• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Why why WHY must you deny Batboy?
how about that creepy thing behind you
that item that knows how you think and feel

who do you think will be standing over you as you surrender your last breath?

oh.....maybe you think nothing awaits you at all?

and all of this life is smoke and mirrors

no serious reflection of your own ….matters
 

Audie

Veteran Member
how about that creepy thing behind you
that item that knows how you think and feel

who do you think will be standing over you as you surrender your last breath?

oh.....maybe you think nothing awaits you at all?

and all of this life is smoke and mirrors

no serious reflection of your own ….matters

As long as everything you say is fragmentary and
enigmatic, nobody can find any fault in it.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In my last post to you I asked: Can you give me an example of a candidate who was given a fair chance to succeed and didn't? Since you ducked the question, it's fair to presume that you don't personally have any more evidence than I do on this topic.
The answer is, they were all given a fair chance and none of them succeeded. I know of no exceptions. You know of no exceptions.

QED.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
This excerpt called ‘Science Discovers Intelligent Order’ is taken from page 6 of The Yoga of Jesus by Paramahansa Yogananda.

“The rise of science served to extend the range of nature’s marvels, so that today we have discovered order in the deepest recesses of the atom and among the grandest collection of galaxies,” writes Paul Davies, Ph.D., well-known author and professor of mathematical physics, in Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator (New York: Continuum Publishing, 1994).

Systems theorist Ervin Laszlo reports in The Whispering Pond: A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science (Boston: Element Books, 1999): “The finetuning of the physical universe to the parameters of life constitutes a series of coincidences – if that is what they are … in which even the slightest departure from the given values would spell the end of life, or, more exactly, create conditions under which life could never have evolved in the first place. If the neutron did not outweigh the proton in the nucleus of the atom, the active lifetime of the Sun and other stars would be reduced to a few hundred years; if the electric charge of electrons and protons did not balance precisely, all configurations of matter would be unstable and the universe would consist of nothing more than radiation and a relatively uniform mixture of gases … If the strong force that binds the particles of a nucleus were merely a fraction weaker than it is, deuteron could not exist and the stars such as the Sun could not shine. And if that force were slightly stronger than it is, the Sun and other active stars would inflate and perhaps explode … The values of the four universal forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the nuclear strong and weak forces) were precisely such that life could evolve in the cosmos.”

Professor Davies estimates that if – as some scientists maintain – there were no inherent guiding intelligence and cosmic evolution were governed only by the chance operation of strictly mechanical laws, “the time required to achieve the level of order we now meet in the universe by purely random processes is of the order of at least 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 80 years – inconceivably longer than the current age of the universe. Citing these calculations, Laszlo wryly observes, “Serendipity of this magnitude strains credibility,” and concludes, “Must we then face the possibility that the universe we witness is the result of purposeful design by an omnipotent master builder?”

In addition, we found god’s existence in our world fifty-five years ago in the Higgs Boson, ‘the God particle,’ which scientists theorize has the ability to ‘end the universe.’ The Higgs Boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics that is continuously emitted by the quantum excitation of the Higg’s energy field, the field of god’s consciousness that holds our reality together. ‘The Higgs field is tied to the origin and fate of the universe.’ Quantum physics proves that reality is altered by our conscious perception of it; science calls this the ‘observation affect’ which shows that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.’ Therefore, all reality is psychic; quantum energy is psyche or ‘soul’ energy; consciousness is the only thing that truly exists.

God is, most basically, consciousness. God is best described as a prism, where a beam of white light (god) goes into the prism and bounces out in a rainbow (the colors being the multiple manifestations of god in material nature). In nature, god, manifests as balance and the cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth.

Humanity must start acknowledging god’s existence. Science can no longer ignore its own research. We are responsible to something greater than us that encompasses and is all of us. Human beings, as we run our civilization, are responsible for making god suffer through every starving child, every bullied teenager, every bomb victim, every mutilated farm animal, every animal test subject, every bird who dies choking on plastic – all the unnecessary grief and pain we cause from phallogocentric global capitalism. We are responsible for the disrespect and misuse of the earth, the home god gave us. We are responsible for the world that we live in as it is us who create it. We must take after god and honor god’s most basic principles of balance/equality and compassion. We must start teaching our children that all reality and experience is sacred. Alfred North Whitehead saw god as inextricably bound up in the world process. He describes god as ‘the great companion, the fellow-sufferer, who understands.’ He states:

‘I affirm that God does suffer as he participates in the ongoing life of the society of being. His sharing in the world’s suffering is the supreme instance of knowing, accepting, and transforming in love the suffering which arises in the world. I am affirming the divine sensitivity. Without it, I can make no sense of the being of God.’ - Karen Armstrong, A History of God, page 384.

What do you think?


I do not look to science for proof of the fact that I exist. I have reasoned and do not accept the view that “I exist” because of arrangements and interactions of some chemicals.

