Eliyahu I am the parent of a child and the last thing I'd want to do is abandon him at birth to learn his way on his own, as his creator I'm obligated to guide him throught this live untill he can walk on his own. Should a god not do the same for his creation? He/she/it would surely see how lost humans are, we can't walk on our own yet.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Never make assumptions.
- Thread starter motiv311
- Start date
I didn't mean If I had a child I would raise them by totally abandoning them. I'm saying I would want my child to have the ability to figure things out on their own.
My point is if a child is given every answer then how can that child learn to use his/her deductive reasoning ability?
Reminds me of an old saying..
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime"
In my opinion not all humans are lost, just the ones that are wandering around aimlessly unsure of what they are looking for.
I also believe that we as human beings have been given every bit of information that we need in order to progress. In my opinion we also have every evolutionary Tool that we need at our immediate disposal. IMHO all one has to do is pay attention in order to not be lost and unable to stand on their own etc.
My point is if a child is given every answer then how can that child learn to use his/her deductive reasoning ability?
Reminds me of an old saying..
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime"
In my opinion not all humans are lost, just the ones that are wandering around aimlessly unsure of what they are looking for.
I also believe that we as human beings have been given every bit of information that we need in order to progress. In my opinion we also have every evolutionary Tool that we need at our immediate disposal. IMHO all one has to do is pay attention in order to not be lost and unable to stand on their own etc.
I know what you ment.
Why can god/creator not show some presence without giving us all the answers?
I don't give my son every answer I just guide him to learn for himself, should a god not do the same for his children?
It will always go in circles, one can live under the illusion that they were specifically created by a god, or one can chose to live knowning they don't know why things are. You have ventured far from the evidence of god from dmt to trying to explain the lack of evidence of a god as evidence in its self of a god.
Why can god/creator not show some presence without giving us all the answers?
I don't give my son every answer I just guide him to learn for himself, should a god not do the same for his children?
It will always go in circles, one can live under the illusion that they were specifically created by a god, or one can chose to live knowning they don't know why things are. You have ventured far from the evidence of god from dmt to trying to explain the lack of evidence of a god as evidence in its self of a god.
[/quote]
I understand you have some pretty wild theories, Eliyahu, but lets try to keep the discussion in the realm of science where possible. [/quote]
That statement drives me nuts. It's like hearing a fundamentalist telling people they wrong, and Jesus Christ is Lord and your all going to hell.
I know there are a lot of science heads out there and I'm not trying to knock science, I'm just saying it is only the objective way of looking and things and mythology is just as valid. Any language is like this. Only choosing one because you can't understand the others is like rejecting all culture but your own, rather than having all cultures to draw from artistically and linguistically. After all, we are just describing things that don't exist as such anyway since all things always change. When you look at a cloud, do you see water molecules condensing and clumping together or do see shapes of animals and streams? Either way, you are not wrong.
To each their own, but I would never use such limiting language. Safe travels.
I understand you have some pretty wild theories, Eliyahu, but lets try to keep the discussion in the realm of science where possible. [/quote]
That statement drives me nuts. It's like hearing a fundamentalist telling people they wrong, and Jesus Christ is Lord and your all going to hell.
I know there are a lot of science heads out there and I'm not trying to knock science, I'm just saying it is only the objective way of looking and things and mythology is just as valid. Any language is like this. Only choosing one because you can't understand the others is like rejecting all culture but your own, rather than having all cultures to draw from artistically and linguistically. After all, we are just describing things that don't exist as such anyway since all things always change. When you look at a cloud, do you see water molecules condensing and clumping together or do see shapes of animals and streams? Either way, you are not wrong.
To each their own, but I would never use such limiting language. Safe travels.
But I think in the quote it was reply to a matter of the age of the universe and it was in proper place, but in general relating to using science as the base:
I agree science is rather limited, we definately need to discuss new ideas that science can't grasp(like hyperspace) and even if they seem like outrageous to some, well what's the harm?
Just like there used to be belief the world is flat, in similar manner we have our limitations in knowledge and in rare places like this where you can discuss things like hyperspace we definately should keep our minds open and not rely solely on science, even when we can use it as a good tool. Being realistic and scientific aren't always one and the same, even when some people think like that.
I agree science is rather limited, we definately need to discuss new ideas that science can't grasp(like hyperspace) and even if they seem like outrageous to some, well what's the harm?
Just like there used to be belief the world is flat, in similar manner we have our limitations in knowledge and in rare places like this where you can discuss things like hyperspace we definately should keep our minds open and not rely solely on science, even when we can use it as a good tool. Being realistic and scientific aren't always one and the same, even when some people think like that.
Ritalin.
I know where your coming from but actually I am thankful to a1pha for what he wrote to me.
Him and the other moderators are just trying to keep things palatable for all the science heads out there..his question actually served to help me illustrate why I believe the Mult-iverse may be trillions of years old..Now when some science buff reads this thread they will see the Michio Kaku videos and perhaps get where I'm coming from.
