> Well in that line of reasoning we could simply say that there must be > a creator of God and of that creator as well, setting off an endless > series of the creator's creators.
Actually that does not work. The first thing is to see that creation never occurs "in" time. It is "of" time. Also, the trick is to understand that the meaning of the term "God" is such that what is meant is not some thing that either can or can't be and would therefore need some "other" principle to be. God is not one of his creatures. Instead, when using the term, (or when translating it from literature that was written pre-scientifically if you prefer) one must understand that it is referring to the absence for a reason for being in what is. It is pointing away from a description of nature toward what is not natural, from what things are to the fact that they are. That is why God is suprernatural. This fact, the superfluous of being, properly experienced is at the foundation of the mystical traditions of the religions. That experience gets sold sometimes, or used to generate political power, but that is not the experience. That is the political/economic institution that basically has the religion as its "product" - that which it sells. Also that experience can be "objectified" and the presence of God can be misinterpreted as being "objective". When it is then the debates start to rage as to the actual "existence" of this God with each side bringing evidence. However this misses the whole point. If God means something that either could or could not be, and if evidence is needed to establish his existence, then that God is not God at all but some creature in need of God for creation. So your infinite regress applies only to an understanding of God that misses his nature. In fact, it is my belief, that independent of evidence you can show that no creature, meaning no objective God, could be responsible on principle for his own existence, just by understanding metaphysics and ontology - again without regard to any evidence. Look for example at the history of Molly's posts. Don't read the detail so much as the overall attitude. Do you think she is someone who is dispassionately looking at the data to determine what "in fact" exists "objectively"? Or is she trying to get as something more? Look at Vam's posts also. These are not scientists trying to analyze nature. They are trying to convey much more. Something beyond nature. Something as present as nature and evidenced by it but its not just ... "what are the minimum assumptions we can make in order to create and objective model to explains sensory circumstance". There is more to it. There is much more going on in the subject than that and to reduce it to a scientific debate on nature is to .... well.... de- nature it! ;) We know of the universe, of vacuums > and phenomena. We see, utilize, experience and understand much of it > and perhaps within the nothingness there is the consciousness that is > all things. However, all things did not come with books to tell us > that they are because they are simply there, before books. Lightning > and thunder are there but it is the book that told people what the > lightning and thunder were, not by science but by simple rationale, > naive reasoning and superstitious fears. I can understand if the > belief is that God is the essence of all things, of all life, but I > just don't subscribe to books written by the ancients that conjure > fear, promote discrimination, justify torture, and literally allow > humanity to audaciously claim divinity and creation in the image of > God . Ok, there are two things here. First these books were written prior to science - meaning the emergence of the method around the time of Galileo. So not just the religious literature but all literature was lacking something. In a lot of the literature symbol and metaphor are not distinguished from objective reality. Take the garden of eden. There is certainly an interpretation that the bible actually describes a place that was at some time and there was actually a tree there etc. I would say many if not most still believe that that is what is being claimed. Fundamentalism is rank and rampant even today and it is the root of much evil. So I have no quarrel with that. Also this idea of justifying torture etc... Many ideas do that including religious ones. The Bolsheviks or Pol Pot were not religious but secular monsters. In fact there is some religious killing being done but it is not even most of it. Its just that those kind of people use ideas of any kind, including religious ones, to latch onto power. The mechanism involves things like the Nuremburg rallies where true religious symbolism is associated with the will to power and the "Good" is associated with allowing your worst instincts out. "Free yourself from tyranny" is the call. But it means really "Free yourself from conscience." It is the desire for power that is at the core. You can see it symbolically in the Bible in how the desire for power arises and, instead of Eden, we have the mess we are in. There is also a lot of stuff on how to get out of it and I submit that a lot of the religious ideas have actually inspired abandoning personal power and living in sympathy with the poor and disadvantaged. There is a reason that Christ is born in a stable and the Sadu of India live on charity in the woods. So although it is used