Does Non- Naturalism explain truth, reality and knowledge?
Non-Naturalism is a pantheistic view that everything is god and everything is of god.Their view of reality says that, the world we live in and the universe that surrounds us is all an illusion. Everything measurable is only an illusion manifested by the great spirit Brahman. The non-naturalist would describe truth be be set by the great spirit; the All. When a person reaches ultimate enlightenment, they will know the truth set by the creator of everything, the substance that is everything. Knowledge is the manifestation of the great All. Knowing something brings you closer to completeness. It brings you one step closer to enlightenment.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Philosophy blog 2
What is the difference between naturalism and dialectical materialism? Be complete. 35 points. Due Monday, October 24th by midnight.
Naturalism is the belief in the physical world and that which can only be proved by science. Dialectical materialism is the same view, but it says that in everything, there is a thesis and an anti-thesis. But, D.M. says that each thesis will meet its anti-thesis, and combine to form a new thesis. This new thesis is called a synthesis. In this case, the science evolves and statements change. As opposed to naturalism, which would state that all science if forever true and cannot be changed warped.
The two views are similar, but they differentiate in their specificity. D.M. is usually referred to in realms applying to history and culture. While naturalism is applied to all aspects of life and belief.
Naturalism is the belief in the physical world and that which can only be proved by science. Dialectical materialism is the same view, but it says that in everything, there is a thesis and an anti-thesis. But, D.M. says that each thesis will meet its anti-thesis, and combine to form a new thesis. This new thesis is called a synthesis. In this case, the science evolves and statements change. As opposed to naturalism, which would state that all science if forever true and cannot be changed warped.
The two views are similar, but they differentiate in their specificity. D.M. is usually referred to in realms applying to history and culture. While naturalism is applied to all aspects of life and belief.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Philosophy 1
What are the philosophic problems that naturalism has when it tries to explain reality, truth and knowledge? 35 points, Due 10/17 at midnight.
Secular Humanists believe in a purely natural and physical universe. The belief denies any evidences to religion and supernatural occurrences. Stating this tells that there is only science and that which can be observed. It denies any possibility for an Intelligent design, or a personal creator. You want me to tell you that secular humanists can not explain such things as morality or emotion. In the mind of a Christian, they can't, but if you take off you're biblical worldview glasses, and explanation is simple. I've read other people's responses. The Christian worldview would say that secular humanism fails to give an explanation to the origin of the universe. Secular humanism says that the universe and reality is the eternal cycle that creates life as it eternally transforms. But obviously since God is the only thing that is allowed to be eternal, the universe isn't allowed to be eternal. Some people misinterpret this, "She [cosmos] cannot create but eternally transforms." (Noebel 103) and take it to mean that the universe can't create life. This is not the case. The statement means that the function of life is eternal. Life as a whole is an eternal cycle that grows and shrinks. The universe has to have a personal creator because everything in the universe points to a creator. Everything in the universe has an order and can't have happened by chance or the by the progression of the survival of the fittest. Although some people might say that secular humanism and naturalism doesn't explain for logic or justice, naturalists would say that they originated from an incorrect view of religion or morality.
With emotion, I've done a lot of research on the matter and have found out this. Science is only continuing to affirm emotion as a scientific, measurable and therefore controllable substance. Neuroimaging can map out which part of the brain is working to give the feeling of fear and, too my knowledge is currently working on figuring the rest of the brain out. If the argument is that science cannot explain for emotion, then what is the point in behavioral medicines such as bi-polar disorder, or depression. You can't deny that these emotions are not scientifically based.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-08-06-brain-study_x.htm
Secular Humanists believe in a purely natural and physical universe. The belief denies any evidences to religion and supernatural occurrences. Stating this tells that there is only science and that which can be observed. It denies any possibility for an Intelligent design, or a personal creator. You want me to tell you that secular humanists can not explain such things as morality or emotion. In the mind of a Christian, they can't, but if you take off you're biblical worldview glasses, and explanation is simple. I've read other people's responses. The Christian worldview would say that secular humanism fails to give an explanation to the origin of the universe. Secular humanism says that the universe and reality is the eternal cycle that creates life as it eternally transforms. But obviously since God is the only thing that is allowed to be eternal, the universe isn't allowed to be eternal. Some people misinterpret this, "She [cosmos] cannot create but eternally transforms." (Noebel 103) and take it to mean that the universe can't create life. This is not the case. The statement means that the function of life is eternal. Life as a whole is an eternal cycle that grows and shrinks. The universe has to have a personal creator because everything in the universe points to a creator. Everything in the universe has an order and can't have happened by chance or the by the progression of the survival of the fittest. Although some people might say that secular humanism and naturalism doesn't explain for logic or justice, naturalists would say that they originated from an incorrect view of religion or morality.
With emotion, I've done a lot of research on the matter and have found out this. Science is only continuing to affirm emotion as a scientific, measurable and therefore controllable substance. Neuroimaging can map out which part of the brain is working to give the feeling of fear and, too my knowledge is currently working on figuring the rest of the brain out. If the argument is that science cannot explain for emotion, then what is the point in behavioral medicines such as bi-polar disorder, or depression. You can't deny that these emotions are not scientifically based.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-08-06-brain-study_x.htm
Friday, October 7, 2011
Theology #2
Sarah and Mark both believe that God is a human invention, with Mark adding that we should evolve past our "need" for God. How would you answer that? 35 points, due Friday October 7th by midnight.
In my opinion, God could very well be a human invention. The Trinity would make sense because the God of Israel changed into the Christ when Jesus came to spread the religion to the Gentiles. And the Holy Spirit was the invention for when Jesus was not Possible, and God wasn't just the "unexplainable" for the old testament. I would definately agree that we should evolve past out need for God. Because at what point do we actually need him? Everything in this physical universe has a cause which isn't God. When you need God, the only way he can help you is nothing short of a miracle. Because, at some point, for God to physically help you, the scientific laws of nature and the universe have to be bent or temporarily broken. But oh well.
God isn't an invention, he is an answer to humanities need for something greater. But, there isn't really a way to prove that God isn't just an invention of a human mind in need of a crutch; otherwise there would be no more debating as to whether or not the God of Christianity even exists. I would respond by saying this to Sarah and Mark. Believe what you want, but I don't need to convince you that there is a God. Afterall, why should I? Even the Bible tells me that there is nothing I can do to change a persons mind about Christianity.
For Mark to say that we shouldn't need God, he would have to believe that there is no Heaven or Hell. If he doesn't believe in a Heaven or Hell, then there is no need for him to believe in a salvation, from a God he doesn't believe in. Because if he does believe in God, then he also must do everything a Christian does and take on a fear that he is going to Hell. If you move past a need for God, you move past the possible punishment for Hell. That doesn't mean that he won't go to Hell. It just means that in His mind, not needing God means that his life is what he makes it, not what God makes it. His life doesn't become about whether or not he is going to heaven or hell.
But, God wasnt invented by man, it was written in the bright minds of the early Israelites. Its origin came from the patriarchal firgures such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God wasn't invented as crutches for Israel as they were oppressed and put into slavery for hundresds of years. He was inspired and involved as an escape and a promise for a better life to those who were unhappy with their own.
In my opinion, God could very well be a human invention. The Trinity would make sense because the God of Israel changed into the Christ when Jesus came to spread the religion to the Gentiles. And the Holy Spirit was the invention for when Jesus was not Possible, and God wasn't just the "unexplainable" for the old testament. I would definately agree that we should evolve past out need for God. Because at what point do we actually need him? Everything in this physical universe has a cause which isn't God. When you need God, the only way he can help you is nothing short of a miracle. Because, at some point, for God to physically help you, the scientific laws of nature and the universe have to be bent or temporarily broken. But oh well.
God isn't an invention, he is an answer to humanities need for something greater. But, there isn't really a way to prove that God isn't just an invention of a human mind in need of a crutch; otherwise there would be no more debating as to whether or not the God of Christianity even exists. I would respond by saying this to Sarah and Mark. Believe what you want, but I don't need to convince you that there is a God. Afterall, why should I? Even the Bible tells me that there is nothing I can do to change a persons mind about Christianity.
For Mark to say that we shouldn't need God, he would have to believe that there is no Heaven or Hell. If he doesn't believe in a Heaven or Hell, then there is no need for him to believe in a salvation, from a God he doesn't believe in. Because if he does believe in God, then he also must do everything a Christian does and take on a fear that he is going to Hell. If you move past a need for God, you move past the possible punishment for Hell. That doesn't mean that he won't go to Hell. It just means that in His mind, not needing God means that his life is what he makes it, not what God makes it. His life doesn't become about whether or not he is going to heaven or hell.
But, God wasnt invented by man, it was written in the bright minds of the early Israelites. Its origin came from the patriarchal firgures such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God wasn't invented as crutches for Israel as they were oppressed and put into slavery for hundresds of years. He was inspired and involved as an escape and a promise for a better life to those who were unhappy with their own.
Monday, October 3, 2011
In response to the video
How would you respond to these ideas. Pick at least 3 ideas from the video. Due Monday, October 3rd by midnight. 25 points
I guess i could believe everything that was said up until 1:51 when it said that I was apart of the all. If you look at it in the way where "the all" is the God of Christianity, then it would make sense up until 1:51. ' But, i do like how in one line is says that only when you understand the All, you will be in awe of its magnificence; then later, it goes on to say that the All can never be understood, because it is unknowable. That is just hilarious. I can understand if the All is eternal, but when you say that everything is of the All, and it is eternal, then how were people created to be the All. Well actually, that does make sense., because many people confuse "eternal" and "infinite". In this case, everyone can be created to be eternal. Eternal means it has no end, but it doesn't necessarily mean that these eternal people had no beginning. But the claim that everyone was infinite, and it contradicts itself, because then the Great All would just be creating different copies of itself. And you cant create the infinite.
"It is difficult to discuss the true nature of the All or to describe its true form, for we the perceivers have always experienced it only in part, from a limited point-of-view. "
This Quote says that you cant understand yourself. But if everyone is everyone, and everyone is the great "All" then wouldn't that make is simplistically easy to know in fullness what the All is? This might just be because of my presuppositions of Christianity and an all knowing God, but the quote above does not make sense.
I guess i could believe everything that was said up until 1:51 when it said that I was apart of the all. If you look at it in the way where "the all" is the God of Christianity, then it would make sense up until 1:51. ' But, i do like how in one line is says that only when you understand the All, you will be in awe of its magnificence; then later, it goes on to say that the All can never be understood, because it is unknowable. That is just hilarious. I can understand if the All is eternal, but when you say that everything is of the All, and it is eternal, then how were people created to be the All. Well actually, that does make sense., because many people confuse "eternal" and "infinite". In this case, everyone can be created to be eternal. Eternal means it has no end, but it doesn't necessarily mean that these eternal people had no beginning. But the claim that everyone was infinite, and it contradicts itself, because then the Great All would just be creating different copies of itself. And you cant create the infinite.
"It is difficult to discuss the true nature of the All or to describe its true form, for we the perceivers have always experienced it only in part, from a limited point-of-view. "
This Quote says that you cant understand yourself. But if everyone is everyone, and everyone is the great "All" then wouldn't that make is simplistically easy to know in fullness what the All is? This might just be because of my presuppositions of Christianity and an all knowing God, but the quote above does not make sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)