Definitive as in conclusively existing. No one knows if the Toa or anything like it exists, Toaist assume its existence to be actual rather than theoretical. They can point fingers at what ever wish and call it the Toa, but it doesn’t make it true. The Toa is considered to be a universal property that brings order to the universe. In pantheism, where the universe and God are considered to be the same, God is the ordering property of the universe. The point isn’t that they are considered identical, because no two conceptions of God are, but they both are considered by adherents to be qualified supernatural properties of the universe that are responsible for its order. Property 6. an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/property?s=t God and Toa are considered by adherents to be distinctive attributes of the universe. It’s considered to be a characteristic of the universe, therefore it’s a property of it as well. It also can’t be discerned as an element of natural law, which like God, qualifies it as supernatural.
? The Tao does not exist "conclusively", and is not a process at all - definitive or conclusive or any other way. No, it isn't. One might better (not much better) say it is the order itself - also, of course, the disorder. The Tao is not supernatural. It is not a "property" of the universe. It doesn't "bring" anything. That's not true - of either one, in different ways. Better to assert that the universe was a characteristic or property of the Tao. (Not much better, but at least you would have the logical levels in a plausible hierarchy). You're getting lost. Natural law itself is not an "element of natural law", which would qualify natural law as supernatural on that criterion. The Tao is natural, not supernatural, in many believers's view. Considering the spiritual aspects and logical levels of the universe as natural often marks a significant difference between theistic and atheistic religions, worldviews, etc.
Tao, when I looked it up, seems to have as many splinter groups as some religions, stamp collection groups, coin collection groups etc etc etc In general, to me, it seems not to have a anthropomorphic god, but "feels" a spiritualness orders the Universe and if you wish to understand this spiritualness you meditate In other words if you want to know how the Universe works you think about it Nothing I can see about doing experiments Which puts it in the same region as religion - crap Spending time contemplating the Universe will not yield secrets of the Universe Might give you ideas. I see apple fall, I contemplate why Forget contemplating, get off your ass and experiment WHY Oh look you found out heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter objects like you thought they did Feel good after contemplating? It's because you have rested and turned off most of your brain. $50 please Tomorrow we will learn how to sit cross legged, make a circle with thumb and place hands on knees and go ummmm for 2 hours Wednesday we will be building a CERN unit so allow a little extra time Here endith my 4am to 5am rant. Breakfast at 8am and sweet sweet coffee Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Brain fart (used to be Thought Bubble) Does god have favourites he helps and analysis of certain information MIGHT be used as inferred evidence of existence? Example Teams playing a match. Both pray. One team wins by a large margin (10 - 6) even though the winning team lost their best player 10 minutes in This keeps happening for the winning team, more against what would be considered resonable odds Not quite to miracle level Now Is it because God likes the team The team has better PRAYERS The other team did something to piss god off Winning team has more supporters who prayed Or is it because God is non existent so is not in the equation. Instead The team has better PLAYERS The other team leads a normal life which has no affect on a non existent god it's just that They not as good at the sport Praying for either team has no effect 1 week to discuss and turn in suggestions Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Moderator note: I have moved 120 posts from this thread to a separate (locked) thread here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/off-topic-posts-from-the-evidence-that-god-is-real-thread.161216 The posts were moved for one or more of the following reasons: 1. Discussion of the thread topic (about the evidence that God is real) was entirely absent. 2. The posts were concerned primarily with discussion of the attitudes or motives of posters to the discussion, rather than the subject matter of the thread. 3. The posts contained generalised or specific (and usually insulting) stereotyping of theists or atheists, contrary to our published posting guidelines. Members are asked to discuss the thread topic. If you are unable to do without resorting to snide personal remarks and attempting to derail the thread, please stay out. There has also been quite a lot of obvious trolling going on here. That needs to stop. If your only aim in posting something to this thread is to get a rise out of an opponent, you'd be better off not posting it. Since there are so many offenders in this regard in this thread, I will not be handing out official warnings now, but I may resort to that if this behaviour continues.
