I wrote:
<I think you missed the point. If something is truly “miraculous”, by definition it defies all known laws of the universe and therefore science cannot explain it; there is no model, no mathematical equation or solution, no theorem, and no physics. Ditto Castenada’s argument that science cannot explain sorcery for the same reason (at least dJ’s brand). Simply because they are two completely different paradigms. You may not like that but you can’t change it. >
Irishman replied:
<<Okay, I will agree with you that a true miracle defies the laws of physics. In that sense, a true miracle is inexplicable…>>
There you have the crux of my opinion. What CC was saying is that dJ’s description of “the world” is inexplicable. It defies explaining thru words or current science. And, try this little experiment. Row out into the middle of any ocean, away from all artificial light sources. Stare up into the sky and try to explain what you see. Throw in concepts such as infinity, a beginning of time, what was there before time began, ie. All those age old questions of man. There is no explanation that the human mind can grasp that is anywhere near what the truth is IMO. No one knows and no one will ever know. Some may come closer than others (some would say dJ did).
Irishman continues:
<<The point I believe that you are missing is that I am not necessarily talking about true miracles,…>>
Yes, but I am (but not the Biblical kind). Can you not understand that?
Irishman wrote:
<<If sorcery has a noticable effect in the physical world, you can test for that effect. Just like it is not possible to test for the existence of god, but it is possible to analyze particular claims about miracles and explain them.
[/quote]
>>
What CC is saying is that it doesn’t have a noticable effect in the physical world. Or, it has a noticeable effect but unless you are another “Man of Knowledge”, you cannot “notice” it.
O.K. Devise an experiment that tests for the existence of consciousness. I want you to really pin it down. Where it comes from, where it resides, where it goes, how much it weighs, how big is it. Does our communicating prove the existence? What about when I’m silent or not thinking? Go ahead, throw all your best science at it and get back with me. That’s right. We all know it exists but we can’t prove it scientifically.
Like I said above, we all talk about how the universe is infinite and at one time there was singularity followed by the big bang. We talk about that like we really understand what in the heck it means. Ha! That’s a bunch of B.S. Go ahead, explain for the rest of us the concept of infinity and singularity and their implications. What was before singularity? How can space be infinite? It is beyond human comprehension. I once read a piece by Stephen Hawkins talking about it and I came to the conclusion he didn’t have any better grasp of what those two words imply than I do.
I don’t know how anyone reasonable can look at the concepts of singularity and infinity; which, I might add, have not been proven (but are accepted as being true), accept them, because physics and astronomy say so, and then turn right around and mock the dJ paradigm of everthing is energy, parallel universes, the energy and dreaming body, etc.
Especially since E=mc2 proves the first and more and more physicists are advocating the second and devising experiments to prove it.
So, in a sense, you and Billy Graham actually share something in common. You both blindly worship different religions. His Christianity, yours the religion of science.
You wrote:
<<Notice that I said “claims about miracles” rather than “miracles”. You harp so hard on how I am not catching the subtleties of your remarks, I would think you would pay more attention to mine. My point was this: if sorcery affects the physical world (i.e. levitation, putting colored spots on the wall, making statues cry, healing illness, etc), it is scientifically possible to determine that there is an effect. And if that effect is determined to exist, one can look at possible causes of that effect. If sorcery is something outside the paradigm of science, then looking at known scientific explanations will rule them out.>>
I’m harping so hard because you keep missing the point. That is, how can our science explain a paradigm that is outside it and that is not equipped to even acknowledge it (or must of it until recently)? Physicist talk about parallel universes and can show you mathematically how it is possible. Can they prove it though?We’re also not talking about crying statues. Our conversation is so difficult because you are attempting to relate to what CC was advocating from a linear “in the box” viewpoint. Or, one could say it’s like trying to convey or relate how beautiful a particular piece of music is when the other party hasn’t listened to it. There’s no basis for dialogue.
<<And I admit I do not know what you mean by sorcery,…>>
See above paragraph
<<…which is why I have the caveat “noticable effect on the physical world”. If sorcery is some internalized, emotional effect, then I concede it cannot be proven.>>
No, it is not supposedly an internalized, emotional effect. It is a different description of the world.
I wrote:
<But it is becoming increasingly clear that you are not really interested in the CC/dJ controversy; rather, arguing for arguing sake which I am not really interested in.>
You replied:
<<Am I interested in reading the works? Not really. Time is limited, and I have other, more pressing interests…>>
Then why are you wasting so much time here and arguing against a subject matter which you haven’t even read, have no grasp of, and cannot intelligently debate (I am not saying you aren’t intelligent). You could have fallen on your sword anytime during this thread.
<<And nothing I have heard yet convinces me there’s anything worth my time in Carlos’ works….>>
How would you know? What? You base your beliefs on what other people tell you? That’s rather shallow wouldn’t you agree? No one is going to be able to transfer over to your brain the essence of the paradigm CC/dJ are advocating. Anyone reading this post cannot honestly say you aren’t arguing for arguments sake and have no real desire to understand the dJ belief system.
<<My arguments here were to address particular comments that you made that I felt were weak. You can characterize that however you wish.>>
I have to wonder about the motives of someone with limited time who goes out of his way to argue, endlessly, against a belief system that he isn’t even familiar with by selecting secondary issues to harp on.
