strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
Reality isn't relative. That being said, imagination, the purest form of illusion, is not irrelevant. It is part of reality and must be taken into account when veiwing reality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
About a deity full of love and compassion
- Thread starter Skeptisch
- Start date
Reality isn't relative. That being said, imagination, the purest form of illusion, is not irrelevant. It is part of reality and must be taken into account when veiwing reality.
waitasec
Veteran Member
unicorns are unreal, meaning; illusory
saying, "i saw a unicorn" is an untrue statement in the understanding unicorns are unreal...
imagination conjures up unreal unicorns, so they exist in the imaginary realm but not in reality...therefore saying i imagined a unicorn is true.
saying, "i saw a unicorn" is an untrue statement in the understanding unicorns are unreal...
imagination conjures up unreal unicorns, so they exist in the imaginary realm but not in reality...therefore saying i imagined a unicorn is true.
Just so, demonstrated by the fact that relativity is real.
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
If I were to find the inverse function of x squared, it would be the square root of x, would it not?
Wrong.
In fact, to solve this problem, we need to ignore half of the x squared function in order to make it invertable. This is very much like the ooppsite of your unicorn. Not making something up, but denying something exists to complete the problem. Mathematicians do it all the time.
Wrong.
In fact, to solve this problem, we need to ignore half of the x squared function in order to make it invertable. This is very much like the ooppsite of your unicorn. Not making something up, but denying something exists to complete the problem. Mathematicians do it all the time.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
The inverse of x -> x^2 is x -> +|sqrt(x)|. The fact that this produces two answers is only tangential.
But Relativity tells you that there's an underlying thing that isn't relative at all.
I'm not following, hon. What underlying thing? And I'm not talking about the Einstein's Relativity. Just relativity.
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
The inverse of x -> x^2 is x -> +|sqrt(x)|. The fact that this produces two answers is only tangential.
But not both at the same time.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Yes both at the same time. What of it? It's entirely valid to define a function maps R -> R^2. (That is, maps a value from the real number line to values on the real number plane.)
About a deity full of love and compassion
How can there be scientific evidence of something that does not exist?
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
Richard Dawkins
How can there be scientific evidence of something that does not exist?
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
Richard Dawkins
Levite
Higher and Higher
I think it is a common mistake to equate God being loving and compassionate with God being constantly willing to intercede in the daily existence of the universe to break its rules.
For whatever reason, this is the universe that God created. For whatever reason, it was this model of universe that God felt would be successful, fulfill what He wanted from Creation, and nurture self-aware reasoning beings of free will. And part of the way this universe works is that chaos, entropy, and evolution are forces of nature. And sometimes those forces cause harm or destruction to living beings, merely as a part of their natural function in the universe.
But I don't think that that indicates some sort of directed intentional action on God's part in the case of natural disasters.
Could one, in theory, make the argument that God, being omnipotent, could perhaps have designed the universe differently, in such a way as no living beings would ever come to harm? Probably. But to me, that seems a relatively useless question to raise, in that, despite His omnipotence, God did not do so: He made this universe, and all the ways it works.
I think natural disasters are just part of being alive in the universe. It doesn't make them pleasant, or their effects positive in our lives. But it's how the planet works. And for God to leap in every day to stop any kind of mishap that might harm or kill someone would be self-defeating, in that God could have created another universe, but clearly chose this one, and presumably there are reasons why that should be true.
Perhaps entropy and chaos and evolution are somehow tied into free will. Or perhaps a life without challenges would never force us to progress. Or perhaps tragedy is supposed to teach us something. Or perhaps we are supposed to make our peace with the necessity of chaos and randomness. Or perhaps there are reasons we will never understand until we perhaps advance to the point of one day truly beginning to comprehend how and why universes are created, or why humans are the way they are, or other such questions we cannot know the answers to right now.
But regardless, I think that the necessity of forces in the universe that may sometimes result in the suffering of living beings, God may accept as an inevitable price for this universe being as it is, but I don't think He always has to like it. I think that despite natural disasters and the evil that humans do to one another, God loves us, and feels great compassion for us. And I think sometimes He lends subtle assistance where He feels He can do so without disturbing the natural balances of the universe He's created. But sometimes He can't, and doesn't. And that is not only the price we pay for living in this universe, but the price He pays also.
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
Yes...because Dawkins knows everything...right. He's an intelligent man, just as Carl Sagan was. That doesn't mean they understand faith. So quoting what they think it is actually hurts any credibilty that you want to have. It's like quoting how the universe was created from a car salesman.
