On 21 May, 16:22, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say still evokes
> the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what IS just IS
> can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my window. You
> have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. When looking at
> the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which essentially is a human
> construct stemming from the need to address the unknown.
> We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a sort of macro-
> religion which defines everything in terms of what we see and
> experience with our physical senses while the natural world leaves
> open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is the point at
> which the constructs begin to take form because there is no proof
> otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without scientific proof
> anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and create "Myth".
> Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods and sacrificial
> human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason we have yet to
> let go of the main theme of religious belief.
> Religion's foundation is completely based on explanation of the
> unknown and the unseen, the perceptions of good and evil and the need
> to explore afterlife. These perceptions/constructs lead to a oneness,
> a central being, a deity and in some cultures a multiplicity, a
> composite of deities assigned to elements of the universe such as the
> ocean and the sun. Tack on the egocentric nature of humanity and what
> you get is man's idea that he is an appendage of the oneness, an
> extension of the almighty. Now we have gods with an uncanny
> resemblance to humans; why am I not surprised. Religions are
> worshiping "Humanity". Jesus = the only begotten son of god. Why?
> We are the children of god. Really? Say's who? This tendency is
> unrealistic for me and no one has ever throughout history shown in
> anyway a proof concerning religious dogma. It all remains to this day
> simple "Myths" from which to launch holy wars, commit unspeakable
> atrocities, build huge organizations that collect tithing and instill
> guilt and fear for living a natural and normal life.
>
Not exactly the Islamic viewpoint, there, Slip. Their view is that
the One True God actually told a man (the Prophet Muhammed[pbuh]) what
He did with respect to creation and many other issues regarding 'the
unseen' ('al-ghraib' in Arabic). Now, imagine, for a moment, that
THAT is exactly what happened; that God really did communicate to man
what He did. If you accept the premiss, then what the message says
(if you read the Qur'an) is very much what one would expect to hear
from such an entity. BTW, in Islam, there is no such thing as a 'holy
war'; rather, there are just wars and unjust wars; but NO war is ever
'holy'. The concept of 'Holy War' was a Christian invention from the
Crusades and, of course, the Christians lost most of them. Also, The
Qur'an does NOT agree that Jesus was any kind of offspring of God; in
fact, that concept is strongly refuted BY God. I've no doubt that
this universe was no accident and the odds of it accidently springing
into existence are far more remote than it being a thing created by an
intelligent creator with some purpose (for it) in mind. Science
doesn't prove, in any way, shape or form that this universe DID form
accidently; rather, it simply can't explain its origins. Well, if you
accept (for the sake of argument) the premiss of the Qur'an, then the
answer to that question is given in the book. With respect to humans,
we were created for two main purposes: to know one another and to
worship the creator without having 'scientific proof' that He exists.
Of course, there is no anthropomorphism permitted in Islam, that is,
God is NOT like a human. Nor does the Qur'an state that we were
created in His likeness or image. However, it DOES mention His 'face'
and 'hands', and that has caused much turmoil over the years as to how
to interpret these usages. As far as God's 'face' goes, I can explain
that by reminding you that a cube has 6 faces, none of which resemble
a human face. ;-)
Now, I outline a model of physics that is completely congruent with
Islamic cosmology (and, for that matter, Jewish cosmology) and is as
mathematically sound as is String Theory. It is not empirically
provable BECAUSE of the size of the strings (an inheritance of using
string theory and considered a 'weakness' by some) but, technically,
it is mathematically possible. Because my twist TO the theory solves
many of the problems that the existing theories do not (explaining
"what energy did before the Big Bang", and the mechanism behind
quantum entaglement), it becomes 'plausible' if not downright
'likely'. And, of course, it lends credence to the Qur'an as,
finally, there is a mathematical model that backs it up.
