Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:Mad,

I'm sorry you haven't gotten a response on this yet.

I've read through it and tried to understand as best as I can your question.

Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

There are all kinds of competing philosophical bases for understanding and interpretting reality. Frankly, I believe the Bible and Christian worldview offer the best. What we see and experience around us is "real." However, there is truth and reality which extends beyond that which we simply experience with our senses. God has created us, and he created us in His image, with a built-in need to know Him, worship Him and fellowship with Him. That reality extends beyond our senses and that which is physical and provides our lives with meaning and purpose and the assurance that regardless of what this world holds for us in the short-term, there is an eternity waiting with Him that will be free of all the suffering and frustration we experience now.

I hope that helps. I had a little trouble understanding all you were asking.

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

Turgonian wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

That's not quite true, Canuckster. This world, according to Plato, was real, but LESS real than the Ideal World -- not 'unreal'. Sounds a lot like C.S. Lewis, hm? The new Narnia was somehow more intense, more real than the old one...

Madscientist, the theory that everything is virtual reality is completely crazy. It could lead to murder -- after all, it's only a game, I'm only murdering images! It blurs the line between fact and fiction. God has created a dependable reality, because such is His character -- dependable. God saw that Adam was alone, and therefore He made Eve, not a dream image to make him feel better. We were made for each other, to live in communication and fellowship with each other, NOT in our own silent, insulated little world. As the poet John Donne said, 'Man is not an island, alone of itself...'

I think Heaven is very real, somehow more real (or more intensely real) than our world -- and yes, I am Platonic in that regard. We will be closer to God and experience everything in a better way. I think Hell is, like you say, a dreamlike state -- like a fever dream: being unable to think straight, possessed by an idea which drives you but which you don't think about... A mindless, frightened, and lonely activity...
And when you think of Hell as something like that, it is clear that people who defend theories like the one you brought up are making this world into a kind of Hell. Don't believe them.

I can't disprove the theory -- you might have dreamed up the response you're reading now -- but it's crazy: it's like believing everyone is following you. When someone's not looking at you, you can say it's make-believe. You can fit everything into the theory -- but it's a mad theory.
Don't believe in virtual reality. Believe in God and His trustworthiness.

Turgonian wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

That's not quite true, Canuckster. This world, according to Plato, was real, but LESS real than the Ideal World -- not 'unreal'. Sounds a lot like C.S. Lewis, hm? The new Narnia was somehow more intense, more real than the old one...

The Allegory of the Cave
Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of Forms.

The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. Here is an illustration of Plato's Cave:



From Great Dialogues of Plato: Complete Texts of the Republic, Apology, Crito Phaido, Ion, and Meno, Vol. 1. (Warmington and Rouse, eds.) New York, Signet Classics: 1999. p. 316.


Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows.

So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says “I see a book,” what is he talking about?
He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word “book.” What does that refer to?


Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:
“And if they could talk to one another, don't you think they'd suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”

Plato's point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato's view) to the real things that cast the shadows.
If a prisoner says “That's a book” he thinks that the word “book” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He's only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “book” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.


Plato's point: the general terms of our language are not “names” of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind.

When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds.

Plato's aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by “naming” the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in.

The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word “book” refers to something that any of them has ever seen.
Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive.

madscientist wrote:Ya i seen the film. Interesting really... also downloaded all the other ones on the panel so i could watch them when ill have more time.
But waht exacly is this kabbalah teaching? sounds cool but is it connected with christianity directly; i.e. isnt it against it in some way - are we christians allowed to listen to its teachings? All they said in the film didnt relate to a religion in particular but rather spiritualuty in general.
Anyway.. i hope i can get some time to watch those videos...

Btw i like the idea that egoism is the driving force of everything we do. And altruism...
It really seems to be as they say it is.

But a paradox which i never really understood is about altruism: ive heard it is what produced the greatest happiness is the person who does it. OK then WHY we do something for someone else - because we want to HELP THEM or get the GOOD FEELING of it? Would we be altruistic if it did NOT produce pleasure in us?
And even if we ARE altruistic, we do it because we WANT to be so, i.e. we still do our desires. I personally think humans arent "programmed" to be so very much, but rather egoist. So free will could be then trying to change and do what we desire, have freedom.

Any ideas?

madscientist wrote:BTW does Kabbalah lead people to ANY religion - i.e. is it thought to be for any religion in general?

madscientist wrote:Looked at it, didnt have time to rad all of it. Oh that kinda surpiresed me badly... koz i thought Kabbalah is acceptable with a religion. How then it leads peoole to God if it says it is againt prayers? all "gods" i think want prayers, so how does it lead one to God? And does it lead to any god - is it universal for any god people believe in?
However there were some things that I liked as a christian (as much as i am one! ) about the pain, egoism as a driving force for evil in the world, some thing on free will etc.

But i dont want to submit to its theories and so if it will lead me away from christianity. or can these 2 co-operate? i would be happy if yes. So i think i will have to find something else as explanation/theory if this isnt what my religion teaches...