Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Things God Did Not Create


  • Please log in to reply
1938 replies to this topic

#1936    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,499 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 August 2014 - 09:44 AM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 12 August 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

Well what can I say. I agree also. But that dosn't mean god can't be personal if it wants to.

The point was the context of the argument between Bohr and Einstein was a scientific discussion and Bohr was pointing out to Einstein that he is adding his philosophy into science which is a no no. Which is fairly egoic of Einstein but that's common for successful physicists who are usually right.

The misinterpretation and misuse by many theists is evident. Spinoza's god is really about the unity of the universe and is also deterministic, they way Einstein believed, everything is. A deterministic universe has no free will in it or no room for random events. Einstein is proven to be wrong on this a and Bohr right by accepted scientific evidence. Of course beneath it all it could be deterministic, but as of the evidence now. It's not.

God can be any thing and every thing but one: The thing you wish he were or should have been. Now, to get personal with man, I don't believe He does as Einstein and Spinoza didn't believe it either.

I can see why you guys must have a problem with religion but why include Philosophy? The major of the man responsible for the theory that the universe has always existed was Philosophy. I am talking about Aristotle. But then again the major of the man responsible for the death of the Aristotelian theory for the eternity of the universe was Theology. I am talking about George Lemaitre.

Regarding Determinism vs. Freewill, I think freewill is of the individual and determinism of the people, the community. And both are observed only among intelligent life as opposite to animals who live by instinct.


#1937    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,696 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 15 August 2014 - 11:48 AM

 Ben Masada, on 15 August 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:



God can be any thing and every thing but one: The thing you wish he were or should have been. Now, to get personal with man, I don't believe He does as Einstein and Spinoza didn't believe it either.

I can see why you guys must have a problem with religion but why include Philosophy? The major of the man responsible for the theory that the universe has always existed was Philosophy. I am talking about Aristotle. But then again the major of the man responsible for the death of the Aristotelian theory for the eternity of the universe was Theology. I am talking about George Lemaitre.

Regarding Determinism vs. Freewill, I think freewill is of the individual and determinism of the people, the community. And both are observed only among intelligent life as opposite to animals who live by instinct.
Even science is built upon physicalist philosophy, that's why non physical interpretations don't belong in physics. Even if its true that there is a non physical reality. Font get me wrong, per fondly I think there is one, but when we talk physics we are confined by the philosophy of the subject, but ill be the first to tell you science had fine such a good job that if us hinting at transcending the philosophy it is built upon. But applying a personal philosophy to interpretation is a mistake. :) at least when speaking purely about physics.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#1938    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,499 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 August 2014 - 12:47 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 15 August 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Even science is built upon physicalist philosophy, that's why non physical interpretations don't belong in physics. Even if its true that there is a non physical reality. Font get me wrong, per fondly I think there is one, but when we talk physics we are confined by the philosophy of the subject, but ill be the first to tell you science had fine such a good job that if us hinting at transcending the philosophy it is built upon. But applying a personal philosophy to interpretation is a mistake. :) at least when speaking purely about physics.

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 15 August 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Even science is built upon physicalist philosophy, that's why non physical interpretations don't belong in physics. Even if its true that there is a non physical reality. Font get me wrong, per fondly I think there is one, but when we talk physics we are confined by the philosophy of the subject, but ill be the first to tell you science had fine such a good job that if us hinting at transcending the philosophy it is built upon. But applying a personal philosophy to interpretation is a mistake. :) at least when speaking purely about physics.

Wow! So, that's where Physics took that method of "non-physical interpretations don't belong in Physics." It does make sense, even in spite that Science is built upon the physical concept of Philosophy. Now, I can understand a little better why atheists in general find so hard to understand the concept of Logic which is of the realm of Philosophy. On the other hand, they reject Logic because the system of theories could never be based on Logic given the connotation of "guesses" as the essence of theories.


#1939    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,696 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 15 August 2014 - 12:55 PM

 Ben Masada, on 15 August 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:




Wow! So, that's where Physics took that method of "non-physical interpretations don't belong in Physics." It does make sense, even in spite that Science is built upon the physical concept of Philosophy. Now, I can understand a little better why atheists in general find so hard to understand the concept of Logic which is of the realm of Philosophy. On the other hand, they reject Logic because the system of theories could never be based on Logic given the connotation of "guesses" as the essence of theories.
Yes. You are correct. Many atheists ( not all ) have adopted a fundamentalist attitude toward empiricism. While I understand why, it's fairly illogical to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are indeed other kinds of evidence that maybe not as reliable can add up to quite a bit of non mathematical certainty. This is ground that is forbidden for the empirical fundamentalist.  Yes. It's very much a dogma. You would be interested In Carl Jung's book " The Undiscovered Self".

Edited by White Crane Feather, 15 August 2014 - 12:55 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users