Fonziszen. Before addressing message 221, some general comments. I’m surprised we have not been censured, since we have both infringed the forum rules. The thread between you and I has become extremely tangled. Perhaps, like you, I must have picked up someone’s message on this forum and got sucked in. I should have joined a philosophical debate. On the other hand, as I said to AdminNosy, ”I’m not a single celled entity.’ No human being I have actually met is either. I respect the rules of this forum and will try to stick to them. BUT the purpose of my postings is to test my own shifting conclusions and attitudes about any number of subjects against the proof, logic and tenuous evidence from discussions with others.
My own thoughts and attitudes have been largely formed by reading and listening to many, many wise and learned individuals, including William James, who wrote, ”The greatest revolution of our generation is the discovery that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.’ That may sound like a platitude to many people but, if one gives those few words more than passing attention, one might discover a clue in how to bypass a lengthy process postulated by Darwin. Humm?
I get the feeling I’ve been conned. You began with a wildly disjointed, wandering post. The next post was still confusing and seemingly unfocused. Now you have apparently decided to settle into what, I hope, might prove to be an interesting discussion. I will be slower in replying to you because your fluid mind is making serious demands on my slower mental processes.
Just revisiting your message 219.
Re: Identities (God, etc.): If someone says they are this or that, i.e. scientist, philosopher, teacher, atheist, electrician, Christian, or whatever, are they not referring to their craft or profession or mental attitude? Can we agree that the name God is a generic term for
whatever enormous energy set off the ”Big Bang’? Can we also agree that a process we call ”evolution’ began the instant following the ”Big Bang’? If we disagree on those two assumptions then perhaps we should return to the questions. You said with some conviction that “. . . we cannot reach a level of existence where we no longer exist where the many are one and heaven is eternal.” I need to explain. I am not talking about a physical existence. Nor do I buy the popular belief of Heaven. I am however persuaded by Capra’s ideas about a ”Web of Life’ that enfolds everything in the universe - material and nonmaterial. His thinking makes intuitive sense to me. The God idea may, as you say, be replaced with reason. But reason, and personal (unprovable) experience, persuades me follow Capra’s threads as far as they convincingly take me. But I have to say, to avoid giving a wrong impression. Capra is one of many people whose written works have sounded little gongs of recognition in my mind. The list is too long to mention here. My own reasoning cannot dismiss the concept of Spirit. I mentioned earlier that quantum physicists (I think I’m right in saying) found only a tiny spark after breaking particles down to their smallest detectable center. If I’m not misrepresenting a scientific discovery, is it possible that the tiny spark they glimpsed was Spirit - or, if you like, an electric spark of Life?
By the way, after your quote from George Carlin, you attributed something to me that I did not say or write.
Re: The belief in ”God’s’ absolute power: I would like someone to explain this to me: Why would a God with absolute power create an imperfect universe that is apparently endlessly evolving? Why, if God is perfect, is the universe and everything in it, including our pathetic species, not perfect?
You trashed my questions whether God would give a damn what we think. I believe that our species communicates with each other on many differing levels of understanding. I agree that our thoughts and actions profoundly affect the ecological environment of planet Earth, and possibly in the solar system to a degree. However, I think it is correct to say that scientific evidence thus far indicates that evolution is an interminably slow process. I am simply, and perhaps simplistically, questioning whether our efforts will have an lasting effect on the grinding evolutionary process.
You end that paragraph by saying the universe is evolving.. separately. Separate from what?
Thank you for the links. I have not yet fully read MLK’s research paper. I’ll have to give some thought to your messages 221 and 222 before tackling them. You might prove too much of a challenge for my tiny brain.
™ Version 4.2