Biologist R. Dawkins and Cosmologist S. Hawking have expressed Atheist views, but
have failed to understand the difference of a measurable physical universe to that of
a spiritual existance, thus they are incommensurable,>>> Definition: Incommensurable, not commensurable; having no common basis, measure, or standard of comparison.
All Answers (143) Show full discussion
-
Experiments may force revision of astrophysical models of the universe
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/dnl-emf031912.php -
Universe Key- http://bit.ly/9eWiKI Universe Forum- http://bit.ly/d60482 finally as I see it Digital Universe at http://t.co/nsND5lSm found a-Multimedia DEMO Ultimate Reality of Philosophy at http://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/11/ -
Concept of creator and creation exists in the ignorance of oneness of existence. Existence is unborn i.e. it always existed, Existence is infinite and so question of non existence anywhere is ignorance of the truth. Truth of existence transcends concepts of time and space,Existence has two complementary aspects- Physical(changing) i.e. Gross form while looking externally and Subtle(unchangig) i.e. internal connectivity /pull of oneness experienced while looking minutely.Philosophy is based on the experiential learning of the whole and Science is based on the experimental learning of the parts In .Philosophy we see the circle(whole) and in Science we see the arc of the circle(part). -
Hello Harisharan: An eloquent statement.
-
I am happy to say my philosophical-scientific hypothesis i.e., SOUL-CELL THEORY. Cell itself is the life force of physical-chemical-biological. cell with its surrounding (ECM - extra cellular matrix) or intercellular space is the place of physical-chemical-biological with that extraordinary philosophical basis of ether element or aakaash element that cannot be proven under experiment which is the subtle body that is part and parcel of the subtle body soul. That's why soul is shown as external covering of the physical/biological body. Similarly every cell is surrounded by the extra cellular soul. So man's physical body is covered by the ether/aakaash element is the SOUL/subtle body that has all linkages with the every extracellular space which are all interliked circuit that operate the cell function within. So every cell is covered by the soul.
a cell is a soul-cell; a group of soul-cell form soul- tissue; a group of soul-tissue form soul-organ; a group of soul-organ form soul-organ system; and thus all of soul-organ system for soul-organism. Thus any pathological situation under medical terms is death of a cell. A cell before death separates from the rest of the cells. To avoid part of the whole soul-organism's soul-cell death, our system form disease/ailment/disorder only to pull on life for some more time. A change in cell format for its own survival is the induction of cancer cell.
What role does philosophy play here. It has >90% role to play. In keeping mind-body-soul in perfect connectivity and harmony for the balance and health and perfection of the ether element that is in the ECM. ECM is the place of granery for perfect co-ordination; perfect symbols; perfect action and reactions of harmones, ions, chemicals, enzymes and water molecules.
That's why the practice of perfect pranayaam (perfect breathing harmony), perfect yogasana (perfect internal organ exercise and whole body), perfect meditation (perfection in mind act) is the necessity.
Under religious lobbey, under half science(true science) lobbey, under geo-political lobbey the true sense is not proven (even though proven) and each experimentor is a different psychae thus same results not obtainable. -
I wonder if you used a microscope Sunitha or spiritual sight or philosophy based on experience?
-
all are the interlinked subjects. A disease at its initial or peak stages sustains without medicine/treatment under philosophical lines provided that the person makes an inward journey. inward journey does not happen automatically by means of philosophy or paramedical treatments. But there is something that must happen is the getting surrendered to the self to know the self whole heartedly. Most of the time we are not wholeheartedly to one self. There is artificial, there is ego, there is cheating to the self. When this happens imbalances in the extracellular space happen with a change in the cellular and further changes. There is no 100% health (mentally and physically) in any person. Why because of the self cheating. One example could be. I want earn money for the sake of society even though my self says simplicity and just don't bother. In such situations inward journey is not possible. Such a person undergoing meditation, etc can become knowledgeable but not changeable. So imbalance of mind-body-soul.
