Posted by Marcus on April 29, 1999 at 22:28:19:
In Reply to: Re: Meeting GOD via the enneagram - posted by Ev on April 29, 1999 at 21:59:24:
>
> > > > > > > > > > After a discusiion with a professor of Religion I came to an idea about how the enneagram describes the 3 main ways that religion and phiosophy approach God.
> > > > > > > > > > Thinking Center people (5/6/7) attempt to find or discover the God of the Philosophers. The objective Creative force (7), the Laws of Nature (6), and/or the mathematics of creation and emanation (5).
> > > > > > > > > > Feeling Center people (2/3/4) attempt to meet God as in relationship. Through service in the world(2), in their works (3), or through the sacred in the inner wellsprings of one's self (4).
> > > > > > > > > > Instinctive center people (8/9/1) attempt to influence God. Through force of will (8), union (9), or perfect execution of prescribed duties (1).
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Obviously, you're in the Thinking Center! :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm the kind of person that would never belive in God. I say...Belive in youselve
> > > > > > > > > , not God.
> > > > > > > > > Therefore I would never find, discover, meet, or influence something that
> > > > > > > > > does not exist in "my world". Please note that everyone tends to live
> > > > > > > > > in their own world, and God's not in mine. Urghh, I am even using a big G
> > > > > > > > > in God not to insult any of you...:)
> > > > > > > Never say never...
> > > > > > > I used to be a pure scientific type, an atheist. Someone once said I wasn't an atheist, but just "between Gods". It may have been 12 years between Gods, but he was right.
> > > > > > > The thing is that even atheistic, thinking types are still religious--everyone has beliefs that we can't prove, whether or not we want to. And while we may believe that we live in our own little world, we really don't. We're all part of the same reality, and deep down, I believe we are very much the same. If there is a God, he (I used a small 'h' for you Andy :-) exists in your world as well as mine. Belief doesn't define reality, IMHO.
> > > > > > > - Hal -
> > > > >
> > > > > > I like your way of seeing things in a general view. The point is that I don't
> > > > > > belive or disbelive so strong, that it's a form of religion.
> > > > > > I have actually discussed with an atheist and pointed out how religios she
> > > > > > is, with little understanding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would call atheist's just as religios as those who strongly belive in buddha or
> > > > > > whatever or the nnea...gr.....:)
> > > > > > The point is that I don't actually belive so mutch at all in any direction.
> > > > > > I just find it funny to play with idea's...:What if....And then what could that mean..And so on...
> > > > > > I could not care less about the truth, whatever works for people are the
> > > > > > same to me, as long as it don't affect me so mutch. Or I have to get it up the face.
> > > > > > Old people giving away everything their got to some religios group instead
> > > > > > of their relatives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hallellllluuu !!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the satisfaction when reality fit's with an idea or whatever can be like
> > > > > > a real thrill.
> > > > > > I just does not buy into stuff, that seems directly stupid to me.
> > > > > > I don't need something like a religion, if it's the enneagram, mbti, God
> > > > > > or whatever, I can do fine whitout. I just find it funny to see that
> > > > > > things can be changed and are not beaten.
> > > > > > Even if this hole discussion, does not mean anything, it's still a chance
> > > > > > to communicate, exchange ideas and get a better understanding of things.
> > > > > > Anyway, I find it extremely funny to discuss with religios people whether
> > > > > > they are atheist's are into Jesus, God , ......
> > > > > Andy, I find it interesting that you refer to belief in God or religious principles as "directly stupid". A great many of the most brilliant minds ever to trod planet Earth have been able to believe in God without surrendering their mental faculties. At the end of the day we're left with one of two possibilities: (1) the universe, which shows a high degree of order and structure, came about by zillions of ramdom acts of chance or (2) this same ordered universe is the effect of design by a first cause. I believe that first cause to be God but it's anyone's perogative to differ with me. Ultimately we'll never know which position (God/ no God) is correct...at least not in THIS life.
> > > > > Ev
> > > > Ev,
> > > > I find it far more likely for there to have been a chance explosion of order out of chaos than I do a first cause:
> > > > First, if all there was in the begginning was chaos(no 1st cause) then there was an infinite amount of "time" before "creation" started for all the necessary conditions for a chance explosion of order to occur. In other words, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will and it won't be that big a surprise.
> > > > Conversely, asserting a first cause(a conscious one, as most do) implies that cause existed--and still exists--eternally. Yet we ourselves are conscious and are aware that consciousnees involves a begiining and growth. A first cause with consciousnees is thus impossible becasue it would have had no first birthm thought or anything--this is the same as saying it doesn't really exist. Those who say that the cause is omniscient and omnipotent while stating it is eternal are stating an oxy-moron--if it knows everything that ever was, is, or will be, then it would know its beginning--yet supposedly it does not have one. Further, knix the last thought as irrelevant since if a 1st Cause really were omniscient, it would not think, woulkd therefore not be cosncious,would therfore be frozen, would threfore may as well not exist.
> > > > Finally, I disagree--one day we WILL be able to determine the truth once and for all--since we are an integral part of the universe, it is only logical that we are endowed with the abilities to determine its true nature--just as we are capble of determinging our true nature's through introspection and taking personality inventories like the Enneagram and KTS.
> > > > L'Chaim!
> > > > Marcus
> > > Marcus, interesting points you bring up. Not wanting to get into a protracted battle over Creation vs. Evolution I would like to point out a few problems with the arguments you make. First, according to the LAW of Probability it wouldn't take but just a few integrated sequential acts randomly happening to exhaust the total molecular makeup of the universe. Talk of infinite time making anything not only possible but probable adds no weight to the argument because there is not necessarily a causal relation between time and events. (More time doesn't necessitate more events.) Third, we both have the problem of explaining HOW ANYTHING came into existence in the first place. I can't account for God and you can't account for matter. Finally, for this message at least, there can be no verification of the beginning of the universe because there were no known observers. Empirically, science will never PROVE how things came into being. Conversely, religion can never PROVE the existence of God. So at the end of the day we're still left each with our own beliefs/biases about where we came from. Interesting stuff but not provable.
> > > Ev
> > Ev,
> > I don't wish to get into a protracte battl either--so consider your response to this post the end of the matter.
> > First,I neevr said it would take only a FEW twists and nver said it would EXHAUST all the matter--I said that given all the time(and yes it does matter)enough intereactions will occur that one will lead to a slightly ordered structure that is capble of replicating itself and thus the explosion of order. Point being the special thing about ordr is it is done through self-replication--it.s no different than the othe rpossibilities except that it happend to develop replicative ability--its like seting triplet children in the backyard to play and as they do one stumbles across a ball and heaves it; pretty soon the child is very good at it because he hogs the ball; he isn;t necesarily an inherently better tosser, he just learned it first by accident.
> > Second, true we cannot account for the beginning--but I find it far more likely that the explanation for where matter came from would be alot easir than answering were a first cuse did(Occam's Razor).
> > Third, to our current knowledge no.. But it is quite possible that we willa dvance enought to be able to determine the beginning in the future(remmember the sound barrier? electricity?space flight?).
> > Shalom, L'Chaim!
> > Marcus
> Marcus, you get the last word on the subject. And what's this about Occam's Razor??? I shaved just this morning. Bye for now
> Ev
Ev,
Lol! Enjoyed the razor remark. :)
Occam's Razor--principle stated by Mathematican/philosopher Occam that when confronted with two solutions to the same problem, the simpler is proably the correct one(think of how Nature works: balss, for isntance, fall staright down in a vacuum, they don't zig zag; NATURE ALWASY TAKES THE SIMPLEST COURSE).
L'Chaim!
Marcus