(ctd)

>>Australia is not passing from Christendom to a secular society<<

Returning to my metaphor, also in physics inertia manifests itself differently in different systems. So the Australian scenery - that you apparently know more about than I - has had its ups and downs in proceeding from a more Christian-determined society, say one hundred years ago, to a more secular one. I used the abbreviation to Christendom to point to the relevance of European history, where Christendom is a more appropriate description of the (Medieval) past.

Also, I think, relative preponderance of extremes usually accompanies retreat from positions of power.

>>Which Platonic dialogues are most instrumental in forming your worldview? I have been greatly influenced by Popper’s two volumes, “The Open Society and its Enemies.” The first volume deals with Plato and the second with Hegel and Marx.<<

Well, I have to admit I am not very much knowledgeable of Plato. I have not read his dialogues. I used his name only in connection with mathematics:

Goedel defined the platonic realm as “a non-sensual reality, which exists independently both of the acts and the dispositions of the human mind and is only perceived, and probably perceived very incompletely, by the human mind.” Paul Erdös believed that there existed "The Book", in the platonic realm, which contained all the theorems and perfect proofs that mathematicians were in the process of discovering.

I would agree with both as far as mathematics is concerned, but I am not sure about generalizations to Platonism as a philosophical school.

As for Popper, I am more familiar with his philosophy of science (and its criticism), and read only extracts of “The Open Society and its Enemies”. I know he was against what he called historicism, and that he somehow derived it from Plato.

Another reference to Plato is just my elaborations on beauty, truth, goodness, the trinity of ideals on which my father’s philosophy was built.

OneUnderGod,

Could you tell us the trick how you manage to post 500-600 words in one post, whereas we others have to split them?

.

Dear George,

.

I replied to your question in my previous post :

“Proof or evidence of “the existence of the supernatural e.g. God” are elements which establish the truth of their existence (reality). Such elements may take the form of falsifiable material evidence and/or circumstantial evidence and/or the testimony of credible eye witnesses.”

It just occurred to me that perhaps you wanted some practical examples of proof. Here are a few which come immediately to mind:

1) – The establishment of a direct means of communication on a permanent basis, 24h/24h, 7days/7 days, all year round, between every living entity and god on an individual basis with the possibility of multiple participation in the same communication.

2) – Resuscitation of a certain number of personalities. The resuscitated should be in good health and in full possession of their faculties. Here is my short list:
• Lao-Tse,
• Confucius
• Buddha
• Abraham
• Moses
• Jesus
• Mohamed
• Democritus
• Socrates
• Plato
• Aristotle
• Michelangelo
• Leonardo da Vinci

3) – Establishment of an annual “day of the dead” during which families and friends may communicate with deceased loved ones.

4) – Negotiated agreement with god of the relationship of mankind with him/her/it, including the definition of mutual rights and duties.

The realization of these four points and their satisfactory functioning for a minimum period of ten years would be sufficient proof of the existence (reality) of god, so far as I am concerned.

.

Dear George,

Reactionaries may see a Golden Age in the past which we can only try to approximate. The Platonic ideal of perfect forms of which the imperfect copies that we have in the real world is a reactionary idea.

In the Republic Plato outlined the myth of the metals. The ruling class was gold. The guardians or warriors who protected the state were silver, and the banausics were iron. The banausics were those who produced and distributed the wealth on which the gold and silver survived – farmers, craftsmen, merchants, teachers, doctors etc. Plato saw the banusics as worthless in themselves. Their only worth was in their service to the state. He would deny medical care to a banausic who could no longer be productive. The state is everything. Plato scorned those Athenians who supported abolition of slavery. The individual who is neither gold nor silver is nothing.

Plato saw degeneration in the mixing of the metals. The three metals should not intermarry or the state would suffer. This vision of Plato was both classist and racist.

Although one cannot be knowledgeable in the humanities without knowing about Plato, Plato, himself, was hostile to the humanities. He could accept narrative poetry as telling of great deeds which would inspire people to serve the state but had no use for lyric poets and would ban them.

Plato wrote, “He was a wise man who invented God.” Although Plato thought of God as a human invention he, to the best of my memory, would regard blasphemy as a capital crime on the grounds that it promoted disorder and was harmful to the state.

Truth is no longer the ideal. What serves the state is good. What doesn’t serve the state is bad. Plato’s Republic was his ideal state. It was a totalitarian vision.

Plato saw a progression from the ideal state as envisioned in the Republic to timocracy, the rule of the nobles, oligarchy, rule of the rich, democracy, rule of the mob, and then tyranny, the final sickness of the city.

banjo..<<..1)..The establishment..of a direct..means of communication>>..

synchronicity..plus awareness..of time..set of mind and place
[spirit talks to us..in many ways..on a permanent basis,..but we dismiss..the flow of mind..as process

think/of it..like..our thought..is like
yelling..into a crowd...that thought..begins a conversation..of minds..[with..all the voices replying..sounding the same]..

thus whether the crowd source/replies..are relative..or not..is up to us..[who chose to express..or enact..the input's..suggestions/offers]..

my filter..is to/ask..is this good..help-full..or hurt-full
it goes on..virtually non-stop..but is not fail-proof[as replies our mind perceives..are shaped..specifically..to match our mindset..and dependent on our grasp..of the info received

keeping in mind..spirit..isnt infallible..
is only attracted..by our live time external emissions[or by those attracted..to our vibe*[in spirit realm..much is via..crowd sourcing]

needless to add..the more obsessive..the minds fixations
the more fixated/obsessive..the replying voice..[it can..only reply..the like/same energy...that attracted the reply..[come-back]

<<..2/Resuscitation of a certain number of personalities.>>

they arnt dead..they are finished..with satans realm
butbecause they left their presence..[by way of works/words etc..must still face the karma..

