You have probably heard the old story about the astronaut who went out into space and when he returned to Earth they asked him if he went to heaven, did he see god?
And he said, "Yes and she is black" and although this is a well known and well worn story, it is profound.
If you are intelligent and reasonable, you cannot be the product of a mechanical and meaningless universe. You as an expression of the universe, cannot be a mere fluke. Because as a tree brings forth fruit, the energy that underlies the universe, ground of your being, must be intelligent. When you come to that conclusion you must be very careful, because you may make an unwarranted jump. You may jump to the conclusion that the intelligence, that marvelous, designing power that created all of this is the Biblical God. That God is a tyrant god of the ancient near east. It's very easy to fall into that trap. Because it's all prepared, institutionalized in the churches and synagogues, It is very natural to assume that when somebody uses the word, God, it is that Father figure, which is intended. But nowadays, we are in rebellion against the image of the authoritarian figure of the Father. But to reject the paternalistic authority figure of God as an idol does not necessarily make you an atheist. An experience, contact, with the ground of your being, Does not have to be embodied in any specific image.
Theologians don't like that idea.
They want to tell you that God has a very specific image, with rules, and doctrines. There is this idea that there is this authority in the world, and it's not you. It's something else, outside of you and therefore this Judeo Christian approach makes a lot of people feel rather strange, estranged from the root and ground of being. Now naturally of course, we intelligent people don't think of God in those kinds of terms. I mean we think of god as spirit, that god is very undefined and infinite. But nevertheless, the images of God have a far more powerful effect on our emotions than our ideas. And when people read the bible and sing hymns, they still got that fellow up there with the beard on. It's way in the back of the emotions.
We should think first of all, in contrary imagery.
And the contrary imagery is, she's black.
Imagine instead of God the Father, god the Mother
and imagine that this is not a luminous being, blazing with light,
but an infathomable darkness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihgsh0RLopE

Time to retire the word "God".

Is there any term more tired?
Has any set of letters ever done as much damage as those three?
Why insult the great "What Is" with anything as over-used and prostituted as the word God?

Let it die the death it deserves. It's been the town bicycle long enough.

The term Nirguna Brahman refers to the concept that Brahman is beyond time and space. It is the idea that Brahman has no particular form and is present within all living beings and everywhere.

Another way that Brahman is perceived is as Saguna Brahman. This means that Brahman has a form, identity and purpose, which may vary over time.

Cool Hand Fluke

Which god ?
All gods are equally real.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which god ?
> All gods are equally real.


In some religions, you are a god, therefore you are unreal.

Polly wants another cracker.

Tao-abunga, Buffalo Bob!

Here are two thoughts that kept me awake last night...

1) Did any of my dogs or cats hold me in sufficient regard so that I could be considered their deity?

2) Could the ghawd whom I believe does not exist, bribe me to say that I believed in him? Is he that well off? ...and yes, if they really pushed it, the mormon church, with its over 100 billion dollars, would likely be able to pay me enough to go on the record that ghawd exists, he is mormon and JoJu was his restoration prophet, about whom nothing but good can be said.

Once you get the $100 Billion can I get some if I say you are my god? Say a mere Billion?

Why wouldn't everyone have a price?

What's the point (at least to an atheist) of not being able to be 'bought'? Just so you can, with great pride, look ghawd in the eye to tell him that? Only to have Him tell you, "No one has a price so high that it can't be paid."

At least that's how I see it.

Ghawd: Hey, what's your price?

Me: Infinity!

Ghawd: I'll give you Infinity and a half...

Me: Done! (& Done)

> And, if some famous scientist
> or philosopher should approve,
> we can just jump on board no
> questions asked.


Apparently, the OP believes that one is judged by the coattails onto which one jumps.

Zing!

That is the deal.

It is my opinion that consideration must be given to the cuneiform translations that opine "god" to be and ancient astronaut.
Even if you disregard Stichen's translations there are still many others that support his theorum.
Anyway it is my humble opinion that when you are alive you are alive and when you are dead you are dead. Nobody has ever proven that to be wrong!

