[discountviagraman]

Originally Posted by nparker Hi..!
I think, Sophroniscus, we are moving in a off topic discussion.

I might tend to agree. I would apologize if I have led things away from either the forum's center, or from the subject of the original message. My only defense is that I do not quite follow your line of discourse so it was difficult for me to reply...

First, who determines what is good and helpful..?. For mine, public opinion. For scientist, scientific board of advisories.

Anyway, and from the public opinion viewpoint I think science has failed in some critical thematics.

Not being my will to rise in a controversial and futile discussion about what is good and helpful, I think such a science failure stems from a general disappointment of scientist about God’s commitment about Humankind. As my leader lawyer frequently says: “God doesn’t exists…”. I never though ask her: “Why not..?” My policy about complex belief systems of another people is ever to regard him, and let time and experience, although sad for me, will do its teacher like work. Humankind from a Bible viewpoint seems to be the God’s workings object; work area apparently neglected and what justifies scientist in its God’s denial task. But from my particular viewpoint, if God take broad intervention in people affaires, soon such an attitude drive Humankind to its worsening from a quality viewpoint. As late Carl Sagan sometime recognizes: “only worries about to fight against an apparently indifferent Universe is what it invigorates humankind to evolve” (word more, word less… my memory doesn’t perfect)

I’m certainly fanatic of to transpose general situation to another more comprehensible, in order to understand its hardly difficult of understand concerns. God’s intervention in Humankind affaires is comparable to money abolition. Can you imagine a world without money..? Certainly, it would be necessary to reconfigure all the economics concept. Sometime was an attempt of thought experiment about this possibility. You, Sophroniscus, done your high cultural level (more illustrated from mine done your philosopher condition), surely know it. Anyway, if money were abolished general decrease of Humankind power might be the immediate sequel.
The same is valid in order to understand, the problem as sequel of God’s intervention in Humankind affaires. Hence, God stay away from Humankind, but only in order to rule her. Something like First Directive in Star Trek series: “Do not build relationship with pre-Warp Speed civilizations”.

About your final statement “though 10,000 scientists may scoff at his very existence” and without intention of crash foundation of your attitude, but in order to feed your philosopher life I suggest examination of following link:

http://www.godless.org/sci/sr_talk.html

This is related to an Newsweek article titled: “Science Discovers God”.

My best regards...
Sincerely,
Natalia Parker

I am at a loss, sorry. I am not sure how the discussion became one of whether God exists. I am not aware of having raised the issue. I would simply say this... I remember a philosophy professor who was considering whether this is the most perfect of all possible worlds. (Clearly the answer would be No if one believes that it was created by an infinite God, since such a God could always create an even better world.) As I was saying that professor was addressing the question. He threw out an idea which might be worth repeating... He asked whether this is the most ambiguous of all worlds. The question is worth some thought. And equally, one might ask why God would create such an ambiguous world.

In any event, I was interested in the question of whether one can (in theory) have a stable view of oneself in an OBE (or NDE), not in whether God exists. Perhaps it would be best if I were to start a new thread on that subject, instead of trying to address it in this thread. Hi, Sophroniscus...!

My only defense is that I do not quite follow your line of discourse so it was difficult for me to reply... My line of discurse of difficult done (1) my poor english quality expression or (2) the conceptual complexity of my discurse..?

If (1) I'm sorry, I'll cut here this opinion interchange and I apologize you from the commitment of to continue answering my posts. As citizen from Republica Argentina that I am, (although a substantial segment of my M. Sc. in Physics was gathering knowledge from books written in english) I think, I read and I write in spanish the 95 % of my awake time, then my failure is understandable (but not forgettable since I recognize I must to achieve proficiency in the dominion of this unversal language). By other hand, my understanding of english is intuition based. In order to read a text in english, simply I read without translate it... but internally (I suppose) I understand text since I know the mean of words and syntactic structures. Sometimes, facing an unknown concept I do basically a "by context" translation. Similar process I develop at writing-in-english time. At his time an a posteriori debugging and style polishing is done.

If (2) I must to recognize that I'm not theologist. But, I think, most of classical philosophers didn´t have formal education (may I wrong, of course) on the thematics they are used to. My opinion about this is: all and each of us has a cosmo-vision as respectable as the cosmo-vision of the most illustrated and wise priests or Universitary cathedratics, then unless you already decided to cut this interchange done my out-of-focus audacity writing about thematics far from my basic education... well, I think time is the most valuable we have and, certainly, you must to obey saving instinct related to it. Then, don't worry, I will accept your attitude as an out-of-discussion will and finish this interchange without reproach. Anyway this interchange no other time was intended by me and it was, certainly, useful, since it helped to think and analyze what do I really are able of to think.

About your quote:

I remember a philosophy professor who was considering whether this is the most perfect of all possible worlds. (Clearly the answer would be No if one believes that it was created by an infinite God, since such a God could always create an even better world.) As I was saying that professor was addressing the question. He threw out an idea which might be worth repeating... He asked whether this is the most ambiguous of all worlds. The question is worth some thought. And equally, one might ask why God would create such an ambiguous world. I watch as interesting the thoughts there, and I'm all right about the idea of to start a new thread. I'll take the initiative. The targeted forum section will be Psychic and Spiritual Development and Experiences.

I will send a PM when thread shall start.

My best regards...
Sincerely,
Natalia Parker