God's Will
- Thread starter XxtraMannish
- Start date
^
let me know what you think of this book. Im sure you read many pages a day and this is only 129 pages.
Honestly i dont expect you to gain anything from it because you lack the ability to comprehend things objectively(whether you like to believe so or not).
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA103,M1
a bunch of people should check it out actually, its a good read
Peter Russell went from being a strict atheist and scientist to discovering a profound personal synthesis of the mystical and the scientific. That transition is the basis of this book. In From Science to God, he blends physics, psychology, and philosophy to reach a new worldview in which consciousness is a fundamental quality of creation. Russell shows how all the ingredients for this worldview are in place; it remains only to put the pieces together and explore the new picture of reality that emerges. Integrating a deep knowledge of science with his own experiences of meditation, Russell arrives at a universe similar to that described by many mystics — one in which the inner and outer worlds no longer conflict. The bridge between them, he shows, is light, and this book invites readers to cross that bridge to find new meaning in God and a deeper significance in spiritual practice.
let me know what you think of this book. Im sure you read many pages a day and this is only 129 pages.
Honestly i dont expect you to gain anything from it because you lack the ability to comprehend things objectively(whether you like to believe so or not).
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA103,M1
a bunch of people should check it out actually, its a good read
Peter Russell went from being a strict atheist and scientist to discovering a profound personal synthesis of the mystical and the scientific. That transition is the basis of this book. In From Science to God, he blends physics, psychology, and philosophy to reach a new worldview in which consciousness is a fundamental quality of creation. Russell shows how all the ingredients for this worldview are in place; it remains only to put the pieces together and explore the new picture of reality that emerges. Integrating a deep knowledge of science with his own experiences of meditation, Russell arrives at a universe similar to that described by many mystics — one in which the inner and outer worlds no longer conflict. The bridge between them, he shows, is light, and this book invites readers to cross that bridge to find new meaning in God and a deeper significance in spiritual practice.
Is it so hard to understand that in order to claim something to be true, you need to have evidence in support of your claim??? And not just everything can be used as evidence. Furthermore, in order for your claim to be meaningful, it has to be testable and falsifiable. God does not meet any of the criteria and this book does not change that
i wasnt trying to impress you, but instead trying to provide you with a scientists own wording of what ive been trying to tell you.
what do you have to say about Consciousness and the rest of the anomalies that dont currently coincide with todays science, nor of the world view people such as yourself continue to have?
what do you have to say about Consciousness and the rest of the anomalies that dont currently coincide with todays science, nor of the world view people such as yourself continue to have?
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you're serious than that is scary.
Are there people out there over the age of 16 who still view science as people in lab coats inventing things?
Science my friend means nothing but the STUDY of any given subject.
Social Science, Political Science, Earth Science, Mathematical Science.
sci·ence
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
This is why when people declare the existense of a God, and declare that He without a doubt exists, there are people who point to science and say prove it. Why? Because scienctifically, in this universe you cannot prove it as a definite fact. It's not that science is some strange anti-religous organization.
It's merely the study of any given subject, and the way it is studied is in a very objective experimental manner... why? because that's the only thing we humans can agree together as being universal knowledge, tangible facts which can be observed.
Your statement is extremely troubling, not that I'm doubting your intelligence personally, but it makes me wonder what majority of Americans think "science" means. Wow, scary.
Frankly your quarrel would not be with "science" my friend but rather that nasty son of a bitch that we call "INVENTION". Perhaps the people of Hiroshima think "inventon" is more dangerous than religion? LOL
Are there people out there over the age of 16 who still view science as people in lab coats inventing things?
Science my friend means nothing but the STUDY of any given subject.
Social Science, Political Science, Earth Science, Mathematical Science.
sci·ence
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
This is why when people declare the existense of a God, and declare that He without a doubt exists, there are people who point to science and say prove it. Why? Because scienctifically, in this universe you cannot prove it as a definite fact. It's not that science is some strange anti-religous organization.
It's merely the study of any given subject, and the way it is studied is in a very objective experimental manner... why? because that's the only thing we humans can agree together as being universal knowledge, tangible facts which can be observed.
Your statement is extremely troubling, not that I'm doubting your intelligence personally, but it makes me wonder what majority of Americans think "science" means. Wow, scary.
Frankly your quarrel would not be with "science" my friend but rather that nasty son of a bitch that we call "INVENTION". Perhaps the people of Hiroshima think "inventon" is more dangerous than religion? LOL
1. That most of these so called anomalies have never been properly documented and observed
2. That you're using the same old Argument of Ignorance, i.e. that because we don't know how something works, then it must be supernatural. However, the history of science has consisted mostly of finding perfectly natural and working explanation of what had previously been unexplainable and supernatural. There goes the validity of the argument
3. "consciousness" is simply an emerging property of the complexity of the human brain, simple as that. Very difficult to understand mechanistically for a number of reason, of course, but there is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that there is something else besides neurons, synapses and glia
2. That you're using the same old Argument of Ignorance, i.e. that because we don't know how something works, then it must be supernatural. However, the history of science has consisted mostly of finding perfectly natural and working explanation of what had previously been unexplainable and supernatural. There goes the validity of the argument
3. "consciousness" is simply an emerging property of the complexity of the human brain, simple as that. Very difficult to understand mechanistically for a number of reason, of course, but there is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that there is something else besides neurons, synapses and glia
My definitions are from dictionary.com, and yes I agree methodology is critical. Nothing can be definitely proven without the scientific method and unless it is falsifiable, I was going to add it more explicitly in my post, but it wasn't in the definitions I pulled up... why? My guess is because "science" is a broad term, and there are sciences that are not specific about using scientific method in research, Political Science for example.
