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 Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 84 of 120 1 2 82 83 84 85 86 119 120
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
On the principle that the last shall be first, I'll start with B.G. = Bhagavad Gita.

If, by the universe, Russell meant our finite Universe, then I would say he has to have been right. On the other hand, if he was talking about an infinite universe (cosmos?) one would have to ask how he could possibly have known.

IMO, infinity is not the same as anything.

God is generally not considered to be an appropriate subject for scientific study, so scientists tend not to include God in their animadversions. Scientists talk of things being infinitely large, small, curved, fast etc. which suggests that there is a place for infinity in scientific thought. Personally, I think that QM opens up a whole new perspective on the scientific study of infinity, but I suspect that is an unpopular thought in scientific circles.

The idea of “hiding” infinity betrays a fanciful use of language which served little purpose other than to maintain a link with TT’s terminology.


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Maybe 'infinity' has the same degree of absolute definitive accuracy as does 'God'? Can its existence be proved beyond doubt? Or does the answer vary according to the respondent?

And, where has TT suddenly re-emerged from? I had hoped he/she was possibly exploring infinity extensively.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
All feelings are good feelings.


Would you consider that to be something you know, or something you believe?

Both.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
The reality is that the infinite is never hidden


It may be true that the infinite never hides itself, but if an individual, consciously or unconsciously, hides infinity, then for that person, it is hidden. If millions of individuals do that, then it is hidden for all of them. This situation could even pertain for the majority of people. I suspect that the B.G. is pointing to something like that, rather than to any intrinsic "hiddenness" in the nature of infinity.

It (the Gita) points to the intrinsic nature of the infinite within everything and the reason everything exists.
In the conversation that ensues between Arjuna and Krishna, Krishna points out that there is only God as he dances and sings "God, God, everywhere is God", while Arjuna stresses over the idea that his friends and family are about to destroy each other.
The conversation reveals the nature of ignorance.
Ignoring that which is, and always will be.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
... if an individual, consciously or unconsciously, hides infinity, then for that person, it is hidden. If millions of individuals do that, then it is hidden for all of them.
Questions about the process of "hiding infinity":

In your opinion, if one decides to consciously "hide infinity", what steps does one take in the act of doing so?

The infinite cannot be hidden. It is all that is, was or will be. Reality is multidimensional. The human consciousness is connected to itself in all alternate realities. Time and space is a concept for linear comprehension but in reality all dimensions exist in the NOW. That in effect, can be experienced. The past can be changed as easily as the present and the future can be created in more than one possible form and function. It is only the narrowing of awareness into the ignoring of the infinite that the mind accepts the limited reality of the ego in separation from all that is.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Is infinity a suitable phenomenon for scientific research?

suitable? yes, for those wishing to understand the nature of the relative.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Is infinity the same as space?

No, not in the sense that it is called the infinite or used in the Gita. Space exists because of the infinite One.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I have an article from a recent issue of the National Post, Canada, which reported that Bertrand Russell said that the amount of available knowledge in the universe is limited. In your opinion, Was he right?

No. Without the experience of having touched the infinite, one ponders finite ideals. Even the thought of infinity, pales in comparison to the reality of the Infinite
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

B.G. stands for ...?
Bhagavad Gita
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Maybe 'infinity' has the same degree of absolute definitive accuracy as does 'God'? Can its existence be proved beyond doubt? Or does the answer vary according to the respondent?


God is all—a personal God, a universal God, and that which is beyond. Start from a personal God, go to the God within, then to the universal God, and finally beyond.

To love beloved God in any object is knowledge, yet to understand God in the heart is real Truth. It is a vain attempt to search for God. Who can there be more wonderful than myself—that is the Self of all.

Those who crave to see God are foolish. When I see him smiling through the face of man and child, and highest of all in myself, I am born a million times, and die a million times, too.

