Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: being fair

  1. #1 being fair 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I am not sure how future theorists will do this, but I am sure when they are on the precipice of defining a theory of all things, they would think it wise to at least instal a theory of the possibility of God, of something that cannot be proved.

    That's what faith is, believeing in something that CAN'T be proved.

    How can anyone anyway PROVE an IMMORTAL OMNIPRESENT being........you would have to go the whole way.

    Can't prove it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    30
    Similarly you can't disprove it. That is the point of spiritual existence - it can't be prvoed in the physical world otherwise it would be reside in the physical world which stops it being spiritual.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 proving spirituality 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    well said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: being fair 
    Forum Freshman Everlasting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I am not sure how future theorists will do this, but I am sure when they are on the precipice of defining a theory of all things, they would think it wise to at least instal a theory of the possibility of God, of something that cannot be proved.

    That's what faith is, believeing in something that CAN'T be proved.

    How can anyone anyway PROVE an IMMORTAL OMNIPRESENT being........you would have to go the whole way.

    Can't prove it.
    Faith is not something that is brought to mind, without proof or without substantial reason.


    Just a Thought
    ____________


    Everlasting

    Moon Over Key Biscayne

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...ndthelowesb-21
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    So would you all say that the people in the Bible weren't spiritual, since they supposedly had ample physical proof the God existed? (God parting the sea, stopping the sun in the sky, appearing in various impressive forms, magically smiting the enemies of the Israelites, etc.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 my initial point precisely 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    That was my initial point. I just wasn;t sure if anyone was going to completely shoot me down.

    That was my point in the "omnipresent immortal" post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    30
    So would you all say that the people in the Bible weren't spiritual, since they supposedly had ample physical proof the God existed? (God parting the sea, stopping the sun in the sky, appearing in various impressive forms, magically smiting the enemies of the Israelites, etc.)
    This does indeed open up a very interesting train of thought! My answer to that is firstly that I tend to take many of the events of the OT with a pinch of salt as it is afterall more of a history book and therefore subject to certain bias and the typical God response ot misfortune - He's punishing us! I also think that with many of the more miraculous stories or rather stories that are fantastic in nature may not actually be intended as true events per se but rather statements of mythological and religious truths.
    Saying that though it is still very interesting analysing the stories/events in a more literal sense!
    I think you have to consider that in many points in the Bible one has to already have faith to gain physical/miraculous proof. Certainly with all of Jesus's miracles that I can think of it was very much a case of 'let your faith heal you'. In that way one has to already be spiritual to gain so-called physical proof.
    You must also consider that many of the miracles were actually God acting in a perfectly natural way. For example the ten plagues of Egypt were all (apart form last but that is being researched as a mis-translation) natural events except for the fact that they came in a consecutive manner. In that way they would only really appear to be physical proof to those who knew of God's intentions - the Israelites who didn't actually need proof. To the average Egyptian they would probably just be wondering how they dis-pleased their gods!
    I may also point out that physical proof is often not enough. From what i can see there are various types of proofs - physical, empirical, mental, emotional and spiritual. Some only need one of these proofs to believe something, others need more or place more trust on some more than others. In this way one who places trust completely on spiritual and mental proofs would probably not actually care whether God is dancing to YMCA in front of them - they would still need mental proof to believe in him.
    To go back to everyday sort of things this is often the case with say pictures or say a famous painting - many will see this physically and actually distrust it's authenticity until they get mental proof from an expert who tells them that it is indeed... you could say actually that this thinking is born of someone with a natural trust in empirical proof - in their world proof is being able to repeat findings and yet we have a painting that is supposedly one of a kind - why can't it be copied? why isn't this a copy? etc. etc.
    Another point - God has never actually appeared in pure form on Earth by all Biblical accounts; it has always been in some obscure form such as a burning bush or a cloud and actually in these cases God has had a mental impact in direct speech but never a physical impact. In such a way these can't really be considered 'physical' at all but more mental, emotional and spiritual and always seem to appear to the converted.

    Dave

    PS - I am currently thinking about Saul's conversion which seems to be a slight exception in that he was militantly anti-christian. However, I would argue that he does actually hold a belief already at the time and so he wasn't a God denier as such but more of a Christ denier.
    Finally, there is also a thing in pschology called 'subconscious incubation' whereby one subconsciously absorbs teachings of another philosophy (can happen in any walk of life) but then will suddenly 'climax' and consciously convert. It may have been that he was already converted but needed that extra push to consciously commit. He was afterall going around killing which wasn't exactly a good thing!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 the word of god 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I agree.

