Yes, it’s kind of like trying to zero-in on something that appears in your peripheral vision, yet every time you turn to see what it is, it always remains in your peripheral vision and never directly observable and obvious.
_______
Yes, it’s kind of like trying to zero-in on something that appears in your peripheral vision, yet every time you turn to see what it is, it always remains in your peripheral vision and never directly observable and obvious.
I am not a solid pantheist because I am not a pantheist to begin with.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:28 am If I understand you, and whatever you yourself name your "usual fare" , this is pantheism. Me, I am a pantheist.
The objection to pantheism is that reason is enthroned where I imagine that you place goodness and benevolence, so you are not quite a solid pantheist.
I get around the problem of evil because to me there is no such thing as “evil” as if it were something you step in and can’t get off your shoe, or some dark and malevolent (otherworldly) virus that can infect a person’s soul.
seeds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:52 am I disagree because I refuse to acquiesce to the idea that the manifestation of a unique individualization of personal consciousness (such as yours or mine) is simply a mundane feature of the universe to be taken for granted when it is indeed a “miracle” in and of itself:
Well said, Dam.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:44 am I agree, it's a ''miracle''
Commonly a miracle is something extraordinary for man and woman. The wonder of life reveals how easily the limits of the mind are taken for real, because extraordinary means that it is not expected by the conditioned logic and reason of the mind. A miracle is not the extraordinary alone but also the ordinary, that which the ego takes for granted. That nature is a miracle in every speck of the universe, be it a plant, an animal or a human being, a planet or the sun, leaves us astonished, if we look deeply into the miracle of life.
seeds wrote: ...it can only be concluded that no matter what anyone says to Nick, he will still insist that no one here is capable of providing a logical explanation for the issue he brought up.
Again, Nick, you made the claim that no one here is able to provide even an “intellectual” explanation for the process beginning with the immaculate conception and concluding with the virgin birth.
When it comes to virgin births and science, the only thing that would be acceptable to science is something that could explain an immaculate conception in purely materialistic terms.Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:35 pm Science is true and the essence of religion is true. Truth cannot be in opposition. People who understand this try to find out the cause of the conflict. Could the virgin birth be acceptable to science? Yes, but we are far from any collective appreciation....
As Arising_uk has already requested of you, what exactly is the “already existing” understanding of God that doesn’t insult science?
The phrase - “non-secular scientific explanation” is going to seem a bit oxymoronic to the average reader.
How about this:
So what is the purpose of our universe and the purpose of humanity within it? This is a beginning. How could anything else provide a reasonable foundation for the virgin birth?Again, Nick, you made the claim that no one here is able to provide even an “intellectual” explanation for the process beginning with the immaculate conception and concluding with the virgin birth.
I therefore provided you with a perfectly reasonable intellectual explanation (from a philosophical perspective) and you simply didn’t accept it due to your own biased take on reality.
But more scientists are becoming open minded to a quality of materiality that is not measured by science. For example, can science measure alchemy or qualities of materiality comprising the Great Chain of Being? No. Science needs to advance in its conception of reality and strive to verify it.When it comes to virgin births and science, the only thing that would be acceptable to science is something that could explain an immaculate conception in purely materialistic terms.
I have already tried to do it on several threads including the Einstein and Panentheism threads. It bombed. Now I’m waiting for someone else to supply a reasonable explanation of the virgin birth that I can add to. There simply is no reason to discuss these ideas where they are unwanted and denial is preferred over contemplation.As Arising_uk has already requested of you, what exactly is the “already existing” understanding of God that doesn’t insult science?
Please layout the details of this “understanding” in a way that doesn’t come across as some vague and highly questionable personal theory.
Tell that to Spinoza. Is he offering a contradiction?Nevertheless, I gave you a non-secular (i.e., a theistically based) scientific explanation.
The problem is that human science simply doesn’t accept the possibility of divine agency.
Such ideas are annoying. Socrates proved that."... Love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength." - Spinoza (TEI)
“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.”
― Baruch Spinoza
I want someone else to disturb the peace with the virgin birth question by proposing a reasonable explanation. I will support them but since I’m alone with these ideas, why fight city hall?“I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.”
― Baruch Spinoza
The simplest most reasonable explanation is that at the time the Hebrew translation of virgin was young womanNic wrote:
I want someone else to disturb the peace with the virgin birth question by proposing a reasonable explanation
But the only people who find it reasonable are secularists. People who "feel" the essence of religion intuitively know there is more to it and scientists sensing a reality behind their conceptions are drawn to opening to a contemplative intuitive experience. So what is reasonable for the secularist becomes insufficient for those open to the potential for conscious life beyond the limitations of plato's cave.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:07 amThe simplest most reasonable explanation is that at the time the Hebrew translation of virgin was young womanNic wrote:
I want someone else to disturb the peace with the virgin birth question by proposing a reasonable explanation
Either that or she may have became pregnant from someone other than Joseph and feared stoning.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:07 amThe simplest most reasonable explanation is that at the time the Hebrew translation of virgin was young woman
You asked for a reasonable explanation and I gave you the most reasonable one. Your moving of the goal posts by claiming that suchNic wrote:But the only people who find it reasonable are secularists. People who feel the essence of religion intuitively know there is more to it andsurreptitious57 wrote:The simplest most reasonable explanation is that at the time the Hebrew translation of virgin was young womanNic wrote:
I want someone else to disturb the peace with the virgin birth question by proposing a reasonable explanation
scientists sensing a reality behind their conceptions are drawn to opening to a contemplative intuitive experience. So what is reasonable
for the secularist becomes insufficient for those open to the potential for conscious life beyond the limitations of platos cave
YOU are, I AM the I AM.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:22 pmNo it really is.Dontaskme wrote:It's not even a mistranslation. ...What are you waffling about?These are all conceptual ideas that can only arise where there is the sense of separate self...as conceived...in this conception...totally illusory, the Self is beyond all human ideas about it....and all human ideas arise in that Empty unborn ONE
To talk about it is to birth it, only the mind is born not the SELF
All right, Seeds, let me put the question "How do you as a panentheist get around the problem of the enormous number of events that include suffering ?"I get around the problem of evil because to me there is no such thing as “evil” as if it were something you step in and can’t get off your shoe, or some dark and malevolent (otherworldly) virus that can infect a person’s soul.
No, I view evil as the consequence of “low consciousness” (i.e., the varying levels and degrees of the purposely designed somnambulistic state of humanity) and the actions resulting from it.