Steve G

Los Angeles, CA, United States

Someone is shy

Steve hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Steve G
Posted almost 3 years ago
Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized
I'm talking about knowing the difference between right and wrong. We don't ascribe Morality, the FACULTY, to animals for example. If an animal kills a human child we simply cannot call it morally wrong - even if there is a complete lack of understanding of its motivation. If you believe that evolution exists then you should also understand that mankind evolved from an animal without a moral faculty (or complex consciousness) into an animal with a moral faculty (with more complex consciousness). What you are attempting to do is eliminate the existence of the very thing which is responsible for your objective moral truths: the ability to perceive those truths. You are skipping a huge step. You are saying: Man didn't have morals... and then man did have morals - objective ones ( *wipes hands clean, walks away*). We are still evolving, as are moral sensibilities. I stand by my statement, paraphrased: The only way to act immorally is to realize that you are doing something wrong - with the addendum that since human understanding is imperfect, there is inherent grey area.
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
Is There a God?
One must make a parallel between the Bible and Science. Science strives to be accurate, but never ceases being interpretable, i.e. it points to the truth but evolves with man's capacity for understanding. If you "stretch" Science out infinitely into the future, it necessarily concludes with the absolute truth, and if the Bible is absolute truth, will coincide perfectly. This is true due to the built-in integrity of the scientific method. The problem with pointing to the Bible as the source of all truth of the universe I hope you can see from this example. The problem is this: let us grant that the Bible contains all truth. Due to our (humanity's) incomplete level of development, our capacity to actually understand or even interpret what the Bible's truths are (like Science's or the material world's truths) is limited by our place in time. If you grant that as we understand our nature better, we interpret the Bible more accurately, you must also grant that claiming a Truth in the Bible, in our imperfect state, is not pointing to anything particularly concrete. It is a guess or an interpretation, a hint at Truth, but to claim to know it absolutely is folly.
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
Is There a God?
To the people that think that only what happened in the bible is real: Bare with me, and hear some logic: A: The bible is about man, much about the spiritual aspects. Needless to say every single thing happening on the planet is clearly not relevant . B: There are trillions of stars and planets with the potential of life. Assume there are a few million sentient, human-like species. Why would a bible for HUMANS ON EARTH ever be another several trillion pages long to tell US the story of THEM (i.e. a story of ALL creation)? To the people who insist that physical empirical evidence is the only form of evidence for the state of affairs of the universe, know this - there is a wealth of information on methods to experience - empirically - the truth of spirituality. It is easy to dismiss, but it is not fair to. It is not fair to make statements about spirituality without trying to experience it yourself using the methods prescribed, even if they sound impossible to you. This would be just as hasty as someone saying "I will not take whatever you see in that 'microscope' as reality! Like anyone ever learned anything by putting their EYE next to a TUBE!" It is only fair to make dismissive statements after you do the work. Anyone who wants to try to prove OR disprove god/spirituality with the science OF spirituality I would direct to three particular sources that I trust: The books on anthroposophy of Rudolph Steiner (specifically, How To Know Higher Worlds); The A.R.E. and work of Edgar Cayce; and the material of the Higher Balance Institute. Thanks. Please, no comments on how crack-pottish any of these sound - of course they do. They look like a bunch of whackos. Try their methods (in earnest) and then speak definitively - it is the only way to approach the matter with integrity.
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
Is There a God?
I'm going to keep it simple despite any impulses otherwise: The invention writing is absolutely not the creation of the world. If you think that this is what is meant by "the creation" in the bible please explain why.
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
Is There a God?
I think I am on the right track in understanding God, so I will share what I know. It takes somewhat of a scientific mind to have any understanding of God, which in this case means accepting the reality of God as a premise in your consideration. You also need a large degree of open-mindedness. This means not choosing the least-likely version of God and saying "that does not exist". You are probably right. But if God is something real, it isn't something unreal, such as a poorly-envisioned nonsense version of itself. Big invisible man in the sky occasionally intervening in human affairs? Probably not. Though anthropomorphizing I think was probably used more metaphorically than literally. Think of God as existence itself, and God's Law as the laws of nature (or the Tao if you would like). If you "go against God's Law" doesn't "God punish you"? I believe this sentiment is echoed in "Survival of the Fittest", where the fit aren't those who really, really want to survive the most, rather the fit are those whom COMPLY TO THE LAWS OF NATURE THE MOST. Next, the statement "God is omnipotent". Well, if God is existence itself, it is certainly true that all of the power, or energy in existence is contained, well... in existence. But I think it is meant to convey that it is God that is behind all "happeningness", if you will, in the universe, rather than meaninglessness. Let's talk about faith. I have never looked through a scanning electron microscope. I believe that all matter is composed of atoms. Get my point? Now there are prescribed ways at getting at the spiritual side of reality, and there are methods prescribed for attaining this type of understanding (I am rather fond of Anthroposophy). Equipment is good for discovering the natural world, but isn't it irresponsible to make claims about God without doing the spiritual work (e.g. meditation,contemplation) that those claiming to know God as a reality prescribe?
