ok now. ahnimus said science has proven God doesn't exist. now we agree science is fallible and as time passes; old theories are replaced with new theories or facts. for example; up until 1634; it was scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth.
i'm not debating religion. ahnimus said he would prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist. using of course scientific fact. now we agree science is fallible and these cold hard facts of his could be proven wrong tomorrow.
so the logical conclusion is that he has an opinion based on what he believes to be true. this being said; he can't prove anything and we revert back to what i said. we each have our opinions and i respect his as his opinion.
I've heard people say that scientific theories are proven wrong, or that science is "turned on it's head". Which is complete rubbish, it's refined, but for the most part the basic theories are consistent.
Take for example the old religious belief that the sun revolved around the earth. Well in fact the earth revolves around the sun, but the revolving relationship between sun and earth remains consistent. That is how science typically functions.
I can prove that religion is bunk with religion. There can be no such thing as free choice and God's plan. They are contradictory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
but we've agreed that science is fallible and scientific conclusion is based upon THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.
science does not have the ability to prove that God engineered evolution at this time. they only assume that some magic dust fell from space and evolution mysteriously appeared. since evolution is life; who created evolution [life].
Science has made organic material, Urea, as an example, from non-organic material. The origin of life is no different, it started as non-organic matter that in a specific combination creates organic matter. Science is coming amazingly close to explaining how the first organic life spawned from non-organic matter. It's my belief, shared by some, that the plasma emissions from the sun (Aurora Borealis) played a role in the origin of life.
I don't agree that science is fallable, any given scientific theory may be flawed, but the overall system of the scientific method ensures truth over time.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If... God created the universe, then the laws of the universe are the means by which God created things to behave. There should be no separation, it's absolutely absurd.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is stupid." - Albert Einstein
This goes back to holons. Remember holons are wholes/parts. They are wholes that are also parts of other wholes. For example, a whole atom is a part of a whole molecule, which is a part of a whole cell, which is part of a whole organism, etc. Similarily, a letter is a whole and part of a word; a word is a whole and a part of a sentence. The physiosphere is a whole and also a part of the biosphere, which as a whole is also part of the noosphere, which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere.
Remember the holon is the basic building block of all that exists. Keep in mind that atoms are only building blocks of the physical world, and are not a building block of say our personal experience of love. Atoms, for example, do not underly philosophy, since philosophy, while real, is not physical. Therefore for an actual integrated theory of everything, and to cope with such inter-disciplinary concepts, we must use a different kind of building block that is universal, such as the holon.
To conclude, we must go back to where the whole of the physical level of the universe is a whole unto itself, and also a part of the biosphere (realm of biology), which is a whole and also a part of the noosphere (realm of mind), which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere where spirituality is found.
In this sense, we can see how science which is a phenomena of the phsyiosphere, and "God" as a part of the theosphere, are one. And yet as we progress up the holarchy, we go beyond science, to levels beyond science. In conclusion science is part of the theosphere, and yet the theosphere is not limited to science.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This goes back to holons. Remember holons are wholes/parts. They are wholes that are also parts of other wholes. For example, a whole atom is a part of a whole molecule, which is a part of a whole cell, which is part of a whole organism, etc. Similarily, a letter is a whole and part of a word; a word is a whole and a part of a sentence. The physiosphere is a whole and also a part of the biosphere, which as a whole is also part of the noosphere, which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere.
Remember the holon is the basic building block of all that exists. Keep in mind that atoms are only building blocks of the physical world, and are not a building block of say our personal experience of love. Atoms, for example, do not underly philosophy, since philosophy, while real, is not physical. Therefore for an actual integrated theory of everything, and to cope with such inter-disciplinary concepts, we must use a different kind of building block that is universal, such as the holon.
To conclude, we must go back to where the whole of the physical level of the universe is a whole unto itself, and also a part of the biosphere (realm of biology), which is a whole and also a part of the noosphere (realm of mind), which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere where spirituality is found.
In this sense, we can see how science which is a phenomena of the phsyiosphere, and "God" as a part of the theosphere, are one. And yet as we progress up the holarchy, we go beyond science, to levels beyond science. In conclusion science is part of the theosphere, and yet the theosphere is not limited to science.
It sounds like you are taking about fractal theory of the universe.
But, there is no such word as physiosphere, and theosphere. These are made up words, that describe nothing in reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The holographic universe, or fractal universe theories do make a lot of sense... but then you make this huge leap into their being spirituality and God. When neither of those theories imply anything about spirtuality. It's what is called "Junk Science" and it's very wide-spread these days.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm actually talking about a very simple concept. From a skim of your fractal article, it looks like this theory is pertaining to the physical level of life--objects. Based on the holarchical view I just laid out that clearly goes beyond the mere physical, right there we have the indicator that I am talking about an entirely different concept.
Considering scientism has overtaken realms of understanding it is not equipped to deal with due to the inherent limits of science, I'm not surprised that the idea of a theory of everything that includes everything is a little hard to conceptualize. And when it is conceptualized, the scientism that has molded our basic brain filters seems to want to take over by trying to force non-physical things within our reality system into a box (science) that cannot comprehend the depths to what is beyond. We essentially must collapse reality to fit our perceptions of it.
That's okay, because thankfully for us, there are frontrunners who have evolved and paved the way for us, for when we're ready to open to new horizons.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm actually talking about a very simple concept. From a skim of your fractal article, it looks like this theory is pertaining to the physical level of life--objects. Based on the holarchical view I just laid out that clearly goes beyond the mere physical, right there we have the indicator that I am talking about an entirely different concept.
Considering scientism has overtaken realms of understanding it is not equipped to deal with due to the inherent limits of science, I'm not surprised that the idea of a theory of everything that includes everything is a little hard to conceptualize. And when it is conceptualized, the scientism that has molded our basic brain filters seems to want to take over by trying to force non-physical things within our reality system into a box (science) that cannot comprehend the depths to what is beyond. We essentially must collapse reality to fit our perceptions of it.
That's okay, because thankfully for us, there are frontrunners who have evolved and paved the way for us, for when we're ready to open to new horizons.
Angelica. You can't dismiss reality by making up words and metaphysical definitions for them. All you can do is confuse people.
There is absolutely no evidence supporting your theory. There never will be, because as your theory defines it's self as metaphysical, it can not be measured. I put it in the same pile as God and Bigfoot.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The holographic universe, or fractal universe theories do make a lot of sense... but then you make this huge leap into their being spirituality and God. When neither of those theories imply anything about spirtuality. It's what is called "Junk Science" and it's very wide-spread these days.
The problem here, again, Ahnimus is your assumptions. I am not talking about either the holographic theory of the universe, or fractal theories, both of which are science. I'm going beyond science to the parent of all sciences: philosophy. Science sprung from philosophy and is a part of the whole of philsophy and yet philosophy branches beyond the limits of science. We are operating on the level of logic and theory now. A different criteria is held for the world of pure concept. In order to learn and grow and expand, it is most effective to suspend judgment so as to be able to grasp the presented concepts. You have the ability to do so.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Angelica. You can't dismiss reality by making up words and metaphysical definitions for them. All you can do is confuse people.
There is absolutely no evidence supporting your theory. There never will be, because as your theory defines it's self as metaphysical, it can not be measured. I put it in the same pile as God and Bigfoot.
You give me far too much credit. The credit goes to the brilliant integrative theorists who are far beyond me in terms of comprehending integrative theories of everything.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Words exist as soon as they are spoken and have meaning for someone. She described what they meant to her.
No that's not true. The words must describe something.
I can say "Hey, I have a dionoidic prelifimater" doesn't mean shit, cause it doesn't exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The problem here, again, Ahnimus is your assumptions. I am not talking about either the holographic theory of the universe, or fractal theories, both of which are science. I'm going beyond science to the parent of all sciences: philosophy. Science sprung from philosophy and is a part of the whole of philsophy and yet philosophy branches beyond the limits of science. We are operating on the level of logic and theory now. A different criteria is held for the world of pure concept. In order to learn and grow and expand, it is most effective to suspend judgment so as to be able to grasp the presented concepts. You have the ability to do so.
Completely wrong, philosophy is not the parent of science. I'm sorry Angelica. But there is truly no discussing reality with you, because your beliefs are based on the words of science fiction authors. You use words that do not exist and describe systems that make no sense. Onelongsong has a better chance of convincing me God exists.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
In the philosophy of history, a holon is a historical event that makes other historical events inevitable.
I.e. Determinism
Defintion of Holon from M-W.com
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above
And I understand what you are trying to say with your holon theory. I agree, but I think we can not possibly understand anything that exists beyond the realm of which we exist in and speculation about such realms is frivilous and possibly dangerous to our internal, subjective realities.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Angelica. You can't dismiss reality by making up words and metaphysical definitions for them. All you can do is confuse people.
There is absolutely no evidence supporting your theory. There never will be, because as your theory defines it's self as metaphysical, it can not be measured. I put it in the same pile as God and Bigfoot.
I find it to be quite short sighted to rule out new discoveries and our ability to learn new ways and explanations that were unheard of or even thought of before. We are limited as a species but we are evolving rapidly. It would be unfortunate hold on to old barriers and dismiss possibilty. We've came a long way in our colllection of knowledge but what is now known is not all there is to know.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
My theory of everything is almost identical. That we live in some kind of fractal universe. We can split particles until we blow ourselves to non-existence, but we will never find the smallest or largest particles.
The chain of causation must either begin and end with infinity or begin where it ends and vice versa. It's logical to believe that the universe is infinitely vast, and that particles are infinitely small or large. Certainly that all makes perfect sense. But when you try to reach beyond that, to speculate about things that we will never ever be capable of understanding. Then you are just subscribing to faith and no amount of logic can convince me of something that requires faith.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It does to you. And once you describe what you mean to others then they'll understand, too.
It's a thing that does some thing to some other thing. When I make up 3 new words to describe those things people will understand?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's a thing that does some thing to some other thing. When I make up 3 new words to describe those things people will understand?
You have to make it so others can understand or else it will only be your language. You understand what she is describing, you just choose to disagree.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
My theory of everything is almost identical. That we live in some kind of fractal universe. We can split particles until we blow ourselves to non-existence, but we will never find the smallest or largest particles.
The chain of causation must either begin and end with infinity or begin where it ends and vice versa. It's logical to believe that the universe is infinitely vast, and that particles are infinitely small or large. Certainly that all makes perfect sense. But when you try to reach beyond that, to speculate about things that we will never ever be capable of understanding. Then you are just subscribing to faith and no amount of logic can convince me of something that requires faith.
I'm smoking a big fat scientific text book packed full of reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You're right. But don't they have a belief in something greater than themselves, like compassion and love?
Possibly. I don't honestly know or care much about Buddhism. It's just another doctrine to me, still I'm glad they are determinists.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Completely wrong, philosophy is not the parent of science. I'm sorry Angelica. But there is truly no discussing reality with you, because your beliefs are based on the words of science fiction authors. You use words that do not exist and describe systems that make no sense. Onelongsong has a better chance of convincing me God exists.
Ahnimus, if you are not a natural philosopher, I will accept that. At this point, I suspect you are a natural philospher who hasn't quite gotten his philosphy wings. Why should you want you to enter the world of philosophy with me, you might wonder? because our filters for viewing reality are soooooo similar. People might think otherwise because what shows on this board is where we don't see eye to eye. Out of all the personality types of those I interact with, most people that I know who are natural intuitives, the form of intuition most of these people use is intuition that sees externally in the world. The way you and I are wired is different: we are naturally intuitive to the human psyche and its potential--we can see what to others does not exist on this level which is why we can understand psychological principles. We could complement one another's view productively, based on our differences, if it wouldn't be so like pulling teeth. We can overcome our communication/understanding problems of one another. Since we are both intuitive, and can see theories and concepts, and since that is where we meet in the middle, it makes sense that we step out of reality into the theoretical dimension of philosophy in order to imagine and comprehend what each other is talking about, rather than continue misunderstandings and judgments.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You have to make it so others can understand or else it will only be your language. You understand what she is describing, you just choose to disagree.
Not exactly. I understand the concept of a fractal. Fractals actually do exist in nature. They are a natural phenomena. Existence beyond existence, reality beyond reality and logic beyond logic don't make any sense. That's where I am lost in Angelica's theories. They are drastic leaps of faith into indescribable unmeasurable, speculative imagination.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
A very simple, illustration of a naturally occuring fractal.
Each branch of the leaf, looks just like the entire leaf, and each branch of each branch of the leaf looks just like the entire leaf.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I guess you don't buy into the American culture????? From what I see and as it leaks up to here is that everybody is out for themselves and the one who has the biggest and most toys wins. And religion has nothing at all to do with that. So how do you blow that one off?
Having to believe that the Earth is the only thing would probably make people treat the big blue ball a little better. After all there is no proof of a heaven or an after life, except for books. So before you take that leap of blind faith into the realm of unproven existance. Maybe, just maybe you and others should look at the gift of life from mother Earth as just more than some meaningless existance of a passing of time before you get to the promised land.
Kind of like quitting smoking after you get lung cancer. Keep polluting the Earth and you won't have to believe in a god that created man in it's image just to kill the only planet that we know can sustain life. :rolleyes: Funny how people respected the Earth until somebody came up with that god given right to own pieces of it and sell it to the highest bidder. Which in turn took away the need for knowing your neighbour who would have helped you sustain a healthy life in exchange of prepacked garbage. Thank you god! For putting greed into the mix.
EDIT: So why is there shrinks to help solve weak minded people's problems? Shouldn't they or can't god answer all those questions. Religion = the crutch for weak people who can't get through life by themselves. You know the same people who go crazy from being in a room by themselves for more than a day.
I think you misunderstood my post. I don't believe I mentioned anything about a God or deity. S**t, how do I know if there is a promise land or not?
But believing in something greater than ourselves isn't an easy way out or a ticket to f**k up the earth. Why does belief in something greater have to be about religion? It can be about faith in a religion, what about faith in past lives, faith in compassion.
Sorry if I misled. But I do stick by my original statement. "The world is a better place with faith in something greater than ourselves."
"She knows there is no success like failure
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
Ahnimus, if you are not a natural philosopher, I will accept that. At this point, I suspect you are a natural philospher who hasn't quite gotten his philosphy wings. Why should you want you to enter the world of philosophy with me, you might wonder? because our filters for viewing reality are soooooo similar. People might think otherwise because what shows on this board is where we don't see eye to eye. Out of all the personality types of those I interact with, most people that I know who are natural intuitives, the form of intuition most of these people use is intuition that sees externally in the world. The way you and I are wired is different: we are naturally intuitive to the human psyche and its potential--we can see what to others does not exist on this level which is why we can understand psychological principles. We could complement one another's view productively, based on our differences, if it wouldn't be so like pulling teeth. We can overcome our communication/understanding problems of one another. Since we are both intuitive, and can see theories and concepts, and since that is where we meet in the middle, it makes sense that we step out of reality into the theoretical dimension of philosophy in order to imagine and comprehend what each other is talking about, rather than continue misunderstandings and judgments.
Absolutely, we think almost identically. Except that I do not believe in things that have no proof. I do not consider any existence of reality beyond reality because it cannot be proven and considering it as a possibility is rather pointless.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sorry if I misled. But I do stick by my original statement. "The world is a better place with faith in something greater than ourselves."
I don't see how.
Is a child's life better if they believe in Santa Clause than if they do not... I've yet to see any evidence suggesting that it is. In-fact, such belief simply raises greater dillemas down the road.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I've heard people say that scientific theories are proven wrong, or that science is "turned on it's head". Which is complete rubbish, it's refined, but for the most part the basic theories are consistent.
Take for example the old religious belief that the sun revolved around the earth. Well in fact the earth revolves around the sun, but the revolving relationship between sun and earth remains consistent. That is how science typically functions.
I can prove that religion is bunk with religion. There can be no such thing as free choice and God's plan. They are contradictory.
Science has made organic material, Urea, as an example, from non-organic material. The origin of life is no different, it started as non-organic matter that in a specific combination creates organic matter. Science is coming amazingly close to explaining how the first organic life spawned from non-organic matter. It's my belief, shared by some, that the plasma emissions from the sun (Aurora Borealis) played a role in the origin of life.
I don't agree that science is fallable, any given scientific theory may be flawed, but the overall system of the scientific method ensures truth over time.
Remember the holon is the basic building block of all that exists. Keep in mind that atoms are only building blocks of the physical world, and are not a building block of say our personal experience of love. Atoms, for example, do not underly philosophy, since philosophy, while real, is not physical. Therefore for an actual integrated theory of everything, and to cope with such inter-disciplinary concepts, we must use a different kind of building block that is universal, such as the holon.
To conclude, we must go back to where the whole of the physical level of the universe is a whole unto itself, and also a part of the biosphere (realm of biology), which is a whole and also a part of the noosphere (realm of mind), which is a whole and also a part of the theosphere where spirituality is found.
In this sense, we can see how science which is a phenomena of the phsyiosphere, and "God" as a part of the theosphere, are one. And yet as we progress up the holarchy, we go beyond science, to levels beyond science. In conclusion science is part of the theosphere, and yet the theosphere is not limited to science.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It sounds like you are taking about fractal theory of the universe.
