This is one of the best opening statements from Professor Krauss I've ever heard. A good 20 minute of a can of "whoop ass" on William Lane Craig. [video=youtube;-b8t70_c8eE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b8t70_c8eE&feature=youtu.be&t=21m15s[/video]
Very thought provoking video. The missing link that is science has no maths to describe thoughts of the mind such as faith, morality, love, affection, hate, greed, avarice, honesty, loyalty, integrity....in the absence of such equations that governs such human factors we needed something to govern us as humanity. That's where God and faith in God comes in. Or in China we have Buddhism , Confucius, Laozi,.... to codify life style and humanity. When comparing science with God one hits tremendous debate, one can also compare law with God and again there is huge debate. Likewise no national law has completely or even started to codified some of these qualities of people: morality, love, honesty, humbleness, humility...Therefore science can describe repeated expected outcome. God does not describe repeatable outcomes as in science. However it does a good job of describing repeated outcome in morality, humility, compassion, ..etc. rather well which science cannot do. Science does logically and rationality make us understand the physical world but God or faith makes us understand the thought self values and inter personal values which has no evidence base approach. Such thoughts may be intentions which may never have any physical action. There lies one of the most challenging development in law in this century which is to make a criminal offence of bad thoughts in the mind! That is to say to bring science or evidence based methods to thoughts in the mind which like thoughts of God has no physical evidence!
Nice reply. There may be no mathematical proof of some of the things you mentioned. However, there are plenty of studies on it and some we already know how these things happen such as "love" which we know is caused by release of oxytocin. The problem I have with your statement is when you put God in replacement of evidence to something we don't understand. Just because we don't understand it and can't explain it now, doesn't mean God is the answer. In time we will know as science advances. For example, people use to think earthquakes and volcano eruptions are caused by god's anger, and because of these type of thinking, they sacrifice virgins and babies by throwing them into the volcano thinking that their sacrifice would prevent the eruption. Innocent people die for these backward thinking. Now we know why volcanoes erupt and why we have earthquakes. Farmers no longer pray for rain instead they would consult with meteorologist. As for governess of our humanity. I also don't agree that god has any part in it. Society and community governs our humanity. That's why we have a government, police departments, fire departments etc. And if it is a god govern world, how do we know which god? Why aren't we all following Sharia Law? What make your god is the right god and not all the other gods that are out there? Again, we may not have all the answers now, but science is making god smaller and smaller by the minute. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, but I do want people to start thinking and start asking questions and not believe in blind faith that has been taught to us by indoctrination when we were very young. I am still open to believing in a god, as long as there is evidence to support it.
The past three posts are abosolutely high quality posts. This is the concept everyone should adopt. Alas if that was the case, we would be called the Vulcans from Star Trek. There's one point that both of you raise that I found interesting. God or any godly entity is used as a synonym for what I'll call "the unknown knowledge". The problem with humanity is that despite the sophistication of our minds, there are things we just cannot comprehend. There are things that our mind does to help us understand the world around us (see the show Brain Games, absolutely amazing show regarding the workings of our minds). Let's say knowledge is represented by a pool of water. As we learn more, we scoop a bit out, bit by bit. So the remaining water is "the unknown knowledge", knowledge that we have not acquired yet. At the time of the creation of religions, humans were not capable of understanding this, so they needed to have a representation of this "unknown knowledge". So God, Alah, etc, served as the image of this "unknown knowledge". They needed something familiar, hence why (I think) gods have human characteristics. CrazyMofo made a great point in that as we learn things, this "God", or rather this pool of "unknown knowledge" decreases. In a sense, God does and does not exist at the same time lol. God exists, if the definition of God is this pool of "unknown knowledge". But God does not exist in the sense of some solid entity. I'm ranting: one can argue that "unknown knowledge" is all powerful, almighty, and omnipotent, because access to all knowledge enables those three lol. But I digress. Going back to the statement I quoted from CrazyMofo earlier, regardless of how we perceive religion, the ultimate goal that us humans should do is to think, ask questions, and be open-minded. The problem is that the majority of humanity don't have the ability to do so.
