PastorAIO:


i have no idea

Alright then

KingEbukasBlog:


Alright then

So you're not going to tell me which God you're referring to. Anyway I know it is not the Jewish God because he does not allow for Pantheism which sees God in everything.

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

Perhaps you are Talking about Zeus.

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

— Epimenides, Cretica

@ Plaetton

If you haven't already read these you might be interested:

“To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science.” Book
"The Crisis of Big Science" talk given at the World Science Festival 2011
by Steven Weinberg

there is also a video discussing the book called "To Explain the World: A conversation with Steven Weinberg" It is moderated by John Hockenberry (interesting)


Steven Weinberg said, "The world is governed by a unified set of laws, which we don't yet know."

I strongly believe these "unified laws", when deciphered, will give us crucial incites that will help us understand and view science, religion and nature in general, in a new and exciting light. We just aren't there yet. Continued research in this area could make all the difference in the world...laterally

@ PastorAIO

If Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. and Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

What does this make someone who believes in a personal God, and that there is a part of Him in all of the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) aside from confused?

joseph1832:
Hey dude remember rule 7. LOL. You might be surprise at the speed by which you get a ban for breaking it. LOL.
Seriously dude, what's quora? Does it have a place where a 'lewd' poet like me can 'put my pen on paper' without being called a womaiser?

What rule did I break?
There's no sexuality/romance section on Quora...but yes, you can post your so-called "lëwd poems" there - but first, try to build a cult of followers or no one would look at your side...

texanomaly:
@ Plaetton

If you haven't already read these you might be interested:

“To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science.” Book
"The Crisis of Big Science" talk given at the World Science Festival 2011
by Steven Weinberg

there is also a video discussing the book called "To Explain the World: A conversation with Steven Weinberg" It is moderated by John Hockenberry (interesting)


Steven Weinberg said, "The world is governed by a unified set of laws, which we don't yet know."

I strongly believe these "unified laws", when deciphered, will give us crucial incites that will help us understand and view science, religion and nature in general, in a new and exciting light. We just aren't there yet. Continued research in this area could make all the difference in the world...laterally

Thank you Tex.

I will definitely look in the these.

And yes, I agree with you completely.

My stand, which I have repeated many times, is that scientific rationalism is, and has so far proven to be the most reliable arbiter of reality.
As such, this what we should all embrace for gradual and reliable understanding of the universe.

texanomaly:
@ PastorAIO

If Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. and Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

What does this make someone who believes in a personal God, and that there is a part of Him in all of the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) aside from confused?

Confused is good. Well…. At least better than Wrong buttressed with certainty.

I'm not sure that God has 'parts'. But then I can't say I know this God you mention.

Could you be referring to what Blake was referring to in Auguries of Innocence?

I certainly believe that there is a bit of everything in everything. We can truly see the entire universe even in a grain of sand. But Blake says it without recourse to a God concept.

Auguries of Innocence
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

PS. Thanks for the Steven Weinberg lead. I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy watching the video very much.

PastorAIO:


I certainly believe that there is a bit of everything in everything. We can truly see the entire universe even in a grain of sand. But Blake says it without recourse to a God concept.

I'm not sure where you stand on God these days. Confusion seems to be running amuck lately. I recall a different version of you in the past.

PastorAIO:


Auguries of Innocence
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

btw: Blake uses spiritualism and "the God concept" quite effectively in Auguries of Innocence. Have you read the entire poem? Google a line by line summary. You'll see what I mean.

PastorAIO:

PS. Thanks for the Steven Weinberg lead. I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy watching the video very much.

You're welcome

texanomaly:


btw: Blake uses spiritualism and "the God concept" quite effectively in Auguries of Innocence. Have you read the entire poem? Google a line by line summary. You'll see what I mean.

William Blake is very spiritual throughout his metier, but what I meant was that he doesn't say God is in everything. I didn't mean that he never mentions God.

I'm not sure where you stand on God these days. Confusion seems to be running amuck lately. I recall a different version of you in the past.

