Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not make any conclusion; like everyone else, I am waiting for theists to make his/her own case. Then, the thread itself shows the conclusion to everyone out there.
I have made the case three times so far, and yet it is ignored. Here it is again, for the FOURTH TIME
God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."-Joseph Campbell
There. I have made a case for the existince of one of the thousands of definitions for GOD to exist and provided proof. I am waiting for any anti-theists to disprove the above statement about GOD as Campbell defines it, otherwise, the statement speaks for it's self.
victorianpunk, would you please declare yourself as a theist or an atheist?
Depends on what you mean. I practice a religion but do not believe 100% that there is a GOD in the so-called "supernatural" sense, but I do 100% believe that a kind of GOD exist, i.e., myself, my super-ego, humanity etc.
I am a Gnostic Christian, and we do not believe that one must believe in the Myth to be a Gnostic Christian, it is the practice and understanding that counts, and none of us take the Myth literally.
The Myth might be, entirely, a group of mental exercises that simply speak to the subconscious of human beings, i.e., speaks to the entire human psychy, and hence, that is how it makes my life better...but that is the point, it makes my life better to practice a religion and have a GOD. What exactly is going on in my head and all around me is irrelevant, it is the results that matter...
...and that is why your question is flawed. The hard sciences looks for tangible pieces of a thing to analyize and figure out how they work, while spiritual is based on that it works or does not work, and not the "how".
I pray, I practice religion, I meditate on the scripture, I live a life as the scriptures say to the best of my ability, and I am happier as a result. That is proof enough for me of the effectiveness of my religion. Wether I am actually praying to a internal deity (the inner light of Pneuma) or my super-ego is irrelevant. Wether the scriptures are real or just stories and fables is irrelevant. I am happier with religion than I am without, and the joy I get from practicing a religion is indeed, REAL AND PROVEABLE.
One of my many definitions of GOD is the joy I get from being a Gnostic Christian...now, is that joy somehow "not real"? If that joy is real, and I call it GOD, then how can there be no GOD?
03-16-2009, 03:53 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The central problem all materialists seem to have is letting go of the idea that there is ANYTHING physical. youknow that "molecules" are vibratory events in time, "atoms" are as well, so are "particles" . . . as is what we call pure energy. There is nothing physical . . . just aggregated vibratory energy events at various levels ("spheres") of aggregation (like traffic jams). Physics only knows how to use "measurable" energy aggregates that have standing wave-like stable properties (what we call "material" objects) enabling us to predict the results of their interactions (resonances/dissonances) mathematically. For example . . . WE are a standing wave composite . . . sort of a "mini-universe" of all the vibrational energy components that comprise us down to the sub-atomic level. If this seems too abstract for you to digest . . . it means your concept of a "physical" world where "energy" is just something used to do things is probably too strong.
Hey Mystic, just wanted to pick your brain (not literally) - How do you see the ZPE being incorporated into either QED or SED physics??? To me QED seems to 'play' with the math to get rid of 'problems' - does SED solve some of these. QED seems coherant but is it correspondant with observation and does SED fit this observation better. By the way I ain't no professional on these matters so forgive me if this is not to clear - just thought you might have some insights.
Depends on what you mean. I practice a religion but do not believe 100% that there is a GOD in the so-called "supernatural" sense, but I do 100% believe that a kind of GOD exist, i.e., myself, my super-ego, humanity etc.
I am a Gnostic Christian, and we do not believe that one must believe in the Myth to be a Gnostic Christian, it is the practice and understanding that counts, and none of us take the Myth literally.
The Myth might be, entirely, a group of mental exercises that simply speak to the subconscious of human beings, i.e., speaks to the entire human psychy, and hence, that is how it makes my life better...but that is the point, it makes my life better to practice a religion and have a GOD. What exactly is going on in my head and all around me is irrelevant, it is the results that matter...
...and that is why your question is flawed. The hard sciences looks for tangible pieces of a thing to analyize and figure out how they work, while spiritual is based on that it works or does not work, and not the "how".
I pray, I practice religion, I meditate on the scripture, I live a life as the scriptures say to the best of my ability, and I am happier as a result. That is proof enough for me of the effectiveness of my religion. Wether I am actually praying to a internal deity (the inner light of Pneuma) or my super-ego is irrelevant. Wether the scriptures are real or just stories and fables is irrelevant. I am happier with religion than I am without, and the joy I get from practicing a religion is indeed, REAL AND PROVEABLE.