No God is greater than thyself. - "From The Essence of Spiritual Life"
By Swami Rama 1925 - 1996

Language is comprehensive to understanding and experience. No definition of God or the infinite can contain either. Language when used by those who experience God or the infinite does not convey the meaning or understanding to one who does not know or experience. However the human nervous system is infinitely flexible, and it is connected to all humanity thru the infinite/God. One either uses that connection or does not. An individual who is not conscious of something but instead idealizes something does not connect with reality but instead the projection within the ideal.
It would be like meeting someone and making an assumption about their language, interests, knowledge and relationship with reality. You can speak all you want to your experience but the other person will not connect with your words until you become familiar with each other and find common ground to communicate.

The infinite accommodates everyone because it is unconditional love. Leaving one with their ideals, just as the Earth left humanity imagining that it was flat. Until the reality was experienced that it was other than flat one did not know their earth.
Originally Posted By: Ellis

And, where has TT suddenly re-emerged from? I had hoped he/she was possibly exploring infinity extensively.

Always... which does not preclude someones presence from revealing itself.

You, however can continue to ignore that which is, if it does not meet your expectations or belief. Such is the nature of choice and free will.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
27,000 hits in 5 days since I posted the numbers and only 3 of the members posted other than myself.
Still not drawing new blood into the pool of personal opinion?


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
At least the thread title grabs attention.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: redewenur
At least the thread title grabs attention.

That I guess is an enigma as well. If we revisit the first post, it begins with:
Quote:
Not much room for naming a real title that makes sense.


One can only imagine why so many come to hit this topic, and turn away from it.

One could say the Rev. Loves to take credit for a venue that draws a lot of attention but doesn't necessarily hold it. Evidently he didn't think the title was sensible, according to his own post.
But he'll take the glory anyway.. for what ever reason.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
My title was sensible enough. I was annoyed simply because there wasn't enough room to finish the sentence I had in mind. Here is the title I wanted

Philosophy of Religions--all religions, at least all the major ones, and people who wish to debunk the claims of all religions.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Perhaps you could have squashed it into--- Religions?- Yes or No?

After all you like to discuss all religions not just major ones, as I like to discuss the much simpler philosophy of no religions major, or minor. And it WAS a very long title indeed even if it was very sensible.

Rev- On a personal note--- Did you have a white Christmas? We were warm and slightly steamy here!

Last edited by Ellis; 12/30/11 06:24 AM. Reason: Discus religion-no
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Never use 4 words where 22 will do! smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: TT
Both.


I guess that's an ability that comes with being a genius. I wonder what "Bill Ockham" would have made of that!


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Here is the title I wanted

Philosophy of Religions--all religions, at least all the major ones, and people who wish to debunk the claims of all religions.

You wanted to discuss the people who wish to tear down the claims of religion, as well as all claims made by religionists and non religionists? Why would you want to do that?
Do you believe people will debunk/(counter with ones own belief), all claims, or just the ones they find are contrary to their own beliefs?

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
Both.


I guess that's an ability that comes with being a genius. I wonder what "Bill Ockham" would have made of that!
From Wiki:
William of Ockham believed “only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.” Ockham's theism was based solely on private revelation and faith (he supported some sort of Non-overlapping magisteria). He believed that only science was a matter of discovery and saw God as the only ontological necessity.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Perhaps you could have squashed it into--- Religions?- Yes or No?
Or how about: All religions. Yes? No? Why not? And why? Let's talk!

Quote:
Rev--On a personal note--Did you have a white Christmas? We were warm and slightly steamy here!
We had a whisp of white, and not too cold--exactly as my pneuma ordered smile It was whiter just to the north of us, where they need it for skiing. Since Sunday we have had 3 inches of the white stuff, which looks good. Temperatures are well above normal. We may have a green New Years Day. Good for the heavy traffic around the GTA--greater Toronto Area nearly 5,000,000.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
TT, I was not referring to the theological beliefs of the Franciscan in question, but rather to the words attributed to him: “entia praeter necessitate multiplicanda non sunt”.

Claiming to know and to believe a single thing at the same time does seem to be multiplying your “entia” somewhat.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
TT, I was not referring to the theological beliefs of the Franciscan in question, but rather to the words attributed to him: “entia praeter necessitate multiplicanda non sunt”.

Claiming to know and to believe a single thing at the same time does seem to be multiplying your “entia” somewhat.

