.

Dear George,

.

[ I certainly do “leave science a free hand to carry out whatever investigations it deems necessary in order to attain its objectives”, every scientist - theist or atheist - does.]

.

That’s good news, George. I’m glad to hear it.

.

“ … you assume that science can explain everything, including conscience … “

.

No. I do not. I am in the expectative, not knowing if it will succeed or fail. I do not exclude either result as being possible.

All I know is that reality often surpasses the imagination of even the most brilliant minds. What we may imagine to be impossible today may be possible tomorrow.

.

“ Like, starting from where you are now (in France), you can “have a free hand” to walk and explore the world, and I cannot tell you what you will find. I only know you will never reach Australia, not because somebody wants to restrict you, but because that restriction is built into the nature of just walking.”

.

That’s an excellent example of what we have been debating these past few days, George. You have attached a restriction on how I should “reach Australia”.

You have not given me a “free hand” at all. You have given me a limited mandate with a crippling condition which prevents me from exploring all the possibilities of achieving the objective you set me.

It would be easier for me to reach Australia from Paris by simply sitting down (in a plane) than by walking. If you granted me an open mandate rather than the restricted one of “walking”, I should be able to achieve the objective.

In order for me to reach Australia by walking, the geological, geographical and climatic conditions which reigned about 70 000 years ago would have to be as they were when the first aborigines arrived in northern Australia from Africa. If you can arrange that I should be happy to give it a try.

The aborigines did not have the sort of boats that would be needed today.

.

(Continued) ...

.

.

(Continued) ...

.

“… you still have not suggested what you would want that god do to provide a convincing (to you and other atheists) evidence of his existence.”

.

I thought I indicated what would convince me, cf. the 4 points of my post to which you already kindly replied:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#268490

I cannot speak for anybody else, though I should not be surprised if a few other people were convinced too, if and only if, all the following occurred simultaneously for a minimum duration of 10 years:

- The 7 billion people in the world were able to communicate with god as often as they liked, easily and clearly,

- The 13 deceased personalities on my short list were all suddenly resuscitated, in good health and in full possession of their faculties

- Once a year, on a “day of the dead” families and friends around the world could communicate with deceased loved ones easily and clearly,

- A covenant were concluded with god defining the relationship of mankind with him/her/it, including the definition of mutual rights and duties.

Perhaps the reaction of science would be as you suggested in your response, but I am not so sure.

Also, with regard to your expression “(you and other atheists)”, I, personally, do not see that it makes sense to define myself by reference to something which does not exist.

Just as Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse do not exist, I feel it makes no sense for me to define myself as an adonaldduck or an amickeymouse, etc., etc…

Again, that is just my personal opinion.

.

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

I never said anything about this god, but if you assume that he should be able to do self-contradictory things (like using science to prove that he is invisible to science), then he indeed is a strange god. ]

.

Sorry, George. What I meant to say was that, if god is all you say he is, he should be able to find a way of making himself “visible” to science.

.

i..think i have..noted before..what god looks like
[we each bare his face..on..our chests]..anyhow..this text..put it interestingly..[and much the same..i found]..that day i stared at the sun..daring my beloved..[god]..to strike me blind..or reveal himself

but before yet again..revealing why the most holy..even[especially]..could not write..what they saw..as threy look..upon his face..[so let swedenberg/dhalma]..explain..[ps swedenberg thought jesus..the living embodiment of god..but heck arnt we all?]

anyhow
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy11.htm

,,<<..Insofar as Swedenborg's quintessential teaching..is that the Lord's love and wisdom..*flow into everything,..then clearly no being exists apart from God,>>..

[i saw god..as a huge ENGORGED nipple[radiating its milk/life blood..[photons]..sustaining the composite parts..of itself our living..but back..to link

<<..and the fact..that God is human..does not necessarily imply that God exists..as human-like..*apart from beings..But this may be taken a step further...

