romansh

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think we largely agree

We largely do

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

hypothesizing about things we can't presently prove might just lead to corroborating evidence one day

Again I will go to my stand-by fairies under the garden shed hypothesis. Of course it is nonsense, but how much time and effort should we spend on this nonsense? You imply we shouldn't not hypothesize. I sort of agree. But hypothesis has a technical meaning ... hypotheses are based on evidence. Avogadro's hypothesis was based on evidence and it pulled together earlier gas laws. 

What is the God hypothesis? What is the evidence for this hypothesis?

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

plenty of claims of 'intuition' (for lack of a better word) that there is more to our existence than meets the eye

Personally, I am certain that there is more to our existence than meets the eye. God arguments seem to be quite often an argument from incredulity ... I can't see how there can be a universe without a God type thing. 

Can you list the possible reasons (for you) to consider the possibility of God? 

For me ... the ignostic part of me does not have a clue what realistically God means; so, until we can define some properties of this God entity the whole exercise seems pointless. Sherwin Wine had a point (Wiki) I think:

Wine coined the word ignosticism. It is the view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed.

And a quote from my favourite author:
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

18 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I understand that may be a Christian 'position', but I don't see why God would not be testable and/or can't be testable, if God (whatever that means) existed.

I understand it might belong to the Abrahamic set. In the sense, if we assign properties to this God, I agree with you. The same the Michelson Morley experiment tested for the luminiferous ether. But in our collective understanding, there is no need to postulate a 'creator' or whatever.

24 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I'm saying that 'God', whatever that means, can't be ruled out.

The way I am reading this is: We can't rule out whatever we don't have a clue about. Now by definition, I am agnostic (or even atheistic) about Gods I have not dreamt up yet. But I don't see a need to go out and bat for what I haven't dreamt of yet.

30 minutes ago, PaulS said:

If people suggest they feel there is a purpose to our existence, who am I to say 'wrong', if I can't prove.  I know we can think they are mistaken, but that is just opinion.

If people were to argue they feel they have a purpose or even think there is a purpose then there is no argument there from me. Just an opinion? Trump was a good president is an opinion. Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions have foundations built on sand and some on rock.

What can you prove Paul? All we can do is provide corroborating evidence and go where the evidence takes us. 

3 minutes ago, tariki said:

I get it now.

I'm not sure you do Derek.

9 hours ago, tariki said:

I did post more than what you actually quoted of me. 

i'm certainly not seeking to put you in a box marked as "understood". 

It was not me you were putting in a box.  

6 hours ago, John Hunt said:

Assuming he managed to accelerate to the speed of light

And he has gained infinite mass and sucked up all the energy and then some.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

I reckon lots of things would have been regarded as 'not testable' when they were first postulated.

Agree 100 %. Isn't God by definition "not testable"? If such an entity were testable it would not bear the label of God.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

but rather continue the question "where does everything come from"?

Yep. But I would also repeat the question why is nothing our default state? In Hawking's and Mlodinow's The Grand Design ... they believe they have a sufficient understanding of where everything comes from and that there is no need to invoke a God. While I agree with them there is no need to invoke a God, where everything comes from is beyond my understanding.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

Why do things exist?  

And what scientific texts have we read on this subject? 

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Which for me, questioning Derek's point about 'significance' goes straight to nowhere if I answer it by saying "I don't know".

OK ... first, things we find significant ... we may have an affinity for or perhaps an aversion to. Going nowhere? Perhaps simply neutral on the subject. 

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I mean I don't know, that is true, so my only choice is to not ask that question

Questions we might ask include why is nothing our default state? Does postulating something that is not testable by definition get us anywhere? The three-year-old asking Who made God? sees right through the charade.

It's OK at some point to say I don't know Paul. And collectively we can have fun trying to find out. 

We don't need to hypothesize fairies under my garden shed though and claim they are doing it.

42 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Rom, could there be a 'why' question in there though - as in "Why do atoms and molecules have certain configurations?  Why do some atoms like one thing and other atoms another?"

Which why? are you referring to Paul ... what causes these certain configurations or what is the purpose? The problem with answering the cause of the configurations will quite naturally lead to other questions.  

I am sure I have posted this before ... Feynman is far more eloquent than I am when it comes to why?

1 hour ago, tariki said:

Well, you appear to see what Reality there is as simply matter/energy (or whatever the latest word is) in motion.

You appear to see what I see as simple.

I think science has a similar concept to apophatic theology.  Science proposes a hypothesis and tests it to death. If it survives, then we call it a law or a fact. Over time the law might fray at the edges and more study is necessary.

Apophatic theology seems to say we can't know God, science might say we can't know the ultimate truth. 

To me, it seems reasonable to assume there is a truth, ultimate or otherwise. God less so.

Atoms and molecules have affinities for certain configurations. Atoms generally 'like' full orbitals and some molecular structures are 'preferred. Similarly, Biology has certain stable ecologies which depend on the environment. Speaking from a stability point of view non-life is where it is at? 

Life is, if we like, an aberration in death. My affinity is to enjoy it whilst it lasts.

What has significance or God for that matter, to do with anything?

