What RELIGION are you?
- Thread starter Zipper
- Start date
Zipper
Well-known member
Science itself assumes things that it itself cannot test and prove.cLavain said:So...basically New Age, then?
Sounds good, Zipper, but don't pretend it's science. Your theory is based on an unverifiable assumption (God's existence), and I can see no way to test it against empirical data. Thus, it's basically science in the same way creationism / intelligent design is science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
It begins by assuming a point of view out of which it works: There is truth, the rule of non-contradiction, things stay the same from one moment to the next, falsity is opposed to truth. These things can never be proved, but they can only be assumed. But the more we assume these to be true, the more reasonable it becomes to assume they are true.
Even these things, built up and recognized for what they are, point to the identity of the ONE who sustains and orders the cosmos, and gives our eyes sight and our minds reason. The ONE is the "truthity" of truth. Acceptance of the ONE (at least to a limited degree) is a precondition of all thought, reasoning and scientific exploration.
Neo-Platonism is a way of seeing. Science eagerly employs much of its tools of vision, and to go a little further, and see the lustrating light of joy behind the curtain of the material world is not to abandon science, but simply to embrace joy and hope along with your expectations of consistency and non-contradiction.
cLavain
Well-known member
Zipper said:Science itself assumes things that it itself cannot test and prove.cLavain said:So...basically New Age, then?
Sounds good, Zipper, but don't pretend it's science. Your theory is based on an unverifiable assumption (God's existence), and I can see no way to test it against empirical data. Thus, it's basically science in the same way creationism / intelligent design is science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
It begins by assuming a point of view out of which it works: There is truth, the rule of non-contradiction, things stay the same from one moment to the next, falsity is opposed to truth. These things can never be proved, but they can only be assumed. But the more we assume these to be true, the more reasonable it becomes to assume they are true.
Even these things, built up and recognized for what they are, point to the identity of the ONE who sustains and orders the cosmos, and gives our eyes sight and our minds reason. The ONE is the "truthity" of truth. Acceptance of the ONE (at least to a limited degree) is a precondition of all thought, reasoning and scientific exploration.
Neo-Platonism is a way of seeing. Science eagerly employs much of its tools of vision, and to go a little further, and see the lustrating light of joy behind the curtain of the material world is not to abandon science, but simply to embrace joy and hope along with your expectations of consistency and non-contradiction.
You have fallen into the trap Rene Descartes fell into, so you're in good company at least. His a priori proof of God's existence was obviously flawed. You see, God's existence can not be assumed at all. And if you invoke God, then you also need to explain how God came into being, as explained earlier.
Nothing can be absolutely proven, but science is ultimately based on what your senses are telling you. For example: Rocks fall to the ground every time you throw them up in the air (unless you throw them at escape velocity) - hence, the law of gravity. Your theory is based on your own personal interpretation which, incidentally, is not shared by everyone else. Nature is fairly well explained by the laws of nature. If you see God in the world then it's because you want to. A truly scientific mind can not be prejudiced when looking at the world.
A fallacy. Things are assumed only as long as they are not contradicted.Zipper said:
Also, an assumption must be so obvious that "everyone" can agree on it. Needless to say, God's existence is not obvious, or we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.
Reholla said:
Actually, I was kidding. Every time I think of Tom Cruise and how he views his religion as the best. And that all you need to cure any ailments is scientology. And that pills won't make you better... Well that is kinds true. Lots of pills do make you numb to your pain and the world.
To me though, science is cool. It's helped us in soo many things. But to me is contradictorial. Since what they say is fact today, tomorrow they'll come out and say that they were wrong.
cLavain
Well-known member
But that is the greatest strength of science! It is dynamic and self-correcting, evolving ever closer to a true explanation of reality. Classical physics was close, quantum mechanics closer still.young said:
Unlike religion which is static and generally ignores new evidence until it becomes so embarrassing that religious "scholars" have to yield (as with the heliocentric world view). By being so dogmatic they paint themselves into a corner.
And damn you for luring me into posting again!