Through a process of discriminating between the subject “I” and it’s objects, the “I” may be realised as attribute-less awareness.

Material sciences and spiritual sciences belong to two different non overlapping magisteria. To pursue spiritual enquiry means introversion of intellect in its source, unto the subject itself. Material science, OTOH, means enquiry of objects of intellect of the subject.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
This excerpt called ‘Science Discovers Intelligent Order’ is taken from page 6 of The Yoga of Jesus by Paramahansa Yogananda.

“The rise of science served to extend the range of nature’s marvels, so that today we have discovered order in the deepest recesses of the atom and among the grandest collection of galaxies,” writes Paul Davies, Ph.D., well-known author and professor of mathematical physics, in Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator (New York: Continuum Publishing, 1994).

Systems theorist Ervin Laszlo reports in The Whispering Pond: A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science (Boston: Element Books, 1999): “The finetuning of the physical universe to the parameters of life constitutes a series of coincidences – if that is what they are … in which even the slightest departure from the given values would spell the end of life, or, more exactly, create conditions under which life could never have evolved in the first place. If the neutron did not outweigh the proton in the nucleus of the atom, the active lifetime of the Sun and other stars would be reduced to a few hundred years; if the electric charge of electrons and protons did not balance precisely, all configurations of matter would be unstable and the universe would consist of nothing more than radiation and a relatively uniform mixture of gases … If the strong force that binds the particles of a nucleus were merely a fraction weaker than it is, deuteron could not exist and the stars such as the Sun could not shine. And if that force were slightly stronger than it is, the Sun and other active stars would inflate and perhaps explode … The values of the four universal forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the nuclear strong and weak forces) were precisely such that life could evolve in the cosmos.”

Professor Davies estimates that if – as some scientists maintain – there were no inherent guiding intelligence and cosmic evolution were governed only by the chance operation of strictly mechanical laws, “the time required to achieve the level of order we now meet in the universe by purely random processes is of the order of at least 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 80 years – inconceivably longer than the current age of the universe. Citing these calculations, Laszlo wryly observes, “Serendipity of this magnitude strains credibility,” and concludes, “Must we then face the possibility that the universe we witness is the result of purposeful design by an omnipotent master builder?”

In addition, we found god’s existence in our world fifty-five years ago in the Higgs Boson, ‘the God particle,’ which scientists theorize has the ability to ‘end the universe.’ The Higgs Boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics that is continuously emitted by the quantum excitation of the Higg’s energy field, the field of god’s consciousness that holds our reality together. ‘The Higgs field is tied to the origin and fate of the universe.’ Quantum physics proves that reality is altered by our conscious perception of it; science calls this the ‘observation affect’ which shows that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.’ Therefore, all reality is psychic; quantum energy is psyche or ‘soul’ energy; consciousness is the only thing that truly exists.

God is, most basically, consciousness. God is best described as a prism, where a beam of white light (god) goes into the prism and bounces out in a rainbow (the colors being the multiple manifestations of god in material nature). In nature, god, manifests as balance and the cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth.

Humanity must start acknowledging god’s existence. Science can no longer ignore its own research. We are responsible to something greater than us that encompasses and is all of us. Human beings, as we run our civilization, are responsible for making god suffer through every starving child, every bullied teenager, every bomb victim, every mutilated farm animal, every animal test subject, every bird who dies choking on plastic – all the unnecessary grief and pain we cause from phallogocentric global capitalism. We are responsible for the disrespect and misuse of the earth, the home god gave us. We are responsible for the world that we live in as it is us who create it. We must take after god and honor god’s most basic principles of balance/equality and compassion. We must start teaching our children that all reality and experience is sacred. Alfred North Whitehead saw god as inextricably bound up in the world process. He describes god as ‘the great companion, the fellow-sufferer, who understands.’ He states:

‘I affirm that God does suffer as he participates in the ongoing life of the society of being. His sharing in the world’s suffering is the supreme instance of knowing, accepting, and transforming in love the suffering which arises in the world. I am affirming the divine sensitivity. Without it, I can make no sense of the being of God.’ - Karen Armstrong, A History of God, page 384.

What do you think?

Is this in the introduction of the book? Or is it written by Sri Yogananda himself?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I do not look to science for proof of the fact that I exist. I have reasoned and do not accept the view that “I exist” because of arrangements and interactions of some chemicals.

Through a process of discriminating between the subject “I” and it’s objects, the “I” may be realised as attribute-less awareness.

Material sciences and spiritual sciences belong to two different non overlapping magisteria. To pursue spiritual enquiry means introversion of intellect in its source, unto the subject itself. Material science, OTOH, means enquiry of objects of intellect of the subject.

Should you are to have someone subject your existence to
any of a great many scientific tests, I can assure you that
all properly conducted experiments would provide unequivocal
data that you do exist. One is of course, quite free to
reject such findings. :D

I am not convinced that any method whatever would
reveal the actual existence of "spiritual science".

