Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 05:59 pm
Hi fresco.
fresco wrote:
hephzibah,

I take the Dok's remark to be the ironical observation that "man made God in his own image".

Actually I meant that comment as a sort of double edged sword. As to the popular image of the externalized 'father figure' god that most accept, yes, your interpretation is bang on. Man creates this god through anthropomorphization.
On the other side of the spectrum, however, I meant it quite literally.
My conception of 'god' is autotheistic, I see 'god' as an individual psychological function within each of us, a trait arrived at through natural selection.
Quote:

If I looked at the Dok I would no doubt be seeking signs of his satanic leanings....the hypnotic eye....the cryptic tattoo...etc! I might be disappointed if he didn't come up to expectations. Cool

Heh...actually.
I do possess the latter. Going in for another one next month!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 06:02 pm
I like you too, dok
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 06:57 pm
fresco wrote:
hephzibah,

As an atheist I answer "I don't know what you mean by your question". "God" is a "concept" with which I have no relationship or a a negative relationship. It is equivalent to a neurosis which affects others whose affectations occasionally impinge on me.

If you are seeking a chain of reasoning which goes something like: my perception of life implies the "truth of a creator" I would tell you this. The work of Prigogine on the demonstration of "spontaneous structure" in dynamic chemical reactions has now removed the necessity of "a prime mover" as far as what we call "life" is concerned.


Fresco, why is it you can't just lay down this philosophical jargon for just a minute... ONE minute and say yes or no? LOL Yes or no. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. God is not the question. What you believe about God is not the question. Shoot for that matter what I believe about God is not the question. What dok believes is the question. You, my friend, have wore me out. Give yourself a good pat on the back. :wink: *sigh*
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 07:24 pm
fresco wrote:
Steve,

...Leicester and Essex ( sounds like a part from Henry V)

Seagoon: Now tell me the truth, why were you sleeping on the piano in the garden?

Willium: 'cos the grass was damp mate! And, er, I don't wanna get the nadgers again ya see! My wife's got the lurgi, and my eldest boy's got the plin mate, on 'is legs!
Methinks thou art a tadge older than wot i is, but not much. but i'm always impressed by someone who can spell esexx and lester correctly.

Ms Fissbah...hehehe lol and (how you say it?) mwhaaahhaa hoohoohaaa Smile
(no I dont take anything seriously, I used to, until I realised things dont take me seriously...its mutual scepticism now)
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 07:29 pm
Bwaaaaaaaaa hahaha! Thanks for the giggles stevo Very Happy
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 07:31 pm
Steve wrote:
"...its mutual scepticism now."


That's very wise, and I wish I could live by that motto.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 07:49 pm
hephzibah wrote:
Ok, I have a question for anyone who would care to answer. Think about this before you answer though.

What do you see when you look in the mirror?

Meaning what kind of person are you? How do you view yourself?

Any takers?


Sooo.... anyone else? Razz

Me thinks you all is a fearin a wimmin... hehehe...
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 08:10 pm
Aaahhh... I think we have finally discovered a truth!


Bwaaaaaaaaaa hahaha!

Kiddin... :wink:

Check ya'll out later.

(walks away snickering)
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 01:32 am
hephzibah

Quote:
Fresco, why is it you can't just lay down this philosophical jargon for just a minute... ONE minute and say yes or no? LOL Yes or no. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not.


.......OK.........No

But can't you see that this reply is meaningless unless I conjure up "a picture of God". Since I don't know what your "God" looks like how can I reply to a yes/no question ? Its like asking me whether when I heard a piece of music did I see red or green. ....Actually its more like asking for a yes/no to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife"...either answer implying that I accept your premises.

I have tried to avoid "jargon" in this answer however it should still be clear that questions of "truth" (yes/no) DO depend on mutual beliefs about the nature of reality, contrary to your statement above.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 06:10 am
Fresco,

Thank you for replying. Here's the thing... Please before I say this try to put aside the fact that I believe in God, because honestly speaking this whole subject matter is beyond spiritual beliefs. I do understand what you are saying. I think that philosophy is a valid part of life. Everyone wants answers and most everyone would like to see the logic behind something. My whole point with all of this is that sometimes logic doesn't come in the form we expect it to.

Quote:
Actually its more like asking for a yes/no to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife"...either answer implying that I accept your premises.


This right here is a stumbling block to seeing things from a different angle. The reason is because you can say more than yes or no without going into the philosophy of the situation. You could say, "Yes, I realized I was wrong." implying that you agree with the premise. Or, "No, I don't beat my wife. I never did." implying you don't agree. However your answers are more like, "Well, that depends what you mean by beating my wife." No clarity either way because you don't want to commit to a premise. But you are mistaken as to what my premise really is. This conversation is about truth not God. I wasn't trying to bring God into this. Dok did. Smile

So what was my premise then? Simply this. Dok says he believes when he looks in the mirror he sees the face of God. That is his truth. To Dok himself he is a god. That is the truth he lives by. Is Dok God to me? Ummm... (sorry dok) no. My concept of God is much different than his. My concept is of a God that created everything. (Somehow I have a hard time imagining Dok sitting up on some throne in heaven with these bright red eyes (yeah, still got a picture of that avatar in my head dok... thanks... Razz ) Saying, "Let there be light" Every time I think of that I see these superman beams coming out of his eyes like lasers... LOL) Anyway, seeing God as the one who created everything is my truth. The truth I live by. Two separate truths from two separate people. Truth is a concept not limited to one persons ideal or perspectives.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 07:18 am
hephzibah,

Thanks for that clear reply.

BTW You may be interested to know how believers "handle" Prigigone. If so check out "Polkinghorne" on google.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 08:31 am
Fresco, can you please explain prigigone to me? I honestly have no clue what you are talking about here. I did google Polkinghorne. Am reading. Very interesting I might add.
0 Replies
 
dalahow2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 08:39 am
Re: What is truth?
neologist wrote:
When Jesus was before Pilate, he reportedly said "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice." (John 18:37)

Then Pilate said to him: "What is truth?" (John 18:38)

If Jesus averred it to be the very reason for coming into the world, it certainly would be important enough for discussion here, don't you think?


is this what you call The Truth?

Do u know your God anyway..

and

A thought for today

and

Serious Think about This....
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 08:49 am
Re: What is truth?
dalahow2 wrote:


Nope. I don't consider the Koran to be anymore true to be the Bible, either. Just because some things described in the Koran appear to describe the way the world works, doesn't mean it actually does.

Many people who have converted to Islam because the Koran appears to describe the development of the fetus properly or what have you, are merely reading it with a modern perspective and applying their own thoughts to the Koran.

It is not because "THE Truth" a meaningless phrase if there ever was one, is in the Koran, but because they apply what they think is true to the Koran.

And tell me, can you do anything except parrot the same old, tired argument again and again, without even proving that the old argument is valid?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 09:11 am
Why not just say that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems and leave it at that?

The question as to whether natural law has an author is not answered by this 'discovery'.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 09:17 am
hephzibah,

Prigogine showed that "life like" structures occur spontaneously in dynamic chemical processes. If you imagine twizzling a light metal chain with your hand you can get a number "standing wave patterns." This is a crude analogy to Prigogines structures except that the mathematics is much more complex involving "catastrophe theory" and "fractals". Reference to fractals on google will give illustrations of life-like structures such as ferns and trees.

Polkinghorne comments as a mathematical physicist turned Anglican priest. His "science" will not allow him to use simplistic concepts like "causality" and he needs to account for the "non-causal" systems advocated by Prigogine which are a significant breakthrough to understanding "life". I believe one strategy for him is to suggest "God tweaks the strange attractors" which is a technical term for "influencing the probabability of some structures occuring over others". However this to me is an ad hoc rescue attempt. He is perhaps more convincing when he argues for "God" to account for "morality", but there are evolutionary arguments against that as well.

I hope this outline is useful, (and I apologise to any Prigogine specialists if I have oversimplified.)
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 09:40 am
Neologist,

Perhaps you could expand a little on the "natural law" issue. It seems to me that all concepts of "order" presupposes an observer who recognizes such order. The "law" is in the eye of such an observer,
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 10:08 am
OK, bookmarking here for return this evening.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 06:59 pm
fresco wrote:
hephzibah,

Prigogine showed that "life like" structures occur spontaneously in dynamic chemical processes. If you imagine twizzling a light metal chain with your hand you can get a number "standing wave patterns." This is a crude analogy to Prigogines structures except that the mathematics is much more complex involving "catastrophe theory" and "fractals". Reference to fractals on google will give illustrations of life-like structures such as ferns and trees.

Polkinghorne comments as a mathematical physicist turned Anglican priest. His "science" will not allow him to use simplistic concepts like "causality" and he needs to account for the "non-causal" systems advocated by Prigogine which are a significant breakthrough to understanding "life". I believe one strategy for him is to suggest "God tweaks the strange attractors" which is a technical term for "influencing the probabability of some structures occuring over others". However this to me is an ad hoc rescue attempt. He is perhaps more convincing when he argues for "God" to account for "morality", but there are evolutionary arguments against that as well.

I hope this outline is useful, (and I apologise to any Prigogine specialists if I have oversimplified.)


Thank you for taking the time to explain this fresco. And for simplifying it to the point you felt you had to apologize to any Prigogine specialists... LOL I am going to kindly excuse myself for awhile from the "God" talk, or anything relating to it now.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 07:08 pm
fresco wrote:
Neologist,

Perhaps you could expand a little on the "natural law" issue. It seems to me that all concepts of "order" presupposes an observer who recognizes such order. The "law" is in the eye of such an observer,
I see that I have been using a term without being aware of its mercurial definition.

I don't usually do that. It was sloppy of me. I should be referring to laws of nature or laws of natural science which have existed long before having been discovered and which may yet be discovered. The question of whether these laws have an author has yet to be proved or disproved.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is truth?
  3. » Page 14
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 02:13:23