Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ben Masada

That's Where the Truth is Found

235 posts in this topic

That's Where the Truth is Found

Not even in the Scriptures if we are unable to unglue ourselves from the letter. In an Allegory, for instance, which is the nature of the Genesis account of creation and the content of prophetic visions, almost every word or statement has a double sense, a literal one and a figurative one. The plain one, which is found satisfactory to the unlearned, no matter his agenda, is considered valuable, no doubt, but of the worth of silver. But the hidden meaning, which where the truth is, much more precious. Therefore, the figurative meaning bears the same relation to the literal one as gold to silver. It is further necessary that the plain sense of the phrase shall give to those who consider it some notion of that which the figure represents.

Think of a golden apple overlaid with a network of silver; when seen at a distance, or looked at, superficially, it is mistaken for a silver apple, but when a keen-sighted person looks at the object well, he will find what is within, and see that the apple is gold. The same is the case with the figures employed by prophets and thouse found in the Genesis allegory of creation. Taken literally, such expressions contain wisdom useful for many purposes, among others, for the amelioration of the condition of society; e.g., the Proverbs of Solomon and similar sayings in the literal sense. Their hidden meaning, however, is profound wisdom, conducive to the recognition of real Truth.

The Truth therefore is usually found in the metaphorical interpretation of the letter, which, sometimes, conveys the message of a myth. Hence, the charge of the sarcastic that the Bible constitutes a tome of myths. To a certain extent, it could be true, but for the unlearned who can't see beyond what the eyes of the flesh allow them to see. The Truth is in the archetype of reality. Consider the following point: How many times is 7 found in 77? The quick answer would be twice. Why? Because that's what we can see with the eyes of the flesh. Valuable per se, but of the worth of silver. The gold, though, is found in the metaphorical understanding that the letter points to: That 7 is found 11 times in 77. It can never be put down on the paper because it will no longer be 77. Why? Because the real truth is found only in the unseen realm of reality, perceived only by a developed Intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

there is robot logic ... a person can see in a robot of simple and elegant design a life form... where none is .

a robot is alive like a electric clock radio is alive ... artificial intelegants is alive like a car is alive , like a phone is alive.

the bible is only as profoundly inspired in its metaphorical interpretation as the people who read it.

if your a stupid boob... its a book of pretty storys that are not any better or worse than any other myth .

go to what christ said ,and never forget that a printing press was set up and ran the pages... a book binder pressed the pages togather... and the bible is the best selling book in print , the world has ever known .

god did not set the type , god did not make the paper , and god does not belong to your church... he may look in on you from time to time , but he has never signed your guest book .

and frankly speaking , mose's ... when god told him the ten commandments... either forgot to add the part where the he was the massah... or god forgot he had the appointment on that day and he would just send his son to stand in for him ...( it was just suppost to be a meet and greet)... or.... just may be... one god , one god only , no exceptions... means what it says it means ... and abunch of pagan romans can't rewrite what it means after the fact .

and may be christ meant what he said he meant ... and abunch of proffessional political speach writers have no business rewriting context and point of veiw .

even if that means that the stars are not on a crystal sphere , and auto spawning from dirt is not really the way things happen.

the bible is not the end all - be all of smart stuff... frankly speaking... the editors of the bible , and the publicist are extreemly good... if star wars had the same crew , they to could have a first rate religon... look at scientology , and that just a galvanometer and half baked shrink ... which is way way past islam ... which only works because the people are kept so dirt poor... they are willing to blow them selves

up in the nice places in the world .

and women are so weak willed , that they put up with islam to save their marrage.

islam only works by brute force and animal nature. little wonder it was written by a women .

Edited by onereaderone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with metaphor is that it needs interpreting and you can have as many interpretations as you can readers - all equally lacking in validity.

Onereaderone I was pretty much with you til "islam only works by brute force and animal nature. little wonder it was written by a women "

then you lost me

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The so-called 'wisdom of religion' is nothing more than humanistic philosophies promoted via an imaginary "divine voice" to grant the wisdoms a greater perceived authority.

There is no truth in religion that cannot be found in secular thought. All that religion adds to that wisdom, is the prejudice associated with being a "true believer" of the imagined deity it [that wisdom] is alleged to derive from.

That is the "Truth" of religion.

Edited by Leonardo
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with metaphor is that it needs interpreting and you can have as many interpretations as you can readers - all equally lacking in validity.

