Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 101

Thread: Controversial book

  1. #46
    Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler Corno Dolce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    10,538
    Herzlichen Dank, Herr Roussak.

    Tschüß,

    Corno Dolce
    *If a man wants God to hear his prayer quickly, then before he prays for anything else, even his own soul, when he stands and stretches out his hands towards God, he must pray with all his heart for his enemies. Through this action God will hear everything that he asks* -Abba Zeno-

    *Protagoras: "Truth is subjective. What is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Your opinion is true by virtue of its being your opinion."

    *Socrates: "My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you are in absolute error. Since this is my opinion, then according to your philosophy you must grant that it is true."

    "Improvisational Art": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM

  2. #47
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    Bad answer . The elephant's brains are even bigger.
    Is it surprising, then, that elephants share many capacities with humans, such as the ability to love?

    Size isn't the only factor. Our brains are more advanced.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  3. #48
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    Bad answer. You have the material organs of perception and can therefore register only the material information. You can not register the dual nature of light with them as well ( know what I am talking about ? ) Nevertheless it is a proven thing.

    There is zero evidence for the eternal matter. If you look in the mirror, you will see your own reflection there. Which doesn't mean you have existed eternally.

    Inserting God into equation.... - read attentively the Conclusions from my last post, understand the essence, try again.
    The dual nature of light is not proven. Nothing in science is. But that's just a technicality.


    The existence of matter implies eternal matter, unless matter somehow popped into existence spontaneously (which I am not discounting, necessarily). Inserting God into the equation would explain the existence of matter, but you are still left with explaining the existence of God.



    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    Accepting God as the Reason of the Beginning, I become an answer – WHY did this all happened exactly in this time and place
    Perhaps because this is the only time and place this could all happen in. Or, if you accept the multiverse theory, then it's just random (I think, you need to be really up to speed on physics to "get" the multiverse theory).

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    why the Earth orbit the Sun at the best distance possible
    Given the billions and billions of planets in the universe, it so surprising that some (Earth is not the only one) orbit at distances hospitable to life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    why such incredible amount of the positive mutations had happened
    Terrible answer! You shouldn't argue evolution if you don't understand. I'll create a thread for this, but the quick answer to this is that evolution relies more on variation than mutation and that there were plenty of negative variations/mutations that were eliminated by natural selection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    why Jesus had chosen the best possible time and place to appear on Earth
    First off, I really don't see what this has to do with the debate. If you don't believe in God, you sure as hell don't believe Jesus was anything more than a rabbi. Second off, what's the evidence that Jesus came at the best possible time and place to appear?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    The questions, HOW this all ( Universe, evolution etc. ) works are delivered by science.
    Well, we agree on one thing, at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    I have no problems to understand – where the all-common moral norms come from, because I see the "good" and "bad" things as the reflections of Good and evil existing Above ( and beneath ).
    And I have no problem understanding that different members of the same species would reach the same "moral norms." After all, different communities of a single species tend to organize themselves in similar manners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    I have no problems to understand , why all known cultures did come to idea of God ( or gods ) without even ever seeing Him ( them ).
    Because they needed a way to explain the universe and didn't have one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    Denying God, you must accept the eternal matter.
    Not necessarily. See one of the first parts of my post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    You have to explain everything listed above only basing on the the law of the causal-investigatory communications – which is universal for all the phenomena in the material world.
    And what's the problem with this, may I ask?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    That is , you must have regard it all as the chain of accidents.
    Wrong. I regard it is a function of the physical laws of the universe, which are definitely not accidents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    The Earth had accidentally came to its orbit ( any other would be killing )
    Noooo... the Earth came into its orbit due to the physical laws of the universe as applied to the big bang. As did every other planet in the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    the mutations were accidential etc.
    Again, you are in sore need of a thorough understanding of evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Roussak View Post
    Theorethically, possible. Practically, I believe in a Probability theory. And therefore in God.
    Theoretically, far more probable than the existence of this magical being that doesn't obey the laws of every other substance/being in the universe. As evidenced by my earlier replies in this post.



    And I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond to my posts with "bad answer." Let's show some respect, please.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  4. #49
    Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler Corno Dolce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    10,538
    Hi pnoom,

    You say that the dual nature of light has not been proven? What about the notion of Wave-Particle Duality as exhibited in this link:

    http://www.grandinetti.org/Teaching/...tures/QMLight/


    Cheers,

    Corno Dolce
    *If a man wants God to hear his prayer quickly, then before he prays for anything else, even his own soul, when he stands and stretches out his hands towards God, he must pray with all his heart for his enemies. Through this action God will hear everything that he asks* -Abba Zeno-

    *Protagoras: "Truth is subjective. What is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Your opinion is true by virtue of its being your opinion."

