My work over the last two years has concentrated on pure philosophy regarding the House of Duality and the roof, recently fashioned called Quality. In fact, the book in progress is a total critique of it.
Hence, would like to open a discussion -not debate (because a debate requires two politicians and a swing vote)- about how similar ya'll are. When I say ya'll I am referring directly to science & religion, as they are termed. We thinkers prefer to call you Classic & Romantic, Discovery & Sensation, Husband & Wife.
"Big Band v. And He Said"
According to both sides, in the beginning there was nothing until something happened. One perspective of that happening was a Big Bang that set all the elements of light into motion. Not so coincidentally, your better half defines this event (long before the age of science) that this event occurred when "He said", thus from his mouth came the elements of light in motion.
What I find even more noteworthy is that the classic side considers more outside of the present universe as does the romantic. One says there are many universes while the other says it is the remaining Entity -apart from His mouth.
I would like to see your response to this -in at least some measure of intellect- versus the standard smiley, ridicule, mockery, tasteless jargon, generally associated with forum discord.
So, to clarify. This discussion is on the complimentary nature of science and religion, and that they are not as contradictory as most believe?
Hi friend crmhaske
I agree with you. Science and Religion are complementary and not contradictory; being from on source the Creator-God Allah YHWH.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
The manifestations of one? Unity of chaos?
Yeah - see? This is why I have never really embraced the big bang thing. Sounds too much like a scientific version of "In the beginning" to me.
This reminds me of the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig. Have you read it? The concept of 'Quality' is explored. He basically tries to transcend the subject-object duality with some sort of mystical foundation that he calls "A Metaphysics of Quality".
Philip, yes, I know it well. I sliced his concept against Blake, Hume, Kant and others -including Epicurus, etc. I came to see that some perceptions of the Duality fit the mould in some methods. His expressions on the extremely raw premise of Quality led me into some oldies but goodies of Philo. I have been comparing many a thesis against his claims -even though some supportive notions are acceptable.
For instance the claim of Quality itself. Though naive in premise, give way to today's equation-sensation, in the form of quantum attraction, yogi, kabbalah, new age mysticism. As if a united duality has become answer -but by the standards of purity, a bastard child -quality of life, etc.
the argument of Quality v Grace (Purity of Free Will) has been my writing over the last two years and nearly completed critque (if the publishers will have me)...
Ice Age v Flood
The classic view through various methods claims the planet post- Neanderthal, Reptilian (Dino) went into a freeze. During this time, it is believed that the planet was in a very tropical setting, which would support vast growth of vegetation and by some event, the planet went into a deep liquid torrent. The variable is the time line or longevity of it. The romantic side states it was an event of a melting the ice shield, thus causing a massive liquid flood from both above and below. It is also the romantic view that the land was very tropic, giving way to longevity of humans and lack of clothing necessity. Apart from a slight difference of the term ice, are these two events the same through varying perspectives? (Also noteworthy is after the romantic event, no mention of dinosaurs is evident).
Imagine the sea level such as it was when the streight of Gibralter first broke open. What it must have looked like from the valley below.
This is a very interesting point, I've drawn historical parallels before, but never made the Ice Age-Flood connection.
Hmmm... I feel slightly smarter now. As an English-Lit major I have to ask, what makes you think the universe ever actually began? The seperation of "what was" and "what is" isn't a very distinct one in my mind. Perhaps our reality has always been here, waiting for us. Another theory I'm starting to embrace is the TrumanShowBelief. You are all just plants in the show of my life.
Finite Cohesive? Sounds like Quality.
On the other hand, reality can be defined as energy optic³ x necessity.
I'll pretend I understood what you meant just now. smile and nod.
hi, nice to meet you, nw starr. (fan of north western?)
My best friend is in the chemistry program there. But, no I live in the northwest.
I know what ya mean. It is hard to express what a picture in your mind looks like when ya gotta describe it one pixle at a time.
I don't believe all substance sprang from a Big Bang. To me that narrows my perception of the universe, eternity and yes even God. All creation is organized from materials already present in the universe. So in my belief the process of creation and destruction has always been, is and will always be present in the universe. Each creation holds the elements of some distant past destruction. All creation is intelligently organized for the eternal benefit of man - man which has, does and will always populate many worlds.
For me, to seek the "beginning" of all things is fruitless as far as absolutes are concerned. Our mortal understanding and intelligence is barely in it's infancy. Our knowledge of physics and what we term as "laws" (which are even now changing) derives from what we've discovered here, locally, and through the observations of what small percentage of the universe we have viewed and mapped. Keeping a wide open mind is vital as we start to mature in science and phylosophy. There is so much more out there to discover and so many more facets of humanity to explore. These new degrees of wisdom will, undoubtedly, prove many of our current beliefs laughable.
