Does God exist?

[goku]

Did you read post 151? Did you see it printed in black and white in THE holy bible God abhors people right down to his very soul. He hates them and he'll kill them and desecrate their carcass. That's what it says.

 

Your response in post 153 looked like you got that. :phones:

 

If you think that's wrong then just say so. If you don't believe every part of the bible is right then just say so. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

 

-modest

 

he abhors sinfull, evil people. the place you are refurring to in the Bible was talking about people that made idols before God, like buda.

[goku]

Why is prison suppose to be punishment? What good do you expect to come from that?

 

What is your understanding of laws? What is your understanding of human nature?

 

because man only learns through pain, as someone said.

it is human nature to sin, i don't know how to explain this to you but i'll try.

if you have children, notice how there is no need for you to TEACH them to do wrong. ex; hit each other, run with scissors. the need is to teach them right.

[goku]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

 

~Epicurus

 

do you wish Him to start with you? :phones:

[goku]

i just put the mouse arrow on the red boxes and it said "goku is infamous around these parts"

 

Matthew 5:11

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

[freeztar]

i just put the mouse arrow on the red boxes and it said "goku is infamous around these parts"

Yes, but since your boxes are red, it's not the good kind of infamous.

[nutronjon]

The problem, nutronjon, with this kind of mysticism... Well, let me quote you from another thread first...

 

 

 

Now, the problem is that these mystics and this mysticism don't produce science - they only "use" the science that others can create using the scientific method. Chopra "uses" quantum mechanics and other mystics whom you quote use science as a grab-bag of concepts to shape into whatever it is they're selling. But, when it comes to discovering the science and doing the science - where are they?

 

As you are a fan of mysticism let me put this in a language you'll take to better:

等着兔子跑过来撞死在树桩上。

These mystics are "waiting for the rabbit to hit the stump."

 

Other scientists (real scientists) are out hunting the rabbit or farming the field. They are capable of discovering the useful things that mystics then claim as their own. But, when it comes to killing the rabbit, all the mystic is able to do is wait by the stump.

 

That's my problem with pseudoscience. I understand if it isn't a problem you share. To each his own. But, It shouldn't escape notice that no one expects Deepak Chopra to advance the field of QM.

 

If the tree is so prosperous - where the hell is the fruit?

 

-modest

 

 

Chopra is a medical doctor with a Hindu back ground. Fritjof Capra has written several books discussing the similarities between Eastern philosophy and modern physics. He has done research in high-energy physics at several European and American universities. Isaac Asimov is a well known scince writer and endorsed Rudy Rucker's book "Mind Tools". Rudy Rucker himself, is a professor of Computer Science.

 

Michael S. Schneider is an educator. He has a Bachlor of Science degree in Mathematics from the Polytechnic Institute of Brookly and a Master's degree in Math Education from the University of Florida. He writes of the ancient Greek concepts that are the foundation of our sciences.

 

Do you have any more question?

[InfiniteNow]

Chopra is a medical doctor with a Hindu back ground. Fritjof Capra has written several books discussing the similarities between Eastern philosophy and modern physics. He has done research in high-energy physics at several European and American universities. Isaac Asimov is a well known scince writer and endorsed Rudy Rucker's book "Mind Tools". Rudy Rucker himself, is a professor of Computer Science.

 

Michael S. Schneider is an educator. He has a Bachlor of Science degree in Mathematics from the Polytechnic Institute of Brookly and a Master's degree in Math Education from the University of Florida. He writes of the ancient Greek concepts that are the foundation of our sciences.

 

Do you have any more question?

 

What's the point of asking since you completely missed Modest's point anyway, and simply provided a one paragraph biography of these guys instead of addressing the issue raised.

[nutronjon]

I inadvertently ran across this article and it seems very pertinent to the topic. It's a Time magazine article entitled "Darwin's God". I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far it is quite good. It could potentially add some interesting discussion to this thread.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html

 

It is pretty mind blowing the benefit of religion is not obvious. The pyschological factor of believing one is protected by a God, boost one's survival chances. But the social effect is even more important. Our brains are limited, and this limits our natural groups to about 600 hundred. However, when people share a belief in a God or Creator, this can unite much larger groups of people. Put these two together, and those with the strongest God have the best survival chance, and they convert or eliminate those who are not one of them. In time, they are only ones left, and obviously the God blesses them and it is they who know the one true God. God bless America, and the New Century American Project.

[nutronjon]

What's the point of asking since you completely missed Modest's point anyway, and simply provided a one paragraph biography of these guys instead of addressing the issue raised.

 

Oh excuse me. What was the issue raised. If I didn't address it, I don't understand it. All of the people I mentioned are well educated in science and math, and they advance science and math either directly through research work, or indirectly by teaching and writing.

[modest]

Oh excuse me. What was the issue raised.

 

Issue raised was how the scientific method kicks mysticism's ***.

 

To prove my point you told me how Chopra was schooled at "several European and American universities".

 

But, I'm not going to attack eastern philosophy which I've used myself to shift my own perspective on many things. But, I will attack the mystic masquerading as a scientist - claiming his approach to science is best.