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now naturally of course, we intelligent people don't
> think of God in those kinds of terms. I mean we
> think of god as spirit, that god is very undefined
> and infinite.

So, intelligent people think of God as an "undefined," "infinite," "spirit?" So, I guess the more intelligent one becomes, the more incoherent becomes their God.

And, if some famous scientist or philosopher should approve, we can just jump on board no questions asked.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, intelligent people think of God as an
> "undefined," "infinite," "spirit?" So, I guess
> the more intelligent one becomes, the more
> incoherent becomes their God.

> And, if some famous scientist or philosopher
> should approve, we can just jump on board no
> questions asked.

Who said no questions asked? Feel free to ask questions.
I happen to appreciate the philosophy and world view of Alan Watts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts#Worldview
Which is consistent with the way I see the world and my place in it.

Another confirmation bias prophet has arisen!

> Who said no questions asked?
> Feel free to ask questions.
>
> I happen to appreciate the
> philosophy and world view of
> Alan Watts, https://en.wikipedia
> .org/wiki/Alan_Watts#Worldview
>
> Which is consistent with the way
> I see the world and my place in it.


Did or did you not ask any questions of Mr. Watts' world view? Is your acceptance 'wholehearted and without reserve?'

Or was your acceptance so casual that you don't really 'know' what Mr. Watts accepts? And is picking a 'world view' akin to picking a favorite sports team?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did or did you not ask any questions of Mr. Watts'
> world view?

Yes.

> Is your acceptance 'wholehearted and
> without reserve?'

No, just from what I've heard/read of his world view, to this point, resonates with my world view.

> Or was your acceptance so casual that you don't
> really 'know' what Mr. Watts accepts?

I've read/heard enough to know what he accepted and rejected.

> And is
> picking a 'world view' akin to picking a favorite
> sports team?

From Wikipedia:

"A worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual encompassing the whole of the individual's knowledge and point of view. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

My world view is consistent with Michio Kaku, Einstein, Hawking, Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius and Alan Watts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi6yPJvCFU0

> My world view is consistent
> with Michio Kaku, Einstein,
> Hawking, Epicurus, Marcus
> Aurelius and Alan Watts.


Then, sir, I admit you are my superior. (Ya still have to pay your own bills, though.)

My North American Continent view (I don't get out that much) is consistent with Soupy Sales, Kathleen Madigan, and the gnome in my mirror.

EOD says:

> And is picking a 'world view' akin to picking a
> favorite sports team?

Kori replies:

> "A worldview is the fundamental cognitive
> orientation of an individual encompassing the
> whole of the individual's knowledge and point of
> view. A worldview can include natural philosophy;
> fundamental, existential, and normative
> postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and
> ethics. Worldviews are often taken to operate at a
> conscious level, directly accessible to
> articulation and discussion, as opposed to
> existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

Do I dare?

Really? Okay.

The market valley of Whooshes has fallen sharply in recent days due to a surge in supply.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which is consistent with the way I see the world
> and my place in it.

Watts is God. You are just too hip to be E=MC Square. It's electric!

When one considers the God of the New Testament, i.e. Jesus, one generally understands what is being claimed. As such, it can be accepted on faith, or rejected as without evidence, as too simplistic, too fantastic, or all of the above.

On the other hand, when one considers the "God" of Alan Watts (or any other Eastern-oriented mystic) as the "undefined, infinite, spirit," (or whatever other mystical terms one cares to use) one is left asking, "What the hell are you talking about?"

When one's God is unintelligible and incoherent it is not a sign of increased theological intelligence.

You don't seem to understand that.

In evidentiary terms, Alan Watts's God is no less credible than anyone else's.

> In evidentiary terms, Alan
> Watts's God is no less credible
> than anyone else's.

Evidence be damned!! I insist the jury nullify the law by voting for my acquittal, on the grounds that it's just the Right Thing to Do!!

Plus award damages! Yeah, damages in a criminal trial! What a trend that would set!!!!!

> Evidence be damned!! I insist Mike Spence nullify
> the election by disqualifying Georgia, on the grounds
> that it's just the Right Thing to Do!!