It's an exciting future!
Hello GP, long time.
I don't see how it negates the Ism's perspective of BigBang v And He said. If anything it supports the united agreement of both perspectives.
I am with you on the bright future!
I totally agree. Both are complementary to each other. Were it not so there would be no reason for either to exist.
Hope all is well on your end!
all good, so far.
true, their very purpose and existence mandate they need each other to exist. The united Ism, under the roof of quality is one of my deeper concerns. As one of my critic friends put it: what kind of offspring is this couple going to produce and should we be excited or scared sh!teless. -Although, my buddy Morse tends to blurt things like that out after three lobster and two bottles of David Bruce. Gotta appreciate 2x phD historian from Berkley.
I personally favor big bang...but just last night I read an article about black holes and wormholes. So it is highly possible there a chance this can still contend as a theory.
I do wish believers would stop offering their versions of how they "believe" science will somehow support their belief systems or how science only scrapes a portion of reality that doesn't include their gods. It's a form of lying and being deceitful, to themselves and to everyone else.
I refer you to the thread categories. The acknowledging of God is proper and acceptable given the category. I don't put science or religion on top of the other. I view them as synonomous, equal and both existing in concert one with another.
Science tries to explain the world around us and our physical laws using observation and experimentation. Science has given you everything you have today.
Religion tells us in absolutes about the world around us using myth and magic to break and violate physical laws with the mere will of our minds. Religion has given you false hopes.
That would be a concert that would sound like bags of cats being hit with sticks.
I can agree with ya on that. But ya gotta remember that "Religion" is the government type institution that attempts to legislate Faith.
Faith doesn't allways but it can survive when exposed to religion. Thank God
ahem, religion does no such thing. not once has it defended totality against science, not once. Yet, the masculine seems to think his wife has.
I am amazed at the level of insecurity in the masculine hunter -science and how it tries to divide himself from his wife, her charms which you used ages ago to court her...
Neither side has an absolute -not sensation or equation. So why the endless rhetoric? This is your wife man, religion. Without her, who would clap and faint at your discoveries? Who will take your kills and make them into comfortable statues, relics, novelties, museums and such for the pilgrims of the world to awe and admire? Seriously...
Roger Moore was right, two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year...
Roger Moore was a bad actor. You're referring to Roger Waters. Can't you get anything right?
oops...thanks on the correction.
yes to add a bit more flavor:
both science & religion are fighting to keep their heads above, scrambling to avoid drowning in an otherwise empty pool.
pity, because the answer to both the equation and sensation has been staring them in the face the whole time.
i'd throw you a life jacket, but then you'd call it absolution.
It is part of a theory I am working on which states that optic light is based on necessity, as opposed to chance/randomness. It shows a cohesive prim, codon, helix, pattern of either dominant, equal or submissive character, property and vibration at any and every given instance of the optic view. The varying perspectives of that view make it difficult to ascertain the interaction between two sub atomic units which 'give birth' to a completely different unit. The theory states that those units blend in and out of the X forming that optic expression. So ray & wave are the united optic.
In relation to the human being (and even the Ism) it works the same. The spirit and body are the ray & wave, the mind the optic.
Jerami said it, a pixel picture in a ultra subatomic picture pixel.
I had to read really slowly, but I gotcha!
Let's continue with our critique of the Ism.
Without the Quality factor, viewing both sides, can it be said that there is a common thread from both ends lacking either their classic nature or romantic? If you could pinpoint those instances, what would you define them as?
The molecules of consciousness constantly spread apart, with a perpetual resistance towards the ultimate unity; hence forth a universal chaos......and all that lies between.
obviously, OD. But universal chaos...
Granted there are seemingly infinite expressions within the optic (consciousness), which is the Ism itself. But where is -if any- the dividing wall? Is it questionability or simply a lack of the sensitive-equative "balance"?
by aka-dj 2 years ago
A worldwide flood (like described by Noah's flood) is said to be part of many cultures folklore.Creationist proponents belive geological evidence "supports " such an event. Atheists (and others) do not. What do you think?
by David Bowman 17 months ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from me.Now to the topic of this thread: One of the favorite arguments of the...
by cooldad 18 months ago
What if this happened today. All the news networks, all the world leaders, all the scientists, all the leaders of churches announced that it was proven that God does not exist. Proven beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.What would you do? How would society and the world react?
by David Bowman 8 years ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from me. Now to the topic of this thread: Theists claim that the complexity and order...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|