We have all truths in all faculties shown by many. Our role is to analyse and interlink. we need not waste time to redoing in everything one life is not sufficient for that. Having basic understandings in the faculties of science and philosophy and the self experiences with explicable nature thro' thoght processes the truth will be known. -
Cell is a composite material.Therefore one has to explain first the fundamental particles that constitute any cell and its connection(if at all any) with spiritual philosophy .The concept of soul,as a 'concept',has never been a part of,even spiritual life itself.The so called modern God-men alone deliver it as a theory! It is stated that proper understanding of soul even as a theory is not gained by mere discussions alone,but by practicing prescribed disciplines in right earnest. -
"The concept of soul,as a 'concept',has never been a part of,even spiritual life itself ." - k.c.muralidhar k.c.muralidhar
>>> I fully disagree and so would Moses who was an ancient not a modern God-man. In the King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7 -
'I fully disagree and...'Sidney clouston
Religious views are not questioned.In fact,the convergence of subtle religious doctrines and science is a distinct possibility.The point is whether it is possible for us to establish a theoretical relationship between two divergent fields of science or whatever-one deals with the gross matter(the cell)where as the other,further beyond.The dichotomy between the two has to be addressed rationally first .The presumption that the composite cell is self-existent and the assumption that a 'soul exists' without identifying the common ground of reasoning can be misleading. -
@ K.C.M Well you seem to admit that your statement was lacking value which my reply pointed out. So we have
a dichotomy of physical existance which we have tools to examine and a spiritual existance that Sages, Avatars, enlightened Monks, Saints and Prophets, to include the Messiah spoke of their wisdom from that perspective and
experiences. What are the tools beyond reading their words and listening to preaching by others? The Psyche of
the Mystic individual searches with his love in his heart. It has been said that God is spirit and that he is love. Tune
in. -
Romans 1:24-25 >>>
(24) Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, (25) who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. >>>Today's random scripture via email by The Berean. -
The point is pretty simple.The cell which gets produced(it is composite because of that)therefore limited can never be a soul that is said to be conceptually omnipotent,omniscient and omnipresent.The meaning of 'soul' may vary depending on faith one adheres to. The topic of discussion is not about individual faith or belief.People of different faiths can always come with their own versions.Therefore,for the benefit of all, it is important that we look for areas of general agreement through which different points of view can be analyzed rationally.The great religion of Jesus Christ certainly has more than what the so called preachers can ever offer.Sadly polemics bound to destroy meaningful discussions.Period.
-
When a statement like the Sun never caused a day,is made and we see a dawn then we know that the statement
is not always true and is at least half the time wrong. No dispute in that. When someone said that; "The concept of soul,as a 'concept',has never been a part of,even spiritual life itself".... a red flag goes up in my philosophical mind.
Why? Never is such a long time, never say never, well perhaps never should almost never be said. A person might
say that (whatever it is) is unknown to me. That would be a fair statement in my opinion. -
In spiritual life,practice comes first.Concepts are for the learners who are assailed by self-doubts.The aspirants are not considered as leading spiritual life so long as they are stuck with doubts.In that sense 'soul as a concept'(as a theory opposed to practice)has been stated.
-
@kcm I have no idea what you mean. It seems like a trick question. What makes someone search for the truth?
I studied Martial Arts with Shorin Ryu Karate-Do. This included meditation and I called it later the Yoga of Zen. I
developed awareness of my body and concentration working both right and left sides of my body and brain. It
took years of meditation practice and focus to visit and pass the "Gateless Gate" in Zazen. -
Physical philosophy and spiritual philosophy can be interlinked through the basic formalism of physics and biology : Biophysics...
The heart is physically static pump and biologically multi cellular organ and bio-physically active pumping organ under condition of being in living body
Living body needs what gives specific temperature and life processes so called soul ...
The soul becomes spirit if it is for human not animal...
Spirit behaves in its human body in six different ways : three through sleeping and three though awaking
Through sleeping comes the effect of some kind of dreams: daily activity dreams,future dreams,nightmare dreams
Through awaking spirit has three levels of purity: ,sinner spirit,blaming spirit,satisfied spirit.
It is written in Qur'an and Hadith not theory -
Who wrote this philosophy of the Qur'an? which of cource is not a theory. Such statements are usually made by inflated egos and has no base in real life reseaarch. We are now on ResearchGate. I am surprised that so many persons take such statements for "truth", but we cannot expect all persons to have a scientific attitude. Maybe a real scientific attitude today is the best way to discover the real world and the real God. Most religions seem to be bewildered and misled by inflated egos. Mainstream science seems to be far off from a real scientific attitude. So there are not many left with an open and searching mind that could be able to (finally) see the world as it really is.
-
@S.C
I am afraid we are moving away from the main topic of discussion.Let me stop with this.
Please understand that NO tricks are employed for the simple reason that our discussion involves spiritual philosophy.
Leading a spiritual life is always preceded by RELIGIOUS PRACTICES(not spiritual practices). Most of us engage in concreted form of religious practices only but delude ourselves to be spiritual.
