Discussion in 'Ancient History and Mythology' started by wil, Feb 18, 2015.
He who has the measure of everything is dead to the world.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
OK, if we're waxing pharmaceutical,
"The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates
Acid consumes 47x its weight in excess reality... baba ram dass
To get back on topic ...
We need to get away from the idea of God as something that can be quantified and measured. When one thinks of God, what is there to measure?
There seems to be an assumption that God belongs to the same category of physical things?
This is not the God I'm talking about. Nor, indeed, is it the God of the great Traditions.
I would have to agree with you here. The supernatural can not be quantified.
Which is a darn convenient thing, no? Why is it that Gods cannot be quantified but the natural world must be quantifiable? Perhaps the basis for reality can no more be quantified than a God? Who can say one way or the other? The origins of most of the major Gods were during a time when civilizations were very primitive. Yet we seem to want to grant them some sort of grand wisdom that we apparently in modern times no longer have.
If I were sick and had to choose a doctor from 2000 BCE versus 2000 AD I would go with the latter every time!
Me too. Who wants a 2000+ year old corpse poking them about?
I keep coming back to wondering, is G!d real...or not? If G!d is real...as I believe...then there should be some *real* evidence. I think it is misleading at best to casually dismiss...as if on the one hand you insist G!d is real while at the same time saying "but don't bother to go looking!"
I accept that the scientific philosophy is only one method of viewing reality, perhaps best suited to mental understanding, not spiritual understanding ...and I am willing to cede the scientific philosophy is not necessarily the best to use in all things ...however, if G!d does indeed exist, then it is suitable to speculate that perhaps some fleeting glimpse can in fact be viewed. More effort is spent chasing Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster...why is it wrong to speculate that an energy being might somehow be evidenced in some manner?
I am always leery when *any* religion tells me, "oh, don't worry...we're already done all the heavy lifting for you, you don't have to do any yourself...just take our word for it." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Perhaps, but two thousand years ago that doctor would have been state of the art, and the doctor 4K years later would have been an impossible fantasy. Seems to me a person is stuck with whatever passes for a healer wherever they happen to find themselves.
Even so, modern doctors worth their salt will admit that there is more to healing than their art can supply. Don't know how it is in Europe, but increasingly in some circles in the states there is a push for Holistic healing that includes diet and mental health (overcoming depression), and a good portion of that is tending to a patient's spiritual needs. And sometimes miracle healings do indeed happen... rare, unexplainable and surprising, but not unheard of. Point being even doctors today are not G!d, in spite of what some may think of themselves.
Back then they only knew what was. They had yet to be taught what could not be.
It may be possible for some fleeting glimpse to be viewed - not through science though. Science has no answer on God. Science cannot prove God does not exist; science cannot prove God does exist.
I do not think it is wrong. What we have to be very careful of is on what, if anything, this speculation is based. Too many times I have been told by people of their speculation, which they find quite compelling, and which I find to be nothing more than a personal opinion based on something they want to believe.
Same is true of today, don't you think?
Absolutely. Therein lies the trap that needs to be avoided...one must be able to see their desires and wants for what they are and set them aside, and begin at the beginning with a fresh slate and follow where the evidence leads. If there is no direct evidence, then circumstantial evidence might play some role in pointing in a general direction in soft sciences, but in hard sciences such as energy measurements circumstantial evidence would be "background noise" and "clutter." So yes, one cannot *pick and choose* evidence, but one must be careful as well with evidence. More importantly, when wielding Occam's Razor, is to not cut off the nose to spite the face. If the results of Occam's Razor do not cover *all* of the bases, then the Razor was not used correctly (or possibly the experiment was flawed at the beginning).
Agreed. Which roundabout gets us back to the original discussion about Bigfoot. It has been my experience that too many people who believe in Bigfoot desperately want to believe in Bigfoot. They accept as evidence stuff that I would term meager at best, useless at worst. The desire to believe overrides the objectivity to examine the evidence evenly. This is a huge problem within this community.
Ummm. In that other thread.
That's a good point. Long ago, prior to someone teaching them otherwise, people accepted what was right in front of them. What they could see, hear and feel. Nowadays people have a tendency to ignore the obvious and demand proof of everything. Does knowing that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen make it any less wet?
I think this is a bit simplistic. Long ago, prior to someone teaching them otherwise, animals that became humans learned by experience almost totally. At some point we learned to learn from others, monkey see...monkey do. Probably a good thing, too...reinventing the wheel at every turn would make humanity as we know it impossible.
Understanding that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen doesn't make water any less wet, but it does open up avenues of exploration in the mind that otherwise couldn't be considered. Where I agree with what you are implying, is that comprehension of such matters is not the sum total of the human experience.
Well, yes...but isn't that true of most any strongly held belief? It seems to me that is what makes people cling desperately to what they believe even when they ultimately are faced with the challenges and contradictions that those beliefs invariably will produce.
Separate names with a comma.