|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
endofthewor1d
Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Location: the end of the wor1d.
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Therefore, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of a personal God conceiving it. Some people object tthat mathematical equations are not the principles ruling the universe, but they are only a representation imagined by man ...This argument does not stand...It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics without admitting that the state of the universe ...must necessarily be determined by some specific mathematical laws. The existence of these mathematical laws implies the existence of a personal, conscious and intelligent Creator. Atheism is incompatible with the view of the universe presented by modern science." |
rteacher, i know that's not actually your quote, but it's close enough considering it's your argument, and i don't feel like messing around with the quote buttons.
anyway... none of that proves - or even implies - that a personal god exists, as the author claims. the only thing it proves is that there's still more stuff we don't understand yet. that has been the cause for every god man has ever created. why does the sun go around the earth? because there's a god in a flaming chariot riding around in the sky. the more we find out, the more gods drop out of existance. most of us are down to only one, and even he's gotten more sophisticated. people still aren't ready to let go of god, so they've turned him into a physicist. we can't see anything smaller than quarks? then god must have made quarks. there's proof of the existance of god! oh wait... there's something smaller than quarks.... then god must have made those!
we don't understand why gravity pulls stuff together. because god wants stuff to come together. absolute proof! you don't have a complete and total understanding of consciousness yet? it's because it's god's work! proof!
sketchy, if you ask me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sonofthedarkstranger
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with the end. Nothing's been proved here. To prove something, you need to connect A to B, B to C, C to D and so on down to Z.
There are some big leaps in this guys thinking.
He's skipped a few letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, you guys gangin' up on me? Or is really just one person: "stranger-sonofthe-endofdarkworld?" Anyway, that Biagini fella's argument still seems logically valid to me - though it's probably not perfect - or complete. (By the way, he defines the soul as "the cause of the existence of our consciousness")
All human beings conditioned by material nature are subject to the following four basic defects: imperfect senses, tendency to make mistakes, tendency to fall into illusion and tendency to cheat. No scientist or religionist or whatever is exempt from these defects. People who cheat in the name of religion are especially bad, because they turn many people off who otherwise might take to a spiritual path. So-called big scientists who are envious of God also should be exposed when they bluff and cheat in the name of Science.
Mere theory is not science. Science means observation and experimental proof. You observe how rules are working, and when you practically bring them to bear in your experiment, then it is science. If you just simply theorize, that is not science - just mental speculation. Too much emphasis has been put on Darwinian theory, and it really has no sound basis - especially with regard to conscious life evolving from dead matter. I think Biagini logically proves not only that science has yet to logically explain consciousness, but that it can never logically explain consciousness - and because everything else can be explained by the laws of physics, therefore the cause of consciousness must be nonphysical - beyond the jurisdiction of physics...
Anyway if there is such a thing as perfect knowledge it will never be discovered by imperfect conditioned souls whose consciousness is polluted by material contamination. The spiritual science of self-realization begins when we realize that we are not these material bodies, but are the undying, eternally conscious soul within these gross and subtle bodies. Most people don't realize it yet, but the song "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison probably helped millions of lost souls advance spiritually by hearing transcendental Holy Names that penetrate all material coverings of the spirit-soul and help revive our natural God consciousness.
http://introduction.krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00066.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sonofthedarkstranger
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
endofthewor1d enjoys full autonomy from me. We are not the same.
| Quote: |
| Mere theory is not science. Science means observation and experimental proof. You observe how rules are working, and when you practically bring them to bear in your experiment, then it is science. If you just simply theorize, that is not science - just mental speculation. |
I agree. Unfourtunately, speculation is just what this Bangnini is doing.
I will happily grant that scinece has no explanation for consciousness beyond "chemical interchanges." It's clear that that's just a stab in the most likely direction with very little soild undersatnding underlying that theory. And consciousness is indeed a strange and beguiling phenomena, at least it seems so, and we may never be able to "get it." I'm with you that far. Now we're at the chasm. Where's God? I hope he's nearby, beacuse Bangnini has forsaken me.
| Quote: |
| Too much emphasis has been put on Darwinian theory, and it really has no sound basis - especially with regard to conscious life evolving from dead matter. |
No sound basis? Are you for real?