I knew it! You're a Trumpian at heart!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In evidentiary terms, Alan Watts's God is no less
> credible than anyone else's.

I disagree. If you view theology as a theory, you can consider at first blush whether some religious 'theory' is sufficiently well-defined such that it states its claims clearly enough to be understood in whatever language it is being presented. It is to that extent coherent. That is a low bar, to be sure, but I would say that most Western oriented religions are minimally coherent such that we at least understand what properties God is supposed to have, and how he or she is supposed to connect with the world and the people in it. For example, if I were to say, "God is a higher intelligence in the form of a unicorn living on the far side of the moon," you would understand what the claim was, however bizarre. It is reasonably well-defined. (As far as religion goes) We even understand what kind of evidence, or lack of evidence, would support or refute such a theory.

With mystical Eastern religions however (to paint with a broad brush), you do not even get to the evidence because they are generally not well-defined at all. As such, there is really nothing coherent about the 'theory' to apply the concept of evidence to.

It reminds me of the famous statement by Wolfgang Pauli where he described a proposed theory as "Not Even Wrong!" because it was unfalsifiable. In this case, Eastern mysticism is "not even wrong" not only because it is unfalsifiable, but also because its dogmas make no objective sense outside of a mystical context. The irony is that many people insist that such incoherence is somehow the essence of its metaphysical appeal.

HB,

I asserted that there is no evidence for a Western God. You replied that you "disagree." Then, however, you switch to arguing that the Western concept of God is preferable because it is "coherent." But theoretical coherence is not evidence. In other words, you've done a bait-and-switch on me. My observation of the lack of evidence stands.

Second, your notion of coherence implies falsifiability. In short, Western conceptions of God are preferable because they are falsifiable. What does that mean? What evidentiary tests are there by which we can falsify the existence of God?

Third, at least the major religions/ideologies of the East are honest. They acknowledge that there is no proof one way or the other. The appeal of Eastern thought, at that remove, is not "incoherence" but rather honesty.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2021 05:59PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HB,
>
> I asserted that there is no evidence for a Western
> God. You replied that you "disagree."

No so. This is what I was responding to, and what I disagreed with: "In evidentiary terms, Alan Watts's God is no less credible than anyone else's." The suggestion here is that an Eastern mystical God is on the same footing by way of evidence as a traditional Western God. I dispute that because the former does not generally lend itself to evidence at all; whereas the latter does (at least to some extent.) For example, we can take the evidence of evil, and use that to dismiss God as a personal being interested in human well-being.
______________________________________


Then,
> however, you switch to arguing that the Western
> concept of God is preferable because it is
> "coherent." But theoretical coherence is not
> evidence. In other words, you've done a
> bait-and-switch on me. My observation of the lack
> of evidence stands.

Theoretical coherence is not evidence. But at least it might lend itself to evidential considerations. That places it above a theory that is incoherent and does not lend itself to evidential considerations at all. No bait and switch here.
_______________________________________
>
> Second, your notion of coherence implies
> falsifiability. In short, Western conceptions of
> God are preferable because they are falsifiable.
> What does that mean? What evidentiary tests are
> there by which we can falsify the existence of
> God?

No. I didn't say that. A theory that is incoherent is not falsifiable because it is incoherent, and there is no way to apply an evidentiary standard to it. But many religious traditions are coherent, but also not falsifiable. "Incoherence" is a function of language and logic; whereas "falsifiability" is a function of evidence.
____________________________________
>
> Third, at least the major religions/ideologies of
> the East are honest. They acknowledge that there
> is no proof one way or the other. The appeal of
> Eastern thought, at that remove, is not
> "incoherence" but rather honesty.

I did not claim they were dishonest. I claimed their characterization of God is incoherent. Again, often they view that as a mystical strength rather than a detriment. I personally can't see how incoherence achieves anything.

You seem to be arguing that being able to add some realistic shit into your mystical shit somehow represents "increased theological intelligence" (whatever that is) compared to pure mystical shit.

I don't know how that argument can be made. It seems to me that it requires more intelligence to create than to merely observe...

