juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Earl!

Eisnstein had said "God doesn't play dice with the universe" to which Stephen Hawking replied that not only did God play dice with the universe, but sometimes threw them where they couldn't be seen, (don't actually know what their own religious views were but they obviously had no trouble using the term God-do know Einstein was rather impressed with Buddhism).

From what I understand, and I am open to correction, Einstein was Jewish. I have also heard of his interest in Buddhist philosophy. Hawking, from what little I have seen, is an academic raw atheist. Brilliant man, no doubt, but I sense the term "God" to him was an abstract impossibility to begin with...so the use of the term in the quote rendered I would think to imply not belief, but aquiescense, of appeal to a common mythos.

I don't buy into traditional creationist thesis-life is too mysterious for that.

I suspect it may surprize many here that I too do not "buy into" traditional creationist ideas.

But "chance" may be looked at from many angles and levels of meaning; e.g., when chance ultimately leads to something deemed positive regardless of how many steps & phases it passes through to get there, in retrospect, seems like a wise & sentient, perhaps even loving & compassionate thing to have occurred .

An interesting view I had not considered.

[Vajradhara]

b'shalom juan,

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!


Oh, do we? What is chaos and randomness if not chance? What is a cosmic crapshoot if not chance?

yes, Juan, we do. of course, this is true only if we have studied Evolutionary theory. i suppose that if that hasn't happened, then those beings could labor under the misconception that Evolution proposes some sort of "randomness" or "chance" in how it works.

nevertheless, it is a common CreationISM adherent strawman about how evolution is understood to work.

clearly, as science isn't in the business of making static statements, when our information changes and our understanding increases, we will (i am sure) continue to update and modify the ToE to correspond with the continuing data that we are collecting.

also, let us not confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis, though i understand that this is often done by CreationISM adherents. i really cannot understand why this is so since these theories are quite different things and talk about wholly different subjects.

You wish myself and others not to attribute things to you or label you. The same courtesy would be appreciated, thanks.

and if you could find where i have done that, i would apologize and cease in such activity. however, i have not labled you nor anyone else, Juan. i have, rather, described a "generic" group of beings which you may or may not be part of.

the comment that precipitated my post was this:

"How do you approach those who do not believe or understand a creator, to whom "life and the myriad of creations" is the result of chance and circumstance from a primordial cesspool? "

which seems to be a mischaracterization of the views of beings like myself.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Kelcie,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Kelcie

Hi Vajradhara,

Ive pondered over your comments however I dont understand what they mean Would you like to elaborate please. Perhaps these are new concepts to me I dont know??

Thanks
Kelcie

well.... basically, Abiogenesis and Evolution are different theories that talk about different stuff.

more directly, the ToE does not propose that evolution is random or a result of chance, which seems to be the view put forth in the comment which i was addressing.

this is, however, a subject which is more properly discussed in the Science forum as it were. however, as we are here... you may be interested in this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

metta,

~v

[earl]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Earl!


From what I understand, and I am open to correction, Einstein was Jewish. I have also heard of his interest in Buddhist philosophy. Hawking, from what little I have seen, is an academic raw atheist. Brilliant man, no doubt, but I sense the term "God" to him was an abstract impossibility to begin with...so the use of the term in the quote rendered I would think to imply not belief, but aquiescense, of appeal to a common mythos.


I suspect it may surprize many here that I too do not "buy into" traditional creationist ideas.


An interesting view I had not considered.