Claiming to know something or to believe at the same time does not make for something that is stable and unchanging.
When it comes to God, all experiences are but reflections of the infinite since the infinite cannot be contained in a thought feeling or action.
When the experiences are not recognized as experiences that are reflections, (of both personality and the absolute) then the personal experience is exemplified as THE experience, and the ego attempts to both repeat and identify the EXPERIENCE as God.
The underlying unified field which permeates all experiences, both stable and consistent, reveals the nature of reflection and the human condition of personal filtering. It also precedes the changing beliefs while stabilizing the known, in the process of knowing, as it is experienced in and thru the knower.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570

Originally Posted By: TT
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Would you consider that to be something you know, or something you believe?
Both


Originally Posted By: TT
Claiming to know something or to believe at the same time does not make for something that is stable and unchanging.



I rest my case!


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Not sure what your case is.
But assume you are resting in your own idea and belief of whatever that is.

If your case, is in point, that claims to understanding do not mean one knows what they speak of, I have been making that point to the Reverends ever changing designs on what he wishes to call God, in the fact that his experiences are with definitions and not the actual reality of God. At least that is the way he presents himself for all of the years I have been reading his postings.
All of his definitions originate with him and his beliefs, and his experiences of himself. Because they change with his beliefs, His God changes into relative patterns of thought and idealism based on his external world.
Its like saying the body rules the mind. That is what scientists used to believe and how doctors used to approach healing. Rearrange the outside and the cause is never addressed.
Experience often follows belief. Thoughts create experiences, and since thoughts and beliefs constantly change, one often follows their thoughts and beliefs in the idea that the relative is the foundation of the God experience.
The opposite is true however.
The relative follows belief, and God is the immortal Self which upholds the creative aspect of belief in experience.
Within all changing experiences and beliefs, is a stable unified field which does not change, as it permeates all realities within the changing system of beliefs and experiences that follow belief.

That! is tangible and is in itself resonant.
Consciousness recognizes consciousness, and it is beyond the judgments and limitations of the ego.

Without the anchor of the absolute/infinite in all changing beliefs and experience, Knowledge is based on illusion.
Reality changes, facts change with changing beliefs, and science changes as it is created thru those changing beliefs.
Knowledge evolves from ignorance to advancing ignorance, where the ultimate is never experienced but foreseen as inevitable, and usually finite.
Every culture and civilized society which glorifies itself eventually passes and the following looks down upon the past as limited, and without fullness of experience and understanding.

Knowing is not as knowledge, the knower is not mortal, and the process of knowing that which is known, is not a process of evolution but inherent in all relative aspects of the infinite.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: TT
Not sure what your case is


Could that be because you see in other's posts only what you choose to see?

Quote:
But assume you are resting in your own idea and belief of whatever that is


That's a rash assumption, do you have any real evidence?
Wait, though; if belief and knowledge can be synonymous for you, could it be that your assumptions automatically become knowledge?

Quote:
Within all changing experiences and beliefs, is a stable unified field which does not change, as it permeates all realities within the changing system of beliefs and experiences that follow belief.

That! is tangible and is in itself resonant.
Consciousness recognizes consciousness, and it is beyond the judgments and limitations of the ego.


If the first part of this quote is an expression of your belief, then it should be respected as such, but, interestingly, your final sentence negates that as a personal belief.

If, on the other hand, the provenance of the first statement is in a logical assessment of the possible nature of that unchanging “stable unified field”, then the final sentence is vacuous, because the ego is necessarily infinite.

Quote:
Without the anchor of the absolute/infinite in all changing beliefs and experience, Knowledge is based on illusion.


If knowledge is part of “the absolute/infinite”, then all change, and knowledge of that change, is illusion; so your argument, although it may be true, becomes tautologous.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
Not sure what your case is


Could that be because you see in other's posts only what you choose to see?