One of my many definitions of GOD is the joy I get from being a Gnostic Christian...now, is that joy somehow "not real"? If that joy is real, and I call it GOD, then how can there be no GOD?
This is your definition of God. Of course if you redefine God as something already observable, then it is proven.
But, though not crystal clear, it seems the OPer is talking about the literal Christian God that equals Jesus who died on a cross. This is the much more popular definition(s) of God. If you accept that Jesus actually lived, there is still no evidence that he was a god, and there is also no evidence of the holy spirit, or angels, or any other supernatural claim in the bible (or torah or koran, etc.) just as there is no evidence that Greek or Egyptian gods are real.
This is your definition of God. Of course if you redefine God as something already observable, then it is proven.
I thank you for being one rationalist who is willing it admit what I have been saying. Like I said, atheism in and of it's self is a perfectly understandable position...it's the bonehead anti-theists that get on my nerves.
Quote:
But, though not crystal clear, it seems the OPer is talking about the literal Christian God that equals Jesus who died on a cross.
Than the OP should have been more specific.
Quote:
This is the much more popular definition(s) of God.
Perhaps not. According to a recent poll in Europe, even in the most non-religious country, the Czech Republic, while only one in five believe in "god", one in two believe in "some kind of spirit or life force" http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf
(see Page 10) So, that "spirit or life force" could easily be called god. Also, there are many, MANY deists out there who believe in god, but are not sure about it's nature. Is it a sentient, personal deity? Is it simple a force of nature that we do not yet (and never will) understand, like the Taoist's Tao? Is it a cosmic principal, like the Buddhist's Karma?
Who knows....I like to think that my answer to those questions are: YES
Quote:
If you accept that Jesus actually lived, there is still no evidence that he was a god, and there is also no evidence of the holy spirit, or angels, or any other supernatural claim in the bible (or torah or koran, etc.)
GOD is that which transcends us and guides us. The teachings of Christ transcend me and guides me, hence, Jesus Christ is GOD. Wether he lived or died is irrelevant for me. I am not a Nicene who believes in the "ornament Jesus" just hanging there on a big wooden "T" to die. I believe that it is the teachings of Christ that matter. One can go into any Barnes and Nobles and get a copy of the Canoncial and Gnostic Gospels. The books are real, and that is all that matters.
Quote:
just as there is no evidence that Greek or Egyptian gods are real.
I have met many Wiccans in my day who work with the Greek gods. Some of them claim that there are no gods but the ones within. Dionysus is the personification of revelry and celebration, Venus the personification of love, Vulcan the personification of building and crafting etc. Hence, the gods are real, as these are inner feelings, and emotions are indeed real.
As for the question of "are they real in the supernatural sense" they, like I, believe that that question is pointless. It's the results that matter.
In the words of Joseph Campbell in "The Power of Myth", "heaven and Hell are within us, and all the gods are within us"
Theists may not free to define God any way they want to. Because, there are scriptures, and scriptures are all about God.
Example, someone may try to define God just to get by for this thread: God is anything exist in the universe, then "transcend" into the bull craps in the scriptures. Problem is things that exist directly contradict the bull craps in the scripture.
Hey Mystic, just wanted to pick your brain (not literally) - How do you see the ZPE being incorporated into either QED or SED physics??? To me QED seems to 'play' with the math to get rid of 'problems' - does SED solve some of these. QED seems coherant but is it correspondant with observation and does SED fit this observation better. By the way I ain't no professional on these matters so forgive me if this is not to clear - just thought you might have some insights.
Zero point energy . . . or infinite free energy is probably best explained by some return to Einstein's abandoned aether and continuous field structure of the universe. Our discretizations have only caused confusion and ridiculous particle-wave dualities, etc. Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamic theory needs to be reformulated (and has been successfully) using Spherical wave dynamics.
You must be kidding . . . if you think I could present even a poorly cogent summary of the requisite accommodations here in a forum like this in a form suitable for non-professionals to grasp. The Quantum Field theories are complex: Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics, Quantum gravity, String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity Theory, etc. But this somewhat simple overview of the new perspective might help . . . here is an excerpt:
The solution to this confusion and contradiction is simple once known. Describe reality from One thing existing, Space (that we all commonly experience) and its Properties. i.e. Rather than adding matter particles to space as Newton did, we consider Space with properties of a continuous wave medium for a pure Wave Structure of Matter. This is the Most Simple Science Theory of Physical Reality (despite many claims to the contrary, science does actually work, we just needed the correct foundation of continuous Space rather than discrete matter).