[but will..never return..their flesh/body..is gone..
their new [soul]bodies..are bodies of light


<<annual “day..of the dead”>>
lretthe dead/tend the dead..they live..
we need but think..of them..and they must know of it
many still..live in the same physical location..but space/time is infinite

<<..Negotiated agreement..with god..of the relationship..of mankind with him/her/it,..including the definition of mutual rights and duties...>>

god sustains us our living
we sustain..our 'reality'

<<..proof of the existence..(reality)..of god,..>>

becomes more clear..once you realise..
your not even..sustaining..your own breathing..[
nor body healing].life process..heartbeat..kidney function..etc etc

[eg..the info..processed in a single cell..is more in one second..than/that..which could be recorded..in..any super computer

it begins..by realization..
not you..nor science..that..sustains us..our every breath
[doctors..merely SET bones..that god then heals]

[know god..by her sign..
life light love logic laughter]

[life*..comes only from life]
learn..to accept..we arnt doing any-of-it..god does it all..so naturally..[so seemingly seamlessly]..[bar..that god=chronos..too]

george..that:..would_be..telling..[BUT*..this=one/word].

Dear Banjo,

Re 1) The source of such “direct means of communication etc” if it took place would certainly be assigned to an extraterrestrial intelligence not only by atheists but also by educated theists.

Re 2) If somebody claimed to be a resuscitation of Lao-Tse etc, I doubt anybody would believe him, they would probably lock him up. And if the DNA pointed to some unusual source theists as well as atheists would probably seek a scientific explanation. Certainly it would not confirm my belief in transcendental God, and I doubt if it would convince all atheists to go and look for a supernatural explanation.

Re 3) This is already happening to a gullible group of believers in occultism, although not on a regular basis. Does it convince you about anything? Not me.

Re 4) The same as sub 1).

>>The realization of these four points and their satisfactory functioning for a minimum period of ten years would be sufficient proof of the existence (reality) of god, so far as I am concerned. <<

Well, I am not sure what is your idea of God, but neither of these happenings is something that would convince me about anything related to God. (Maybe they would convince Richard Dawkins about the existence of his version of god, but I doubt even that.) I think that whatever God is, I don’t know of any contemporary theologian who would depict Him as a magician or joker who would play such tricks on us.

As I wrote in the article:

“Events that can be recorded by scientific instruments as violations of known natural laws would simply be absorbed by science as new observations, new facts. A new, more embracing, theory (and/or natural laws) would be sought by scientists to explain them. Seeing these unexplained events as the result of some direct divine act would simply mean a return to the many times discredited god-of-the-gaps argument.”

Dear david f,

Thanks for the nutshell summary (and critique along Popper) of Plato’s Republic. I read it a couple of times, and indeed appreciate it.

.

Dear George,

.

« What restriction? In my view the assumption that science can explain everything including consciousness (to be accepted by everybody like in the case of the movement of the planets) is a restriction going in the opposite direction to the assumption that science is restricted (by self-referential paradoxes?) in its attempts to explain consciousness on its own.”

.

According science an open mandate with no restrictions is not an “assumption that science can explain everything including consciousness”. It assumes nothing. It simply leaves science a free hand to carry out whatever investigations it deems necessary in order to attain its objectives.

A mandate is not a guarantee of success. Science may fail in its mission. But if it does, in the case of an open mandate, it cannot evoke mandatory limitations as the reason for its failure.

There is nothing to lose and everything to gain in not restricting its mandate as you propose.

Nor is there any reason to presume that science would necessarily “attempt to explain consciousness on its own”. Perhaps it would, but it would have no obligation to do so. That would be a matter for science to decide. It has no obligation to be stupid, to pursue some ideal, or to obey any dogma.

Presumptions, prejudices, beliefs, à priories, biases, convictions, aversions, sympathies, preferences, intolerances, foregone conclusions and other preconceived ideas and stances … have no place in scientific investigation.

.

“Events that can be recorded by scientific instruments as violations of known natural laws would simply be absorbed by science as new observations, new facts. A new, more embracing, theory (and/or natural laws) would be sought by scientists to explain them Seeing these unexplained events as the result of some direct divine act would simply mean a return to the many times discredited god-of-the-gaps argument.”

.

It sounds like you have absolutely no faith in the ability of god to find some way of providing convincing scientific evidence of his existence (reality).

Why so much doubt, George ?

If he is all you say, he'll find a way.

.