I'm still me.

plaetton:


Thank you Tex.

I will definitely look in the these.

And yes, I agree with you completely.

My stand, which I have repeated many times, is that scientific rationalism is, and has so far proven to be the most reliable arbiter of reality.
As such, this what we should all embrace for gradual and reliable understanding of the universe.

Unfortunately science is incapable of laying basis for bedrocks of our reality like our morality or our origin, it is incapable of giving us hope or giving us meaning. Either you remain a hypocrite, borrowing tenets of your worldview from theism and still denying God, or you spiral into the vacuum of meaningless nihility and occasional insanity and probable suicide as many honest and honourable atheists have done.

Nietzsche, Foucault, Hemmingway etc

Joshthefirst:
Unfortunately science is incapable of laying basis for bedrocks of our reality like our morality or our origin, it is incapable of giving us hope or giving us meaning. Either you remain a hypocrite, borrowing tenets of your worldview from theism and still denying God, or you spiral into the vacuum of meaningless nihility and occasional insanity and probable suicide as many honest and honourable atheists have done.

Nietzsche, Foucault, Hemmingway etc

Actually Modern science has proposed theories to explain all these things you've mentioned.

Science has theories (philosophical theories to be honest) for Morality

Science has theories to explain our origin

The advances of Science have given a lot of people Hope as well as meaning.


And furthermore many honest and honourable religious people have become insane and suicidal, some become suicidal precisely because their religion encourages them to do so.

Nihilism and Existentialism are a lot deeper than what you seem to be aware.

Joshthefirst:
Unfortunately science is incapable of laying basis for bedrocks of our reality like our morality or our origin, it is incapable of giving us hope or giving us meaning. Either you remain a hypocrite, borrowing tenets of your worldview from theism and still denying God, or you spiral into the vacuum of meaningless nihility and occasional insanity and probable suicide as many honest and honourable atheists have done.

Nietzsche, Foucault, Hemmingway etc

You're in no position to dictate what science is capable of and not capable of, especially given all that scientific rationalism has gifted humanity in just over the past 2 hundred years , after eons of darkness.

It's small thinkers like you, ignorant absolutists like you, that have been continually shamed by every new advancement in science.

Left for people like you, there would been no need for advancements in transportation, because according to men of god, your God did not construct us to travel more than 22 miles per hour.

People like you also said, back then, that aviation should not be encouraged Because if god, the Toothfairy, wanted humans to fly, he would have been wise enough to have given us wings.

So, my friend, your angry and irrational rantings are irrelevant in the scheme of things. I just hope you live long enough to see how far science would take us in the next quarter or half a century.

And yes, I am free to borrow and evolve my worldview from just about anywhere.
That is not hypocrisy.
That is honesty anchored on freedom and sovereignty of one's mind.
It's a freedom that, pitifully, you might not ever understand or enjoy.

Wow, I didn't know that bit about only being able to travel under 22 miles an hour.

Very informative post.

plaetton:


You're in no position to dictate what science is capable of and not capable of, especially given all that scientific rationalism has gifted humanity in just over the past 2 hundred years , after eons of darkness.

It's small thinkers like you, ignorant absolutists like you, that have been continually shamed by every new advancement in science.

Left for people like you, there would been no need for advancements in transportation, because according to men of god, your God did not construct us to travel more than 22 miles per hour.

People like you also said, back then, that aviation should not be encouraged Because if god, the Toothfairy, wanted humans to fly, he would have been wise enough to have given us wings.

So, my friend, your angry and irrational rantings are irrelevant in the scheme of things. I just hope you live long enough to see how far science would take us in the next quarter or half a century.

And yes, I am free to borrow and evolve my worldview from just about anywhere.
That is not hypocrisy.
That is honesty anchored on freedom and sovereignty of one's mind.
It's a freedom that, pitifully, you might not ever understand or enjoy.