    *Socrates: "My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you are in absolute error. Since this is my opinion, then according to your philosophy you must grant that it is true."

    "Improvisational Art": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM

  5. #50
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    I would say that the dual nature of light has been as close to proven as can possibly be proven. However, one of the basic tenets of science is that nothing can truly be proven because there is always the possibility that it will be disproven (or else it's not science).

    Hence my comment that it was "just a technicality."
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  6. #51
    Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler Corno Dolce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    10,538
    Hi pnoom,

    Three cheers for the aspect of discovery in Science.

    All the best,

    Corno Dolce
    *If a man wants God to hear his prayer quickly, then before he prays for anything else, even his own soul, when he stands and stretches out his hands towards God, he must pray with all his heart for his enemies. Through this action God will hear everything that he asks* -Abba Zeno-

    *Protagoras: "Truth is subjective. What is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Your opinion is true by virtue of its being your opinion."

    *Socrates: "My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you are in absolute error. Since this is my opinion, then according to your philosophy you must grant that it is true."

    "Improvisational Art": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM

  7. #52
    Commodore con Forza Andrew Roussak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Karlsruhe, Germany
    Posts
    614
    Hi pnoom,

    first of all sorry for my bad mood yesterday. You can understand the reasons of it if you have ever had to sleep no more than 5 hours per night, through the whole week. I did not mean anything personally. Hope you can understand it.

    Here is a link , which may be interesting for you - just scroll down to the bottom of the page ( concerning multiverse theory ).

    http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Proj...utliverse.html

    This is , actually, not an answer to your post - I hope I will find an hour today or tomorrow to come up with that.

    Take care and take it easy -

    Andrew
    "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return." - Leonardo Da Vinci


    www.andrew-roussak.com

  8. #53
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    No problem, I've had my bad days, too.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  9. #54
    Captain of Water Music pnoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    370
    Interesting link, by the way.

    For the record, I will say that I don't discount the idea of a creator. I merely think that it is highly unlikely.
    "Did anybody see this snowman
    Stand there with the lord
    With proper get up, hang his hat
    Only you're feeling sleepy-eyed"

    -Damo Suzuki

  10. #55
    Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler Corno Dolce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    10,538
    Aaaaaaaah pnoom,

    Thou art a Mensch. You don't discount the idea of a Creator but you find it unlikely. We humans have limits as to what we can wrap our brains around. When through empirical reasoning or through a priori reasoning we cannot find the answer, we have yet another possibility - Faith.

    I'm not here to sway your thinking one way or the other - I wouldn't even dream of it. But I would be amiss if I didn't say that you might *entertain* other methods of being an active participant as opposed to passive spectator.

    Let me indulge: Math is not a spectator sport - likewise, Faith is not a spectator sport, no matter how offensive to reasoned, rational thinking you may find it. It requires active participation - Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Baha'i. You can choose not to entertain any belief system, but, since Nature abhors a vacuum, a belief system will rush in to fill the void, whether it be self-worship or following some human Illuminati.

    Cheers,

    Corno Dolce
    *If a man wants God to hear his prayer quickly, then before he prays for anything else, even his own soul, when he stands and stretches out his hands towards God, he must pray with all his heart for his enemies. Through this action God will hear everything that he asks* -Abba Zeno-

    *Protagoras: "Truth is subjective. What is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Your opinion is true by virtue of its being your opinion."

    *Socrates: "My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you are in absolute error. Since this is my opinion, then according to your philosophy you must grant that it is true."

    "Improvisational Art": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM

  11. #56
    Commodore con Forza Andrew Roussak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Karlsruhe, Germany
    Posts
    614
    Hi pnoom, Corno Dolce, Sybarite, and all others who are still there at this thread.

    Just wanted to answer herewith to the last post of pnoom.


    Now, first of all -


    No problem, I've had my bad days, too.


    Thanks. Great that you understand. Insomnia is a terrible thing, concerning its consequences.
    Well, I will not better try to answer the specific points of you, but will just explain generally, how I do understand the subject. Hope it's Okay.
    Let's look -

    For the record, I will say that I don't discount the idea of a creator. I merely think that it is highly unlikely.


    Well, pnoom , actually you are saying almost the same I was trying to affirm. You don't discount it – means, it may still be regarded as possible. In this light, it does not matter how do they definite Him – Creator, God, or Universal Reason ( comes up sometimes ). The essence is the same – an Uncreated Unmaterial Reason, giving birth to matter.
    Then, even if you are saying -

    The existence of matter implies eternal matter, unless matter somehow popped into existence spontaneously (which I am not discounting, necessarily).
    - you do mean, in fact, that the matter could begin somehow without any help „from abroad“ - from an unmaterial world. Well, this would mean, logically, an eternal matter anyway – this „popping“ could be only some transformation of the matter, or energy, because the matter can not begin from nothing – it contradicts to the law of the preserving of the energy.
    So we have thus, once again, two initial points of view – materialistic and idealistic.