Sometimes I do in fact get carried away and need reminded that there are people reading this thread that have no idea what the heck I'm trying to say ...to those people I'm coming way out of left field with this stuff, so there is a need to be diplomatic IMO.
I believe we have to choose our words carefully so that people with opposing views might find some common ground to share...
Otherwise we are pretty much just preaching to the quire, right?
(Not that i'm preaching..lol...you know what I mean)
I know where your coming from but actually I am thankful to a1pha for what he wrote to me.
Him and the other moderators are just trying to keep things palatable for all the science heads out there..his question actually served to help me illustrate why I believe the Mult-iverse may be trillions of years old..Now when some science buff reads this thread they will see the Michio Kaku videos and perhaps get where I'm coming from.
Sometimes I do in fact get carried away and need reminded that there are people reading this thread that have no idea what the heck I'm trying to say ...to those people I'm coming way out of left field with this stuff, so there is a need to be diplomatic IMO.
I believe we have to choose our words carefully so that people with opposing views might find some common ground to share...
Otherwise we are pretty much just preaching to the quire, right?
(Not that i'm preaching..lol...you know what I mean)
Ritalin said:
-this is a good example actually, because maybe we have opposing views..
In my most humble opinion I do personally believe that Christ is Lord.
-ok now you may not agree with me but that sentence didn't sound as bad as if I would have said
--Christ is Lord! <<<<see the difference, one is easier to read right?
Oh and by the way....I do NOT believe anyone is going to hell for not believing in Christ. That would make no sense. It would mean almost all Native Americans and Indigenous peoples are going to hell...
According to my studies..."Hell" is actually a word born from an embellished misinterpretation of the Hebrew word "grave".
And yes everyone is going to the Grave...unless your cremated, then you really do end up in flames....but still no Hell.
Take care
-this is a good example actually, because maybe we have opposing views..
In my most humble opinion I do personally believe that Christ is Lord.
-ok now you may not agree with me but that sentence didn't sound as bad as if I would have said
--Christ is Lord! <<<<see the difference, one is easier to read right?
Oh and by the way....I do NOT believe anyone is going to hell for not believing in Christ. That would make no sense. It would mean almost all Native Americans and Indigenous peoples are going to hell...
According to my studies..."Hell" is actually a word born from an embellished misinterpretation of the Hebrew word "grave".
And yes everyone is going to the Grave...unless your cremated, then you really do end up in flames....but still no Hell.
Take care
I think you're confusing struggle with debunk. The following thread is both relevant to the science v. myth discussion as well as the "multi-verse" line of thinking (I particularly enjoy Citta's contributions):Ritalin said:
Quantum Physics, holographic universe and dmt
- Merits
- 42
"Why can god/creator not show some presence without giving us all the answers?"
How can we be so sure that presence is not always present? Virtually every native american tradition I can think of places deep importance on the aspect of the creator in their lives, so at least some people certainly feel that presence is there. Just something to think about..
How can we be so sure that presence is not always present? Virtually every native american tradition I can think of places deep importance on the aspect of the creator in their lives, so at least some people certainly feel that presence is there. Just something to think about..
- Merits
- 42
I dont get why people always have to see myth as something to debunk. It is like appraoching metaphores the same way. If you spend some time studying anthropology, especially tribal mythologies it becomes quite apparent that myth often serves a purpose of teaching the younger people about certain aspects of life through the use of metaphore.
The big bang itself is just a myth and a metaphore too. Language itself is a metaphore. The difference here is that we understand it so well due to growing up in that metaphore as our main technique for communication that we take the metaphore of language itself for granted. Is a tree really a "tree"?... Of course not. It is what it is. We invented the word tree as a metaphorical symbol for that thing..just as a tribal shaman might refer to a virus as a spirit..which is it? "virus" or "spirit"?
The wetern mind is steeped in ego and assumes that everything else is on the same level as it to be rationlized away. I personally dont believe that everything is so readable to us on this level and often what we are attempting to debunk has more to do with our own misunderstandings than anything else..of course this is different from a man claiming to be able to levitate for example..
That went a bit off topic..sorry
The big bang itself is just a myth and a metaphore too. Language itself is a metaphore. The difference here is that we understand it so well due to growing up in that metaphore as our main technique for communication that we take the metaphore of language itself for granted. Is a tree really a "tree"?... Of course not. It is what it is. We invented the word tree as a metaphorical symbol for that thing..just as a tribal shaman might refer to a virus as a spirit..which is it? "virus" or "spirit"?
The wetern mind is steeped in ego and assumes that everything else is on the same level as it to be rationlized away. I personally dont believe that everything is so readable to us on this level and often what we are attempting to debunk has more to do with our own misunderstandings than anything else..of course this is different from a man claiming to be able to levitate for example..
That went a bit off topic..sorry
- Merits
- 42
I could get a machine that can mimmic the vocal capactiy of an orca mother, and use that to lead a lost orca back to it's pod..how would it know that it was being "shown" by some human the way back home? All the orca would know is that it felt or heard the call of it's mother.
