We all are seeking God

[blazeofglory]

I seem to mystify you saying that we all are seekers. But I firmly beleive that even in denials I beleive in God. Even if I hold a scientific notion with regard to creation, or stick to the Darwinian idea creation through evolutionary processes I am indirectly shoring up the belief or the existence of God.

All of us no matter which paths we tread on and which faiths we hold all of us are seeking truth, and truth has many forms and manifestations. Different paths lead to truth.

All wonder at the immensity or vastness of this universe. Whether you are a believer or unbeliever there is no second thought. The single most truth is we are seeking truth.

God and Truth is indivisible. Scientists seek truth and so do spiritualists or philosophers.

God is something cosmic, and there is a word Birata in Sanskrit. Birata means universality and the idea that God is universal.

All are seekers whether they are scientists, philosophers, spiritualists, evolutionists, theists, atheists, and if any difference remains is one of the path, and different paths lead to the same destination.

[The Atheist]

God and Truth is indivisible. Scientists seek truth and so do spiritualists or philosophers.

Nope. I'm getting a bit tired of explaining why scientists aren't even remotely interested in "truth". Why do you bother persisting with this fallacy?

You seem to confusing what you believe with reality.

[kiki1982]

It depends what one wants to regard as Truth...

If Truth is the absolute Truth as Plato defined it, then scientists can try to look for it but they will never find it because Plato's Truth is divine and no human can attain it. I suppose the times when scientists looked for Truth in the Platonic sense was in the middleages, because then even arithmetic was about Truth. What the number 1 presented, f.i.

If Truth is just physical Reality, then it is perfectly possible for scientists to look for Truth, but then I have my doubts about the denomination.

Aristotle made a difference between Truth and Reality and in that, I think scientists are rather looking for Reality or the Platonic Truth of Reality (the question is whether it is ultimately attainable, whether we will have at some time an absolute conception of Reality in its entirety), whereas theists and philsophers rather look for the Platonic Truth or the Reality of Truth.

[JBI]

We all may be searching truth, but that does not mean we are all not searching for God. Be careful when you assert your opinion as universal.

Either way, what literary text does this deal with? Another post by a spiritualist trying to preach the goodness of God? these are almost as bad as the Atheist posts.

[hoope]

Nope. I'm getting a bit tired of explaining why scientists aren't even remotely interested in "truth". Why do you bother persisting with this fallacy?

You seem to confusing what you believe with reality.

well! somehow there are amny scientist , & researchers who became believer in the existance of God..some scientist so seek the truth out of their theories.. unlike philosophers who don't. Its coz scientists are seeing the Greatness of God creation..

[kiki1982]

Scientists do not look for the Greatness of God's creation, they look for the mechanisms behind what we see and try to understand it. That is not at all the Greatness of God's creation in itself, but merely trying to understand creation itself, which is a task by itself if you insist on calling it 'creation'.

Philsophers do have theories about Reality/Matter as Aristotle and Plato called it respectively and they do deduce Truth/Reality out of that. The only difference with physics is that those theories cannot be proven, they can only be argued and because of logic backed up.

[Virgil]

I seem to mystify you saying that we all are seekers. But I firmly beleive that even in denials I beleive in God. Even if I hold a scientific notion with regard to creation, or stick to the Darwinian idea creation through evolutionary processes I am indirectly shoring up the belief or the existence of God.

All of us no matter which paths we tread on and which faiths we hold all of us are seeking truth, and truth has many forms and manifestations. Different paths lead to truth.

All wonder at the immensity or vastness of this universe. Whether you are a believer or unbeliever there is no second thought. The single most truth is we are seeking truth.

God and Truth is indivisible. Scientists seek truth and so do spiritualists or philosophers.

God is something cosmic, and there is a word Birata in Sanskrit. Birata means universality and the idea that God is universal.

All are seekers whether they are scientists, philosophers, spiritualists, evolutionists, theists, atheists, and if any difference remains is one of the path, and different paths lead to the same destination.
Wow, Blaze, I can agree with just about all of that. I guess we are much closer in thought than I originally fathomed. Hear, hear!

[Mathor]

i think this issue is often touched upon in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, in which all the characters whether atheist or religious seek God in some way. People are obsessive over God, either in their love or their hate, and all people seek some knowledge or truth to justify their belief for or against.

[The Atheist]

these are almost as bad as the Atheist posts.

:lol:

Jesus, are they that bad?

[blazeofglory]

:lol:

Jesus, are they that bad?

Atheists, they are never bad at all. You are a questioner and come up with scientific ideas and I subscribe to your opinions mostly, and at times I have mine too.

