Martial Arts & Religion

[sanjuro_ronin]

If I believed in God, I would still say that God himself must conform to scientific principles. These may be beyond our power of comprehension but must exist none the les

Why would a being OUTSIDE our known reality have to conform to anything inside what we CURRENTLY perceive as our reality?

[Scott R. Brown]

LOL !
Were you in that philosophy class too when "critical thinking" got kaiboshed like that?

Naw, I am somewhat of a genius myself, I figured it out on my own.

I am one of those guys that is both, dumb as a door and too smart for my own good!!

Did I mention I am a narcist too?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Naw, I am somewhat of a genius myself, I figured it out on my own.

I am one of those guys that is both, dumb as a door and too smart for my own good!!

Did I mention I am a narcist too?

I never would have guessed

I remember the first time I read about critical thinking and thought, if one were to apply critical thinking to the process of critical thinking, would it work and if it did, would it "cancel" itself out?

[RenDaHai]

Why would a being OUTSIDE our known reality have to conform to anything inside what we CURRENTLY perceive as our reality?

It does not have to conform to what we currently perceive as reality. As I said we may not be able to comprehend the science, but science must exist. If god knows and understands himself, then he can be understood and therefore is science. If he does not understand himself, then he is not god.

To be honest, this is a tricky one.

[Scott R. Brown]

I never would have guessed

I remember the first time I read about critical thinking and thought, if one were to apply critical thinking to the process of critical thinking, would it work and if it did, would it "cancel" itself out?

My opinion is that it would try to support itself, because generally structures are ignorant of their unsupported premises, they are only able to perceive the unsupported premises of others.. It is sort of selective blindness and similar to people forgetting that the common denominator of our perception of all phenomena is mind.

Mind is the foundation, and no one can really say what it is or where it comes from. Sure some will say it is the brain, but that cannot be demonstrated separate from a mind deciding and perceiving and making up the rules that create the support for the conclusion. so you end up with an artificially constructed system trying to support its own reality, by pretending, to itself, that it is not an artificially constructed system.

In the end, the only one it is fooling is itself, while it is sitting narcistly self-satisfied with itself!

That is why I think many physicists that think God is not necessary are dimwitted fools. They have confused their knowledge of physics with phenomena beyond the purview of their field of study and are apparently too stupid to recognize it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It does not have to conform to what we currently perceive as reality. As I said we may not be able to comprehend the science, but science must exist. If god knows and understands himself, then he can be understood and therefore is science. If he does not understand himself, then he is not god.

To be honest, this is a tricky one.

IF you mean that IF GOD exists that his mere existence must conform the the "science" of His Plane of existence then, I guess so.
When we try to apply our VERY limited understanding of how the universe works as we CURRENTLY know it to works to things OUTSIDE our sphere of understanding what we get is, well, nothing.
Science has NO COMMMENT on anything OUTSIDE our sphere of understanding nature as we know it right now.
Scientists MAY comment in hypothesis form but science makes no claim on anything that it can't observe.

[Scott R. Brown]

It does not have to conform to what we currently perceive as reality. As I said we may not be able to comprehend the science, but science must exist. If god knows and understands himself, then he can be understood and therefore is science. If he does not understand himself, then he is not god.

To be honest, this is a tricky one.

Not entirely, this view presumes a few things that many people accept without question.

Namely "God knows all things". One must define God first and what knowing is and just what "all" things are. If you have a too narrow of a perspective on all of these then you will come to an erroneous conclusion.

For example: If God truly knows everything, and is omnipotent, then he both knows everything and doesn't know anything at all. Because if he didn't also know nothing at all he couldn't be omnipotent.

The problem then is not with the logic, but with our presumed definitions of god, knowing and "things" which are inadequate to the task of making a determination at all under these circumstances!

[Scott R. Brown]

And also the confusion of believing that logic can be used to define the indefinable. Once we define it is no longer indefinable and no longer God.

Lao Tzu recognized this when he stated, "The Tao that can be defined is not the 'True/Eternal' Tao."

Once we define it, we kill it and it is no longer Tao, or God!

[Lucas]

[Scott R. Brown]

Well okay, except for Kali!!!

And her yellow scarved minions like Lucas!!!

[Lucas]

being a minion is pretty good gig. great benefit package

[Scott R. Brown]

being a minion is pretty good gig. great benefit package

Lots of blood to drink, huh?

[rett]

I can't tell you how many times I have seen "critical thinkers" ripped to pieces in in a basic philosophy class, much less a theology one.
Critical thinkers are great, except that they tend to NOT apply that very thinking to their own views.

At least they actually tried, and put their ideas out there for discussion.

Unlike someone who just says "critical thinkers would rip you guyz to to shreds" and then posts a cartoon guy having an assburger.

[rett]

Lao Tzu recognized this when he stated, "The Tao that can be defined is not the 'True/Eternal' Tao."

That's a good definition.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not entirely, this view presumes a few things that many people accept without question.

Namely "God knows all things". One must define God first and what knowing is and just what "all" things are. If you have a too narrow of a perspective on all of these then you will come to an erroneous conclusion.

For example: If God truly knows everything, and is omnipotent, then he both knows everything and doesn't know anything at all. Because if he didn't also know nothing at all he couldn't be omnipotent.

The problem then is not with the logic, but with our presumed definitions of god, knowing and "things" which are inadequate to the task of making a determination at all under these circumstances!

The whole Omnipotent and Omniscient thing is one of the great debates in Theology BUT most are comfortable with:
God knows all he CHOOSES to know
God can do all he chooses to do that doesn't go against God's nature.