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized
I'm going to try to throw a wrench in this pro-life/pro-choice debate. Morality is a sentiment, not a written rule. Let us follow logic from there, shall we? Morality doesn't care how life is defined. It doesn't care when it begins. These are the terms of Morality: If you think something is right, you do it. If you think something is wrong, you don't. If you are unsure, you look for signs that you are causing pain, and then have the fortitude to make changes. Some of you jumped onto that last statement and thought "Well I can prove a baby feels pain in the uterus." You would have missed the point then. Calm down. I said "not a written rule". You can tell a blind person all about color, and they will never experience what you wish to convey. That doesn't mean that color doesn't have an objective truth, it means you can't MAKE THE BLIND PERSON SEE (and it also doesn't make them a bad person!). Morality is a responsibility, but you can only be morally responsible for what is REAL FOR YOU. This is the essence of the pro-choice stance, and it means that you could be pro-choice and still morally disagree personally with abortion. I am a vegan because I live in a world in which all of my nutritional needs can be taken care of through plants, and animals seem to be really sad when you kill them (I know I couldn't do it - so I don't). Other people haven't come to this conclusion. THEY AREN'T IMMORAL, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T COME TO THAT CONCLUSION. If you are morally confused on an issue, and do your best to do what you feel is right (and there are so many factors in each individual's life to guide them OR to confuse them!), I think your moral compass is still working just fine. Okay. Now let's stop yelling at each other.
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized
I think you went off track in your own thought process. The only thing that makes light a reality is the existence of (one aspect of) consciousness. If it weren't for consciousness and that particular aspect which makes that part of the spectrum appear "lit", it would merely exist alongside the entire EM spectrum as "invisible" radiation. To state your sentiment differently, it is a combination of two things that consciousness is dependent upon: 1. That there is more than one type of "thing" (e.g. different wavelengths and frequencies of EMW) and 2. The interaction of different things causes change. (To put it extremely crudely) All experience is based on one thing hitting another thing that causes a change in the base state.
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
In your opinion, what should the purpose of education be?
I think the most important thing that needs to be fixed IMMEDIATELY in the current system is the indoctrination (used negatively). Whether or not the curriculum should be broader, narrower, career-oriented - these are things that come far second to actually learning how to learn. The naturally occurring impetus for learning is human curiosity. I feel like I did well in school because my curiosity was never shut down. I was one of those students that never had to study and did well on tests - Why? Because I had a genuine interest in the world around me. If I was taught something I learned it because I cared to know it - it was a piece of the puzzle of what exactly this thing was that I was born into. Unfortunately (for the people in charge of school curricula), I fear that this process is often shut down by parents before their children even get to school (Please, tell your kids "why"), but even in school it usually starts to go downhill, as soon as "knowledge" is replaced by "this is the answer to a later test question". That said, foster creativity and curiosity in the early years, then let the student choose what they WANT TO LEARN (in order to know more about what they are interested in, or what they need to know to follow a prospective future career path) in later years. For all the wiseacres out there I mean pre-college school. It would also to be an improvement to change the way college education is sold to young adults like a con. I'm not generally dumb but at 18 I actually thought that "figure out what you need to learn for a career, oh, and also CHOOSE said career in mid-college education" was the way it just worked sometimes, because ultimately it is the piece of paper that matters. Yeahright! (facepalm)
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
Fill in the Blank - If I knew I could not fail I would ___________ ?
It sounds like you want your country to be better: that my friend IS patriotism. (I suspect that aside from when you are reflecting about it, the Patriot Act, for example, isn't looming over your shoulder and effecting your life in a tangible way in your day-to-day. I say that for consideration with another metaphor: I don't imagine you dislike your body for it's potential to be a host for disease. The fact that you medicate or take other actions to stay well would rather indicate the opposite.)
Noface
Steve G
Posted over 3 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
Being more a philosopher than a scientist, I can best address why aging isn't a "problem". Perhaps you can draw scientific conclusions. 1. Other people are environmental factors, and in today's world, the ideas held by people also become environmental factors which in a real way effect biological evolution. If people were not to age and die, that environment would begin to homogenize (peoples ideas don't change with any predictability or guarantee), and with less environmental variety, there would be less to adapt TO. 2. The gene pool stays the same longer - similar problem: the opportunities for different types of mutations becomes limited. Some of your hypotheses seem to favor this kind of homogeneity - a problem is that it is a little self-contradictory to speak of evolution in an environment in which change becomes a non-factor. If such "favorable" conditions did occur, evolution would almost certainly stop too - thus nothing new, including new lifespans. (It is important to consider that while adaptation and mutation certainly will always be the condition of living things, the term "evolution" is almost always used to describe, only with 20/20 hindsight, such a mutation that we qualify as "good". Also, barring such ephemera as "the human ego", where is the evidence that living longer is an improvement? ) And importantly, if Evolution is your ruler, then measuring by that ruler indicates that the proper lifespan for each living entity = well.... it's current lifespan.)