Th Gid hypothesis- Michael Corey

[RetiredEgo]

http://www.michaelacorey.com/gh.html

I would say this is a great book to get and study.


The God Hypothesis seeks to reverse the profound misunderstanding that science has somehow disproven the existence of God by showing how the latest scientific evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

Drawing on the fairy tale of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," Michael A. Corey concludes that the "just right" natural conditions that created life on earth provide overwhelming evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work.

But The God Hypothesis actually goes further than this. For by inferring the various attributes of the Creator solely from the nature of the empirical evidence in both cosmology and nuclear physics, Corey offers readers an intriguing scientific perspective on the nature of God Himself.

Overall, The God Hypothesis presents a deeply encouraging view of human existence of this planet, even to the point of offering an empirically-based philosophical argument for why we should all be eminently hopeful as we look out into the future.

Order The God Hypothesis from Amazon.com, BN.com or from your local bookseller or order your autographed copy via our Visitors' Special page.


It's like he steals my very words

[KAG]

Originally Posted by RetiredEgo

It's like he steals my very words

Like? No, no, I'm pretty sure he plagarised your words and then managed to cleverly cover up his tracks by pretending he did some original research.

[RetiredEgo]

Originally Posted by KAG

Like? No, no, I'm pretty sure he plagarised your words and then managed to cleverly cover up his tracks by pretending he did some original research.

I'd rather put it this way-

'Both inspiration, same source, the one source, the alpha, the eternal, omniscient and omnipotent as recognized, realized and accepted by science from results of quantum physics studies etc'.

[Mr. J]

philosophical arguments (specifically i am thinking the ontological argument) lead to a god that is not anything like your god. I can be agnostic or even approving of a "ground of being god" while at the same time realizing that your interpretation of god to be mostly mythological.

if you would really like to know what philosophy leads to in a god read the (very short) appendix to ethics part one by Spinoza. (just go to the very end of the link and read only the appendix)

[BlueBeauty]

His argument is for intelligent design but i guess you are taking it one step at a time eh?

if you believe in intelligent design then you must believe in God
if you believe in God then you must believe he inspires
if you believe he inspires then you must believe he inspired my doctrine
if you believe he inspired my doctrine then you must believe in my religion

[RetiredEgo]

@ mr j

You do not know my God.

[Mr. J]

im just going by what you said.

definition:
The word mythology refers to a body of myths–stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.

[RetiredEgo]

Originally Posted by Mr. J

im just going by what you said.

definition:
The word mythology refers to a body of myths–stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.

I have never yet described my Lord on NR, other than indicating that the force is One particle, the All Particle and as Science via quantum physics recently discovered(/and accepted) that Omnipotence, Omniscience, eternal existence and other attributes/properties as preached by the religions were realities and not falacies as they priorly thought/blindly argued, they were beginning to catch glimpses of Lord.

[Mr. J]

Dont take this personally because im not talking about you RetierdEgo.

I am just making this argument.

When you are arguing god from first principals as in, there must be an all powerful being, you are making a philosophical argument also known as the ontological argument.

I say that this god argued from first principles cannot be the same as any culturally constructed god. It can not be the same as the god in the Upshinads, the Bible, the Koran or any other culturally constructed god.

Often someone will approach me and try to convince me about their god of whatever religion they are in. I say i dont think that their book can be the correct description and often they turn to the ontological argument. I say that even if i give you that the ontological argument is right there is still a gap. It does not mean your god is correct. That goes for you RetiredEgo but i am talking to anyone that has a culturally constructed idea of god. That idea of god cannot be defended by the ontological argument. That means that the god as conceived by the ontological argument cannot be the Christian god, it can not be the Moslem god, or the Mormon god, or the Greek god, or the Roman god, or the Hindu god or any other culturally derived god. Thats all i am saying, im not attacking you just saying that the god you argue for with the ontological argument is not the same as any culturally derived god.

[RetiredEgo]

I do not kno this ontological thing of which u speak that fascinates u, unfortunately, and u have never heard my description of my Lord. U must be a mind reader. and for ur info, many Muslims may give innacurate and un enlightened representations, I can only imagine what u might have been sensitized or unsensitized to.

[Mr. J]

well you dont seem to be to interested in following the logic of your own topic but ill give it a try. Ontological is just the argument of god as a necessary being. Its just a short way to say that.

Ok, so lets suppose there is a necessary being. Its not us because we know humans are not necessary. We come into existence and we go out of existence we know we are not a necessary being. We say the necessary thing is one because two necessary things seems to be redundant and also if there were two necessary thing one would act as a limit on the other leading to a contradiction if we are supposing a fundamental being. If its a fundamental being it cant have limits.