 

"It's Enochian?"

"Yeah, it's all made up"

 

-modest

[nutronjon]

I do. So what? Just because they have PhD.'s doesn't make their ideas any more valid. This is nothing short of a desperate appeal to authority. And besides, their qualifications suggest that they probably don't have a good understanding of physics (and especially of quantum mechanics); none of the people you cited are actual physicists.

 

I am preceiving a lot of hostility from a few of you and I beginning to think it is foolish for me subject myself to such hostility.

 

Fritjof Capra - HomeFritjof Capra, Ph.D., physicist and systems theorist, is a founding director of the Center for Ecoliteracy in Berkeley, California, which promotes ecology ...

 

What is it going to take to end the hostility? Information is not working.

[nutronjon]

because man only learns through pain, as someone said.

it is human nature to sin, i don't know how to explain this to you but i'll try.

if you have children, notice how there is no need for you to TEACH them to do wrong. ex; hit each other, run with scissors. the need is to teach them right.

 

My goodness, I love learning and would not if it were painful.

 

It is not human nature to harm others, unless one is ignorant of the harm his actions cause, or he himself is hurting, or the person has brain damage or is under the influence of drugs. There is an ugliness to what you believe is so that sincerely hope can be corrected with better information.

 

I have raised children, and grandchildren and now have a great grandson. I also participate in something we call Virtue Circles, and dearly wish to spread the knowledge I have gained through this program, and many differnt studies. The best way to teach children is to be sensitve to their needs, and to respect and honor them. On a social level, we should return to liberal education and education for citizenship.

[Moontanman]

I am preceiving a lot of hostility from a few of you and I beginning to think it is foolish for me subject myself to such hostility.

 

 

 

What is it going to take to end the hostility? Information is not working.

 

I see the hostility nj but if you will allow me to be frank (no I'm not actually named Frank:hihi:) I see their point very clearly, It is something I feel very strongly about as well. Just because someone has a degree in one thing it doesn't make them an expert in something else. Some one with a PHD in biochemistry doesn't necessarily know jack about cosmology. I think to some extent it shows a distinct flaw in our educational system that people achieve a pinnacle of knowledge about one thing but are really ignorant about other fields of study. (unlike me, I am equally ignorant about everything, just ask EP) Sadly the most ignorant are often the very ones who think their PHD qualifies them to be an expert on everything. Of course there are people who are knowledgeable about many different things but they are also often the ones who know their limits and seldom try to tackle things outside the field of expertise.

[nutronjon]

Issue raised was how the scientific method kicks mysticism's ***.

 

To prove my point you told me how Chopra was schooled at "several European and American universities".

 

But, I'm not going to attack eastern philosophy which I've used myself to shift my own perspective on many things. But, I will attack the mystic masquerading as a scientist - claiming his approach to science is best.

 

"It's Enochian?"

"Yeah, it's all made up"

 

-modest

 

Again I am sensing much hostility. I wrote "Fritjof Capra has written several books discussing the similarities between Eastern philosophy and modern physics. He has done research in high-energy physics at several European and American universities." Not that "Chopra was schooled at "several European and American universities". Your desire to attack is distorting your preception of what I write.

 

I thought very higly of you, and that impression is being ruined. Instead of acknowledging there is something you don't know, and making an efforting to gain information, you are defending your ego, by attacking me, and I will disengage if this continues, with no awarness on your part of what you are doing and why.

[nutronjon]

The problem, nutronjon, with this kind of mysticism... Well, let me quote you from another thread first...

 

 

 

Now, the problem is that these mystics and this mysticism don't produce science - they only "use" the science that others can create using the scientific method. Chopra "uses" quantum mechanics and other mystics whom you quote use science as a grab-bag of concepts to shape into whatever it is they're selling. But, when it comes to discovering the science and doing the science - where are they?

 

As you are a fan of mysticism let me put this in a language you'll take to better:

等着兔子跑过来撞死在树桩上。

These mystics are "waiting for the rabbit to hit the stump."

 

Other scientists (real scientists) are out hunting the rabbit or farming the field. They are capable of discovering the useful things that mystics then claim as their own. But, when it comes to killing the rabbit, all the mystic is able to do is wait by the stump.

 

That's my problem with pseudoscience. I understand if it isn't a problem you share. To each his own. But, It shouldn't escape notice that no one expects Deepak Chopra to advance the field of QM.

 

If the tree is so prosperous - where the hell is the fruit?

 

-modest

 

 

Moontanman, you come to the discussion with a sense of humor that is inviting, and reduces tension.

 

I am quoting Modest, so you can see he was attacking the knowledge of the people of which I speak, and their life accomplishments.

 

We can not directly experience God, and this thread is questioning the existence of God. I began with a quote from Cicero acknowledging we can not know God, because we can experience God, but we do experience life on this planet, and can draw some conclusions from that. I have said Deism stresses knowing God through the study of nature, and that is important to understanding democracy, rule by reason.

 

No ones education prepares him to know absolute truth, but only gives each of us a point of view to study truth.