My problem with Nairaland theists (most not all of them) is not the idea that 'God did it'.

Rather it is the claim that they have a personal connection to the God that did it and they are his vicar on earth whereby their biases are his biases and their claims are automatically the truth about God, The Universe and Everything. It's so pathetic.

PastorAIO:


Actually Modern science has proposed theories to explain all these things you've mentioned.

Science has theories (philosophical theories to be honest) for Morality

Science has theories to explain our origin

The advances of Science have given a lot of people Hope as well as meaning.


And furthermore many honest and honourable religious people have become insane and suicidal, some become suicidal precisely because their religion encourages them to do so.

Nihilism and Existentialism are a lot deeper than what you seem to be aware.

No. Current popular theories only sponsor belief in an accidental existence, a purposeless origin, morality with no reference or objective point, materialism, and oblivion in death.

How does that grant purpose or hope or meaning to life?

Oblivion is what subscription to popular 'scientific' belief implies.

Atheism, materialism, and the religion of science only leads to a pointless and hollow existence, and suicide is a notable prescription to meaninglessness.

"we stray through an infinite nothing, with no up or down left. Lanterns must be lit in the morning hours and sacred games invented to take the place of religious ceremony...finally, a universal madness would break out when the truth of what mankind had done in 'killing God' dawned on us".


- Nietzsche

plaetton:


You're in no position to dictate what science is capable of and not capable of, especially given all that scientific rationalism has gifted humanity in just over the past 2 hundred years , after eons of darkness.

It's small thinkers like you, ignorant absolutists like you, that have been continually shamed by every new advancement in science.

Left for people like you, there would been no need for advancements in transportation, because according to men of god, your God did not construct us to travel more than 22 miles per hour.

People like you also said, back then, that aviation should not be encouraged Because if god, the Toothfairy, wanted humans to fly, he would have been wise enough to have given us wings.

So, my friend, your angry and irrational rantings are irrelevant in the scheme of things. I just hope you live long enough to see how far science would take us in the next quarter or half a century.

And yes, I am free to borrow and evolve my worldview from just about anywhere.
That is not hypocrisy.
That is honesty anchored on freedom and sovereignty of one's mind.
It's a freedom that, pitifully, you might not ever understand or enjoy.

hypocrisy is insulting a position and yet subscribing to a form of its tenet to keep yourself rational and sane. It is refusal to follow a position through to its logical end.

People like me defined the foundation of the scientific method. Godly men. Who knew where science had foot, and where science logically would have no answer.

Joshthefirst:
hypocrisy is insulting a position and yet subscribing to a form of its tenet to keep yourself rational and sane. It is refusal to follow a position through to its logical end.

I have no idea what you mean by me insulting a position and yet subscribing to a form of its tenet.

But even so, I guess you have not grown up enough to have heard of " Separating The Wheat From The Shaff " ?

plaetton:


I have no idea what you mean by me insulting a position and yet subscribing to a form of its tenet.

But even so, I guess you have not grown up enough to have heard of " Separating The Wheat From The Shaff " ?

In your atheism and religion of science, there is only meaningless and oblivion in place of purpose and hope that true belief in God grants

What hope do you have in an accidental existence old man?

Joshthefirst:
No. Current popular theories only sponsor belief in an accidental existence, a purposeless origin, morality with no reference or objective point, materialism, and oblivion in death.

No what? What are you denying? Are you saying science doesn't tackle morality? What's wrong with a purposeless origin?

How does that grant purpose or hope or meaning to life?

Let me get you straight. You believe that the purpose of science is to grant you hope and meaning to life.

What is the cause of your desperate search for Hope? When did you lose your hope?

Oblivion is what subscription to popular 'scientific' belief implies.

Atheism, materialism, and the religion of science only leads to a pointless and hollow existence, and suicide is a notable prescription to meaninglessness.

"we stray through an infinite nothing, with no up or down left. Lanterns must be lit in the morning hours and sacred games invented to take the place of religious ceremony...finally, a universal madness would break out when the truth of what mankind had done in 'killing God' dawned on us".