    God is DOCUMENTED and PRACTICED in speech, usually, historically, has been, and will continue to be......"the word of God".

    It is something I can't even properly put into my book, it is far too profund just yet, namely the biological concept of GOD localizing himself as speech for the majority of humanity. I put that though to HOW we have PPRACTICED an understanding of God, namely with words that more often than not are vocalized.

    You make a very good point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    30
    It is a difficult thing to describe... maybe give it a go and just see where your pen leads you? It can help then if you ask someone random to read it and if they understand it then you have done well. However, don't pick anyone who is err a little challenged in the brain department - pick someone you would expect to get it if it were worded properly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 the chosen one 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    The code for "the chosen one" is first "knowing the parent" (well, making at least a Church in honor of it).

    An "apprentice" always thinks he is to supercede his instructor.

    A child always must honor his parent till his parent's death without suspicious incident.

    What I talk about is in observation of a people who generally believe the Father and Son are as one, eternally...........it is that abstract, what I talk about.

    I don't think Christ wanted to be a Church: he allowed reservation of FAITH for his Mother.

    I think he was more of a "master" without seeming to control.

    For me to then do ANY of my writing in honor of that scheme, I myself am not offering posioned words to people, to anyone, I am trying to reach greater heights, heights I am fairly certain of existing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: being fair 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I am not sure how future theorists will do this, but I am sure when they are on the precipice of defining a theory of all things, they would think it wise to at least instal a theory of the possibility of God, of something that cannot be proved.

    That's what faith is, believeing in something that CAN'T be proved.

    How can anyone anyway PROVE an IMMORTAL OMNIPRESENT being........you would have to go the whole way.

    Can't prove it.
    basically this argument boils down to -

    Are the words "transcendental" and "experiential" mutually exclusive?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I am not sure how future theorists will do this, but I am sure when they are on the precipice of defining a theory of all things, they would think it wise to at least instal a theory of the possibility of God, of something that cannot be proved.
    But there are virtually infinity such things.

    What criteria should a scientist use to decide which things to include and which ones to leave out? Or should they include everything and just have the theory be too big to work with?

    Usually, the unprovable is included in an unspoken clause included in all scientific theories "We could be wrong, but it looks like ................" You see, scientists, unlike theists, do not think themselves infallible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I am not sure how future theorists will do this, but I am sure when they are on the precipice of defining a theory of all things, they would think it wise to at least instal a theory of the possibility of God, of something that cannot be proved.
    But there are virtually infinity such things.
    indeed - it's called a fudge factor or a get-out-of-jail card
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 an infinity of such things? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    When I look back on history, I think how primitive we were, yet at the same time, how we made an effort at least to understand that we are both free and a part of a grand system of both "repetitious cycles" and randomness.

    Thousands of years ago, I am thinking it would have been natural for us to make the attempt to understand the "all things" factor. Back then, owing to our lack of development of intelligence, our much smaller resorce of historical perspective, we would have been required to have faith, to "believe" in something profound as opposed to "knowing" something profound.

    I am thinking that if we also must respect our freedom, and of course our uncertainty, there would be MORE THAN ONE FAITH.

    I am also thinking that "faith" would not be at war with itself, and thus ultimately there would not be two faiths competing with one another, nor just the one faith we would be required to all observe, but, yes, three faiths, ultimately, to choose from to be a part of.

    I am then thinking the logical approach for a scientist, mathematician, or philosopher, in achieveing the theory of all things, would be to perhaps establish the code of those three faiths and how they fit into our ability to be aware. Remember also that in reaching the ultimate theory we ourselves, humans, our perception expression, would be like Gods mastering the space-time reality we live in, and thus need to explain how perception represents a distinct variable in the equation of space-time.

    I also think that such a theory in INCLUDING say three main faiths, as codes, mathematical codes of perception, would present just the basic mathematical themes (two points as "1", for instance (we two are one)) while then explaining the general forces and structure of space-time.

    I know it sounds almost impossible, and I don't disagree with that. All I am presenting is the "what if"..........the, "if it is possible, it would perhaps have to cover this". I am nt saying I KNOW, I am saying that to make an attempt of discussing the implications of a theory of all things is better than just trying to boldly go for the theory itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •