Prove to you There's a God?

eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
...raw, agreed. Much as Jung said "I hope I never become a Jungian", I feel that Christ would have said "I hope I never become a Christian"...
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
...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.
Click to expand...
It does matter if it's scientific if he's making scientific claims to know how the universe and things within it work..... which he is. Perhaps you should watch the debate in its entirety....


... since it is in fact hard to clap with one hand you might be successful at being cheerleaders.
Click to expand...
I can clap with one hand actually... my friend taught me how to do it, although I will be the first to admit, it does look kind of funny.

How many live at home?
Click to expand...
Not me... I'm living with my gf while I finish up university...

Have you found yourself? Experience is paramount to 'real' criticism.
Click to expand...
I've had profound experiences, if that's what you mean.... "finding yourself is an abstract term, that doesn't really mean anything....


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."
Click to expand...


A great quote, and I won't pretend to know much about the fellow, but he's just one man... I can give you some quotes too, if you'd like....

"But we don't yet know wherther the Universe is open or closed. More than that, there are a few astronomers who doubt that the redshift of distant galaxies is due to the doppler effect, who are skeptical of the expanding Universe and the Big Bang. Perhaps our descendants will regard our present ignorance with as much sympathy as we feel to the ancients for not knowing the Earth went around the Sun. If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding Universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created, how did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed? There is no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, questions that were once treated only in religion and myth." - Carl Sagan


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 the University 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.
Click to expand...
Pantheism, while more probable than mono, or polytheism, still doesn't really explain anything.... There's a million versions of pantheism, and you can pick your flavour - but you still need faith, or a lack of a justified reason, to believe in it.

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]
Click to expand...
Not really sure how this relates to god per say, but the mystery of gravity is definitely that - a mystery. I always wondered, if the sun just instantly disappeared would it take gravitons 7 minutes (like light) to stop holding us in orbit, or would we just shoot off into space the instant it disapeared...


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.
Click to expand...
You may not see them, because they don't exist yet.

To move humanity forward? Jeez, that's a tough one - I'm a volunteer, and I give blood... I guess really that's about it, but I can tell you something I don't do. I don't use my position of power (mainly because I don't have one lol) to knowingly tell people lies to try to get them to feel better about themselves. I don't knowingly misuse scientific lingo, and terminology to try and convince people that my philosophies are real. I also don't offer spiritual guidance at $1000/hour (those diamond reading glasses won't pay for themselves, will they Deepak...) I consider those actions immoral.

Ridicule is a factor in moving theory forward, so thanks yet again.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you, and you're welcome.


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.
Click to expand...
Citation? Never heard this before? And the majority of scientists are overwhelmingly agnostic, or atheist....


I started out in this tread in a respectful mode, but that was as one-sided as your thinking.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it's hard to see the merit in your previous posts - they were full of nonsensical scientific jargon, that didn't really relate to what we were talking about... at least from what I remember, but I'm pretty high right now....
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
eye exaggerate said:
...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.
Click to expand...

No worries no hurries, eye. I do have an artistic side as well. However I consider metaphor like a nutrient, like nitrogen for planties. Not enough ... leaves yellow and die. Too much ... leaves you-get-it.
To me, the postmodern movement in the humanities is a classic example of metaphor allowed to run unchecked. Anchorless subjectivity ... when a scholar seriously tries to position Einstein's theory as an example of phallocentric thought in a patriarchal narrative, I stop listening. Not saying you do that ... it's a comment on the limits and dangers of thinking entirely in metaphors.

cheers 'neer
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
...because Christ is an energy. That's why I believe. He was a man who was 'energized'. If not, why are 'we' still arguing about him? Real or not, he's made the mold for the last 2000 years.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
...chopra is talking about the inner-verse, if I can put it that way.
Click to expand...
What does that even mean? To me, you might as well be saying never-never land... what is an inner-verse? A universe inside you? How do you know an inner-verse exists, can I see it? How can we test and attempt to falsify this claim?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
There was a Star Trek TNG episode in which Picard &co. handled a tense first-contact situation with a species whose members communicated entirely by metaphor. That episode bugged me ... it seemed like complete horse poo. The thing about metaphors is - they are a code, a compact way of communicating something literal. How did the young of that species learn the metaphor code?? The premise of the show (to psycholinguistics) was the equivalent to floating in midair without support or applied force (to kinematics).
cheers 'neer
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
...an 'inner-verse' would be described as the world inside which consists of archetypes. We all share the same experience 'coated' with our perception.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
...because Christ is an energy. That's why I believe. He was a man who was 'energized'. If not, why are 'we' still arguing about him? Real or not, he's made the mold for the last 2000 years.
Click to expand...
He made the mold because of 1000+ years of murder in his name. Spanish Inquisition? The crusades? People were given the choice to convert or be butchered.... Native Americans had a completely shamanistic society, and something as simple as white men being able to predict things like a solar eclipse was absolutely revolutionary, so many of them converted! How could they not? It seemed they could control nature....

If god wanted everyone to know about Jesus, why do unheard of tribes in S.A. still not know about him? Is god that inept at getting the word out, that 2000 years later people still don't know? lol

You say Christ is energy, but how do you know? You weren't there, you didn't see anything happen, for all you know the bible is as truthful as a 2000 year old Dr. Seuss book....
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
...I am partly native, and believe in shamanism. Europe fkd that up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the benevolence of Christ came with a sword at the throat...

I'm not saying Native religion is any more true than Christianity, just that they were fine for damn near 2000 years without Christ....

What is it specifically about Jesus that makes you believe in that doctrine?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
eye exaggerate said:
...are you hollow? Map the planets and you'll find how they correspond to internal organs. In physical terms, that is real.
Click to expand...
As an avid amateur astronomer, I am very familiar with the planets and their dispositions. I have never heard of correspondence to human viscera. Citation/link? Please?
cheers 'neer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top