Can you prove the existence of God?

By on March 29, 2012 8:06:40 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums External Link

AERYCK

Join Date 01/2005
+2

Today is a very special day for me.  


Why?   Well, I've come to the end of a seven year journey of trolling internet forums engaging in countless discussions about God and in particular the topic of Christian Apologetics.  

This post will be a gradual assembly post, to which I shall add bits and pieces of discussions that I've had with many very clever and some not so clever folks.

Not all the bits and pieces will be from the actual discussions.  Some of them will be from books I've read, lectures I've listened to as well as music, poetry and Oriental writings.  As a matter of fact, it's going to be a regular smorgasbord of delights.  You are most welcome to leave your berries, pearls, one-liners and wisecracks, plus any insightful comments in the appropriate space provided at the end of this page.

For starters, I'm considering a question that my son asked a panel of smarties on the 15.09.2005.

The post title was: "Can you prove the existence of God?"

The post read: 'I was approached recently by a friend who asked me how to prove the existence of God without using the Bible. Can you help?'

 


Have fun.


Peace,

Eric

 

 +)(+

 

1. Here's something to nibble on.  The following site has certainly grown, in fact it has changed.  It used to be called "apollos", I suspect it was named after 'Saint Apollos (Ἀπολλώς; contracted from Apollonius) an apostle who was also a 1st century Alexandrian Jewish Christian mentioned several times in the New Testament'   It's now called "Last Seminary"   Though there is certainly a wholesome collection to read, I was immediately attracted to the Philosophy of Religion Articles.  

 2. The Argument From Conscience by Peter Kreeft is one of several papers (in pdf. format) under the heading 'Moral Argument' at "Last Seminary" and another by C.S Lewis might suffice.

a. The Argument From Conscience by Peter Kreeft

 

Excerpt:

"The simple, intuitive point of the argument from conscience is that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolute obligation could come only from God. Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, by this moral intuition, which we usually call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul. Like all arguments for the existence of God, this one proves only a small part of what we know God to be by divine revelation. But this part is significantly more than the arguments from nature reveal about God because this argument has richer data, a richer starting point."

 

b. 

'And, of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. 

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. 

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.'

From: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis 

 

3.  Awareness of God by Illtyd Trethowan is one of several papers (in pdf. format) under the heading 'Religious Experience' at "Last Seminary" 

Excerpt:

 "The belief that God is present to the human mind (or soul) and can be found there is part of the Christian tradition. Many Christian philosophers seem to regard this as the concern only of specially devout persons and of no interest for philosophical purposes. The evidence for it, they think, it too slender to be taken seriously by academic philosophers without particular interest in religion, who tend to regard anything in the nature of religious experience as suspect. So philosophical discussions about religion are usually concerned with rational arguments for and against theism, usually of a technical kind. In this article, I want to suggest that there is another attitude of mind which has become more widely shared as the century has advanced..."

 

4. Has Religion Evolved ? , Evolution of Morality and Is Human Behavior in the Genes?  by Dr. David Lahti ( a series of lectures presented at 'The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion' between July and November 2011.) Also, refer Multi-Media for audio/video recordings of a wide selection of lectures, debates and discussions.)  

 

5.  Here are a couple of replies which were presented to my son, in response to his question. (ref: ' my' opening post - above )  The first reply was by a Mormon bishop and the second was an anonymous reply: 

a.  

 

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of ill tidings, but it is not possible to "prove" the existence of God from the Bible, or any other book for that matter. Nor is it possible to "prove" the existence of God using reason alone.

I know that there have been some great thinkers who have come up with arguments for the existence of God, but there are brilliant men who have heard those arguments and have been unconvinced.

If you are looking for "evidence" of God, well that's a bit easier. But again, any evidence will not be absolute or unabiguous nor will it be uncontended.

So your friend can't prove the existence of God, but then again, the nonexistence of God can't be proven either.

It boils down to a matter of faith. Do you choose to believe? What are you willing to stake on that belief? How much will be give up for that faith?

Those are the fundamental issues that each person must wrestle with and come to grips with.

 

b. 

 

You really can't prove that God exists. It's just the most plausable explenation given the universe we live in and the impressions of God on the human mind: an all powerful, all knowing God made everything and can do anything. 

I really believe that the question "Can you prove God exists?" is disingenuous most of the time people ask it. There are some people who are trapped in a logical impasse about the existence of God, but I think most are mad at God for the way the world is. I'd ask the person you're talking to, "Suppose you could know for certain that God is real. What would you think of that?" And start the conversation from there. 

 

6.  ( Dr. William Lane Craig - Existence of God (ref: Podcasts @ Reasonable Faith) , Prof. Jeff Scholoss = website etc. )

 Evolution and Religion - Prof. Jeff Schloss  

 7.  ( Prof. Alvin Plantinga = website , Dr. Michael Sudduth = website etc. )

God, Design and ID - Prof. Kenneth Miller

Science and Religion : Where The Real Conflict Lies - Professor Alvin Plantinga

God & Evolution: Where the Conflict Really Lies - Professor Alvin Plantinga

What is a properly basic belief?  interview with Prof. Alvin Plantinga

Discussing property warrant (in the video) Professor Alvin Plantinga states that , 'A belief has warrant for you if it's produced by cognitive faculties, memory, perception, mathematical, logical, intuition that are functioning properly, not subject to some sort of dysfunctional and the kind of environment they're designed for either by a god or evolution, according to a design plan (so if they're designed they've got a way of working right and a way of working wrong) that's successfully aimed at truth.' ( at 15:40 )   

 

'Belief in God is warranted, only if belief in God is true'  Professor Alvin Plantinga.  

 

Science and Religion : Video Discussion at the Veritas Forum : . Alvin Plantinga , Dr. Richard Gale , Dr. Quentin Smith and Dr. William Lane Craig.  Wow! Now that's a room full of hothouse flowers

 

8.  The Extended Mind (pdf) by David Chalmers (Published in Analysis 58:10-23, 1998.) - The Extended Mind Revisited (video: 2009) , David Chalmers on Consciousness , TEDxSydney - David Chalmers - The Extended Mind (video: 2011)

 

9.  Does Evil Disprove God Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Dr. Alvin Plantinga.

 

 

 

 

10. The Transcendental and the Transcendent and Pragmatic and Transcendental Arguments for Theism (A Critical Examination ) by Professor Sami Pihlström ( Professor of Practical Philosophy (University of Jyväskylä), Docent of Theoretical Philosophy (University of Helsinki) ) 

 

Excerpt 1:

"As an obvious source of relevant examples of transcendental reasoning about the transcendent, I shall consider a particular language-game, or a group of language-games, namely, the religious one(s), and briefly examine two specific problems pertaining to religious language-use, namely, the problem of the existence of God (section 2.1) and the problem of evil (section 2.2). I have chosen to focus (in section 2.1) on a transcendental argument for theism drawn from Charles Taylor’s work, instead of, say, the more explicitly transcendental 'Martin – Frame Debate' on TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God) vs. TANG (the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God)."

Excerpt 2:

"Commenting upon some recent literature on the topic, this paper examines two strategies by means of which one might try to defend theism: (1) a pragmatic(Jamesian) strategy, which focuses on the idea that religious belief has beneficial consequences in the believer’s life, and (2) a transcendental (Kantian) strategy, according to which theism is required as a condition of our self-understanding as ethically oriented creatures. Both strategies are found unsatisfactory, unless synthesized and thus supported by each other. While no argument, either pragmatic or transcendental, can demonstrate the existence of God, a pragmatic transcendental argument might have a legitimate role to play in the philosophy of religion. The problem of relativism arises, however. It is concluded that it remains unclear whether a religious believer could justify her or his beliefs to anyone who does not already share those beliefs."

