Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,280
- Reactions
- 11,531
I find it surprising that you would think your writings to be un-readable.I also find it surprising that some one as intelligent and articulate as yourself would have such a 'clinical' opinion on the subject of soul-no soul/ faith-beliefs.kennas said:It solves all the worlds problems of course!
Including if reincarnation actually exists. (back on topic)
It's pretty average really. Almost unreadable.
kennas said:Some of the Army experiences are in there, but it's fiction really. A travel book with the main character travelling around the world seeing these amazing things and meeting all these incredible people with specific insights into how the world works. The characters are based on historical figures like JC, Muhummad, The Buddha, Dr Who, Rafa, Wayne, etc. Topics like those discussed in this forum will all be attacked. Will have to add in a Snake and a Nelly now.....
Rafa said:...WayneL point of view (even tho he doesn't believe in a God)
ducati916 said:PROSELYTIZATION
But a classic nonetheless.
jog on
d998
Whoops.... Sorry for the misinterpretation... Regardless, still agree with your point of view....wayneL said:Whoa there Saphire! I never said that. I just don't buy religions image of God.
Cheers
Mornin' Wayne..wayneL said:Whoa there Saphire! I never said that. I just don't buy religions image of God.
Cheers
With respect kennas, I think this misrepresents Paul Davies' work and I'm sure that his work is not the basis of "ID". This link is to Davies' address on receiving the Templeton Prize, which I think is the one you're talking about (?) http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9508/davies.htmlkennas said:The numbers are 1 in 10 to the power of 100. That's a big number!
A very famous physicist called Paul Davies from Adelaide (of all places) won the equivalent of the Nobel Prise for religion a number of years ago for proving it statistically impossible for the earth to exist without a designer. This was probably the basis of ID, which is actually outlawed from most school curriculums.
Where do we human beings fit into this great cosmic scheme? Can we gaze out into the cosmos, as did our remote ancestors, and declare: "God made all this for us"? I think not. Are we then but an accident of nature, the freakish outcome of blind and purposeless forces, incidental by- product of a mindless, mechanistic universe? I reject that, too. The emergence of life and consciousness, I maintain, are written into the laws of the universe in a very basic way. True, the actual physical form and general mental make-up of Homo sapiens contain many accidental features of no particular significance. If the universe were rerun a second time, there would be no solar system, no Earth, and no people. But the emergence of life and consciousness somewhere and somewhen in the cosmos is, I believe, assured by the underlying laws of nature. The origin of life and consciousness were not interventionist miracles, but nor were they stupendously improbable accidents. They were, I believe, part of the natural outworking of the laws of nature, and as such our existence as conscious enquiring beings springs ultimately from the bedrock of physical existence-those ingenious, felicitous laws. That is the sense in which I wrote in The Mind of God: "We are truly meant to be here." I mean "we" in the sense of conscious beings, not Homo sapiens specifically. Thus although we are not at the center of the universe, human existence does have a powerful wider significance. Whatever the universe as a whole may be about, the scientific evidence suggests that we, in some limited yet ultimately still profound way, are an integral part of its purpose.
How can we test these ideas scientifically? One of the great challenges to science is to understand the nature of consciousness in general and human consciousness in particular. We still have no clue how mind and matter are related, or what process led to the emergence of mind from matter in the first place. This is an area of research that is attracting considerable attention at present, and for my part I intend to pursue my own research in this field. I expect that when we do come to understand how consciousness fits into the physical universe, my contention that mind is an emergent and in principle predictable product of the laws of the universe will be borne out.
nelly said:Mornin' Wayne..
.....'religions.'.... Anyone in particular or all of them? I used to think [when it didn't hurt so much] that MY God was one that existed by my set of rules.......I consider myself not so naive now......[someone is going to comment on the 'naive']...
I'd be interested to hear your opinion
Cheers...
mornin' Wayne..wayneL said:In all religions where God is named/defined, God is personified with human charactaristics... jealosy, anger, revenge, racism, need to be worshipped, etc.
I don't buy it. I have my own ideas of course, but am humble enough to realise that it is my own construction from my imagination.
I contend that any human ideas about God can only be a construction. Hence the very foundation of religious dogma could be entirely wrong.
Morning Kennas,kennas said:Wayne, I agree with you in regard to the construction of the idea of 'God' here. I am sure no two people on the planet could describe God in the same way. This is one of the Mystics approach to God: It is a totally individual experience.
Kennas I can't and wouldn't presume to answer for anyone else on this one, but IMO it is not about 'organised'... more like..like minded[in faith] people supporting each other, even the most devout have problems with faith, [usually to do with focus] living in the world today who wouldn't? I do not agree with a lot of things people have done and will continue to do in the name of their faith, but that is driven by man not from anything in the Bible..[I only have a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible atm regards to quotes]kennas said:Hey Nelly,
If it's personal experience why have organised religion??
nelly said:The one thing I can say is to keep it simple and don't get caught up in the 'slants' that man puts on Gospel.
I suppose the trick is to read it.
For those who don't beleive in GOD, read the GOSPELS, but ignore the GOD references.... what do you have left... Do unto others as you would like others do unto you....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?