Onereaderone I was pretty much with you til "islam only works by brute force and animal nature. little wonder it was written by a women "

then you lost me

That can also be the delightful thing about metaphors, that they are open to individual interpretation according to one's unique world view, education, life's experience, cultural & familial influences. Maybe the important take away is not whether the interpretation is valid, but whether it brings increased meaning or understanding of one's self and environment. And I imagine as one matures, one might interpret a metaphor differently than say 10 years ago.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so-called 'wisdom of religion' is nothing more than humanistic philosophies promoted via an imaginary "divine voice" to grant the wisdoms a greater perceived authority.

There is no truth in religion that cannot be found in secular thought. All that religion adds to that wisdom, is the prejudice associated with being a "true believer" of the imagined deity it [that wisdom] is alleged to derive from.That is the "Truth" of religion.

Well, you say above that "There is no truth in religion that cannot be found in secular thought." Where in secular thought I can find the logical reasoning that matter cannot cause itself to exist?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with metaphor is that it needs interpreting and you can have as many interpretations as you can readers - all equally lacking in validity.

Onereaderone I was pretty much with you til "islam only works by brute force and animal nature. little wonder it was written by a women "

then you lost me

And most the time the interpreting is conducted according to preconceived notions of the one doing the interpreting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you say above that "There is no truth in religion that cannot be found in secular thought." Where in secular thought I can find the logical reasoning that matter cannot cause itself to exist?

You can't, but you can't find that logical reasoning in non-secular thought either.

If something is unknown, it cannot be a truth. We are obliged to call only those things 'true', which we know to be true.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't, but you can't find that logical reasoning in non-secular thought either.

If something is unknown, it cannot be a truth. We are obliged to call only those things 'true', which we know to be true.

Good answer! Now, if the universe could not have caused itself to exist, it obviously was caused by the Primal Cause for it is only logical that someone or something caused the beginning of the universe not only because the Bible has been saying so for over 4,000 years but also that the BB theorized by George Lemaitre in 1922 proved that the universe did have a beginning.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good answer! Now, if the universe could not have caused itself to exist, it obviously was caused by the Primal Cause for it is only logical that someone or something caused the beginning of the universe not only because the Bible has been saying so for over 4,000 years but also that the BB theorized by George Lemaitre in 1922 proved that the universe did have a beginning.

That is not necessarily so. Things can happen without cause; this is known. Further, there is no logical principle demanding a cause for everything. All Lemaitre showed was that the Big Bang happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not necessarily so. Things can happen without cause; this is known. Further, there is no logical principle demanding a cause for everything. All Lemaitre showed was that the Big Bang happened.

Do you think you caused itself to exist or were you caused by someone else who preceded you? Then, would you please give me the evidence of something that happened without cause or just appeared out of nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good answer! Now, if the universe could not have caused itself to exist, it obviously was caused by the Primal Cause for it is only logical that someone or something caused the beginning of the universe not only because the Bible has been saying so for over 4,000 years but also that the BB theorized by George Lemaitre in 1922 proved that the universe did have a beginning.

Not strictly true.

The observable universe may have had a beginning, but there is nothing in science which stipulates that the observable universe is all the universe there is - it is simply all that we can know exists. Generally, you'll find scientists using "the universe" to refer to the observable universe and this does cause confusion among lay-people and among other scientists.

Do you think you caused itself to exist or were you caused by someone else who preceded you? Then, would you please give me the evidence of something that happened without cause or just appeared out of nothing?

There is no case where something can 'appear' from nothing, because there is no case where there is nothing. Even in a complete vacuum the space is filled with forces - which precludes anything from being considered 'nothing'. Some may suggest that nothing may exist at the quantum level - that because we live in a quantum universe 'nothing' has to exist.

While this conclusion might seem intuitive, we then have to refer back to what I said earlier and that we can only call those things true, which we know to be true. We cannot measure or observe 'nothing', so we cannot know that 'nothing' exists. We can only observe what does exist and speculate about what we cannot observe.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not strictly true.

The observable universe may have had a beginning, but there is nothing in science which stipulates that the observable universe is all the universe there is - it is simply all that we can know exists. Generally, you'll find scientists using "the universe" to refer to the observable universe and this does cause confusion among lay-people and among other scientists.

There is no case where something can 'appear' from nothing, because there is no case where there is nothing. Even in a complete vacuum the space is filled with forces - which precludes anything from being considered 'nothing'. Some may suggest that nothing may exist at the quantum level - that because we live in a quantum universe 'nothing' has to exist.

