|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 30, 2005 21:01:38 GMT -5
A quote from my post at the foot of the first page of this thread: The most profound lesson of quantum mechanics, he remarks, is that physical phenomena are somehow defined by the questions we ask of them. " This is in some sense a participatory universe," he says. The basis of reality may not be the quantum, which despite its elusiveness is still a physical phenomenon, but the bit, the answer to a yes-or-no question,which is the fundamental currency of computing and communications. Wheeler calls his idea "the it from bit."If I, as Man, having been made in God's image and having become like Him by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, see no squirrel, there is no squirrel. Show me a squirrel and I'll give him a peanut. If I were a little more clever with posting, I would of course be happy to show you a squirrel. Rather would I shake trees however in the hope of loosing old chesnuts from too hasty graves. In a complementary nushell as it were, my thesis is that since Descartes' boo-boo denying the reliability of the senses, mankind has as one should expect if sight, has rendered himself blind. By epistemological dogma supported by false arguments. That is all I am really trying to address. "..metaphysics is not the same as any of the so-called particular sciences; for none of the other sciences aattempt to study being as being in general, but cutting off some part of it they study the accidents of thi part.This for example is what the mathematical sciences do." (Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 4 Chapter 1) "All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to the answer to the question , "What are light quanta (photons)?" Of course today, every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself." (Einstein, Gauge Theory in Particle physcics 2nd ed. P.83) " Does this mean that we can never learn any reality from empiometric science?. No. We do learn abstract quantitative relations (even though they may be approximate) . ...When one really has a developped empiriometric theory, there are many layers between the observer and reality..." Rizzi "The Science before Science" p 166 The above is not at all to dump on science. "The infinite worlds interpretation of quantum physics was created to solve the measurement problem in quantum physics. ...Can one have an infinite number of anything? No. Because reality is definite (it is whatever it is). The infinite is indefinite." Rizzi opus cit p 246 Infinite is not something. It is the absence of something. A bound.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 30, 2005 21:23:16 GMT -5
What the heck are you trying to say? You seem to take great joy in the use of words . . . which is fine as long as you are coherant. Perhaps you are . . . perhaps I am too simple . . . but like Saint Paul I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:19 The passage, of course, deals with the problem of speaking in tongues, but at times I ache for an interpreter on this forum . . . all the double-entendre and puns and witticisms and . . . you con't have to prove your intelligence to me (maybe to others, I don't speak for them). I was merely reminding Mr. C. that anyone can study but that doesn't make him a scholar. And as Ecclesiastes is a search for meaning, it seems to fit in well with this discussion. Hi Franko Most peoples's fundamental and usually unexamined dogma is 17th century naive materialism. Agressive dogmatic agnosticism is a byproduct of the first. These are big concept words in a matter almost no one discusses. Your "brand" of Christainity, in that big house that C.S. Lewis described is what is called "non-propositional", and fideistic. Blaise's Kierkegaardian "Leap od Faith". Mine is reasonned asent supported by all the evidence I find at hand. Truth is I hope a primary value. In a later post "poking a little fun" as Bozo does so deftly at times, is just that. Poke a little fun at me. That said, Truth and the Nature of Reality are the two most fundamental issues in human existence. In many ways we are in one of the stupidest periods in human history. Descartes boo-boo coupled with natural human tendencies and weaknesses (No, I definitely do not at all agree that "man is a dunghill covered by the snows of grace" Martin Luther and Jean de Clavin based capitalism on this distorted view)---digression alert--We ended up looking at life from the wrong end of an electron microscope, and a great deal of the more heated comments arise from core dispositionns being addressed critically and a most common lack of familiarity with even basic philosophical principles. That said, this is the real stuff, the down and dirty, the only truly interesting stuff going on. I think you were right on the theological response I gave earlier. I try mostly to deal with what can and cannot be known about existence in itself by reason alone. That includes what (who) we call God, as considerd by reason. Keep heart
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 30, 2005 22:33:32 GMT -5
The It from BitOther philosophers call for a sea change in our very modes of thought.After Einstein introduced his theory of relativity, notes Jeffrey Bub, a philosopher at the University of Maryland, "we threw out the old Euclidean notion of space and time, and now we have a more generalised notion." Quantum theory may demand a similar revamping of our concepts of rationality and logic, Bub says. Boolean logic, which is based on either- or propositions, suffices for a world in which an atom goes either through one slit or the other, but not both slits. "Quantum mechanical logic is non-Boolean," he comments. " Once you understand that, it may make sense." Bub concedes, however, that none of the so-called quantum logic systems devised so far has proved very convincing. A different kind of paradigm shift is envisioned by Wheeler.The most profound lesson of quantum mechanics, he remarks, is that physical phenomena are somehow defined by the questions we ask of them. " This is in some sense a participatory universe," he