Zipper
Well-known member
NeoPlatonism is ever-evolving in the way you describe. No fixed dogma, no fixed statement of the divine law, no fixed anything, except the fixed hope that there is a right and a wrong, and when divine judgment operates on a non-believing sinner, wrongs would be righted if we cooperate.
cLavain said:But that is the greatest strength of science! It is dynamic and self-correcting, evolving ever closer to a true explanation of reality. Classical physics was close, quantum mechanics closer still.young said:
Unlike religion which is static and generally ignores new evidence until it becomes so embarrassing that religious "scholars" have to yield (as with the heliocentric world view). By being so dogmatic they paint themselves into a corner.
And damn you for luring me into posting again!
But those are the views of catholocism. Not all religions are like that. But with science, if you can't prove it, then it never existed.
cLavain
Well-known member
True, but no religion is open to the idea that their God(s) may not exist (including NeoPlatonism, as far as I understand), and frankly I can't think of a religion that doesn't have a list of dogmas.young said:
Of course, if something has no measurable effect on our universe, then to all intents and purposes it does not exist.young said:
cLavain
Well-known member
No, it isn't.
You state that I must have faith in myself to have faith in something else, but that is not obviously so.
I don't have faith in my ability to climb Mount Everest, but I have faith in other peoples ability to do it. That simple example seems to contradict your sweeping statement.
You state that I must have faith in myself to have faith in something else, but that is not obviously so.
I don't have faith in my ability to climb Mount Everest, but I have faith in other peoples ability to do it. That simple example seems to contradict your sweeping statement.
Lavinia84
Well-known member
Hey this topic moved!
It only took me what, like a week to find it?
I just wanted to say something about the proof of God.
Theres no 'proof' of anything, even in science you can only have a theory, or a hypothesis. My theory is that there is a something out there, to which I give the name God.
Its a good point to ask where did God come from?
However, is this a realistic question, or a product of our way of thinking.
We assume God has a beginning and an end beacuse everything we experince during life functions this way.
I put it to you...if there is a God would he/she/it have to be IN our universe or would he/she/it, as the creator, in fact exist outside of it.
Taking Stephen Hawking's model of space-time it would suggest that if God is outside the he/she/it would not be subject to spatial or temporal limits of the created world.
In other words, if God created time and space, those things did not exist prior to creation in the realm(dimension) in which God exists. So God doesnt have to start existing at a point, the question becomse irrelevant if there is NO time against which to measure things.
I think it was a Platonist idea that God (The One) is in another world from us. That he is in the world of 'being', he is perfect and unchanging. We are in the world of 'becoming' where change is constant and inevitable.
It only took me what, like a week to find it?
I just wanted to say something about the proof of God.
Theres no 'proof' of anything, even in science you can only have a theory, or a hypothesis. My theory is that there is a something out there, to which I give the name God.
Its a good point to ask where did God come from?
However, is this a realistic question, or a product of our way of thinking.
We assume God has a beginning and an end beacuse everything we experince during life functions this way.
I put it to you...if there is a God would he/she/it have to be IN our universe or would he/she/it, as the creator, in fact exist outside of it.
Taking Stephen Hawking's model of space-time it would suggest that if God is outside the he/she/it would not be subject to spatial or temporal limits of the created world.
In other words, if God created time and space, those things did not exist prior to creation in the realm(dimension) in which God exists. So God doesnt have to start existing at a point, the question becomse irrelevant if there is NO time against which to measure things.
I think it was a Platonist idea that God (The One) is in another world from us. That he is in the world of 'being', he is perfect and unchanging. We are in the world of 'becoming' where change is constant and inevitable.
cLavain
Well-known member
Hi Lavinia84,
You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were coming around to my way of thinking.
There is so much speculation involved when discussing the origin of the universe that I'm sure you can't fail to see now how futile it is to try and portray the Bible as the word of a hypothetical creator. And that's my point!
To believe that something created the universe is guesswork, but a fair enough position as we know very little about it.
