Vinnie

Can you prove love for a person with science? Can you prove murder is a sinful or an immoral action? Does love, then, not exist? I seperate science and theology for a reason. Reality is not only what can be proved using spectroscopes, test tubes and electron microscopes. There is a whole other side to reality as we experience it which points to something beyond itself. I never claimed to be able to map beyond reality though.

As I stated, using materialism to critique panenetheism will not work. Further, how you define the universe might cause misunderstanding. I do not mean there are more atoms or mass or energy outside the universe. That is not the impression the circle analogy should give. It would not be correct to imagine God or the universe as having borders in such a sense. I ti is just an analogy.

Differences between theology and science (depends on how you define science):

1. They deal with different realities. Science deals with a material reality while theology deals with a metaphysical and spiritual reality.

2. Their modes of knowledge differ. Science obtains its information through sensory experience while theological information is acquired through cross cultural experiences with the Divine.

3. They deal with different types of causality Science deals with things like the transformation of energy whereas theology is primarily concerned with the interaction of persons.

4. They reach different formulations of their results. Science produces laws and mathematical formulas whereas theology produces general beliefs, principals or teachings.

Theology there could be a part of science unless you are using science in the sense most germane to the word which deals with the natural sciences like biology etc.

Last time I was in first grade that was correct

Yes but I would say we know it exists in so far as we know God exists. That might not say much but it says something at least

Prove in what sense? I find cross-cultural religious experiences to be evidence for the reality of God. They are not conclusive proof as such a demonstration is impossible. I would say that the variety of these experiences (visions, shamanic, mystical, introvertive mystical, dreams, NDE's, awareness of God's presence or I-You I-It distinction) suggests that God "is an element of experience, not simply an article of faith to be believed in."

As stated, I never claimed to be able to map the unknown side of God. I just stated that it was there. I only do so because my understanding of reality points to it.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I think you are taking the analogy too literally (probably my fault). Neither God nor the universe can be said to have borders in such a sense. Its just a thought analogy. I never said it was "more universe-like stuff".

Vinnie: "If a drunk driver swerves into me God is not going to protect me."

PK: I'm a little surprised at this.

Why? Why would God protect me but sit by during the holocaust or a billion other horrors since the history of humanity? Why would God save me but let little children die of starvation everyday? That is one fundamental flaw with the interventionist God of supernatuaral theism. God jumps in here or there but stands by where we most need him it seems.

My first thoughts would go to God and I would thank God but not for saving me. It would more be an awareness of how fragile life is and how quick it can end. It would be a wake up call and I would be thankful for my family and such. We are all preoccupied with ourselves to a fair degree and don't always realize what we have until its taken away or almost taken away. All of the various circumstances in life have the effect of disorietning us sometimes and removing our thoughts and attention from where they should be.

I'm still mulling it over

I don't think I agree with the "irrespective of whether it does" line though. As stated, I am a panenetheist on the basis of existential experiences with God. That is more of "the evidence leads me here" (though it is not conclusive beyond doubt) than blind belief "irrespective of whether it does".

Vinnie

Darth Dane

Can you prove love for a person with science?

No, afaik they don't know which if any chemicals are released when you have Love. But, even though none can prove it, most of us believe and KNOW Love Is. It is unfounded by science, yet holds existance in reality none the less.

What is the difference between the idea of Love and the idea of God? Not in as much what they are, but that they are. I can't see God, I can't prove it, but many people claim regardless that the Idea of God Is and holds existance in Reality.

I seperate science and theology for a reason. Reality is not only what can be proved using spectroscopes, test tubes and electron microscopes. There is a whole other side to reality as we experience it which points to something beyond itself. I never claimed to be able to map beyond reality though.

No, but some do!

That is not the impression the circle analogy should give. It would not be correct to imagine God or the universe as having borders in such a sense. I ti is just an analogy.

Of course, it is infinite But even though we don't have conciousness on all the things that are still unknown to us.

2. Their modes of knowledge differ. Science obtains its information through sensory experience while theological information is acquired through cross cultural experiences with the Divine.

Slight correction: Science is obtains it's information through outside of the body devices. Theological information is obtained through the inside of teh body devices.
This shows a difference in how we acquire knowledge, what is worth more: The direct knowledge through your own body, or that of outside sources? Well if we wanna show others, we need external devices, if we wanna show ourselves we can choose the direct.

3. They deal with different types of causality Science deals with things like the transformation of energy whereas theology is primarily concerned with the interaction of persons.

Theology is also teh makeup of Reality!!!! In a more than just physical sense.

4. They reach different formulations of their results. Science produces laws and mathematical formulas whereas theology produces general beliefs, principals or teachings.