Regarding your question:
The Truth,whatever we call it otherwise, is always within us(our origin or home)-the reason why we tend to seek it at every opportunity. It is stated that the proof or truth of any holy book lies only in the MAN who believes It,practices It and experiences It.Dropping all the pretensions(+discarding all the theories,disputations etc.,) and going in head long into Bible or any other holy scripture,with simple faith-unalloyed,child-like faith- helps. -
@Olav Drageset
"Such statements are usually made by inflated egos and has no base in real life research"
Where is your scientific poof to claim this statement?
I agree with you that referring to holy books is not scientific in the sense of experimental sciences ; provided if you limit your self to consider only physical observable phenomena not" textual phenomena" as only accepted source of knowledge...
Would you accept scientific answer to your first question? or you just verfied and confirmed your answer by personal hypothetical inflated egos?
Your comment shows the common blind generalization to any thing related to religious sources...
You maybe surprised if I told you that I shall be happy to rethink in my beliefs if you proved scientifically that my religious sources are false...
I share here my thoughts to put it under investigations by educated intellectual people, who are welling to discuss not to reply by what they think seemingly out of science field...
It would realy be not scientific if I didn't mention sources of my statement and ready to prove it and criticize it ...
But referring to some reputed philosopher might be more scientific
Or cut and paste some thoughts from modern scientific theories without any reasonable correlation
Any way I respect your comment although it didn't add anything to me or to you
By the way did you hear or read any thing about "textual criticize analysis" methdology for ancient scripts considered as textual phenomena?!
regards -
Hello NI: Some current discusions mention the Natural and Supernatural. Two different things and not everyone
are experts in one or the other let alone both. I understand that the scientific method or research and analysis has
it' roots in Aristotle and the development of good observation of events. The testing of a priori theories if possible
with empirical methods and the monitoring with evaluation ought to be able to be repeated by others. I am not the
only person who have reported Astral Projection or out of body experiences. Not everyone has done that nor will in
their life. Yes, Ni I provide quotes to support my argument and references to scripture or scientific articles. Some
here and in other Philosophy threads do not like that, because they do not use or have those. supportive quotes. I
cannot please everybody, nor do I want to. Do you wonder why Atheist gravitate to these discussions? Do you wonder why the Atheist Guru Richard Dawkins is a Biologist and that is expertise focused in physical phenomena.
They frame the questions like evolution vs creationism. Some Christians accept science and perhaps human error
in evaluation of the scripture is a possible answer to the schism. So when we discuss a Creator quoting the words
completely is important. I have tried to do that and Einstein was not biologically inclined but God was spiritual in
his view not limited as an anthropomorphic idea (Egocentric) is. >>> “However, Einstein's God was not the God of most other men. When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later life, he tended to adopt the belief of Alice's Red Queen that "words mean what you want them to mean," and to clothe with different names what to more ordinary mortals — and to most Jews — looked like a variant of simple agnosticism. Replying in 1929 to a cabled inquiry from Rabbi Goldstein of New York, he said that he believed "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exist, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men." And it is claimed that years later, asked by Ben-Gurion whether he believed in God, "even he, with his great formula about energy and mass, agreed that there must be something behind the energy." No doubt. But much of Einstein's writing gives the impression of belief in a God even more intangible and impersonal than a celestial machine minder, running the universe with indisputable authority and expert touch. Instead, Einstein's God appears as the physical world itself, with its infinitely marvelous structure operating at atomic level with the beauty of a craftsman's wristwatch, and at stellar level with the majesty of a massive cyclotron. This was belief enough. It grew early and rooted deep. Only later was it dignified by the title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the earthly one, then this wa... [more] -
Not to get on any side of the case, from a reductionist point of view, just so we could look at the case on a much simpler platform, can the question be taken as the difference between tangible medium "for" existence and non-tangible medium "of" existence? -
@ Pavan: Your statement of not getting on any side seems contradictory because you take a reductionist point of view. Einstein believed "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exist, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men." Here we are talking about the whole universe and any harmony
in a Black Hole or exploding Stars that make heavy elements such as carbon (C). A dynamic universe but to say it
has harmony is not the only thing that it has. Einstein could say that he does not know but not say that there is no life after a physical death for the soul. Tangible and intangible mediums of existance, is accurate. We have theories of wormholes but no sensors to detect them, however may see the effect but not the cause. -
What is "Philosophy:? It is fundamentally self-contradicting to say there are "incommensurable" "Physical Philosophy" and "Spiritual Philosophy". If you like, we could substitute "Philosophy" with "God"?