^On the money again Dan! I wish I can come across as elegantly as you do in making a point! But then again, they don't call me the CrazyMofo for nothing! LOL
By the way, as to the question of God or whatever we call things, I am a beginner in learning the deep meanings the Heart and Diamond Sutras. The Indians were and still are very thoughtful and creative, they invented the use of "zero" and "infinity". Medieval India was very rich in inventing concepts of the very profound. In these two sutras they describe, no way with my small capability I am explaining well here, they transform the way we perceive the world/cosmos and beyond. In all other faiths the emphasis is on the individual consciousness knowing itself. One can easily identify this with Chrisianity. However the Mahayana emphasise how the limited consciousness may be opened up to the unlimited universal or cosmic consciousness. This is a truly beautiful concept , just like the concept of zero and infinity, as why would there be a creation of the universe, and why should we be bound by science or by God. Or indeed why should there be a purpose in everything. Are they all transient in nature and in a state of flux? Of course we shall never get this unlimited consciousness but we can work towards this. In this regard neither science nor God defines nor can ever bound, the infinity as we are all bound by our limited consciousness. And like the invention of zero and infinity the sutra covers another concept, shunyata, which roughly means everything that we know is empty of substance, they are illusions of our minds and nothing is permanent, they appear and disappear. The realisation of shunyata shows us that all things are in flux and the world is unendingly mutable, the so called the insubstantiality, really shows the limitation of language, state of boundless. With the theorectical pure maths as we know today, the infinite number of universes or multiverse is perhaps the closest as we know it to the concept of shunyata in my opinion. This is when virtual reality is indistinguishable from reality. The infinite nature of possible outcomes in an infinite number of universes means that we may as well be living in illusion of reality. In this regard shunyata is like zero and infinity, we sort of know what it is but yet not as these concepts have very bizarre behaviours.. just try to divide a number with 0.. from nothing you can infinity!
Science is the continuous study of the structure and the behaviour of the physical and the natural world. A "study" is boundless and is never ending. I don't see why you think science is restrictive and has a limit. The concept of "Śūnyatā" has three schools of philosophy. According to the Pali Canon, the short definition of "Śūnyatā" is: "Emptiness as a mental state, in the early canons, means a mode of perception in which one neither adds anything to nor takes anything away from what is present, noting simply, 'There is this.'" This is a mode of non-thinking that allows the practitioner to detach him/herself from their surrounding. The expression "this world is empty of self or anything pertaining to self" refers to that mode, in which the practitioner detaches their "self" from the world". It speaks of nothing about anything being "in flux", or virtual reality vs reality, or zero vs infinity. Furthermore, your argument of ... is a logical fallacy. Specifically it is that of fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy). The notion of dividing by infinity yielding infinity is irrelevant to your argument for "Śūnyatā", and is, by the way, not a bizarre behaviour. Moving on, the second school of philosophy for "Śūnyatā" is the concept by the Prajna-paramita Sutras, Pratītyasamutpāda, which means "dependent origination" or "dependent arising". This concept tries to explain that objects are "empty" of the "identity imputed by their designated labels", due to the fact that "that all things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions". Essentially, this concept can be summarized by the following statement: "This is, because that is", which says that something exists, because it has been caused by a previous object or event. Lastly, Mādhyamaka states "Śūnyatā" to be an object or event that is "dependently originated". Like the previous school, this school believes that things follow the Principle of Causality, which states that everything has an even that caused it to exist or occur. For example, a piece of paper is empty of the identity of "a tree", from which it has been originated from. This counters your argument that zero and infinity are equivalent, since by Mādhyamaka , everything is consequential, caused by a previous event. An event B, caused by an event A cannot be equivalent to event A, as it existence is dependent on event A. Using "Śūnyatā" as a premise against science is not that great of an idea, because science adopts the same philosophy as "Śūnyatā". The concept of "emptiness", "voidness" or the "non-self" defined by "Śūnyatā" has nothing to do with actually nothingness. It is simply trying to state that things (objects or events) are void, are empty of the "essence" or the "original nature" in which caused the current event/object to occur. It, in fact, argues for the premise that things are ever "transforming". And science is essentially the study of that behaviour, of transformation. The Dalai Lama himself is a huge advocate for science. So to say that science is limited, restricted, and bound, while using Buddhist/Hindu teachings to debate is a shaky strategy.
I bow to your superior knowledge. I have little knowledge so this following is my opinion. Science is boundless and never ending discovery but it does not describe every phenomenon in the universe and that is its limitation. Some of the things which come immediately to my head and which science is of little help, are things like feelings, hope, thoughts, interpretation of language. Life is not all science and many things in life are non science. To this regard I am not against science as science does co-exist with everything else, it is certainly not an either or between God, Science, faith, or Sunyata or anything else. Maths may even one day describe phenomenons such as feelings, hope, thoughts and the soul, just a few limited example, but we are sure a long way off.
