StreetScooby 5 #1 August 24, 2006 Introduction ============ This thread is a continuation of the following threads: Introduction - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396715;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Language - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2398138;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Science - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2399827;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Summary ======= This thread introduces a real world example of an observation. Discussion ========== Within reason, it's fair to say that every culture on this planet has a well developed word in their language for the observation of God. These observations have proven to be difficult to correlate within our current scientific process, as practiced by professional scientists (i.e., people who actually make their living doing science). Conclusion ========== God is a reproducible observation across cultures.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #2 August 25, 2006 QuoteIntroduction ============ This thread is a continuation of the following threads: Introduction - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396715;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Language - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2398138;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Science - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2399827;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Summary ======= This thread introduces a real world example of an observation. Discussion ========== Within reason, it's fair to say that every culture on this planet has a well developed word in their language for the observation of God. These observations have proven to be difficult to correlate within our current scientific process, as practiced by professional scientists (i.e., people who actually make their living doing science). Conclusion ========== God is a reproducible observation across cultures. No, false conclusion from the data available.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #3 August 25, 2006 Quote No, false conclusion from the data available. How so?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #4 August 25, 2006 QuoteQuote No, false conclusion from the data available. How so? All you can conclude is that all cultures (according to you) have a word for it. Having a word for something is not the same as observing it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #5 August 25, 2006 QuoteWithin reason, it's fair to say that every culture on this planet has a well developed word in their language for the observation of God. These observations have proven to be difficult to correlate within our current scientific process, as practiced by professional scientists (i.e., people who actually make their living doing science). So you're basically saying that people can observe god, except for people who are scientists? Why are scientists exempt? What is the english word for the observation of god? Godstronomy? QuoteGod is a reproducible observation across cultures. Huh? 1) god hasn't been observed. 2) it's not reproducable 3) a word for something doesn't make it observable or real. cf dragons, vampires, leprechauns etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #6 August 25, 2006 Quote Having a word for something is not the same as observing it. Why have a word for it if it hasn't been observed?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 August 25, 2006 Quote So you're basically saying that people can observe god, except for people who are scientists? Why are scientists exempt? My point was that scientists haven't yet been able to "correlate" God observations. These observations tend to be disparate. Quote 1) god hasn't been observed. Many cultures, including our own, have noted a "higher force" in action in their lives. This is what I've taken to calling a "God observation". Quote 2) it's not reproducable I agree that's these observations are not strictly reproducible. Again, they tend to be disparate. Quote 3) a word for something doesn't make it observable or real. cf dragons, vampires, leprechauns etc Good point. I concede this as a weakness in the delivery of my argument. My point is - there are many observations of God through out the planet, across cultures.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #8 August 25, 2006 QuoteQuote Having a word for something is not the same as observing it. Why have a word for it if it hasn't been observed? Fairies haven't been observed. Elves haven't been observed. Goblins haven't been observed. The Higgs particle hasn't been observed. Maybe the Higgs IS god.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #9 August 25, 2006 Quote Fairies haven't been observed. Elves haven't been observed. Goblins haven't been observed. The Higgs particle hasn't been observed. Maybe the Higgs IS god. Good point. I concede this as a weakness in the delivery of my argument. My point is - there are many observations of God through out of the planet, across cultures. Jumping the gun here a little, I'm trying to demonstrate how I've reached the conclusion that God is best viewed as a verb in our language, not a noun. We're not there, yet.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #10 August 25, 2006 "I REFUSE TO PROVE THAT I EXIST", says God, "FOR PROOF DENIES FAITH, AND WITHOUT FAITH I AM NOTHING. " "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't, QED." "OH DEAR", says God, "I HADN'T THOUGHT OF THAT", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #11 August 25, 2006 Quote "I REFUSE TO PROVE THAT I EXIST" We're not proving the existence of God here. We're demonstrating how I came to view God as a verb. Another thread or two, and we'll be there.