To believe in Christianity or any other man-made religion is not fair enough, because it involves going much much further than available evidence suggests.
Do you agree?
You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were coming around to my way of thinking.
There is so much speculation involved when discussing the origin of the universe that I'm sure you can't fail to see now how futile it is to try and portray the Bible as the word of a hypothetical creator. And that's my point!
To believe that something created the universe is guesswork, but a fair enough position as we know very little about it.
To believe in Christianity or any other man-made religion is not fair enough, because it involves going much much further than available evidence suggests.
Do you agree?
Lavinia84
Well-known member
Ok....
Did the Aten cult go underground?
Could've, but we know about other underground cults in the ancient world. All I'm saying is there is no evidence that it survived.
Did other solar worshippers continue to use Aten either in place of their solar deity or as part of it?
The word Aten continued, it was after all the word for sun. But it didn't continue as a god. Its always been taught to me like saying: Christian's don't worship the cross, its just an identifible symbol of the religion. Or like saints who often are show with something, eg St Catherine was killed on a wheel, so shes often shown with a wheel. It doesn't mean those who ask for her intercesion are asking the wheel as well.
That the theology of the King of Egypt may have been totally eradicated from peoples memories?
Well you have to keep in mind Akhenaten was not a popular fellow. He moves the capital, closes temples, starts a new cult and never goes to war. As a consequence Egypt loses territory, money and power.
You know what he had the army doing? Building his new city, rather than training. Acient Egypt was a culture that valued the past and tradition, Akhenaten did not. After a few hundred years, there wouldnt have been much left in the peoples minds, they attempted to eradicate his memory, he is never mentioned in any kings list. Future Egyptians acted as though the 20yr long Amarna period never happened.
Other gods in the Great Hymn as monotheism?
I'm saying you can interpret it that way, or you can interpret it the other way. I'm saying it isn't proof, its theory. But I'm happy to accept that its valid to say it supports a monotheistic interpretation.
Wikipedia?
While it can be a useful source its written by anyone who wants to write there, they don't necessarily know what they are talking about. It susally someone whos read some books and the article is a summary of what they have read. It relies on their having read good reliable books.
Tutankhamun issued a decree regarding the return to monotheism?
What the? Tutankhamun issued a decree regarding the return to 'polytheism'.
Torah?
My point is the only evidence that the Jews were monotheist around the same time as Akhenaten comes from the Torah, which was not written until 800yrs after the times it talks about.
A book written based on oral tradition 800 years later is not good evidence that a group of people were in fact monotheist. It suggests that at the time the Torah was written they were monotheist and that in writting their history the are reflecting the idea that they thought they had been monotheist for a really long time, since the beginning of time in fact.
Did the Aten cult go underground?
Could've, but we know about other underground cults in the ancient world. All I'm saying is there is no evidence that it survived.
Did other solar worshippers continue to use Aten either in place of their solar deity or as part of it?
The word Aten continued, it was after all the word for sun. But it didn't continue as a god. Its always been taught to me like saying: Christian's don't worship the cross, its just an identifible symbol of the religion. Or like saints who often are show with something, eg St Catherine was killed on a wheel, so shes often shown with a wheel. It doesn't mean those who ask for her intercesion are asking the wheel as well.
That the theology of the King of Egypt may have been totally eradicated from peoples memories?
Well you have to keep in mind Akhenaten was not a popular fellow. He moves the capital, closes temples, starts a new cult and never goes to war. As a consequence Egypt loses territory, money and power.
You know what he had the army doing? Building his new city, rather than training. Acient Egypt was a culture that valued the past and tradition, Akhenaten did not. After a few hundred years, there wouldnt have been much left in the peoples minds, they attempted to eradicate his memory, he is never mentioned in any kings list. Future Egyptians acted as though the 20yr long Amarna period never happened.
Other gods in the Great Hymn as monotheism?
I'm saying you can interpret it that way, or you can interpret it the other way. I'm saying it isn't proof, its theory. But I'm happy to accept that its valid to say it supports a monotheistic interpretation.
