You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _Maksutov »

Gunnar wrote:The anti-science arguments and mysticism displayed by some of the participants in this thread bring to mind one of my favorite quotes from Isaac Asimov:
The great advantage of mysticism is that having no logical content to begin with, it cannot be further damaged by any further increase in nonsense, no matter how great."


Image

Image
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_jo1952
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:04 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _jo1952 »

Gunnar wrote:Jo, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about Charles Darwin. Contrary to what you and other creationists insist on claiming, he did not start out with a predisposition to believe in evolution and common descent of life forms, nor did he ever characterize himself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic. When he embarked on his fateful voyage with the H.M.S Beagle, he was a divinity student on sabbatical with every intention of resuming his divinity studies upon return and taking up a career as a professional, country Vicar in the Church of England. He was greatly surprised and disturbed by the evidence he collected during that epic voyage--so disturbed that it took him nearly 30 years to bring himself to publish the conclusions forced upon him by his honesty and the sheer weight of the enormous body of evidence he had collected.


I would offer that much of what he saw belied the beliefs he had been taught about religion. One of those would have been that the earth was NOT as young as religion taught. Once one aspect of a belief system comes under question, it is easier to let go of everything taught by religion. The irony is, that while he allowed for something other than what he was taught by religion, he managed to get involved with another belief system with rules and laws. I believe he wound up throwing out the baby with the bath water. By so doing, he threw out messages from True Messengers. I see the same thing happening with posters on this board who have walked away from the Church in disgust. In an effort to quell their own participation in allowing themselves to be deceived by religion, they now grab onto yet another belief system which also has rules and laws and leaders to whom they look to guide them. Both systems effectively have closed their minds. Both, at one time, satisfied their curiosity in their search for truth. Both can only offer shifting truth. Both have caused them to treat those who don't agree with them with disdain.
You greatly and unfairly malign one of the most decent, kindest, most honest and honorable men in the history of science when you claim that he only arrived at his conclusions because he was predisposed to believe them because he was an atheist who hated God.

I never said he hated God. That is YOUR perception. In the traditional sense, I am now an "atheist". I don't hate "God" either. Whatever people want to believe is great. It's just that I also observe the effects of belief systems upon our humanity.

You obviously have a very minimal and distorted understanding of Darwin and what he was about. In addition, your comments about evolution in this forum and the evidence supporting it belie your claim that you have ever extensively studied it and carefully evaluated its implications.

Again, that is your perception. See how easily you deceived yourself about how you thought I said that Darwin hated God. I am tired of arguing the same things over and over again...so I don't. I have tried to show how it is that the belief system itself holds great power over our minds. It is our belief systems that cause us to treat each other poorly.

And I still think you have a distorted understanding of what Einstein actually said and thought about God and religion.


Yet science believers on this very website deny over and over again that there is a force greater than man going on. The religiosity of Einstein was NOT a belief in the "God" of religion. It was a belief in "some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man,”.

I also repeat what I said previously that once one decides that one has achieved "real" or absolute truth that no longer needs any adjusting or reexamination, no matter what new evidence becomes available, one is in danger of stagnating, perpetuating error and becoming intolerant of honest differences of opinion. This is what makes possible such abominations as religious inquisitions, jihads, tyrannies and the holocaust.


Have you studied the real truth? If not, then how is it you feel justified in making ANY claims about it? Real truth doesn't keep anyone in a stagnate condition....it actually frees up your mind to even greater possibilities of how to apply it. However, unless you are willing to free up your mind, you have no other choice than to wait for science to tell you what you should believe.

In addition, no one is less likely to be in actual possession of "Real Truth" than someone who rejects the necessity and the efficacy of hard, objective (scientific) evidence and dismisses such evidence whenever it conflicts with what they already believe, as you and Franktalk seem to be advocating.


The likelihood of Real Truth cannot be proven. That's part of the challenge of being here. Part of the challenge is also to test our humanity. Real Truth allows us to see each other differently; thus, we have a better chance of treating each other humanely. OTOH, by nature of how it is that science functions with shifting truth, also proves that her truth isn't the real truth. So, we come to an impasse. The bottom line is then to measure which type of truth allows us to treat each other more humanely; real truth, or truth. Real truth does more, though....it answers the very questions concerning truth which still need to be shifted in accordance with science's rules and laws IF you have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

I have never maligned Darwin. I HAVE noted that he placed limitations upon what he allowed himself to see. While he made a good start against the beliefs of religion, he also threw out the baby...thus limiting what he was able to see. Science has been huffing and puffing that evolution is the real truth; but none of it has been proven without necessarily making leaps of faith in order to maintain it. None of us can see beyond the limitations we place upon our minds UNLESS we are willing to let go of what the world teaches. If what she discovers was Real Truth (truth which requires no more shifting or adjusting), then she would never have to change her truth. It's a very simple concept; if "truth" changes, it wasn't real truth. It was only the amount of truth which science allowed at any given time.