says. The basis of reality may not be the quantum, which despite its elusiveness is still a physical phenomenon, but the bit, the answer to a yes-or-no question,which is the fundamental currency of computing and communications. Wheeler calls his idea "the it from bit." Following Wheeler's lead, various theorists are trying to recast quantum physics in terms of information theory,which was developed 44 years ago to maximise the amount of information transmitted over communications channels. Already these investigators have found that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality and nonlocality can be formulated more powerfully in the context of information theory, according to William K. Wootters of Williams College, a former Wheeler student who is pursuing the it-from-bit concept. Meanwhile theorists at the surreal frontier of quantum theory are conjuring up thought experiments that could unveil the riddle in the enigma once and for all. David Deutsch of the University of Oxford thinks it should be possible, at least in principle, to build a "quantum computer," one that achieves superposition of states. Deutsch has shown that if different superposed states of the computer can work on separate parts of a problem at the same time, the computer may achieve a kind of quantum parallelism, solving certain problems more quickly than classical computers. Taking this idea further, Albert - with just one of his minds - has conceived of a quantum computer capable of making certain measurements of itself and its environment. Such a "quantum automaton" would be capable of knowing more about itself than any outside observer could ever know-and even more than is ordinarily permitted by the uncertainty principle.The automaton could also serve as a kind of eyewitness of the quantum world, resolving questions about whether wave functions truly collapse, for example. Albert says he has no idea how actually to engineer such a machine, but his calculations show the Schrödinger equation allows such a possibility. If that doesn't work, there is always Aharonov's time machine.The machine, which is based not only on quantum theory but also on general relativity, is a massive sphere that can rapidly expand or contract Einstein's theory predicts that time will speed up for an occupant of the sphere as it expands and gravity becomes proportionately weaker, and time will slow down as the sphere contracts. If the machine and its occupant can be induced into a superposition of states corresponding to different sizes and so different rates of time, Aharonov says, they may "tunnel" into the future.The occupant can then disembark, ask physicists of the future to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics and then bring the answers-assuming there are any-back to the present. Until then, like Plato's benighted cave dwellers, we can only stare at the shadows of quanta flickering on the walls of our cave and wonder what they mean. - Hello, I must be going She wore an itsy-bitsy teeny -weeny yellow polka......Remarkable stuff
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 30, 2005 22:41:26 GMT -5
Hate to disabuse you of a comforting allusion, but if you understood what I wrote, you woud know beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that reality is forever beyond the reach of science. This may come as a surprise to you, but I am in possession of the wonderful ability to see both sides of an issue. Just because I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, doesn't mean I don't understand your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 30, 2005 23:36:11 GMT -5
This may come as a surprise to you, but I am in possession of the wonderful ability to see both sides of an issue. Just because I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, doesn't mean I don't understand your argument. I look for understanfding in the responses to what I write. If you think that science can even address the "Big" questons, then you really do not understand my argument and may have an idea of your side, but no real sense of what I have said about the issue. You wrote of my "assumption" underlying my position. What assumption" My critique of naive 17th materialism which you defend was a critique of its progenitor in Descartes, It was a major philosophical mistake. So again, what assumption, and what mistake? I'm rattling a few people's cages not because I'm particularly nasty in what I write, but because I am very confident of the veracity of same. I'm also fairly articulate in these matters, which has given rise to thoughtful critiques, like showing off, pretension, wordy....blah, blah blah. There seems to be an inverse ratio of content to character aspersions and garden variety pop psychology in lieu of content. It is all the assumed stuff, the eroneous philosophical presuppositions that are the ground zero here. Again I invite anyone to engage the issue which is philosophical. I don't plan to write explanatory paragraphs if the word "axiomatic" will do. It may well be that this very difficult subject jsut can't be intelligently engaged in this forum. I don't offer that as character critique, while that would occasionally be more than appropriate. The greatest impediment to learning something is believeing you already know it. We all have this tendancy, some with a lot more tenable case than others, and too, cultural prejudices and values impinge their own dominion over people's desire to debate wtih integrity. So again, not to be a Pricc or anything, but do tell me , or rather defend your statement concerning my "assumption" and tell me how science will majically arrive at anything beyond description of material entities. This will show that you understand, and I will learn of an error I have made.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 1, 2005 9:30:14 GMT -5
fwiw: God not so dead: Atheism in decline worldwide By Uwe Siemon-Netto UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Thursday, March 3, 2005 Gurat, France – There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe that godlessness is in trouble.
"Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday.
Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.With excerpts from Harun Yahya's article the full article
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 1, 2005 13:38:42 GMT -5
It's ironic that Toronthab and Franko agree that atheism is wrong while being unable to resolve their ultimate differences about the ONE TRUE RELIGION.
There's solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus the person. But God? That's a different matter.
How about searching for God with mass spectrometry, spectroscopy, particle colliders, x-ray and UV detectors, etc.? If we can't do that with God, maybe we can use these technologies to detect the soul departing the body.
How about locating Jesus's remains and performing DNA analysis? That might provide us with information about God's genetic makeup. Oh I forgot, he was whisked away. Still, we wouldn't even need his body. Any dried blood or tissue from the crucifixion would serve.
Of course I expect to hear the remonstration that God is untouchable and unknowable. That uncertainty separating divinity and corporeality enables humans to create an infinite number of religious beliefs--all right or all wrong.
At least Descartes knew who he was. Hi, I'm René, your friendly neighborhood doubter. Converse with me and I'll know that you exist too.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 1, 2005 16:08:45 GMT -5
It's ironic that Toronthab and Franko agree that atheism is wrong while being unable to resolve their ultimate differences about the ONE TRUE RELIGION. I think the differences are merely institutional and liturgical, but the core belief is the same. Hey, I disagree with Pentecostals and with Anglicans too, but in the end "God is God". And the discussion comes full circle.
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 1, 2005 16:42:13 GMT -5
The problem between the religious and scientific views is one of definition and approach.
If we take a step back from our respective positions, can anyone disagree that the universe operates according to certain forces and/or laws?
The powers that be, if you will.
The religious and the scientific both seek to understand these powers. Call them God or call them Physics. Something is at work. If you want to personify these forces you are religious. If you want to put them under a microscope you are scientific. You can also be both.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 1, 2005 17:33:04 GMT -5
The problem between the religious and scientific views is one of definition and approach. If we take a step back from our respective positions, can anyone disagree that the universe operates according to certain forces and/or laws? The powers that be, if you will. The religious and the scientific both seek to understand these powers. Call them God or call them Physics. Something is at work. If you want to personify these forces you are religious. If you want to put them under a microscope you are scientific. You can also be both. Agreed. Both search for meaning in different ways, with different presuppositions (and probably different end-expectations). In the end . . . we'll find out: if there is a God, we'll know; if there isn't it won't matter.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 2, 2005 10:37:50 GMT -5
Agreed. Both search for meaning in different ways, with different presuppositions (and probably different end-expectations). In the end . . . we'll find out: if there is a God, we'll know; if there isn't it won't matter. I don't care to quote Plato or Aristotle or Descartes or my Uncle BillyBob hooker, frankly, I don't care what they have said about anything. The converstation lies between the here and the now and the people talking in this cyberspace. Here is a problem, maybe even a paradox. Who or what is a God? We define God is one BEING perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. With that in mind…….. IF…….. Humans will eventually have the ability to combine chemicals and create a DNA chain, thus creating a life form. THEN……Are we then God's? Should the ones we created pray to us? IF…….. If there is a civilization out there that is so advance that it can manipulate DNA and space/time. THEN…… then are they God's? Should we pray to them? Or is that idolatry? IF…… they "created" man, THEN…… are you going to bow and pray to them OR are you going to deny them and pray to the Gods that created them? Do the God/God’s that created them even exist or something YOU created in your mind? Are you going to say, "Yeah, your powerful and smart and all those good things but you are not the real God. The real God is someone more powerful and smarter then you." What if the Supreme being is no more "supreme" then an advanced civilization? This is the viral questions plagued my “belief” system and eventually succumbed to it’s disease. I am seeking answers that cure it. Anyone care to supply some theological penicillin?