I have heard it said about tapestries that, of course, when 1 looks on the non-pictoral or non-patterned side of them, we see nothing but meaningless threads. It is only when we look at the other side that a meaningful picture emerges. I think of God as being the pattern which connects the seemingly unrelated and "chance" elements into some form of patterned whole. The tough thing for humanity is that while God supplies the thread, (& if we're sufficiently attuned, the pattern), we are expected to do the sewing. God probably is in the details if we only know how and where to look, whether that tapestry thread is the endless Celtic knot or endless threads of Tantra-sorry V but when it comes to this topic just love getting poetic, metaphoric, & tend to look for how to tie up seemingly disparate "threads" into the single tapestry. Take care, Earl

[earl]

I neglected to add an important caveat when I mentioned in passing Andrew Cohen & his notion of evoultionary elightenment, which I think has great merit: this is not necessarily an endorsement of the man himself. There are some recent articles exposing the personal side of the man to suggest he is a con man at best & may even meet the definition of a cult leader, so before you send the man any money or join his organization, buyer beware He publishes a decently respected magazine, though, "What is Enlightenment?" While he puts himself forth as enlightened-i am automatically skeptical of any self-promoter, but especially 1 advertizing him or herself as enlightened-his actual behavior might call that into doubt at the least, though when 1 thinks of all the more legitimate supposedly enlightened eastern buddhist teachers who started teaching organizations in the US in late 60's, early 70's & displayed various significant personal ethical problems over the years, not to mention similar home-grown american buddhist teachers, the entire notion of whether 1 can be enlightened and still screw up almost becomes an interesting theoretical possiblity which has been a topic in various Buddhists media, but I digress-simply wanted to share with any who may check this A. Cohen out in any depth that what he says on paper may be worthwhile to ponder, but beware of the man himself! Don't want to inadvertently be the cause of anyone getting sucked into a cult-or even have their $ ripped off Take care, Earl

[Kelcie]

Hi juantoo3

Excellent Points!

True. However, are not Christians taught to plant a seed? If it is meant for the seed to grow, it will in its own good time.

Yes we may plant the seeds of truth and with enough water and sunlight to nourish the seed it will begin to grow. Often times more than not however, when one wants to offer nourishment to the seed, a little too much water can do a lot of damage to the potential of that seed and the seed can very well die from over watering. Nature in its wisdom knows if or when the seeds need nurturing and takes care of this process accordingly.
In other words, when Christians and the true nature of man work in unison the results can be very beneficial for the seeds growth. Regardless, each seed grows at a different rate and as you say in its own time.

Logic works much the same way. .

Agreed but all too often the logic negates that there is a true nature of man, and therefore does not work with it and the growth is less beneficial.

I get repeatedly accused of some ulterior agenda, when such has never been the case.

Am I accusing you of something? Or perhaps this just your tangent?

Yet, my study is, and always has been, independent. I refuse to be subservient either to science or institutional religion in this seach.

I am a great believer in independent study. I see this as a good thing.

You lost me. Are you trying to say God is convicted without evidence all the time?

Yes. The bible and history has shown that God has been blamed for all sorts of non- niceties that have occurred. Is this not convicting him without evidence? Where is the evidence except, that which was written about or spoken of by man? We both know you cannot prove Gods existence objectively, yet we are led to believe by man that their word is evidence enough?

My search is for the truth. The real, hard, genuine, factual truth.

Thats great. This is inherent in everyone.

OK, how do you suggest?

Okay…. they are not necessarily better solutions you may take them as you wish. Some off the cuff examples to try to illustrate my meaning.

Isn’t the power of creation marvellous – When you are seeing a newborn babe being delivered (creation=God)

Or
The power of love is a truly powerful force – When you are watching a person perform selfless acts of love. (Love=God)

Or
The inherent healing ability in you has bought about a very speedy recovery for you hasn’t it? – When you observe a person getting well a lot quicker than most others would. (Healing=God)


For me it does not have to be a powerful sermon to point out where God dwells. As the bible says “the simple will confound the wise” (or something like that) and it is in this simpleness that we can learn about and dwell with God. God is not as complex as we think; it is us that make God complex.


Kelcie

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

the comment that precipitated my post was this:

"How do you approach those who do not believe or understand a creator, to whom "life and the myriad of creations" is the result of chance and circumstance from a primordial cesspool? "

which seems to be a mischaracterization of the views of beings like myself.

Ah...now it begins to make sense. I am sorry if you took my comment as a slight, I assure it was not in any way intended as such. In fact, in my mind at the time I wrote I was specifically thinking of raw atheists, not including Buddhism.

