; is that essence of something spiritual or physical? There can only be one conclusion and it becomes a confluence of religion and science. This should partially allay your concerns about absolutes.

I have absolutely no confusion about the realities of science and religion.

Just your last sentence might need modification.

Thanks for your very lucid comments.

PS. Spin is a characteristic feature of a particle intrinsic to the mechanism behind its emergence. It is sustained by the manner in which it interacts with itself (space) as an accretion of space, and the exchange of energy taking place to sustain its motion, both linearly and at restmass. In the end it is the true reality of motion that will put paid to the fianl understanding of particle theory, clearing up the myriad accumulation of paradox and uncertrainty riddled throughout physics.


Edited by exnihilo (09/23/09 09:08 PM)

Top
#32585 - 11/08/09 11:58 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: exnihilo]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Kyra, Sam, Exnihilo:

Because I have been heavily involved in other things, this is a belated response to the excellent posts of all of you--so much useful information.

One gentle criticism: Keep your paragraphs short. Mouth-size bites, well-chewed, are easier to digest. Be sure and use headlines. They can help us pay attentions to the main points you wish to make.

I am sure that you know that one of my goals is the unification of moral philosophy (including religion), science and the arts. Nameste!



Edited by Revlgking (11/08/09 11:59 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#32592 - 11/09/09 09:50 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Metalneck
Unregistered



The idea that sleeping souls made of dark matter and existing in the sleep dimension waiting for the attraction of newly bonded DNA to become the next host may not be so crazy! The possibility is not disproved by science as far as I am aware...and it may offer comfort to those that have a problem with the more outlandish claims of established religions.
The right to the possibility of eternal life should belong to all of us, not just the whacky fixed believers.
Bereavement can be filled with hope that the new life that the soul facilitates will be a happy one.(No fixed penalties or sneaky clauses built into the agreement)That's a religion for you!
The reason for the existance of live as we know it is to enhance the self awarenesss of the universe. Consciousness is everything. There, Sorted!

Top
#32605 - 11/11/09 05:05 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: exnihilo]
James S Saint Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 6
Originally Posted By: exnihilo
Spin is a characteristic feature of a particle intrinsic to the mechanism behind its emergence. It is sustained by the manner in which it interacts with itself (space) as an accretion of space, and the exchange of energy taking place to sustain its motion, both linearly and at restmass. In the end it is the true reality of motion that will put paid to the fianl understanding of particle theory, clearing up the myriad accumulation of paradox and uncertrainty riddled throughout physics.

From that bit of enlightenment, I can tell that you would have little complaint of religion if you came to get your definitions straight and then came to understand it. cool

Top
#32610 - 11/12/09 04:31 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: James S Saint]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Metalneck--

I must say I like the way you are thinking. If you believe you will live for ever-- you will. Who can prove you won't?

It is precisely this independence of thought that the hierarchy of the various religions are scared of. They set the exam papers for the afterlife and in no way appreciate others independently accessing privileges which should only come to adherents to rules of conduct, lifestyles and beliefs.

Personally I think that when you're dead that's it! But there is no reason why I should not imagine, and believe in, an afterlife of pleasure and ease floating among the stars and planets if I wish. Sounds nice doesn't it, but alas, I just made it up!

Top
#32611 - 11/12/09 06:08 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Ellis, take note of this conversation I had in www.wondercafe.ca :

Arminius, you write: "Every one of us is a unique individual, and this is what isolates us. But every one of us is also a unique manifestation of the same godly totality, and this is what unites us!"


I agree: Are you aware of theology of Leibniz and Newton? They were great scientists who were co-inventors of calculus.

MATHS, PROPERTIES AND RELATIONSHIPS

Interestingly, calculus is a method of calculating properties and relationships. It begins with the assumption that there is a simple line. Call it L. Then we are free to select a point on that line. Call that point O. That point, on its own, is assumed to have no dimensions, yet.

As I said in my last post: Mathematicians call this point the origin. [The O in GOD, perhaps?] From this point of origin we are free to move to the right, or to the left, in a positive, or a negative direction. From this simple point of origin, the possibilities, in all directions, are without limit.

This, for me, is a parable of life.

I like to think of the line, L, as a metaphor for agape/love processing in an Orderly fashion from the point of Origin--the O in GOD.

Ellis, take note: Keep in mind that will can also proceed in a negative direction, which is a metaphor for sin--the freedom not to will good.

As I have said elsewhere, check out what Jesus says about the unforgivable sin in Mark 3:28-30. We are free to choose life, or death. If we do not ask for life it will not be forced on us. We get what we choose. In this sense we have a god-like power.


But why would anyone choose death?

When I read about the nature and function of mathematics--the discipline used by science to find that which is true in nature and the laws by which our universe operates--I am not surprised that the intellectual giants like Sir Isaac Newton and Baron Von Leibniz--independent of one another, took the ideas of Archimedes and invented what we now call calculus--were also deeply spiritual men.

Furthermore, I am not surprised to find that they both had a theology far removed from the narrow orthodoxies of their day. IMO they were unitheists/panentheists. For details check out:

http://www.isaac-newton.org/pdf/Snobelen%20Isaac%20Newton%20Encyclopedia...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-ethics/#1

==================================
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#32612 - 11/12/09 06:25 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
"But there is no reason why I should not imagine, and believe in, an afterlife of pleasure and ease floating among the stars and planets if I wish. Sounds nice doesn't it, but alas, I just made it up!" Ellis says.