to gain advantage by the disingenuous, it is a case of the wolf in sheep's clothing. It is not genuine. The stories and the history of it all is absurd and ludicrous. Not entirely. Look again, this time not literally, and see if there isn't more to it. > Sure there is some insightful biblical content but Gibran's The > Prophet and others are as well. We could read Aristotle, Plato, > Ghandi and others and get some degree of enlightenment. You expect me > to believe that only those desert/cave dwellers were capable of > writing something that could be considered the word of God, what are > we today a bunch of morons, or were they? First, do not underestimate the religious power of desert. It speaks. Do not belittle the motivations of a hermit. He is in the cave out of choice in order to discipline his mind, in order to have the simplicity required to think deeply. He cannot see the fine distictions you might make and he cannot see the attraction of the comfort of your armchair. He is fishing in much deeper waters for big fish. You have missed him completely. As for us contemporaries: No, we have our saints too! Look at Ginsburg crawling out on his balcony saying he has been visited by William Blake! Read Thomas Merton. Look at Hozeman the great mountain of the Dharma Bums. In fact our civilization was saved by the continuation of mystical experience. Without the Beatific generation and the Hippies (an the refuseniks and even a piece of Kruschef and certainly Solzentsim) we would probably have been incinerated in a holocost by now. Imagine what would have happened if the conservative world "objectivizing" world had taken hold! Suicide is the choice. It is this mystical tradition that has kept us from even worse violence. It is the beauty and goodness of life that has stayed our hand (barely). To think that I can't have > a happy life full of richness and reward unless I believe in the bible > is, to me, ridiculous. Of course it is, but you cannot escape certain principles if you want to be happy. You cannot murder innocent people etc. and expect to be happy. The impact of someone like a Hitler on himself is virtually annihilative. He was anything but a victim but he was in a situation where, becoming aware of who he was would have really been a difficult experience for him. Forgiveness occurs but it is not as free and easy as some think. Still... even him... You can see the problem in the relationship between new and old testament systems. You can see it play out in Desmund Tutu's commissions. Why people waste their time with it instead of > getting down to the business of living is beyond comprehension. That is a simple false dilemma. That is not an either or choice. You simply do not understand. You have completely missed it. In my > view more time has be wasted and often progress stifled by the > conflicts surrounding these beliefs. Look at all the countries that > are polarized by all this religious nonsense. Religion may have > served a purpose when the land was in chaos as it brought some sense > of direction and a semblance of order, but then again the preachings > of Peter of celibacy caused a great uproar among the aristocracy of > the time and caused his crucifixion, upside down I might add, even > then only if the story is true and maybe he should had remembered the > commandment, "be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth". In today's > world I find religion to be simply a huge nuisance and a barrier to > humanity's progress. A nuisance?! a barrier?! If by religion you mean the transcendent experience at its core... well... you are about as close to being 180 degress from right as you can be! But if you mean fundamentalism or the organized exploitation of religious instinct for economic or political advantage.... Amen brother, amen! How many wars are currently in engagement on > account of religion? None. They are not on account of religion. Rather primate instinct for subspeciation will latch onto any kind of difference. Remember Rawanda was not religious, nor the killing fields, or the gulag. Ethnic, national, racial, tribal, and yes also religious identity are cause for subspeciation of human primates and it is a problem. But if there is one message of genuine religion it is its universality. All sentient creatures come under its ken. How much death, pain and suffering can we > attribute to these archaic beliefs? Actually very little, when placed in the total context. And even then, I am aware of no one enlgihtened in mystical tradition that is cause of pain and suffering etc... it is always the politicians and the monemakers. It is not the saints. They are the ones enraptured in the bliss of life. To them the killing is just due to ignorance. They know why men kill. They know what is wrong with their thinking. They usually try to teach. But it is not the presence of religion. It is more like its absence. It is an absence of awareness. A low level of consciousness. Bush claimed the God wanted him > to be president and then bombed the hell out of Iraq, killing > thousands. He claimed an "axis of evil" and what basis of thought > would lead one to conclude that? If we could just address the needs > of the world, find ways of living that benefit all then we might see > the end of religious persecution and separatism. Please note I'm not > angry about any of it, I'm glad I'm free of it all