- Nietzsche

The bolded is not true. You didn't answer my questions about all the religious people that commit suicide and face emptiness. Again, I tell you, your understanding of existentialism is shallow.

it seems you like Nietzsche. Chew on this one a little bit, it might enlighten you as to what he was really getting at.

A thousand goals have there been so far, for there have been a thousand peoples. Only the yoke for the thousand necks is still lacking: the one goal is lacking. Humanity still has no goal.

But tell me, my brothers, if humanity still lacks a goal—is humanity itself not still lacking too?

Thus spoke Zarathustra.
https://faculty.washington.edu/cbehler/teaching/coursenotes/Texts/Zarsel.html

Joshthefirst:
In your atheism and religion of science, there is only meaningless and oblivion in place of purpose and hope that true belief in God grants

What hope do you have in an accidental existence old man?

Your irrational anger and rage that someone refuses to accept and continually debunks your stone age beliefs is the main reason I say that religious beliefs are irrational.
It seems that to you, your beliefs are meaningless unless another person accepts it. That is irrational.

Funny that you and your type spend a lot time bashing Islam, and how crazy, intolerant and violent it is, even though you exhibit quite the same tendencies, albeit, in subtler ways.

This is the weakness of religious beliefs that highlights it as being based on no concrete truths, just pure primordial impulses and primitiv emotions.

plaetton:


Your irrational anger and rage that someone refuses to accept and continually debunks your stone age beliefs is the main reason I say that religious beliefs are irrational.
It seems that to you, your beliefs are meaningless unless another person accepts it. That is irrational.

Funny that you and your type spend a lot time bashing Islam, and how crazy, intolerant and violent it is, even though you exhibit quite the same tendencies, albeit, in subtler ways.

This is the weakness of religious beliefs that highlights it as being based on no concrete truths, just pure primordial impulses and primitiv emotions.

Nonsense. Don't talk about tolerance to me old man. Lol. I am simply an apologetic, replying to your militancy. You publicly mock and ridicule other beliefs and blame others for barbaric acts of humanity and you call me intolerant? What the heck?

Tell your godfather Dawkins about tolerance. Talk to Harris.


When Islam is in power, it forces others, when atheism is in power, it forces and persecutes others.
It is only when Christianity is in power that it gives men a choice to believe.



And please address my post and don't go off on a desired tangent. What hope do you have in an accidental existence?

Joshthefirst:

When Islam is in power, it forces others, when atheism is in power, it forces and persecutes others.
It is only when Christianity is in power that it gives men a choice to believe.

Do you really believe that?

Joshthefirst:


When Islam is in power, it forces others, when atheism is in power, it forces and persecutes others.
It is only when Christianity is in power that it gives men a choice to believe.

The Strasbourg massacre occurred on February 14, 1349, when several hundred Jews were publicly burnt to death, and the rest of them expelled from the city as part of the Black Death persecutions.[1] It was one of the first and worst pogroms in pre-modern history.

Since the spring of 1348, pogroms against Jews had occurred in European cities, starting in Toulon. By November of that year they spread via Savoy to German-speaking territories. In January 1349, burnings of Jews took place in Basel and Freiburg, and on 14 February the Jewish community in Strasbourg was destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_massacre


When an ethnic/religious community is totally destroyed what's that called again? Oh yeah, Ethnic Cleansing.

Joshthefirst:


When Islam is in power, it forces others, when atheism is in power, it forces and persecutes others.
It is only when Christianity is in power that it gives men a choice to believe.

The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III to eliminate Catharism in Languedoc, in the south of France. The Crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French crown and promptly took on a political flavour, resulting in not only a significant reduction in the number of practising Cathars,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade


But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1: 8

Ostracising people, burning them, ethnically cleansing them, Cursing them, just because they believe contrary to you is not my idea of giving people a choice of what to believe.