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 2, 2005 11:06:10 GMT -5
I don't care to quote Plato or Aristotle or Descartes or my Uncle BillyBob hooker, frankly, I don't care what they have said about anything. The converstation lies between the here and the now and the people talking in this cyberspace. Well, of course we are much more brilliant than those guys. I don't, some do. The answer has been known for quite some time. The planet Earth is an extraterrestial biological experiment. It was seeded with all manner of flora and fauna. Several times in fact. We are part of the latest re-seeding. Those in charge of supervising this planet come and hover every now and then to see how things are going. They organize field trips for students' science and sociology classes to come and observe us from a safe distance. However, they will not contact us due to our backwardness on the evolutionary path: Hardly worth the time to communicate with a species that still has as one of its major activities mass murder of each other over trivialities (things that more productively could be resolved through co-operation). For all that, they are not God.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 2, 2005 11:34:05 GMT -5
Franko, I don't care to quote Plato or Aristotle or Descartes or my Uncle BillyBob hooker, frankly, I don't care what they have said about anything. The converstation lies between the here and the now and the people talking in this cyberspace. Here is a problem, maybe even a paradox. Who or what is a God? We define God is one BEING perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. With that in mind…….. IF…….. Humans will eventually have the ability to combine chemicals and create a DNA chain, thus creating a life form. THEN……Are we then God's? Should the ones we created pray to us? IF…….. If there is a civilization out there that is so advance that it can manipulate DNA and space/time. THEN…… then are they God's? Should we pray to them? Or is that idolatry? IF…… they "created" man, THEN…… are you going to bow and pray to them OR are you going to deny them and pray to the Gods that created them? Do the God/God’s that created them even exist or something YOU created in your mind? Are you going to say, "Yeah, your powerful and smart and all those good things but you are not the real God. The real God is someone more powerful and smarter then you." What if the Supreme being is no more "supreme" then an advanced civilization? This is the viral questions plagued my “belief” system and eventually succumbed to it’s disease. I am seeking answers that cure it. Anyone care to supply some theological penicillin? Hi Mr. Cranky such a great moniker: one I could well adopt for myself, for as all who know me know, I can crank. I'm not trying to be arrogant or condescending when I say "Excellent, perfect question. It perfectly expresses the different subject matter that we are addressing on these pages and what I think underlies a void in the paradigm of knowledge or thingking whaen we consider these problems. I am afraid that I can only start to respond at this time for a reason that will follow. In brief, and please don't shut yourself off from the famous thinkers on these questions any more than you would ignore Lafleur on scoring goals or Harvey on how to be the best hockey player ever. I will address the excellent point of having to define our terms concerning this thing referred to as "God" whatever the heck that might be. Knowledge begins with the definition of terms. When you illustrate very well, the man computing the formulae of dna and petrie-ing an entity, perhaps even a new human life into existence, he has created nothing out of nothing. He has manipulated (in an astounding way!) what already exists, using the brain he did not create himself. He did not cause himself or anything he is born into or around. The question of "God" is not about studying "things that exist." It is the study of "that things exist. How is it THAT things are. It is the study of BEING itself. How is it that we who have no sufficient reason (we nor our parents did not create ourselves) for the existence of ourselves. That things are. I would otherwise be very happy (it's one of my absolute favourite things ) to bring whatever insight I may or may not have to bear on these, the very core questions of existence itself, but I cannot today. This morning I received notice that my wonderful nephew, Roland has suffered a very serious head injury in Guam where he lives. He is at present comatose, and his prognosis is uncertain. I will not be adressing any further posts today on these excellent and brave threads and would ask anyone so disposed to perhaps remember my beautiful nephew in prayer. Thankyou Paul
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 2, 2005 11:35:08 GMT -5
Well, of course we are much more brilliant than those guys. . I never said we were more brilliant then them. On the other hand, parroting has no brilliance in it. Well, of course we are much more brilliant than those guys. I don't, some do. Believeing in God and a religion is a personal thing. As such, there is a varience in the description. The answer has been known for quite some time. The planet Earth is an extraterrestial biological experiment. It was seeded with all manner of flora and fauna. Several times in fact. We are part of the latest re-seeding. Those in charge of supervising this planet come and hover every now and then to see how things are going. They organize field trips for students' science and sociology classes to come and observe us from a safe distance. However, they will not contact us due to our backwardness on the evolutionary path: Hardly worth the time to communicate with a species that still has as one of its major activities mass murder of each other over trivialities (things that more productively could be resolved through co-operation). For all that, they are not God. If they are not God/Gods and the answer is the same for people who "created" THEM, then is God ethereal? If God is ethereal then why does believing in him have any meaning other then comfort? And if God is ethereal then are all religions a systemized collection of hollow rituals?