> This is what I was responding to, and what
> I disagreed with: "In evidentiary terms, Alan
> Watts's God is no less credible than anyone
> else's." The suggestion here is that an Eastern
> mystical God is on the same footing by way of
> evidence as a traditional Western God. I dispute
> that because the former does not generally lend
> itself to evidence at all; whereas the latter does
> (at least to some extent.) For example, we can
> take the evidence of evil, and use that to dismiss
> God as a personal being interested in human
> well-being.

Really? Has evidence of evil ever falsified the Judaeo-Christian God? Of course not, for the definition of that God constantly changes.

And evil is absolutely relevant to Eastern deities/god/reality. The difference is that the existence of evil is evidence SUPPORTING the definition of Eastern religions whereas it contradicts the Western notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly benevolent God. On that score, the evidence is more compatible with the atheistic Eastern religions than the theistic Western ones.


--------------------
> Theoretical coherence is not evidence. But at
> least it might lend itself to evidential
> considerations. That places it above a theory that
> is incoherent and does not lend itself to
> evidential considerations at all. No bait and
> switch here.

I did not argue the coherence of the theory. I stated that neither Eastern nor Western religions are preferred on the basis of evidence. "Not even wrong" is your comment about theory; it is not evidence. It's important not to confuse the two.


---------------

> A theory that is incoherent
> is not falsifiable because it is incoherent, and
> there is no way to apply an evidentiary standard
> to it. But many religious traditions are
> coherent, but also not falsifiable. "Incoherence"
> is a function of language and logic; whereas
> "falsifiability" is a function of evidence.

You are the one who tied the two together. I did not. Eastern religions are as coherent--arguable more so--as Western religions. And neither are falsifiable, which is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist.


---------------
> I did not claim they were dishonest. I claimed
> their characterization of God is incoherent.
> Again, often they view that as a mystical strength
> rather than a detriment. I personally can't see
> how incoherence achieves anything.

You said "incoherence is somehow the essence of [Eastern religions'] metaphysical appeal." I repeat, the appeal of Eastern religions is NOT their degree of coherence. The appeal is those religions' honesty in stating that their principles are unprovable.

It would be nice if the adherents of Western religions were honest enough to acknowledge that their ever-receding God-of-the-Gaps inhabits a realm beyond fact.


------------
The definition of the Western God changes with the wind. It is therefore incoherent (your standard) and unamenable to falsification (your standard). I never embraced either standard. My point was that there is no evidentiary difference between the two traditions.

If I am wrong, surely you can identify the evidence proving the existence of the Western God. If you can't, then the Western God is not evidentiarily preferable to the Eastern religions.

"If I am wrong, surely you can identify the evidence proving the existence of the Western God. If you can't, then the Western God is not evidentiarily preferable to the Eastern religions."

You're wrong. And your suggestion here about "proof" is misguided on any level of religious discussion. Here is one more attempt to explain this to you:

When someone states any factual or substantive claim about the world (universe), it suggests a follow-up challenge as to the basis for that claim. That challenge invites the presentation of evidence, both for and/or against the claim.

Notwithstanding, to consider the evidence for or against a claim, the claim must be coherent; i.e. one must be able to identify and understand just what it is that is being claimed. Without that, there is no way to apply *any* evidentiary facts to the claim. Evidence becomes irrelevant, and the claim assumes the status of an unintelligible, metaphysical, mystical pronouncement. Any claim that fits into this category is evidentially more suspect than a competing claim that *does* provide some level of content from which to test the claim, at least in principle, by the application of evidence.

Thus, when Christianity asserts that Jesus is God, and rose from the dead, for example, it makes perfect sense to ask about the evidence for such a claim, and present evidence against it, for example the evidence against bodily resurrection, or evidence against the existence of a soul. That does not mean that *every* claim of Christianity is coherent; only that some of its foundational claims are.

