What does the upside down star(pentagram) mean to you?

And Bill weasels . . . no surprises here this morning . . .

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

the discipline of science per se (irrelative of its practitioner's personnel religious beliefs or lack thereof) dictates the usage of the scientific method, and hence the rejection of the supernatural.

Untrue -- the scientific does not reject the supernatural, it only rejects untested faith in it.

For example, if Uri Geller or some other psychic claims he can bend spoons by mere thinking, and James Randi or some other skeptic tests this with a controlled lab experiment, one possible outcome is that the experiment confirms Geller's claim. (I hasten to add that it never did.) Even though Geller's claim is supernatural, Randi's experiment is nonetheless scientific. While no scientific evidence has ever confirmed the existence of anything supernatural, it simply isn't true that the scientific method rejects it a priori.

Chumly wrote:

Thomas wrote:
You can reach the same conclusions about reality whether you're an theist or an atheist physicist. Likewise, you can reach the same conclusions about morality whether you're a theistic unitarian or an atheist unitarian.
Sorry, I am not sure what "conclusions" you are alluding to.

That we ought to help our neighbours, engage in fair trade with the Third World, protect the environment, make gay marriage possible, legalize marijuana ... the whole list of demands they've been making in their statements ever since 1970 (and probably earlier.)

Chumly wrote:

Congruence
Agreement, harmony, conformity, or correspondence.

IOW congruence can simply mean that it is in harmony, and to the obvious extent that UU embraces those that believe in supernatural powers (as shown prior) and does not reject them (as shown prior) I have demonstrated my case.

Indeed you have, but at a cost: Your definition of "congruence" is now so broad it no longer means anything interesting. Case in point: by any definition as broad as yours, physics is congruent with theism.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Chumly wrote:
the discipline of science per se (irrelative of its practitioner's personnel religious beliefs or lack thereof) dictates the usage of the scientific method, and hence the rejection of the supernatural.

Untrue -- the scientific does not reject the supernatural, it only rejects untested faith in it.

This is an unwarranted statement. By definition, science rests upon a natural system. Anything which resides outside or otherwise apart from nature is not in the province of science. Your example of Uri Geller, for an instance, would be a case of science "proving" the natural basis of the phenomenon, if that were possible, and thereby removing it from the realm of the supernatural to the natural.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

By definition, science rests upon a natural system. Anything which resides outside or otherwise apart from nature is not in the province of science. Your example of Uri Geller, for an instance, would be a case of science "proving" the natural basis of the phenomenon, if that were possible, and thereby removing it from the realm of the supernatural to the natural.

Let me make up a variant of the experiment to see if I get you right. Say Uri Geller claims that god will bend spoons if he prays hard enough to him. Further assume, for the sake of discussion, that Randi's controlled laboratory experiment confirms the claim. By your definition, would that prove that god is natural? I have no rational basis for disagreeing, really, but the conclusion just seems very odd to me. A much more straightforward conclusion would be that the scientific method can be applied to claims about the supernatural as well as the natural.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
By definition, science rests upon a natural system. Anything which resides outside or otherwise apart from nature is not in the province of science. Your example of Uri Geller, for an instance, would be a case of science "proving" the natural basis of the phenomenon, if that were possible, and thereby removing it from the realm of the supernatural to the natural.

Let me make up a variant of the experiment to see if I get you right. Say Uri Geller claims that god will bend spoons if he prays hard enough to him. Further assume, for the sake of discussion, that Randi's controlled laboratory experiment confirms the claim. By your definition, would that prove that god is natural? I have no rational basis for disagreeing, really, but the conclusion just seems very odd to me.

It such an experiment were possible, and it were confirmed that the spoons had been bent, it would only prove that a natural agency had had an effect on the spoons. Geller's claim for a deity would remain unsubstantiated.

Quote:

A much more straightforward conclusion would be that the scientific method can be applied to claims about the supernatural as well as the natural.

My point is that at such point as any claim can be scientifically "proven," all that has been proven is that there is a natural as opposed to a supernatural agency.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It such an experiment were possible, and it were confirmed that the spoons had been bent, it would only prove that a natural agency had had an effect on the spoons. Geller's claim for a deity would remain unsubstantiated.

By your standard of proof, several staples of mainstream physics "would remain unsubstantiated". Electromagnetic fields, phonons, and quantum-mechanic wavefunctions would be some of the prominent examples. In all three cases, all you would prove is that a natural agency (heat, charges, particles) had an effect on other natural substances (a solid body, other charges, other particles.) I may well be an exceptionally pig-headed physicist, but I predict you'll find it hard to persuade many other physicists of your usage of "substantiated".

0 Replies

That's a failed attempt on your part. My reference was to Geller's claim regarding a deity being unsubstantiated, and did not refer to any particular contentions of a "proof." It is, of course, well understood that quantum mechanics is a branch of physics which stands what was previously "known" about physics on its head. This is at the crux of the discussion you've been having with Chumly about a unified field theory, or a "theory of everything." There is absolutely no reason, however, to assume that any part of quantum mechanics as it is presently understood necessarily appeals to an other than naturalistic explanation.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There is absolutely no reason, however, to assume that any part of quantum mechanics as it is presently understood necessarily appeals to an other than naturalistic explanation.

I agree, and the same is true of electomagnetic fields of course. For physics, just like Unitarianism as J_B describes it, takes no position on the existence of deities and other supernatural phenomena. It neither rejects them nor postulates them.

