|
Judith, you wrote in paretheses:
(he told me he was very religious and had no interest in
any science that tried to prove there is no God).
I believe it is the reversed thinking. I know of no
science that would prove that there IS a God. It is always 3rd person opinion or
based on stories 'felt', 'dreamed', or anyway halucinated without a possibility
of reproducing even the circumstances for such memories, or producing logically
binding exclusive conclusions of such (discounting the "there may be no other
explanation", which, over the millennia proved false in many cases).
They "know" - emotionally, and this is the end of an argument.
The hardest opponents in such matters are orthodox Jewish people (they
curse) and fundamentalist Muslims (they kill). Christian
fundamentalists simply turn away and write you off.
I never had a chance to discuss such things with Buddhists. Hindus,
however, accept your opinion with a smile ("your foolishness", it's OK) and
take another flower-sacrifice to the birth-cave of Ganges.
I arrived (mostly) at the Hindu attitude lately,
without the flowers.
Cheers
John M
PS I derived a 'narrative' (contrasting the
cosmologist narrative of the Big Bang) for an initiation of our world followable
to our human logic. As I later thought: it is anticipatory, what I called
deterministic (with a fitting definition of the term), which does not allow a
supernatural creator, without the possibility of multiple parallel systems. Now
there is such a possibility in the Multiverse idea, not the Everett-etc. -
Tegmar versions, with 'similar' variants, but in my
narrative, coming innumerable ones from the "Plenitude" - any of them can be
totally different. I did not specify any details for the Plenitude, (except that
it is infinite in varieties and interchanges, an invariant symmetry in infinite
repetitions, - but its origin may be involving a God if someone insists. I
CAN leave it unspecified: It is beyond our science, it is even beyond our
speculation. - JM
|