Now, compare that with Hinduism, or some other Eastern religion, where the foundational claims are intentionally mystical. Here is a quote:

"Brahman, the ultimate reality, is understood as the 'soul', or inner essence, of all things. It is infinite and beyond all concepts; it cannot be comprehended by the intellect, nor can it be adequately described in words: 'Brahman, beginningless, supreme: beyond what is and beyond what is not. 'Incomprehensible is that supreme Soul, unlimited, unborn, not to be reasoned about, unthinkable." (See Bhagavad Gita 4.42; Maitri Upanishad 6.17, as quoted in The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra)

Now, if someone were to state the above, does it make any sense to you to ask, "What is the evidence for such a Being?" No. Absolutely not. The statement "transcends" evidence. Now, there may be other doctrines of Hinduism that make practical sense, I don't know. But the notion of God, or Brahman, is on its own terms unintelligible, and beyond any application of the notion of evidence.

Given the above, Christianity is in a more favored position that Hinduism as it relates to the idea of evidence, simply because one or more of its foundational claims are coherent and intelligible.

You're going to have to define what you mean by "more favorable." Dressing up your pig with fancy clothes and makeup isn't "more favorable." It's obfuscation and it's dishonest. Maybe you consider dishonesty "favorable"? I don't.

Just add the magical word "transcendence" and presto, you're off the evidence hook.

Its really very simple,

A theory--religious or otherwise--that is in principle subject to confirmation or refutation by evidence is more evidentially favorable than a theory that because it is ill-defined or incoherent is not subject to such confirmation or refutation.

Your problem is in assuming that this view somehow commits me to a Western style religious view. It doesn't. What it *does* suggest is that Eastern religious mysticism (or any other form of mysticism) is a poor substitute for Western religions that cannot hold up to evidence. The fact that a view of God is incoherent, mystical, and unintelligible does not lend it credibility over Western religions who at least attempt to have their view of God make sense.

Why you and LW are so defensive about this is beyond me--unless somehow Eastern religion appeals to you on some personal level.

Not defensive. Just not accepting of the concept that dressing up a pig makes for a better pig.

There it is again: "I have no evidence for or against, but my theory is more coherent than yours and that makes mine evidentiarily superior."

No, it does not. If there is no evidence, there is no evidence. That you find your theory "coherent" does not change that reality.

Suppose someone presented a theory in physics that was mathematically and logically coherent, but when presented was not supported by any evidence; but which was conducive to confirmation or refutation by evidence if and when such evidence might surface.

Now, suppose you had a competing physical theory that was not mathematically or logically coherent, but was completely unintelligible, and therefore not susceptible to confirmation or refutation by evidence.

Now, think hard, which theory would you say was most favorable from an evidential standpoint? Which theory would you be most interested in seeking evidence for or against: the theory that lends itself to evidence, or one that does not?

Religion is no different in principle. The only difference is that religious claims that are coherent are also unlikely to be supported by 'satisfactory' evidence, even though we can at least imagine evidence that might support them. For example, we can imagine the God of Mormonism appearing to JS even though we are entirely doubtful that such an event occurred. We can image Jesus rising from the death. We know what that means.

On the other hand, we cannot even imagine any evidence for Brahman in any way shape or form, because by definition "Braham" is an incoherent concept.

This is so logical and clear, I think you must be just messing with me at this point.

I am not "messing with you" at all, Henry. You are again, as always, using mystical means to support your conclusion.

1) We argued at length over your insistence that brain functions are not localized. That were utterly wrong. Science knows where vision is processed, where reading and language are processed, etc. That posed problems for your belief that the soul is greater than the brain--it didn't have to, but you insisted on an artificially narrow definition--so you denied the reality on which much of modern science and medicine is based.

2) Here you go again. I write that you don't have evidence for your theory of God and you insist that that theory's coherence makes it evidentiarily superior. I do not accept that. Coherence is not evidence. You may say it is, but I am the one who brought up the question of evidence and I get to stick with my standards--which of course are the predominant ones.

Evidence is evidence; coherence devoid of evidence is not evidence. You can try to spin that any way you like, but you have no evidence of your God.

3) You conclude that "This is so logical and clear" that anyone must see it your way. No, Henry, that constant refrain that you have a mystically superior understanding of reality is not an argument. Your thinking is turbid. You are so enamored of your own wisdom that you convince yourself that your views are self-evidently true. But that truth is only evident to you.