New we can go along in this manner figuring out the properties of this fundamental being. Spinoza does a good job which is why i brought him up. But lets just go skip along to how this fundamental being relates to us.

where we crated by it? The problem is creation is a human term. We create things. We cant really think of a fundamental being creating things because thats human activity. It would be certainly accurate to say we depend on it for our existence since it is necessary and we are not. Creation is a possible way to put that but likely to lead to more misconception than not.

Now we come to the problem what people want of a god are human traits. we want judgment, support, justice, a relation. These are all human traits necessary for humans but unlikely to be part of a necessary being. It is silly to think that a fundamental being would come down and act as a human dictator. Thats a human conception and a contradiction of what a fundamental being would be. Its a contradiction because the fundamental being is already expressed by the nature of things. For it to come down as a human dictator to tell us what it wants would be to set it against nature which is a contradiction.

[RetiredEgo]

And this is why perhaps it would have been better had u asked me what I knew.

Scrol to the top of ur 'Let,say' argument above.

Do u recognize that ur whole epistle is only applicable for '2' characters?

So b4 u even begin, u are off my doctrine. There is only One being. God. And that's it. For now see us as A part of this One existence. We create.

There is only 1 as science discovered thru BigBang...we in Islam and some other great faiths of the One always kew that there is no degree of separation. We are inezistent, only the One exists, and science in the 20th century has begun to reason along with us on this inexistence reality and with that they are as was demonstrated in the spiritual Matrix movie, begining to go beyond the possible, so to say.

[RetiredEgo]

So as per ur argument of 2 people and 2 zones.

I (as a Muslim) am on the other outside of this onto-whatever debate. I am on the Creator side, I create and am the Creator...while u are the illusion, trapped by Earths words, debates, pain, gravity, logic and all its other illusionary limitations.

And this is why I can walk on water, fly like Matrix' Neo and astra travel, why u are trapped in the ontological debate.

When I get a computer, I'll post an ancient Muslim poem on this for u to understand better, now I use my phone.

[Mr. J]

cool! i think we are in agreement then. I did not expect this! I do love magical thinking as well. i just keep it separate from my scientific thinking.

If we are going to do poetry i love Rumi. Unfortunately i can only read the translation but right now i ran across this one its my favorite.

Night and Sleep

At the time of night prayer as the sun slides down,
the route the senses walk on closes, and the route to the invisible opens.

The angel of sleep then gathers and drives along the spirits,
just as the mountain keeper gathers his sheep on the slope.

And what amazing sights he offers to the descending sheep.
Cities with sparkling streets, hyacinth gardens, emerald pastures.

The spirit sees astounding beings, turtles turned to men,
men turned to angels, when sleep erases the banal.

I think one could say the spirit goes back to its old home;
it no longer remembers where it lives, it loses its fatigue.

It carries around in life so many griefs and loads
and trembles under their weight. But in sleep they are all gone. All is well.

[Mr. J]

To Become Someone;
To Become No One

It is by virtue of coming to know ourselves and therefore our Lord that we become really someone beyond all transient honors and distinctions with which fallen human beings seek to distinguish themselves. And in becoming someone spiritually and in the eyes of God, we fulfill the purpose of human existence.

Paradoxically, however, to become someone spiritually means also ultimately to become no one. It is in the end to transcend all particularities and realize the Self within all selves, to become not this person or that person but personhood as such, which also means becoming the perfect mirror of the Divine. To return to the symbol of the sun, it is also to pierce with the light of the intellect all veils of duality and otherness to return to the Sun of the Self, which is the origin of all selves and the source of the intellect shining within those who have realized the state of perfect servanthood. It is in light of return to the Self that many Sufi s have spoken, often in ecstatic language, of having gone beyond name, color and race, country, and even the formal aspects of religion, beyond faith and infidelity, to become no one and yet someone in the highest sense of the term. A sonnet (ghazal) attributed to one of the exalted masters of Sufism, who remains someone of the greatest importance even today and yet became no one, expresses the reality of this final state of being human, the state of realizing the unity beyond all dualities, the one Formless reality beyond all formal distinctions:


What is to be done, O Muslims, for I know myself not,
Neither a Christian am I, nor Jew, nor Magian nor Muslim.
Neither of the East am I nor West, nor of the land, nor sea;
Nor of nature's quarry, nor of heavens circling above.
I am not made of earth or water, not of wind or fire;
Nor am I of the Divine Throne nor of floor carpeting,
Nor of the realm of the cosmos, nor of minerals.
I am not from India, nor China, nor Bulgaria, nor Turkistan;
I am not from the kingdom of the two Iraqs, nor from the earth
of Khorasan.
Neither of this world am I nor the next; nor of heaven nor hell;
Nor from Adam nor Eve nor of Eden, nor paradise or its porter.
My place is the placeless, my mark the markless;
Not either body nor soul for I am myself the Beloved.

Rumi, Diwan-i Shams-i Tabrizi