Spirituality
19 Nov 09
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by josephwI said that in my opinion whatever it is seen or revealed is whatever You see when You collapse the wavefunction. And Bosse de Nage expressed it perfectly;
So what you're saying is that a philosophical mental gymnastic has been developed to dismiss the existence objectivity, so that even though I can see the nose on my face there is no real way of knowing that I have a nose.
It's no wonder that the human race is steeped in mind numbing ignorance. The so called intellectual elite has effectively convinced everyone that they don't really know they exist.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I thank you too😵
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by black beetleAnd I have to stand corrected, for at the third paragraph of my above post I had to write at the second line:
You also asked: "Specifically, what is seen or revealed, and what is the truth (aletheia) that appears?"
Well, methinks whatever it is seen or revealed is whatever You see when You collapse the wavefunction.
Awareness, yes! At the other hemisphere the Japanese bow to “tsune-ni ite kyu-ni awasu”. Aletheia!
Parmenides’ Einai stands above Karma. He ...[text shortened]... ism, set in motion the creation of their metaphysics which in turn set in motion Platonism
😵
"...which are supposed to be stable and were supposedly necessary for everybody who wants to dig into reality etc etc".
I am sorry for the inconvenience;
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by black beetleWavefunction. How could I have miss that? I was reasoning from the perspective of an uncollapsed wavefunction. I'll just collapse my wavefunction and, oh, there it is! I see it now. I don't really have a nose. 🙄
I said that in my opinion whatever it is seen or revealed is whatever You see when You collapse the wavefunction. And Bosse de Nage expressed it perfectly;
I thank you too😵
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by josephwNo problem. Ones’ senses unveil aletheia analogous to ones’ mind😵
Wavefunction. How could I have miss that? I was reasoning from the perspective of an uncollapsed wavefunction. I'll just collapse my wavefunction and, oh, there it is! I see it now. I don't really have a nose. 🙄
20 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleSorry for prying, but I just had to look into your public forum posts.
No problem. Ones’ senses unveil aletheia analogous to ones’ mind😵
I never would have guessed that English wasn't your primary language.
Nevertheless, it's not fair for you to talk over my head! I can't compete with you linguistically.
Who knows, you may find simple language easier to understand truth by. After all, God used language simple enough for a child to understand the truth by.
After today I may not be back for a week. So if you happen to reply I may not see it for a while. Not that it matters much. 😵
Oh, and by the way, was that last post meant as an insult?
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by josephwIt was not an insult. English is not my mother tongue, I am Greek.
Sorry for prying, but I just had to look into your public forum posts.
I never would have guessed that English wasn't your primary language.
Nevertheless, it's not fair for you to talk over my head! I can't compete with you linguistically.
Who knows, you may find simple language easier to understand truth by. After all, God used language simple eno ...[text shortened]... e. Not that it matters much. 😵
Oh, and by the way, was that last post meant as an insult?
I am the Truth and You are the Truth afterall. I cannot use a simpler declaration than this🙂
Best regards from Athens, Greece😵
21 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleOf course Bacon today is down the drain because his method excludes the scientific finds and evidence -just like theology does,
It was not an insult. English is not my mother tongue, I am Greek.
I am the Truth and You are the Truth afterall. I cannot use a simpler declaration than this🙂
Best regards from Athens, Greece😵
what are we to make of those theologians who have not dispensed with the use science but use it as a basis for establishing their theological claims? thus when we observe the physical creation, its seems orderly, from the cosmos to the structure and function of a living cell, holy blade of grass and divine milk from a cow😵
21 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHey Rabbie my trusty feer,
Of course Bacon today is down the drain because his method excludes the scientific finds and evidence -just like theology does,
what are we to make of those theologians who have not dispensed with the use science but use it as a basis for establishing their theological claims? thus when we observe the physical creation, its seems orderly, from the ...[text shortened]... to the structure and function of a living cell, holy blade of grass and divine milk from a cow😵
I hope you and yours all fine!
Oh I had the feeling that the theologians are just preaching out of the blue and that their preaching has nothing to do with science and philosophy, but maybe this is an error of mine.
Well, what exactly did the theologians observed and by which means, and how did they came into the conclusion that, for one, the universe is created by a specific supernatural entity and, for two, that this supposed by them creation of the universe is a given historical fact and, for three, that this theory of reality of theirs (and kindly please state a source that can give me in full the details of this specific theory of reality) is definately the absolute truth?