You have no evidence for your God, as your continual shifting of the topic to your view of "coherence" indicates.

coherence is transcendant, don't you know

Exactly.

And it is "coherence" as judged by one man. The fact that others view Eastern religions as "coherent" does not matter since they lack his transcendent insight. That insistence on the singular accuracy of his own worldview is the definition of egocentrism.

First some background
On August 18, 2020 in an exchange with LW
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2327867,2328847#msg-2328847

Henry wrote:
"COMMENT: I have a law degree? Now you tell me. And all these years I thought I had a degree in Molecular Biology."

All well and good except that on August 30, 2019
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2252217,2252497#msg-2252497

Henry wrote this:
"COMMENT: As an attorney of 30+ years I can tell you this statement is flat-out wrong."

So Henry, some questions

1. Do you really want us to believe that you practiced law for 30 years without a law degree?

2. Were you lying in 2019?

3. Were you lying, or at least being disingenuous in 2020?
or
4. Both 2 and 3?

Finally
5. Given your duplicity, why should we believe any of your claims?

So Henry, some questions

1. Do you really want us to believe that you practiced law for 30 years without a law degree?

2. Were you lying in 2019?

3. Were you lying, or at least being disingenuous in 2020?
or
4. Both 2 and 3?

Finally
5. Given your duplicity, why should we believe any of your claims?

__________________________________________

Not to speak for Henry--least I also be accused of 'duplicity," I think he would respond as follows:

1. No.
2. No.
3. No. He was being facetious; as LW clearly understood.
4. No. (See above)
5, If you are not convinced by the content and logic of HB's or my posts (as e.g. in this thread) I do not expect you to believe them.

Wow. I am stunned.

Don't do this, Henry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2021 07:20PM by Lot's Wife.

So LW, did you think Henry's response was just him being facetious?

No.

I have now revised that post four times. On the one hand I would like to set the record straight on several points. On the other, I don't want to see Henry leave.

I would like to see him 'fess up so we can move on.

At what point does a religion cease being a religion?
At what point does it become a mystic philosophy? Like Stoicism, Taoism, Confuscism, Buddhism, Shintoism or Indigenous religions?
At what point does philosophy become science? Like Epicureanism?
What is the difference?
Isn't there an overlap?
I think people like Alan Watts, Joseph Cambell, Carl Jung, Einstein, all explored that realm, in writing, in theory.
E=mc^2 and E/c^2=m is a perfect expression of our super symmetrical cosmos, yin/yang.
The Tao is the singularity at the center,
of everything



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2021 06:24PM by schrodingerscat.

I've like my salad with roquefort dressing next time, please.

One thing that probably varies from person to person is the number of lines of your screed one can read before one's eyes glaze over...


It is not my intention to grammar-nazi you,...but I sincerely believe that the use of paragraphs would enhance the 'readility' of your screed, if not it's contextual sturdiness. If we can't have both, one would be nice!

Also, I'll have the vinaigrette...

OPie's aiming at Nietzsche's aphoristic style.

Then again, Nietzsche wrote that way because of how painful his migraines rendered writing. And of course he was going insane.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> E=mc^2 and E/c^2=m is a perfect expression of our
> super symmetrical cosmos, yin/yang.
> The Tao is the singularity at the center,
> of everything

Thank you, this is a beautiful example of taking a legitimate scientific principle (E=mc^2), and turning it into the mystical (super symmetrical cosmos, yin/yang). And as if that were not enough, going further to religious incoherence. (The Tao is the singularity at the center of everything.) That is quite a transition in just a few short statements. Well done.

But please don't make the mistake of thinking that since E=mc^2 is intelligible, your final conclusion must also be. This turns logic on its head.

> Thank you, this is a beautiful example of taking a
> legitimate scientific principle (E=mc^2), and
> turning it into the mystical (super symmetrical
> cosmos, yin/yang).

