why not seek peace

[scorpion da black]

true goldiegirl san
i wanted to make the exact reply to mars man san
how can some one provide evidence for a subject that lacks fact or recorded history?
religion it self is not definite proof for anything for some people..for some others it is a way of life.
even facts are built on assumptions that may be proved false in the future ...so what we base our knowledge on now may not qualified in the future...

some points in religion are not contradictory with science ..some other points are.
the line between fact and theory is thin...
so it will give any member a hard time proving an opinion.

 

[Goldiegirl]

I agree too, that science changes. It's all someone's opinion or heck a guess or an educated assumption at one point. Maybe the point is that we all have to fluid in our thinking and believing?

 

[scorpion da black]

well that is a balanced way to put it ..
thanks goldiegirl
so what i understand is that one must agree to the degree of knowledge we have at hand until any other discoveries yet to be made..
good putting it that way?

 

[Chi65]

I agree too, that science changes. It's all someone's opinion or heck a guess or an educated assumption at one point. Maybe the point is that we all have to fluid in our thinking and believing?

I very much agree, GG!
I also attend a science forum for longer, and know about the doubts and changes over there.
Particularly since there also offences and doubts dissapeared, when some well respected neurologists themselves said, that there is a lot, that some do not know yet, but hopefully will, also about stuff, that was former thought to be irrational or downright wrong, as the synaesthesia with its forsights and other rules than so far known ones, for only one but very clear example.

Once silenced and running under a kind of shizophrenia (except for some artists with certified freedom to express it, some openly called Genius for this. . .), its now fully restored for what it is, according to new researches on the brain, plus its obvious advantages, not to forget harmlessness and joy!

And now neurology even fights for our rights in this (see our beloved Ramachandran, who made the above statement, even more clearly so, you meet him directly there, Scorpion! Well said indeed! Shake hands here).

This Syn actually may also lead to a lot of explanations about patterns in Islam, by the way (this may interest you, Scorpion ;-)), because one of my most loved experiences in life was a Zikr in a peacefull sufi-group, with exploding and repeating wonderfull colourfull patterns in my head, very much like those, seen in Islamic architecture for example. I would not want to miss that experience at all and can only ask everyone to try it, believer or not. It is a particular treasure for people, who see music and hear visuals etc.(plus for those, who do not know yet. . .), which is far more widespread than at first thought, and definitely more in more eastern countries these days. The according insight about inner patterns and connectedness is in fact stunning. But also, where and how it meets (not opposes, nor being the only one, not to forget!) patterns of other views and cultures.

Lets compare, is what I am mostly trying to say.

There is so much to be found (and has to be changed or come back to accordingly).

 

[Mars Man]

Well, this has shown just the point I had been making...in one way...and, in another way, brings out another point or two which I have been working on trying to get across, and plan on doing more with in the future.

Now I do understand that there will always be people who do not feel comfortable with logic, who have not given as careful a consideration of just what that principle is, and who thus may not be willing to delve into it more. Again, not pointing fingers nor spotlighting anyone, it is an inescapable conclusion that in cognition, logic rules--even, if nothing else, due certain principles of nature that 'conduct' basic natural operations...say the laws of thermodynamics, or gravity (mass attraction), or so on.

Take this statement, for example: but when religion. or faith gets involved you can't discuss logically anymore.

Here we have a positive claim (and this is in no way to pick on you Goldiegirl, I'm just using this as a tool in trying to get a 'hard copy' example across...in order to enhance understanding) in the absolute. It can be outlined as follows:

When A event happens, B event cannot happen.​

Now that the former sentence can be reduced to the above analytical statement, is a fact of logic...and a fact of universal reality (as far as we understand the universe in which we live. Would anyone deny that? Of course not!

Then, it cannot be denied that in that there is language, there is logical conclusion--deduction/induction--due to the fact that symbols (words) are arranged in syntactical patterns (grammer, collocation, colloquialisms) automatically forming a context, and meaning and definition is decided by this context. It is in this means and vehicle that conception occurs--even in cases where the actual things symbolized by words are used...as when a person or animal does not have any highly developed language tools/skills. Would anyone deny that? I am very certain that it would be extremely difficult to deny that.

Putting the topic of faith, religion (in the sense of religiosity) and even religious belief-systems aside, the point I had been presenting is based on the above, and still stands--until proven to be inaccurate.

A positive and absolute claim of nature A, will, by the operation of natural logic deny a positive and absolute claim of nature B, when it cannot be shown by any other claims that the nature of the two claims can be one and the same. This, is simple fact. This, cannot be denied. And so in order to keep peace, we should all make great effort to understand this basic natural logic, and to make application of it !!

Now, Goldiegirl, as regards your claims made in your post just under my previous one, you see, you would have to provide precise and concrete definitions of your terms used (faith, religion) in order to substantiate the validity of your claim. If by faith and religion you mean religious belief-system, then I can easily show that claim to be false. Religious belief-systems are build on logic too...something which far too many people in our world, for far too long, have been 'blinded by the light' (to make sarcastic use of Steve Miller's song) to understand this simple and natural fact. I encourage further thought and discussion here...but only in the Serious Discussions section. How's 'bout it?

 

[Chi65]

Point is also, if one has seen A, while another one has seen B (maybe a bit further, for example, which can be a simple reason of having better or other glasses), the A only stands there until the B is also seen later on. Every scientist can confirm this as well. Wasn't Galileo a good example, and Einstein etc.?
Things aren't as static, as they often appear. Thus one should stay flexible and open, in my humble opinion.

 

[Mars Man]

Yes, I understand, but what you are talking about there, is something different at the moment. I am not presenting the case of testability or falsification here, but am simply showing how logic applies.

What you have said is true...scientific method depends on being falsifible...and understandings have changed due to testing and research and improvements in these areas...BUT all that is done in logic !! That is the point here. We are bound to make application of natural logic, so, in our discussion and presentation and claims, we should not lose sight of that.

It is for that reason that my presentation is true. (please do not forget this part.... when it cannot be shown by any other claims that the nature of the two claims can be one and the same)

I'm sure you will agree that claims are made which disprove other claims...the idea of not being static...but the logic used to make the claims, and the logic contained in the linguistical analysis of the claims made, does not and never will change...as far as can be determined. That's the point, you see.

 

[Chi65]

Oki doki, I get your point, no problem

 

[scorpion da black]

what chi65 san is suggesting is mixing philosophy that is built on logic but lacks proof with science that is both logical and built on fact and draw our conclusions from it ...
but in such pattern chi65 san wouldn't theories be built on human understating that is not always right or might be proved wrong?
my point again is the patterns in science can some times prove some ones claim and in other times when the scientific fact is proved wrong it could do the opposite.

oh and chi san i have read much and i have been taught about Sufi belief ...the content is beyond the connection between art and prayer...
read some you might like it