Most importantly, this Dynamic Unity of Reality provides simple solutions to all the 'strangeness' of quantum physics that has resulted from this discrete / disconnected 'particle' conception of matter.i.e.
Matter is a Wave Structure of Space - the Spherical Wave Center creates the 'particle' effect.
Light is a Wave Phenomena - however, spherical standing waves (matter) act as spherical resonators and only interact (resonantly couple) at discrete frequencies / energies which gives the effect of discrete light 'quanta'.
Reality is both Continuous (Space) and Discrete
(Standing Wave Interactions).
Reality is both Local and Non-Local - matter is causally inter-connected in Space by its Spherical In and Out Waves (traveling at velocity c, i.e. Einstein's Locality). However (and very importantly), with relative motion these matter wave interactions form de Broglie phase waves that travel at high velocities (c2/v), explaining EPR and apparent Non-Locality / Instant-Action-at-a-Distance.
Reality is Causally Connected but Non-Deterministic / Statistical. The waves in quantum theory are real waves (not abstract 'probability waves') but lack of knowledge of the interconnected whole (infinite Space) causes statistical behaviour of matter (as Einstein believed).
Milo Wolff explains the failure of the Maxwell Equations in spherical co-ordinates can be imagined by saying, 'You cannot comb the hair on a tennis ball'. This means that if you attempt to comb down an E field (the hair representing the electric vector) everywhere flat onto a tennis ball (a spherical surface), you must create a 'cowlick' somewhere on the ball which frustrates your attempt to comb it.
The solution to this problem is very simply solved by the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) which replaces Feynman's spherical vector e-m waves with spherical scalar 'quantum' waves which do in fact have spherical wave solutions.
I realise this is a pretty abrupt / radical introduction to a new way of seeing things - that it will take some time to adjust. But the Wave Structure of Matter is simple sensible and obvious once known. Each Quantum Physics page has a short summary and important quotes, so it is easy to click around and confirm things for yourself. Enjoy! Think!
I thank you for being one rationalist who is willing it admit what I have been saying. Like I said, atheism in and of it's self is a perfectly understandable position...it's the bonehead anti-theists that get on my nerves.
Than the OP should have been more specific.
Perhaps not. According to a recent poll in Europe, even in the most non-religious country, the Czech Republic, while only one in five believe in "god", one in two believe in "some kind of spirit or life force" http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf
(see Page 10) So, that "spirit or life force" could easily be called god.
Yes, but the fact that those who believe in the "spirit or life force" didn't say it was God means that their definition of God is one like I mentioned before. By saying "no" to believing in God while saying "yes" to "some kind of spirit or life force" they are clearly saying that the "spirit or life force" is not God. However, neither "god" nor a "spirit or life force" has testable evidence for existence.
Quote:
Also, there are many, MANY deists out there who believe in god, but are not sure about it's nature. Is it a sentient, personal deity? Is it simple a force of nature that we do not yet (and never will) understand, like the Taoist's Tao? Is it a cosmic principal, like the Buddhist's Karma?
Who knows....I like to think that my answer to those questions are: YES
GOD is that which transcends us and guides us. The teachings of Christ transcend me and guides me, hence, Jesus Christ is GOD. Wether he lived or died is irrelevant for me. I am not a Nicene who believes in the "ornament Jesus" just hanging there on a big wooden "T" to die. I believe that it is the teachings of Christ that matter. One can go into any Barnes and Nobles and get a copy of the Canoncial and Gnostic Gospels. The books are real, and that is all that matters.
And you are also OK with Jesus' teachings on sexism and slavery?
Quote:
I have met many Wiccans in my day who work with the Greek gods. Some of them claim that there are no gods but the ones within. Dionysus is the personification of revelry and celebration, Venus the personification of love, Vulcan the personification of building and crafting etc. Hence, the gods are real, as these are inner feelings, and emotions are indeed real.
As for the question of "are they real in the supernatural sense" they, like I, believe that that question is pointless. It's the results that matter.
In the words of Joseph Campbell in "The Power of Myth", "heaven and Hell are within us, and all the gods are within us"
If you are fine with it either way, then that's fine. Most people aren't religious while having that attitude. I find it interesting that you claim to not know for sure, as any agnostic does, yet you call yourself a gnostic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have made the case three times so far, and yet it is ignored. Here it is again, for the FOURTH TIME
Like I said, atheism in and of it's self is a perfectly understandable position...it's the bonehead anti-theists that get on my nerves. 