You do the same thing. You acknowledge that you have no evidence but then take your theory and its supposed "coherence" and say that makes it preferable to other ideologies.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > E=mc^2 and E/c^2=m is a perfect expression of
> our
> > super symmetrical cosmos, yin/yang.
> > The Tao is the singularity at the center,
> > of everything
>
> Thank you, this is a beautiful example of taking a
> legitimate scientific principle (E=mc^2), and
> turning it into the mystical (super symmetrical
> cosmos, yin/yang). And as if that were not
> enough, going further to religious incoherence.
> (The Tao is the singularity at the center of
> everything.) That is quite a transition in just a
> few short statements. Well done.
>
> But please don't make the mistake of thinking that
> since E=mc^2 is intelligible, your final
> conclusion must also be. This turns logic on its
> head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW6JFKgbAF4

"What is physics? Physics is nothing but the laws of harmony that you can write on vibrating strings. What is chemistry? Chemistry is nothing but the melodies you can play on interacting vibrating strings. What is the universe? The universe is a symphony of vibrating strings. And then what is the mind of God that Albert Einstein eloquently wrote about for the last 30 years of his life? We now, for the first time in history have a candidate for the mind of God. It is, cosmic music resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace.

So first of all, we are nothing but melodies. We are nothing but cosmic music played out on vibrating strings and membranes. Obeying the laws of physics, which is nothing but the laws of harmony of vibrating strings." Michio Kaku

We are trollS!!!

https://www.gotoquiz.com/what_kind_of_troll_are_you

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are trollS!!!
>
speak for yourself, troll.

Do you like playing with me? You sometimes respond to my replies to your threads without insulting me. Why is that?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you like playing with me? You sometimes respond
> to my replies to your threads without insulting
> me. Why is that?
Because sometimes you actually contribute to intelligent conversations instead of detracting from them.
This wasn’t one of those times.

SC: "So first of all, we are nothing but melodies. We are nothing but cosmic music played out on vibrating strings and membranes. Obeying the laws of physics, which is nothing but the laws of harmony of vibrating strings." Michio Kaku

This is utter mystical nonsense. I don't care where it comes from. Consider the following quote from Peter Woit's book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law:

"Near the end of his life, when asked his opinion of an article by a young physicist, he [Wolfgang Pauli] sadly said, "it is not even wrong." The phrase "not even wrong" is a popular one among physicists, and carries two different connotations, both of which Pauli likely had in mind. A theory can be "not even wrong" because it is so incomplete and ill-defined that it can't be used to make firm predictions whose failure would show it to be wrong. This has been the situation of superstring theory from its beginning to the present day."

"This sort of "not even wrong" is not necessarily a bad thing. Most new theoretical ideas begin in this state, and it can take quite a bit of work before their implications are well enough understood for researchers to be able to tell whether the idea is right or wrong. But there is a second connotation of "not even wrong" : something worse than a wrong idea, and in this form the phrase often gets used as a generic term of abuse. In the case of superstring theory, the way some physicists are abandoning fundamental scientific principles rather than admit that a theory is wrong is something of this kind: worse than being wrong is to refuse to admit it when one is wrong."

If you want to learn physics, you will need to get off you Kaku fetish and move on.

For what it is worth here as a believer, I think the essential character of the Christian God is holiness. All other expressions are extensions of that. Any understanding of exactly what holiness is is something I am still working on.

I think that even an Atheist could say "I know holiness when I see it" and be given credence.

But the key is that each of us defines 'holiness' to fit our circumstances, so while we may share the word, we may not share definitions.

Maybe where our definition of 'holiness' falls on a continuum would be a way for us to figure out with whom we'd be on best terms?

Sometimes you actually contribute to intelligent conversations instead of detracting from them.
This was one of those times. LOL!

But seriously...

"Maybe where our definition of 'holiness' falls on a continuum would be a way for us to figure out with whom we'd be on best terms?"

Most things are analogue and not digital yet we like the 0 and 1 reductions to make a world easier to digest. We are all on a spectrum in my opinion when it comes to reducing to ingest knowledge. Holiness like all superlative words is too big to capture into something significantly sharable in our ever more evolving our individuality existences.

I think the closest things that can approach a unified understanding of shared holiness would now be seen as a dangerous cult. What once probably helped us evolve as creatures of information is antithetical to individuated existences.

But you do see that I don’t believe in a ‘unified’ holiness, right?