Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence?

Quote from They:

I agree with you that a scientific standard of examination of the Eastern spiritual concepts will bring a better understanding of what is life/spirit and its nature.
More...

Please elaborate....

The scientific approach is limited to the 5 senses and the rules of logic that are self-evident based on physical perception.

Eastern though speaks of a reality beyond the 5 senses and not bound by the confines or rules of mundane human logic.

How can science bridge that gap?
 
777,
____________________________________________________
Please elaborate....

The scientific approach is limited to the 5 senses and the rules of logic that are self-evident based on physical perception.

Eastern though speaks of a reality beyond the 5 senses and not bound by the confines or rules of mundane human logic.

How can science bridge that gap?
______________________________________________
I mean the scientific approach as being a methodical approach not as being the usage of a higher powered microscope. Intuition and revelation are an accepted part of the scientific approach, the results must be verifiable within their respective fields. The verification of spiritual truths are different from the verifications of material truths.

In the Eastern tradition there is a scientific process referred to as "Neti, Neti" meaning "not this, not this". Western science more or less follows this approach. In discerning spirit from matter the western scientists will come to the conclusion that matter is temporary in nature and spirit is eternal in nature. A side benefit could be the rejection of all the material conclusions currently being passed off as religion which the atheists seem so much to identify as being bonafide religion/spirituality. Hopefully, the side by side study of both fields will lead to greater insights in to both.

Bridge building is good :)
 
Quote from They:

777,
____________________________________________________
Please elaborate....

The scientific approach is limited to the 5 senses and the rules of logic that are self-evident based on physical perception.

Eastern though speaks of a reality beyond the 5 senses and not bound by the confines or rules of mundane human logic.

How can science bridge that gap?
______________________________________________
I mean the scientific approach as being a methodical approach not as being the usage of a higher powered microscope. Intuition and revelation are an accepted part of the scientific approach, the results must be verifiable within their respective fields. The verification of spiritual truths are different from the verifications of material truths.

In the Eastern tradition there is a scientific process referred to as "Neti, Neti" meaning "not this, not this". Western science more or less follows this approach. In discerning spirit from matter the western scientists will come to the conclusion that matter is temporary in nature and spirit is eternal in nature. A side benefit could be the rejection of all the material conclusions currently being passed off as religion which the atheists seem so much to identify as being bonafide religion/spirituality. Hopefully, the side by side study of both fields will lead to greater insights in to both.

Bridge building is good :)
More...

I will be shocked if the resident "scientists" will accept your claim that intuition and revelation are accepted as part of their scientific approach.
 
Quote from They:

But a bubbling gaseous soup activated by a lightning strike to humans? I think you are stretching the word "Logic" a little to far on this one. Excuse me, I did not know there was an atheist's definition of the word.
More...
They,

in my previous post, i stated that when discussing evolution, i am not talking about abiogenesis (which is what you're talking about). i'm talking about once life started, the evolution of one creature to another.

let's skip abiogenesis and just consider how living things change over millions of years. i don't see how anyone can argue this aspect of evolution. we really did come from ape like creatures.
 
Quote from Gordon Gekko:


They,

in my previous post, i stated that when discussing evolution, i am not talking about abiogenesis (which is what you're talking about). i'm talking about once life started, the evolution of one creature to another.

let's skip abiogenesis and just consider how living things change over millions of years. i don't see how anyone can argue this aspect of evolution. we really did come from ape like creatures.
More...

I accept that you believe you are descended from a monkey's ulcle, and who knows, you may be.

However, you could be wrong, right? I mean, it is just your conclusion...an acceptance of theory, not evidence in fact.
 
intra species evolution is a fact.

inter species evolution is a weak theory.


after numerous readings of creationist v evolutionist propaganda, i reached the above conclusions. if anyone can point me to data that changes my mind. PLEASE DO.

thanks !

Surferrrr:)
 
I ask a simple question and seven pages later nobody can give me a clear answer. In fact, the poll itself is closely divided, with a few extra people believing that this is all just a fancy show-and-tell session.

The evolution / creation debate is getting old. Anyone can look at the skeleton of an ape and a skeleton of a human and correlate some similarities. In fact, they're damn near identical. They've got a brain and we've got a brain. They have two eyes and so do we. So I'm supposed to die and go to heaven while an ape dies and just disappears? If I have a soul, they have to have a soul. If you think humans are special, you're deluding yourself.

That being said, then we could go right down the chain and get to mice and assume they must also have a soul. They've got the same organs we do. A very small skeleton, but again, there are similarities. That is indisputable.