 

Our huge gap in information seems to be the basis of the present argument is the Western concept of reality, verses the Eastern concept of reality. Now someone gave some really good advise- "don't argue with ignorance". I will begin ignoring certian posters, if they continue to deny what they do not know, and out of ignroance of what they do not know, continue to attack me, making the discussion a personal one, instead of one about the subject at hand. I have said, we use science to come to know God, and put an end to ignorance and superstition, and ego driven immorality, which is repeating what Cicero and Jefferson and other Deist have said. If no one wants to consider this possibility, I am out of here. It is pointless to continue if all people are going to do is, either completely ignore my questions and what I am saying, or distort what I say to attack me.

 

I have not defined God, but said we can not do this. I have said God is unknown and unknowable, but through science we can study universal laws and know something about this thing we call God. I have said, the agrument that there is or isn't not a God, is a polar argument that can not progress beyond the polar aguement, and to change the damn argument, we need to broaden our understanding of God and of what we can know. We must understand the difference, between abstract thinking and concrete thinking. That which we can know as an absract reality and that which we can know as tanglable reality. I am not seeing an indication of the most active posters having essential knowledge. They are not working with knowledge of the difference between abtract knowledge and tangable knowledge, and for whatever reason, you are wanting me to understand their point of view, instead of helping them understand what I am saying. I suspect there is a prejudice happening here, that I do not fully understand? I working hard to keep in mind we are friends and you mean well as join the argument that I am an ignorant, superstituous, nut case, making arguments that are unworthy of serious consideration.

 

I am going to go work in garden now, and hope to shift my state of being to one that is much more pleasant, than my present state, with is very toxic and sickening. I have been on the defense for too long. Does anyone know what an abstract is and what abstract thinking is? I am very unhappy at the moment.

[Moontanman]

Of course, once you realized you are being totally schooled, complain about it, throw ad hominems, and behave like you are being persecuted. All too familiar tactics, my young padiwan.

 

 

 

 

Ok, so you cited one physicist. In that case, I'll have you know that, despite superficial appearances, I have actually checked his background and a quick glance shows that he doesn't appear to have produced any important research papers in his field at all. He has spent most of his time on ecology and philosophy. Which tells me that either this guy is a total quack, or he is knowledgeable and you are taking quotes completely out of context (which is unlikely... but then you don't seem like the person who actually takes the time to understand what various books talk about).

 

 

I mean, seriously, do you actually believe that aggressive appeals to authority is going to convince or impress anybody, especially those of us who know better?

 

EP, you can attack someones ideas without being disrespectful and insulting about it. I thinks it's fun to attack back but not everyone is here to defend an idea, some people are really trying to understand and break out of the BS that is being spread as fact. You might have the knowledge but your delivery is too hostile to have the desired effect. Brow beating someone is not a good way to to get them to see the light. Grow up, if you want respect you have to give it:naughty:

[Moontanman]

The only time when I start becoming "hostile" or "insulting" about it is when it becomes clear that they aren't interested in receiving any feedback or learning anything from their mistakes, or have the nerve to proclaim their ideas as fact even when they've been shown wrong (or tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about even though I've spent time studying it). I've come to realize that "being nice" all the time only encourages them to hold onto ignorance even more so than attacking back. I do not believe in "turning the other cheek", so to speak.

 

Other then that, I don't berate people for not knowing things. In fact, I'm usually happy to educate when people want to know more about something. It's when they refuse to accept who they are when things go downhill....

 

 

 

Grow up?! What's maturity got to do with this? We are talking about whether or not mysticism, one person's imagination, and mythology counts as science or can be considered fact or taken seriously. That is basically the equivalent of talking about the scientific feasibility of Harry Potter's flying broomstick!

 

And second, posting here on this site is something I do out of pure enjoyment. For all intents and purposes, this is a vacation from maturity, especially since it's now my summer vacation from college and I'm going to soon be working my *** off in a summer job. Besides which, accusations of immaturity of this kind are really nothing more than an elaborate red herring.

 

Sometimes people are simply trying to get past what they've been told by others who they were taught to respect as people or as educated individuals. They are not being difficult just cautious, they have already been told to believe things that are not true. Expecting them to simply believe you without any discussion of the ideas involved is the same thing they did when they received the incorrect ideas to begin with. If they simply accepted what you say with out any question they would simply be allowing someone else to shape their world view again without any real expectation of the information being any different than the first time. People like me sometimes just like to stir **** to see if the truth floats to the top others really want to understand but to do so they have to break out of the old paradigms they have been taught before. Being hostile works with people like me because my skin is thick and I already have a good idea of what is, what might be and what will never be. I can learn from you dispute your attitude but others who are really trying to throw off the bonds others have put on them do not need to feel they are simply being told what to believe yet again by someone who is just arrogant. I say read the posts, see if the person is willing to change their world view in small steps. If you had read the posts with out so much venom you would have seen this is true. Changing a preconception is a difficult yet beautiful thing you will never get to see if you keep attacking everyone you discuss anything with. Try to understand who you are discussing something with rather than expecting them to understand your hostile style of debate.