Interesting question.
Is one capable of seeing what they choose to see, and is what one sees inclusive to the experience of the potential within all that is, or exclusive to personal belief? How would you recognize one for the other?
If one can choose, is choice limited or infinite in possibility?
Can one know God or simply see what they want to see, and if one can know God could they recognize when someone is simply following a belief or immersed in a constant that is beyond individual belief but also within the belief system?
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
But assume you are resting in your own idea and belief of whatever that is


That's a rash assumption, do you have any real evidence?
Wait, though; if belief and knowledge can be synonymous for you, could it be that your assumptions automatically become knowledge?
Rash? I see it as a segue for the revival of your case, or to move it from rest to activity.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Within all changing experiences and beliefs, is a stable unified field which does not change, as it permeates all realities within the changing system of beliefs and experiences that follow belief.

That! is tangible and is in itself resonant.
Consciousness recognizes consciousness, and it is beyond the judgments and limitations of the ego.


If the first part of this quote is an expression of your belief, then it should be respected as such, but, interestingly, your final sentence negates that as a personal belief.
You begin to see grasshopper. However does that mean respect is now exchanged for something else? What may that be?
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If, on the other hand, the provenance of the first statement is in a logical assessment of the possible nature of that unchanging “stable unified field”, then the final sentence is vacuous, because the ego is necessarily infinite.
The ego in itself is a construct which emerges from the infinite consciousness and facilitates in the experience. It can play a role as master or servant. As the master one assumes the role of being secondary to creation, where one believes everything happens to ones self, rather than the obverse which is where everything emerges from ones Self.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Without the anchor of the absolute/infinite in all changing beliefs and experience, Knowledge is based on illusion.


If knowledge is part of “the absolute/infinite”, then all change, and knowledge of that change, is illusion; so your argument, although it may be true, becomes tautologous.
No. In this case knowledge is the difference between belief and reality. One changes and evolves where the other is the constant which supports changing experiences and knowledge of the constant.

The anchor keeps the knower in the process of knowing the known, stable and without the illusion that it itself, becomes what it experiences.

One then lives in the world but does not become of it.

This is knowledge of ones Self.

God does not leave its ascended status to lose itself in the dreams and fancies that are the manifestations of God. Therefore its opinions (if it had any) of itself do not change the way it feels about itself to become exalted or detached and downtrodden in judgment and belief. This happens when the ego creates illusions of reality and its relationship with the manifest.

The ego was created to facilitate the linear progression of time and space for individual experience, not to dictate time and space as the boundary of the human experience. The soul is not bound by the human experience any more than the human is bound to an idea of itself according to the clothes it wears. But that doesn't keep the ego from imagining it is the sum of its experience, or to idolize itself within a few decades as being worthy or not based on the individual/personal measure that is temporary.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570

Quote:
Is one capable of seeing what they choose to see


If your earlier comments about Rev have any relevance, the answer would seem to be “yes”.

BTW, in the above quote, your use of grammatical number is interesting; does it reflect your personal belief about the integration of the individual with the “whole”?

Quote:
is what one sees inclusive to the experience of the potential within all that is, or exclusive to personal belief?


If personal belief is to be divorced from the “experience of the potential within”, then you have answered your own question about the individual’s potential for selective observation.

Quote:
If one can choose, is choice limited or infinite in possibility?


Any limitation would necessarily be imposed by our 4-dimensional perception of reality. A lot depends on whether or not you regard the scope of choice as realisable within our finite perception or as a potential that might require some preternatural support for its realisation.

Quote:
Can one know God or simply see what they want to see, and if one can know God could they recognize when someone is simply following a belief or immersed in a constant that is beyond individual belief but also within the belief system?


Any attempt to answer this question without first undertaking a rigorous definition of the terms used would simply be to walk into potential mire of convoluted word games. For example, you would need to define:
a. God
b. knowledge of God
c. belief, as distinct from knowledge
d. what you mean by “a constant that is beyond individual belief”
e. how something “that is beyond individual belief” can be “within the belief system”.

The exigencies of family life prevent further contributions at this point, but I will try to respond to your other points later.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Bill S pointed out to TT-
---" you would need to define:"

TT does not like to define. It is his/her most annoying characteristic. In my opinion sensible debate is impossible without definition of terms.

I await with interest his/her reply to your request for definitions from a to e!

Page 84 of 120 1 2 82 83 84 85 86 119 120

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5