First off, it is more appropriate to speak of evolutionary theory than "Darwinian theory," as Darwin seems to have been wrong about a few things, and in any case, the theory is not about him and should have the freedom to move away from his ideas if need be.
That aside, there's still much that hasn't been explained by evoultionary theory. That's fine. We're learning as we go along, testing and revising hypotheses. But NO SOUND BASIS? There are mountains, veritable mountains of evidence in support of the basic idea. Physical evidence.
As for life evolving from dead matter....I think that's beyond the scope of evolution theory, which goes to how and why species change over time. I any case, this is another example of something we don't fully grasp at this point in time (and maybe we'll never adequately grasp it--hard to prove for sure that things went down a certain way 4.5 billion years ago)). And so, we are back at that chasm, with the Lord waiting on the other side for the good Mr Bangnini to escort us across.
| Quote: |
| I think Biagini logically proves not only that science has yet to logically explain consciousness, but that it can never logically explain consciousness - and because everything else can be explained by the laws of physics, therefore the cause of consciousness must be nonphysical - beyond the jurisdiction of physics... |
That science has not explained cosnciousness adequatrely requires no proof.
That it will NEVER be able to do so---where exactly does he prove that, again? I must have missed that part.
And even if the etiology of consciousness is nonphysical, and beyond the jurisdicytion of physiccs, does that mean it's beyond the juridsiction of science?
Without bringing my own views on the divine into this, I will close by saying that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator or a soul. Just speculation, logic, and wonder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Most people don't realize it yet, but the song "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison probably helped millions of lost souls advance spiritually by hearing transcendental Holy Names that penetrate all material coverings of the spirit-soul and help revive our natural God consciousness. |
I can believe that I have advanced spiritually through listening to George Harrison, but I can't swallow that it was because he put holy names in the song, any more than I believe that holy water is really 'holy' or that Muhammed is god's true prophet, or that I need to be audited with an E-meter. If you have proof that your religion is 'truer' or 'more accurate' than others I'd sure like to hear it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:56 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Wow.
I just now read this whole deal.
1) I've seen human existence traced back as far 4 million years. The date for such existence has been repeatedly pushed back. Anyone who claims to pinpoint the beginning of humans is full of bull. It changes regularly. NO ONE has conclusively proven anything about a footprint in Mexico.
Keep your minds open.
2) As for RSTeacher and the VEDA. Nice points, but your concept could easily be claimed by Christians. Sadly, we Americans are engaged in an actual debate about "intelligent design". I'd be interested in your views on this.
Scientifically speaking, I understand there are the following theories:
1) Life began around volcanic ocean vents.
2) Life began by lightning striking the ocean's surface. Apparently, studies of this have produced amino acids, a pre-cursor to life.
3) Life was transplanted here by a lucky meteorite bearing life material.
I'll go with door number 3.
Our mission should be to get off this planet.
To clarify: with millions of years left to spare. Humans are slow. We can always bring the Veda across the Milky Way... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, I'd like to reply especially to the question why I think my "religion" is the best...(and my thoughts on "intelligent design") but I've got to catch a plane back to the states, and I'm basically avoiding answering anything right now (OK, I'm burned out...) When I return to Korea in a couple weeks it'll be right before Krishna's appearance day, and I should be inspired to write something about the science of bhakti yoga as I fast till midnite (Saturday, August 27) followed by a vegetarian feast of foods that Krishna liked when He personally visited our planet 5000 years ago. (...There will be a few other Krishna devotees in Seoul at that time - if anyone is interested in joining our celebration let me know.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:03 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
My Sweet Lord! Sounds like you're busy.
Sorry. Just felt the need to do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| ...2) As for RSTeacher and the VEDA. Nice points, but your concept could easily be claimed by Christians. Sadly, we Americans are engaged in an actual debate about "intelligent design". I'd be interested in your views on this. |
Or even something as simple as the basic reality that all things truly ar connected. Every smidgen of matter/energy interacts with that around it... I don't think we need any greater explanation than that. Why we kill each other over our various conceptions of just what form that does or can take is beyond me. (Not really. I get it, it just seems rather illogical and ridiculous.)
| Quote: |
Scientifically speaking, I understand there are the following theories:
1) Life began around volcanic ocean vents.