What's the difference between imagining, dreaming of and believing in possibilities, and making them up? Isn't that what artists and inventors all do? They imagine things, dream about them, they make them up, and then make them.

Sometimes what they imagine is irrational and they do not evolve into anything worthwhile. Well and good! Sometimes they turn out even better than they imagined. Which is very good!!!
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#32618 - 11/12/09 04:49 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
"It is precisely this independence of thought that the hierarchy of the various religions are scared of." Ellis.

Ellis think about this statement you just made. Ellis, I hear you say: All religionists are into thought control.

Ask yourself three questions: Is this true? Is it fair? and is it necessary? smile

It would be like me saying: Powerful and clever atheists--and there are a few--are nothing more than soul-less and clever animals with no morality other than their own will to power. They have a plan similar to the powerful and clever religionists. They seek to be the ruling force in society with the power to train their fellow animals to think like them.


I ask myself: Is this true of all atheists? Is it fair to all atheists? And, is it necessary that I start a fight with atheists? laugh

BTW, have you heard of the Harvard Professor of psychology, B.F. Skinner, a guru of behaviourism and an atheist?

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/skinner.html

He seriously advocated using the education system to brainwash all people to be "good". No doubt, I suspect, as a way of making the world "safe" for the American style of "democracy"--If you get my drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

Top
#32619 - 11/12/09 07:06 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
The last reply assumes equivalence of rhetorical status for religionists and atheists. Such equivalence is without foundation. Religionists argue that "X is the case" where X is their particular belief system, whereas atheists make no such claim, despite the nonsense about "an atheist's belief in God's non-existence", which some believers cling to in order to support their "equivalence".

As atheists see it, believers go even further into "the realms of fantasy" when they push for the "truth" of their particular system relative to that of other believers. Some fancy moves by the "all the same God-ists" are transparently ad hoc intellectualisms doomed to insignificance because they ignore the primary social/tribal function of religion for the less intellectual.



Top
#32623 - 11/13/09 02:57 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: eccles]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
eccles, I realize that it is difficult for us give up the counter-productive habit of generalizing. But don't you think we should try?

Surely, if we want a world where there is less and less violent conflict, it is wise not to keep on saying: All religionists want to have the power to run the world, and all atheists want the same power.

As an advocate peace and harmony, I am optimistic enough to hope, and feel, that given the opportunity, there more moderate democrats in the world than there are power mongering fanatics--religionists and atheists.


Edited by Revlgking (11/13/09 02:59 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#32626 - 11/13/09 06:52 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
Sorry, but I think it is you who do the generalizing about atheists. I am not speaking of communism, or other ideologies when I discuss atheism for these merely replace religion with another form of social control.

With or without religion, it is obviously preferable to seek "peace and harmony", but we are only conscious of this quest because such a goal is illusive. I argue that conflict is unfortunately a natural state for humanity and the divisiveness of organized religion (like other ideologies) re-ifies and even sanctifies such conflict. Those, such as Krishnamurti, who argue against organized religion/ideologies/nationalism do so from a cocoon of intellectualism and Western economic security.

Your "optimism" may be a more attractive modus vivendi to my "pessimism" but I suggest it only works in the homespun cocoon.

Top
#32629 - 11/13/09 06:38 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: eccles]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: eccles
Sorry, but I think it is you who do the generalizing about atheists. ...

My dear Eccles, please give me one clear example when I ever said, and wrote judgmentally: All atheists are, or do.................. (whatever).

If you can, I will gladly try to rephrase it to be as close as possible to generally-accepted loving truth. I will also apologize for sloppy communication. I abhor generalizations.

As a pneumatologist I seek to experience people as individual persons, as they are, and as they are now. I also accept that individuals have the right to be who they are, in the now. Cathexis-filled circumstances do alter cases.

By the way, the great modern psychologist, Calvin S. Hall tells us that Sigmund Freud, one of the founders of modern psychiatry, did not want to be a typical medical doctor--focusing strictly of diseases of the body.

In 1927, Freud admitted this, personally. He admitted that his original purpose was to understand "the riddles of nature, including human nature, and to contribute something to their solution." His study of medicine--particularly physiology and neurology--were but steps on the way to his real love, psychology. He was also a philosopher--a lover of knowledge(Hall)

In my opinion, confirmed by my reading of him, Freud, was on the verge of resurrecting pneumatology--a branch of philosophy. His protege, Carl Jung, a devout (uni?)theist--the one he hoped would succeed him--broke with Freud, because of Freud's atheism.

Later, Jung called for a psychology of the spirit (the pneuma) and completed the circle with his analytical psychology, filled with what I call pneumatological concepts.

Top
#32631 - 11/13/09 07:38 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
As I understand it, you believe that atheists deny an essential linkage of themselves with "the holy spirit" . This necessity you advocate is an a priori for "existence".

The problem with that view is that it is little different from "vitalism" which according to Maturana has no explanatory significance in biology even in his own "non-reductionist" system. Maturana is not averse to "holistic leanings" (indeed his system has been taken up by the ecology movement), but his view of "life" as "nested systems of autopoietic structures" requires no further explanatory elements than those found in Prigogine's work on the spontaneous complex structures naturally arising in dynamic chemical systems. The occurence of such structures are generally predicted from the mathematics of "chaos theory", but like the decay of radioactive elements, precise details cannot be forseen.

Thus, concepts like "the holy spirit" have no epistemological value and their ontological status would seem to rest on wish fulfilment.

Top
Page 53 of 120 < 1 2 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 119 120 >



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.