The "truth" of science while I was in school is NOT the "truth" of science today. In order to be able to get good grades on tests and to pass science classes while trying to maintain a high grade point average, I had to give the "truth" answers which science dictated. At that time, I had no idea that the truth of science was going to change....I believed her; I believed that her truth was accurate. But I was deceived. If I were to use the same answers to the same questions today, I would fail the tests and the course. Real truth would never have changed.

Inasmuch as it is possible to find the real truth, and no longer need to keep adjusting "truth", why is it that science types won't even consider studying real truth? It's because they have closed their minds and accepted that the shifting truth of science is fine with them. They will wait until the leaders of science (the learned ones) tell them it is okay to consider something not being currently taught or supported by science. ANY belief system which uses its own rules and laws to hold on to its followers will also close the minds of its followers against other belief system believers. Those followers, in an effort to hang on to the value they gain from being a believer in a belief system, will point to those they can't convince to agree with them, and degrade them. It is the only way they can justify themselves....by making others look like the fools. This is normal; but it also causes us to treat each other poorly.

I see posters who believe in science insisting that a belief in something unseen equates to a belief in religion. Yet, I also see that science DOES have things she believes in which are unseen; but she conveniently attaches all types of side-stepping to those particular beliefs in an effort to make that belief NOT appear to be religious. In that way, she can then claim that her belief is not religious. The battle appears to be religion vs science. But there is at least one other possibility. Neither religion nor science will entertain it because it threatens their current beliefs.
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _Gunnar »

What is this unalterable or absolute "Real Truth" that you believe you are in possession of and believe in without evidential support, and that science is unaware or rejects? And how do you know that it is any more reliable than scientific truth or the "Real Truth" espoused by other mystics who disagree with your version of what constitutes "Real Truth?" Unless your "Real Truth" is supported by with, or, at least, not contrary to the best available, objective evidence, it deserves zero credibility.

Besides that most of the basic scientific truth of physics, chemistry and biology you learned in school is just as valid and useful today as it was when you were in school, and has been reconfirmed countless times in many ways and with ever greater precision and accuracy by science since then. Merely increasing the precision of the measurements of our observations of the truth (which is, to a large extent what has happened since then) does not qualify as a "shifting of the truth."

Why are you so intimidated by the prospect that your "Real Truth" might be less absolute that you want to believe it is, and ought to be subjected to the same critical scrutiny as scientific truth? Carl Sagan, another one of my heroes said: "Critical, but honest scrutiny is the means by which deep insight is winnowed from deep nonsense." Critical scrutiny of all we know or think we know is what science is all about. No truth claims of any kind are entitled to be exempt from such scrutiny, and least of all the type of mysticism that you and Franktalk seem to be espousing.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Apr 15, 2016 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _spotlight »

Gunnar wrote:What is this unalterable or absolute "Real Truth" that you believe you are in possession of and believe in without evidential support, and that science is unaware or rejects? And how do you know that it is any more reliable than scientific truth or the "Real Truth" espoused by other mystics who disagree with your version of what constitutes "Real Truth?" Unless your "Real Truth" is consistent with, or, at least, not contrary to the best available, objective evidence, it deserves zero credibility.

Besides that most of the basic scientific truth of physics, chemistry and biology you learned in school is just as valid and useful today as it was when you were in school, and has been reconfirmed countless times in many ways and with ever greater precision and accuracy by science since then. Merely increasing the precision of the measurements of our observations of the truth (which is, to a large extent what has happened since then) does not qualify as a "shifting of the truth."


She confuses metaphysics with the emperical activities of the scientific method derived from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. What she refers to as the true truth is something that the scientific method can never approach and is unknowable. She deludes herself into thinking that she can learn this metaphysical knowledge. But like you say it would have to agree with what we know from the scientific method. Just because it is the true truth does not mean it can be something contrary to what we see day in day out. In other words the true truth has to result in or be the cause behind what we see happening in ordinary science which ignores metaphysical explanations.

