Is faith allways bad?

(i.e., the faithful person's will is at one with god's).

 This is exactly right… but not only the person’s will, his entire Being is at one with God.  “I and my Father are One.” At this stage of the game you are no longer mortal, you are one with Spirit. So in essence yes, God is the doer.

 You can apply this analogy. God is an ocean and we are waves upon that ocean.  Playing and crashing with the storm of delusion.  We do not realize we are part of a vast ocean and think ourselves as separate.  When we calm (get rid of ego) we sink and merge back into the ocean.

 The ocean can exist without the waves but the waves cannot exist without the ocean.

BTW… I like your other post but you are stereotyping there a bit aren’t you?  I don’t belong to any organized religion but I wouldn’t conclude that all followers don’t seek or require proof.  What you wrote not only could but should apply to one’s spiritual path.  Without evidence or experience how does one know their progressing? 

“...as opposed to religious faith, which can be summarised as "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"

 So faith means "complete trust or confidence" and it would be both imprudent and arrogant to have complete trust in your calculations without some form of evidence because, as the old adage says: pride goes before a fall.

 Even with trust or confidence in your calculations you will need some level of evidence that the calculation is correct. However, with experience you will build-up confidence in your ability to make those calculations and gradually require less evidence that they are correct to the point where you will trust that they are with the minimum of evidence.”

HackettFan wrote: CosmicVibration wrote: BTW… I like your other post but you are stereotyping there a bit aren’t you? I don’t belong to any organized religion but I wouldn’t conclude that all followers don’t seek or require proof. What you wrote not only could but should apply to one’s spiritual path. Without evidence or experience how does one know their progressing? There is no proof to be had in religious faith. It's a fool's errand. You are replying to Dean, but the point of my last post was that there were some religious scientists who understand the difference. They do not require religious faith to figure out the blueprint, but they have a belief system about the source of the blueprint. I do not, so fine and dandy, and I am not interested in converting anyone, but this apparent trend of religionists seeking proof for their beliefs leads only to pseudo-science and, I might suggest, pseudo-faith. The two things are altogether different. There is no relationship. CosmicVibration wrote: Dean wrote: ...as opposed to religious faith, which can be summarised as "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof So faith means "complete trust or confidence" and it would be both imprudent and arrogant to have complete trust in your calculations without some form of evidence because, as the old adage says: pride goes before a fall. The point is that, like 'believe', there are different senses or two different meanings of faith. The one Dean was talking about there was not the 'religious faith' you're talking about.

I understand and agree about the concept of blind faith and closed minded belief that seems to be the topic under discussion here.  I was just trying to offer a different perspective that can be subjected to experimentation and concrete results.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “blueprint.”  The blueprint of creation? The mechanics of the universe? 

Maybe one day, before this universe expires, man will figure out the mechanics of the universe.  Current science however, just like religion, really doesn’t know as to what the hell is truly going on. 

What exactly is pseudo- science? There are numerous apposing mainstream scientific theories, which ones are right?  Which ones should be classified as pseudo-science? String theory has been around for over 60 years and as far as I’m aware there still isn’t a shred of proof for it.

I actually like string theory, at least the very foundation of it.  However, it does go off into some very complex tangents that I’m unsure of.

Dean made a comment about my username, well, I was going to pick SoundChaser but that was taken.  When I came up with CosmicVibration I was actually thinking about the basis of string theory.

CosmicVibration wrote: dean, originally wrote: The non-literal interpretation is that with faith you can achieve anything and here the mountain is just a metaphor. It should be noted that Jesus said this to his disciples after they had failed to drive a demon out of a small child, he chastised them of having too little faith before speaking the words in the quote. Moving the mountain is a measure of faith, not an indication the power of thought. So the classical literal interpretation of the quote is not that the faithful can move the mountain just by the power of their thoughts, that would be capricious, heretical magic and even a sign of hubris. The only way for the mountain to literally move is for god to move it, but since god does not do things on the whim of mere mortals then, no matter how faithful they are, it will only move if god wants it moving. So if a person of sufficient faith (which Jesus states is as small as a mustard seed) commands the mountain to move then it is because of god's will (i.e., the faithful person's will is at one with god's). (i.e., the faithful person's will is at one with god's).  This is exactly right… but not only the person’s will, his entire Being is at one with God.  “I and my Father are One.” At this stage of the game you are no longer mortal, you are one with Spirit. So in essence yes, God is the doer.