Wikipedia?
While it can be a useful source its written by anyone who wants to write there, they don't necessarily know what they are talking about. It susally someone whos read some books and the article is a summary of what they have read. It relies on their having read good reliable books.
Tutankhamun issued a decree regarding the return to monotheism?
What the? Tutankhamun issued a decree regarding the return to 'polytheism'.
Torah?
My point is the only evidence that the Jews were monotheist around the same time as Akhenaten comes from the Torah, which was not written until 800yrs after the times it talks about.
A book written based on oral tradition 800 years later is not good evidence that a group of people were in fact monotheist. It suggests that at the time the Torah was written they were monotheist and that in writting their history the are reflecting the idea that they thought they had been monotheist for a really long time, since the beginning of time in fact.
Lavinia84
Well-known member
Plato and his mates were looking to explain logically the idea of a creator god. They did this assuming such a being exists. Their idea was such a being in order to be truely great had to be certain things.
I could explain here but really it will be easier for everyone if you just go read Plato for yourself, the books are not long.
Christians take it for granted that God is good, they the attribute the Bible to him, although it clearly makes him out to be contraditiry to the dea of a "Good God". Ergo the bible is not an accurate indicator of the true nature of God, but rather the documented process of some peoples changing interpretation of God over time.
Short answers:
IF God exists in a world of 'being' it allows him to be perfect and unchanging and to literally be the most supreme thing that exists.
God was unable to create a perfect world for us because the physical matter he used was itself imperfect. Next your gonna ask me why he made bad matter, maybe it always existed too, outside of time.
Easier still:
Take this attitude- human understanding is limited, ask God if/when you meet him. No human will every fully understand everything, all we can do is try.
I could explain here but really it will be easier for everyone if you just go read Plato for yourself, the books are not long.
Christians take it for granted that God is good, they the attribute the Bible to him, although it clearly makes him out to be contraditiry to the dea of a "Good God". Ergo the bible is not an accurate indicator of the true nature of God, but rather the documented process of some peoples changing interpretation of God over time.
Short answers:
IF God exists in a world of 'being' it allows him to be perfect and unchanging and to literally be the most supreme thing that exists.
God was unable to create a perfect world for us because the physical matter he used was itself imperfect. Next your gonna ask me why he made bad matter, maybe it always existed too, outside of time.
Easier still:
Take this attitude- human understanding is limited, ask God if/when you meet him. No human will every fully understand everything, all we can do is try.
Lavinia84
Well-known member
God is by definition perfect, coz otherwise he'd not be GOD!
Its pretty obvious this world is not perfect, saying matter is imperfect is a likely solution to the apparent problem.
Is Christianity unlikely? I think some peoples idea of Christianity is ridiculous. The basic premise of Christianity is that Jesus came to Earth and gave a message to a group of people. Thats where people stop agreeing. My point is does it matter? Would God (given the above definition) allow only 1 right religion to exists and allow people to live without ever knowing the right one, if in fact such knowledge is requisit for an afterlife?
I don't think Christianity is totally right, like Serendipity says in Dogma, no one's got it right. But for me I find a certain degree of truth in Christianity, and a certain degree in platonism. (where truth is a synonym for "likely explaination of the world") When I hear more good logical explainations I will incorporate them into my belief system.
Its pretty obvious this world is not perfect, saying matter is imperfect is a likely solution to the apparent problem.
Is Christianity unlikely? I think some peoples idea of Christianity is ridiculous. The basic premise of Christianity is that Jesus came to Earth and gave a message to a group of people. Thats where people stop agreeing. My point is does it matter? Would God (given the above definition) allow only 1 right religion to exists and allow people to live without ever knowing the right one, if in fact such knowledge is requisit for an afterlife?
I don't think Christianity is totally right, like Serendipity says in Dogma, no one's got it right. But for me I find a certain degree of truth in Christianity, and a certain degree in platonism. (where truth is a synonym for "likely explaination of the world") When I hear more good logical explainations I will incorporate them into my belief system.