Is Life a Dialogue or a Monologue?

[Write4U]

you may have inadvertently agreed with me ... lol

Why not?

Yes indeed it is all about the evolution of sustainable success

But I disagree with the way you worded this. What do you mean by "it is all about"?......
Interesting how some threads mesh.

You never commented on the concept of intelligent design to any meaningful degree.
I would like to know how you feel about the concept.
I expect if for the idea you may present an intelligent input.
Hope you are well.
Alex

So far we have, "I am that, I am" and "it is all about......?"

To refresh memory;

I Am that I Am
The Hebrew text with niqqud
I am that I am is a common English translation of the Hebrew phrase אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‬, ’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh ([ʔɛhˈjɛh ʔaˈʃɛr ʔɛhˈjɛh]) - or "I will be what I will be" or even "I create what(ever) I create".

The traditional English translation within Judaism favors , "I will be what I will be" because there is no present tense of the verb "to be" in the Hebrew language. So for example to say "I am a book" in Hebrew would be Ani Sefer (literally in English is "I book"). This translation of phrase from the Hebrew Bible is often guided by the theology or ideology of the people doing the translation or their sponsors.

Context and interpretation[edit]
Its context is the encounter of the burning bush (Exodus 3:14): Moses asks what he is to say to the Israelites when they ask what God has sent him to them, and Yahweh replies, "I am who I am," adding, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I am has sent me to you.'"[2] ’Ehyeh is the first person form of hayah, "to be", and owing to the peculiarities of Hebrew grammar means both "I am", "I was", and "I will be".[3] The meaning of the longer phrase ’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh is debated, and might be seen as a promise ("I will be with you") or as statement of incomparability ("I am without equal").

The passage raises a number of issues beyond to its linguistic and theological meaning. It is, for example, somewhat remarkable that despite this exchange the Israelites never ask Moses for the name of God.[5]Then there are a number of probably unanswerable questions, including who it is that does not know God's name, Moses or the Israelites (most commentators take it that it is Moses who does not know, meaning that the Israelites will ask him the name in order to prove his credentials), and just what the statement means.

The last can be approached in three ways:

• "I am who I am" - an evasion of Moses's question;
• “I am who am” or "I am he who is" - a statement of the nature of Israel's God;
• "'I Am' is who I am", or "I am because I am" - this version has not played a major part in scholarly discussion of the phrase, but the first variant has been incorporated into the New English Bible

This is the Bible’s explanation for the name Yahweh, and as the personal name of God, some have argued that the name Yahweh expresses the quality of being, an active, dynamic being. This God is one who brings things into being, whether it’s a cosmos from chaos, or now a new nation from a band of runaway slaves. But it could well be that this is simply God’s way of not answering Moses’ question. We’ve seen how the Bible feels about revealing names, and the divine being who struggled and wrestled with Jacob sure didn’t want to give him his name. So I’ve often wondered if we’re to read this differently: Who am I? I am who I am, and never you mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

Note how scripture offers absolutely no enlightenment as to the nature and properties of God

 

[Quantum Quack]

With due respect QQ, if you are theist, why are you asking my opinion on the question and properties of God, and then question my integrity in regard to the scientific method of science and scientists.
I am the atheist, as was Einstein, remember?
You are supposed to persuade me of the existence of God with at least a modicum of scientific rigor, no?

if I was a theist... which I am not... and if you read what I posted you could easily see that I am not...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The point of science is to offer models that can make some sense of our observations and make repeatable testable predictions.


The church had the Earth at the center and science taking the observations produced a model giving us a perhaps more correct version of the reality.

Science is right until a better model comes along whereas religion dogedly holds onto a vission of reality made up in the bronze age by superstitious folk who did not know where the Sun went at night.

Religion has been working on its act for thousands of years and has not made any significant progress nor has the object of its attention shown itself in any way that enables observation that supports any belief in that entity.

Science and scientific method is relatively new however in its short application to understanding reality has enabled humans to do things beyond the comprehension of those who could only attribute nature to a god and did not know where the Sun went at night.

Science as an intitution has its problems (due to humans not its prescribed method) but these problems have a greater chance of resolution in an environment where new ideas are respected when supported by observation and testable prediction.

Sure folk like to hang onto ideas that is common between religion and science however in science all ideas require support and open to challenge from better science...where do we find better religion?

Religion fills a need to know with superstition whereas science fills the need to know with reliable testable explainations ... and one only has to look at our modern age to realise that without science we would still be herding goats and wondering where the Sun went at night.
There are many branches of science but all follow the scientific method which is basically a " put up or shut up" approach.

Science does not have all the answers and it does not say such but it supports all claims with observation and evidence allowing our models to make reliable testable predictions... however religion claims to have all the answers and yet offers nothing by way of observation or testable prediction.

It is based on a demand to accept and never question its good book.

Science does not seek to challenge religion but the facts it observes challenges the made up notions of the bronze age...
All scientific models are correct and if any have only one flaw the whole model is rejected.

Imagine how that approach would cause religion to be thrown out...

The good books account of creation contains more than one mistake and if it were a scientific model would be rejected.

Religion is not the enemy of science ...science says what it says, supports what it says and happy to embrace change....
Religion cant change and wont change and in time it will be those qualities that may see it disappear due to irrellevance.

Alex

and the whole point of science can be summed up in one sentence.
to gain the knowledge and skills to ultimately become sentient "Gods" of this universe.

Science seeks to become the God that theist dream about...
To become masters of our own destiny... blah blah blah...

 

[Write4U]

Science seeks to become the God that theist dream about...
To become masters of our own destiny... blah blah blah...

Ants have done that for hundreds of millions of years, we are the result of all that.

But let's assume you are right, and science seeks to understand how it all works as a pattern of increasing complexity.
What do you think science would actually do with all that knowledge? Share it?

Religions have created the greatest market places in human history. When it comes to BS, you have to stand in awe of religion. (Carlin)

It's the applied sciences in business enterprises (profit/greed), which also seek market domination, but will be restrained by the need for a continued healthy market place.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What do you think science would actually do with all that knowledge?

• To gain power over nature ( god, universe - eh what ever rocks your boat)
• To seek freedom from the restrains that nature ( god) enforces due to our ignorance.
• To gain the power of choice that we didn't have as slaves to fearful superstitions/paranoia.
• To placate our fear of impotency regarding our environment
• To go where no man has gone before - ( Star Trekian style adventure)
• etc etc...

All good yes?
Just one issue...
Hopefully find the wisdom to prevent ourselves from self extinction due to unwise use of science. ( Nuclear war, climate change, genetic engineering, plastic filled oceans and so on)

edit: Did you know that the Chernobyl exclusion zone should remain "hot" for at least another 20,000 years.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

and the whole point of science can be summed up in one sentence.

Yes I thought I summed it up reasonably☺.

to gain the knowledge and skills to ultimately become sentient "Gods" of this universe.

That is an interesting approach that I have not heard before and not in keeping with what I thought the idea of a god meant.

I would suggest few in science would indulge a delusion that science "creates" the universe ...I find it difficult to draw the parrallel that you think you have discovered.

I do think it would be safer to stick with what I would say we can observe as to what science does which is merely to construct models that allow repeatable testable predictions to be made.

Science seeks to become the God that theist dream about...

I doubt that is the case but I would be happy to hear from you as to why you think science can be thought of as an entity capable of "seeking" anything in particular.



Science is really little more than a method of making a statement about reality, a hypothisis, which it does by setting a standard for supporting the hypothisis which we could for this discussion perhaps call "the claim" by requiring the presentation of a model using observation and requiring that model to be capable of tested via making predictions using the model.
Failure of the predictions means the model fails.

blah blah blah...

Yes I certainly agree with you there☺...but the beauty of science is blah blah does not cut it...

I think the one thing science tells us however is that humans perhaps are not masters of their destiny.

It is not a comforting fact but it seems extinction is the rule rather than the exception...so far we have been very lucky that extinction events in history have not killed all life but make no mistake we observe many events that if in our region would kill everything down to the very last microbe.... and unfortunately we have no control over the next big rock to hit the planet or indeed can we prevent a super nova exploding nearby that will kill all life on the planet.

I need to check but the distance that would see us fried is as great as 3000 light years and even now there may be a wall of light rushing to wipe us out that we could never see before it wipes us out...I am not a scientist but I doubt few scientists believe we could ever be masters of our destiny to the exclusion of planet destroying cosmic events.

I suggest you read or re read Karl Popper on scientific method which I think is useful for understanding what science is and is not and what science does and does not do.

Thank you for your interesting comments.
Alex

 

[Quantum Quack]

I doubt that is the case but I would be happy to hear from you as to why you think science can be thought of as an entity capable of "seeking" anything in particular.

Perhaps if you apply the context provided you might be able to.
The context of my reference to science is what to you?
Maybe I could be more pedantic and allow for the diversity of readers more?
The term I use "science ", in this case, is referring to the field of science as a whole including the people who work in this field. ( not just the scientific method )
and making a case would be easy as that is what they (science) are doing. IMO

• to gain the knowledge and skills to ultimately become sentient "Gods" of this universe.

 

[Write4U]

• To gain power over nature ( god, universe - eh what ever rocks your boat)
• To seek freedom from the restrains that nature ( god) enforces due to our ignorance.
• To gain the power of choice that we didn't have as slaves to fearful superstitions/paranoia.
• To placate our fear of impotency regarding our environment
• To go where no man has gone before - ( Star Trekian style adventure)
• etc etc...

All good yes?
Just one issue...
Hopefully find the wisdom to prevent ourselves from self extinction due to unwise use of science. ( Nuclear war, climate change, genetic engineering, plastic filled oceans and so on)

edit: Did you know that the Chernobyl exclusion zone should remain "hot" for at least another 20,000 years.

Yes, all good, no apparent difference in motive. I completely agree that both religion and science are ultimately engaged in the same endeavors, each from a different perspective.

The problem with religion is that its dogma tends to inhibit science. The opposite is not true.

The parable of the Garden of Eden is an example of the metaphorical nature of theism in general and specifically in religions. Scripture suggests that eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge will get you expelled from Eden and sure death.
I don't see that as encouraging scientific inquiry for purpose of achieving "enlightenment".

 

[Quantum Quack]

The parable of the Garden of Eden is an example of the metaphorical nature of theism in general and specifically in religions. Scripture suggests that eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge will get you expelled from Eden and sure death.
I don't see that as encouraging scientific inquiry for achieving "enlightenment"

Actually this is often subject to misinterpretation IMO.
The actual words are: ( or very close to the effect of)
"And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
google: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2:4-3:24&version=NIV
( I don't actually own a bible or any religious text for that matter so online will have to do)
note that the tree of knowledge is about good and evil, morality not scientific knowledge...
why does it refer to only good and evil in the way it does I have no idea...
Why a knowledge of good and evil would lead to death is quite bizarre. IMO

 

[Write4U]

Actually this is often subject to misinterpretation IMO.
The actual words are: ( or very close to the effect of)
"And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
google: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2:4-3:24&version=NIV
( I don't actually own a bible or any religious text for that matter so online will have to do)
note that the tree of knowledge is about good and evil, morality not scientific knowledge...
why does it refer to only good and evil in the way it does I have no idea...
Why a knowledge of good and evil would lead to death is quite bizarre. IMO

And how God could have communicated such a command is a mystery.
I asked the same question and I've come to the conclusion that in Scripture knowledge of good and evil equals intelligent decision making. IOW, the separation from a natural state of innocence to a disobedient curiosity and it's attendant dangers. As such the metaphor works.
Of course it has nothing to do with God communicating this truth, the practise of teaching survival techniques is self-evident in many other evolved species. Watch a mother hen teach her chicks how to peck for food. Watch a chimpanzee troup teach a young male his place in the patriarchy or matriachy (in the case of Bonobos). In all of these social animals moral behavior is taught very early on and overly enthusiastic behavior such as trying to explore too far from safety is sternly "corrected". Great apes invented the earliest gods, who spoke in terms of thunder and lightning and other natural global phenomena such as floods, volcanoes, meteor impacts, etc.

Later came sacrifices to appease these gods......