Reply #37: You sound like "myth" is a bad word - it is not - for the most part it is [View All]

[papau]

history.

You try to say there is no evidence because you want no evidence, while I see evidence that is more than adequate as to the history in the "myth". Different judgements by different people do happen -eh?

As to God, we come to faith. And as you state in the above post, by definition there can be no evidence in the scientific sense - but as I have said there can be evidence in the meta-physical sense.

In the scientific by definition there can be no ultimate truth - there is only "experiment" than can be reproduced, and the latest best effort toward an explanation of how that event - that experimental result - occurred. Often non-scientific folks confuse the explaining of the how by science as an explanation of the why - but I believe you will find most understand that the "why" the non-scientific think they see is no more than an extensive "how" that can be applied to make new experiments.

You find importance in determining the quality of the history in the "myth" and ask how do I know that the myth of one religion occurred, and that those of another did not occur. Since neither of us were there in the past how do we know anything about the past really occurred? In anything other than the pure science of math, all is a judgment call. This is no different. Given the stated intent of L Ron, to call his "myth" history is to call the man a liar. Of course all early believers are liars or are mistaken if your faith demands you accept that there is no God - or no God shown to you as yet, whatever - but we all are making judgment calls.

And as any judgment can be called wrong - or just "misfiring neurons" and "wishful thinking" - a judgment that early believers were liars or were mistaken could be wrong.

I agree that myths/religion can be viewed as attempts to make sense out of the of the world.

We all demand "order" in our life - and even the demand for absolutely no order - because it is a demand for pure/random when proof of random is never complete - is a demand for an absolute rule. If random did not exist then stat courses are worthless - but chaos theory has us looking at long term order amongst the random as an expected, making all science explanations transitory.

But you can not prove that some "order" is noy really a "pause" in a random sequence, the same way you can not prove that their is no God.

So we continue in our search for order - both of us - in our own way.

At least that is my opinion.

:toast:

:-)