and I'm having a > wonderful day. Well... that is good! See what I mean! If I look at your last statement in the context of the rest you can see it. Bush was not religious. Not even a little. He is a fundamentalist, or, perhaps, if he is not, then he is now a very sorry man trying to deal with what he has done and wishing he had listened to has dad instead of his fast talking Texas friends. Why strawman the religious? Why not look at the real thing? On Sep 30, 8:40 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Well in that line of reasoning we could simply say that there must be > a creator of God and of that creator as well, setting off an endless > series of the creator's creators. We know of the universe, of vacuums > and phenomena. We see, utilize, experience and understand much of it > and perhaps within the nothingness there is the consciousness that is > all things. However, all things did not come with books to tell us > that they are because they are simply there, before books. Lightning > and thunder are there but it is the book that told people what the > lightning and thunder were, not by science but by simple rationale, > naive reasoning and superstitious fears. I can understand if the > belief is that God is the essence of all things, of all life, but I > just don't subscribe to books written by the ancients that conjure > fear, promote discrimination, justify torture, and literally allow > humanity to audaciously claim divinity and creation in the image of > God . The stories and the history of it all is absurd and ludicrous. > Sure there is some insightful biblical content but Gibran's The > Prophet and others are as well. We could read Aristotle, Plato, > Ghandi and others and get some degree of enlightenment. You expect me > to believe that only those desert/cave dwellers were capable of > writing something that could be considered the word of God, what are > we today a bunch of morons, or were they? To think that I can't have > a happy life full of richness and reward unless I believe in the bible > is, to me, ridiculous. Why people waste their time with it instead of > getting down to the business of living is beyond comprehension. In my > view more time has be wasted and often progress stifled by the > conflicts surrounding these beliefs. Look at all the countries that > are polarized by all this religious nonsense. Religion may have > served a purpose when the land was in chaos as it brought some sense > of direction and a semblance of order, but then again the preachings > of Peter of celibacy caused a great uproar among the aristocracy of > the time and caused his crucifixion, upside down I might add, even > then only if the story is true and maybe he should had remembered the > commandment, "be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth". In today's > world I find religion to be simply a huge nuisance and a barrier to > humanity's progress. How many wars are currently in engagement on > account of religion? How much death, pain and suffering can we > attribute to these archaic beliefs? Bush claimed the God wanted him > to be president and then bombed the hell out of Iraq, killing > thousands. He claimed an "axis of evil" and what basis of thought > would lead one to conclude that? If we could just address the needs > of the world, find ways of living that benefit all then we might see > the end of religious persecution and separatism. Please note I'm not > angry about any of it, I'm glad I'm free of it all and I'm having a > wonderful day. > > On Sep 30, 8:52 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It turns out that energy is not a conserved quantity in physics. That > > is just a local phenomena. See General Relativity by Wald. I was > > amazed to read it but apparently its as true as the latest physics. > > > You say "energy is" but where is god? > > > There are many things that are besides energy no? And none of them are > > the reason that they are. Why is energy so special? Anything that is > > not the reason for its existence must rely on some other principle to > > distinguish it from the non-existing. You said. "Energy is". If I say > > that means it "has being" would you agree? And wouldn't you also agree > > that the fact that it is, is not energy? The fact that it is is > > being, right? Color is. And color is not the reason that color is. The > > fact that color is, is because it is, not because it has color. So > > again, just like energy, the fact that color is is because of being. > > Being is not color. And by becoming aware of the meaning of that term > > and distinction you can unlock the meaning of a lot of the religious > > literature which is not literal nor a physical description. > > > You say "Where is God"? Need God be somewhere to be? Take the fact > > that 1 + 1 = 2 in the usual mathematics. Now that is a fact and that > > means that that fact is. Where is that fact? Look at history. Where is > > it? Does history reside in some place? Only spacial objects have > > locations. In fact the meaning of an object is inherently related to > > the space it occupies. The meaning of the term object, and being > > completely confused by it, is why many people cannot understand > > religion and ask questions like: Where is god? God isn't anywhere, or > > if you prefer God is everywhere (and beyond). God is not something > > that can be in a given