Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blu · 09-12-2002, 04:14 PM

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]

Blu · 09-12-2002, 04:22 PM

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]

Jayhawker Soule · 09-13-2002, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blu:
Read the first post I wrote again. Then Try really really hard to grasp what I am getting at. Then comment on what I brought up.. maybe with questions for clarification... etc.

What is the difference between Unifying system compared to just a system?

Quote:

Originally posted by Blu:
Few people wrote in this thread so obviously I hit some nerve somewhere.

Your grasp of the obvious is laughably defective.

Quote:

Previously posted by Blu:
I wrote that [the Universe] exists therefore there is something.

Let me "Try really really hard" to extract some meaning from this observation. In the meantime, let me restate my first question and add a second:

What is the difference between unifying system and system?
Specifically how and where does "what [you're] getting at" diverge from philosophical naturalism?

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Blu · 09-13-2002, 06:03 AM

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]

leonarde · 09-13-2002, 06:26 AM

Here's what I get from the OP:

1)while within certain religions with which we
are most familiar (Christianity, Judaiism, Islam)
it is most usual to think of god as the SOURCE
of energy (and by extension matter),

2)some other religions identify god(s) with the
energy itself (sun god, fertility god, etc.)

3)in toto and in the jargon of today's physicists the entirety of this energy and matter is: the universe.

4) the way of thinking about/defining god in 1)
tends to be most usually tied in with an anthropomorphism which is just a psychological
projection.

Is this a fair restatement, Blu?

Blu · 09-13-2002, 06:56 AM

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]

Jayhawker Soule · 09-13-2002, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blu:
I am not going to answer the same question again. I am just going to sit here and cross my fingers while hoping somebody else comes onto this thread and decides they have something to offer.

I do not see where you've answered the question a first time. If you have, I apologize. If not, you might consider doing so. The two questions currently on the table are:

What is the difference between unifying system and system?
Specifically how and where does what you're getting at diverge from philosophical naturalism?

You may well claim that the latter is off-topic, but that too would be instructive.

Quote:

Originally posted by Blu:
I would go further to say that atheists cannot say God does not exist.

Where have they done so? There is a difference between asserting that "God does not exist", and stating that no evidence has been offered that warrants the belief in God.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Blu · 09-13-2002, 08:55 AM

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]

Blu · 09-13-2002, 08:58 AM

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]

Jayhawker Soule · 09-13-2002, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blu:
"What is the difference between Unifying system compared to just a system?"

A unifying system would be your physical body related to your cardiovascular system.

The Milky Way would be a unifying system related to the Earth.

The Universe would be a Unifying System macrocosm compared to all the systems within it.

Do you see what I mean?

No. what I see is 3 examples of what you call a [U/u]nifying [S/s]ystem. I see nothing that distinguishes between a (a) a unifying system, and (b) a system. Either the phrase 'unifying system' is redundant and unnecessary, or you mean to imply something special by the term 'unifying'. So, to repeat yet again:

What is the difference between unifying system and system?
Specifically how and where does you're "Unifying Universalism" diverge from philosophical naturalism?

09-12-2002, 04:14 PM	#11
Blu Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: In this Universe Posts: 199	[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]</p>

09-12-2002, 04:22 PM	#12
Blu Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: In this Universe Posts: 199	[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]</p>

09-13-2002, 06:03 AM	#14
Blu Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: In this Universe Posts: 199	[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]</p>

09-13-2002, 06:56 AM	#16
Blu Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: In this Universe Posts: 199	[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]</p>

09-13-2002, 08:55 AM	#18
Blu Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: In this Universe Posts: 199	[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]</p>

09-13-2002, 06:26 AM	#15
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Here's what I get from the OP: 1)while within certain religions with which we are most familiar (Christianity, Judaiism, Islam) it is most usual to think of god as the SOURCE of energy (and by extension matter), 2)some other religions identify god(s) with the energy itself (sun god, fertility god, etc.) 3)in toto and in the jargon of today's physicists the entirety of this energy and matter is: the universe. 4) the way of thinking about/defining god in 1) tends to be most usually tied in with an anthropomorphism which is just a psychological projection. Is this a fair restatement, Blu?

09-13-2002, 08:58 AM	#19
Blu Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: In this Universe Posts: 199	[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.