I do not take the side of any one. At times I firmly become a theist and at others an atheist

In fact all I speak about spring from a source and if the very source of my ideas is polluted I may be wrong.

In fact no body knows perfectly what he speaks about and all our ideas are reflections or borrowed from others, or derivatives only.

Claiming that one has arrived at truth is falsehood.

Atheist, all are seekers. We have yet to arrive.

[Babyguile]

Science existed before religion.

Scientists are not seeking truths.

[The Atheist]

Atheist, all are seekers. We have yet to arrive.I was actually just having a laugh at my own expense.


Science existed before religion.

I think you'll find that's well and truly wrong. In many ways, religion is the father of science.

[Chava]

I think there is also a great difference between people who believe that there is one truth, and those that beleive there are multiple truths.

[NikolaiI]

I think that the one truth has many forms, as Blaze wrote. We view the same thing but we see it differently. It doesn't mean that our views are necessarily false, nor does it mean we aren't seeing the same thing. Perception and consciousness make all the difference.

[Babyguile]

I think you'll find that's well and truly wrong. In many ways, religion is the father of science.

Please, as someone here has said, science is the anti-thesis of religion. It is in no way a product of religion which it seems you are insinuating. Please explain further.

[JBI]

:lol:

Jesus, are they that bad?

Was punning a little - really meant the Atheist preaching posts, not yours specifically.

[JBI]

Please, as someone here has said, science is the anti-thesis of religion. It is in no way a product of religion which it seems you are insinuating. Please explain further.

What we call science today used to be "natural philosophy". Philosophy evolved out of the study of The Gods, and the nature of the Cosmos, so naturally, science evolved out of that too. Ultimately, most "scientists" of earlier days were philosophers, and many were religious. The two weren't mutually exclusive, as long as they didn't contradict each other. But as soon as Galileo theorized, things started taking another turn. The church ultimately had been proven wrong, and a rift naturally occurred, where the institution isn't all knowing, and doesn't have the answers.

[Babyguile]

What we call science today used to be "natural philosophy". Philosophy evolved out of the study of The Gods, and the nature of the Cosmos, so naturally, science evolved out of that too. Ultimately, most "scientists" of earlier days were philosophers, and many were religious. The two weren't mutually exclusive, as long as they didn't contradict each other. But as soon as Galileo theorized, things started taking another turn. The church ultimately had been proven wrong, and a rift naturally occurred, where the institution isn't all knowing, and doesn't have the answers.

Natural philosophers were not conducting science. When I said science existed before religion I didn't mean scientists as we know them today existed before the concpet of religions, but that science existed in that natural phenomenon and the biotic and abiotic environment, their interactions and the Earths cycles as we know today, were occuring before any form of human organisms and their ancestors.

[The Atheist]

Please, as someone here has said, science is the anti-thesis of religion.

You mean antithesis - no hyphen necessary. In case you didn't notice, my screen name is The Atheist, and I'm thoroughly aware that some religion is indeed the antithesis of religion.


It is in no way a product of religion which it seems you are insinuating. Please explain further.

This, however, is just incorrect.

Science's origins are in religion, and christianity in particular.

JBI has started the explanation, but here are a couple of places you can read more about it.

Columbia University (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html)

Even Wiki's not too bad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science)

[JBI]

In Christianity is not quite true. For instance, Aristotelian physics comes from, ultimately, the Greek classical religion, which in turn stems from older sources, going back way before that.

Science as we know it today, ultimately comes out of a "rediscovery" of the classics by Christians, and an appropriation of the works of Muslim thinkers (who it can be argued, are, influenced by Christianity, through Muhammad). The line between religion and science however, is, I would argue, in the Western sense, a Christian construct.

[planet earth]

Scientists do not look for the Greatness of God's creation, they look for the mechanisms behind what we see and try to understand it. That is not at all the Greatness of God's creation in itself, but merely trying to understand creation itself, which is a task by itself if you insist on calling it 'creation'.

From your point I can deduce that hadn't there been creation, or cosmic manisfestations, call it whichever there had not been science.

If there was no moon, there would not have been any astronomers
If there was no earth, there would not have been any geologists
If there was no human beings there would not have been any biologists
and so on..

therefore, these cosmic manifestations are actually underlying a truth everyone is only trying to explore, in his own way. These manifestations arouse curiousity within human beings to search within. I think actually that that was Blaze was trying to say but in another way.

We are all circulating around the same thing very differently aren't we?

[Babyguile]

You mean antithesis - no hyphen necessary. In case you didn't notice, my screen name is The Atheist, and I'm thoroughly aware that some religion is indeed the antithesis of religion.