Have you ever considered that God, any God, did not create the universe?
In their new book The Grand Design Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow make the point that its not just their opinion that God was not necessary for the creation of the Universe but that this assertion is a product of a series of discoveries by modern physics.
Can you give us the names of some experts who understand faith?
Levite
Higher and Higher
Yes, of course I've considered it. Any thinking person has to consider that possibility at least once.
I was more or less an atheist from about the age of fourteen to about the age of twenty-two, give or take a bit at either end. But having my own experience of God's presence at that time ended my atheism, and I have not looked back since.
Which, I freely admit, is objective evidence of nothing. But I have no problem with the notion that the existence of God cannot be proven using math or in a lab, with some sort of objective criteria. If it could, then we wouldn't call it faith, we'd call it science.
In any case, I am not particularly interested in trying to prove the existence of God to atheists. It's really no business of mine what other people believe. And if God has a problem with you not believing in Him, I presume He'll take it up with you Himself.
I've read "The Grand Design." I enjoy physics very much, and Hawking is one of my favorite scientists. But I don't go to physicists for theology, just the same way that I don't go to theologians for physics. Physics is dandy science. It is not particularly good religion-- not in the sense of it being "incorrect" or whatever nonsense fundamentalists say, but in the sense that it concerns itself (quite properly) with the physical properties of the universe; it does not concern itself with the spiritual and metaphysical properties of existence, if for no other reasons than we have no technology (if such a thing were even possible) for quantifying and measuring those properties.
soulwriter
New Member
Personally I think blaming God for everything is like a highway user blaming the Public Works Department chief for his car accident! We are abrogating our responsibility.
Then you ask - what about natural disasters?
Well, since we have been pillaging and plundering the earth for centuries, there is bound to be imbalance! When hundreds of millions of tons of oil, coal, iron ore, gold etc. are removed, it is bound to leave a vacuum which nature has to fill - perhaps by cave-ins, by earthquakes etc. (Also why do we assume that only human life is of major consideration, in the larger scheme of things? It is just our arrogance!)
When we burn and destroy forests, we change the oxygen levels in the atmosphere and cause global warming which leads to storms, hurricanes and floods!
Recently, I came across a post entitled 'Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen' on Daily Happy Living, where the writer talks of this very question.
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
Fr. Richard Rohr is one of my favorites. He's written quite a lot on the subject of faith. Try reading The Naked Now or Falling Upward.
Of course you don't have to be a preist to understand faith.
In order to understand you better, shouldnt you be willing and able to tell us more about your experience of Gods presence?
Do you know about Rohr's description of crawling around naked on all fours with a group of men in a Native American sweat lodge? He gushed about what a powerful experience it was for him. But Christ came to free us from such pagan rituals.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6819
waitasec
Veteran Member
we all need to feel comforted weather we deserve it or not...
explaining the presence of god is a subjective experience...because we are set up with a defense mechanism that justifies our need for comfort.
so of course god has to be loving and compassionate...
how else could we survive without it?
the problem with believing in a god that is loving and compassionate about ME is:
i am placed in the center of the universe by actually believing i can have a relationship with a loving deity who is absolutely concerned with my everyday choices.
but wouldn't this give me an undue sense of importance...which ultimately gives a false sense of moral superiority? then, with this air of arrogance i have created around ME i have separated myself from those who think and believe differently ignoring the lessons of history that division causes strife, strife causes a perpetual state of ignorance
ignorance will lead to hate.
all because god loves ME.
explaining the presence of god is a subjective experience...because we are set up with a defense mechanism that justifies our need for comfort.
so of course god has to be loving and compassionate...
how else could we survive without it?
the problem with believing in a god that is loving and compassionate about ME is:
i am placed in the center of the universe by actually believing i can have a relationship with a loving deity who is absolutely concerned with my everyday choices.
but wouldn't this give me an undue sense of importance...which ultimately gives a false sense of moral superiority? then, with this air of arrogance i have created around ME i have separated myself from those who think and believe differently ignoring the lessons of history that division causes strife, strife causes a perpetual state of ignorance
ignorance will lead to hate.
all because god loves ME.
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
You say this as if its going to change my mind. Sorry to disappoint you, but your prejudice against pagan rituals is not going to dissuade me. I'm mature enough to realize that practically all our 'modern' rituals in Christianity are based off of pagan ones in one form or another.
Did you not know that?