On 25 May, 18:30, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have written > > something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic alternative. > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an effect with > > no cause. > > But that's your presumption, Pat, about atheist belief or non - > belief ! Whoever said it is without cause. The scientific view would > be that both cause and effect are the same, only differentiated by > time. It's One, and it's nature. The same that is both cause and > effect. >
The standard scientific view is that the Big Bang sprang forth from 'nothing'. I.e., no cause. Something from nothing. That is, simply put, absurd. And there is no evidence that anything can come from nothing. Rather, it is far more likely that 'everything' would, at some point, appear to be nothing, given a particular geometric configuration. Science purporting that cause and effect are the same is bordering on theology. Science (with respect to the Standard Model and/or Quantum Dynamics) does NOT purport Oneness, so, please, refrain from stating that it does. > > There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. With > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by atheistic > > viewpoint). > > The only purpose is anthropomorphic, as we humans can fathom. And that > should be perfectly acceptable, compared to anything delusional you > may be convinced of ! > LOL!! More animosity. Response: yes, perhaps the purpose for US would be anthropomorphic, but, for any creature, it would be creaturomorphic, if you can get your head around that. If you think that delusional rather than objective and egalitarian to all species, then, I can live with that. > > Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is > > it 'without purpose'? > > Yes. Much of it, that is ! > Actually, there is nothing done in this universe without purpose. Every effect is the purpose of the cause. And, if, as you state above, both cause and effect are the same, then there could be NO differentiation as your 'much of it' implies. Rather, it's an all or nothing. Simple logic without the emotional content. > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential outcomes to > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every action > > there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you have > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. However, I'm > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how > > ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and no > > reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? > > What has the Newton's Third Law do with your delusional talk, Pat ? > Why are you bringing it up ? > The third law of motion is for 'bodies in motion'. Newton did NOT state that those bodies had to be 'physical' and, as he was an alchemist, I seriously doubt that he really believed that his laws were bound to the physical; however, of course, a carefully couched statement as "a body in motion..." covers himself and allows the reader to make false inferences. And why do you insist that what I say is delusional? Disprove me! Or are you going to hide behind the "I don't have to back up my negative statement" argument that is, so often bandied about by those who have no argument? > Yes, the Law works in Newtonian mechanical universe, but perhaps not > in photonic dimensions, in EM environment ! But, so what ? > Uh, I think you'll find that a photon in motion will react in accordance with Newton's laws of reaction to other bodies. And, of course, you won't find a photon at rest. What are'photonic dimensions', BTW? Or are you obfuscating on purpose? > Stop beating about the bush, Pat ! Just state what do you know, as is > evident. Also, state what you believe, as against know. It's important > for you to segregate the two to eliminate the delusional effects > heavily settled upon you. > I'm not deluded. Prove that I am! Just state what you know and believe...all of it. In 3 lines. LOL!! No, of course I won't hold you to that, it would be grossly unfair. So why do you insist on being unfair to me? Rationality? More likely you fear your paradigm being shifted. Good. Many people will. Others will welcome it. I expect a spectrum of reactions and yours are well within tolerance. You have now asked me to 'state what I believe'. Do you really think I have time to do that? Not even my book will cover all of what I believe as most of what I believe ( for example, what my sister thinks about her nephews) is completely irrelevant to what you are enquiring about. It's important for you that I fit into a compartment for you so that you can discriminate according to your preconceived notions...that's one thing that I now believe. I also believe that you believe that I'm deluded. I'm not. Prove otherwise. You've made the positive statement that I'm deluded. Back it up. And, by the way, use as much time and effort as you like. However, if I were in your position, I wouldn't waste a single moment on it because ANY amount of time spent on trying to prove me deluded will be, by your own view, wasted time. > > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. Why > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to enjoy > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > > > > kiss god's ass? > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said. > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. How would you > > > > know? > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained > > > > > > phenomena > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man made > > > > > > "God > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the world > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often find > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as empirical > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this is > > > > > > mass > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of the > > > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these > > > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you hooked on your > > > > > > lack > > > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very same thing that > > > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your are bound in > > > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have the believing > > > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It comes down to > > > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control and greed for > > > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, spoke of "the > > > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being worshiped. It is not > > > > > > the > > > > > > true "God" as I understand God. Far be it from me to try to convince > > > > > > you of anything as it is beyond my capacity but I am certain that > > > > > > God > > > > > > shall do his own work with you. > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:22 am, 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