While this conclusion might seem intuitive, we then have to refer back to what I said earlier and that we can only call those things true, which we know to be true. We cannot measure or observe 'nothing', so we cannot know that 'nothing' exists. We can only observe what does exist and speculate about what we cannot observe.

That's for me to say. As I can see, you have tried to answer my question as if you were the one to have asked. In a way you have agreed with me that things cannot come out of nothing and that all things have been created or caused to exist. Thanks for confirming the existence of God the Creator and responsible for the expansion of Creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of causation is a bit of a philosophical problem. When we say "A causes B" what exactly do we mean. Surely there is something more of a connection between A and B than that whenever A happens we also observe B. What is the nature of that connection? When you start trying to pin down causality one finds that it is an infinite regress into complication after complication.

Indeed, causation seems a form of magic hocus-pocus. We can't imagine a universe without it, but still it avoids understanding. Check Hume on the subject.

That things seem to happen without causation, but still with measurable probabilities, is one of the consequences of the uncertainty principle. This leads to the conclusion that causation is really only an illusion brought about by the fact that we live in a macrocosm of gazillions of random events where the probabilities become virtual certainties out of the law of large numbers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's for me to say. As I can see, you have tried to answer my question as if you were the one to have asked. In a way you have agreed with me that things cannot come out of nothing and that all things have been created or caused to exist. Thanks for confirming the existence of God the Creator and responsible for the expansion of Creation.

While I certainly agree that something cannot arise from nothing, I most certainly did not agree that "all things have been created or caused to exist". And I would appreciate you not misrepresent my words in such an obvious and intentional manner as I find it both disrespectful and disingenuous of you to do so.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of causation is a bit of a philosophical problem. When we say "A causes B" what exactly do we mean. Surely there is something more of a connection between A and B than that whenever A happens we also observe B. What is the nature of that connection? When you start trying to pin down causality one finds that it is an infinite regress into complication after complication.

Indeed, causation seems a form of magic hocus-pocus. We can't imagine a universe without it, but still it avoids understanding. Check Hume on the subject.

That things seem to happen without causation, but still with measurable probabilities, is one of the consequences of the uncertainty principle. This leads to the conclusion that causation is really only an illusion brought about by the fact that we live in a macrocosm of gazillions of random events where the probabilities become virtual certainties out of the law of large numbers.

No, the idea of causation is not philosophical but physical and logical. Your father "A" and your mother "B". A special connection happened between them and you "C" came out as a result of "AB". That's the reality risen from the connection between the Cause and effect. If we go as back as the "BB" the Primal Cause becomes obvious as "A", the action of Creation as "B" and the universe as "C", the effect of the connection between "A" and "B".

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I certainly agree that something cannot arise from nothing, I most certainly did not agree that "all things have been created or caused to exist". And I would appreciate you not misrepresent my words in such an obvious and intentional manner as I find it both disrespectful and disingenuous of you to do so.

In that case you presented yourself as a contradiction of your own self. You agree that something cannot come out of nothing but disagree that all things have been created or caused to exist. Worse still is that you cannot show a single evidence for what you disagree. Should I hope that you will think of something or call the quits on this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way you have agreed with me that things cannot come out of nothing and that all things have been created or caused to exist. Thanks for confirming the existence of God the Creator and responsible for the expansion of Creation.

Who created or what caused God to exist then, he's included in 'all things'? Please provide some evidence of when there was ever 'nothing'. I think you're trying to sneak in the unevidenced assumption, "before the Big Bang nothing existed"; if so, evidence please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case you presented yourself as a contradiction of your own self. You agree that something cannot come out of nothing but disagree that all things have been created or caused to exist.

Where is the contradiction in those views?

Both are logical and reasonable extensions of the view there has never been 'nothing'.

Worse still is that you cannot show a single evidence for what you disagree. Should I hope that you will think of something or call the quits on this one?

Evidence?

I have the entire universe available as my evidence. It exists and there is no evidence it was 'created'. Likewise, on a smaller scale, our studies of biology and planetary science suggest things do not need to be 'created' (in the sense you use the word) to exist.

What evidence can you provide, on the other hand, for your alleged 'creator'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The universe... Or at least the matter we see can actually be caused by a simple mass quantum tunneling event. It's not that hard to understand. We know that virtual particles exist and are subject to quantum effects. If the vacuum is large enough and old enough evenchualy by accident enough positive particles will tunnel to a single point and boom.