<<..If we extrapolate..from Swedenborg's favorite analogy
*God as a formless,..radiating Sun..{ENGORGED-NIPPLE}..the Lord may be understood..as a potent>>life sustaining force..

who..funtions..in its universal..totality..of allits body[embodied]..parts..in the form/funnction..of the plan..of a man

the grand-man=unio-verse-<<..iality which achieves form
only in His creation.>>

its funny..hearing many say..imgod..or jesus is god[whoisnt]
what would be better..guys..i shopw yopu..this is god..or you asre god..[like a neuron..inyour brain=god too

<<From that perspective,..God needs us
in order to become fully real,..both individually..(as we open to His influx) and collectively..(as His heaven grows..and ramifies).>>

aas we each..become a fallen angel
[like satan falling into..the 'heavens'..to become this 'solar-system'[this solar syatem?]....each radiating gods life force..from thier own..face of god..[the nipple]

we each have his mark..on our chest
[there are two nipples to signify..the marriage of spirits..that became as one flesh..IN US ALL..[get it?]..

just for me tobe me..[or you..or any life]..
we needed to unite with an equal but opposing force..one from the light..one from the dark[to help us clarify..our too balanced vieuw points..which..prevented us from the hearytfel;t desire/passion..tobe entering heaven

but its getting too long..yet again
so will add it into..
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15078#15078

Speaking of bearing his face on our chests I heard of a man who had panties tattooed on his chest. He wanted to have a chest of drawers.

Dear david f,

>>If you do not subscribe to the God of the Bible … do you have a perception of the nature of God?<<

This is not a question of subscribing. My ideas of God developed (and is perhaps still developing). The Bible plays and played an important part in that - directly or through the cultural milleu I grew up in.

You pointed out passages from the Bible that, taken verbatim, run against our understanding of what is morally good, although in the West this understanding was developed from this very Bible (in addition to what can be assigned to biological evolution).

Similarly, the Book of Genesis is full of statements that, if taken verbatim, run against modern cosmology and science in general, although those thinkers that brought us to the Scientific Age were descendants of generations that took Genesis literally.

It is harder to answer your question about my perception of God’s nature. I wrote an article (www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464), the main purpose of which was to argue that even the nature of reality as it can be understood - including what science can say about it - is not at all simple. As physical reality is known only through our senses and representations (theories) written in mathematical language, not directly, similarly Reality that is beyond the physical (as I understand it) can be “known” only through "religious experience" and "representations" written in mythologies and other narratives, sacred texts or speculative theology.

Here the analogy ends: One can more or less unequivocally decide, whether one physical theory better represents reality than another; in case of "representations" of this Reality some ordering also exists, but it is not as unequivocal: one needs to make a personal choice. In my case it is the Christian representation/religion which includes the Bible with reservations mentioned above.

“The Tao that can be spoken of, is not the eternal Tao; The Name that can be named is not the eternal Name.” (Tao Te Ching). Perhaps something similar about our Western understanding of the concept of God.

Dear Banjo,

So my metaphor about walking did not convey to you what I thought it could. Sorry for that. Also, since you did not seem to agree that God exists (whatever that means) a assumed you saw yourself as an atheist (not necessarily an anti-theist, the distinction that has been introduced in the terminology rather recently). Sorry again.

You seem to keep on objecting to my DOUBTS (that science could in principle explain consciousness on the same level as it explained the movement of planets). I do not understand what you want me to do. Stop doubting? There are many people who doubt e.g. the existence of God, and you can’t stop them either.

>>What I meant to say was that, if god is all you say he is, he should be able to find a way of making himself “visible” to science<<

All I said about Him was that He cannot be investigated and explained by (natural-)scientific methods. I did not say anything about His abilities, but nothing I can imagine can be both invisible and visible, whatever “visible” means. A god who would make himself an object of scientific investigation would not be the God of Abrahamic religions. (Something else are “divine acts” - i.e. God's interaction with the physical (often only on the psychoplogical level) world that is convincing only to those who already believe in God - that I devoted my article to.)

[Even on a naive, level - seeing god as a being comparable to e.g. Dawkins’ Ultimate Boeing 747 - you cannot demand of such an earthly “superbeing” to communicate with you on your terms. And if he does not, and communicates only with those he choses, you cannot imply that this is so because he is unable to meet your terms.]