Of course, I struggle with things like this often. Sadly, it seems mostly with you. I try. I mean, I really sit and think about what I wish to say in the most unoffensive way, and be damned if I don't still get it wrong! There is no winning. Those who are determined to find fault will never be satisfied. No matter how I word a phrase, it will be turned back 180 degrees and thrown in my face. I guess that's what I get for trying to write a thesis by committee. Seems Ayn Rand must have been right afterall.

Now, I want very much to move on. I have tried my level best, including cooling my heels for a couple of days, and still there is no winning with you. I reach out to you, you bite my hand. How many more times will I continue to reach out? As long as you continue to see slights where none are intended, or in fact implied, there is no way to have a meaningful dialogue. I got the tit for tat stuff out of my system already. Move along.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Earl!

Originally Posted by earl

I have heard it said about tapestries that, of course, when 1 looks on the non-pictoral or non-patterned side of them, we see nothing but meaningless threads. It is only when we look at the other side that a meaningful picture emerges. I think of God as being the pattern which connects the seemingly unrelated and "chance" elements into some form of patterned whole. The tough thing for humanity is that while God supplies the thread, (& if we're sufficiently attuned, the pattern), we are expected to do the sewing. God probably is in the details if we only know how and where to look, whether that tapestry thread is the endless Celtic knot or endless threads of Tantra-sorry V but when it comes to this topic just love getting poetic, metaphoric, & tend to look for how to tie up seemingly disparate "threads" into the single tapestry. Take care, Earl

Awesome! Love it. Especially about "God probably is in the details." That is perhaps the most poetic way I have heard my thoughts in this expressed to date. Thanks.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kelcie!

we may plant the seeds of truth and with enough water and sunlight to nourish the seed it will begin to grow. Often times more than not however, when one wants to offer nourishment to the seed, a little too much water can do a lot of damage to the potential of that seed and the seed can very well die from over watering. Nature in its wisdom knows if or when the seeds need nurturing and takes care of this process accordingly.
In other words, when Christians and the true nature of man work in unison the results can be very beneficial for the seeds growth. Regardless, each seed grows at a different rate and as you say in its own time.

I have a little bit different take on this, I hope you will not mind me sharing. Nobody, Christians included, can make a seed grow. That is up to God. If, and I stress the word "if," it is part of our course to tend that seed, then we have opportunity to, as you say, water it. Much more often, in my experience, the seed is planted as we travel. I have a mental image of Johnny Appleseed, hiking along the path of life, busily planting seeds where it seemed good to do so. Sometimes he might have opportunity to come back around and look after a tree he planted, but most he never sees again. The growing is in God's hands. Nobody can force a seed to grow. Nobody can claim that they are the reason a seed sprouts. When given the opportunity, they can be thankful they have been blessed to tend a seed, to nurture it and watch it grow. But the growing is God's.

Agreed but all too often the logic negates that there is a true nature of man, and therefore does not work with it and the growth is less beneficial.

OK, so I am clear, "true nature of man?" Do you mean "human nature?" Because, if anything, I see science and logic working specifically, some might even say only, with human nature.

Or perhaps this just your tangent?

Yeah. Sorry.

The bible and history has shown that God has been blamed for all sorts of non- niceties that have occurred. Is this not convicting him without evidence? Where is the evidence except, that which was written about or spoken of by man? We both know you cannot prove Gods existence objectively, yet we are led to believe by man that their word is evidence enough?

Ah! I see where you are going now. Good point.

I thought about adding a disclaimer earlier, but I felt it would distract from what I wanted to get at. Yes, in practice people are convicted a lot of the time on hearsay and emotion. In principle it is not supposed to be that way. But it happens. Chalk yet another up to human nature. We are very easily swayed by emotional appeals. Just like cattle...

(*My search is for the truth. The real, hard, genuine, factual truth.-jt3) Thats great. This is inherent in everyone.