My point I was making is that whenever some idiot has this askewed view and tries to attack "science" as being evil or intentionally anti-religious they don't realize that "science" is nothing but the collective knowledge base (gained through experimentation and observation) of a subject, and yes the way we gain that knowledge specifically is with the scientific method (experimentation and observation with controlled variables along with falsifiablity) as you mentioned.
Don't get me wrong, obviously the majority of sciences rely specifically on the scientific method for a basis of research and study, Natural science, Physics, Environmental Science Etc etc. But people are throwing around the word "science" in this board in the wrong context (i.e. "ask the people of hiroshima if they think religion is more dangerous than science"), which causes people to gain this askewed view of what "science" means.
Don't come at me like that when I'm agreeing with your shit, did you read through my post?
My point I was making is that whenever some idiot has this askewed view and tries to attack "science" as being evil or intentionally anti-religious they don't realize that "science" is nothing but the collective knowledge base (gained through experimentation and observation) of a subject, and yes the way we gain that knowledge specifically is with the scientific method (experimentation and observation with controlled variables along with falsifiablity) as you mentioned.
Don't get me wrong, obviously the majority of sciences rely specifically on the scientific method for a basis of research and study, Natural science, Physics, Environmental Science Etc etc. But people are throwing around the word "science" in this board in the wrong context (i.e. "ask the people of hiroshima if they think religion is more dangerous than science"), which causes people to gain this askewed view of what "science" means.
Don't come at me like that when I'm agreeing with your shit, did you read through my post?
So you are telling me that your consciousness doesnt exist?
and again, you have absolutely no idea what it is that i am debating....
i never said anything about shit being supernatural, my main argument is that OUR COMPREHENSION IS LIMITED BY OUR SENSES AND OUR MINDS.
you really call yourself a scientist, yet you are havin this much trouble comprehending what im saying without having preconceived notions of my beliefs?
lololol you are one sad animal. You seriously have a problem distinguishing the validity of existance with the accuracy of assumption.
go roll over n die and save the rest of humanity and the rest of REAL scientists time and space.
and again, you have absolutely no idea what it is that i am debating....
i never said anything about shit being supernatural, my main argument is that OUR COMPREHENSION IS LIMITED BY OUR SENSES AND OUR MINDS.
you really call yourself a scientist, yet you are havin this much trouble comprehending what im saying without having preconceived notions of my beliefs?
lololol you are one sad animal. You seriously have a problem distinguishing the validity of existance with the accuracy of assumption.
go roll over n die and save the rest of humanity and the rest of REAL scientists time and space.
I know you got them from the dictionary, but this is part of the problem - even the dictionary does not get it right
See, this is the problem - you say that the majority of the sciences use the scientific method, which implies that some of them don't and this is impossible. That's why we have the division of "soft" sciences (social, political and economics) and "hard" sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Planetary Science, Astronomy, etc.). The former are not sciences at all because they do not adhere to the method, but we are stuck with the name, because the word science initially was not used to describe what we mean by "science" today. Only those practices that stick to the hardcore scientific method can be considered science, the rest isn't.
I am not coming at you, I just want to clear up the misunderstanding of some fundamental concepts that I see
See, this is the problem - you say that the majority of the sciences use the scientific method, which implies that some of them don't and this is impossible. That's why we have the division of "soft" sciences (social, political and economics) and "hard" sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Planetary Science, Astronomy, etc.). The former are not sciences at all because they do not adhere to the method, but we are stuck with the name, because the word science initially was not used to describe what we mean by "science" today. Only those practices that stick to the hardcore scientific method can be considered science, the rest isn't.
I am not coming at you, I just want to clear up the misunderstanding of some fundamental concepts that I see
You see, Sufism is not correct, that is a 'soft' form of Islam. Unfortunately everyone calls it Muslim still because that was before we correctly defined Islam, and of course the correct name is Sunni(insert any sect here). Unfortunately, not everyone knows we are the true and only way to see Truth. I can't believe others think you can actually be a Muslim woman and not wear a hijab, silly people.
I am not coming at you, i am just clearing up the blasphemy that you believe in.
I am not coming at you, i am just clearing up the blasphemy that you believe in.
See, this is the problem - you say that the majority of the sciences use the scientific method, which implies that some of them don't and this is impossible. That's why we have the division of "soft" sciences (social, political and economics) and "hard" sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Planetary Science, Astronomy, etc.). The former are not sciences at all because they do not adhere to the method, but we are stuck with the name, because the word science initially was not used to describe what we mean by "science" today. Only those practices that stick to the hardcore scientific method can be considered science, the rest isn't.
I am not coming at you, I just want to clear up the misunderstanding of some fundamental concepts that I see
I am not coming at you, I just want to clear up the misunderstanding of some fundamental concepts that I see
lol ThaG, please tell me how you are not a extremist?