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 2, 2005 11:47:37 GMT -5
I never said we were more brilliant then them. On the other hand, parroting has no brilliance in it. Sorry, that's the way it came across to me. Of course, mere parroting serves no real purpose, however the posters on this board are intelligent enough to use the thoughts of brilliants minds who have gone before to illustrate points they wish to make. There is no need to fumble around trying to re-invent the wheel when one is leaning against the wall in front of you. The mode of belief may be relative, but God is absolute. God is not a thing, not a concept. God is the reality that (usually) lies beyond our (usual) perception. Rituals are the means by which we attempt to bring ourselves into the presence of God.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 2, 2005 12:20:13 GMT -5
Paul,
My thoughts are with you nephew. I also have a sister-in-law who is currently fighting breast cancer (already lost my other sister-in-law to that f*ck*n evil). It makes you ponder the "WHY?" far more then you really want to.
Haec credam a deo pio? A deo iusto? A deo scito?
I NEVER shut my mind to the great thinkers. In fact, I welcome them and want to reread them when I retire (getting more and more fed up with work every day). I just don't like people quoting them like hammers to "prove" their point of view.
To the God question………<br> IF….. “When you illustrate very well, the man computing the formulae of dna and petrie-ing an entity, perhaps even a new human life into existence, he has created nothing out of nothing.” (Nothing out of nothing? It does not make sense. I assume you mean something out of nothing)
THEN…..”It is the study of BEING itself. How is it that we who have no sufficient reason (we nor our parents did not create ourselves) for the existence of ourselves.”<br> I am answering the way I understand those sentences…
If we create a new living, thinking life form out of nothing and it does not know who created it then it would be in the same position we are. It would be pondering the same question and seeking the same answers we are. It would also see us as God's. After all, it meets the criteria of the "THEN" quote.
Is your point of view…..
IF……..The essence of “being” or existence itself and since we have no definitive answers the only explanation left is that there is a “force” that created us.
THEN…..The logical extension of that is that since we do not yet understand all the forces in the universe, we do not understand that “force” either and yet we have defined it as God. But what happens the minute we can understand and scientifically quantify that force? As long as we can not duplicate that force, then we can "believe" in it but if we know of it’s existence and then YOU KNOW that it is in human nature to tamper with it. If we can play with God like forces, are we then God's?
Some may even say that we are approaching God like powers. We are on the bring of creating life out of nothing and we have harvested the very essence of the energy in the universe (nuclear). If we can also manipulate time, then we have the power to alter EVERYTHING. Are we God's?
Further to this argument....
300 years ago, we could not do many things we are capable of today. People of 300 years ago would see our current capabilities and wonder if we had reached God like powers. People from 5000 years ago would fall on their knees ad pray. Saving lives with drugs, flying, going to the moon, harvesting enormous energy, manipulating genes, etc. Today, we see this as common place and easily wonder about reaching the stars and other worlds and civilizations. In fact, we see this as normal to our expanding knowledge of the Universe.
From this, two questions arise.
1. Does human expansion of knowledge diminish the ethereal virtues/values/abilities of God? IF we can manipulate space, time, energy and life, THEN what are humans?
2. Would other world civilizations also wonder about God or is it possible the notion does not exist. After all, IF he did create ALL the universe, THEN his presence, or lack thereof should be known throughout every corner of the universe. (there goes that bastardly IF..THEN thinking)
In a previous post, I wrote that if one keeps asking…and asking…and asking…..then one will find answers that WILL lead to more questions. Every time I define the terms to seek an answer, I lose the validity of the answer by seeking or defining another question. To me, theism is a paradox.
To the real and now....
