Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
Yeah I left a pretty cool metaphor but I can't find it, ehh oh well.
A couple pages ago I refreshed the page and left for a couple of seconds and they already filled up 3 pages, insane man.
Prove to you There's a God?
- Thread starter Marlboro47
- Start date
A couple pages ago I refreshed the page and left for a couple of seconds and they already filled up 3 pages, insane man.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I have heard that fact used to support the assertion that God must be a civil engineer.
cheers 'neer
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
Hilarious man, ahh I can never rep you. I have to "spread my rep".Well then fer grief's sake do a better job.This is like watching penguins play foosball.
cheers 'neer.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...chopra? Is that all you can provide in my absence? Wow, I am thoroughly disappointed.
Though I am not a fan of Chopra has helped many people overcome obstacles. It doesn't matter if he is scientific or not. Depth psychology does use scientific terms to describe the human condition, and it makes no bones about this. It's the integral part of it. Chopra being 'schooled' means that he is creator and created - the teacher and the taught. It seems that here no one is willing to learn because they already 'know'. If a proper theory came about would you accept it? Or would you, by habit or by ego-binding, not accept it. Can you say that a God exists if it is proven? Somehow I don't hold a lot of faith in that possibility.
Finding like-minded people?...perhaps there should be some pom-poms here for you to shake at each other at appropriate moments... since it is in fact hard to clap with one hand you might be successful at being cheerleaders.
How many live at home?
Have you found yourself? Experience is paramount to 'real' criticism.
Jibber?
"To get the viewpoint of the other person appreciatively and profoundly and reconcile it with his own so far as possible is the supreme achievement of man and his highest vocation.
Henry Nelson Wieman
Wieman was instrumental in shaping thinking about Religious Naturalism. In 1963 he wrote, "It is impossible to gain knowledge of the total cosmos or to have any understanding of the infinity transcending the cosmos. Consequently, beliefs about these matters are illusions, cherished for their utility in producing desired states of mind. . . . Nothing can transform man unless it operates in human life. Therefore, in human life, in the actual processes of human existence, must be found the saving and transforming power which religious inquiry seeks and which faith must apprehend." [1]
In 1971 - "How can we interpret what operates in human existence to create, sustain, save and transform toward the greatest good, so that scientific research and scientific technology can be applied to searching out and providing the conditions - physical, biological, psychological and social - which must be present for its most effective operation? This operative presence in human existence can be called God..." [2] In this statement he is redefining God in a way that some Religious Naturalists would latch on to.
His was a naturalistic worldview, and as it was religious, a form of neo-theistic Religious Naturalism. For Wieman, God was a natural process or entity and not supernatural. This God was an object of sensuous experience. His God concept was similar to The All concept of Spinoza and theistic sectors of classical Pantheism and modern neo-Pantheism[3] but with a liberal Christian tone to it. He had been ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1912 but in 1949 while teaching at theUniversity of Oregon became a member of the Unitarian Church. Nevertheless, he was at the extreme edge of Christian modernism, critical of 20th Century supernaturalism and neo-orthodoxy.
Wieman helped start Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science which was prompted by discussions at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. Six days after his death in 1975, he was awarded the Unitarian Universalist Association Award for Distinguished Service to the Cause of Liberal Religion."
Just one more quote:
Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of everything. Simply trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions runs into fundamental difficulties since the resulting theory is not renormalizable. Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics. Some theoretical physicists currently believe that a quantum theory of general relativity may require frameworks other than field theory itself, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. Some models in string theory that are promising by way of realizing our familiar standard model are the perturbative heterotic string models, 11-dimensional M-theory, Singular geometries (e.g. orbifold and orientifold), D-branes and other branes, flux compactification and warped geometry,non-perturbative type IIB superstring solutions (F-theory).[2]
So, where are your dissertations? Can I see them please? What have you done to move humanity forward? You're nowhere near what chopra has done, for better or for worse. Regardless if I read him or not, he's done more than you and you are creating a likeness of him in me. Thank you.
Ridicule is a factor in moving theory forward, so thanks yet again.
Without the 'speculators' you'd have nothing to try and discover. I should add also that 'pure' scientific theory ALWAYS has holes that your community assumes will be filled by reincarnation. Good luck with that. Pauli won't be back, and I doubt any of you can forward his theories. Speaking of theories, does any of you have one of your own to share instead of sitting here taking the piss out of people?
I started out in this tread in a respectful mode, but that was as one-sided as your thinking.
Though I am not a fan of Chopra has helped many people overcome obstacles. It doesn't matter if he is scientific or not. Depth psychology does use scientific terms to describe the human condition, and it makes no bones about this. It's the integral part of it. Chopra being 'schooled' means that he is creator and created - the teacher and the taught. It seems that here no one is willing to learn because they already 'know'. If a proper theory came about would you accept it? Or would you, by habit or by ego-binding, not accept it. Can you say that a God exists if it is proven? Somehow I don't hold a lot of faith in that possibility.
Finding like-minded people?...perhaps there should be some pom-poms here for you to shake at each other at appropriate moments... since it is in fact hard to clap with one hand you might be successful at being cheerleaders.
How many live at home?
