Free Counselling for Theists!

[AiA in Atlanta]

So John Edwards, Doris Stokes, Benny Hinn and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh are all on the sixth floor and Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Isaac Newton are on the first floor. Good one, Ken.

Why invoke those names rather than Ramana Maharshi or Jiddu Krishnamurti? Recall renowned physicist David Bohm spent many years dialoging with Krishnamurti. Why did Bohm, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, have an interest in Krishnamurti, do you think?

I invoked those names because people who make claims of the supernatural and then provide zero evidence are all the same in my eyes. Bullshitters.

This is part of what wiki says about Krishnamurti:

"Denouncing the concept of saviors, spiritual leaders, or any other intermediaries to reality, he urged people to directly discover the underlying causes of the problems facing individuals and society. Such discovery he considered as being within reach of everyone, irrespective of background, ability, or disposition. He declared allegiance to no nationality, caste, religion, or philosophy........"

The dude seems to have his head screwed on and is not religious. What is weird about Bohm communicating with him?

So you are willing to accept Wilber's statement regarding mystics and physicists when the mystic in question is J. Krishnamurti?

[AiA in Atlanta]

Interesting name Krishnamurti ... translates in sanskrit as 'krishna incarnation' .. although 'murti' in simple terms means 'solid shape or form' ... and was also the name of an historical hindu rishi .. 'rishi' in sanskrit is equivalent of/to prophet.

Interesting that is, considering Krishna [krisna] remains hindu's most popular messianic saviour character, contrasted with Swami's wiki quote :

Denouncing the concept of saviors, spiritual leaders, or any other intermediaries to reality

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-kris ... chings.php

The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said, “Truth is a pathless land”. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

Man has built in himself images as a fence of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all humanity. So he is not an individual.

The name "Krishnamurti" in India is as common as "Tom" in Australia and shouldn't be given any meaning at all. In 1929 Krishnamurti, who had been groomed as "The World Teacher" broke with Theosophy and declared "Truth is a pathless land," and spent the next 60 years living that truth.

[Sappho]

Unfortunately for you, in this instance you are trying to justify an unprovable position with something (science) which by it's very definition must be provable hence my response is not a straw man. If you cannot use such an argument pedantically it should not be used at all.

No I'm not... I'm trying to show the impact of faith upon the theist and atheists alike. People have no idea how much faith they put in things... it's absolutely rife. Incorrectly, faith is applied only to theists and god believers and then ridiculed for same.

[J.W. Frogen]

So you are willing to accept Wilber's statement

Hellooooooooooooo Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilber.

[Sappho]

Science will tell you that whilst it is highly improbable that the sun will not rise, it is not impossible: that just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it will not happen. Science would also give you a list of reasons as to why the sun may not rise tomorrow.

Otherwise, to be more accurate, we have plenty of evidence that the sun HAS risen in the past, but no evidence that it will rise tomorrow. We merely assume, at the highest level of assumption known as faith, that it will based on past experience.

There are two things at play here, axioms and probablities.

Firstly, it is an axiom of science that the laws of nature are constants. This is a necessary, and philosophically defensible requirement of science. Without this assumption, there is only history. No predictive abilities at all.

Einstein disagrees most vehemently. Equally, Heisenberg disagrees. Not all the laws of physics are constant boxy. There is relativity and uncertainty which encourage possibility and force us to think in terms of probability.

Secondly, there is going to be a day when the sun doesn't rise. The probability that that day will be tommorrow is ridiculously small though. One day the sun will expand to engulf our tiny planet, if earth even survives that long, given the unavoidable cosmic battering that all planets take. You see, science weighs the probablities of it's predictions on the evidence available.

You do not dispute my claim, you merely reinforce it.
1. We live in a world of possibilities which we measure as probabilities.
2. Available evidence is not all evidence.
3. We all accept that there will be a day, and that day is unknown, when the sun will not rise upon the horizon of the earth.
Therefore: We do not know absolutely that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we have faith in it doing so, based on available evidence.

On your final point... I can only revert to logic.
If my god/s created physical laws of existence then there would be physical laws of existence in existence.
There are physical laws of existence in existence
Therefore, my god/s have created them.

You revert to a circular logic. God exists, therefore he created existance.

No, the logic is more subtle than that and perfectly valid. But I will concede that I am begging the question. It's the difference between a formal and informal fallacy of logic. An informal fallacy is not a critical fallacy. That I beg the question then, is not a critical problem in my syllogism.

No evidence, no reasonable axioms, no testability, no probabilities... no defence.

I have faith! It is exactly the same faith applied by those who claim not to believe in gods.

[Outlaw Yogi]

The name "Krishnamurti" in India is as common as "Tom" in Australia and shouldn't be given any meaning at all. In 1929 Krishnamurti, who had been groomed as "The World Teacher" broke with Theosophy and declared "Truth is a pathless land," and spent the next 60 years living that truth.

Well as a former member of a Hindu based yogic cult, which the majority of members were Indian [predominantly Marathi] I couldn't help but know lots of Indians. While I've known 3 with the first name being Krishna, and one with the family name of Krishna, I am yet to meet any with the name Krishnamurti, and my middle name is Tom.

[Swami Dring]

So you are willing to accept Wilber's statement regarding mystics and physicists when the mystic in question is J. Krishnamurti?

My venerable Chambers dictionary describes a mystic as "one who seeks or attains direct intercourse with god in elevated religious feeling or ecstasy". The wiki passage states that J. Krishnamurti was not religious which would preclude him from being a mystic.

Wilber's statement is utter bollocks and an insult to scientists.

[Swami Dring]

What evidence can you present to support your claim that your gods created the physics of this universe?

I have no evidence.

No further questions your honour.

[boxy]

Science will tell you that whilst it is highly improbable that the sun will not rise, it is not impossible: that just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it will not happen. Science would also give you a list of reasons as to why the sun may not rise tomorrow.

Otherwise, to be more accurate, we have plenty of evidence that the sun HAS risen in the past, but no evidence that it will rise tomorrow. We merely assume, at the highest level of assumption known as faith, that it will based on past experience.

There are two things at play here, axioms and probablities.

Firstly, it is an axiom of science that the laws of nature are constants. This is a necessary, and philosophically defensible requirement of science. Without this assumption, there is only history. No predictive abilities at all.

Einstein disagrees most vehemently. Equally, Heisenberg disagrees. Not all the laws of physics are constant boxy. There is relativity and uncertainty which encourage possibility and force us to think in terms of probability.

No they don't. I'm not saying that the physical laws that we atribute to nature are required to be unchanging, only that nature acts in a predictable way. Things don't just up and turn themselves around for no reason. Notice my use of the "laws of nature" as opposed to "physical laws".

Regardless of that, no suggested changes in any physical laws, backed by any reasonable hypothosis, would change the likelyhood of the sun rising tommorrow. It's not faith, in any sence, like a faith in god, that sees rational people believe that there will be a tommorrow.

Secondly, there is going to be a day when the sun doesn't rise. The probability that that day will be tommorrow is ridiculously small though. One day the sun will expand to engulf our tiny planet, if earth even survives that long, given the unavoidable cosmic battering that all planets take. You see, science weighs the probablities of it's predictions on the evidence available.

You do not dispute my claim, you merely reinforce it.
1. We live in a world of possibilities which we measure as probabilities.
2. Available evidence is not all evidence.
3. We all accept that there will be a day, and that day is unknown, when the sun will not rise upon the horizon of the earth.
Therefore: We do not know absolutely that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we have faith in it doing so, based on available evidence.

Your conclusion does not follow. It should be, "we know to within an extremely low margin or error (approching zero), that the sun will indeed rise tommorrow". The only thing that makes it uncertain is unknown, probably unknowable, circumstances far beyond our control.

The difference between science/rationalism and religion/mysticism is that science understands the limits of it's knowledge, and doesn't make predictions outside that sphere... mysticism glories in the knowledge that their grandious claims are without proof. Because that lack of any evidence or rationality means that it is unfalsifiable. There is a reason that religion is backpeddling fast, before the onslaught of science/rationalism... it's because they overstepped their bounds, and made ridiculous claims that were physically testable under the foolish belief that whatever they wrote would be the unquestioned truth, forever.

Wrong... oh soooo wrong. And the more that science shows them to be wrong, the more rational people will question the rest of their made up bollocks.

On your final point... I can only revert to logic.
If my god/s created physical laws of existence then there would be physical laws of existence in existence.
There are physical laws of existence in existence
Therefore, my god/s have created them.

You revert to a circular logic. God exists, therefore he created existance.

No, the logic is more subtle than that and perfectly valid. But I will concede that I am begging the question. It's the difference between a formal and informal fallacy of logic. An informal fallacy is not a critical fallacy. That I beg the question then, is not a critical problem in my syllogism.

No evidence, no reasonable axioms, no testability, no probabilities... no defence.

I have faith! It is exactly the same faith applied by those who claim not to believe in gods.

Science doesn't require faith. It actively encourages others to replicate results.

And yet again, you have failed to tell me what I can do to independantly verify your god. That is a clear indication of what does, and does not require faith (blind, unthinking belief).

[Sappho]

No they don't. I'm not saying that the physical laws that we atribute to nature are required to be unchanging, only that nature acts in a predictable way. Things don't just up and turn themselves around for no reason. Notice my use of the "laws of nature" as opposed to "physical laws".

Ok, you've got my interest. What is the difference between the laws of nature and the physical laws? And if you could use cloud formation as an example of that, I'd muchly appreciate.

The difference between science/rationalism and religion/mysticism is that science understands the limits of it's knowledge, and doesn't make predictions outside that sphere... mysticism glories in the knowledge that their grandious claims are without proof. Because that lack of any evidence or rationality means that it is unfalsifiable. There is a reason that religion is backpeddling fast, before the onslaught of science/rationalism... it's because they overstepped their bounds, and made ridiculous claims that were physically testable under the foolish belief that whatever they wrote would be the unquestioned truth, forever.

Wrong... oh soooo wrong. And the more that science shows them to be wrong, the more rational people will question the rest of their made up bollocks.

I make no such claims of my god/s as you bemoan here. All I know of my god/s is that it/they created the laws necessary for reality. I don't know why. I don't know if it was intended. I feel no sense of spiritual enlightenment resulting from this faith.

There are two main themes here both of which operate on faith. You either believe that the multiverse was created or that the multiverse just happened. No one can prove that it just happened. No one can prove that it was created. Both axioms rely upon faith for belief.

And yet again, you have failed to tell me what I can do to independantly verify your god.

Equally you have not countered the argument with any independent verification that the multiverse just happened.