I think I finally have a better understand of the whole belief in Jesus Christ thing... It really has nothing to do with science, logic or what's true and what's not... It's all about the human being. The love for Christ/God seems to stem from the love of an ideal. Looking at the idea of "Jesus Christ and God" objectively, Jesus and God as ideals seems to be synonymous to any characteristics that are related to positivity (happiness, grace, ingenuity, etc). The whole idea of "Heaven" stems from a desire for eternal happiness, for example. I spoke to one "friend" who suddenly developed what seems to be a serious case of infatuation for Jesus. The TL;DR of the conversation was that, when asked if he could provide a personal example of his conversation with Jesus via a prayer, "His Holy Spirit" replies with ideas that the friend never thought of. When asked if it's not possible that these new ideas are the product of his own ingenuity and strength, he said he isn't smart enough to come up with such great ideas. What this tells me is that he is not confident in his own self. He does not believe in the strength of his own capacity, which is why he uses the "idea" of Jesus/God as a way to explain the great ideas he's got. If you extend this to other situations, it stems down to the idea that people use "Jesus/God" to explain the strength and capabilities of humanity. The idea of "Jesus/God" is romantic and idealistic. It's admirable that people seek happiness. When they say "I want to build a better relationship with Jesus/God", they are essentially saying that they are in love with the idea of "Jesus/God" and want to embrace the positivity of what Jesus/God brings them. I find this very disappointing from an agnostic point of view. I believe that there is potentially something out there that is currently outside of the knowledge of discovered science, and I want to understand it. If there is indeed some "god" out there, it certainly isn't the ones that are revered by all existing religions. The only definition of "god" that I believe in, is knowledge of everything (or undiscovered science, to scientists). Knowledge of everything is infinite, as everything is infinite. What we know in science is a minuscule subset of universal knowledge. To know everything means to be almighty, to be omnipotent and to be all-powerful. In this sense, "god" is still an idea, but a more appropriate idea to match the definition of "god" by Christians (and also more scientific), not "god" as a way to seek happiness or explain human capacity and ingenuity.
I reckon the 3rd child (type 5) are trying to bury the Father and Mother. or don't understand each others. Hey, happens many times too in real life with the kids and their parents, they don't understand each others. 15 minutes presentation of very brief introduction of the enneagram methodology. [video=youtube;-30FVKQ_ryE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30FVKQ_ryE[/video] [video=youtube;bUQfYZvL82o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUQfYZvL82o[/video]
Wait let me understand; who are you indirectly saying are children (third child or type 5)? Non-believers?
Sorry, I should have used the word 'teen' and 'siblings' as the video said, also they are trying to 'break away' from the parents. It is archetype label, this website called it the 'the investigator' https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/typefive.asp https://www.enneagram.net/type5.html your previous post definition of 'god' sounds very much of what type 5 in those enneagram website
I'm not sure but I think I might just have unknowingly been insulted... With the whole 'child', 'teen', 'Father', 'Mother' analogy... Are you saying I am the 'kid who doesn't understand the parent', and Jesus/God the 'parent'? Assuming that's not what you meant, I would say I'm a bit far from type 5. I have more of a rapport with type 3. To be honest I could care less about how certain things work, as long as the objectives are met. Type 3s are competitive, driven. This is a philosophical debate, and debates stimulate my competitiveness. If however the above is indeed what you meant, you will feel the type 8 from me very soon. I certainly hope that is not the case.
So you think you are more like a 3 or a 8? Everyone has a little bit of some of the types, but the core is just one, with the wings, and the type where it goes when it is disintegrated or integrated. (more details in the enneagram study) I love to find out which one is your core type. I love to poke to find out, are you an 8 or a 3, lol. Do you want to be poke to see how your type react?
