Spirituality
13 Apr 12
21 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritthe term for jealousy used and applied in the bible is also exactly the same as the
the term for jealousy used and applied in the bible is also exactly the same as the term generally associated with jealousy. your understanding is incorrect. dawkins uses and understand the term jealousy as it is applied in the bible and as the general population understands the term.
the only one who is having difficulty understanding the term is you as is evident by your torturous attempts to explain yourself without success.
term generally associated with jealousy,
what absolute rubbish, it was demonstrated to you, that the term can have both
positive and negative connotations and be be rendered into English, from the
Hebrew and the Greek as zeal or exclusive devotion, this is nothing like the generic
term for jealousy which is akin to envy. What is more, the Bible was not written in
English, it was written in Hebrew and Greek and a mere lexical rendering of the text
will not suffice to produce an accurate translation, one must look at linguistic
context, literal content, historical and cultural environment.
For example the Greeks had four words for love, each with a different shade of
meaning, its ludicrous to assign English as the definitive meaning of a Biblical
rendering which is exactly what your argument attempts to do and its no wonder its
a nonsense.
What is more the meaning of words change over time, they are in many instances
used to convey ideas, metaphors, imagery and figures of speech, sometimes they
assume familiarity from the reader, sometimes they are used in a specialized sense
to a particular peoples or group or deity, all of which one would need to ignore to
give even a semblance of legitimacy to Dawkins ignorant comment.
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357The paper of Acerbi that you have referred is way above my immediate understanding. It is Metaphysical Physics of a high level, if I may say so. But I will keep chipping away at it till some light dawns on me.
I sometimes wonder why there is such conflict over the idea of God. Maybe there is something wrong with the thought that the idea of God can be truly shared. Sometimes I think that if we dig deep enough into the God-ideas of any two people we will find relative heresy -- a point on which they differ fundamentally. Of course now Black Beetle has me thinking abo ...[text shortened]... stence? Are the differences illusions? What words fit best? Maybe BB will see this and chime in.
By the way, why an observer is required for reality to " become "? Can not the reality " become " independent of the observer ?
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoSome snippets from the thinking of Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, our late president who was also a very learned philosopher. They are about Reality and are based on Upanishadic concepts.
The paper of Acerbi that you have referred is way above my immediate understanding. It is Metaphysical Physics of a high level, if I may say so. But I will keep chipping away at it till some light dawns on me.
By the way, why an observer is required for reality to " become "? Can not the reality " become " independent of the observer ?
The word Brahman ( creative principle, the cause of all existence ) suggests a fundamental kinship between the aspiring spirit of man and the spirit of the universe which it seeks to attain. The wish to know the Real implies that we know it to some extent. If we do not know anything about it, we cannot even say that it is and that we wish to know it. If we know the Real, it because the Real knows itself in us.
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoSince an observer is defined in the context of the EP as “a physical system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality”, and since reality is the sum of all the observers that are parts of the observer universe, reality cannot exist in separation of the observer universe, hence in separation of all the observers that are part of it.
The paper of Acerbi that you have referred is way above my immediate understanding. It is Metaphysical Physics of a high level, if I may say so. But I will keep chipping away at it till some light dawns on me.
By the way, why an observer is required for reality to " become "? Can not the reality " become " independent of the observer ?
It follows that reality to a sentient being is simply its experienced reality (the sentient being cannot get to know its non-experienced reality). This experienced reality is deeply subjective.
Now, how a sentient being perceives its subjective experienced reality? A sentient being perceives subjectively the experienced reality solely because its cognizant apparatus (its consciousness) collapses subjectively the wavefunction according to the evaluation of its mind. This action takes place in the realm of an actual wavefunction (in the realm of a potentiality for experienced reality that cannot be separated from the interaction of the conceived reality with the consciousness that perceives and thus unveils the conceived reality, that is).
And where exactly lays the ground of being of the actual wavefunction (actual wavefunction = potentiality for experienced reality)? It lays in the realm of the potentiality for potentiality (think about Schroedinger’s equation) in relation to the environmental parameters and the computation that is undertaken from the cognizant apparatus of the sentient being that makes the computation. It follows that observers are required for reality to “become”, because reality cannot be grasped independently of the observers of the observer universe. Also, it follows that the sum of all the observers of the observer universe is the way the observer universe “understands” itself.
Methinks Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan would smile with this evaluation, because he already knew that one of the ways the observer universe is “using” for “knowing” itself is Us knowing the observer universe
😵
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiecomplete and utter nonsense. biblegod considers itself the husband of israel and its jealousy is that of a husband to an unfaithful wife who goes after other men.
the term for jealousy used and applied in the bible is also exactly the same as the
term generally associated with jealousy,
what absolute rubbish, it was demonstrated to you, that the term can have both
positive and negative connotations and be be rendered into English, from the
Hebrew and the Greek as zeal or exclusive devotion, this is n ...[text shortened]... h one would need to ignore to
give even a semblance of legitimacy to Dawkins ignorant comment.
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritunworthy of serious comment, once again you are proposing a one dimensional view of
complete and utter nonsense. biblegod considers itself the husband of israel and its jealousy is that of a husband to an unfaithful wife who goes after other men.
a term which has more than one shade of meaning.
22 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou're being unreasonable. your original objection was in context to dawkins's statement about the jealousy of biblegod. dawkins's statement has been conclusively proven to be accurate. whatever other shades of meaning you may imagine are irrelevant.
unworthy of serious comment, once again you are proposing a one dimensional view of
a term which has more than one shade of meaning.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillthe opening statement in the video:
Discussion on Dawkins' irrational faith in chance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vis_F2rH6VE&NR=1&feature=endscreen
"this faith in chance that's found throughout dawkin's work is, you know, an irrational belief..."
had to stop there. this is a false thesis and it follows that any argument that will be made will be based on this false thesis, and therefore, meaningless.
ratings and comments disabled. figures.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillThank you for these YouTube debates. They are interesting, though inconclusive, in my view. Sadly, that is the nature of this Forum. Person A says x is blue, while person B says it is green. No amount of logical reasoning, extrapolation, will persuade either of the other's point of view. Still, it's fun to try!
Discussion on Dawkins' irrational faith in chance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vis_F2rH6VE&NR=1&feature=endscreen
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillokay, this video starts off by misrepresenting hitchens and moves on to dawkins and what does he do? yep, more misrepresentation. we're talking complete quote mining and even rearranging entire sentences, moving some around and rehashing.
Greg Koukl deconstructing Richard Dawkins' main thesis of [b]The God Delusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qkc1cr7hB0&feature=related[/b]
wow. once again, comments and ratings disabled.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by Pianoman1Actually it is usually pretty clear which posters are using logical reasoning and which aren't. Sure, some posters are not persuaded despite being proved wrong, being made to look the fool, being shown up as a liar, etc - humans are like that.
No amount of logical reasoning, extrapolation, will persuade either of the other's point of view.
But in some cases, people are persuaded. I have certainly been persuaded a number of times.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am impressed. I think, however, with something as visceral and flammable as religion peope's views are usually fairly entrenched. I would be even more mightily impressed if someone were to change from an atheist to a theist, or vice versa, on the basis of this forum!
. I have certainly been persuaded a number of times.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou are a coward and afraid to hear the truth.
the opening statement in the video:
"this faith in chance that's found throughout dawkin's work is, you know, an irrational belief..."
had to stop there. this is a false thesis and it follows that any argument that will be made will be based on this false thesis, and therefore, meaningless.
ratings and comments disabled. figures.