To Andrew Hamilton:
Webster's dictionary gives several definitions of nature.
Now, I suppose you mean this definition:
"6. [sometimes cap.] An agent, force, or principle, or
set of such forces or principles, viewed as creating,
controlling, or guiding the universe; as by provision of
nature."
If not, explain what definition of nature you mean.
If so, where did this agent, force, or principle come from?
RJHinds
Originally posted by mikelomSurely you are able to perceive the meaning in statements using mythology and symbolism? Even Jesus the Nazarene (if it is his statement) meant it in that manner.
Within him?
Ooops, I thought the kingdom of heaven was in the sky with a big white bearded man waiting to accept me.
Thank myself I rejected my indoctrination of such thoughts.
I shall look further into heaven being withing a person, as Buddhism points out.
-m. 😉
Casting strawmen about has been dealt with recently in another thread.
Read it, perhaps?
What you are also demonstrating is concrete thinking.
Abstraction too much, perhaps?
Originally posted by TaomanI think you take life just too seriously! A bit of divergent thinking would allow you to see that my post was, indeed, completely abstract. 😉
Surely you are able to perceive the meaning in statements using mythology and symbolism? Even Jesus the Nazarene (if it is his statement) meant it in that manner.
Casting strawmen about has been dealt with recently in another thread.
Read it, perhaps?
What you are also demonstrating is concrete thinking.
Abstraction too much, perhaps?
-m.
Originally posted by mikelomYet, I smile a lot for all life's seriousness. But you are right. I am quite serious at times.
I think you take life just too seriously! A bit of divergent thinking would allow you to see that my post was, indeed, completely abstract. 😉
-m.
But there is a hell of a lot of fluff around. Someone needs to balance it, do you not think?
I will leaves others to judge if your response was "completely abstract".
No matter, I was referring to a Christian allusion to the inner source of the Highest.
Call it what you will, the point is to recognise it. I have no doubt it is surely there.
Its been a bloody lovely autumn day here in Melbourne, how's it where you are?
Originally posted by TaomanIt's incredibly hot here, guessing about 36C. Saraburi, 110Km north of Bangkok.
Yet, I smile a lot for all life's seriousness. But you are right. I am quite serious at times.
But there is a hell of a lot of fluff around. Someone needs to balance it, do you not think?
I will leaves others to judge if your response was "completely abstract".
No matter, I was referring to a Christian allusion to the inner source of the Highest.
Call ...[text shortened]... ely there.
Its been a bloody lovely autumn day here in Melbourne, how's it where you are?
There has been a lot of fluff around, which is why I often jest. It completely needs breaking down, as people are generally just too serious about their own opinions, and are not open to debate or to other reasonable ideas and acceptance.
I'm over-opinionated about Buddhism, as I live it in the real world. Of course here is a world of escapism, where people play games and toy with each other. I wouldn't post half of the crap I do in other places, or in e-mails or in the work place, and I believe others wouldn't too; which is why we just never know whether people are really telling their beliefs as Gospel, or are just messing about. It kind of keeps it interesting, in a way, apart from people like Dasa who continually try to sell fridges to the Eskimos. 😉
-m.
Originally posted by mikelomOh, Dasa enjoys being the centre of attention. He is so definite he is right (I am too but that's different 🙂 ) and all others are liars, cheats etc. Sort of amusing really. If he removed all the silly negative accusations, there is good thoughtful stuff in some of his posts. Gets so defensive at every difference, or is it an act? Or is he threatened? Who knows? I've told him to his face, pleasantly, but he just won't listen. Incorrigible, but sort of part of the furniture. He'll learn something along the way I expect, like we all do. He's part of the Completeness, the Universal Mind journey. Ooops, getting serious...
It's incredibly hot here, guessing about 36C. Saraburi, 110Km north of Bangkok.
There has been a lot of fluff around, which is why I often jest. It completely needs breaking down, as people are generally just too serious about their own opinions, and are not open to debate or to other reasonable ideas and acceptance.
I'm over-opinionated about Buddhism ...[text shortened]... y, apart from people like Dasa who continually try to sell fridges to the Eskimos. 😉
-m.
I'd love to go to Thailand, but the humidity is a killer. Thai is the best cuisine.
Originally posted by TaomanThere is obviously an assimile with some of Dasa's creed and that of Buddhism. I see likemindedness in some of his posts too, but he's just too over the top with his obsession, which may indeed be internet play. I don't like to talk about him in 3rd tense, so where are you Dasa? What do you have to say about your playing, or seriousness, or meeting half way - if that's a possibility?
Oh, Dasa enjoys being the centre of attention. He is so definite he is right (I am too but that's different 🙂 ) and all others are liars, cheats etc. Sort of amusing really. If he removed all the silly negative accusations, there is good thoughtful stuff in some of his posts. Gets so defensive at every difference, or is it an act? Or is he threatened? Who kn ...[text shortened]... ..
I'd love to go to Thailand, but the humidity is a killer. Thai is the best cuisine.
It actually is very dry here now, no humidity whatsoever. Hot and very dry air - which has a cool wind. It's delicious weather.
As for food, what can I say? I've worked around the world, but there is nothing comparative to Thai flavours, in their different usage and meal possibilities.
I would say I am in living 'heaven' - but I'd get attacked miserably. 😀😀😀😀😀
-m.
To mikelom and Taoman:
It is said that Sir Isaac Newton discovered "Gravity" and did
some mathematical calculations to prove it. Then there was
someone on this thread that suggested I prove the "theory"
of gravity by jumping off a tall building. This reminds me of
Luke 4:9 in the Holy Bible where Satan attempted to tempt
Jesus to jump off the top of the temple in Jerusalem to prove
a "theory". Do you suppose Jesus refused because he had
already done these calculations and decided this was not going
to be a good idea? Just a little Christian humor to lighten
the discussion. What do you say?
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsThough I haven't looked up the exact post, it is my guess that he did not suggest you prove the theory, but was questioning your assertion that something is called a theory because it is not proven. ie he was pointing out that you believe the Theory of Gravity to the extent that you would never jump off a tall building.
Then there was someone on this thread that suggested I prove the "theory" of gravity by jumping off a tall building.
To twhitehead:
And I think I pointed out that what he was talking
about is the "Law of Gravity" We have been dropping
many things off of tall buildings and even jumping off
of tall buildings to prove that theory. Even Jesus knew
it was not a theory back in his time, as I pointed out in
my humorous way. I think he knew it was another of
God's laws, which he set up to control the universe.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsYou say in one sentence "to prove that theory" then in the next say it is not a theory.
....... to prove that theory. Even Jesus knew
it was not a theory back in his time, as I pointed out in
my humorous way. I think he knew it was another of
God's laws, which he set up to control the universe.
My point was that you appear to have misunderstood the poster in question, and still do not understand how the words 'Theory' and 'Law' are used in science. It was explained to you earlier in this thread.
My only advice is to either do some further reading on the matter (please use scientific sources not creationist websites).
Originally posted by RJHindsNeither of those definitions are the ones used by scientists. I'm not going to lecture you about it or say you are "wrong" but the definitions are different. So whatever this debate is about, is hopelessly screwed up as long as the definitions differ by this much.
To twhitehead:
A "theory" is a guess or speculation about something.
A "Law" is the established facts about something by an
authority, such as God.
RJHinds
To JS357:
While I was waiting for you to reply with the scientific
definitons for "theory" and "Law", I decided to see if
I could get anything by googling on the web. The first
thing that popped up was on About.com, which gave
the scientific definitions for hypothesis, theory, and law.
"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation.
Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through
experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be
disproven, but not proven to be true."
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or a group of
hypothesis that have been supported with repeated testing.
A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.
Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence
accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can
become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon.
One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."
"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is
made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific
laws explain things, but the do not describe them. One way
to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives
you a means to explain why.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use
this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he
couldn't explain why it happened."
Based on the above scientific definitions, the theory of
evolution is more of an hypothesis than a theory to me.
Apparently, it is called a theory only because it is an
accepted hypothesis by most of the scientist at this time.
Certainly, there has not been much testing of it and the,
evidence that disputes it, is ignored by those that want to
believe in it. I predict it will be disproven one day.
RJHinds