The Winding Path – 036

For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.

2013-12-03 21:03

Bob Seidensticker  – How does one provide evidence of the infinitude of potentiality?
You’re referring to Yahweh’s infinitude of potentiality? I see no evidence for it, and I have no idea how to detect such a thing. Conclusion: there is no such thing.

There might be, of course, and we’re just ignorant of it. Nevertheless, why should we hold that belief?

You insist on proof of the existence of some phenomena called God.
No, not proof—there is no such thing outside math and logic—but compelling evidence. Without such evidence, we have no warrant for such a belief.

If you’re saying that science can’t prove you wrong, I agree. But so what? What you’re looking for is a reason to show that you’re right. Without that, it’s just mental masturbation.

Besides being rude, your arguments are based on a fundamentalist’s belief in your favored paradigm.

Prove me wrong about what? The Entirety is it’s own proof. This is a priori.

Of course God does not exist. Existence does not exist. The potential to exist does not exist. This is the only way to talk about God. What does “belief” have to do with it?

At this point I predict that our dialog will start to lose coherence. What say we let it go?

2013-12-03 20:00

Bob Seidensticker – I’m not quite sure what your main point is, but I’ll give a couple of responses.

If you’re a presuppositionalist, just assuming God exists, that’s fine, but you can imagine that those of us who need evidence will find this useless.

As for what else everything would be but God, you may have noticed that science does a great job of explaining reality. It doesn’t have all the answers, of course, but it backs up its answers with evidence, unlike Christianity.

I’m always curious what that evidence would have to look like.

How does one provide evidence of the infinitude of potentiality?

Science explains phenomena on it’s own terms, and the need for evidence is well within the bounds of the finite.

You insist on proof of the existence of some phenomena called God.

But…

A phenomena has boundaries. It requires something that is distinct from it. This doesn’t meet the criteria required for the investigation.

2013-12-1 9:51

MNb – Yes, but due to its method (using both induction and deduction and comparing the results) science is self-correctional. Religion isn’t because it doesn’t use induction by definition – proper religion doesn’t give us testable statements and predictions. Those theists who do because of their personal belief system invariably happen to be wrong.

I’m curious about what you mean by “proper religion”?

I would suggest a marriage of science and theology. Along the lines of Yoga or Zen. These systems are self correctional. i.e. Kensho, Samadhi, Enlightenment. Or, successful coming to Christ.

The proof is in the pudding.

But if you remain convinced of the “Invariable wrongness” of the enquiry it’self, where is the objectivity?

Objectivity has no meaning without the counterpoint of the Subjective. Both are invariably present, here and now.

Are they in harmony or in opposition? That is up to us.

2013-11-30 14:32

Kodie responding to MaryLouiseC – Being a Christian seems to be about ignoring what’s real or logical because your emotions favor the illogical answer. The longer you delude yourself, the more likely you will continue to be deluded. That’s the heart knowledge. You have been psychologically manipulated.

I’m sure you realize there are infinite degrees of refinement within the individuals you lump together as Christians.

I for one, am not much good at math beyond the rudiments of geometry and a little algebra. When I apply these, I am, though briefly, a mathematician.

Should the entire spectrum of mathematics be held up for ridicule then?

2013-11-30 14:02

Bob Seidensticker responding to MaryLouiseC – My point is that not having any heart knowledge hasn’t stopped science from giving us all the verifiable knowledge about reality that we have. Religion has given us unverified claims.

Conclusion: that “heart knowledge” thing may actually be a hindrance, not an asset.

The type of knowledge that science has provided is by definition provisional.

This atheism thing seems to be more about the inherent limitations of “Heart Knowledge”, Intuition, the personal sense of the sacred. etc. I would remind everybody that these other ways of knowing are also by definition provisional.

For me “God” is a given. Religion plays a very small part in that “Knowing”.

What else would the Entirety of Existence and Being be, but God?

Key point being “Existence and Being”.

Consciously placing our self awareness into relationship with this, is the essence of the evolutionary impulse.

2013-11-29 11:22

What is the nature of this “Body of Christ” that you reference? Is it infinite? What kind of infinite? Like a mathematical series of similar numbers? Or, the very essence of Infinity. The Singularity of Now.

What is the nature of “God’s Enemy”? Where does it come from and what sustains it? Is it outside of God? How could that be? Is God All or not? Or, is this god, who has an enemy, only a pseudo god? And why would we set our sights so low? Jesus certainly didn’t.

What does your school specialize in teaching?

How much of your education addresses the above questions?

2013-11-15 12:51

What rules do you insist be applied when you consider the nature of “evidence”?

What would be the evidence that you or your guitar exists?

What does “exist” mean?

When considering the entirety of the Universe, do you include mind, self awareness, dreams, linear thought (reason), non-linear thought (intuition)?

What is self awareness? Is it a universal principal, like light or gravity? Or, a secondary process of brain chemistry? What evidence do you cite for your opinion on this?

Are you tempted to quibble over some small aspect of the above line of inquiry rather than give due consideration to it’s gist?

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in logs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.