    A little bit of history now – I promise to cut it as short as possible.

    The idealistic point of view had existed, evidently, as long as the mankind itself. The first ever registered materialistic work was De Rerum Natura, On the Nature of Things ( Titus Lucretius Carus , ca. 70 BC ). The both world-views coexist , therefore, more or less peacefully throughout 2000 years - at least. We know about the order of the Universe much more, than the ancient Romans did, but we still do accept both possibilities.

    In the history of the European philosophy, there were many attempts to prove the existence of God on the way of pure logic ( Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Acqiunas,...) . These arguments were, on obvious reasons, widely supported by the Catholic church.

    Immanuel Kant ( XVIII C ) in his works Critique Of The Pure Reason and Critique Of The Practical Reason had refuted all existing arguments, and had proved, in turn, that the existence of God can not be discovered on the way of a pure reason ( i.e. using the objective knowledge, or material experience ).

    Well, such things were rather tough for that times – Vatikan had in 1827 added Critique.. to the list of the prohibited books. Lenin has referred very often in his works to Critique..., using the quotations of it, as providing the philosophycal basis for the atheistic world–view. The fact, that the coin had, actually, two sides, was, as always, simply ignored. The opposite consequence of Kant's arguments is the same fair : the NON-existence of God can not be proved basing on the material experience as well. Which means, actually, that the science, researching the material world, can never be able to deliver the sufficient arguments to prove or refute God's existence. Regadless of the state of science – it is logically impossible.

    Furthermore, Kant himself was not an atheist and tried to find the needed arguments, researching the subjective matters. The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God was published in 1763. Kant shows the logical tie between such conceptions as „freedom“ and „God“.God is the only possible origin of the human freedom. Even if both „freedom“ and „God“ are only imaginary things, they are inalienable from each other. This work is killingly logical – though, not rather convincing from the materialistic point of view, because „freedom“ is itself subjective.

    Now how it all can work in practice.

    Inserting God into the equation would explain the existence of matter, but you are still left with explaining the existence of God.
    Let us just consider both these equations.

    Say, we assume one of the versions of the beginning of the Universe as a proven fact. It could be a Big Bang, for example, does not matter . Then the equation would look like:

    Eternal matter ( regardless in which form ) - Big Bang – Universe – Solar System – Earth – organic forms – life.

    The origin of the Big Bang could be explained as a consequence of the various random factors, having led to it. Well – random does not mean impossible.

    Let's consider the „idealistic“ variant of our equation:

    Eternal God ( Creator ) - Big Bang – Universe – Solar System – Earth – organic forms – life.

    Only the first member is now different. It makes sense, though, because Eternal God ( as an unmaterial essence ) is regarded here as the cause of the Big Bang. The deviation from the law of preserving of energy is herewith explained – God is not subject to the laws of the material world.

    Well, inserting God into the equation has now two important concequences. First one – if I accept God , understood as the Universal Reason, as the cause of the Beginning – I must clear realize now that the process of Creation was not random. God should have a reason to create the Universe. Which means, I don't have to see the evolution ( as a special case ) as a random process anymore. Even if I am not aware of the aims of God – I nevertheless can begin to understand, WHY the evolution went in this way and not in any other.

    The second concequence - accepting Eternal God, or Creator, and considering the first concequence mentioned – I must come to the conclusion, that the most of all known religions were ( or are ) , in their essense, true – because it is , for example, exactly the picture of the process of Creation, as it is described in Genesis.

    I don't want to argue here which of the two world-views is „true“. I guess such debate is rather useless. I only wanted to show that, since we still can not discount the idea of Creator, the religion has an absolutely sensible basis. The rest is a matter of belief.

    Now , a little bit more – concerning how this discussion began. I don't understand, in this light, the arguments of Charles Dawkins. Surely I am not saying I can be an expert in his special field – but , as much as I could understand, he argues more with the DETAILS of the Old Testament, not with its ESSENCE. And it doesn't make any sense . Because if I still have a logical opportunity to insert God into our equation, his place can be only at the very beginning of it – before the Big Bang, long before the beginning of the evolution . All the details are thus secondary. I will logically consider the evolution itself as one of the concequences of the Creation . I know , herewith, WHY had evolution chosen this way and not another. HOW did it work , which were the details – this is the field of science, not religion.

    Okay, I guess I am over now with my explanation. Once again -

    I am not necessary saying that only my views are true. My point is – since we are not sure about the Origin of the matter – the attempts to prove or refute the existence of God, discussing the details ( Dawkins ) are useless.

    Pnoom, I hope I have answered your points herewith, and I want to quit this thread with this post at last. I can not add anything more to the discussion.

    Still – if I have missed anything – just let me know, I am ( usually ) here.

