Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (22784)	10/25/2005 12:19:43 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 28931

<When an assertion can be "proved" in the scientific sense, then it may be accepted (at least temporarily) as reflecting reality.> Wait a second... accepted by whom?? The existance of 'god' is accepted by most of the planet in one way or another. <The importance of trying to comprehend reality is to justify how one ought to live and ought to act.> Absolutely!! < If there is no basis for an assertion such as "God exists" then the assertion is rationally denied. This doesn't mean one cannot assert, It just means that such an assertion may rationally be denied. But WHAT basis... are you talking scientific proof or??? If one has 'an experience' that is plenty basis for that person... another might say 'hogwash'... which for him is reality. <Just appreciate that if all of us abandon rational and critical thought then we abandon science and logic and human progress.> Agreed... and that would be stupid... the progress is astounding and wonderful. HOWEVER... this all depends on how one contextualizes science, logic, etc. My understanding is that science is a {limited} tool... logic also, although I would presume less limited. That is not to say that they aren't incredibly powerful, wonderful, and create bountiful results. This brings up the modern problem of science become contextualized as god. If something isn't scientifically proven... it's false. This goes against the very basis of science itself... something not proven simply means one doesn't know. One of course has suspicions, but lack of proof of 'god' is simply lack of proof of god {light dark example vs dualism}... it does NOT equal 'no god'. Science doesn't even pretend to deal with LOVE, compassion, etc etc etc. That has always been the realm of philosphy and lately psychology, and of course spirituality {religions etc}. Same with god as far as I know... I think your statement at the top overemphasises 'science' in the persuit of god... I think philosophy is more correct. <So when he talks about "burden of proof", he means IF you wish to have your proposition considered in the community of critical thinkers and rational humans.> Yea, I still think he's way off... the list of "critical thinkers" {PHD's and famous scientists to boot} who believe[d] in god based simply on their own lifes experience is long indeed. I just disagree with him, I think he's entirely missed it. JMO <But keep in mind that reality is a harsh teacher toward those whom have no respect for her. > Buddhist and Toaist 'masters' and practicioners spent literally thousands of years 'observing' and painstakingly passing down {sometimes written} their version of reality. In the west we superimpose our religious history onto all religious history {natural human tendancy of course} and assume it's all just as convoluted. It's resulted in {until recently} total ignorance of their advances in the fields of psychology and health practices. <it don't much matter to the universe whether or not you believe you are stepping into the air or having sex with a cloud.> LOL!!!!!!!!! On one level, that's ALL that matters! "Intention" and conciousness, an ancient teaching of the Buddha now being studied by the advanced in the field of physics as the ultimate reality. amazon.com <The universe will answer you.> You ARE the universe. :)) amazon.com DAK