Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't think that you know what the term "no brainer" means. It should mean I that it is obvious, yet I doubt if you can support that claim with evidence or logic.

Yes, it means that it is obvious. Seek and you will find, but if you're an atheist, you will not seek and thus you will not find.

Not a problem though. Peace and take care.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

From what you seemed to say that God is in all things, as if he is in all religious beliefs. Let's be specific. Do you believe that? The beliefs themselves of the various religions conflict with each other in many ways. Not sure how you see the prayer Jesus offered when he prayed TO the Father in heaven and also said that the Father is greater than he is. Do you believe that the Father is greater than Jesus? There are expressions about union or unity that must be understood in their proper context.

I explained that,, the kingdom of Heaven is within you, the expression of God Jesus was not God the Father but the Son (Expression). In the non-dualistic state, the two are united as one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science deals with concepts that represent aspects of reality, God is the reality, and God is one.
The concept of God is dualistic, being one with God is non-dualist.
The Rabbis of Jesus' day thought God was some separate entity (duality), Jesus showed that he was one with God (non-duality).

Some actually think that Jesus meant God was coming to get him when he said the ruler of the world was coming to get him. Remember when Jesus was in the wilderness and the devil offered him all the kingdoms of the world. Remember that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained that,, the kingdom of Heaven is within you, the expression of God Jesus was not God the Father but the Son (Expression). In the non-dualistic state, the two are united as one.

I guess I just don't understand dualistic/non-dualism. Anyway, have a nice evening as a relative of mine would say, "be well."

 

[YoursTrue]

Science deals with concepts that represent aspects of reality, God is the reality, and God is one.
The concept of God is dualistic, being one with God is non-dualist.
The Rabbis of Jesus' day thought God was some separate entity (duality), Jesus showed that he was one with God (non-duality).

What do you mean that the concept of God is dualistic? Dual means two, right? Jesus was one with God but he was not God, so the expression can be offsetting. Sorry if I misunderstood you. To be "one with God" does not mean you would kill your neighbor, does it? Even if you didn't like him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it means that it is obvious. Seek and you will find, but if you're an atheist, you will not seek and thus you will not find.

Not a problem though. Peace and take care.

If it is obvious then why on Earth can't you support that claim at all? When I say that it is obvious that there never was a global flood I can show why it is obvious. Over and over and over again. There should be a surfeit of evidence and logic for anything that is obvious and all that you have is "look around". That is the sort of argument presented by someone that has only fooled himself.

 

[gnostic]

This thread is titled Science and Religion, they are not mutually exclusive, except perhaps in the minds of those who think that Science should be a religion free zone.

That's not what I mean about the "religious-free".

I am saying Natural Sciences - not the internet forums - should be religion-free, as in "religious-neutral".

I think "religious-neutral" is better word in what I was trying to convey what I mean, in my previous reply.

Many religious people understand and accept that, because every scientific models needs to be falsifiable, and theistic religions aren't falsifiable, because you cannot test any deity or deities.

Being falsifiable mean being testable, to be able to refute with evidence. But there are no evidence of ANY deity, so you cannot test something that most likely don't exist.

As religion isn't science, and science isn't religion, religions have no place in science. And I am not just talking about creationism, I am talking about every religions.

There are many religious people here who are scientists too, and they accept the requirements for models to be "scientific":

• Falsifiability
• Scientific Method
• Peer Review

...requirements that no religions follow.

And you don't have to be atheist or agnostic to think that Natural Sciences should be religion-neutral. There are many religious people here who also agree with science needing to be religious-neutral: @metis, @Dan From Smithville, @Terrywoodenpic, @shunyadragon , @sojourner, @Levite, @Poisonshady313, etc

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Some actually think that Jesus meant God was coming to get him when he said the ruler of the world was coming to get him. Remember when Jesus was in the wilderness and the devil offered him all the kingdoms of the world. Remember that?

This is the physical dimension, the 5% that science studies, and of which our bodies are made. The rulers of this world are under satanic influence, that is how the new world order/UN system works, Jesus rejected the Satanic material path and chose the spiritual, the 95%, union with God, the inner 'journey' to non-duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What do you mean that the concept of God is dualistic? Dual means two, right? Jesus was one with God but he was not God, so the expression can be offsetting. Sorry if I misunderstood you. To be "one with God" does not mean you would kill your neighbor, does it? Even if you didn't like him.