Musika: If the main problem is the definition, why haven't you provided a definition that you're comfortable with, somewhere in the last 400 posts? Do you intend to provide a working definition that you're happy to go on with? Note that, if you are going to do this, you need to do it. Inviting me to search google on your behalf won't be sufficient, because there's no guarantee that what I find there will suit you. Bear in mind, once again, that the people here are having a discussion with you, not with google. We want to hear your thoughts and your arguments. If you need to consult or refer to sources, that's fine, but you need to at least indicate what the relevant points are here. I might compare Jan's rather weak effort earlier, where he asserted that he basically agrees with anything William Lane Craig has to say on the topic, without actually elaborating on anything specific that Craig might have said. In other words, Jan just wants to send us off on a wild goose chase. I hope you can do better. Are you telling me that it is impossible to contemplate a universe without God in it? If so, tell me why you think that is the case. It sounds like you're saying that asking for evidence for God is a "bad method". Do you think it is invalid to ask for evidence of God, then? Observing the painting in the museum would be fairly suggestive that the artist was real. This is because in our shared experience paintings are usually created by artists. You're correct that I would need more than a single painting to get details of the artist's life, although I might be able to deduce certain things from it. Is there anything analogous to the painting that we can agree on when it comes to God? I know that the temptation might be to point to the entire universe as God's painting, but you and I do not agree in advance that universes are usually created by gods. We might possibly avoid this impasse if you can point to something about the universe which could not have been caused by anything but God. Can you do that? Note that we are free to enquire into the artist's life after we have established that the artist is real. Similarly, after we establish that God is real, then we might continue to explore what can be said about God's life and actions etc. But first things first. To me, this flies in the face of the testimony of people who have sudden religious conversions, such as so-called born-again Christians. Would you have it that such people need to be "primed" in advance for their religious conversion, by religious experts? Also, typically, people first learn about their religion from their parents. How do such non-experts manage to impart the ability to know that God is real into their children? Or does that process usually require the intervention of higher religious authorities, in your opinion? What would you say is the average time and/or education in religion that is necessary before a person can directly perceive God? And, out of curiosity, are you at that level yourself, or yet to reach it? If you're there, when and how did you get there, personally? How? By "specific population" here, do you mean the whole of humanity, when it comes to the question of the reality of God? Or are you perhaps referring to the population of atheists? If it's atheists, can you tell me what faculties or resources atheists lack, so that that they are unable to appreciate the relevant empirical evidence for God? Is that a "No", then? Strike "concrete". The word was unnecessary. I am interested to see if you can come up with anything. Period.
If the Tao isn’t something that exists, how can an assertion be made of its relevancy in any respect? Well you can’t get anymore responsible for order than to be order itself. If the Tao exists as or part of the universe, it’s a property of it as well. Essentially a repeat of the previous answer. If the Tao and God exist as or part of the universe, it’s a distinctive attribute of it as well. You’re finally getting it. In your above statement you’ve just described the Tao as a pantheistic God by asserting this relationship. So you’re implying that the Tao is natural law itself? What relevance would the acknowledgment of natural law have to do with one’s personal conduct? Natural law dictates that we have a determined path to follow, which could be anything from strict order to chaos. What’s the point in promoting ethical conduct if natural law says otherwise? Taoist ethics - theory and practice http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/taoethics/ethics_1.shtml That’s the claim of most religions, that natural law is a product of or equal to their particular agency. And like other religions, Taoist ascribe supernatural characteristics to their particular agency. Immortality Spiritual immortality, the goal of Daoism, raises the practices to a yet higher level. To attain it, people have to transform all their qi into primordial qi and proceed to refine it to subtler levels. This finer qi will eventually turn into pure spirit, with which practitioners increasingly identify to become transcendent spirit-people. The path that leads there involves intensive meditation and trance training as well as more radical forms of diet and other longevity practices. Immortality implies the overcoming of the natural tendencies of the body and its transformation into a different kind of qi-constellation. The result is a bypassing of death, so that the end of the body has no impact on the continuation of the spirit-person. In addition, practitioners attain supersensory powers and eventually gain residence in wondrous otherworldly paradises. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/concepts.shtml
"Conclusively", mind - or "definitively", or something. It's an interesting question, the "existence" of the Tao - it's not simple. Depends on who's asking. My guess is that most of the time the best response is "unask the question". But they don't, of course. Neither one, for different reasons. And as soon as you start talking about them as "attributes" of something else, you should realize the problem. The Christian God, for example, is not an attribute of the universe. It's supernatural, remember? Nonsense. For one thing, I directly stated that I wasn't asserting that relationship. (I was offering it to you, as something a bit less completely wrongheaded than the bassackwards assertion you had just made). For another, that assertion (my suggestion) does not establish a God of any kind, pantheistic or otherwise. There's nothing supernatural involved, for starters. No, I'm stating that your criterion for "supernatural" is obviously wrong, by pointing to one of the absurdities it creates. I made no such claim. Some may. The adepts point out that such ascriptions are errors, illusions, and obstacles to enlightenment. It has no agency, you see - it does nothing. Spiritual level immortality. Not material or physical longevity. Not an infinity of time, but an experienced absence of it. The Zen adepts also offer that - and like the Taoists, they often point to developing a mindful awareness of one's death as an important factor or feature or "technique" in attaining it.
You’re not in a position to say that these things don’t exist, all you can say is that you don’t know they exist. Supernatural only means we can’t explain such things through our present understanding of natural law, it doesn’t mean such things can’t exist. So this Taoist universe that operates in accordance with the Tao, where supernatural elements are presume to exist, is suppose to be an example of a universe consistent with natural law? Supernatural is as supernatural does. Don’t blame me, I didn’t make this shit up. Ultimate Reality and Divine Beings http://www.patheos.com/library/taoism/beliefs/ultimate-reality-and-divine-beings If it does nothing, it is nothing. Taoist believe that the Tao represents the function of the universe, which is essentially an ordering process, which makes it something. It doesn’t matter how you choose to package Taoist immortality, it still amounts to a condition that can’t be rationally substantiated, and thus qualifies it as supernatural religious nonsense.
I agree we cannot explain Supernatural Law through our knowledge of Natural Law, but unless we assume a supernatural state of total chaos, the alternative should answer to at least the natural tendency to form patterns and by implication, function via some form of mathematics.
I can state that they don't exist as "part of the universe". The Christian God, for example, is explicitly described as creating the universe, starting from before there was any such thing. Whether that means they don't exist at all is, or are in some sense not "real", is - as pointed out above - another question. Nobody is presuming supernatural elements exist, here. Natural law is supposed to be consistent with the universe. By definition, no? Lao Tzu informs us otherwise. One does not have to agree with him, but that is the belief involved. I "packaged" it as specifically and explicitly not supernatural, and included a couple of rational "substantiations", as above. Does that matter? The Tao is explicitly not supernatural. That's basic, fundamental, and quite significant in a discussion of evidence that supernatural entities are "real". (Because as many have demonstrated, "evidence" of the Tao is ready to hand).
Question; Is the Tao a value (object) or a function (force)? If it is or produces a natural Universe, then by implication it has to be natural and not supernatural, no?
No. The main reason for introducing something like Zen Buddhism or Classical Taoism into this discussion is to prevent the presentation of "evidence" for enlightenment or the Tao or something like that, as is common among teachers and explainers of such religious matters, from being borrowed as evidence of a deity or a God. There are religions and sects in those and other (animistic, etc) traditions that simply have no God, no supernatural entity. Nevertheless, they sometimes deal with spiritual matters of depth and complexity. So evidence of a spiritual realm or aspect or manifestation of the world is not necessarily evidence of deity, God, or the supernatural.
Ok...I'll take a controversial approach and ask the science and math guys here a leading question or two. q. What is the most important single digit number in mathematics? a. zero q. can you provide evidence that zero is real and exists? a. no but we use it every day q. What is at the center of everything? a. A zero point. Center of mass, middle point ( oblique reference to Buddhism ) q. can you provide evidence that central to everything zero point is real and exists? a. No but we know where it is approximately. ( infinite reduction-ism) q. Could God exist yet never be proven to exist as with the zero point? a. ?
No. Yes. Inasmuch as it can be proven that any abstract symbol that represents things in the real world exists, such as, say, any other number. Yes.
No such place as a spiritual realm So BELIEF in a spiritual realm puts it in the supernatural camp. If they do not believe the spiritual realm has anthropomorphic occupants fine Class as a quasi religion This atheist looks at the sky (and a lot of other stuff in wonderment) and many times overcome at either end of life Delivering babies and as a onlooker as people die When I settle down and reality kicks in lingering wonderment remains and I continue to enjoy life Apart from wishing I was a Sheldon I think I have done OK without god Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It represents the value zero. I have 20 dollars in my bank account. I withdraw 10 dollars, I have 10 dollars in it. I withdraw 20 dollars, I have 0 dollars in it. I withdraw 30 dollars, I have -10 dollars in it. We've come along way since the Romans.
and the value of zero is what? The exact center of mass exists yes? ( other wise referred to as a center of gravity) What is at the exact center of mass? a zero point... So yes a non-value zero point exists but actually ...uhm...it doesn't (other wise referred to as a paradox)