This of course dosnt explain why the vacuum exists or the rules that allow for tunneling nor does it rule out that a super entity has found a way to make it happen. But we have all the tools in nature for a Big Bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who created or what caused God to exist then, he's included in 'all things'? Please provide some evidence of when there was ever 'nothing'. I think you're trying to sneak in the unevidenced assumption, "before the Big Bang nothing existed"; if so, evidence please.

If God was created or caused to exist He would not be God. The real God would be He who created him. Don't you consider Logic an evidence? Sometimes Logic is more relevant than factual evidences. You want evidence that before the BB nothing existed? When George Lemaitre elaborated the theory of the BB in 1922 almost 100% of the scientists, especially astrophysicists adopted his discovery as the closest-to-the truth achievement ever in the field of scientific Astronomy. It is only obvious that before the BB there was nothing. Only God which any one is allowed to refer to as the "Great Nothingness" or the Primal Cause a title granted to Him by the classic Philosophers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the contradiction in those views? Both are logical and reasonable extensions of the view there has never been 'nothing'. Evidence? I have the entire universe available as my evidence. It exists and there is no evidence it was 'created'. Likewise, on a smaller scale, our studies of biology and planetary science suggest things do not need to be 'created' (in the sense you use the word) to exist. What evidence can you provide, on the other hand, for your alleged 'creator'?

Nothing cannot have created or caused any thing else to exist. That's the Logic you are missing in your statement. The evidence of existence of matter is in the creator or the agent which caused matter to exist. Can't you see that you are agreeing with me almost in every statement? You have the whole universe available as your evidence of what, that it caused itself to exist or that it was caused by some more powerful Force than itself? What are you trying to say that the universe appeared out of magic? Even if that was true you must produce the magician. Besides, the theory of the BB is adopted by almost all scientists that it caused the beginning of the universe. If the universe had beginning it means that before there was nothing. Besides, how old are you? Assuming that you are 40 years old, where were you 45 years ago? You did not exist. Did you come out of nothing or were created by some one that preceded you? And so forth back in time which cannot go indefinitely we will get to the Primal Cause for all that exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The universe... Or at least the matter we see can actually be caused by a simple mass quantum tunneling event. It's not that hard to understand. We know that virtual particles exist and are subject to quantum effects. If the vacuum is large enough and old enough evenchualy by accident enough positive particles will tunnel to a single point and boom.

This of course dosnt explain why the vacuum exists or the rules that allow for tunneling nor does it rule out that a super entity has found a way to make it happen. But we have all the tools in nature for a Big Bang.

Yes, a Big Bang that caused the beginning of the universe which the Bible has been reporting for over 4000 years already. That's what I have read from scientific books "In the beginning God created the universe." (Gen.1:1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the idea of causation is not philosophical but physical and logical. Your father "A" and your mother "B". A special connection happened between them and you "C" came out as a result of "AB". That's the reality risen from the connection between the Cause and effect. If we go as back as the "BB" the Primal Cause becomes obvious as "A", the action of Creation as "B" and the universe as "C", the effect of the connection between "A" and "B".

I love it when someone starts out a response with a blunt,"No," but then fails to say anything. I really think you should read up on the subject before being so absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing cannot have created or caused any thing else to exist. That's the Logic you are missing in your statement. The evidence of existence of matter is in the creator or the agent which caused matter to exist. Can't you see that you are agreeing with me almost in every statement? You have the whole universe available as your evidence of what, that it caused itself to exist or that it was caused by some more powerful Force than itself? What are you trying to say that the universe appeared out of magic? Even if that was true you must produce the magician. Besides, the theory of the BB is adopted by almost all scientists that it caused the beginning of the universe. If the universe had beginning it means that before there was nothing. Besides, how old are you? Assuming that you are 40 years old, where were you 45 years ago? You did not exist. Did you come out of nothing or were created by some one that preceded you? And so forth back in time which cannot go indefinitely we will get to the Primal Cause for all that exist.

Not, it is not missing, it is simply irrelevant because, as I said, I hold to the belief there has never been "nothing".

Because there has never been "nothing", there is no requirement for a creator to make something from nothing.

Can't you see that you are agreeing with me almost in every statement?

No, I'm not. You are misunderstanding almost every statement I make.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.