  

 

+)(+

 

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party (stuff that I thought about but forgot to add)

 

 

1. Cornelius Van Till - Biography - Resources by Subject.

  

2. Dr. William Lane Craig's - Existence of God (audio lectures) at Reasonable Faith.

 

3. Selflessness and Altruism:

Altruism is a concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of ‘others’ toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness.
Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty and loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, a god, a king), or collective (for example, a government). Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).
The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is the opposite of egoism.

From: Alruism @ W.O.E

a. Prof. Viktor Frankl

“Again and again I therefore admonish my students in Europe and America: Don’t aim at success – the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one’s personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run – in the long-run, I say! – success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it.”

b.  Prof. Jeff Schloss

Altruism and Selfless Love : Theistic and Naturalistic Perspectives

Washington University, St. Louis
29 March 2010

‘Evolution might be able to explain biological diversity, but can it explain self-giving love? How do we make sense of altruism in a world of competition? In this Veritas Forum, two perspectives are brought to the table—theistic and naturalistic—both from practicing scientists. Jeffrey Schloss is a Professor of Biology at Westmont and a Christian; Robert Sussman is a Professor of Anthropology at Washington University and a non-theist. The event is moderated by Professor in the Laboratory and Genomic Medicine Division at Washington University in St. Louis, S. Joshua Swamidass, MD PhD.’

To watch the video > http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/912
Join the Veritas Forum, to download.

The "End" of Love: Evolutionary Psychology, Altruism, and Human Purpose

Evolutionary evil and a good creation?

 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[i] Matthew 5:43 : Lev. 19:18

http://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Matt.5

 

For ‘thespian and artistic type’ lovers : Selflessness by John Coltrane (in two parts)

 

 

4. Prayer - Meditation - Contemplation and the pursuit of God:

 

Part I

 

a.  

Why would anyone choose a deity who ‘….is untouched by pleasure and pain, good and evil’ yet who it is said, ‘….dances in supreme joy and creates, sustains and destroys with the rhythm of His dancing movements’ who it is also said, ‘….is the most awe-inspiring and terrifying deity, Rudra, with Trisul or trident in His hand’ and who it is said, ‘…. is the source of all knowledge and wisdom’ who it is said, also ‘….conducts the work of creation according to His will and pleasure’ who it is said, ‘….is distinct from Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra’ and who it is said commands, ‘…. Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra’ who ‘are the trinities of the world’ who it is said that whoever ‘…. regards the three deities as distinct and different, Siva Purana says, is undoubtedly a devil or evil spirit’ and yet of whom it is said, ‘The most auspicious and useful work beneficial to mankind ever carried out by Lord Siva, is to impart the knowledge of Yoga, Bhakti, Jnana, etc., to the world. He blesses those deserve His grace and who cannot get out of Samsara without His grace. He is not only the World-Teacher but also an ideal example to the Jivanmukta or sage. He teaches by His very actions in His daily life’ ? Is it perhaps because, ‘Lord Siva through His third eye of wisdom burnt passion to ashes’ ? Is it your hope to ‘overcomes waking and sleeping state and through meditation’ and thereby merge yourself ‘…. in the object meditated upon in’ your ‘waking state itself’ ?

Quotes from SIVA TATTVA Chapter 2 from LORD SIVA AND HIS WORSHIP by SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

 

Or, is this life closer to the ideas of Epicurus?

Those things which without ceasing I have declared to you, those do, and exercise yourself in those, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and happy, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of humankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that does not agree with his blessedness, but you shall believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and immortality. For truly there are gods, and knowledge of them is evident; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that people do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the person who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in people like to themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind.

Lives, 10.123 )

Or, is this life closer to the ideas of writers of the book of Acts?

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.”

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Acts 17 ( Listen )

The Laws of Manu by George Bühler.

‘ Friedrich Nietzsche is noted to have said “Close the Bible and open the Manu Smriti. It has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living” ( Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, vol. 1. ) Contra Nietzsche, Nipissing University philosophy professor W.A. Borody has coined the phrase “sublimation-transmogrification logic” to describe the underlying ‘state of mind’ lying behind the ethical teaching of the Manu Smrti—a ‘state of mind’ that would have found Nietzsche’s concept of the Dionysian Übermensch abhorrent, and a ‘state of mind’ or ‘voice’ that has always been radically contested within India’s various philosophical and religious traditions. ( W.A.Borody,“The Manu Smrti and Neo-Secularism”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol I, No. 9 (Special Issue, July, 2011 )

From: W.O.E – Manusmṛti

b.

TRIMURTI

The personalities of the Trimurti (Hindu trinity) are also sometimes referred to as Guna avatars, because of their roles of controlling the three modes (gunas) of nature,( 55 ) even though they have not descended upon an earthly planet in the general sense of the term ‘avatar’.

Vishnu – As controller of the mode of goodness ( sattva )
Brahma – Controller of the mode of passion and desire ( rajas ) (Not to be confused with BRAHMAN )
Shiva – Controller of the mode of ignorance ( tamas )

BRAHMAN

‘….one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.’ ( The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions , ed. John Bowker, OUP, 1997 )

‘….is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead’ ( Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888—1975) / Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan )

‘…. which is the Divine Ground’ ( The phrase ‘Divine Ground’ was in modern times coined by Aldous Huxley in his widely read comparative study of mysticism The Perennial Philosophy. Divine Ground (Paul Tillich popularized the expression ‘Ground of Being’ to refer to God) is a neutral term to express the common experience of mystics in diverse religious traditions of an Absolute Ground in which phenomena appear to have their root and origin. Theistic religions refer to this ground as God or Godhead whereas Eastern transtheistic religions use terms such as Tao, Dharmakaya or Clear Light. Among modern authors who use the expression ‘Ground’ is Tibetan Buddhist teacher Sogyal Rinpoche (see his book The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying) ) ‘of all being’

 ‘…. is conceived as personal (“with qualities”), impersonal (“without qualities”) and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school. Hindus worship Brahman through statues called murtis, almost as a portal to Brahman. Different aspects of Brahman are represented in these murtis.
The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the doctrine of self-knowledge (atma jnana).’

According to Advaita , a liberated human being ( jivanmukta ) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self (see atman ).

The Mundaka Upanishad ( pdf – SWAMI KRISHNANANDA / pdf – Swami Nikhilananda ) ( ….it is not, like other Mantras , to be used for sacrificial purposes. Its only object is to teach the highest knowledge, the knowledge of Brahman, which cannot be obtained either by sacrifices or by worship (Upasana), but by such teaching only as is imparted in the Upanishad. With its beautiful style, lucid metres, serious wording, and lofty feelings each mantra of this Upanishad gives joyous reading.) says:

AUM – That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

 

‘ The Satapatha contains the oldest speculation on Brahman, or the Absolute Principle. Jung painted an image of the relation of the individual person to Satapatha Brahman or the Self ….’ Dr. JG Friesen from Jung and Western Mysticism

 

c.

‘Brahma’s job was creation of the world and all creatures. His name should not be confused with Brahman, who is the supreme God force present within all things.

Brahma is the least worshipped god in Hinduism today. There are only two temples in the whole of India devoted to him, compared with the many thousands devoted to the other two.’

From: BBC Religions – Brahma

 

Why is Brahma not worshipped so much?

Though there doesn’t seem to be too much written about this, though there are two Hindu myths that indicate that Brahma created the earth and made a very beautiful woman to aid with his job of creation. ‘She was so beautiful that Brahma became infatuated with her, and gazed at her wherever she went. This caused her extreme embarrassment and Shatarupa tried to turn from his gaze.’ ( read more, for the two possible accounts of how things got out of control – Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia – I notice that there are no sources, yet. )

 

“Lord Brahma’s day, consisting of his 12 hours, lasts 4 billion 320 million years, and his night is of the same duration.”