My best wishes to your nephew.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 2, 2005 12:29:36 GMT -5
The mode of belief may be relative, but God is absolute. God is not a thing, not a concept. God is the reality that (usually) lies beyond our (usual) perception. Rituals are the means by which we attempt to bring ourselves into the presence of God. By believing, are we bringing ourselves to the presence of God or are we defining God to explain our presence? Are we to believe without question? Is theism simply obedience to our own understandings? Were are we? IF...... "I think therefore I believe".THEN..... you can not have "I think therefore I question".The two are mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 2, 2005 12:42:57 GMT -5
By the way............I just realized something. Should I change my avatar? After all, it has that "look" that one finds and defines "evil". ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) Toronto Star Headlines...... ."Picture of the Lord of Darkness Corrupting Minds In Hockey Forum." ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) ![](http://www.bergencounty.com/costumes/starwars/empr2.gif)
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 2, 2005 12:52:39 GMT -5
By believing, are we bringing ourselves to the presence of God or are we defining God to explain our presence? As far as I know belief is not even necessary for God to make its presence known. Saul who became Paul on the road to Damascus is the example that immediately comes to mind. Maybe we have no choice but to seek to define God. Perhaps those are the breadcrumbs God has strewn to lead us to it. A slight rewording of the above. To believe without question is the easy way out, unless one's belief is pure and comprehensive. Most of us must work, that is think, to nurture our belief. Imagine God as Prof. Kingsfield in The Paper Chase: "You come before me with a skull full of mush; you will leave thinking acting like lawyers human beings." I see no problem with thinking, believing and questioning being inclusive. In fact the Jewish tradition demands it of observant Jews. God is not for slackers.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 2, 2005 13:00:44 GMT -5
By the way............I just realized something. Should I change my avatar? After all, it has that "look" that one finds and defines "evil". ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) Boy, that's some skin condition. Jamais. Nous sommes « les Incorruptibles ».
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 2, 2005 14:21:48 GMT -5
Boy, that's some skin condition. Jamais. Nous sommes « les Incorruptibles ». I was wondering about your present avatar. Is it a photograph of your son?
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 2, 2005 14:39:18 GMT -5
I was wondering about your present avatar. Is it a photograph of your son? Don't start. You have no idea what trouble that pisher has been.
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 2, 2005 15:04:36 GMT -5
This morning I received notice that my wonderful nephew, Roland has suffered a very serious head injury in Guam where he lives. He is at present comatose, and his prognosis is uncertain. I will not be adressing any further posts today on these excellent and brave threads and would ask anyone so disposed to perhaps remember my beautiful nephew in prayer. Thankyou Paul Best wishes for your nephew, Paul.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 2, 2005 15:10:43 GMT -5
I join Habbadasher in wishing TorontHab's nephew a full recovery.
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 2, 2005 15:26:27 GMT -5
[quote author=Toronthab link=board=NonHockey&thread=1111934579&start=72#4
The question of "God" is not about studying "things that exist." It is the study of "that things exist. How is it THAT things are.
That things are.
[/quote]
This is an important distinction and clarifies the definition of God, in my mind. I still maintain that both religion AND science seek to understand this existence. Science studies what is but also asks how it came to be.
Again, I don't see that religion and science are inherently at odds with each other. Specific moral or ethical differences may arise, but they will arise with the secular and among the scientific also....
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 2, 2005 15:34:47 GMT -5
I join Habbadasher in wishing TorontHab's nephew a full recovery. Count me in as well.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 2, 2005 23:03:50 GMT -5
Paul:
Your nephew and family/families are in my thoughts and prayers.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 3, 2005 3:04:02 GMT -5
I see no problem with thinking, believing and questioning being inclusive. In fact the Jewish tradition demands it of observant Jews. God is not for slackers. Does not questioning lead or is an indicator of "disbelieving" or at least approaching the agnostic category? Is believing in "degrees" or is it three distinct and separate categories? Believers, agnostics and atheists?
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 3, 2005 6:14:49 GMT -5
Does not questioning lead or is an indicator of "disbelieving" or at least approaching the agnostic category? Maybe. Not necessarily. A spiritual quest can lead one to God. Not sure what your question is: obviously there are at least three "categories" of people, and many shades between as well. In fact, many people in the course of their lives have shifted from two or all three of these "categories". In the end it doesn't matter. God doesn't go away even if we do.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 3, 2005 15:01:56 GMT -5
Sincere thanks for your best wishes and prayers. My father Roland Boire was a Monteraler, city counsellor under mayor Drapeau. He died young in 1980. My nephew Rollie, was named after him. Very sadly he died yeateday evening in the course of surgery to treat a clot in his brain. He was an especially beautiful person, loved by all who knew him for his capacity to love and respond to others wit a sincerity and openness one could sense. Again, thanks to each of you Paul
|
|