😵
21 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleit strikes me beetle that what we are dealing with are perceptions, if i get the sense of what you are stating in your post to Bosse, please correct me if i am wrong. Thus it is with those theologians who would try to utilise the science as a vehicle to explorate and also at the same time give credence to their theology. The ancient record, which forms a basis for their faith, states it this way, '
Hey Rabbie my trusty feer,
I hope you and yours all fine!
Oh I had the feeling that the theologians are just preaching out of the blue and that their preaching has nothing to do with science and philosophy, but maybe this is an error of mine.
Well, what exactly did the theologians observed and by which means, and how did they came into the conc ...[text shortened]... me in full the details of this specific theory of reality) is definately the absolute truth?
😵
(Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made. . .
thus, it seems to be as truly as you state that qualities may be perceived, through the senses and that these perceptions form the basis of the reality. Thus when one examines say the structure of a cell, one can see that it is both functional and orderly and well suited for its purpose. Thus the theologian finds evidence for his text, which states that,
(1 Corinthians 14:33) . . .For God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace.. . .
thus it seems to me that this reality is as good as any other reality, if the basis of this reality, is simply the perception through the senses. Naturally one may try the same with say science and the known 'facts', with relation to the universe, or with any other claim, thus science becomes not the enemy, but the friend. Absolute truth, mmm, i do not think that it is possible to establish the case for.😵
21 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Prosocratic philosophers were insisting that perception is required in order to feed your mind and then to proceed with the evaluation of the mind, and I agree with this thesis. And they were not using theology in order to bring up solid theories of reality but the state of the art of the science of their days. This is the reason why the Pythagoreans failed: unable to bring up a solid theory of reality based on their concept that the universe can be deciphered, understood and described by means of numbers alone, they mixed their concept with Orphism.
it strikes me beetle that what we are dealing with are perceptions, if i get the sense of what you are stating in your post to Bosse, please correct me if i am wrong. Thus it is with those theologians who would try to utilise the science as a vehicle to explorate and also at the same time give credence to their theology. The ancient record, which f ...[text shortened]... friend. Absolute truth, mmm, i do not think that it is possible to establish the case for.😵
Romans 1:20 is not a verse based on perception -it is based on a kind of a religious apocalypse. You see, all these centuries after the presentation of Romans we are still unable to spot the super observer “god”, therefore you are neither scientifically nor philosophically justified to claim that the verse is based on perception. Is is based on metaphysics, it is pure theology and not justified by reasoning. Therefore, since Romans 1:20 does not refer to an element of reality, it cannot be conceived neither as the basis of the reality nor a part of a solid theory of reality. Thus, when one examines say the structure of the cell, one cannot come to the conclusion that the cell is created by a supernatural entity because for the time being there is not the slightest scientific fact or evidence regarding the existence of that entity.
So, whatever rises according to Corinthians 14:33, it is merely a religious quote based on faith alone -and, due to the fact that there is no scientific fact and/ or evidence that backs it up, I feel free to dismiss it😵
21 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleahh but beetle i think that you are misunderstanding me, perhaps it is my fault that i am not making myself clear. It is not that the verse itself is based on any type of perception, it simply describes a process, whereby, the data, the observation of the natural world, through its examination via the senses and subsequent interpretation, may be thought of as containing qualities. It is these qualities that are perceived. it seems to me that it is entirely inconsequential whether the divine has been 'spotted', or not, for qualities are qualities regardless, therefore order exists and is perceived, functionality exists and is perceived. Can the theologian not take these perceptions (these realities) and interpret them, as in the case of science in order to provide data for his theory? it matters not, at least at this stage, whether the cell was created or came about by accident, its merely the values that the theologian extracts from his observations which are important, these qualities in themselves prove nothing, however they are like threads in a fabric, when taken and weaved with other factors, his text, his personal experience, they convince him that his suspicions are confirmed. it seems to me that this precedent is also confirmed in the world of quantum physics, of which i know next to nothing, but it is known that there should be particles which exist, but so far, have not been found. is this not the case?