??

There is nothing wrong with my use of the hyphen. There is no definitive rule for using hyphens and its range of uses has grew and evolved with time. Editors will accept hyphens if they are appropriately used as its main aim is to aid ease of reading. Since antithesis is a compound of two words (anti and thesis) each with their own meanings, it was appropriate to use the hyphen for this purpose. I'll continue to use the hypen whenever I write anti-thesis. Since you're pointing out particulars I think your avatar is entirely inappropriate.


This, however, is just incorrect.

Science's origins are in religion, and christianity in particular.

JBI has started the explanation, but here are a couple of places you can read more about it.

Columbia University (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html)Even Wiki's not too bad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science)

You're following the vein of argument that JBI did and I explained the difference between what I had said and what you thought I had meant. I'm not sure you read that post. I wasn't referring to the people of science and early science but the materials of science.

[The Atheist]

In Christianity is not quite true. For instance, Aristotelian physics comes from, ultimately, the Greek classical religion, which in turn stems from older sources, going back way before that.

Sure, and the origins must simply be the first cave-man who went outside and wondered "What the hell is that?"

[kiki1982]

From your point I can deduce that hadn't there been creation, or cosmic manisfestations, call it whichever there had not been science.

If there was no moon, there would not have been any astronomers
If there was no earth, there would not have been any geologists
If there was no human beings there would not have been any biologists
and so on..

therefore, these cosmic manifestations are actually underlying a truth everyone is only trying to explore, in his own way. These manifestations arouse curiousity within human beings to search within. I think actually that that was Blaze was trying to say but in another way.

We are all circulating around the same thing very differently aren't we?

If one insists upon calling the world we see 'creation' then we are trying to understand that, not the greatness of it, because in order to understand that greatness, we firstly need to understand the fact otherwise the adjective 'great' does not mean anything.

There is a truth, as you say, but the question is what question that answers.

There is only one science that gives an answer to the why and not the how and that is philosophy (which is the same concept as religion).

Other sciences investigate the how and do not busy themselves with that why.

That was my point.

Religion looks at the moon and sees a goddess who determines our lives. Science (excluding philosophy) sees the moon and sees the orbit. Science does not look at the greatness of that moon and the truth of it but at the mere reality (its size, its orbit, the way it is in the sky, it surface, the influence it has on the seas and their tides, etc.), which is already hard enough to comprehend.

In that science does not look for God, because science does not look for truth or the why, but for the mere how. What why does mathematics make us understand? In that we are not seeking God, all of us. Blaze might be right in saying that we all seek a reason for being here, but not that we look for God.

[planet earth]

If one insists upon calling the world we see 'creation' then we are trying to understand that, not the greatness of it, because in order to understand that greatness, we firstly need to understand the fact otherwise the adjective 'great' does not mean anything.

There is a truth, as you say, but the question is what question that answers.

There is only one science that gives an answer to the why and not the how and that is philosophy (which is the same concept as religion).

Other sciences investigate the how and do not busy themselves with that why.

That was my point.

Religion looks at the moon and sees a goddess who determines our lives. Science (excluding philosophy) sees the moon and sees the orbit. Science does not look at the greatness of that moon and the truth of it but at the mere reality (its size, its orbit, the way it is in the sky, it surface, the influence it has on the seas and their tides, etc.), which is already hard enough to comprehend.

In that science does not look for God, because science does not look for truth or the why, but for the mere how. What why does mathematics make us understand? In that we are not seeking God, all of us. Blaze might be right in saying that we all seek a reason for being here, but not that we look for God.

I guess you are highly too philosophical in representing your point of view, but, although many of the points you stated may be very correct, I think there is something missing for me at least. I know my religious background would be interfering here, but it is part of my belief. According to me Religion tells me about science.

I will give the same example you have given, the moon. Religion told me that there are twelve months in a year for example. To calculate them there are variant stages for the moon. And that lunar months are used as timings for people. I know that one day the moon was split.

Religion stated that mountains for example pass the passing of clouds. I have no idea whether this is scientifically proven, but I know it, I believe in it.

It is then that the role of science comes to prove how, mountains move for example.

I assume the difference between religion and science is the same as the difference between the existence of something and its discovery. Penicillin for example, existed long before it was discovered. This never meant that it existed on the day of its discovery, it was only scientifically authenticated on a specific time. I think this is what faith does to human beings. It makes them believe in facts, realites, truths that do exist, but are still not scientifically proven.

[gerry c]

He who seek the Lord has allready found him
gerry c

[kilted exile]

You call it god, I call it the bottle opener