Arn't we looking and searching for the ultimate "truth" or "reality"? From the view point of Zen Buddhism (Sorry, but there isn't any traces of discussion of "God" there.) or Zen Philosophy, as I understand them, there is such reality, therefore I exist and feel and know, and that's all truly sure for me, and all are real from that. -
#H1-580. Does the ultimate truth includes equal importance to weak local truth ?
Does the ultimate truth includes equal interpretability also as purpose, justice and pure good?
Can truth, ultimate or local, exist without intrinsically delivering purpose and justice and higher virtues?
The truth we are searching is inclusive of/for it's p/j/-?
Or there are orders of truth: those which do not, and then do, conform, order by order, to purpose/ justice/ "innocence"/ relevance? -
#H1-581. D3P3. The questions i feel (eg previous post), the answers almost are, a temporary yes!
[except one question]. -
What is consciousness? When a person dies, are the neurons not there? What about the muscles and stomach
or other organs? Sensory input from our physical senses stimulate chemical and electromagnetic waves. When
a television is turned on it can as designed pick up the broadcast and present the sound and images that are otherwise not seen or heard. When the power is absent the television is dead. -
@SC"a television is turned on it can as designed pick up the broadcaseand present the sound and images that are otherwise not seen or heard. When the power is absent the television is dead."
If this spoon feeding example is not understood, one should avoid this discussion...
I wonder why some deny the effect of spirituality on physical systems while he contradicts himself by believing in science?
Einestien was unable to know why...
Hilbert was unable to know why...
Why Every body knows how to give life to seed, but they don't know why...
we ask about the essence of unknown while we can't ask about the essence of known?!
Maybe it is scientific prestige to deny spiritual before physical -
Nobel Prize winner Alberrt Einstein was a Theoretical Scientist and his theories proved to be true. Not everbody
was selected by God to be a Prophet or Saint. There are many people who understand that Jesus is the Messiah.
The Supernatural exceeds the understanding of the Natural Philosophers and Scientist in general. -
Hello Anirudh: Are you talking to the group of readers here or are you talking to me? You could use light also in your analogy. People see somewhere near 600 nm to 350 nm deep red to UV respectively. Not long ago due to new
sensors on satellites scientist were astonished to see the energy in space of the X-rays and now Gamma ray bubbles in the Milky Way. However, Physical Philosophy is not Spiritual Philosophy, but there is a connection.
In Genesis 1:3 God said let there be light. In Science we have Planck Time where the beginning of the Big Bang
in that first split moment pure light flooded into this universe pure without even Quarks and Leptons the building
blocks of atoms. So we can say that the Prophet Moses perhaps was the first Cosmologist. >>> I do not yet think
that you are an expert on the Supernatural Anirudh. -
Let us be enlightened to visualise the truth.
-
In my humble opinion "physical" philosophy is not philosophy but is in fact physics. Thomas Hobbes and the school of physicalists believed that the world of experience can be explained by a sufficiently detailed examination of cause and effect. Discussion of "spiritual" philosophy, on the other hand, usually devolves into meta-debates on the variously held religious theories of the participants.
Would it not be preferable to examine the concept of "spirit" in the context of a conversation on the phenomenology of consciousness? How is one to approach an understanding of what is meant by "spirit" without first examining awareness of the world and the self as the sole identifiable manifestation of the non-physical self ?
I would never venture to deny that spirit can affect the physical world, nor would i grant spirit that power, without first determining in some rational manner that spirit exists in some way that is not just a metaphor for perception.
I wonder also how one can assert that the supernatural exceeds the understanding of philosophers and scientists without first providing evidence that what is called supernatural is nothing more than perception of an unknown natural phenomenon.
I admit to existentialist bias and do not mean to criticize those who highly value belief. However, I think critical analysis of non-physical conceptuals like "spirit" is problematic at best in the absence of a common weltanschauung.
I also suspect that lack of commonality is at the root of most cultural strife in the world. Perhaps the world really is too complex for us to fully understand though that seems to me an insufficient reason for surrendering to emotion over reason. With apologies to Descartes . . . I think therefor I am confused. -
It seems to me presently that existentialist and humanist are self centered. I do not see today however many gains such mind sets have acquired that an improvement to the human condition resulted. Study of the classics I will admit holds my attention and patiently practicing the suggested actions with avoidance of other action has a purpose. Consciousness is central to these things. Additionally the Unconscious and Collective Unconscious investigation can yield results.