From: Bhaktivedanta VedaBase

 

‘Brahma’s prayers are recorded in the Brahma-samhita. From this scripture we know that Brahma is a devotee of Om the empty space everlasting peace and abode, and what is home for both material, non-material and spiritual universes. According to Brahma’s authority we can know that Om is the Supreme God. Brahma says: Om is the Supreme God. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. Brahma lets us know that all Brahma is one of many Brahmas who is one of many material universes which appear from Om’s breathing out.’

Link: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia

d.

THE INCARNATIONS OF LORD VISHNU

There are ten avatars (dashavatara) of Vishnu commonly considered as the most prominent: (refer: The Garuda Purana Texts )

Matsya, the fish that kills Damanaka to save the vedas and saves mankind.

Kurma, the turtle that helps the Devas and Asuras churn the ocean for the nectar of immortality.

Varaha, the boar that rescues the Earth and kills Hiranyaksha.

Narasimha, the one (half-Lion half- human) who defeats the demon Hiranyakashapu (Nara = man, simha = lion).

Vamana. the dwarf that grows into a giant to save the world from King Bali.

Parashurama, A Sage, Rama with the axe, who appeared in the Treta Yuga.

Rama, Sri Ramachandra, the prince and king of Ayodhya and killed Demon King Raavana.

Krishna (meaning ‘dark coloured’ or ‘all attractive’ or the Existence of Bliss, ( Vishnu sahasranama, Sankara’s interpretation of the 57th name, Swami Tapasyananda’s translation, pg. 51. ), appeared in the Dwapara Yuga along with his brother

Refer this narrative which is based upon the commentary of Shankaracharya:

(57) Krishnah -The word Krishna means in Sanskrit ‘the dark’. The Truth that is intellectually appreciated, but spiritually not apprehended, is considered as ‘veiled behind some darkness’. Vishnu Sahasranama means the “Thousand Names of Vishnu.”

Balarama, the avatar of Aadi Sesha, the serpent on which Supreme Lord Vishnu sleeps, Svayam Bhagavan’.’ This viewpoint is specific to Bhagavata, Gaudiya, Vallabhacarya and Nimbarka sampradayas. (refer: Sri Dasavatara-stotra and Upaaya )

Kalki (“Eternity”, or “timeless”, destroyer of time or “The Destroyer of foulness”), who is expected to appear at the end of Kali Yuga, the time period in which we currently exist.

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : VISHNU

 

Part II 

a.  

A Talk With Ramana Maharshi

‘Apart from its historical usage, the term meditation was introduced as a translation for Eastern spiritual practices, referred to as dhyana in Buddhism and in Hinduism, which comes from the Sanskrit root dhyai, meaning to contemplate or meditate. The term “meditation” in English may also refer to practices from Islamic Sufism, or other traditions such as Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Hesychasm. An edited book about “meditation” published in 2003, for example, included chapter contributions by authors describing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist traditions. Scholars have noted that “the term ‘meditation’ as it has entered contemporary usage” is parallel to the term “contemplation” in Christianity.’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

 

b.

‘Apart from its historical usage, the term meditation was introduced as a translation for Eastern spiritual practices, referred to as dhyana in Buddhism and in Hinduism, which comes from the Sanskrit root dhyai, meaning to contemplate or meditate. The term “meditation” in English may also refer to practices from Islamic Sufism, ….’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

 

‘….in Buddhism:

As a meditative state, dhyana is characterized by profound stillness and concentration. It is discussed in the Pali canon (and the parallel agamas) and post-canonical Theravada Buddhist literature , and in other literature. There has been little scientific study of the states so far.’

An Anthology from the Pali Canon by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Live Science: <strong>Study: Zen Meditation Really Does Clear the Mind by Charles Q. ChoiDate: 02 September 2008

Web Extra: Mindfulness for the Masses by Katie Unger

Scientists are taking advantage of new technologies to see exactly what goes on inside the brains of Buddhist monks and other so-called “Olympian” meditators — individuals who meditate intensively and regularly. The neuroscientists hypothesize that regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired, and that these changes could be at the heart of claims that meditation can improve health and well-being.

From: Science Explores Meditation’s Effect on the Brain by ALLISON AUBREY

‘in Hinduism:

According to the Hindu Yoga Sutra , ( Yoga Sutras of Patanjali – Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati / The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali The Threads of Union Translation by BonGiovanni ) written by Patanjali, dhyana is one of the eight limbs of Yoga, (the other seven being Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, and Samadhi).
The entire Eight Limbs of the Patanjali system are also sometimes referred to as Dhyana, or the meditative path, although strictly speaking, only the last four limbs constitute meditation Pratyahara, Dhyana, Dharana, and Samadhi. The preceding steps are only to prepare the body and mind for meditation.

‘….practices from Islamic Sufism’
‘Classical Sufi scholars have defined Sufism as “a science whose objective is the reparation of the heart and turning it away from all else but God”. Alternatively, in the words of the Darqawi Sufi teacher Ahmad ibn Ajiba, “a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one’s inner self from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits”.

The Healing Power of Sufi Meditation by as-Sayyid, Nurjan Mirahmadi (Author), Hedieh Mirahmadi

‘…. Many people Muslim or others were directing themselves to Yoga, Meditation, Reiki and many New Age philosophies. Believing that Sufism does not have these options, much to their surprise Sufism is the custodian for these ancient realities’ a result of Shaykh Hisham Kabbani and the Baraka of our Sultan al-Awliya and all Mashaykh Naqshbandi pushed the renewed concept of Sufi Meditation and went after those teachings to bring the Light of Mawlana Shaykh to these people and direct many of them to the realities of Sayedena Muhammad [s] and Tariqat Naqshbandiyyat-il-`aliyyah.’

From: The Healing Power of Sufi Meditation ( Sufi Meditation – Step by Step )

 

c.

‘…. or other traditions such as …. and Christian Hesychasm

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

An ancient mystical tradition was lost to the Western world nearly a thousand years ago. Now, at the dawn of the new millennium, this profound yet practical path of transcendence is being rediscovered. Its name is hesychasm, from a Greek root meaning “to be still.”

‘Hesychasm’s roots extend back almost two thousand years to the beginnings of the Christian church. Today much of what we know about this spiritual path has been gleaned from the writings of mystics who populated the Middle Eastern deserts in the fourth century. These early ascetics are known as the Desert Fathers.

In the eleventh century, the Christian church split into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Catholicism rejected hesychasm, which encouraged individual experiences of the divine. As a result, hesychasm disappeared from Western culture but survived because the Orthodox church embraced and preserved this tradition of quiet meditation.

For the last millennium, hesychasm has remained shrouded in obscurity in the West. Why? One reason is that hesychastic texts preserved by the Orthodox Church were written in Greek or the languages of various eastern European countries. This made them inaccessible to most Westerners. Only recently have classics such as The Philokalia and The Ladder of Divine Ascent been translated into English. Another factor has been the cultural and political differences that separated Eastern Europe from the West. The fall of these barriers is permitting greater access to, and understanding of, this spiritual path. ‘ ( read more )

From: Hesychasm: A Christian Path of Transcendence by Mitchell B. Liester

 

d.

 

‘…. or other traditions such as Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Hesychasm. ( Daniel Goleman (1988). The meditative mind: The varieties of meditative experience. New York: Tarcher. ) ‘

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

 

‘So what is meditation really ? ….’

Daniel Goleman discusses Meditation in a two part video playlist: Click Here

Kaballah (lit. “receiving”) is a discipline and school of thought concerned with the esoteric aspect of Rabbinic Judaism. It was systematized in 11th-13th century Hachmei Provence (Southern France) and Spain, and again after the Expulsion from Spain, in 16th century Ottoman Palestine. It was popularized in the form of Hassidic Judaism in the 18th century.

Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an eternal and mysterious Creator and the mortal and finite universe (His creation). While it is heavily used by some denominations, it is not a denomination in and of itself; it is a set of scriptures that exist outside the traditional Jewish scriptures.

Kabbalah seeks to define the nature of the universe and the human being, the nature and purpose of existence, and various other ontological questions.