I hope you appreciate that I am an atheist and was only giving the classical literal interpretation of the quote that I remember from being a christian in my youth. 

In that interpretation god is not only the doer, god is also the instigator.A faithful person would ask the mountain to move because of god's will, not their own (free) will and the mountain would move. Conversely if a non-believer asked the mountain to move it would be their will not god's and the mountain would not move.

So when the mountain does not move on the command of a person it is an indication that they have insufficient faith, they are not "at one with god". Jesus's message to the disciples was: you don't have enough faith {since in the part of the biblical verse that you omitted from the quote he called them 'unbelievers'}.

Since mountains do not move this can mean one of three things:

1. that no mortal has ever achieved the right level of oneness with god; {i.e., what Jesus said}
2. that god simply likes the mountains to remain exactly where he put them so anyone who is "at one with god" has never commanded the mountain to move; {an apologists view perhaps}
3. that there [probably] is no god. {an atheistic conclusion}

CosmicVibration wrote:  You can apply this analogy. God is an ocean and we are waves upon that ocean.  Playing and crashing with the storm of delusion.  We do not realize we are part of a vast ocean and think ourselves as separate.  When we calm (get rid of ego) we sink and merge back into the ocean.  The ocean can exist without the waves but the waves cannot exist without the ocean.

Gnh, the problem with analogies is that if you stretch them they break, and breaking an analogy does not affect the original premise they were chosen to illustrate. But you are already stretching this one with the addition of the storm of delusion metaphor so I shall continue - the waves are created by the wind and storms, not by the ocean. The wind is caused by the sun's action on the ocean and land surfaces creating a temperature differential that results in an atmospheric pressure differential. The heat of the sun that creates the wind is infra-red electromagnetic radiation that propagates through space as waves. We could keep stretching this analogy until it is so thin you could read a book through it: and look at the wave/particle duality within each water molecule in the ocean and conclude that the ocean is made up of waves; and that the ocean cannot exist without all these little waves singing hosanna. Moreover, ocean waves propagate across the surface of the ocean whereas water molecules and anything floating on the surface just aimlessly bob up and down and don't go anywhere.... like religion.

CosmicVibration wrote: BTW… I like your other post but you are stereotyping there a bit aren’t you?  I don’t belong to any organized religion but I wouldn’t conclude that all followers don’t seek or require proof.  What you wrote not only could but should apply to one’s spiritual path.  Without evidence or experience how does one know their progressing?  dean, originally wrote: “...as opposed to religious faith, which can be summarised as "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"  So faith means "complete trust or confidence" and it would be both imprudent and arrogant to have complete trust in your calculations without some form of evidence because, as the old adage says: pride goes before a fall.  Even with trust or confidence in your calculations you will need some level of evidence that the calculation is correct. However, with experience you will build-up confidence in your ability to make those calculations and gradually require less evidence that they are correct to the point where you will trust that they are with the minimum of evidence.

I really couldn't care less. That post was yet another failed attempt to pull this tread discussion back to the OP and away from religious debate on the meaning of religious faith. There is no stereotyping involved there because OP talked of calculations and there are no calculations in spiritual belief. Spiritual 'proof' is of no concern to me, if believers want evidence that they're progressing (or of their progress) then they are not going to find that in science or the calculation of the amount of paint needed to cover four walls in a room. If I were to stereotype I could say that religious types, and supporters of pseudo-science, lack the rigour to use evidence because they are too selective, latching on to all the evidence that supports their philosophy and rejecting all that does not - but that would be a gross caricature. 