Oh, that it were so...

Okay…. they are not necessarily better solutions you may take them as you wish. Some off the cuff examples to try to illustrate my meaning.

Yeah, ummm, these are appeals to authority, like I said earlier. Nice when in the confines of one faith. Useless outside of that preset box of parameters.

So yes, I am sure the awe and majesty of nature, something like a birth, has an inherent meaning to any person with a soul and drawing breath. But that inherent meaning is not necessarily God, at least not in the Christian sense.

For me it does not have to be a powerful sermon to point out where God dwells. As the bible says “the simple will confound the wise” (or something like that) and it is in this simpleness that we can learn about and dwell with God. God is not as complex as we think; it is us that make God complex.

I find myself in agreement with you here, on a personal level. Yes, we tend to make God more complex than He really needs to be. I think we add to and take away from, and over time paint Him in our own image, the image we desire Him to be, rather than appreciating Him as He IS. Rough spots, warts and all.

[Kelcie]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

you may be interested in this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

metta,

~v

Hi Vjradhara,

Thank you for the link.

Kelcie

[juantoo3]

I am thinking of changing my username...how about "Harry Tich?"

Or maybe "Hairy Tick?" How about "Hurry Tech?"

[Kelcie]

Hi Juantoo3,

I hope you will not mind me sharing. Nobody, Christians included, can make a seed grow. That is up to God. If, and I stress the word "if," it is part of our course to tend that seed, then we have opportunity to, as you say, water it.

Yes agreed, we are saying the same thing except I was using metaphors.

OK, so I am clear, "true nature of man?" Do you mean "human nature?" Because, if anything, I see science and logic working specifically, some might even say only, with human nature.

By the "true nature of man" I mean God that dwells within.

I thought about adding a disclaimer earlier

Hehehe

But that inherent meaning is not necessarily God, at least not in the Christian sense.

Indeed! this would be subject to understanding the verse "God is in all things"

I think we add to and take away from, and over time paint Him in our own image, the image we desire Him to be, rather than appreciating Him as He IS. Rough spots, warts and all.

Agreed.

Kelcie

[earl]

Juan, this is for you, bud, as well as all those who are "Jung" at heart

Jung was quoted in an interview in 1960 shortly before he died:

interviewer: "Do you believe in God?"
Jung: "Yes...I don't need to believe, I know...my opinion about knowledge of God is an unconventional way of thinking, and I quite understand if it should be suggested that I am no Chrisitian. Yet I think of myself as a Christian since I am entirely based in Christian concepts. I only try to escape their internal contradictions by introducing a more modest attitude, which takes into consideration the immense darkness of the human mind. The Christian idea proves its vitality by a continuous evolution, just like Buddhism....which does not mean I know a certain God, (Zeus, Yahwe, Allah, the trinitarian God, etc.) but rather: I do know that I am confronted with a factor unknown in itself, which I call 'God' in consensu omnium, (consent of everyone), 'quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditur, (what has been believed always, everywhere and by all), I remember Him, I evoke Him, whenever I use His name overcome by anger or by fear, whenever I say involuntarily 'Oh, God.' That happens when I meet somebody or something stronger than myself...This is the name by which I designate all things which cross my willful path...which upset my subjective views, plans, and intentions and which change the course of my life for better or worse." Blessed be all, Earl

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Earl!

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, and my apologies for my tardiness in responding. It has been hectic on my homefront.

Your response has given me a new direction to pursue. I had not considered myself a "Jungster," but after looking into some of what he wrote I found a great deal of similar thinking to my own. I still think he was, or at least is interpreted as, being a bit, ummm, "out there" for mainstream thinking regarding spiritual aspects, but the more mundane connections between archeology and mythology and how it relates to modern religious paradigms and moral constructions seems to be right up the same alley I was looking.

An odd coincidence I noted (or "synchronicity" perhaps), is that he died three months to the day before I was born.

Thanks for the tip. I suspect it will be a study that will provide a great deal of insight for me!