Wether this is only a logical conclusion in our thoughts or this is a scientifically empirically verifiable experience ..
It's neither.
My Explanation of God.
by LAWHFol 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
cofty
-
DATA-DOG
It's not Stephen Lett, he is a delusional liar.
DD
-
Finkelstein
This thread reminds me of unseen logic !
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity, not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in strong gravitation. However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that gravity is a force where two bodies of mass are directly drawn (or 'attracted') to each other according to a mathematical relationship, where the attractive force is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is considered to occur over an infinite range, such that all bodies (with mass) in the universe are drawn to each other no matter how far they are apart.
-
Finkelstein
True intellectual honesty says that one has to accept the unknown(s) or the yet to be discovered.
I think humanity is better off dealing with accepted reality of are selves and the world in which we live in.
If there is a discovery of a god of supernatural appearance then that will be become a known for humanity.
-
-
prologos
imho: all we can know about the unseen is the record left behind, the works, but everyone's vision is unique, like a rainbow, that not really exists, but is a refracting back of sunlight, and everyone's rainbow is different. There are billions of different visions about the works, the universe, and most of it we can not see, it is beyond the horizon, outside our personal time cone. So be content with the travel through time you have, fully. If a creator wanted more for - or from you, he would tell you. -
Saved_JW
True intellectual honesty says that one has to accept the unknown(s) or the yet to be discovered.
I think humanity is better off dealing with accepted reality of are selves and the world in which we live in.
If there is a discovery of a god of supernatural appearance then that will be become a known for humanity
I am going to get philosophical here: The question of "Reality" has been a constant struggle for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks struggled to answer that question. Plato and Aristotle had to dig deeper and look to our ASSUMPTIONS of what "Reality" was in the first place. Is "reality" simply limited to our senses? [see,taste, hear, feel, smell] That may be a good assumption, however there are many cases where we cannot trust our assumptions.
What I find funny is the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins titled a book "the God Delusion" The basic Atheistic assumption about reality is that you CAN trust your empirical senses as a measurement for reality. I find it ironic that the very title of his book assumes that people can in fact have a Delusion of reality based on their senses.
The implications of this are huge. In some ways, Richard Dawkins admits that people cant [in fact] trust their senses.
This brings us back to the post. You stated that intellectual honesty must start with "Accepted reality"
Here is the problem with that assertion.... This is an argument from consensus. If the majority of people accept a reality, this must mean its true. I would challenge this. If 99.9% of people accept that 1+1=5, this does not make it true. There is a correct answer that exists outside the mind, in other words, a universal truth that is not dependent on the mind itself.
I believe that there is absolute Truth that exists outside the mind. I believe it through deductive reasoning and logic. I don't believe truth is dependent on the mind, instead the mind recognizes and is dependent on truth.Truth manifests itself in absolute laws that are fixed [not capricious or random] 1+1 will always = 2; that law of logic is a reliable method of reasoning [There is no such thing as a married bachelor] etc.. I would be willing to go toe to toe on any Atheist on this board who insists on defending a universe without any absolutes.
-
Viviane
he basic Atheistic assumption about reality is that you CAN trust your empirical senses as a measurement for reality. I find it ironic that the very title of his book assumes that people can in fact have a Delusion of reality based on their senses.
Atheism makes no assumptions about reality. Neither does science (which, in fact, has shown we cannot trust our senses quite often).
Truth manifests itself in absolute laws that are fixed [not capricious or random] 1+1 will always = 2; that law of logic is a reliable method of reasoning [There is no such thing as a married bachelor] etc.. I would be willing to go toe to toe on any Atheist on this board who insists on defending a universe without any absolutes.
You can know simultaneously know the absolute position and absolute speed of a particle.
-
Finkelstein
I find it ironic that the very title of his book assumes that people can in fact have a Delusion of reality based on their senses.
Wrong what Dawkins is trying to imply is that humanity has inherently developed obscured delusions based from a lack of knowledge and understanding of the world in which we live in.
I think a better title to the book would have been " The Delusions of Beliefs " myself.
The ancients had to endure through their own ignorance of the world in which they lived to only compose or imagine that supernatural agents were in control over the universe and these ancient civilizations expressed many different stories pertaining to the how and why humanity existences, the mythological story telling of creation by the ancient Hebrews sect for example.
Presently there are billions of people living today who think and uphold that the writings in certain books such as the bible or the Koran are the directional spiritual words by their individually perceived god heads. To the extent that they are willing to kill imposing non believers or martyr themselves for these imagined gods, including adherent Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
Viviane
You can know simultaneously know the absolute position and absolute speed of a particle.
That should say can NOT simultanously know...