2) Life began by lightning striking the ocean's surface. Apparently, studies of this have produced amino acids, a pre-cursor to life.
3) Life was transplanted here by a lucky meteorite bearing life material. |
Yup. Why in only one fashion? Electricity run through some goop creates amino acids, for example. In fact, makes perfect sense to me that an eclectic view accepting all of these as possible founts of life would help explain the gaps, leaps and jumps in evolution quite well. It would also mean life is still being created and always will be...
Shhhhh! Don't tell God! And absolutely NEVER whisper such things to Bush! He'd go into coniptions and not be able to invade anymore countries... Oh, wait... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
I can believe that I have advanced spiritually through listening to George Harrison. |
another dumb post from Bulsajo, on his own thread as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
You don't believe in the spirituality inherent in music, or you're just not a George Harrison fan?
I imagine both since you're- of all things- using Don Henley lyrics in your sig line. 
Is that your idea of kitsch, or are you actually a fan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I dein this thread a worthy nominee for a "Dave's ESL Cafe (aka "Bo's Peabody...) "Thread of the Year" award; hence, I'll give it a bump... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey, "Gopher" just seconded the nomination so I'll go ahead and bump it again. (Also, I think the recent stem-cell controversy in Korea casts a large shadow of doubt over all scientific data - in every branch of science. They're all cheaters - ala Piltdown man - but it usually takes a long time to discover that they've somehow cheated. Compulsive cheaters - probably more per capita in Korea than anywhere else - tend to get caught more quickly...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
(Also, I think the recent stem-cell controversy in Korea casts a large shadow of doubt over all scientific data - in every branch of science. They're all cheaters - ala Piltdown man - but it usually takes a long time to discover that they've somehow cheated. Compulsive cheaters - probably more per capita in Korea than anywhere else - tend to get caught more quickly...)
|
Mr. Rteacher,
I beg to differ. I really, really beg to differ.
Scandals in the scientific world do occur. That's why you could refer to the Piltdown man.
You are (naturally) skipping over the scandals in the religious world--which occur far more often and affect many more lives. For example: Take Croesus. He sent out representatives to all the major religious centers in his world, asking if he should attack the Persian empire. He even devised a test. I forget what it was exactly and my copy of Herodotus is across the room and I'm too tired to crawl over and get it. But I'm sure you are familiar with it.
The outcome was that Croesus took the (misinterpreted) advice of Delphi and got himself tied to a post at the top of a pile of firewood.
There are far more examples of religious hanky panky than there are of scientific bamboozeling. Take my word for it. (  )
Just cast your mind back about 15 years to Jimmy Swaggart and his whores. Jim and Tammy Faye...
There are far, FAR more examples of religious scamming than deliberate scientific scamming because the scientists can expect to get caught by peer review. Who is going to call the Pope's bluff on papal infallibility? Preacher Ted down at the Third Street Store Front Evangelical Full-Submersion and Kool-Aide Gospel Hour Church of the All Divine? I think not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll expand my idea by stating that practically all scientists and religionists are cheaters (some being slicker than others...) Science obviously has a rigorous system of "checks and balences", but it is still corruptible. Religion at its best - the Vedic parampara system of authorized spiritual masters - also has a well-defined system of "checks and balences".
All humans in the material world have four basic imperfections including the propensity to cheat (that's why we ended up in this gigantic prison of material existence.) The other imperfections, as I've noted before, are that we must make mistakes, we have imperfect senses, and we fall under illusion. With these basic defects we can never arrive at perfect knowledge by any ascending system based on direct evidence and speculation.
I don't think that religion and science are necessarily adversarial, however. That's why I accept the idea of a synthesis of science and religion (which I can't elaborate on right now 'cause I've to catch a bus into Seoul for an appointment...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
