There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

Jan Ardena said:
That's called "self-realisation".
Click to expand...
Um no. How does self-realisation* (i.e. realisation of the self?) show/ demonstrate/ prove that god is spirit or that spirit exists?

That's the point of becoming religious.
Click to expand...
I see. So one first becomes religious (on, so far, zero evidence,) then undergoes "self-realisation" and then , somehow, decides this proof?

To follow the regulations in order to develop ones consciousness to a point where one starts the journey to becoming more spiritual (as opposed to material).
Click to expand...
Meaningless drivel.

Knowing this, if you choose to search for God in the dirt, or chemical combinations, you have wilfully chosen not accept God by His definition.
Click to expand...
Also meaningless drivel.
You have yet to show that there is a god to accept. If he doesn't exist, or can't be shown to exist, then why should I accept "his" definition?

You choose to believe, because your experience, and knowledge, leads you to the understanding that there is more to life, and our existence than just eating, sleeping, and so on..
Click to expand...
False on the highlighted portion.
So, effectively you're claiming that one deludes oneself that there is more and accepts this delusion of proof of the validity of the delusion.
Okay.
Thanks.

* Can someone (even Jan, maybe) please define "self-realisation" in terms that make sense with regard to Jan's claims?
All I can find is
The development or fulfillment of one's potential.
Click to expand...
and the similar
the fulfillment of your capacities
Click to expand...
etc. How does this relate to "spirit" (pure or otherwise) or god?
 
Jan Ardena said:
Can you elaborate on this?
Click to expand...

It's still the same disproof as was posted. God supposedly thinks, plans, creates, observes, runs everything, performs experiments, answers prayers and emails, etc. No elaboration needed, really, on what a system of mind is.
 
Jan Ardena said:
They would say something like, the laws of the universe and the general definition of law are two different things.
Click to expand...
If, by "general definition of law" you're referring to the legal definition then it would completely correct that they are two different things.
Physical laws (i.e. those of the universe) are descriptive and refer to what is whereas human (legal) law is prescriptive and refers to things as we would like them to be.

The second type of law can be, and frequently is, broken. The first cannot.
 
Oh Great Designer, burning nigh, in the spaces upon high, what energetic hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry? In what distant deeps or skies burnt the fire of thine eyes? On what wings dare you aspire? What the hand dare seize your fire?
 
Jan Ardena said:
Relax, I'm not in the business of accusing you of anything.
I just merely followed on from your logic, because atheists wouldn't normally
agree to that logic. They would say something like, the laws of the universe and the general definition of law are two different things.

jan.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I would say. The laws of the universe are not followed, they are derived from what happens.
 
spidergoat said:
Yes, that's what I would say. The laws of the universe are not followed, they are derived from what happens.
Click to expand...

The laws of the universe are complete, and perfect, which is why we accept them as fixed and unchangable. Man-made laws are made according to the presiding power in an attempt to suit their ideas, and agendas, which is why they are always changing.
The point of "law" however, is the same, whether universal, or man-made.

jan.
 
And what point is that? The laws of mankind exist because people have the option not to follow them. The laws of nature are not followed, made or constructed, they are simply a description of the possible which derive from point of view invariance.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Um no. How does self-realisation* (i.e. realisation of the self?) show/ demonstrate/ prove that god is spirit or that spirit exists?


I see. So one first becomes religious (on, so far, zero evidence,) then undergoes "self-realisation" and then , somehow, decides this proof?


Meaningless drivel.


Also meaningless drivel.
You have yet to show that there is a god to accept. If he doesn't exist, or can't be shown to exist, then why should I accept "his" definition?


False on the highlighted portion.
So, effectively you're claiming that one deludes oneself that there is more and accepts this delusion of proof of the validity of the delusion.
Okay.
Thanks.

* Can someone (even Jan, maybe) please define "self-realisation" in terms that make sense with regard to Jan's claims?
All I can find is

and the similar

etc. How does this relate to "spirit" (pure or otherwise) or god?
Click to expand...



There is no point engaging in this type of discussion with you, because you are stubborn, and not interested in seeing something from other perspectives.
This is your choice.

Here is something regarding self-realisation.
 
Jan is out of his mind and will be back in 5 minutes.

Speaking of mind… it is a system.

Speaking of anything and the same, whence, where, and of what it became?
 
spidergoat said:
And what point is that? The laws of mankind exist because people have the option not to follow them. The laws of nature are not followed, made or constructed, they are simply a description of the possible which derive from point of view invariance.
Click to expand...


They are called "laws" for a reason, and the concept is the same.
One is from the perfect source, and the others are from the imperfect source.

Play around all you like with fancy words and statements, it fundamentally remains the same.

jan.
 
BENEATH, BELOW, AND FURTHER

In succession due does the large give way and rule
To the ever smaller, the tiny, the minuscule,
And onto the negligibly insufficient ‘awol’
Of not really much of anything there at all.

Yet. it was this bottom herefrom that the all
Of the upward progression began its call,
And so here the answer lies to the sprawl,
At the boundary where nature wrote its scrawl
Of existence upon the non, and back and forth,
A place not necessarily like that we think it is,
A lawless, formless realm that’s ever been the quiz.

Stability, too, has decreased, woefully,
Melting within our descending journey,
And so we must meet the perfect instability
Of the potentially perfect symmetry that cannot be,
For, not only is it that everything must leak
But that there can be not even one more antique
Of a controlling factor lurking about,
For of anything else we’ve totally run out.

Here, then, the pulsations and the throbbings
Of the so-called vacuum that must ever swing
Between being and not, ever averaging to nothing
In their rise and fall, alternating here and varying.

Here, Eternity and his elemental fellow rhymes
Of Anything and Everything bide their times,
Of which they have and always had continually
All of the time of everlasting perpetuity,
And, so, then, if one waits long enough,
Which is but an instant in Forever’s trough,
Say, for a months of Sundays in donkey’s years,
Then not only do the rarest of events come to pass,
But, eventually, so do all things possible that can last.​
 
Jan Ardena said:
There is no point engaging in this type of discussion with you, because you are stubborn, and not interested in seeing something from other perspectives.
This is your choice.
Click to expand...
And you're back to fatuous assumptions and avoiding the question again.
You have, once again, failed to "back up" any single argument of yours with anything other tautologies or sidesteps.
So much for claims of "honesty".

Here is something regarding self-realisation.
Click to expand...
That link also makes undemonstrable assumptions.

Jan Ardena said:
They are called "laws" for a reason, and the concept is the same.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

One is from the perfect source, and the others are from the imperfect source.
Click to expand...
The first claim is an unprovable assumption.

Play around all you like with fancy words and statements, it fundamentally remains the same.
Click to expand...
Make all the unfounded statements you wish. You're still incorrect.
 
Jan Ardena said:
They are called "laws" for a reason, and the concept is the same.
One is from the perfect source, and the others are from the imperfect source.

Play around all you like with fancy words and statements, it fundamentally remains the same.

jan.
Click to expand...

They could not be more different. The only similarity is the name. The laws of the universe don't really exist, they are the result of human modeling.
 
i have not been following to close to jan/dyw discusion..all i get is dyw is trying to show jan there is no 'definition' as to who/what god is..

how does this relate to OP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top