I wrote:
<There’s a big difference between saying “the Bible is made up” vs. “parts” of the Bible are made up or fictitious. Again, lack of attention to detail. >
You replied:
<<That’s some mighty fine hair splitting you’re doing…>>
I disagree. Just being precise. Besides, I’m just holding you to the same standards you apply to me.
<<Your comment was an outright rejection of having said the bible is made up,….>>
Gee, that’s some mighty fine hair splitting you’re doing.
Perhaps you overlooked this quote of mine:
My quote:
“I never said the Bible was made up and perhaps you’d like to supply the quote where I did. The Bible is composed of works by many authors. It uses a skeleton of actual and probably not so historical events and weaves into it the miracles.”
<<when in fact you agree that parts of the bible are made up. I concede that you never said the whole thing was made up. I never meant to imply that you did say that.>>
O.K. That’s settled. But just another example of continually deflecting from the subject matter of this thread because you cannot comment knowledgeably.
<<To me the distinction is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.>>
Ah, yes. The discussion: Did Carlos Make it all up. That discussion?
You wrote:
<<What sources of information did the professors have access to about Datura preparation and use, to make that judgement? And how did CC not have access to those sources, if he was studying in the field?>>
I replied:
<Why don’t you ask them? Irishman, this is what I gave the SA and SR site links for so you and others could investigate and answer these and other questions for yourself.>
You replied:
<<Excuse me, but I did not understand from your posting those links that they were to the anthropology professors who awarded the PhD. From your description, they are sites put forward by CC followers, discussing his philosophies and the beliefs he promoted. I asked you, because you are the one arguing the case.>>
Nice try. There are people there who could spoon feed you the information you desire on how to access reliable answers to your questions. There is a lot of official information on those sites. But, then again, it is quite apparent you are not interested in doing your homework because of your………limited time. And, no, it was not put up by CC followers but by those who want to prove he was a hoaxer. Did I not say that it was started by Corey Donovan, a “disgruntled” CC disciple? Did you not even take a peek at the site?
Incidentally, the professors had access to other Indian contacts. It was CC’s job to acquire his own; which he did.
I wrote:
<But since you can’t even bring yourself to read the books and are prone to sloppiness in general regarding logic, inaccuracy, and misquoting, we shouldn’t hold my breath,…>.
You replied:
<<Hold on, I deny that. Every time you’ve asked for a quote, I have found it. If I am not understanding you, it is because you are choosing your words poorly. Don’t blame me for your mistakes. >>
“Poorly”, “mistakes”……much like your arguments and knowledge of the subject.
Every time? I think twice. And only once were you correct. So I guess that makes you at least wrong 50% of the time, or right half the time. Is your cup half full or half empty? At any rate, watch out for those glass houses.
I wrote:
<Billy Graham is considered to be a respected, intelligent, and well-liked individual, rubbing shoulders with President’s and Statesmen and happens to be a religious Christian man. You could be a blithering idiot as well but let’s give the benefit of the doubt. The point being the inconsistencies in the Bible don’t seem to affect his religious convictions. So why should we expect (No. In fact some demand it!) possible inconsistencies in CC’s writings to affect his believers? >
You replied:
<<I agree that the two cases are identical. I just disagree that it is not important. I think Billy Graham should be affected by the bible inconsistencies, too. That he is not does not help me respect him, and that you want to be like him puts you in the same boat.>>
Would you like to supply the quote where I said I wanted to be like him? Oh, I see. That was an unfounded assumption on your part.
Oh yes, I agree he should be affected because what the Bible purports to be true is, to me personally, obviously fiction (miracles and the resurrection). But, I respect his faith, morals, and conviction, none-the-less, even though I disagree with his fundamental beliefs. The fact that you appear to denigrate him based on his belief in the Bible lowers give me pause for reflection. Just from the little I’ve gleaned about you I’d rather be in a foxhole with Mr. Graham watching my back then you. So I do not see your point here.
Yes, there are apparent inconsistencies in regards to timelines, descriptions, etc. regarding CC’s works. And a case can be made on why CC would intentionally muddle those issues. But for the same reasons that Billy Graham sticks to his guns they are the same reasons CC’s followers stick to theirs. It has a ring of truth, an essence, that grabs you.
There is no argument from me that the Bible is a phenomenal book and that Jesus really existed and evidence is that he was quite an individual to be admired for his convictions. It is inspirational to many people. My only problem is that too many people take portions of it literally. IMO, the miracles are all to contrived and come across either as wishful thinking or products of active imaginations. Whereas what occurs in dJ’s world is quite different.
Look at it this way. Why are there disagreements among physicists regarding parallel universes? If physics is so “written in stone”, shouldn’t everyone be on the same sheet of music? What may be accepted as valid today may change tomorrow. Bad physics today can be good physics tomorrow. Quantum physics is a good example. I don’t pretend to understand it but I do know it is constantly changing how we view and understand our description (emphasis on “our”) of the world. Physics is not stagnant, it is constantly evolving. And, my bet is that one day it will validate dJ.
You keep harping on how if sorcery is real it should have a measurable effect that can be studies by science. And I say maybe some day, but not at our present level of understanding the universe.
You wrote:
<<At this point, I’m not sure if I care to continue. Your tone is becoming hostile and insulting. I’d rather not get suckered into that kind of exchange.>>
Pardon me, but I got a good laugh from that one. Nice try, trying to deflect your getting caught with your pants down around your ankles by starting in on a thread for which you weren’t adequately prepared and put to task for it.
Just remember, you’re the one that started it.