It also presents methods to aid understanding of these concepts and to thereby attain spiritual realization.

Kabbalah originally developed entirely within the realm of Jewish thought and constantly uses classical Jewish sources to explain and demonstrate its esoteric teachings. These teachings are thus held by kabbalists to define the inner meaning of both the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and traditional rabbinic literature, their formerly concealed transmitted dimension, as well as to explain the significance of Jewish religious observances. (Primary Source:Kabbalah Online: Imbued with Holiness ‘The relationship of the esoteric to the exoteric in the fourfold Pardes interpretation of Torah and existence.’ )

What is Kabbalah? : What is Kabbalah …And Why? : Beginners Start Here :Introductory

Primary Website: The Kabbalah Centre : Video – Where to begin?

The sacred texts of Judaism : Kabbalah Unveiled

e.

‘…. An edited book about “meditation” published in 2003, for example, included chapter contributions by authors describing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist traditions. ‘

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions by Jonathan Shear

Jonathan Shear is Affiliated Associate Professor of Philosophy at VCU, where he has taught since 1987. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley, and was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow there, and a Fulbright Scholar in philosophy of science at the London School of Economics. Since the early 1960’s his work has focused on the use of meditation practices and related scientific research to expand our knowledge of human consciousness. He has published and lectured widely in North America, Europe and Asia, and was the founding Managing Editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies.

 Ruth A. Baer , Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, KY. She conducts research on mindfulness and related processes and teaches and supervises mindfulness and acceptancebased interventions. She is a renowned expert in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and mindfulnessbased stress reduction (MBSR).

ASSESSING MINDFULNESS AND ACCEPTANCE PROCESSES IN CLIENTS – Illuminating the Theory and Practice of Change

 

f.

 

‘…. Scholars have noted that “the term ‘meditation’ as it has entered contemporary usage” is parallel to the term “contemplation” in Christianity.’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

 

Prayer, meditation and contemplation in Christianity

From meditation to contemplative prayer

In the Western Church, during the 15th century, reforms of the clergy and monastic settings were undertaken by the two Venetians, Lorenzo Giustiniani and Louis Barbo. Both men considered methodical prayer and meditation as essential tools for the reforms they were undertaking.( 28 ) Barbo, who died in 1443, wrote a treatise on prayer titled Forma orationis et meditionis otherwise known as Modus meditandi. He described three types of prayer; vocal prayer, best suited for beginners; meditation, oriented towards those who are more advanced; and contemplation as the highest form of prayer, only obtainable after the meditation stage. Based on the request of Pope Eugene IV, Barbo introduced these methods to Valladolid, Spain and by the end of the 15th century they were being used at the abbey of Montserrat. These methods then influenced Garcias de Cisneros, who in turn influenced Ignatius of Loyola. ( 29 ) ( 30 )
The Eastern Othodox Church has a similar three level hierarchy of prayer.(31 )( 32 ) The first level prayer is again vocal prayer, the second level is meditation (also called “inward prayer” or “discursive prayer”) and the third level is contemplative prayer in which a much closer relationship with God is cultivated. ( 31 )

 

 

 

 

Abhishiktananda

Jim: Won’t some people say that you have returned to a Christian apologetic that wants to again set up Christianity as the truth over other religions?

Glenn: Well of course some people will say that. Other people say that I am still interpreting Christianity in terms of Hinduism. I am not responsible for how other people think or react. I can only say that, in large part through my studies of Abhishiktananda, I have learned to see Christianity differently, and I know that it is true. This knowing is more than an intellectual acceptance of what Abhishiktananda called "petrified" and "idolatrous" dogma. And this is not to say that God cannot also reveal Himself in other religions. But it seems to me that Christianity does have a distinct emphasis on love as self-giving, following the model of Christ’s kenosis. And this has practical consequences. We must ask why it was that it was a Western friend who came to the aid of Abhishiktananda as he was lying in the street of Rishikesh after his heart attack.

From: An Interview with Dr. J Glenn Friesen - Abhishiktananda 

Thomas Merton

'Hence contemplation is more than a consideration of abstract truths about God, more even than effective meditation on the things we believe.  It is awakening, enlightenment and the amazing intuitive grasp by which love gains certitude of God's creative and dynamic intervention in our daily life. Hence contemplation does not simply "find" a clear idea of God and confine Him within the limits of that idea, and hold Him there as a prisoner to whom it can always return.  On the contrary, contemplation is carried away by Him into His own realm, His own mystery and His own freedom.  It is a pure and a virginal knowledge, poor in concepts, poorer still in reasoning, but able, by its poverty and purity, to follow the Word "wherever He may go."

From: New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

 

 

5.  The Influence of Classical Ideas in the Humanities:

 ‘….the influence of classical ideas in many humanities disciplines, such as philosophy and literature, remains strong; for example, the Gilgamesh Epic from Mesopotamia, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Vedas and Upanishads in India and various writings attributed to Confucius, Lao-tse and Chuang-tzu in China.
From: W.O.E. – Humanities – Classics

 

For those who may be unfamiliar with any of the above mentioned books or authors, here are a few links that might be helpful to those who are not yet acquainted with them.

1. Ancient Near East : The Epic of Gilgamesh (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
2. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
3. The Vedas (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
4. Upanishads (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
5. Confusion and Traditional Chinese Beliefs (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
6. Lao-tse (604BC) – Taoist Texts (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
7. Chuang-tzu(4th century BCE) – Musings of a Chinese Mystic by Lionel Giles (courtesy of Sacred Texts)

‘Chuang-Tze had made himself well acquainted with all the literature of his time, but preferred the views of Lao-Tze; and ranked himself among his followers, so that of the more than ten myriads of characters contained in his published writings the greater part are occupied with metaphorical illustrations of Lao’s doctrines.’ (read more: here or here )

  

‘Of what is great one must either be silent or speak with greatness. With greatness–that means cynically and with innocence.’ FN

 


Did Jesus Exist?

 

Peace.

From this pilgrim who enjoys reading and studying  EvolutionPhilosophy and more recently Atheism and Nihilism in Art. 

 

Finis.  

Aeryck

Fossil Finds by rogue66

 

ps.  A while ago I met an Australian bloke who was totally into something he called 'Lay Gnosis' which he explained to me in some detail as well as informing me that my skepticism would be solved by visiting the website AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE (authored by a lawyer Victor Zammit), but one peculiarity stuck out and that was his use of the phrase "GOOGLE-IT"     

Well, as I was thinking of a way to end this thread (now that the comments have fizzled out), I decided to do just that and type 'can you prove the existence of god' into my Google browser and post up the results.

Who knows maybe Google will shutdown one day just like Geocities did and there'll be a record of it here.

 

 


 

 Here are the links: (from my "GI" / Google It!)

1.  CAN YOU PROVE GOD EXISTS?  PETER KREEFT

2.  CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?  EVERY STUDENT

3.  IS THERE A GOD  EVERY STUDENT

4.  EXISTENCE OF GOD  WIKIPEDIA

5.  HUNDREDS OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD   GODLESSGEEKS

6.  CAN SCIENCE BE USED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD   THE GUARDIAN

7.  IF YOU CAN READ THIS, I CAN PROVE GOD EXISTS   COSMIC FINGERPRINTS

8.  HOW DO YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD   ICHTHYS

9.  CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD   PLIM REPORT

10.  CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?  JOEUSER FORUMS  < LIKE A MAP (HERE WE ARE)  

 

 

 

 

 1st SA Bluesman and Smeagologist in Cyberspace

Thanks for your comments and may you stay forever young kids.    

Peace,

Aeryck.

North Walsham Guide


 

Locked Post   |   329 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 23, 2012 12:44:26 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
GFT started the "Evolution" discussion saying: 



Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 80
Evolution is science and anyone who is foolish enough to deny its reality just because they believe in a god ... is an idiot.

GFT has corrected me. Sorry about that mistake. It was IncredibleLOlk who started the Evolution discussion. 