-
I concur that humanism is by definition self-centered. However, existentialism posits the same absence of self as one finds in zen, yet simultaneously requires personal responsibility for thought and action. From that perspective, the illusion of self is a manifestation to consciousness signifying nothing more than awareness of action, even if that action is reflective thought. I do agree that a study of the classics is valuable otherwise how can each generation benefit from the knowledge gained by past generations. In my experience practicing prescribed ritual actions has not yielded results. I'm sure this is a consequence of my own limitations. Ritual observance seems to have benefitted many in the past whom I greatly admire.
-
Ritual shows importance to an event. Consider the formal wedding in the best light. A pilgramage is a ritual too if
seated in Zazen at home or at a holy shrine or scared mountain. What the ritual or pilgramage does is provide an activity for mental attitude adjustment. So I find in the Psalm 46:10 the poem that was sung (mantra like) "Be still, and know that I am God;" . It ends in a semi colon as a separate idea and so too Psalm 37:7. The Holy Bible is a spiritual book first . Stillness of mind in Zen's Zazen (meditation on Mu) is a Tabula Rasa or stillness of thought with mindfullness in conscious awareness of God. In Neoplatonic terms union with the One by Grace and help from the
action of attitude adjustments in ritual. -
Encouraging the spirit of discovery and sharing of fundamental knowledge about the Universe and our place in its midst- at http://digg.com/d31GlVu ultimately Reality of Philosophy - http://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com See into- http://topsy.com/twitter/beyondeinstein see visions- Digital Universe: at http://t.co/nsND5lSm found a- Multimedia DEMO “Brief History of the Universe”
-
I suppose there really is no escaping religious dogma on this site.
* . . . goes back to staring through a glass darkly . . .* -
A glass in ancient meaning could be a Mirror. Is there Scientific Dogma Andrew? I have a theory that there is.
-
Why is the glass (mirror) dark? A Buddhist answer. >>>
How is it possible to attain enlightenment? >>>
The mind is different from empty space, which is also formless, in that it has clear light nature and the ability to perceive objects. Our minds are like mirrors smeared with filth—our minds’ clear light nature is polluted by the delusions. However, just as the filth is not inextricably mixed with the potentially pure, clear mirror beneath, similarly the delusions are not one with the mind. An appropriate method such as washing with soap and water will clean the mirror; the right way to purify the mind of the delusions and their impressions, the subtle obscurations, is to practice Dharma. This results in the ultimate happiness of enlightenment and, since the minds of all sentient beings have clear light nature, all have the potential to become buddhas. The difficulty lies in finding the opportunity and the interest to practice Dharma. -
Eisa: I might be more convinced if you didn't advertise the Quran as your source of knowledge.
Sidney: there certainly is scientific dogma. There is dogma of all sorts, but the particular dogma that seems to pervade almost every online conversation is religious dogma. I suspect this is a consequence of the continuous psychological need for validation inherent in religion, especially true of the faith variety, but to my mind it certainly hinders rational dialogue.
Popular Answers
no time before Space-Time began based on the Big Bang THEORY. :He mentions Einstein's General Relativity as
supportive of that. Actually he and Leonard Mlodinow an Atheist Physist Co-authored their book. Now a few possible
flaws appear. The speed of light is not constant and possibly not the limit of speed since faster than light Nutrinos have
been observed. What is interesting to me is that the Holy Bible expresses that God is the Alpha and Omega. He always was and will be, transcending space-time. There is more, but the Physics and Physical are not Spirit and Spiritual. John 4: 24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." It is also interesting to me
that the science suggests that the first few seconds were radiation (light) and in the first few scriptures God said let there be light. What are the odds for that? "We are made of Star Stuff." - Carl Sagan The dust from exploded stars made the heavy elements like Carbon. So science agree in scripture that God formed man from the dust of the Earth
and breathed into his nostrils the Breath of Life. That my dear Scholars is a kind of evolution already. God is Spirit and
he made man in his image and likeness. Spirit has a likeness to Spirit in my opinion.
1.
The Dao that can be told is not the essential Dao.
The name that can be named is not the essential name.
The nameless is the source of existence.
Naming is the origin of all things and distinctions.
If you have no desires, you will see the mystery.
If you have desires, you will see the manifestations.
These two aspects come from the same source, but they have different names.
This is difficult to see.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all mystery. >>>
According to tradition, it was written around the 6th century BC by the sage Laozi (or Lao Tzu, "Old Master"),