Dean wrote: CosmicVibration wrote: What exactly is pseudo- science? There are numerous apposing mainstream scientific theories, which ones are right?  Which ones should be classified as pseudo-science? String theory has been around for over 60 years and as far as I’m aware there still isn’t a shred of proof for it. I actually like string theory, at least the very foundation of it.  However, it does go off into some very complex tangents that I’m unsure of. Dean made a comment about my username, well, I was going to pick SoundChaser but that was taken.  When I came up with CosmicVibration I was actually thinking about the basis of string theory. Pseudo-science is defined as "a collection of beliefs that are mistakenly regarded to be based upon the scientific method." In that respect string-theory and all other unproven scientific hypothesises are not pseudo scientific since they adhere to the scientific method and will be discarded and/or modified when conflicting evidence is found. Where such scientific theories enter into the realm of pseudo-science is when they are subsequently used in a ways that do not involve the scientific method and are used as the basis for beliefs (ideas) that violate some physical law or limit. Your example of extracting energy from zero-point energy is generally regarded as pseudo-scientific because zero-point energy is the state of lowest possible energy so extracting energy from it would create a new state that has less energy than the zero-point energy (which would be, by definition, not possible). [edit: another point, though I still lack the energy to argue with pseudoscience: the vacuum state that exists within the physical vacuum of space {yes, I admit I made an error there earlier but not a gross one} also exists (as I said before) in all matter, (whereas a physical vacuum does not), so is not the same thing as a physical vacuum and cannot be treated as such. In that respect you can regard it as the substrate, baseline or floor of the universe. We cannot measure this, we can only detect fluctuations in it - to borrow your ocean analogy: we cannot know the depth of the ocean just by measuring the height of the waves - we normalise "sea-level" as the baseline for all measurements therefore a vacuum has zero energy in relation to itself {but that is probably as far as that analogy goes}.]

It’s foolish to argue and this was never my intent.  I appreciate an honest discussion but if it’s going to zap some of your vital energy I’d rather just let it go.

I get most of my scientific information from TV shows.  I know what you’re thinking but let me finish.  Or at this point you may not be thinking but laughing…   I tried reading science journals but they tend to get too complex and over my head.  Or else they seem to go round in circles using big words but not saying much of anything.  Still laughing huh?

Some of the programs I’m referring to are Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman.  I’ve seen most if not all the episodes, if I’m not mistaken there were 6 seasons already.  I like the way scientific topics are discussed from many different angles and opposing viewpoints.

Others include but are not limited to:

How the Universe Works

Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Cosmos - both old and new generation, Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson

Wonders of the Universe and Wonders of the Solar System with Brian Cox

On more than one occasion I’ve heard from prominent scientists that every inch of space contains more energy than all the stars in the known or observable universe.  There was one episode of Through the Wormhole where a scientist worked for over 15 years in his spare time and was able to dimly illuminate a LED using zero point energy.  Maybe I can dig up that episode… Besides, aren’t the plates that are being pushed together in the Casimir effect evidence of zero point energy? I realize that it would take a lot more energy to push the plates back apart so any application would be useless but this experiment just verifies the existence of said energy.

From Wiki:

In quantum field theory, the fabric of space is visualized as consisting of fields, with the field at every point in space and time being a quantum harmonic oscillator, with neighboring oscillators interacting. In this case, one has a contribution of E=ħω/2 from every point in space, resulting in a calculation of infinite zero-point energy in any finite volume; this is one reason renormalization is needed to make sense of quantum field theories. The zero-point energy is again the expectation value of the Hamiltonian; here, however, the phrase vacuum expectation value is more commonly used, and the energy is called the vacuum energy.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the main question there is just how small can a wavelength get?  Or how far can you keep on dividing it?  The answer comes out to be infinity, so a cutoff point was made.  This cutoff point is what’s referred to as renormalization.   Am I correct with my assertion or out in left field somewhere?