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #12 August 25, 2006 QuoteMy point is - there are many observations of God through out the planet, across cultures. I think you need to clarify what you mean by "god observations". To me the word "observe" means to unabiguously see, hear or otherwise measure some property of, or effect caused by, the "thing" you are observing. In the case of god, this has never happened. By God observation you seem to mean an event happens and some people attribute that event to some kind of god. This happens frequently but attribution of an event to some entity does not necessarily mean that the entiry was the cause of that event. Attributation and observation are very different animals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #13 August 25, 2006 Quote I think you need to clarify what you mean by "god observations". To me the word "observe" means to unabiguously see, hear or otherwise measure some property of, or effect caused by, the "thing" you are observing. In the case of god, this has never happened. I agree with what you're saying. You're being strict with the language, and that's good. Unfortunately, in trying to bridge God and the 1st Law there's this weak bridge that I've resorted to calling "God observations". In my Correlations thread, I assert that our science has NOT identified all known reservoirs of energy. And the interaction with those unknown reservoirs of energy can produce "God observations", i.e., here's something we don't understand, therefore God must be involved. Bottom line, the point I'm trying to reach here is that our science has NOT identified all known reservoirs of energy. More on that in my next thread. Quote By God observation you seem to mean an event happens and some people attribute that event to some kind of god. This happens frequently but attribution of an event to some entity does not necessarily mean that the entiry was the cause of that event. Yes, and that's well put. Again, my argument here would be the potential interaction with a heretofore unidentified reservoir of energy. Quote Attributation and observation are very different animals. Agreed, and again, well put.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #14 August 25, 2006 QuoteIn my Correlations thread, I assert that our science has NOT identified all known reservoirs of energy. And the interaction with those unknown reservoirs of energy can produce "God observations", i.e., here's something we don't understand, therefore God must be involved. Do you mean energy in the way a physicist would understand it, or energy in the way a tree hugging, crystal wearing hippy would understand it? Basically, I think you're saying that there might be some untapped form of "energy" somewhere in the universe and we might, on some level, be able to "connect" with that "energy" and that percieved connection would be us "observing" god. I'm worried that sooner or later you're going to flip between the physicists "energy" and the hippy's "energy" or the "observation" "attributation" distinction and go "voila... I have proved it". I don't find those type of arguments particularly convincing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #15 August 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteIn my Correlations thread, I assert that our science has NOT identified all known reservoirs of energy. And the interaction with those unknown reservoirs of energy can produce "God observations", i.e., here's something we don't understand, therefore God must be involved. Do you mean energy in the way a physicist would understand it, or energy in the way a tree hugging, crystal wearing hippy would understand it? Basically, I think you're saying that there might be some untapped form of "energy" somewhere in the universe and we might, on some level, be able to "connect" with that "energy" and that percieved connection would be us "observing" god. I'm worried that sooner or later you're going to flip between the physicists "energy" and the hippy's "energy" or the "observation" "attributation" distinction and go "voila... I have proved it". I don't find those type of arguments particularly convincing. May the Force be with you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #16 August 25, 2006 Quote Do you mean energy in the way a physicist would understand it, or energy in the way a tree hugging, crystal wearing hippy would understand it? I mean energy as a physicist would understand it. Quote Basically, I think you're saying that there might be some untapped form of "energy" somewhere in the universe and we might, on some level, be able to "connect" with that "energy" and that percieved connection would be us "observing" god. You're with me. In my next thread, I discuss what these may be. Quote I'm worried that sooner or later you're going to flip between the physicists "energy" and the hippy's "energy" or the "observation" "attributation" distinction and go "voila... I have proved it". I don't find those type of arguments particularly convincing. Let me reiterate. I am not proving or disproving the existence of God. I'm putting to words how I have decided to view the word "God" as a verb, not a noun.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #17 August 25, 2006 QuoteI mean energy as a physicist would understand it. How would you mesh this energy with the attributes that most people apply to God, ie morality and personal involment in their life? I'm not sure how your idea of God is differing from just physics we don't know yet?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #18 August 25, 2006 Quote How would you mesh this energy with the attributes that most people apply to God, ie morality and personal involment in their life? As I've already said in the Introduction, I view God as a verb, not as a noun. Quote I'm not sure how your idea of God is differing from just physics we don't know yet? Hasn't that always been the case?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #19 August 26, 2006 QuoteAs I've already said in the Introduction, I view God as a verb, not as a noun. I see that, but surely once you strip the God process of any form of thought it fails to become worthy of the name, and is just another part of the rules that make the universe work. It would be like calling gravity God. QuoteHasn't that always been the case? No? Surely a central part of any God template is a certain amount of intellect and influence.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #20 August 26, 2006 Quote In Reply To As I've already said in the Introduction, I view God as a verb, not as a noun. I see that, but surely once you strip the God process of any form of thought it fails to become worthy of the name, and is just another part of the rules that make the universe work. It would be like calling gravity God. Quote strip the God process of any form of thought I don't know what you mean by this. Could you clarify, please? It sounds significant, and I'm really interested in trying to comprehend that thought. Quote worthy of the name Agreed. What would you call it? Quote It would be like calling gravity God. Leaping many more threads ahead (which may never happen), one of my alternate views of God is basically this. God is like 1) Everything we think 2) Everything we don't think 3) Everything we feel 4) Everything we don't feel Summed over all of the people on the planet, and elsewhere. My point is, I've tried to keep my threads very pointed and as simple as possible. There's much more to this topic than my 5 little threads. Quote In Reply To Hasn't that always been the case? No? Surely a central part of any God template is a certain amount of intellect and influence. Quote God template I'm not sure what you mean by "God template". Cheers, We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