Quoting IncredibleLOLk,
God is real, anyone who believes evolution is an idiot.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 23, 2012 1:43:44 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting zigzag,
Similarly, what do you mean by scientists finding no "bona fide transitional forms?" What would count as a bona fide transitional form? Presumably, a form that belongs to two or more "kinds," but that definition falls afoul of the problem with the concept of "kinds." Scientists have discovered a number of organisms that they consider to be transitional; and where they haven't they've proposed a number of plausible explanations for why they haven't done so.

We've known at least as far back as 1980 when at a meeting of some 150 evolutionist scientists, it became apparent that many rejected the idea of transformation beyond kind. Paleontologists at that meeting were unable to outline strongly how the principal feature of individual species in the fossil record is stasis and not change, i.e. there is abssolutely no evidence in the fossil record of slow, barely perceptible changes. See Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire, Science, Vol. 210, Nov. 21, 1980.

In other words, small observed changes do no accumulation into big one. For Evolution to occur beyond kind, it had to happen by unknown mechanisms. 

The fossil record is now extensive, certainly enough to validate the reality of stasis in "parallel" vertical ancestry...in other words...species reproduce themselves only within kind. This is another powerful evidence against Evolution and Evolutionist scientists idea of "tree" structured phylogeny descent. 

Quoting zigzag,

Also, why do our best available genetic theories disallow "genetic change beyond kind"? I apologize if I missed an argument previously made in this thread.

In a nutshell, Evolution is change beyond kind and Genetics has no proofs for Evolution. 

There is no doubt now that analysis of DNA sequences in various species show similiarities between related ones (kinds) and big differences detween systematically far-removed species. Molecular genetics generally confirms the accuracy of taxonomy, but at the same time, it  does not confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There are no progressive changes from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not phylogeny. Molecular genetics confirms Linnaeus, not Darwin. 

The closer one looks for evidence of Evolution the less one finds of substance. We know the theory keeps on postulating evidence and failing to find it, moves on to other postulates. This is not science. 

With all these inherent problems, the arguement now is that Evolution Theory is unlikely ever to be anything other than science fiction. What started out as a 19th century hypothesis has become a 21st century myth. Michael Denton, "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis", 1986, page 77, 

"The raising of the status of Darwinian theory to a self-evident axiom has had the consequence that the very real problems and objections with which Darwin so painfully labored in the Origin have become entirely invisible. Crucial problems such as the absence of connecting links or the difficulty of envisaging intermediate forms are virtually never discussed, and the creation of even the most complex of adaptations is put down to natural selection without a ripple of doubt.

The overriding supremcy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of Evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research --paleontological, zoological and even in the newer brances of genetics and molecular biology --has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is the evidence was so patchy that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from the self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."  

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 23, 2012 8:46:32 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
Earlier I posted the dictionary and science textbook definition of "Evolution".

Again, what do you mean by “kind”? You mentioned interspecies and interfamilial variation, so presumably, variation between kinds requires something more. I disagree with your statement that scientists have not discovered any transitional species, but I’d like to know what you would consider as constituting a transitional fossil before I provide any examples.
Quoting lulapilgrim,
We've known at least as far back as 1980 when at a meeting of some 150 evolutionist scientists, it became apparent that many rejected the idea of transformation beyond kind. Paleontologists at that meeting were unable to outline strongly how the principal feature of individual species in the fossil record is stasis and not change, i.e. there is abssolutely no evidence in the fossil record of slow, barely perceptible changes. See Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire, Science, Vol. 210, Nov. 21, 1980.

This is a sloppy interpretation of the article. The “evolutionary theory” under fire in this article isn’t “transformation beyond kind,” it’s the “Modern Synthesis”, i.e. a particular, theory based on the combination of natural selection and gradualism. The alternatives to the Modern Synthesis addressed in the article aren’t non-evolutionary theories, but non-gradualist ones.
Quoting lulapilgrim,
There is no doubt now that analysis of DNA sequences in various species show similiarities between related ones (kinds) and big differences detween systematically far-removed species. Molecular genetics generally confirms the accuracy of taxonomy, but at the same time, it does not confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There are no progressive changes from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals.

I don’t understand the argument that you’re trying to make. Evolutionary theories would generally predict greater genetic similarities between closely-related species than between more distantly-related species. However, even if this weren’t the case, it wouldn’t necessarily present a problem for evolutionary theories. Evolutionary theories aren’t committed to the claim that the genetic distance between species is proportional to the length of time that has passed since those species diverged; they allow for species to evolve at different rates.


Geneticists have conducted a number of genetic studies whose results are entirely consistent with current evolutionary theories. These include, as you’ve mentioned, studies comparing general genetic similarity between groups as well as studies of individual genes.


Genetic studies haven’t always been consistent with popular evolutionary theories, but when this has been the case, evolutionary theories have changed to incorporate this information e.g., crocodilians were once considered to be more closely related to lizards than birds.

Quoting lulapilgrim,
Crucial problems such as the absence of connecting links or the difficulty of envisaging intermediate forms are virtually never discussed, and the creation of even the most complex of adaptations is put down to natural selection without a ripple of doubt.

This is a fair criticism. Evolutionary theorists, such as some of the ones mentioned in the Lewin article, have tended to vigorously defend particular theories of selection at the expense of others. However, the rest of the Dalton quote is uninteresting. It just repeats the claim that scientists have discovered no transitional fossils.

Also, on an unrelated note: És português/a? Brasileiro/a? I was wondering because of your username and religion.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 24, 2012 12:08:23 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting zigzag,
Again, what do you mean by “kind”?

"Kinds" is uniqueness in life form. 

For example, among invertebrates, the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, and snails are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously all different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs would be different kinds and each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into basic kinds within each. 

Among the mammalian class---platypuses, dogs, cats, rats, rabbits, monkeys, apes, and man are each different basic kinds. 

For example, the ape classification, the orangutans, gorillas, gibbons, and chimpanzees would each be included in a different basic kind. 

There may be various species within a particular kind and variety definitely does occur within kind but not beyond kind.

There is a great variety of kinds of birds..falcons, pigeons, vultures, ravens, ostriches, hawks, gulls, owls, to name a few. Scientists are well aware that any cross-breeding among these birds will not produce offspring, and if there is an exception, the hybrid is sterile or malformed. Field and laboratory evidence shows that change only happens within kind. 

While there are thousands of species of fish, birds, plants and animals, there is only one species of man, homo sapiens, and that makes the word "mankind" an apt description. 

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 24, 2012 10:11:18 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
"Kinds" is uniqueness in life form... Scientists are well aware that any cross-breeding among these birds will not produce offspring, and if there is an exception, the hybrid is sterile or malformed. Field and laboratory evidence shows that change only happens within kind. Scientists are well aware that any cross-breeding among these birds will not produce offspring, and if there is an exception, the hybrid is sterile or malformed. Field and laboratory evidence shows that change only happens within kind.

So two species belong to different “kinds” if they belong to two species that if crossed would not produce fertile offspring? Given this, what would it take for a species to count as transitional? I believe that the fossil record, while incomplete, does contain numerous examples of transitional species. However, I want to know exactly what you would consider a transitional species before providing examples.


(I realize that there's more going on in your post, but I'd like to focus on transitional fossils rather than the impossibility of speciation. We can have that discussion afterwards, if you'd like.)

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 24, 2012 2:33:51 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
Animals operate by instinct and are not rational, while humans have free will. Man also has reason and intelligence and can understand, while animals cannot. Animals are also devoid of the moral intuition called conscience. 

Quoting TobiWahn_Kenobi,
Damn, thats what I call a twisted soul. Animals have no understanding? Ever watched an ape using a machine which covers over 500 words to talk to humans? I have, and thats what I call intelligence. Use abstract symbols (small pictures) on buttons to form a sequence that ultimately has logic and meaning. That also requires a consience. But whom am I telling this. It's just an animal so it must be dumb and unconscious...

