Jump to content

romansh

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1,162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

romansh last won the day on October 2 2017

romansh had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41 Very Good

1 Follower

About romansh

  • Rank
    Master Contributing Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www3.telus.net/romansh/home.htm

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    In the woods, BC/USA border

Recent Profile Visitors

650 profile views
  1. Higher senses? I would settle for developing reason or at least common sense.
  2. The Question That Evolutionists Can't Answer

    In a recent post it was claimed as above, This is fundamentally false. Life evolves ... there is no particular direction to complex or the less complex. just because Life started off as in less complex does not mean such a trajectory will continue.
  3. Study Bible - Allegory

    Welcome Mystert I recommend Joseph Campbell .... Power of Myth, Pathways to Bliss, and Myths of Light. Strictly speaking these books are not what you are asking for, but they do compare various religions in terms of metaphor and allegory. I would start with a coffee-table version of Power of Myth. It is a transcript of a conversation Joseph Campbell had with Bill Moyers. It also available on DVD .... always fell asleep with beer in hand on that one though. And again as a recommendation that is slightly off topic, I would look at alternative paths ... eg understanding how the universe ticks and work up from there. rom
  4. Agnosticism

    A brief summary of Huxley's intent for the term Agnosticism https://www.thoughtco.com/agnosticism-and-thomas-henry-huxley-248044
  5. Agnosticism

    For those interested in the subject ... Here is a summary of some of the various agnostic positions out there, http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_agnosticism.html I would argue Huxley's original intent was beyond just God, gods etc. And in today's use of the term is used beyond just god etc.
  6. Ignosticism

    Not necessarily. You seemed to have missed my point completely. Let us assume you believe in something "more" and yet that something "more: does not exist. Then that something "more" is imagined ... however vaguely (and believed).
  7. Panentheism 101

    For me they are aligned more with the sciences. In fact natural philosophy spawned science.
  8. Ignosticism

    I agree with you, if we take the (a) narrower definition of theism. But it is certainly not true for the word pantheism. I am a little amused by this thormas. If I were to accuse of having no imagination then you would also be affronted. Lets assume for the moment the "more" in transcendence does not exist or is very different from what you have imagined that more to be. So in this sense by definition the transcendence is imagined. A similar argument could placed for immanence ie an "in dwelling". You can't point to that "in dwelling" without some imagination. Also even if your hypothesis is true you can only imagine what this transcendence or immanence is. Of course you will argue transcendence and immanence exist in the sense of conceptions. Much in the same way unicorns exist as conceptions or imaginings. With the added bonus we can have fluffy dolls to bolster our imaginings. These concepts exist on paper or a lecturer's brain where he transmits the concepts via air vibrations or maybe to a chalk board (in the 70s) to your brain where your brain imagines it has received the concept. A far more profane example is the red London double decker bus. We think of it as red. But if you paid attention in classes that the redness was due to some wavelengths of light being adsorbed by the surface and some reflected. the light then being focused on the three types of cones in your retina where photochemical reactions occur and allow the "red" signals are transmitted as charge ions and compounds down your optic nerve to the brain. Where the signals are interpreted and imagined as red.
  9. Panentheism 101

    It may well be for you Burl. But for me the point is more along the lines: Getting better descriptions and understanding of the way the universe ticks. Providing and honing tools to do this: eg formalized logic, scientific method, and on occasion asking novel and increasingly complex questions.
  10. Agnosticism

    I want evidence for what exactly? Some theists claim they do know. Not at all. A strong theist believes god exists and perhaps even knows god exist (gnostic theist). You have not burst my bubbles at all. This of course is nonsense ... in fact I more or less said the opposite here: No it is evidence that people claim they know god exists. To what exactly? I will eventually get to the rest of the post ... I hope it will depict my replies more accurately. You are welcome
  11. Ignosticism

    Anyone for a translation? I take thormas's definitions to be: Transcendent: beyond or, non spatially speaking, 'more' than the world Immanent: is 'more' is 'in and with" man in the ordinary, everyday, life of man
  12. Agnosticism

    To be accurate ... before I believe in stuff I seem to need some evidence. Now I am not claiming a theist knows anything, but I gave you an example of Carl Jung (evidence) claiming he knows. As an agnostic I can observe I might not "know", but I can't say Jung does not "know"; I have no way of interrogating his perceptions (even if he were alive). All I can say is he claims he "knows". And a reminder you have more or less agreed that there is no evidence and yet you believe for your version of god. What actually would be relevant is a theistic understanding of agnosticism. You definitely not getting the hang of this agnosticism business are you thormas or at least my version of it. Agnosticism is not about belief or lack of belief in gods. Again Huxley coined the term with respect to other unconfirmed aspects of nature including gods. For example science is agnostic regardless of what you have read. A theory is like a piƱata. Eventually it will succumb to hungry little scientists with evidence. Again --- if you actually gave a Christian insight into agnosticism that would be on track. Agnosticism is not solely about god!
  13. Panentheism 101

    Perhaps ... but your explanations are not working outside of your imagination. And we can start simple and build up a picture. I can do the graphics for you. The problem here is, in the Ignosticism thread you had God synonymous with Love/Abba. Ignoring Abba for the moment ... I have a good sense of what love is in its various forms, perhaps even extending it to its biological and evolutionary basis. Now what is Love and how does it differ from love ... answers please on the ignosticism thread? But in the meantime assuming it is similar to the more mundane love, then this plain vanilla version of love is separate from a good chunk of the universe.
  14. Ignosticism

    I don't have a clue what Love is in the way thormas is using the word. Love - ??? Can someone help please?
  15. Agnosticism

    This might be your definition of a theist, but essentially practically no one else uses this type of definition. A theist very simply is a person who believes in a god and perhaps knows there is a god. The term theism is often specific (but not always) to revealed gods. OK ... you missed the point of the blog completely. This thread is not about whether you accept other people's understanding of what god is or isn't. Then these people who are comfortable with uncertainty can be given the adjective of agnostic. Sorry this is a derail ... incidentally immanent you have not defined ... Again it is not so much I don't believe it as it does not make sense to me. If you go to your ignosticism definition you define God as Love ... so if you could do me a favour go and define Love without using the word God. Thanks
×