The problem with metaphysics is that you do not know what the true truth is and so if you make one up in line with science then when further science comes along as Jo has noted it disrupts that metaphysical view and falsifies it. Science gets ever closer to this truth but can never arrive. It isn't prior science that gets overthrown as Jo asserts, rather it is the metaphysics assumed to be true at the time that people assume is the explanation behind the science. So Jo is doubly wrong to poo poo science in favor of metaphysics.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _Gunnar »

Thanks, spotlight! :smile: as usual, you said it better than I could! What comments do you have about the paragraph I added before you replied to my last post?
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _ludwigm »

Gunnar wrote:The anti-science arguments and mysticism displayed by some of the participants in this thread bring to mind one of my favorite quotes from Isaac Asimov:
The great advantage of mysticism is that having no logical content to begin with, it cannot be further damaged by any further increase in nonsense, no matter how great."

Please give the source...

My pet scifi writers are Isaac Asimov (and Stanislaw Lem).
Even on my Kindle Reader I have all of their works *** - in Hungarian and English as well.

The sentence is an asimovish style.

And to *** :
all of their works available gratis (or stolen)...
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _spotlight »

Gunnar wrote:Thanks, spotlight! :smile: as usual, you said it better than I could! What comments do you have about the paragraph I added before you replied to my last post?


Sounds like a request that Jo has to address since I don't know what she thinks is the means by which she claims to know ultimate truth. I imagine she could raise all kinds of objections to the scrutiny of others about what she thinks she knows and how she thinks she knows it. But the one thing she can't escape is the need for her ultimate truth to explain current data and facts. I suspect she is largely unaware of current data and facts as we've seen her casually sweep them aside rather than address them in any substantive manner.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _Gunnar »

Gunnar wrote:The anti-science arguments and mysticism displayed by some of the participants in this thread bring to mind one of my favorite quotes from Isaac Asimov:
The great advantage of mysticism is that having no logical content to begin with, it cannot be further damaged by any further increase in nonsense, no matter how great."

ludwigm wrote:Please give the source...

My pet scifi writers are Isaac Asimov (and Stanislaw Lem).
Even on my Kindle Reader I have all of their works *** - in Hungarian and English as well.

The sentence is an asimovish style.

And to *** :
all of their works available gratis (or stolen)...

Ludwig, I think Asimov said that in the essay on the absurdity of astrology in his collection of essays titled The Stars in their Courses, if I recall correctly.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _Gunnar »

ludwigm wrote:My pet scifi writers are Isaac Asimov (and Stanislaw Lem).
Even on my Kindle Reader I have all of their works *** - in Hungarian and English as well.

Asimov is one of my favorite SF writers too. I am less familiar with Stanislaw Lem, but thanks to you I have a growing appreciation of him as well. Another one of my favorites is Arthur C. Clarke.

As much as I loved Asimov's SF, I liked his science fact essays even better. He was a good friend of Clarke, who also wrote a lot of science fact essays and articles as well as science fiction. Are you familiar with the Clarke/Asimov pact? In that pact Asimov agreed that Arthur C. Clarke is the world's best science fiction writer and the world's second best science fact writer, and Clarke agreed that Isaac Asimov is the world's best science fact writer and the world's second best science fiction writer.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

Post by _ludwigm »

Gunnar wrote:
ludwigm wrote:My pet scifi writers are Isaac Asimov (and Stanislaw Lem).
Even on my Kindle Reader I have all of their works *** - in Hungarian and English as well.

Asimov is one of my favorite SF writers too. I am less familiar with Stanislaw Lem, but thanks to you I have a growing appreciation of him as well.
If You are familiar with torrent, You can download near all of his works from here. (http://d.btset.com/E6/A1/E6E03FF587780B ... A1.torrent)
--- if not, I can send them all ---

Gunnar wrote: Another one of my favorites is Arthur C. Clarke.

As much as I loved Asimov's SF, I liked his science fact essays even better. He was a good friend of Clarke, who also wrote a lot of science fact essays and articles as well as science fiction. Are you familiar with the Clarke/Asimov pact? In that pact Asimov agreed that Arthur C. Clarke is the world's best science fiction writer and the world's second best science fact writer, and Clarke agreed that Isaac Asimov is the world's best science fact writer and the world's second best science fiction writer.
Yes.
The common in Asimov and Clarke that both of them were scientists, too. Asimov in biochemistry, Clarke in radar tech (among others). Not Roddenberry or Hubbard types...


Pact?
The shoeshine boy before the bank asks for five dollars from the hotdog seller (both of them are working before The Bank):
- ?
- No, sorry. I have a pact with The Bank. They don't sell hotdog, and I don't borrow money.

Cultural values can not be sorted.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Post Reply