And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It begins with the premise of a 14 billion year old universe. Really? And what was before that? And where did all this "stuff" come from? Either EVERYTHING is the divine, or you've truly missed the point. And if EVERYTHING is inherently the divine, then a discussion about an "edge" is also pointless, as it is all already the divine, will always only be the divine, and is only perceived to be not the divine because of our limited perception, trapped in our perceived body-mind condition of existence.
The "God" argument, being a creative intelligence, without mass, outside the universe, is presently the best scientific explanation for what we see but that is increasingly unacceptable as we decline into being completely self centered. Imagine we are all that is and the all is just for our creator's pleasure (and ours as we look at the universe and are amazed).
Define "divinity" so we have a context for the discussion! Difficult, or rather impossible, isn't it? Science has enough proof for the big bang origin, but what exactly triggered the big bang? Someone or something must have triggered the event, since causality is self-referential, but who or what had "lit the fuse" is incomprehensible for our limited minds. From my perspective the whole organized religion thing is a feeble attempt to explain the unexplainable, much too often misused for power and influence so I prefer to ignore it. What anybody else is thinking is their choice, but in a scientific discussion let's keep it to facts and leave dogma out of it...
I don't see what the contradiction between my acknowledging an agnostic standing with refusing to speculate based on the dogma of organized religion. If you want to define "God" as that which triggered the big bang, all good and well but that gives no real base for the discussion since it is just the label without ontological context. As for love and beauty, science do describe the mechanism by which they manifest, but their meaning is rather philosophical. I'm not familiar enough neither with aesthetics nor with metaphysics to try explaining them, but there is a lot of literature on the topics which may give us a glimpse in the topics if not fully explaining them. In contrast I fully admit that there are things which we don't understand and cannot understand - they are beyond the capability of human reason, and the existence or non-existence of "God" is the premier topic for this limitation.
Uhh...
ReplyDeleteBuckle up. The Simulation has started.
ReplyDeleteYou can't get there from here.
ReplyDeleteIt begins with the premise of a 14 billion year old universe. Really? And what was before that? And where did all this "stuff" come from? Either EVERYTHING is the divine, or you've truly missed the point. And if EVERYTHING is inherently the divine, then a discussion about an "edge" is also pointless, as it is all already the divine, will always only be the divine, and is only perceived to be not the divine because of our limited perception, trapped in our perceived body-mind condition of existence.
ReplyDeleteThe "God" argument, being a creative intelligence, without mass, outside the universe, is presently the best scientific explanation for what we see but that is increasingly unacceptable as we decline into being completely self centered. Imagine we are all that is and the all is just for our creator's pleasure (and ours as we look at the universe and are amazed).
DeleteDefine "divinity" so we have a context for the discussion! Difficult, or rather impossible, isn't it? Science has enough proof for the big bang origin, but what exactly triggered the big bang? Someone or something must have triggered the event, since causality is self-referential, but who or what had "lit the fuse" is incomprehensible for our limited minds. From my perspective the whole organized religion thing is a feeble attempt to explain the unexplainable, much too often misused for power and influence so I prefer to ignore it. What anybody else is thinking is their choice, but in a scientific discussion let's keep it to facts and leave dogma out of it...
ReplyDeleteYou're funny. You admit that some answers lie outside the realm of science, and in the next breath deny that any such thing exists.
DeleteScience has no answer as to why you love your children or why a sunset is beautiful.
I don't see what the contradiction between my acknowledging an agnostic standing with refusing to speculate based on the dogma of organized religion. If you want to define "God" as that which triggered the big bang, all good and well but that gives no real base for the discussion since it is just the label without ontological context.
DeleteAs for love and beauty, science do describe the mechanism by which they manifest, but their meaning is rather philosophical. I'm not familiar enough neither with aesthetics nor with metaphysics to try explaining them, but there is a lot of literature on the topics which may give us a glimpse in the topics if not fully explaining them.
In contrast I fully admit that there are things which we don't understand and cannot understand - they are beyond the capability of human reason, and the existence or non-existence of "God" is the premier topic for this limitation.