Unfortunately, I can't back up concepts like Jesus being the son of
God, although I can explain how that misrepresentation came into
being; howeverm one doesn't need a physical model for that, rather,
just an understanding of Jewish cosmology, Kabbalah and ancient Hebrew
usage of terms. The prophet Ezra was also called a 'son of God' (and
that is mentioned in the Qur'an, as well, although the name is
rendered "Uzair", i.e., in its Arabic form) but, as no one ever
associated Ezra with being 'the Messiah', the moniker went, for the
most part, un-noticed. If the truth be known, Ezra was called that
because he was the one who brought the Jewish people their Torah in
its modern form. Well, that is, he was the compiler of the books that
are now called 'Torah'. Because the Jews had thought that he had
'preserved' the original (rather than, in truth, actually compiling it
from other source documents[the Yahwist text, The Elohist text, The
Priestly scrolls and his own work as 'the Deuteronomist']), they
hailed him to be likened to a member of the "Beni Elohim", a certain
order of angels that take care of the Jewish people in times of need.
They were merely saying that "he was like an angel", although, over
time, the usage got mixed up with a literal translation of "Beni
Elohim" (literally it means "sons of God") by some translator who was
either ignorant of the original intention of the usage or by someone
with an agenda. The same was true for Jesus; he was likened to an
angel and Paul, with his agenda, picked up on that and decided to
misuse it.
> On May 21, 6:51 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 May, 15:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The ball of elaboration is in your court, this is your thread. You
> > > are making broad statements without saying much.
>
> > > You see agnostics as having a "problem" because you have anchored
> > > yourself within your personal set of beliefs that you consider
> > > truths.
>
> > > While issues can be linked to each other they can also be explored
> > > individually.
>
> > > I don't see the thread going anywhere other than reaching levels of
> > > redundancy without resolution.
>
> > > I'm with Albert Einstein below.
>
> > > Borrowed FROM:
> > > Molly Brogan Thread May 26, 2008
>
> > > According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated
> > > by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and
> > > functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of
> > > change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused
> > > and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato,
> > > Republic)
>
> > > To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally
> > > ordered system that is God.
>
> > > To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated
> > > system in which everything is contained.
>
> > > To Einstein, “the truth of
> > > the Universe is human truth.”
>
> > While I usually support Einstein, here we differ a tad. Einstein went
> > in search of truth and discovered 'relativity'. This discovery
> > flavoured his view of truth, as he discovered the importance of the
> > 'reference point' from within the system. But what if one's reference
> > point is outside the system? The Qur'an states (22:6) 'God is the
> > Reality/Absolute Truth.' The Arabic is "Allah Al-Haqq". It's a
> > statement that is perfectly congruent with the physics I propose and,
> > within it, still allows for the 'Special Relativity' that we
> > experience. The viewpoint is whether or not one is outside or inside
> > the box. Einstein was IN the box whereas Allah IS the box.
>
> > > Read More @
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/8531f4e...
>
> > > On May 16, 6:37 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 16, 11:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> Thank You!
>
> > > > > I understand it all very well and did not discredit anything.
>
> > > > > I simply recognized a multi-faceted post which needs clarification on
> > > > > some specifics.
>
> > > > Only a multi-faceted post can clearly highlight the wholistic
> > > > approach.> Truth IS that Truth is highly subjective even in the sense of
> > > > > absolutism, somewhat like absolute "fact".
>
> > > > Calling Truth as subjective matter is part of empiricism. Our
> > > > perception about Reality can be quite different from Absolute Truth.
> > > > That doesn't mean Absolute Truth does not exist.> The Wow really
> > > > belongs as a pertinence to your own opening thread
> > > > > which covers several issues.
>
> > > > All the isues covered in that post are linked to each other. You
> > > > cannot separate one from the other.> We've covered the truth issue here
> > > > many times before so you might
> > > > > consider searching the Minds Eye archives.
>
> > > > The problem with agnostics is that they cannot see anything beyond
> > > > public opinion or collective opinion. Truth can be (& most of the
> > > > times it is) different from collective opinion.
>
> > > > > Have a good e-space night!