As for your last three lines, hath thou the capacity to
to express that is less majestic terms? It reads like
obscurantist woo woo.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I notice you're very good at asserting without evidence.

Not everyone thinks your opinion is a satisfactory substitute.

There may be someone who could argue less convincingly
about less, but, I hope they never come to RF
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I notice you're very good at asserting without evidence.

Not everyone thinks your opinion is a satisfactory substitute.
I'm surprised that you recognized my assertion without evidence. Is it only your own assertions without evidence that baffle you? For example: The answer is, they were all given a fair chance and none of them succeeded.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Can you please explain how and why people weren't given a fair chance?
The why seems obvious.

James Randi made a lot more money as a professional debunker than he did as a stage magician. You might say he invented the trade. There were TV appearances, book deals, speaking engagements, and so on. The Randi Prize was a slick marketing gimmick. It kept his name before the public.

Had anyone claimed the prize. His reputation would have suffered. So why take the chance on making the offer fairly when, because of his skill in deception, that was unnecessary?

Since I wasn't inside the Randi organization, the how I can also answer only by speculating on how I would do it.

I would have applicants sign prior agreements that were completely one-sided in my favor. They'd be foolish to sign the agreements but I don't care whether they sign or not. If they sign, they're not going to pass. If they don't sign, I don't care. Either way, nobody is going to claim the prize.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The why seems obvious.

James Randi made a lot more money as a professional debunker than he did as a stage magician. You might say he invented the trade. There were TV appearances, book deals, speaking engagements, and so on. The Randi Prize was a slick marketing gimmick. It kept his name before the public.

Had anyone claimed the prize. His reputation would have suffered. So why take the chance on making the offer fairly when, because of his skill in deception, that was unnecessary?

Since I wasn't inside the Randi organization, the how I can also answer only by speculating on how I would do it.

I would have applicants sign prior agreements that were completely one-sided in my favor. They'd be foolish to sign the agreements but I don't care whether they sign or not. If they sign, they're not going to pass. If they don't sign, I don't care. Either way, nobody is going to claim the prize.
Okay then. Can you please specify in what way the agreements were one-sided (and why they apparently agreed with and signed them anyway), and in what way the tests performed were unfair.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Yes ... maybe ... and fundamentally based on a strong sense of gratitutde it is our duty that if our Creator and Sustainer does possibly exist we must search for Him and make the effort to find Him and thank Him.

The effort part ... ungrateful humans mostly.

Why must we search for God? If it was truly important shouldn't God be making themselves known? How can we be grateful if we don't know who we are being grateful to and for what?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Okay then. Can you please specify in what way the agreements were one-sided (and why they apparently agreed with and signed them anyway), and in what way the tests performed were unfair.
No, I can't give you specifics. As I wrote earlier, I wasn't inside the Randi organization. I simply told you how I would go about it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Why must we search for God? If it was truly important shouldn't God be making themselves known? How can we be grateful if we don't know who we are being grateful to and for what?

Seems to me that if one did somehow detect "god",
like the way gravity waves were detected, then what?

You wont know a blessed thing about this god other than
that it is kinda divine.

What now? Make more and better detectors? Build a big
fancy structure of stone? Say magic words? Crawl up
a mountain? Avoid fish on friday?

IS there any appropriate response, any more than there
is to the detection of that little planet thing past Pluto?

Expressing gratitude? That seems really odd.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
No, I can't give you specifics. As I wrote earlier, I wasn't inside the Randi organization. I simply told you how I would go about it.
But, considering James Randi has the people he tests sign an agreement on the methodology and criteria of their tests that are performed, we can conclude that the people he tested didn't feel like the tests or criteria were unfair. They signed the agreement, and agreed to be tested in that specific way. So your assumption that the agreement was unfair in some way has no basis. We're talking about tests that were mutually agreed upon by both the scientists carrying them out and the applicants who submitted themselves for them, and the applicants always fail. That indicates that the circumstances and conditions of the tests ARE fair.

If you want to assert foul play, you need to demonstrate it.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Expressing gratitude? That seems really odd.

Perhaps, I express gratitude for things people do, even small things. Sometimes even doing things I don't really need them to do. Seems to make them feel better. No real cost to me, so why not?

Perhaps this God entity needs to feel better about things.

"Hiya, uh God person, thanks for whatever it was you did to kick off the universe."
No biggy.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Perhaps, I express gratitude for things people do, even small things. Sometimes even doing things I don't really need them to do. Seems to make them feel better. No real cost to me, so why not?

Perhaps this God entity needs to feel better about things.

"Hiya, uh God person, thanks for whatever it was you did to kick off the universe."
No biggy.

In Wyoming I saw a book of cartoons about
"Cowpokes". Not my lifestyle!!

But anyway, one of them showed a cowboy on
his horse, hills, mountains, glorious sunset and
the cowboy has his hat off.

Looking up, he is saying "Thanks, Boss."

good enough, even if there isnt nothing listenin'.
 
Top