0 Replies

Thomas I'll get back to you on:
"That we ought to help our neighbours..."
"Indeed you have, but at a cost:..."
Set aptly responded to the balance, but for now, if I don't get some work done at home, the wife will disown me!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

OK, let's have a look see:
a) Given UU embraces those that believe in supernatural powers (as shown prior).
b) Given there are UU practitioners who believe in supernatural powers (as shown prior).
c) It logically follows that UU has a greater than zero congruence for some belief in some supernatural powers in some way.

That's a rather odd usage of the term "congruence." In effect, you're saying that adherence to UU is not inimical to a belief in a deity. That's quite true, but the same can be said for adherence to the Democratic party, or the Rotary club, or even the science of physics. Just because adherence to UU doesn't rule out a belief in a deity doesn't mean that UU is the equivalent (a better term than "congruent") of a belief in a deity.

Chumly wrote:

I'll provide a definition of congruence and we'll see how things go from here, but so far I do not see how my assertion that "It's plain that irrelative of the fact that some "Unitarians believe in god, some don't", it would incorrect to say that UU "has zero congruence to any belief in any supernatural powers in any way" is untrue.

Some of the confusion here might be cleared up if you would stop inventing words like "irrelative." You mean "irrespective."

Chumly wrote:

Congruence
Agreement, harmony, conformity, or correspondence.

IOW congruence can simply mean that it is in harmony, and to the obvious extent that UU embraces those that believe in supernatural powers (as shown prior) and does not reject them (as shown prior) I have demonstrated my case.

If that's how you view "congruence," then Thomas is right: you're asking a question that is simply not worth asking.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Some of the confusion here might be cleared up if you would stop inventing words like "irrelative." You mean "irrespective."

OK, you are claiming I am "inventing words like "irrelative" and claiming I mean "irrespective". There is such a word as "irrelative" and I have used it as intended. Are you also inferring that I am inventing other words besides "irrelative."? If so please inform me.

irrelative:
Having no correlative relationship; unconnected.
Irrelevant.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrelative

As to your other text I'll address it when I address Thomas', standby for an update once I finish my work in a day or two. But understand if you go back some you'll see that I have already addressed the points to some fair degree, not that I mind reiterating.

0 Replies

Uri Geller's spoon bending is like GWB's version of a debate. Prepared performance. How about an objective experiment where all his hand movements are visible. I read somewhere that he bent the spoon with his deft hands in a slight of hand.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Uri Geller's spoon bending is like GWB's version of a debate. Prepared performance. How about an objective experiment where all his hand movements are visible. I read somewhere that he bent the spoon with his deft hands in a slight of hand.

That's what Randi and others did -- and that's where psychics consistently failed to demonstrate their supernatural abilities. If you read the other posts around the ones you're responding to, you'll see that nobody here contends that there's any meat to what psychics say they can do. That was not the point.

0 Replies

I guess I should. Sorry, as I must go to bed early for work.

0 Replies

No problem, and sleep well. Smile

0 Replies

this was origanly a symbol to protect against witch craft, it didn't become a sign of the beast till 15 hundreds

0 Replies

Of course, this all relates to secret organizations. I firmly believe that the mystery would be solved if all governments posts, elected or otherwise, required people to list all the organizations (professional, religious and masonic, skull and bones, etc.) they belong to. Public grilling and exposure will certainly dispel all misunderstanding. Those who hold office and resist or or verbally discourage such exposure may be assumed to belong to these organizations and summarilydismissed from office.

0 Replies

The pentagram is also the sign of Mary Magdalene. Acording to the author of Holy Blood Holy Grail, there is a section and europe with 5 churches when you connect them they make a pentagram, but the interesting thing is they are all the same exact length apart (only a few inches off at most).
This is amazing because using that same length you can measure more churches the exact like in the shape of a Star of David....the seam to overlap, as in Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene....

also what is interesting is that the catholics at this time thought of astronomy as witch craft so they didn't study the stars, so how could these alinements me perfect? Also the largest mistake is only 5 inches off. They didn't not have tecnology so great back then.

0 Replies

I personally like the symbol and how people are scared of it. I'm Agnostic so I'm really not for any religious party. Got a hexagon table in my room where I made a "almost" perfect Pentagram in black permanent sharpie. No picture of it at the moment Very Happy

0 Replies

@BLUDHAVEN,

How about this?..... a single inverted star represents the number 6. You don't have 666 until you put three of them together, as you'll find on the traditional symbol of the GOP or Republican party. Three inverted stars on an elephant... an image from a vision had by a so-called "prophet" nearly 2,000 years ago, who wrote the book of Revelations in the Bible. Most likely, in that time he had no idea what an elephant was, and therefore simply referred to the creature of his vision as "the beast".

Well, in a way the beast is only a symbol. But it's also a powerful entity.....the Anti-Christ. It's not an animal, or a human being as we've been led to believe all along. It is a political organization, claiming to be on the side of Christianity, using lies and deception to trick the American public into following them .... the "false prophets".

What does it say in Revelations? "We will know them by their deeds". As they have taken the nations wealth from the middle class and poor and handed it over to the wealthiest among us in the form of tax breaks, incentives to send our jobs over seas, and bailouts, many of us are dying for lack of affordable health care, losing our homes to foreclosure, and in some cases literally starving. The Beast is among us. Things will get worse unless we wake up and recognize the Beast. Hopefully, the Messiah is among us as well. Thanks for listening - Have a great day! : )

0 Replies

What does the upside down star(pentagram) mean to you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know