On 23 July, 16:42, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Has it ever occurred to you, Pat, that I would be really talking to > you - the way that it is possible that parallel universes exist? >
Yes. However, reality is that you're writing on Google Groups and not in some parallel fashion. I've thought deeply about it, yet logic must step in somewhere and say, "enough". The fact is that parallel universes only save time and, as no time can be saved by the One who has it all (ipso facto, de facto and ad continuum), the 'possibility' is relegated to "the set of those things which can be imagined, yet are not real", which is a perfectly valid place where many of the things discussed here exist. > On 23 Jul., 17:07, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 23 July, 15:26, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I still don't get your problem that you seek reconciliation for, I'm > > > sorry. > > > Let me paraphrase it: When you study English at a German university > > > you are obliged to deal with your subject matter via the "scientific" > > > linguistic specs AND the "religious" literary ones. Try to sell them a > > > book on sequenced reconciliation and they wouldn't know where to place > > > it. > > > The reconciliation I seek is that Science recognise that God actually > > IS a scientific possibility and, furthermore, given certain facts > > about this universe, it's likely. Science isn't too happy about that, > > as it has that unwritten statement that God simply can't be a viable > > scientific outcome. Notwithstanding, I can demontrate a system, based > > on the mathematics of string theory, that shows otherwise and answers > > more questions than any other 'theory' on the market. > > > 'Science', as a whole, is REALLY not going to like it when I point out > > that, according to their own 'laws' that 'Creation in 6 days' is > > absolutely plausible. And, they can only refute it if they completely > > backtrack on the Hubble Constant and declare that it doesn't really > > exist. > > > > On 23 Jul., 14:04, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 22 July, 17:08, pindleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, I've learned so much in college compared to what I was taught in > > > > > public school that it is ridiculous. I tend to prefer English/Phil > > > > > classes, as I have. a major in English and a minor in Philosophy. > > > > > Just so all of you know, I do tend to lean more towards materialism > > > > > and science over mysticism, however, I do not entirely discredit > > > > > mysticism. There is a certain level of truth that can be found in > > > > > mystical works that are on a higher level than straight fact or direct > > > > > relation. I did not used to always be this way, however. I used to > > > > > think that religion, mysticism, etc, were all hogwash, but now I see > > > > > the other side of things. I read some works by Karen Armstrong (The > > > > > Case for God) and Robertson Jr. (The Loss and Recovery of > > > > > Transcendence), and I had never considered this fact: The scientific > > > > > method fails at passing it's own criterion for truth. You see, > > > > > something is considered empirically verifiable if observation > > > > > statements logically imply the truth of the claim. If actual > > > > > observation statements do imply the claim, then it is verified, so for > > > > > instance the statement that "This sheep is white" verifies the > > > > > statement that "There are white sheep." Now, taking verifiablity a > > > > > step further, Popper insisted on falsifiablity as well. What this > > > > > means is that for universal claims, if for any reason at any point in > > > > > time I come upon a black sheep, or a blue sheep, then the universal > > > > > claim that all sheep are white has come crashing down like a house of > > > > > cards. On the surface, this set of standards seems to be quite a > > > > > solid criterion for locating truth, but let's test the definition to > > > > > itself. Science claims that if something is not falsifiable or > > > > > verifiable, then it is meaningless. So, now let's run that statement > > > > > through the grind. We cannot, indeed, verify whether or not the claim > > > > > that "In order for something to be meaningful it must be verifiable," > > > > > is true, and we cannot falsify the claim, so in actually, the > > > > > foundations for modern science are pretty much on the same foundations > > > > > as religion. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate for > > > > > science, and I love the life and luxury that science has provided me. > > > > > I just wanted to make those of you who were not aware, that science > > > > > cannot pass it's own criterions of meaning. > > > > > Spot on! Science takes just as much faith as does religion. The > > > > difference is that science cloaks it by referring to aspects of faith > > > > as 'axioms', those things which you MUST accept without proof: like > > > > F=MA (force=mass*acceleration), which has never been proven. > > > > > > After pointing this fact out to me, I felt even more lost then > > > > > before. You mean, both science and religion are still founded on > > > > > bullshit!? This put me in a state of distress, however Robertson > > > > > provides a solution. Since we are able to determine that the parts of > > > > > reality that we experience are real and meaningful, then via modus > > > > > ponens, the Whole is meaningful. If the Whole is meaningful, and not > > > > > at all based on a nihilistic model of reality, then mankind has a > > > > > responsibility to aspire for fellowship, community, transparency, and > > > > > perfection. > > > > > Which is, of course, a religious ideal! Ironic, ain't it? > > > > > >Perhaps this last bit is a jump in logic, and hell, maybe > > > > > even idealistic, but it's better for me to think this than it is for > > > > > me to lie down and cry like a baby at my inability to come to an > > > > > understanding of my reality, isn't it? :) > > > > > I agree. It IS an ideal, however there's nothing inherently wrong > > > > about having ideals. In an ideal world, science could pass its own > > > > criteria for meaning and, maybe someday it will. But I reckon it will > > > > have to reconcile with religion prior to that. And that > > > > reconciliation is exactly what I'm working on. Glad to have you > > > > aboard!! > > > > > > On Jul 22, 9:01 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Welcome aboard! I think literature is a "poor man's" philosophy- > > > > > > what > > > > > > do you think? Diluted further would be great theater and movies and > > > > > > a > > > > > > few lyrics.//My major was Engl. Lit- B.A. and most of a an M.A. > > > > > > program but I honestly preferred Classics/myth and Humanities survey > > > > > > courses- the latter to counteract a Catholic education and enlighten > > > > > > me about the rest of humanity- we were raised in such a glass > > > > > > bubble- > > > > > > so sheltered- it was ridiculous. > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:40 pm, pindleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi everyone! This may be un-proper of me, since I will admit I > > > > > > > haven't taken the time to read through all of the posting rules, > > > > > > > but I > > > > > > > just wanted to take the time to introduce myself. My name is > > > > > > > Dustin, > > > > > > > I'm a 23 year old college student studying English, and I love to > > > > > > > talk > > > > > > > about Philosophy! > > > > > > > > Some of you may have already met me from Mind's Eye @ Gravity > > > > > > > (Orn, > > > > > > > Kierke, Darkwater, etc.) so I'm glad I could join you. > > > > > > > > Anyway, I look forward to posting some convos and participating > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > debate, see you guys around!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