However, I'm really asking, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" It goes beyond the creation / evolution debate. Why are there physical laws within a universe that is able to set evolution into gear?

Why are some people so against cloning? I think it is because it strikes a subconscious realization that there may be no soul. It is the fear that "if two people are exactly the same, how do you account for the whole soul thing?" Well, mother nature has been cloning for years -- its called IDENTICAL TWINS. Is there a law against that?

We feel this overwhelming need to be special because of our intelligence. Or, perhaps it is ego? In any event, we're reduced to debating "science / religion" and forcing positions such as, "your faith is illogical" or "your science cannot define god." It is a huge circle where the arguments just rotate in a never-ending ferris wheel. Yet, I am still left with questions that cannot be answered.

Unfortunately, they'll never be answered. Nobody knows what lies after death -- no matter how scientific or religious they are. It is the great unknown.

My biggest problem is reconciling the beauty in the world with the pain and suffering -- why we're even here to begin with when, in a few billion years, the sun will erase any shred of evidence that we ever existed. That supernova will even catch up to Voyager and Pioneer -- nothing will escape the inevitable gravitational collapse and resulting explosion that will incinerate everything.

So then ... why?
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

intra species evolution is a fact.

inter species evolution is a weak theory.
More...
surf,

i'm not an evolution expert, but what is wrong with the concept that different species are just different branches of evolution? as i'm sure you know, evolution doesn't travel in one continuous line. it branches off and branches off over and over. why is it difficult to accept that different species are just results of very different branches?

just for example, say we have some early life form. you already said you buy evolution intra species. so let's say this life from has a bunch of mutations. say eventually some of these mutations do better on land and some do better in water. after millions of years of the branching process, you could end up with birds and sharks.

as i've said before, the biggest problem i always see is that people don't grasp the scales involved. i'm not saying you, personally. but people need to think about the millions of years we're talking here. just think about many numbers of organisms eaching branching their own way over millions of years. it's easy to see why there is such a variety of life on earth today. it only makes sense!

http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
 
Quote from aphexcoil:

I ask a simple question and seven pages later nobody can give me a clear answer. In fact, the poll itself is closely divided, with a few extra people believing that this is all just a fancy show-and-tell session.

The evolution / creation debate is getting old. Anyone can look at the skeleton of an ape and a skeleton of a human and correlate some similarities. In fact, they're damn near identical. They've got a brain and we've got a brain. They have two eyes and so do we. So I'm supposed to die and go to heaven while an ape dies and just disappears? If I have a soul, they have to have a soul. If you think humans are special, you're deluding yourself.

That being said, then we could go right down the chain and get to mice and assume they must also have a soul. They've got the same organs we do. A very small skeleton, but again, there are similarities. That is indisputable.

However, I'm really asking, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" It goes beyond the creation / evolution debate. Why are there physical laws within a universe that is able to set evolution into gear?

Why are some people so against cloning? I think it is because it strikes a subconscious realization that there may be no soul. It is the fear that "if two people are exactly the same, how do you account for the whole soul thing?" Well, mother nature has been cloning for years -- its called IDENTICAL TWINS. Is there a law against that?

We feel this overwhelming need to be special because of our intelligence. Or, perhaps it is ego? In any event, we're reduced to debating "science / religion" and forcing positions such as, "your faith is illogical" or "your science cannot define god." It is a huge circle where the arguments just rotate in a never-ending ferris wheel. Yet, I am still left with questions that cannot be answered.

Unfortunately, they'll never be answered. Nobody knows what lies after death -- no matter how scientific or religious they are. It is the great unknown.

My biggest problem is reconciling the beauty in the world with the pain and suffering -- why we're even here to begin with when, in a few billion years, the sun will erase any shred of evidence that we ever existed. That supernova will even catch up to Voyager and Pioneer -- nothing will escape the inevitable gravitational collapse and resulting explosion that will incinerate everything.

So then ... why?
More...

Say I knew why. Why would you believe me when I told you why?

Who are you going to believe, when your own faculties are limited and unable to answer the question?

There are two types of people who posed the questions you have. Some are "curious" to know, and their question is little more than an intellectual exercise. Others "have" to find the answer to these questions, and the desire burns in their heart, which leads them to seek the answers from those who claim to have them.

Which are you?

A true seeker of knowledge, or just another boy on a chat board stirring it up?
 
Quote from aphexcoil:

I ask a simple question and seven pages later nobody can give me a clear answer. In fact, the poll itself is closely divided, with a few extra people believing that this is all just a fancy show-and-tell session.
More...
for the record, aph, my beliefs don't really fit in with either of the 2 choices, so i didn't answer the poll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top