16 hours ago, tariki said:

Sadly, looking back here, many seem totally unaware of the via negativa, the way of negation. A time honoured tradition/way/path in most mystical traditions, and certainly the platform on which many of the various Buddhist paths are built. 

I'll leave it there. 

 

While nothing wrong with this line of thought, it does seem in contradiction with Joseph's post above about the "right way" 18 Aug 2019.

Apophatic theology anyone? What god isn't? Could take a long time to get there.

19 minutes ago, tariki said:

well, I can't tell the one about the Foreign Legion camel.

Is it with the punchline ... only if you get your thumbs caught?

In light of some of the nonsense regarding Satan ...

An atheist dies and goes to hell...

Satan welcomes him and says: "Let me show you around a little bit." They walk through a nice park with green trees and the devil shows him a huge palace. "This is your house now, here are your keys." The man is happy and thanks the devil. Satan says: "No need to say thank you, everyone gets a nice place to live in when they come down here!"

They continue walking through the nice park, flowers everywhere, and Satan shows the atheist a garage full of beautiful cars. "These are your cars now!" and hands the man all the car keys. Again, the atheist tries to thank the devil, but he only says "Everyone down here gets some cool cars! How would you drive around without having cars?".

They walk on and the area gets even nicer. There are birds chirping, squirrels running around; kittens everywhere. They arrive at a fountain, where the most beautiful woman the atheist has ever seen sits on a bench. She looks at him and they instantly fall in love with each other. The man couldn´t be any happier. Satan says "Everyone gets to have their soulmate down here, we don´t want anyone to be lonely!"

As they walk on, the atheist notices a high fence. He peeks to the other side and is totally shocked. There are people in pools of lava, screaming in pain, while little devils run around and stab them with their tridents. Other devils are skinning people alive, heads are spiked, and many more terrible things are happening. A stench of sulfur is in the air.

Terrified, the man stumbles backwards, and asks Satan "What is going on there?"

And the punchline:

Satan just shrugs and says: "Those are the Christians, I don´t know why, but they prefer it that way."

1 hour ago, tariki said:

Ha ha! Well obviously from my own point of view it was a case of mistaken identity!

It's OK Derek ... in your case, my like was unconditional,  unlike some Christians.  

21 hours ago, tariki said:

This seems to be a repeat of your post on the Merton/Dharma thread. I responded there.

 

Yeah ... You did not really answer what is your take on Campbell's quote?

Without looking it up

Soul ... Could be (1) a synonym for a person, three souls perished in that accident. (2) An aspect of personality or culture, a person with little displayed passion might be described as she has no soul, culturally soul music or literature for the soul.  (3) An imagined state of immaterial being, used by superstitious people.

2 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

I renew my request that you do not intrude on my efforts to engage (or 'cleanly' fail to) others

9 hours ago, tariki said:

I have even been called the "antichrist"

I knew there was something I liked about you.

2 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

As yet, I haven't been able to get past your and other's reactivity to the general idiocy of humanity (and therefore 'majority' delusions regarding 'God' , 'Heaven' and 'Hell', Jesus even) to get a fair hearing in this regard.

I notice you have done this sort of thing on several different websites ... and indeed you seem familiar.  Have you had any success anywhere?

from the other thread:

2 minutes ago, romansh said:

What is your take on Joseph Campbell's take?

You perform your duty to support the universe. The universe is alive. The Sun performs its duty, the Moon performs its duty, the mice perform their duty and cats perform theirs, the brahmins perform theirs, the sudras theirs, and by this - everyone performing his duty - the universe is held in form. By following your dharma you hold the universe in form.

11 hours ago, tariki said:

Yes, the word does have many meanings and as far as I can recall Merton never used the word.

Dharma (capital "D") = truth. The ultimate.

dharma = the Buddha's specific teachings.

dharmas = specific bits and pieces, or the 10,000 things, all lacking self existence.

What is your take on Joseph Campbell's take?

You perform your duty to support the universe. The universe is alive. The Sun performs its duty, the Moon performs its duty, the mice perform their duty and cats perform theirs, the brahmins perform theirs, the sudras theirs, and by this - everyone performing his duty - the universe is held in form. By following your dharma you hold the universe in form.

Derek ... I have not read any of Merton. But it appears the word Dharma has many meanings. It would be helpful if you could throw some light on what you think Merton means by Dharma.

The one sense of Dharma that makes sense to me is the one proposed by Campbell:

You perform your duty to support the universe. The universe is alive. The Sun performs its duty, the Moon performs its duty, the mice perform their duty and cats perform theirs, the brahmins perform theirs, the sudras theirs, and by this - everyone performing his duty - the universe is held in form. By following your dharma you hold the universe in form.

3 hours ago, PaulS said:

To be able to genuinely let others be and to not try to convince them that you are right and they are wrong, should be the highest held value of all religions! Indeed, one of the highest held values for everybody.

Really? We should not use persuasion to get someone off a dangerous path (that we see). While I disagree with many aspects of Joseph's views, I think he has come closest for me. Acceptance. For example, I think David is very wrong, but I accept it. But that does not mean I won't try and nudge him to a safer (what I see as) path.

I think Darrow had it: Chase after the truth like all hell and you’ll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails.