Who is God

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I do...profoundly so.  It is all about how we look.  My study of anatomy and physiological sciences was a profoundly spiritual experience for me.  It is critically important to know the distinction between where vs. how in the search for God.  

I can find God through science, in science, or whatever, just as easily as I can find him in, or through meditation.  It is how we apply our heart, more than what we are looking at or what we are doing.  God is everywhere and as such we are taught to gain learning from things in the earth, above the earth, etc... It is science.

I am sorry but yes, everyone can, that is called "general revelation".

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

Quote

In theology, general revelation, or natural revelation, refers to knowledge about God and spiritual matters, discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature (the physical universe), philosophy and reasoning. Christian theologians use the term to describe knowledge of God purported to be plainly available to all humankind. General revelation is usually understood to pertain to outward temporal events that are experienced within the world or the physical universe. The definition may be extended to include human conscience or providence or providential history.

This is the basis (poor as it is) which Evangelicals use to maintain that it is fair that those who have never heard of Christ can be "saved" despite having no specific knowledge of Jesus.

Yet again we are talking passed each other.

Science as a methodology cannot prove the existence of God to a non-believer.  Again I am sorry to say we have to say adieu- we cannot communicate on these issues.  It just seems to never work.  For some reason we cannot agree on what "subjective" or "personal" means as opposed to "objective"

God is not an object to by physically examined and weighed and to take a hair sample, take it to the lab and discover his DNA.  Because he is not an object that we can examine scientifically, his existence is not "objectively knowable to science"

Because there is a revelation to a prophet that God IS objective, those sentences are still the subjective experiences of the prophet receiving them.  Because I agree with the prophet, that still does not make God objective to a scientist.  Dawkins  and atheists of his ilk would be out of business if we had a hair sample of God

For something to be "real" for a Dawkins-type, physical evidence is required.  We do not have physical evidence.  We have interpretations of physical evidence, like yours and mine which say that because the world exists, God exists.  I agree with you. but the physical existence of the world is not physical existence of God, but is your interpretation of how the world got here.

I know somehow you will come up with an example of what you think that means but we will disagree that it means what you think it means.   Sorry- no communication.

If you continue to think that your interpretation of the world is scientific evidence for God, I would suggest you find a scientific atheist of the Dawkins type and go ahead and convert him.

Quote

 ....was a profoundly spiritual experience for me.

That is the point- it was a spiritual experience for YOU not to everyone else in the room.   That means it was "subjective"

I wish you well.

Edited December 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

Is it not true that much of science , at least historical science , is based on subjective thinking? Archeology , anthropology, geology etc. are always making statements based on interpretations of so called ' evidence ' . Why is it that religious experience is always to be left out because it  deals with subjective evidence? Most scientists accept the ' Big Bang ' , yet the vast , vast, vast majority of people, including most scientists, have to accept that idea by faith and the testimony of  the very few ' prophets ' who have the skills and the technology to know for themselves.

Here is a link to research that might be putting a dent in the concept of dark matter, that substance which, though unseen and only inferred from other observations, was widely accepted to exist.

  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/

Edited December 29, 2016 by strappinglad

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Is it not true that much of science , at least historical science , is based on subjective thinking? Archeology , anthropology, geology etc. are always making statements based on interpretations of so called ' evidence ' . Why is it that religious experience is always to be left out because it  deals with subjective evidence? Most scientists accept the ' Big Bang ' , yet the vast , vast, vast majority of people, including most scientists, have to accept that idea by faith and the testimony of  the very few ' prophets ' who have the skills and the technology to know for themselves.

Here is a link to research that might be putting a dent in the concept of dark matter, that substance which, though unseen and only inferred from other observations, was widely accepted to exist.

  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/

YES this is exactly perfectly right on the money, and the concept I have been trying to show on this board forever- the distinction between how we know things is always based on our contextual understanding of ambiguous statements we call "truth" and that is the case in both religion and science. It is also the basis of the Rorty quote in my siggy.   Something's out there, but describing it is impossible

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v305/n1/full/scientificamerican0711-80.html

That is the point of both Pragmatism and Phenomenology and the Analytic philosophers like Rorty and the basis of all postmodernism

Susskind, the discoverer of black holes says that we will never know the ultimate nature of reality.

