Door 69

Originally posted by Nemesio
You can take that red pill and shove it right up your ass!

...I...Know...Kung...Fu

[Keanu was robbed out of that Oscar!]

Originally posted by vistesd
Not really (i.e., as in being correct 🙂 ). When most people use the word “supernatural,” they seem to mean some entity that “exists” outside the natural realm (whatever exactly that means). I am using the word “transcendent” to refer to whatever transcends our capacity to conceptualize—as a mundane example, my cat seems unable to conceptualize my pointing ...[text shortened]... e or aesthetic (which I think has to be true even within a dualistic theological understanding).

I really like the way you put that. I have been commng to similar conclusions myself, but could not have said it so well. Do you consider yourself an atheist or a theist? I never considered myself an atheist, until I looked up theist in the dictionary and discovered it to mean belief in a supernatural being. Now I am not so sure.

Originally posted by whiterose
I really like the way you put that. I have been commng to similar conclusions myself, but could not have said it so well. Do you consider yourself an atheist or a theist? I never considered myself an atheist, until I looked up theist in the dictionary and discovered it to mean belief in a supernatural being. Now I am not so sure.

Well, I just call myself a non-dualist (I used to use the term monist, but that has caused some confusion). I travel across various expressions—from mystical Judaism to Taoism to Zen...—and I am still willing to use the “G-word.” Just because of the way various people use the terms on here, I really don’t call myself a theist or an atheist.

Bbarr, for example, calls himself an atheist—but I think he is something of an Advaita Vedantist, and I seem to recall him using terms such as “the divine ground.” He is more rigorous than I am on the fact of any experience of the ______________ being ultimately ineffable (and probably rightfully so).

Rwingett calls himself an atheist (a weak atheist) in, I think, a more conventional usage of that term. (Either one of them can feel free to correct me here.)

You might check out Aldous Huxley’s The Perennial Philosophy, or Fritjof Schuon’s The Transcendent Unity of Religions (Schuon’s a Sufi). From a Christian perspective, you might look at Meister Eckhart...

It’s late here, and I’ve got to pack it in for the night. Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
He is more rigorous than I am on the fact of any experience of the ______________ being ultimately ineffable

You can't eff it but that doesn't stop you from trying...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You can't eff it but that doesn't stop you from trying...

I actually think perhaps I should stop. The effort to talk about it in ordinary discourse seems to become a bit like declaring that one does not believe in the inerrancy of the Biblical texts, and then getting into a debate that relies on arguing that from those texts... There is an internal contradictoriness there.

Toss out the koans and the metaphors, and let people explore them if they wish. If people think that there is no reality outside the bounds of effability—or that experience of such reality is thereby valueless—so be it.

I’m giving it my best shot right now in the other thread, and I can already see that it’s doomed to failure. Not through anyone’s fault—except perhaps for mine. I’ve been behaving like an evangelist for the ineffable. I should have a good laugh at myself... 🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
1) Maybe we were created by a powerful being who was not really a god or the capital-G God.
2) Maybe your capital-G God just started things off with the lifeless matter and let it evolve on its own (so both choices could be valid simultaneously.)
3) Maybe the physical world we perceive does not really exist, and we're all just plugged into The Matrix.

1. So we may be created by more than one God? Ok, I guess this is a possible scenerio, however, I don't think it changes much in terms of us having a Creator. Pick which God is yours
2. Perhaps God just started off with the lifeless matter and let it evolve on its own? Well of coarse life came about via lifeless matter. I mean, the Bible says that we were created from the dust of the earth. However, if God created matter, then he would have done so with the intent of creating matter that came to life. The question then becomes how and when he got the ball rolling, so to speak. Do remember, however, that God said that he "breathed" life into the lifeless matter. This is what science is unable to replicate.
3. So perhaps we do not exist at all? This then would mean that we have no free will. I realize that there are those that insist that we have no free will. However, such speculations to me are merely mind games. Common sense tells me that i have free will and I become agitated when I percieve it being violated. Call it an illusion if you will, or I should say, if the man behind the curtain wills it. However, saying that there is no free will is problematic to say the least. To say that I have no choice in how I live my life would be to say I have no accountability for my actions. Granted, we see this more and more from our judicial system today, however, common sense will tell you that this view is in error and problematic for societies that embrace such an ideology.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The definitions for "create" involve agents acting with intent and/or imaginative skill. It's not a good word to use in association with 'random chance'.