Studies proofed that even pigeons have a mind capable of abstraction to a high degree. This requires intelligence.

Understanding is a term used to denote intellect as exercised in the act of simple judgment. This faculty is variously referrred to as intellect, intelligence, reasoning and critical faculty, etc. By understanding a man is enabled to form ideas, to make judgments and comparisons, to perceive the meanings of things and to estimate their value. By understainding, man is indeed distinguished from the brute animals such as gorillas which do not possess it.

I'd call what you describe the ape doing as some kind of conditioning.  

Apes don't have understanding, however, if you think they do, then we'll simply agree to disagree on this point.

 

  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 24, 2012 4:53:33 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting zigzag,

So two species belong to different “kinds” if they belong to two species that if crossed would not produce fertile offspring? Given this, what would it take for a species to count as transitional?

Evolution is a molecules-to-mankind-natural transformation in which new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors. 

In Darwin's book, Origin of the Species, pages 341-2, Darwin wrote that in the geological reccod unless "intermediate varieties connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest greaduated steps" could be found his whole theory "should be rightly rejected."

So, if Evolution is true science and the slow process of molecules-to-mankind natural transformation occurred, then the change of one kind in to a completely different kind would have produced  "intermediate varieties" aka "transitional forms" aka "the missing links" aka "intermediate forms". e.g. amphibians changing into reptiles. 

Don't take it from me, here are direct quotes from Miller/Levine's 10th grade Biology textbook in the chapter on the Evolution of fishes to amphibians to reptiles, including transitional forms. pages 680-706.

Under the heading: Evolution of Fishes, page 680. "Fishes are considered to be the most primitive living vertebrates. This means that fishes were the first vertebrates to evolve and that they have many characteristics that are thought to have existed in their earlier ancestors. Fishes did not evolve from such organisisms as living lancelets or tunicates. But similiarities in structure and embryological development show that fishes and modern invertebrate chordates probably did evolve from common ancestors that lived many millions of years ago. 

Evolution of Amphibians. page 694. Amphibians first appeared around the end of the Devonian Period about 360 million years ago. They probably evolved from lobe-finned fishes, similiar to modern coelacanth, that had bones in their fin bases and lungs. Making the transition from water to land was no easy task. Gills are useless. Lungs that expand easily when the body is supported by water tends to collapse under the weight of other organs. Appendages that work fine underwater are too weak to hold much weight on land....Becasue natural selection favored individuals that were better able to live on land, early amphibians evolved in ways that surmounted these problems. ....Soon after they first appeared, amphibians underwent an adaptive radiation. Some of these ancient amphibians were huge..the largest is thought to have been about 4 meters long. ...pg. 695, The heyday of amphibians was short-lived however. Climate changes ultimately caused many of the low swampy habitats to disappear. Most of the amphibian groups became extinct by the end of the Permian Period (about 245 million years ago), leaving behind four groups of land vertebrates..reptiles, which evolved from amphibians early in the Carboniferous Period, and three orders of small amphibians.

Page 707, under the heading What is a Reptile?  "Reptiles are vertebrate animals that have lungs, a scaly skin and a special type of egg--adaptations that enable them to live their entire life out of water.  

 Page 709, under, Evolution of Reptiles

Because several fossils show characteristics of both amphibians and reptiles, it is difficult to say exactly when the first true reptiles appeared on Earth. As  you have just read, one determining factor that separates living reptiles from amphibians is the type of eggs they produce. But unfortunately, there are no fossil eggs around for paleontologists to study. Becasue we cannot tell which kind of eggs these fossil animals laid, they must remain in the amphibian-reptillian borderline--at least for the present time. These animals are often called transition fossils. These transition fossils document the slow and steady evolutionary change of amphibianlike ancestors into reptiles over time. 

During the late Triassic and Jurassic periods, a great adaptive radiation of the dinosaurs took place. The Triassiac also saw the appearance of crocodiles and alligators, as well as the first birds." 

The next pages answer what is a bird and then go into the evolution of birds from reptiles. After that a chapter on Mammals and the reader is led to believe that man has evolved from lower animals. 

The Biology book has explained Evolution as change beyond kind over time. 

The fossil record purportedly contains a record of all the billions of years of life on earth.  If it takes 100 million years for amphibians to evolve through transitional forms into reptiles, the fossil strata should show a vast amount of the in-between forms. Even though for over 150 years men have dedicated their lives in an attempt to find the missing links, the intermediate forms, there is no actual fossil evidence of any of this.

 

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 24, 2012 7:10:14 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting zigzag,
what would it take for a species to count as transitional?
I think the term ‘transitional fossil’ is just the straw man in the game to give people something to argue about. As far as I am concerned, every change in the flora and fauna along the successful evolutionary branches is transitional enough. After all every fossil represents nothing more than a snapshot in time and being two dimensional can possess no ‘transitional’ data at least to a skeptic anyway. Besides, without the application of billions of years, evolution as we understand it today would be meaningless. How about Archaeopteryx as a good example of evolution, a work in progress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc15Kxy2HEg&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 24, 2012 7:15:49 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
Evolution is a molecules-to-mankind-natural transformation in which new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors...

I'm aware of how evolutionary theorists generally use the term and the role that transitional fossils have played in this history of evolutionary theory. I personally believe that various examples of transitional fossils provided by scientists are compelling. You obviously do not. This is why I'm not really interested in the general descriptions that you've posted, but rather in the specifics of your particular understanding of what a transitional species or transitional fossil is.

Let me rephrase the question this way: if I provide an example of a transitional fossil, what criteria does it need to satisfy so that you will accept that it is in fact a transitional fossil and not a fossil that only demonstrates variation within a "kind"?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 25, 2012 5:05:55 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
Apes don't have understanding, however, if you think they do, then we'll simply agree to disagree on this point.

Agreed. We disagree. As it is impossible to prove or disprove your understanding of understanding concerning animals.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 7:52:38 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

I've been across the ocean in Avignon site seeing and so missed out on the way that this thread has split up as a result of three statements:

Post 78 : 'Divine Creativity was never limited to one way of doing things, and I don't dare to imagine to limit it that way in my life as well.'

Post 79 : 'God is real, anyone who believes evolution is an idiot.'

Post 80 : 'Evolution is science and anyone who is foolish enough to deny its reality just because they believe in a god ... is an idiot.'

It's easy to make statements but requires considerably more genteel finesse to present them without falling down as a clod in the midst of a generation that is watching us and considering our integrity. 

I made the grave mistake of assembling myself behind views of others.   Just by way of a short testimonial.  I joined this forum in 2005 and though I'd had somewhat of a radical paradigm shift with regard to how I practice my religion and more directly my prayers, nothing could prepare me for the rapid succession of changes that would follow in it's wake. 

In fact as I read through the first few chapters of  'Saving Darwin' - How to be a Christian and believe in Evolution by Karl Giberson I was deeply gratified to find that someone who had had a complete paradigm shift equal to that of my own an many others I've had the joy of identifying with on Faraday Institute of Science and Religion.

Going back to 2004 where I'd spent the best part of four years studying Theology and Christian Philosophy from a Reformed position and yet still not knowing or known by God.  In fact in late 2004 I parked my hide on the couch in a quite room and was confronted by the stark reality that I did not know Jesus Christ or God and that my meandering since 1976 when I had my first tasted of the goodly influences of Christianity had led me into erroneous thinking with regard to the Bible, Science and Biology.  I was a mess.  I argued weak points supported by uninformed sources and instead of spending my time seeking the Lord in the prayer closet I followed the way of most fundamentalist Christians who have a faith without substance.  

Creationism and Intelligent Design proponents have been shown to be weak in their delivery as they fail to take into consideration all that we are learning from the Sciences, Anthropology and Biology and have been found to be nothing more than posers lacking the force of argument of those they are opposing.  It's bee shown to be nothing more than a power struggle.  