place and not in others. Outside of any thing - > > by definition - is that which "is not" the thing. But outside of God > > there is. In fact even nothing is not outside of god. Take a good look > > at a vacuum... and I am not refering to the vacuum energy but a true > > zero energy vacuum... that is basically - by definition - nothing. Do > > you really think a vacuum isn't? It has properties. So even a vacuum, > > assuming one could realize it, "is" nothing and is therefore created > > by God. > > > On Sep 29, 9:44 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What does it matter in the case of energy, it is there, we have > > > harnessed much of it and discovered many new energies. Energy is, > > > where is God? > > > > Just reading this stuff reveals it's inanity. > > > > "On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings, > > > and a thick cloud upon the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast, so > > > that all the people who were in the camp trembled. Then Moses brought > > > the people out of the camp to meet God; and they took their stand at > > > the foot of the mountain. And Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, > > > because The Lord descended upon it in fire; and the smoke of it went > > > up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain quaked greatly. > > > And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, > > > and God answered him in thunder." > > > (Exodus 19:16-19) > > > > Sounds like California, lol > > > > On Sep 29, 9:31 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 29 Sep, 14:47, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You might want to cite your sources if you are going to C&P. > > > > > > St. Thomas Aquinas? > > > > > > Fossil arguments against evolution? > > > > > Even IF fossil science discounts Darwinian theory it does not > > > > > conversely establish Creation. > > > > > > Michael Denton, Evolution; a theory in crisis, page 328-29 > > > > > Denton is a molecular biologist and an agnostic. Highly assumptive. > > > > > > You are obviously impressed with paper science concerning the origin > > > > > of life, yet there is no established proof for creation by design. > > > > > > What is the origin of God? > > > > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. What is the origin of > > > > energy? The answer to my question will answer yours. ;-) > > > > > > On Sep 28, 10:52 pm, Adam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > God’s Existence. > > > > > > ‘The power and existence of God is proved by the things that are > > > > > > made’. > > > > > > The generally accepted alternative to this is Darwin’s theory. > > > > > > The very essence of evolutionary thinking is slow change. So in the > > > > > > fossil record we would expect to find a gradual transition from the > > > > > > simple to the complex. And the transitional fossils should vastly > > > > > > outnumber the fixed species. But, in fact, no such transitional > > > > > > forms > > > > > > have been found. > > > > > > The discovery of DNA has also posed a threat to Darwin’s theory. So > > > > > > complex is the nature of DNA that it has taken about 50 years to map > > > > > > it. The odds against such a structure occurring by chance are > > > > > > astronomical. Not only that, DNA contains a code and the code > > > > > > contains > > > > > > an incredible amount of meaningful precise information such as ‘the > > > > > > hip bone is connected to the leg bone’ etc. In addition to the > > > > > > construction information, DNA also brings consciousness and > > > > > > intelligence with it in various degrees. These three are not often > > > > > > found in random collections of chemicals. > > > > > > Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according > > > > > > to > > > > > > molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial > > > > > > languages > > > > > > and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and > > > > > > retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly > > > > > > of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices > > > > > > utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the > > > > > > principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] > > > > > > capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it > > > > > > would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter > > > > > > of a few hours”. > > > > > > And some people think that all this came about by chance!!! > > > > > > Adam. > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 2:51 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nice of you to pop in, Adam. It's your thread, you can butt in > > > > > > > anytime you like. > > > > > > > According to the bible? Well that's the whole problem. It is > > > > > > > inconsistent and full of ambiguity, much of it was written years > > > > > > > after > > > > > > > the supposed events. There are numerous collections of stories > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > were deemed worthy of being canonized by the church and accepted > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > the word of God, though written by many different people. There > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > some 400 years between the old and new testament in which time > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