I guess it is odd to say that we created ourselves. After all, how could this be possible? I mean, I did not create myself. Any fool could understand this yet here we are anyhow.................

It's magic I tell ya!!!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm saying that it's [b]possible that God is neutral about whether we seek him or not. That doesn't make him indifferent. Perhaps he welcomes those who choose to seek, and ignores those who do not. I don't see how he's "as good as dead" to us in that case.

I've heard the "mirror" argument before - and I don't find it very impressive. Our favorable latter is not attributed to the creator, because it would not reflect well on him.[/b]

I will conceed that this is a possibility, however, I think it unlikely. I would refer back to the "mirror" arguement that you find so unimpressive. As I said before, we are relational beings, therefore, what our Creator must desire from us is what we are programmed to do. We desire loving relationships, thus, how could God be any different? He desires loving relationships with us as well. If not, then such a God is unimportant to us because we crave loving relationships and he has none to offer. Such a God would merely be an annoyance or burden to relate to if we were forced to do so. Granted, many "religious" people have this skewed viewpoint of God as someone or something that is distant and unknowable and it is unfortunate. I would venture a guess, however, that such people are miserable to say the least. They serve a God that cannot give them what they need or crave which is a loving relationship. All he then becomes is a law or a rule maker for which we have no interest other than to evade his wrath.

Your reasoning for rejecting the "mirror" arguement is that we only attribute our "good" attributes to God and not our "bad" attributes. However, if we were to have true free will, then we would have to have free will that might defy the will of our Creator. Otherwise we would simply be puppets on a string performing our Creators perfect will. So if we defy this perfect will then we would then be embracing something less than perfect or falling short of his perfection. In other words, we would be embracing sin which is simply us choosing what God does not will for us.

Originally posted by whodey
As I said before, we are relational beings, therefore, what our Creator must desire from us is what we are programmed to do. We desire loving relationships, thus, how could God be any different?

So any beings on earth that are not relational beings must have a different creator?

Originally posted by whodey
Do remember, however, that God said that he "breathed" life into the lifeless matter. This is what science is unable to replicate.

Who is the science chap anyway?
1. Have scientists tried to replicate it? If so how hard have they tried.
2. You say 'unable', don't you mean 'haven't yet' or do you have proof that it is impossible?
3. Whether or not it is possible for a scientist to replicate it, does not prove that it could not happen by random chance. For example scientist have not replicated the formation of the sun but there is good evidence that it was formed from a dust cloud. If the formation of life from non life requires millions of tons of material and million of years then one could hardly expect a scientist to be able to replicate the experiment.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So any beings on earth that are not relational beings must have a different creator?

I assume you are referring to lower forms of life such as bacteria and such. I thought someone might bring this up. As I see it man was the focal point of God's creation. Man was the goal of Creation. I know, I know, how conceited of me to think that mankind is all that important. However, Biblically this was the case. Man was the last being created before God "rested" and it would also appear, the most prized creation in terms of relating to him. God specifically made man in order to commune with man in the Garden of Eden. Those lower life forms were merely building blocks, if you will, towards the focal point of creation. Also, God let Adam name the animals and gave him dominion over them so it appears that the animal kingdom was made for man more than for God's amusement. Even at that animals appear to be relational in many respects.

I would compare the creation of lower life forms to man creating a sheet of metal. Why would we do such a thing? What good is a sheet of metal? However, if one were to then use that sheet of metal and help form it into a car, then it would be more apparent why man made the sheet of metal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Who is the science chap anyway?
1. Have scientists tried to replicate it? If so how hard have they tried.
2. You say 'unable', don't you mean 'haven't yet' or do you have proof that it is impossible?
3. Whether or not it is possible for a scientist to replicate it, does not prove that it could not happen by random chance. For example scientist have not ...[text shortened]... of years then one could hardly expect a scientist to be able to replicate the experiment.