Another good read in this regard is Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God : A Scientist's Search For Common Ground Between God and Evolution, though I've found more joy in the lectures of Prof. Jeffrey Schols. 

It's not my place to begin to explain these matters but I'd say that the fossil record plus what we are learning in the field of genetics leaves little doubt that Evolution by Natural Selection is the best theory we have in support of Evolution and until we can categorically replace such a theory with a better one I'm settled with agreeing instead of repeatedly pounding my head against it.  

The Collapse of Intelligent Design by Prof. Kenneth Miller

To harmony.

Eric.

 

 


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 7:58:56 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

On a more jovial note I though Chris Smither tickles that funny bone as he sings 'Origin of the Species.'

Peace,

Eric 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 8:13:26 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

edit ( Post 136 ) 'Another good read in this regard is Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God : A Scientist's Search For Common Ground Between God and Evolution, though I've found more joy in the lectures of Prof. Jeffrey Sch[loss]'

I thought I might as well share a recent video by Jeffrey Schloss


"Evolution and Religion" by Jeffrey Schloss

For more type Jeff's name into the Multimedia section at Faraday = http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php

Obviously there's more and it's worth it to keep up-to-date.

Now back to reading this awesome thread.  Thanks so much to everyone for fairness in participation and making this thread a joy to read.

Blessings,
Eric 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 8:17:29 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Finally, on the off-chance you get to visit Faraday Institute of Science and Religion, I definitely would recommend the even flowing lectures of Dr. David Lahti. (I think I referred to him in my OP)

Here's a snap shot: Interview with Dr. David Lahti

 

There are a few good lectures on at Faraday. So enjoy.  Peace, Eric. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 9:46:11 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
Animals operate by instinct and are not rational, while humans have free will. Man also has reason and intelligence and can understand, while animals cannot. Animals are also devoid of the moral intuition called conscience. 

Psychologically, the issue is very complicated. First of all, there is a difference in the ability to represent reality, resources, consequences and available options due to our superior developement of executive functions. This difference is biological, but some animals exibit rudiments of this same ability (namely chimpanzees, dolphins, etc.)

We have absolutely no reason to exclude this difference from evolved traits. Infact, there are several simple mechanisms outlined by many authors, showing many ways in which those qualitative differences may have arisen from evolution. Mechanistically, those traits do not imply free will, at all. Infact, most scientists in the field would swear that human beings have no such thing as free will, and you and I are machines.

There are different outlooks, coming from quantum physics, which I subscribe, but a long story short they do not easily belong here.

Insinct, though, is not absent from human reason, whether free or determined. Infact, complex forms of human thought exist because of the more primitive layers of our cognitive, sensorial and emotional functioning: they are based on them.

Intelligence is strictly related with our linguistic ability as well, although not exclusively dependent upon it.

To a complex issue I can only retort that, from a perspective taking many disciplines into account, not all of them scientific, it is our spirit and not our material component, which distinguishes us from animals.

Quoting AERYCK,
Post 78 : 'Divine Creativity was never limited to one way of doing things, and I don't dare to imagine to limit it that way in my life as well.'

Although loosely connected, my statement was not about evolution.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 2:06:38 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Post 140 - Although loosely connected, my statement was not about evolution.

If anyone was following the flow of the discussion which was actually a response to something written by someone else (post 71 ) would have noticed that. 

Now it's my turn:

Your thought : '....it is our spirit and not our material component, which distinguishes us from animals.'

Looking at this from a totally different angle though I am only fragrantly aware of some of the disciplines of which you speak ( Listen to the latest panel discussion at Faraday Institute: "Brain, Mind, Neurons and Free-Will chaired by Dr. Dennis Alexander )   I must say that I was mildly satisfied, but nevertheless intrigued.  

I used to hold to the divisions but find that there's less need now and probably because I've been moving away from dualism.  There's a pretty good lecture of two by Revd. Dr. Fraser Watts that I find really take me to a place where I find that I can better hold onto the ideas being expressed by Science and Religion, in particular psychology. - ref. Relating Psychology and Theology: Distinctive Features and Methodological Principles (2007) and Theological Issues Raised by Neuroscience (2009) He frightens me a bit but not nearly as much as my studies which touch on Carl Gustav Jung.  I'm still pretty much a babe in the woods, hey but that's the fun about challenging our mental faculties.

Here's something fairly recent that might be worth it all:

Part 2 ( a very interesting lecture starting with the matter of prayer)

 

Peace,
Eric. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 2:57:38 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Oh, but it's quite certain that we have free will. It's just that the average cognitive scientist is... well, generally, very dumb would describe the condition appropriately, but perhaps it isn't the proper term. Narrow-minded comes to mind as well.

Actually, the fact is that due to the ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness ) hard problem of consciousness, and the problem of the observer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_measurement , nice experiment: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement ) a properly structured psychology today requires a metaphysics to exist.

The lateralization of brain functions is a largely overexploited tropon, and personally, I look to those who speak of that with mild skepticism.

Jung is not scary I guess, he was in a way a brave pioneer whose explorations are fascinating and yet may largely be useless. It's a dangerous kind of explorations, the ones within, and one should keep in mind that images mislead, unless you keep the absolute, remote source in mind. As someone who operates and studies post doc in the field of counseling, clinical psychology, etc., I must confess that often, psychologists arise in me a sense of ill-hidden charlatanism. Jung has fascinated me for a decade, but lately I am less in awe, and more critical of his ideas, and more so, practices. Jungians often dabble in magic (oh, yes, magic), tarot, astrology, suggest sacrifices to pagan gods (a non-necessary alchemical malpractice) and believe they can manipulate forces they don't really understand.

"Do not turn to mediums or seek out spirits, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God … I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people" (Leviticus 19:31, Lev. 20:6).

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord , and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you" (Deuteronomy 18:10-13).


"When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn" (Isaiah 8:19-20).


"All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They cannot even save themselves from the power of the flame. Here are no coals to warm anyone; here is no fire to sit by" (Isaiah 47:13-14).


"So do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your interpreters of dreams, your mediums or your sorcerers who tell you, 'You will not serve the king of Babylon.' They prophesy lies to you that will only serve to remove you far from your lands; I will banish you and you will perish" (Jeremiah 27:9-10).


"Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. … Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:20-23).


"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30).


"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21)

I'll listen to the audio with interest, yet there are already serious and accessible books available covering the subject satisfactorily. The fundamental assumption that quantum phenomena are involved in consciousness, is quite believable.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 4:55:08 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

We we try to deconstruct the elements of a God only imagined and then reassemble those pieces into an imagined "factual" God we end up back where we started..."imagining".

If an actual God can be experienced then the experiences that we can rightly identify are the only clues we have that shed light on the truth of what such a being is truly like.

Skeptics deconstruct religious descriptions of God as literal elements--with little or often incorrect context and sifting between purely humanistic religious constructs and actual spiritual encounters.  In their minds, the claims of spiritual experiences and traditional religious dogma are inseparable--they are non sequiturs that need examination only to prove their lack of substance or credibility.

So all the legos get dumped by them in to the "religious toy box"  and then each skeptic reaches in and grabs the legos he or she wants to show "aren't real".  They merge the spiritual with superstition, tradition, religious texts and bits and pieces of science and philosophy and psychology and then proclaim, "See?  I have proved your "God" isn't real!".

The blind leading the blind.

Religion can and quite often does function in exactly the same way.  We reverse the process and proclaim, "See?  I have proved God is real!".

Both of these things are equally religious acts.  They reflect an expression of will to "make" something we imagine be true.  The degree of objectivity self-discernment we are able to have is the only safeguard to accuracy.

If there is an actual God, then these exercises are not sufficient to explain it fully--or even at all.  We are trying to envision a being that exists on a level and in a dimension that is only accessible to us when that being reaches out to  us.