>
> > > > Now again the e-space illusion has come into picture. We are from
> > > > different time zones. What is night for you is a day for me in
> > > > India...
>
> > > > > On May 15, 8:53 pm, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Wow ! Discrediting anything that you do not understand is a typical
> > > > > > agnostic position. Your comment, Slip Disc, is quite in line with
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > position.
>
> > > > > > On May 16, 4:58 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> You are
> > > > > > presenting layers upon layers upon layers of thread topic
> > > > > > > here; kinda like sporadic inputs generated by a frenetic thought
> > > > > > > process.
>
> > > > > > > Break it down and address a single aspect of the rant so we can
> > > > > > > respond specifically to a individual point.
>
> > > > > > > I would have to suggest that you start with your personal
> > > > > > > understanding of what "Truth" is.
>
> > > > > > There is nothing personal about "TRUTH". That's what the term
> > > > > > "Absolute Truth" means. It is ABSOLUTE in every respect....>You
> > > > > > obviously are already biased in the sense of what truth is and
> > > > > > further anchor your understanding in
> > > > > > > theistic principles which don't hold much water other than that
> > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > fanaticism towards another fantasy belief system out of the
> > > > > > > hundreds
> > > > > > > of deity fantasies out there.
>
> > > > > > What is the basis for your assumption that my understanding about
> > > > > > TRUTH is anchored in theistic principles ? Are you sure that you are
> > > > > > not mixing-up theistic principles with the procedures of some
> > > > > > organised religions like western theistic religions (such as
> > > > > > Cristianity, Judaism or Islam) ?
>
> > > > > > > Why don't you try getting with reality?
>
> > > > > > > On May 15, 12:06 pm, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > This is with reference to Hollywood film "Adventures of
> > > > > > > > Priscila,
> > > > > > > > Queen of Desert".
> > > > > > > > While explaining the system around us, Hegel used the
> > > > > > > > terms "Real
> > > > > > > > Reality" & "Apparent Reality". By analyzing Hegel's opinion that
> > > > > > > > history develops as per the logical plan, we can say, "Hegel had
> > > > > > > > mistaken apparent reality for real reality". What he called as
> > > > > > > > real
> > > > > > > > reality was actually the determinists' zone. Though he claimed
> > > > > > > > to have
> > > > > > > > traversed the entire field, it is quite clear that Hegel could
> > > > > > > > not see
> > > > > > > > the endpoint of the desert shown in the abovementioned Hollywood
> > > > > > > > film.
> > > > > > > > "The new world order" system (a combination of Snob
> > > > > > > > society &
> > > > > > > > Republic society) which is in place for the last 44 years, is
> > > > > > > > precisely the same nonscientific racist nonsense which was
> > > > > > > > overthrown
> > > > > > > > by Europe during Age of Reason. (Here, the term racism means a
> > > > > > > > nexus
> > > > > > > > between forward racism upper cocks & reverse racism uppercocks.)
> > > > > > > > Racists' urge to project themselves as limit of manliness,
> > > > > > > > prompts
> > > > > > > > them to label Queens of desert as eunuchs. Just look at the
> > > > > > > > list of
> > > > > > > > eunuchs prepared by these racist morons & you will be proud to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > Queen of desrt -- Mozes, Hegel, Hitler, Alexander, Hanuman (a
> > > > > > > > monkey
> > > > > > > > headed God from Hindu mythology)... almost anyone who doesn't
> > > > > > > > want to
> > > > > > > > deviate from TRUTH gets labeld as eunuch by these mediocre
> > > > > > > > racists.
> > > > > > > > Apart from cowardice & inefficiency, there is nothing in the
> > > > > > > > genes of
> > > > > > > > these racists. These are the stupid talkative extroverts who
> > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > running hither & thither when Hitler's battletanks were chasing
> > > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > These are the great soldiers who ditched Alexander for gaining
> > > > > > > > favours
> > > > > > > > from Dariyas.
>
> > > > > > > > Fromhttp://samirsp.blogspot.com-Hidequotedtext-
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
