“Observer - Please provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the EXISTENCE of or any ACT of any god. Once such has been forthcoming we can then move to the attributes of what, in the absence of such data remains purely speculative . Creatures which are not known to exist have few discernible characteristics. Ha Ha Ha Ha ha Ha Psychonomist “ – Dave
Dave, since you are rather new to Mind’s Eye, I’ll share something we have discussed often here with you. Science as I’m guessing you would define the term is not capable of dealing with anything to do with the divine. It is fine for the world of materiality. That is all…at least as I guess you understand it. Taking the first quotation from your own profile: “But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts form experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality.” - (Albert Einstein) >From his point of view at that time, the view is understandable. Note that experience is the key when it comes to knowledge of reality for him. Some schools of Epistemology limit the nature of reality to materiality, some do not. And, even the scientist knows that ‘mater’ is not fundamentally the appearances found in everyday apprehensions. As an aside, neither Einstein nor any other scientist has provided us with a satisfactory set of “scientifically verifiable substantiating data” for either the divine or “the whole of reality”. Since you cherry pick in both quotations and the grounds for exploration of mind, a couple of simple additions to this thread are in order. 'I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.' – Albert Einstein Perhaps you would even agree with this one? Some here do, some don’t feel limited by the notion. It is clear that you have an anthropomorphic and material set of theories associated with the divine. Using such a limited set, what you request (data etc.) would produce the expected results. Some here are not fettered with such materialistic dogma and explore beyond ‘Flatland’. My guess, based on your second profile quote is that you too are ripe for similar forays into transcending common memes. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." – Albert Einstein Many orthodox laymen would disagree with this. Many here would agree with this, me included. And, while there are adherents of specific theologies who are longtime members here, we don’t encourage nor often practice the blind and often philippic dialectics found in groups like Atheists vs Christians. You might want to read our standards. In general, such derision as demonstrated in your apparently mocking “Ha Ha Ha Ha ha Ha”, doesn’t fly here. You are entitled to your own opinions of course and we welcome discussions about them, even the more myopic ones as expressed in your third profile quotation: “The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.” - Friedrich Nietzsche Again, many would agree, many not. However, we deal with not only opinions (which are labeled as such) but with analysis and often even honest attempts at objectivity. On Oct 18, 10:13 pm, Observer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 27, 9:51 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OK, here is where we can discuss the posts in the topic 'Divine > > Attributes'. > > Observer > Please provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the > EXISTENCE of or any ACT of any god. > > Once such has been forthcoming we can then move to the attributes of > what, in the absence of such data remains purely speculative . > Creatures which are not known to exist have few discernible > characteristics. > > Ha Ha Ha Ha ha Ha > > Psychonomist --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