What if "ask and you shall be given" is a Law of teh metaphysical, only we can't see it, unless we acquire that direct knowledge, or go to where Jesus went to get that info. How can we determine if that is a spiritual Law or not?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but we haven't dicovered this hidden side to God yet right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes but I would say we know it exists in so far as we know God exists. That might not say much but it says something at least

What exist? A hidden side? Or that God Is?
As I said I don't KNOW objectively if God Is or not!


Prove in what sense?

Prove that it exists. How can I prove to a woman that I love her? I can't take out a scale and say that I love 69 points, she'll have to Believe what I say.

I find cross-cultural religious experiences to be evidence for the reality of God. They are not conclusive proof as such a demonstration is impossible. I would say that the variety of these experiences (visions, shamanic, mystical, introvertive mystical, dreams, NDE's, awareness of God's presence or I-You I-It distinction) suggests that God "is an element of experience, not simply an article of faith to be believed in."

I find them to show that there is more to Reality than we see as such.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So as long as we only have one side and that side is "1+1=2" then it stand to reason that "1+1=2+" Because we have an unknown we cannot affirm or deny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As stated, I never claimed to be able to map the unknown side of God. I just stated that it was there. I only do so because my understanding of reality points to it.

Fair enough, but you haven't answered:

As long as we have an unknown to Reality as we see it, we will have an incomplete understanding.

1+1+1=3

Time: is past present and future
Space: is three points so we can move in it.

if past, present, future is three, but we have an unknown it will be:

1+1+1=3,14~Pi, Pi being the transcendant aspect of the holy trinity, that little extra bit, that is infinite. Pi is an infinite number afaik.






DD - Love Spliff

Peter Kirby

Can you say what God is, in addition to the universe? I know that God is usually said to be indescribable, but perhaps give some kind of metaphor that works against the metaphor that God is just Universe Plus?

Let me quote something I first read in becoming an atheist.

"'And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways', Yossarian continued, 'There's nothing mysterious about it, He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about-a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of Creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatalogical mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain?" -Joseph Heller [Catch-22]

I fully agree that the problem of evil is a strong evidential, emotional, and intuitive argument against the existence of a good God.

Bill Bekkenhuis replied to my post in becoming an atheist with something that I remembered. "This post had a comment about the fantasy aspect of Christianity. I would suggest that a religion that sees the ultimate disclosure of God's love in a crucifixion is, whatever else it might be, reality oriented towards the pain, death, and (possibly ultimate) futility that we encounter in ordinary life."

I have also read but not completely understood his essays on Does Evil Disprove Christian God? and Jesus vs Bambi, which touch upon the subject.

With full awareness that I am not a theologian, it seems to me that a religion that teaches that the problem of evil is "not my problem" is not Christian theism.

I think that is a good response ... but how does it differ from the response of an atheist?

That's fine.

It might help to note that the paridigmatic example of the intentional stance is the way that we treat other human beings in face-to-face contact. Obviously most people would regard the intentional stance to be rational in those cases. The "irrespective of whether it does [have intentions]" does not modify or clarify the cause of the belief but rather modifies the definition--the definition allows us to take the intentional stance towards an object that doesn't in truth have intentions.

best,
Peter Kirby

Infidelettante

quote Vinnie
2. Pantheism--praying is good for meditating and orienting oneself but praying to the universe (mostly empty space) isn't all that appealing to me or many people. I can't see praying to an inanimate object.

There are pantheists [like me] who accept the universe as living. In my mythology Mother God gives birth to all things at every moment. All things are born of her and live through her. When I pray I seek to participate in that birthing which is the creative process. For me the universe is not an inanimate object.

I don't see that Panentheism tells us anything beyond what Pantheism does. The part of the circle/God who is outside the circle/universe must by definition be unavailable to us. That is, unless God has revealed this aspect to us we can't know it. If he has revealed this aspect we fall into the special revelation trap of the Theists. To know God we must find when, where, and how his revelation came to us and we must be sure of its' reliabilty. I'm sure you understand the problem.

It seems to me that Panentheism is an unwieldy and unsatisfying compromise between Pantheism and Theism. It provides Pantheisms metaphysical distance from the deity yet leaves open the possibility that the transcendent, personal deity of Theism exists. It is a veiled form of Pascals' wager.

JT

Starboy

As far as I can tell panentheism is just one more way in a long list of ways to make claims about reality that no one can verify. Oh well.

Starboy

Infidelettante

As always Starboy, you have run through the heart of the matter and the truth bleeds out.

JT

Starboy

Thanks JT!

Peter Kirby

This is a bump because the thread fell to the second page. Vinnie, are you there?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Yeah, I'll pop back in soon.

Vinnie