The Prosocratic philosophers were insisting that perception is required in order to feed your mind and then to proceed with the evaluation of the mind, and I agree with this thesis. And they were not using theology in order to bring up solid theories of reality but the state of the art of the science of their days. This is the reason why the Pythagorean ...[text shortened]... that there is no scientific fact and/ or evidence that backs it up, I feel free to dismiss it😵
21 Nov 09
Ah, I just dropped in for a look, and there is BdN with—aletheia! Thanks, blackbeetle for expanding that notion of “truth” for us.
My only comments are these: I have noted before that some of our debates on here about “what is truth?” seem to hinge on an etymological foundation. In English, for example, “truth” is cognate with such words as “troth” and “trust”. In John Ayto’s Dictionary of Word Origins (where the main entry is for the word “true” ), it says: “The underlying etymological meaning of true is ‘faithful, steadfast, firm’; ‘in accordance with the facts’ is a secondary development.” Nevertheless, one can see how a correspondence theory of truth might develop from this underlying meaning.
In Sanskrit the word translated as truth, satya is cognate with sat, being or reality. So one can see how a Buddhist might come to point to a rock or a tree (or herself) as “the truth”—call that, maybe, a “reality theory of truth”.
When Jesus applied the word aletheia to himself, one theological view would be that he was pointing to the divine I-am (the ego eimi that was also used to translate the Hebrew eheyeh in the formulation given to Moshe at the burning bush), as that divine I-am is now “unconcealed” in the incarnation. [I am not saying that is the only possible interpretation, by any means, and I have no intention of arguing theology here.]
My point is that the underlying etymology likely influences the different philosophical theories of truth, so that arguments about “which one is right” can be absurd. Far more important to understand (so far as one is able) what persons from different traditions actually mean (or different shades of meaning) when talking about “what is truth?”.
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy previous reply has to do with the fact that Romans 1:20 is a deduction based on a religious theory of reality that is not justified neither by the given scientific fact and evidence nor by the evaluation of the mind. Since it does not describe a validated process of the physical world, it cannot be accepted as a product of philosophy because it lacks of efficient back up of science. This means that the qualities that are supposedly contained they are merely a product of an unjustified string of thoughts, and this is just pure theology. Therefore, the theologian who is taking a grip based on these strings of thoughts s/he merely sets in motion a theory of reality based on unjustified deductions and solely afterwards s/he tries to imply reasoning.
ahh but beetle i think that you are misunderstanding me, perhaps it is my fault that i am not making myself clear. It is not that the verse itself is based on any type of perception, it simply describes a process, whereby, the data, the observation of the natural world, through its examination via the senses and subsequent interpretation, may be tho ...[text shortened]... there should be particles which exist, but so far, have not been found. is this not the case?
Finally, it does matter whether the cell was designed or not by an intelligent supernatural entity, because this specific piece of information has the power to change totally our attitude and thus our whole life and our future history.
On the other hand, for the time being I fail to see any analogy between theology and quantum mechanics; quantum mechanics offer a mathematical description of probabilities according to the evaluation of the wavefunction of each observer/ system, and this procedure is alien to theology
😵
23 Nov 09
Originally posted by vistesdrgr that!
Ah, I just dropped in for a look, and there is BdN with—aletheia! Thanks, blackbeetle for expanding that notion of “truth” for us.
My only comments are these: I have noted before that some of our debates on here about “what is truth?” seem to hinge on an etymological foundation. In English, for example, “truth” is cognate with such words as “troth” and ...[text shortened]... t traditions actually mean (or different shades of meaning) when talking about “what is truth?”.
23 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetlenope, i dont agree with this evaluation beetle, these are realities based through an observation of the natural world. does order exist? can we observe the order? is there function? can we observe the functions? Are we able to draw conclusions from those observations, yes we can, through an evaluation of the mind. therefore my trusty feer your findus crispy pancakes are toasting while the beer gets cold! these thoughts are not unjustified, for either order exists or it does not! yes it matters ultimately, but not for the sake of establishing the argument. i deliberately separated this aspect because of your atheism, to create a level playing ground if you like.
My previous reply has to do with the fact that Romans 1:20 is a deduction based on a religious theory of reality that is not justified neither by the given scientific fact and evidence nor by the evaluation of the mind. Since it does not describe a validated process of the physical world, it cannot be accepted as a product of philosophy because it lacks ...[text shortened]... uation of the wavefunction of each observer/ system, and this procedure is alien to theology
😵
it is not a literal analogy, simply that there are indications of things that are as yet unknown 🙂