Have you found yourself? Experience is paramount to 'real' criticism.
Jibber?
"To get the viewpoint of the other person appreciatively and profoundly and reconcile it with his own so far as possible is the supreme achievement of man and his highest vocation.
Henry Nelson Wieman
Wieman was instrumental in shaping thinking about Religious Naturalism. In 1963 he wrote, "It is impossible to gain knowledge of the total cosmos or to have any understanding of the infinity transcending the cosmos. Consequently, beliefs about these matters are illusions, cherished for their utility in producing desired states of mind. . . . Nothing can transform man unless it operates in human life. Therefore, in human life, in the actual processes of human existence, must be found the saving and transforming power which religious inquiry seeks and which faith must apprehend." [1]
In 1971 - "How can we interpret what operates in human existence to create, sustain, save and transform toward the greatest good, so that scientific research and scientific technology can be applied to searching out and providing the conditions - physical, biological, psychological and social - which must be present for its most effective operation? This operative presence in human existence can be called God..." [2] In this statement he is redefining God in a way that some Religious Naturalists would latch on to.
His was a naturalistic worldview, and as it was religious, a form of neo-theistic Religious Naturalism. For Wieman, God was a natural process or entity and not supernatural. This God was an object of sensuous experience. His God concept was similar to The All concept of Spinoza and theistic sectors of classical Pantheism and modern neo-Pantheism[3] but with a liberal Christian tone to it. He had been ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1912 but in 1949 while teaching at theUniversity of Oregon became a member of the Unitarian Church. Nevertheless, he was at the extreme edge of Christian modernism, critical of 20th Century supernaturalism and neo-orthodoxy.
Wieman helped start Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science which was prompted by discussions at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. Six days after his death in 1975, he was awarded the Unitarian Universalist Association Award for Distinguished Service to the Cause of Liberal Religion."
Just one more quote:
Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of everything. Simply trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions runs into fundamental difficulties since the resulting theory is not renormalizable. Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics. Some theoretical physicists currently believe that a quantum theory of general relativity may require frameworks other than field theory itself, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. Some models in string theory that are promising by way of realizing our familiar standard model are the perturbative heterotic string models, 11-dimensional M-theory, Singular geometries (e.g. orbifold and orientifold), D-branes and other branes, flux compactification and warped geometry,non-perturbative type IIB superstring solutions (F-theory).[2]
So, where are your dissertations? Can I see them please? What have you done to move humanity forward? You're nowhere near what chopra has done, for better or for worse. Regardless if I read him or not, he's done more than you and you are creating a likeness of him in me. Thank you.
Ridicule is a factor in moving theory forward, so thanks yet again.
Without the 'speculators' you'd have nothing to try and discover. I should add also that 'pure' scientific theory ALWAYS has holes that your community assumes will be filled by reincarnation. Good luck with that. Pauli won't be back, and I doubt any of you can forward his theories. Speaking of theories, does any of you have one of your own to share instead of sitting here taking the piss out of people?
I started out in this tread in a respectful mode, but that was as one-sided as your thinking.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Marl, you wanted a way to communicate without the typing? Here ya go, although I doubt you can handle it as it is a moderated discussion and bullshit won't fly.
http://www.stickam.com/group/debatefaith
http://www.stickam.com/group/debatefaith
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
^^^ to much man, to much.
(eye exaggerate)
(eye exaggerate)
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...that's fair. Sht happens. 
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
eye, a key component of respect is to take your interlocutor's requests seriosuly. I asked you to define terms for some of your assertions, and you did a shadow dance. We cannot reason together if you spurn efforts at defining common/neutral ground. It's a necessary early step in building meaningful discourse.
For memory's sake, I will repeat my earliest question to you. You memntioned a two-thousand-year cycle. What is this cycle? Are you willing to give me a definite reply? Do you have links to references that describe it and how it can be observed/confirmed/falsified?
cheers 'neer
For memory's sake, I will repeat my earliest question to you. You memntioned a two-thousand-year cycle. What is this cycle? Are you willing to give me a definite reply? Do you have links to references that describe it and how it can be observed/confirmed/falsified?
cheers 'neer
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...yes. But if I move into maya will you stay with me? The cycle was known as God's cycle, the big gear. I do not purposely shadow dance. We are the small gear. The earth's wobble makes it's way around and a new God image is formed.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...krishna, buddha, christ... and the next. this is what I am saying.
RawBudzski
Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...and no, I do not believe in the 2012 bs that's all over the place. This stuff happens INSIDE.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...I do apologize if that was disrespectful. I am enjoying this discussion to the best of my ability.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...God is a transforming God. To my mind, this is evolution.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I confess ignorance.
Link so I might study?
One of my issues is ... i am a very literal verbal person. I find metaphors useful, but when talking about epistemological topics like this I find less metaphor to be better.
Can you break the large/small gear metaphor down into something more literal, as a favor to me? Tia ...
cheers 'neer
RawBudzski
Well-Known Member
La La La La La
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...neer, I'll go and grab some 'stuff'. I am an artist and writer, I live in metaphor and it's hard to 'get out'. I'm really trying here.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You're right!
cheers 'neer