• Quote

   

  • What is the deep nature of physical reality?
  • BIG PICTURE
    We may never be able to grasp that reality. The universe and its ingredients may be impossible to describe unambiguously.

   

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

YES this is exactly perfectly right on the money, and the concept I have been trying to show on this board forever- the distinction between how we know things is always based on our contextual understanding of ambiguous statements we call "truth" and that is the case in both religion and science. It is also the basis of the Rorty quote in my siggy.   Something's out there, but describing it is impossible

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v305/n1/full/scientificamerican0711-80.html

That is the point of both Pragmatism and Phenomenology and the Analytic philosophers like Rorty and the basis of all postmodernism

Susskind, the discoverer of black holes says that we will never know the ultimate nature of reality.

•  

The reason this is so confusing is that ultimately all observations are "subjective".  Each observation a scientist makes is subjective FOR HER.

The personal observation is then communicated in language, which makes it "objective"- but doing so uses the symbols in language which make it inherently ambiguous.  Objectivity is an illusion really- our personal realities cannot every be completely shared

So when science tries to take our "observation" of God- which is a subjective feeling in our heart- it automatically distorts the experience by trying to make it objective- and that is why God cannot be described objectively

It's somewhat like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle- the very act of observation distorts reality "as it is" and communication takes that distortion farther by putting it into words.

Is light a particle or wave?  It is both and neither, depending on how we observe it, and the results we expect to get from the experiment

"What it is" is defined by the experiment itself because what we are really observing is HOW OUR MINDS WORK IN OBSERVING.

That is why "observations" of God cannot be defined because to do so makes the description into something God is not.

Just as one cannot describe the experience of the color blue to someone who has not experienced it- perhaps a blind person- the experience of blue cannot be made "objective" since there is now way to prove that YOUR experience of blue is the exact same I have when I experience "blue".

Like that, the experience of God is always personal and subjective just as the experience of blue is.  Calling the exprience of God as a "burning in the bosom" is like saying "blue is a calming feeling like looking at the horizon".   There are no words to describe either experience

Yet we have the name "blue" which we can agree upon without defining it.  The only definition is to point to something blue. So what appears to be "objective" in collective speech is a complete distortion of the reality of "blue" because it is undefinable

It's horribly difficult to describe and now I have probably confused everyone.   Objectivity is an illusion- not the other way around.  The word blue is not the experience blue, and so it is with all descriptions

That is where the slogan comes from that there are no "facts" just interpretations.   What we CALL "objective" is really agreed-upon distortions of reality as it really is because what it really is cannot be described

We look out and try to describe nature but words cannot mirror it because nature is not words.  We look out and all we see is our own perceptions coming back at us- all we see is our own limited ability to perceive staring back at us.  

Edited December 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

Years ago I would write the words A  BOOK on my chalk board and ask the class, " what is that ?" They would invariably say, " that is a book ." I would say, " No it isn't ". Then I would hold up a text and say " This is a book , the thing on the board is chalk on a chalkboard. " The actual lesson was an attempt to distinguish the abstract idea of a circle and all representations we can produce in 2 ( or 3 ) dimensions. Language, a great tool... but fuzzy.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Is it not true that much of science , at least historical science , is based on subjective thinking? Archeology , anthropology, geology etc. are always making statements based on interpretations of so called ' evidence ' . Why is it that religious experience is always to be left out because it  deals with subjective evidence? Most scientists accept the ' Big Bang ' , yet the vast , vast, vast majority of people, including most scientists, have to accept that idea by faith and the testimony of  the very few ' prophets ' who have the skills and the technology to know for themselves.

Here is a link to research that might be putting a dent in the concept of dark matter, that substance which, though unseen and only inferred from other observations, was widely accepted to exist.

  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/

One more try and then I will quit.

Phenomenology and pragmatism and process philosophy seek to develop a new science based on pure human experience,  one could call it a science of the subjective, using a new way of thinking and verbalizing these ideas.

[theplains]

On 27/12/2016 at 10:59 AM, stemelbow said:

But, with that all said, why is it such an imperative in scripture that we believe god?  Are we all not the same in essence?  Is not God He who favors the atheist just as the Mormon?  'm convinced He must be, else God is not.  if he favors me I'm out. 

I would recommend "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller for atheists and agnostics.

Jim