Misidentifying Threes and Eights Threes and Eights are both assertive (PT, 433-36), although the confusion between them centers on the competition found in average Threes and a similar competitiveness in average Eights. In general terms, both Eights and Threes are ambitious and competitive: both types want to rise above others. The difference is that average Eights are self-assertive and want others to give them their way immediately so they do not have to waste time and energy fighting with people–not that they are afraid to do so. Eights compete for material and sexual dominance, less over purely social or status issues. For instance, Eights usually do not spend a lot of time comparing themselves with others, and certainly never to the degree that Threes do. For the same reason that Threes confuse themselves with Sevens and Fives (because they are looking for a flattering identity), it is far more likely that Threes identify themselves as Eights rather than vice versa. Despite some superficial similarities, the differences are profound: Eights are leaders, deal makers, and power brokers who want to make the world conform to their personal vision. They want to have a large impact, to build and accomplish great things, possibly something that will live as a testament to the greatness of their audacity and will. Strong and implacable, they can be ruthless when something or someone gets in their way. They have large egos, and achieving some form of glory is important to them. Money is both a form of power and a means to amass more of it. Achieving personal power is the dominating drive in Eights, and there is nothing ambiguous, much less furtive or duplicitous, about them. By contrast, power is not the key motive of Threes; achieving success and prestige and basking in the admiring attention of others is. (By contrast, Eights do not care about popularity; they do not care about the goodwill of others, so long as they get their way.) If Eights are natural leaders, Threes are natural managers and technicians. If Eights do not fear failure as such, Threes fear failure deeply because they see it as a personal humiliation, a potential occasion for being rejected, their deepest fear. By contrast, Eights see failure as an opportunity to learn something and come back stronger. If Eights are too busy achieving their purposes to worry about public opinion, Threes live and die on the opinions of others and desperately want to be in demand socially. If average Eights are combative and intimidating and can "take the heat", despite a certain bravado, average Threes will back down or be driven to deviousness: they cannot take pressure for long or exposure for a moment. In short, even average Eights are the "genuine article," whereas average Threes are an imitation of it. --- so which more fit you?
"Do you want to be poke to see how your type react?" lol try. Anyway, I stand by my answer. I am both, situationally. The type that appears is highly dependent on the situation at hand. Different situations demand different "type" usage. Having read all of the types, there is not a single type that fully encompasses what I believe in. Each has traits that I relate with, and all have traits that I do not share. If we're going to dive into discussions of psychological profiling, I am an ENTJ. Therefore what type corresponds with an ENTJ?
According to this diagram http://i48.tinypic.com/2412kvc.jpg ENTJ can be both 8 or 3 so you might think, you are both but Enneagram is more precise than MBTI but i think i am nearly there to point your type as i said, need to be poked around, to see which one is the core can be narrowed down with the wings or when the type got stress out / challenged for example the ways type 3 and type 8 handle stress is different so say when you VERY stress for a long period of time and uncertainty time, you become disengaged and apathetic? or become secretive and fearful?
Lol nice. Being even able to narrow down to 3 and 8 makes me pretty damn happy. To answer your question, I become disengaged and apathetic upon high levels of stress. I take it my core type, from the information you provided, is 8. Though on a side note, I would never allow my stress levels to reach such an unmanageable point, even under intense pressure. Now being an 8, what can you tell me about type 8s that's not on those two sites? edit: I should thank you for providing me new knowledge on this Enneagram system. Fascinating stuff.
There are too many information about of type 8s. That 'disengaged and apathetic' is not supposed to be the response of an 8. Maybe you haven't allow or the situations has not make you stress enough. I have an example of an 8 friend who become secretive and fearful recently. Suddenly, he disappeared from the chatroom (his usual confident self image become fearful, but no one know it, because he won't admit the fears to the public and become secretive). But the rest of your writings and others posting around the forum, you seems like an 8 so far. But reconfirm it again. For more deeper information of enneagram, there are some free ebooks in here http://avaxsearch.com/avaxhome_search?q=enneagram&commit=Go I reckon, depending on people's current development, people will choose particular use of the enneagram. I think enneagram can be use for entertainment reading, own psychological understanding and inner work, for practical purposes for understanding and dealing with other types, for liberation / spiritual transformation, etc. Or it can be a trap, it will reinforced their false self image. Then there are the non-free ones in amazon.com by other authors' point of views / understandings. As one of the book quote "While knowing our type gives us important information, that information is merely an embarkation point for a much greater journey. In short, knowing our type is not the final destination." Riso Hudson's books There are many briefs articles website on the internet, such as brief introduction from one author such as http://personalitycafe.com/type-8-forum-challenger/39229-enneatype-8-wings.html for type 8 I am only less than 3 weeks going deeper into enneagram, rediscovering it, yes very fascinating stuffs, many years ago in the past, i have read some books on it, but only on superficial levels.. i didn't even read the explanations sections, just purely for entertainment, and that's the trap, lol.
Interesting, thanks for the tidbit. Secretive I'm not sure. Fearful, as in fear of not having success, I suppose that's applicable...