But, there is no such word as physiosphere, and theosphere. These are made up words, that describe nothing in reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
The holographic universe, or fractal universe theories do make a lot of sense... but then you make this huge leap into their being spirituality and God. When neither of those theories imply anything about spirtuality. It's what is called "Junk Science" and it's very wide-spread these days.
Considering scientism has overtaken realms of understanding it is not equipped to deal with due to the inherent limits of science, I'm not surprised that the idea of a theory of everything that includes everything is a little hard to conceptualize. And when it is conceptualized, the scientism that has molded our basic brain filters seems to want to take over by trying to force non-physical things within our reality system into a box (science) that cannot comprehend the depths to what is beyond. We essentially must collapse reality to fit our perceptions of it.
That's okay, because thankfully for us, there are frontrunners who have evolved and paved the way for us, for when we're ready to open to new horizons.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Words exist as soon as they are spoken and have meaning for someone. She described what they meant to her.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Angelica. You can't dismiss reality by making up words and metaphysical definitions for them. All you can do is confuse people.
There is absolutely no evidence supporting your theory. There never will be, because as your theory defines it's self as metaphysical, it can not be measured. I put it in the same pile as God and Bigfoot.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No that's not true. The words must describe something.
I can say "Hey, I have a dionoidic prelifimater" doesn't mean shit, cause it doesn't exist.
Completely wrong, philosophy is not the parent of science. I'm sorry Angelica. But there is truly no discussing reality with you, because your beliefs are based on the words of science fiction authors. You use words that do not exist and describe systems that make no sense. Onelongsong has a better chance of convincing me God exists.
definition of Holon from wikipedia
In the philosophy of history, a holon is a historical event that makes other historical events inevitable.
I.e. Determinism
Defintion of Holon from M-W.com
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above
And I understand what you are trying to say with your holon theory. I agree, but I think we can not possibly understand anything that exists beyond the realm of which we exist in and speculation about such realms is frivilous and possibly dangerous to our internal, subjective realities.
I find it to be quite short sighted to rule out new discoveries and our ability to learn new ways and explanations that were unheard of or even thought of before. We are limited as a species but we are evolving rapidly. It would be unfortunate hold on to old barriers and dismiss possibilty. We've came a long way in our colllection of knowledge but what is now known is not all there is to know.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It does to you. And once you describe what you mean to others then they'll understand, too.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The chain of causation must either begin and end with infinity or begin where it ends and vice versa. It's logical to believe that the universe is infinitely vast, and that particles are infinitely small or large. Certainly that all makes perfect sense. But when you try to reach beyond that, to speculate about things that we will never ever be capable of understanding. Then you are just subscribing to faith and no amount of logic can convince me of something that requires faith.
It's a thing that does some thing to some other thing. When I make up 3 new words to describe those things people will understand?
You have to make it so others can understand or else it will only be your language. You understand what she is describing, you just choose to disagree.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
You're right. But don't they have a belief in something greater than themselves, like compassion and love?
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
pass what your smoking this way
I'm smoking a big fat scientific text book packed full of reality.
Possibly. I don't honestly know or care much about Buddhism. It's just another doctrine to me, still I'm glad they are determinists.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Not exactly. I understand the concept of a fractal. Fractals actually do exist in nature. They are a natural phenomena. Existence beyond existence, reality beyond reality and logic beyond logic don't make any sense. That's where I am lost in Angelica's theories. They are drastic leaps of faith into indescribable unmeasurable, speculative imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bransleys_fern.png
A very simple, illustration of a naturally occuring fractal.
Each branch of the leaf, looks just like the entire leaf, and each branch of each branch of the leaf looks just like the entire leaf.
I think you misunderstood my post. I don't believe I mentioned anything about a God or deity. S**t, how do I know if there is a promise land or not?
But believing in something greater than ourselves isn't an easy way out or a ticket to f**k up the earth. Why does belief in something greater have to be about religion? It can be about faith in a religion, what about faith in past lives, faith in compassion.
Sorry if I misled. But I do stick by my original statement. "The world is a better place with faith in something greater than ourselves."
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
Absolutely, we think almost identically. Except that I do not believe in things that have no proof. I do not consider any existence of reality beyond reality because it cannot be proven and considering it as a possibility is rather pointless.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't see how.
Is a child's life better if they believe in Santa Clause than if they do not... I've yet to see any evidence suggesting that it is. In-fact, such belief simply raises greater dillemas down the road.