I have no one specifically in mind, rather, I have heard and read of scientists who have played with the building blocks of life in order to see if it might be possible to replicate life. In fact, Scotty stated on another thread that one such scientist is "close" to creating lower life forms such as bacteria. All I can say is, good luck with that!

As far as the rest of your thread, you seem to imply that creating life is too impractible to even attempt to recreate and I would agree!! It seems that it would take an X number of years and an X amount of material and an X amount of ambience for all of which man cannot duplicate. Yet we are to believe what scientists say about such matters is accurate even though it is unobservable and/or not able to be replicated. I ask you then, what of the scientific method? What is being done, rather, is simply knowing that we are here and knowing that there was a process that must have gotten us here and simply theorizing how that may have happened in the material universe based upon what is known or proven about the material universe.

As far as the formation of the sun, are there not stars we can observe that are being created?

Originally posted by whodey
In fact, Scotty stated on another thread that one such scientist is "close" to creating lower life forms such as bacteria. All I can say is, good luck with that!

I am not aware of any experiments which attempt to replicate the exact conditions prevailing throughout early earth and then expecting life to 'arise'. As I said, too much matter and time are required to duplicate such an experiment. However there may be experiments that duplicate some of the hypothesized steps, for example seeing if proteins can occur naturally or seeing if given a bowl of random RNA some of them start to duplicate etc.

I ask you then, what of the scientific method?
What about it? When was the formation of the sun replicated? If a scientist does produce life, you will simply say 'but how do we know that is how it happened on earth, no one was there!'

What is being done, rather, is simply knowing that we are here and knowing that there was a process that must have gotten us here
And that in itself is an observation. It may not tell us the details but it does tell us there must have been a process! We can then make hypotheses about what processes might have happened then look for more clues to see if there is any confirmation. We may never know the exact process or be absolutely sure, but we already have enough evidence that it is possible so there is no need to assume supernatural intervention.

As far as the formation of the sun, are there not stars we can observe that are being created?
Yes, and we are trying to look for life on other planets for exactly that reason so we can observe whether life has arisen elsewhere and look at the conditions there as well.

Science is not always about saying "I know how this happened" Its about saying "This is the most likely or parsimonious explanation for how it happened". Nobody saw Mt Everest form nor replicated its formation but there is a parsimonious explanation (continental drift etc). Of course it might have been one of the Hindu gods that made it but that is not parsimonious.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I ask you then, what of the scientific method?
What about it? When was the formation of the sun replicated? If a scientist does produce life, you will simply say 'but how do we know that is how it happened on earth, no one was there!'

All I am saying is that what is thought to have happened is not provable via the scientific method. We can assume that the sun formed much like other suns that we do observe being formed. However, what of man? Have we ever observed man being formed? All we can do is look back for evidence in terms of where we might have arisen. There is no proof, that is all I am saying.

Science is in the business of observing the material universe, however, God is not part of this observation in terms of the scientific method, rather, God is part of a spiritual demension that is not subject to the scientific method. Therefore, one can only observe how God has helped shape the material universe and nothing more. The forces that shaped such a universe can only then be speculated upon and nothing more. That is all I am trying to say.

Originally posted by whodey
All I am saying is that what is thought to have happened is not provable via the scientific method.

Nothing is ever provable via the scientific method. Proof is for mathematics. The scientific method looks for the most parsimonious explanation.

We can assume that the sun formed much like other suns that we do observe being formed.
But it doesn't prove it.

However, what of man? Have we ever observed man being formed?
Yes. Its called the fossil record.

All we can do is look back for evidence in terms of where we might have arisen.
All evidence is observation.

There is no proof, that is all I am saying.
No, I think that you are saying that the evidence is not as significant as the evidence for the formation of the sun. You have not shown that however.

Science is in the business of observing the material universe, however, God is not part of this observation in terms of the scientific method, rather, God is part of a spiritual demension that is not subject to the scientific method. Therefore, one can only observe how God has helped shape the material universe and nothing more. The forces that shaped such a universe can only then be speculated upon and nothing more. That is all I am trying to say.
As I said, science and the scientific method are all about speculation. You speculate on all the possible explanations then choose the most parsimonious.
When you look at your computer screen you speculate that it is a human being who posted this and not God. That is the most parsimonious explanation but you do not have proof. Yet you accept it as fact.