    Cheers,
    Andrew
    Last edited by Andrew Roussak; Oct-20-2007 at 21:00.
    "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return." - Leonardo Da Vinci


    www.andrew-roussak.com

  12. #57
    Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler Corno Dolce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    10,538
    Hi Mr. Roussak,

    Thanks for your sharing a bit of the History of Ideas. What is so interesting is that some of the greatest minds, from Isaac Newton to our day, are people with a Faith System. Georg Riemann, a brilliant Mathematician who has done much work in the field of Differential Geometry was a Lutheran - Immanuel Kant likewise. Dr. John Polkinghorne is Anglican and has done work with Quantum Physics. Here's an interesting website:

    http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html

    Cheers,

    Corno Dolce
    *If a man wants God to hear his prayer quickly, then before he prays for anything else, even his own soul, when he stands and stretches out his hands towards God, he must pray with all his heart for his enemies. Through this action God will hear everything that he asks* -Abba Zeno-

    *Protagoras: "Truth is subjective. What is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Your opinion is true by virtue of its being your opinion."

    *Socrates: "My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you are in absolute error. Since this is my opinion, then according to your philosophy you must grant that it is true."

    "Improvisational Art": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM

  13. #58
    Commodore con Forza Andrew Roussak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Karlsruhe, Germany
    Posts
    614
    Hi Mr. Corno Dolce,

    thanks for the link - really interesting. I have actually read a book in Russian which had quite similar views - on Resurrection, for example. Weird how people come to the same ideas, even concerning details, without obviously knowing each other.

    Cheers, many respect
    Andrew
    "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return." - Leonardo Da Vinci


    www.andrew-roussak.com

  14. #59
    Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler Corno Dolce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    10,538
    Hello Mr. Roussak,

    I'm glad that you found the link interesting. Might that Russian book you're reading be written by Soloviev, or Bulgakov? The wonderful thing about true knowledge is how it reaches out and interfaces on many points with human beings who are humble in their quest for knowledge. And then the miracle happens, all those interfaces provide contacts with others all over this world, helping to bridge over the isolation and distance and strengthening culture.

    You are probably familiar with the name of Masaaki Suzuki. Who would have thought that the Japanese would accept and listen the Cantatas, Masses, Motets, and Oratorios of JSBach? Maestro Suzuki is busy plowing the fields and sowing the seeds of a common understanding.

    Yea, he's even a bit of a missionary in Shinto Buddhist lands, introducing them, through Bach's music, to concepts so foreign to them yet it invariably will resonate with them when they see and hear the beauty and purity of the message.

    The Japanese respond to natural and simple beauty through their Eastern cultural patrimony. The music of JSBACH as Western cultural patrimony, is the embodiment of natural and simple beauty without being facile, immature, or dumbed down.

    Humbly and respectfully yours,

    Corno Dolce
    *If a man wants God to hear his prayer quickly, then before he prays for anything else, even his own soul, when he stands and stretches out his hands towards God, he must pray with all his heart for his enemies. Through this action God will hear everything that he asks* -Abba Zeno-

    *Protagoras: "Truth is subjective. What is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Your opinion is true by virtue of its being your opinion."

    *Socrates: "My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you are in absolute error. Since this is my opinion, then according to your philosophy you must grant that it is true."

    "Improvisational Art": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM

  15. #60
    Commodore con Forza Sybarite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    553
    Good evening, one and all.

    I'm afraid that I have been very busy for the last few days and haven't had the time to reply at length to some of the points raised. Just briefly, then, I'll take up pnoom's comment: there is no inconsistency. Nobody can know whether there is something 'bigger' anywhere else in the universe.

    The question of a "creator", however, still leaves the then bigger question of what/who created the creator, which gets ever more unlikely with, as it were, each time you find yourself having to ask that same question.

    However, I think that it can very safely be said that the god of the Bible, of the Torah, of the Quran does not exist. In terms of the Bible and Christianity (with which I am personally better acquainted), there is not a shred of evidence that Jehovah exists. Not an iota, not a jot.

    And, even if He did exist, he's a nasty and sadistic piece of work – leaving the question of why anyone wants to follow and worship an entity that is so thoroughly unpleasant.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Europe sleepwalking into disaster...
    By giovannimusica in forum Open Debate Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jul-16-2007, 04:39
  2. Van Der Graaf Generator book
    By bucka in forum Progressive Rock Music Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec-16-2005, 20:35
  3. Robert Casadesus Reconsidered
    By Todd in forum Classical Music Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov-27-2005, 18:42
  4. Daniel Ericourt Plays Debussy
    By Todd in forum Classical Music Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep-01-2005, 22:22
  5. artificial music intelligence .......
    By hitsware in forum Community Center and Chat Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jul-16-2004, 06:36

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •