Tables Turned Green for a Spiritual and Sustainable World

Joseph Priestley had hopes about a conversion experience which he never experienced. Instead, he became a rationalist materialist preacher and scientist. I was watching WL Craig debate P Millican and D Came, and was reminded in reflection of Priestley. I also recalled Descartes´ divine vision that directed him to develop science.

greenpeaceRdale1844coop enoch arden • 2 hours ago • edited I don´t need to read you "slowly," dear soul. I suggest you pick up your intensity paying attention to my points, and let your vision scan the horizon for the beauty of Jesus´ legacy in struggling human hearts through history and culture. Only Buddha, Gandhi, Anthony the Great, and their ilk are as beautiful to inhale and refresh lactic acid build up in tired and sore soulful brainpower. 1. Mary Baker Eddy also called Evil unreal and non-existent, as a woman with a brother who went to Dartmouth in the 1800s. She did it explicating her quite impressive and worthwhile approach to Christianity. However, empirical observation in Jesus´ legacy of University-based scholarship gives us the tools to examine the proposition a little more closely. As Gandhi demonstrated in his interfaith Christian-Hindu practice reading the Gita and Bible significantly and regularly with great admiration for Jesus, British brutality was not ...

Val Humpherson about 1 month ago (edited) Gosh! Where to start. My own teacher was a devotee of Sri Aurobindo, and I have taught trans personal psychological approaches to comparative spirituality including a brief dive into Wilber. I think he is wrong. I think Sri Aurobindo is wrong. I could say, how dare I criticise two giants of spiritual thinking, but somehow to me they seem to “miss the mark”. How? The best way I can explain my unease is that they mistake the map for the territory, mistake the philosophical interpretations and explanations for lived reality. To believe yourself defined and labelled as “the 2% higher, integral being” and to see others as “green” “orange” etc etc thinkers is to try to reduce the huge complexity of human individuality into boxes that you can use. As you say, maybe to self-aggrandise, maybe to exclude the “lesser beings” people and other life, maybe to control and direct others. Life is not reducible to models. Life escapes the edges, surprises ...

Rebecca Goldstein participated with J Peterson and WL Craig in a "Meaning of Life" discussion. She wants to assert that naturalism and progress are coherent. She made certain claims.... Green Peacemst 2 minutes ago (edited) I am really grateful to Dr. Craig for his philosophical brilliance, although I am also grateful for my background in Bio Anthro, liberal arts, and Intl Relations, and more, to see that his arguments have greater implications, and call for illuminating those implications. As with Rebecca Goldstein´s insistence that progress can be naturalistic. I like the example of slavery. After 2,500 years up to the birth of Christ, slavery existed in ancient Greece that was conquered by the Romans. The Romans enslaved the women and children taken at Corinth in 146 BC/E after slaughtering all the men. Clearly, Spartacus led a slave rebellion some seventy years later. The end of slavery was accomplished after 1840 years in the West in an unprecedented act, and ...

Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 0 seconds ago @Roper122 You´re as pompous and full of fallacy maneuvers as your hero Law. "They´re theists´ standards (of evil)"? Indeed, yet atheists try to ignore and deny their own foundations and its implications. Dawkins has at least had the relative integrity of denying that morality has any foundations. Craig argues that things like torturing children is objectively wrong, which is an emotional appeal that needs work. However, that foundation is that psychological and sociobiological foundations exist for morality in maternal care and infantile love of mother, and , and so on. People do care about many kinds of people in the natural state, which even underlies alliance behavior amongst tribes. That range of levels of caring reflects orientations, and Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha´s own spiritual seeking resulted in his internal psychological development and the demonstrations of a community based on his teachings and practice that...

If anything that exists has to have a cause, what caused god to exist? And how does anyone know that the universe hasn't simply always existed in some way or other? Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 1 second ago OK, let´s take your question no 2 first. The Big Bang theory is based on "science" itself, scientific philosophy, actually. You didn´t get Craig´s points about past infinity not being possible, and the Bord-Guth-Valenkin paper. You might like the ideas of Black Hole portals and their blowing off new Universes ideas. Those are mechanistic, and the issue means questioning the assumptions of science itself. Once you know that the Universe had a beginning, that is, a beginning where time, space, and matter-energy all came into existence. They didn´t exist before that. Physically, you might be thinking that the Universe existed as a Big Lump, and then it just exploded. They don´t see that happening. Astrophysicists trace all the space and stuff back in time, a...

Responding to WL Craig vs Andrew Pyle (moral argument-rape- below) Mentat1231 8 years ago Here here! It's absolutely amazing, the number of appeals to mystery, appeals to authority (usually "ad verecundiam", since they're not even the authorities in the right field), and appeals to emotion and incredulity that I read from the typical YouTube atheist. And the published "new atheists" are no better (Richard Dawkins' arguments in his best-seller are a bad joke). It's just astounding.... 1 Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 12 minutes ago (edited) There are additional fields that could contribute here, as Pyle´s Ganesh ploy suggests. However, Craig´s standard is more than adequate to address Pyle´s reliance on fallacy. He´s clearly articulate in the science, and scientists are usually unable to grasp that this argument is not scientific. "Science" is a term that misrepresents the field, which was natural philosophy, and might be called scienti...

Cha • 3 days ago Every methodology like Science has to to have a 'Reference'. And that reference cannot come from science itself. In that case, it will be a circular logic sort of thing and therefore completely invalid. Some things are axiomatic or self evident like Pythagorean principle etc. These are starting point or reference point. Obviously these cannot be proved by science. Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Cha • 2 days ago • edited Good points for starters. By the term "Reference" you mean more precisely a "Frame of Reference." A key one historically has been and is Thomas of Aquinas´ clarification of Aristotle´s abandoned First Cause argument. He noticed that causes and effects exist by observation and induction, and that we can deduce and interpolate back to a First Cause. However, he assumed that the Universe is "eternal," which led him to believe that there was no First Cause. He assumed a sustaining Unmoved Mover, inste...