Orn you said it man, I agree with you. I want to make a note in general according to my believe: If you want to discover the way the divine works it is important not to make to much statements before you start. It puts a fog over your judgement.
Discovering the beauty in life, Matthijs On 19 okt, 12:14, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