Most people of the world who believe in God have not realized God, ie., they have not become one with God. The concept of an apple is not an apple, you can't eat a thought of an apple, same with God, the thought of, the belief in, the worship of, is not God, that is dualism, to be one with God is non-dualism, ie., to realize God as did Jesus. One would do unto others as you would like done unto you in non-duality, not just the saying of it, the belief in, but to actually realize that transcendent state of pure love.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If it is obvious then why on Earth can't you support that claim at all? When I say that it is obvious that there never was a global flood I can show why it is obvious. Over and over and over again. There should be a surfeit of evidence and logic for anything that is obvious and all that you have is "look around". That is the sort of argument presented by someone that has only fooled himself.

You are of the world and live in dualism, ie., there is you and all else is not you. When one is in the world, but not of it, as a spiritual aspirant is, there is non-dualism. There is only one universal life, all else is derived from it. This state on non-duality is not obvious to a person of the world, they have not realized the actual reality represented by the words of the bible because their mind sees things in the literal sense of duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's not what I mean about the "religious-free".

I am saying Natural Sciences - not the internet forums - should be religion-free, as in "religious-neutral".

I think "religious-neutral" is better word in what I was trying to convey what I mean, in my previous reply.

Many religious people understand and accept that, because every scientific models needs to be falsifiable, and theistic religions aren't falsifiable, because you cannot test any deity or deities.

Being falsifiable mean being testable, to be able to refute with evidence. But there are no evidence of ANY deity, so you cannot test something that most likely don't exist.

As religion isn't science, and science isn't religion, religions have no place in science. And I am not just talking about creationism, I am talking about every religions.

There are many religious people here who are scientists too, and they accept the requirements for models to be "scientific":

• Falsifiability
• Scientific Method
• Peer Review

...requirements that no religions follow.

And you don't have to be atheist or agnostic to think that Natural Sciences should be religion-neutral. There are many religious people here who also agree with science needing to be religious-neutral: @metis, @Dan From Smithville, @Terrywoodenpic, @shunyadragon , @sojourner, @Levite, @Poisonshady313, etc

If you have read my many posts that explain how the minds of people of the world work in a dualistic manner, ie. conceptual, then it is a given that if they try to understand religion in the same way as they do science and all things related to the physical world, they will not understand what is being conveyed. That is fine, but fwiw, the spiritual path is non-dualistic, and the goal is to be ultimately one with all existence, not in belief, but to actually realize that state of being which is non-dual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are of the world and live in dualism, ie., there is you and all else is not you. When one is in the world, but not of it, as a spiritual aspirant is, there is non-dualism. There is only one universal life, all else is derived from it. This state on non-duality is not obvious to a person of the world, they have not realized the actual reality represented by the words of the bible because their mind sees things in the literal sense of duality.

Sorry, but most of us outgrew your nonsense in our twenties. What tells us that you are almost certainly wrong is your total inability to support your claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you and @Ben Dhyan think God can be against himself?

No, I think that so far that nobody have solved how to make all cases of X into X is Y and nothing else for these debates. As for what that means God is, I don't know, because I don't know what God is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh here we go again. What did you say an "agnostic deist" is? That you're not sure if there is a god or gods? Which is it, please. Thank you.

I don't know if there is a God, but I have faith in a God. I am sure that I don't know, but I am sure that I have faith.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but most of us outgrew your nonsense in our twenties. What tells us that you are almost certainly wrong is your total inability to support your claims.

Sorry, but most of us have heard your nonsense many times before. What tells us that you are almost certainly wrong is your total inability to support your claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, but most of us have heard your nonsense many times before. What tells us that you are almost certainly wrong is your total inability to support your claims.

The problem is this. It is a fact and true that it is nonsense, thus it is a part of existence and how the universe works. Or it is evidence of non-existence.
So either way your model overlooks something. Namely that the negative is real and exists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is this. It is a fact and true that it is nonsense, thus it is a part of existence and how the universe works. Or it is evidence of non-existence.
So either way your model overlooks something. Namely that the negative is real and exists.

At least we can agree that SZ is the source of nonsense, and that is a part of reality. I have no model, but it is true that one can not convey a reality, one can only convey the conceptualization of a reality. It is how the universe works that some appear to be hardwired for dualisitic conceptualization of reality, rather than realizing it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

At least we can agree that SZ is the source of nonsense, and that is a part of reality. I have no model, but it is true that one can not convey a reality, one can only convey the conceptualization of a reality. It is how the universe works that some appear to be hardwired for dualisitic conceptualization of reality, rather than realizing it.

No, it is not really nonsense. It is nonsense to you. To me it is one case of limited cognitive relativism.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it is not really nonsense. It is nonsense to you. To me it is one case of limited cognitive relativism.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Fair enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but most of us have heard your nonsense many times before. What tells us that you are almost certainly wrong is your total inability to support your claims.

LOL! Sorry, that does not work since, unlike you, I do support my claims.