Scientific method and spiritual experience do actually compliment one another but to do so, one must have the correct theorization and not only observe an experiment but also be part of it.  you can not observe the spiritual from without and then also understand the nature of the experience--all you can observe is the effect on the person having the experience.

If you want to really "study" people of faith, then you need to properly categorize them.  Those who successfully live their faith and excel at demonstrating it in their lives are not necessarily the same as those who are indistinguishable from any other person who has no "faith".  A person who is psychologically self-deceived or even deluded is not the standard for all others either.

Studying the self-deceived will reveal certain aspects of the nature of such people and studying the highly motivated and functional practitioners of a belief will show something else too.

I can study depressed people and happy people but I can not lump them all together and say, "There's no difference between them.".  The same is true of people claiming to have had a spiritual experience.  If you don't examine closely enough to be able to separate these people and their experiences, you will never come to understand them.

So when you're saying "average scientists are dumb"--I get your point.

For you skeptics out there who can't understand why all believers are "so stupid"...maybe you aren't really listening.  Nothing is more annoying than a person who ignores your experiences...defines you by their own biased, internal and imagined perceptions of you and then "insists" that you admit they are right.

It's offensive and stupid when religious persons do this but it is exactly as stupid when a non-religious person does it.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 5:42:43 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

If it was a matter of recognizing experiences, the problem would be very limited. Though I didn't say that scientists are dumb, I said that the average cognitive scientist is dumb.

Which, for someone who interacts with the category frequently (average cognitive scientists), I say because of experience, I am afraid.

Cognitivism has been a disgrace of serious proportions, much more than a productive scientific fashion. It was based on a misplaced simplification of the argument under study, on inadequate experimental methodology, and founded more upon the unconscious desire of its proponents to be considered hard scientists, than on any real perception of the issues at hand in cognition, emotion and personality. It was also characterized, in clinical contexts, by a rejection of psychoanalysis, which ended in a now surfacing, hidden and half-hearted reproposition of much of what was rejected.

In psychotherapy, it is frequently evident that therapists don't know what they're doing more often than not, and that what they do works very badly or very temporarily. Despite the enormous proliferation of theories, or because of that maybe, one might say that clinical success is becoming more difficult to achieve. Perhaps the lack of an underlying unifying theory is a motive as well. Social factors aside, that is.

From a theorical perspective on the other hand, as Jerry Fodor put it, in the title of a book based on a series of conferences he held on cognitivism, the mind doesn't work this way.

Now, technical discussions aside, it may be sad for an everage proponent of the Tolemaic system, to be labeled dumb by a Copernican. Subjective issues and nonviolent communications and the like aside, often there is much truth to what we find offensive.

Although in parallel situations, I have always found more solace in learning from mistakes or either refuting the criticism, than asking personal recognition.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 26, 2012 6:25:28 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

"a misplaced simplification of the argument"

Says it all.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 27, 2012 12:49:27 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Post 142: 'I'll listen to the audio with interest, yet there are already serious and accessible books available covering the subject satisfactorily. The fundamental assumption that quantum phenomena are involved in consciousness, is quite believable.' 

I enjoyed both your comments immensely and eventually found myself thinking about Jesus's reactions in John 9 , Matthew 12 and Luke 11 and finally after Post 145 I was totally focussed on Mark 1. (NIV - biblegateway )

I found Revd. Dr. Fraser Watts the most engaging of the lot as he doesn't collapse to the reductionist.  He's got a gentle and positive approach to healing and I like that.

Have you read either Dr. Richard Ganz or Dr. Jay E Adams? or perhaps Tom Wright's book 'Virtue REBORN' ?

Another great thinker and writer of our time who has impressed me most deeply is Tim Keller. (esp. his book 'The Reason for God')

If you have any recommended reads don't be shy. 

Here is a lecture that I enjoyed immensely:

Video Information: Tim Keller visits Google's Mountain View, CA, headquarters to discuss his book, "The Reason for God." This event took place on March 5, 2008, as part of the Authors@Google series.

Peace,

Eric

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 27, 2012 3:40:22 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting AERYCK,
If you have any recommended reads don't be shy.

This one might be a decent start: http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Quantum-Mechanics-Frontiers-Collection/dp/3540407618

Quoting Sinperium,

"a misplaced simplification of the argument"

Says it all.

Possibly, it says that this is a gaming forum!

But an example comes to mind: reification results in people becoming prisoners of the metaphors they use to explore reality, so that these become obstacles more than instruments (a familiar cognitive tenet, as well). This happened with the metaphor of life as mechanical clockwork during enlightenment, of science as discovery of truth during positivism, and it couldn't be avoided with that of "mind as a computer".

With hindisight, maybe this was foreseeable. If I state that the mind is like a computer, it is somehow like saying that a computer is like a pocket calculator: there is loss of information in my comparison. In other words, I am making an undue simplification. In the latter case, the simplification is less serious than in the former, obviously, because the loss of information is far less important.

Quoting AERYCK,
I enjoyed both your comments immensely and eventually found myself thinking about Jesus's reactions in John 9 , Matthew 12 and Luke 11 and finally after Post 145 I was totally focussed on Mark 1. (NIV - biblegateway )

Matthew 7 19,20 comes to mind as well, don't you think.

Quoting AERYCK,
I found Revd. Dr. Fraser Watts the most engaging of the lot as he doesn't collapse to the reductionist.  He's got a gentle and positive approach to healing and I like that.

Have you read either Dr. Richard Ganz or Dr. Jay E Adams? or perhaps Tom Wright's book 'Virtue REBORN' ?

Another great thinker and writer of our time who has impressed me most deeply is Tim Keller. (esp. his book 'The Reason for God')

...

Here is a lecture that I enjoyed immensely:



Video Information: Tim Keller visits Google's Mountain View, CA, headquarters to discuss his book, "The Reason for God." This event took place on March 5, 2008, as part of the Authors@Google series.

Peace,

Eric

My perspective on the subject comes from one of my interests, TransPersonal Psychology (whose scientific status is very troublesome, and yet it has some interesting developements), from research, and studies, more than religious upbringing. Infact, I was an atheist for a large part of my younger years, so really I have little in terms of acquaintance with the religious background, protestant, reformed or catholic.

I am thus familiar with the passages you quoted as it comes to healing, but more so because those are customary quotes in masters and similar training programs about TPP. As such I have little to offer in terms of contemporary religious sources, I'm afraid.

Quoting Sinperium,
We we try to deconstruct the elements of a God only imagined and then reassemble those pieces into an imagined "factual" God we end up back where we started..."imagining".

If an actual God can be experienced then the experiences that we can rightly identify are the only clues we have that shed light on the truth of what such a being is truly like.

That's what I thought a few years ago. Then it occurred to me, by direct experience, that there's a form of intellect that doesn't come through images.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

 
Hebrew אנק לא ךיהלא הוהי יכנא יכ םדבעת אלו םהל הוחתשת-אל
:יאנשל םיעבר-לעו םישלש-לע םינב-לע תבא ןוע דקפ
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 27, 2012 4:56:07 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I might be the most annoying troll in these forums but you guys are the biggest trolls in the Universe:

 

I'm going to say this once again and thats:

 

You! can't! Prove! the Existence! of! God! because! he/she/it/they! lives! beyond! our! Realm! of! Understanding! 

 

If you don't understand what i have just said then you conclude by hypothesis of you being the biggest troll in the universe.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 27, 2012 5:00:54 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

all universes

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 27, 2012 5:20:56 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Let us pause an instant to reflect. If we are the biggest trolls in this or every universe, and we are on these forums, you can't be the biggest troll in these forums, because we are bigger than you are (given that these forums are in the universe, thus by your definition this makes us bigger trolls than you are as you are in this universe as well). On the other hand, if you are the biggest troll in these forums, we cannot be bigger trolls than you are, so we can't be the biggest trolls in the universe.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108436  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0001516   Page Render Time: