What Makes A God?

Early Astronomy and Astrology were interlinked in ancient times. It was telling them how to plant crops for thousands of years, long before the term Astronomy ever came into existence, actually.

It also played a part of when to take certain actions and make certain decisions. You can't really distinguish between the stars telling you when to plant crops and when or how to make decisions in regards to your own resonance. It was all interlinked.

And to this very day in India, it's still interlinked, as Science and Astrology co-exist without conflict.

 

Chinacat: you say they thrived because of astrology and that astronomy and astrology were interlinked in ancient times. I agree with Mattekat. Even when those 2 fields are not seperated, doesn't it seem kind of obvious that it are mainly the astronomy parts of it that helped ancient civilisations figure out when to plant crops, succesfully anticipate winters etc. etc.

 

The valid parts only, not mainly the astronomy, True or correct is an identical proportion. same for both not mainly one. Yes reality is present to observe. The only suspicious accounting is the one than doesn't add up, some things are more true than others.

 

How one perceives things may not be true to how things really are.

 

Your analogy to telling the weather i think is a good comparison. Just because it's possible to tell the weather incorrectly, doesn't make the entire practice invalid.

 

Writer, quit being a COWARD and let's see how accurate that i can be by showing and evaluating your chart once and for all.

 

And they would also apply these movements to their own personal lives, and use it to guide the entire civilization. So somehow this is invalid since it's now called Astrology? How can you argue that using it to help with crops is valid but applying it to your own life isn't valid? We are nature, are we not?

Saying "the astronomy part of it" is an empty statement. They were looking at the stars and it guided their civilization. They weren't separating Astrology from Astronomy for quite a while. So if you're arguing that the Astronomy part was valid, then you're also arguing that the Astrology part was valid.

 

there is no such thing as what is invalid. What is not real does not exist. Invalid is not a true description of what is real but relates to accuracy between what you claim to exist and what actually can be compared to. All things are lawful being real, not all things are helpful which is a matter of timing and desired aim. The loose comparisons do not enhance understanding of what exists. True and accurate statements illumine every time over time. To find value only in your worthy preferences you must look for what is available. Caring more or less for what is available makes the value of reality questionable. It is not illusion that feeds you. It only entertains you if you pretend error is satisfying.

 

I can agree with this in the sense that everything ultimately has the same source. The problem of valid vs. invalid, however, is a debate regarding relativity. On relative terms, something can be more valid than something else, which is the debate here. But on ultimate terms, everything is ultimately equal since everything is manifestion and everything is made out of everything else.

 

Perception is not knowledge but can lead to it.

 

But we aren't allowed to test astrology to see if it would incur any results or knowledge. What if we start respecting astrologers and then a later study finds that those who visit these new, esteemed astrologers are better off than the general population?

It seems to me that you're just saying we don't live in a magical world, period. But what seems like magic? Does it seem like magic to write in strange script on pieces of parchment and somehow transmogrify this strange script into futuristic technology like lasers and holograms? To put it another way, what if we clothed mathematicians in typical "wizard" garb. Would they be any less mathematician or any more wizard? I think they would be more wizard. The original idea of sorcery was just a take on a prophecy made by an astrologer of future men who would transform language (mathematics) into very powerful items anyway.

I would simply like to know who it is that is navigating the ship.

I don't really respect the opinions of astrologers, because astrology is a confidential magic. People who try and make it mainstream are really doing a disservice to the true astrologer, who is discussing only private affairs with his clients. If he chooses to have clients and isn't, perhaps in the future, appointed a position in the White House cabinet.

 

You are incorrect by direct comparison and your statement that validity equals a debate regarding relativity. The equal or accurate comparison is relative not to debate but comparison of true terms, the delineating and accurate terms comparison is it is the same or is it different that therefore not the same. Another comparison you can accurately surmise is does it achieve your desired aim.

 

Your disagreement is not a valid or reliable agreement. Your disagreement is not an informed agreement of true comparisons but a description of what you prefer to examine regardless the accuracy of the method.

 

The ship being the device of transport to what is the desired destination. the one with the desire and stamina to look around till recognized, discounting non conceivable non exact picture direction.

 

I'm fine with that.....
as long as you do it as a double blind experiment ruling out and/or accounting for any and all conceivable variables that could possibly effect how "better off" these subjects are or aren't.
You will of course also have to arrive at an operational definition of what constitutes "better off" as well as draw up a proper hypothesis and operational definition for the study itself.

If you are not sure, an operational definition in scientific research is a definition/description of the experiment or study that is written in such a manner that so unambiguous and precise that anyone anywhere could replicate the experiment with only that information.
and since you are introducing a novel quantifier, "better off" that also has to defined in such a manner as to leave absolutely no question or gray area as to it's meaning.

so if you can fulfill those necessary criteria, I'm all for it.

 

Sure, I just need you to define god for me.

I'm not talking about the zodiac, where a picture of the stars is overlayed with mythological drawings.

I'm talking about a star chart; a chart of the stars above, and nothing more. This was not created or invented by astrologers. Anybody can make a star chart, you just look up, and carefully draw what you see, and don't draw anything you don't see.

Your efforts to conflate astrology with astronomy are entertaining.

That's not true; I've told you before that sufficiently specific data about me would impress me. Data like which medical conditions I experience, how many lovers I've had, what kinds of injuries I've had, where I've been in the world, etc. Obviously this has never been produced, ever, by any astrologer. It is always very general statements that apply to most of humanity, that's how this confidence game works.

I won't be providing you with my final information until we have come to an understanding about what this project entails. You can bait me by calling me a coward, it won't work. I don't even take you 1% seriously. And being viewed as a coward by you is quite a laugh, so you can bring on the ad hominems, or you can actually think about what you're doing.

Sure, as long as each one stays way the hell away from the other one. Science is interested in data, evidence, experiments. Astrology is interested in perpetuating astrology and creating customers.

 

What if a study finds that people who believe in santa claus tend to be more positive and optimistic and have lower rates of cancer and cardiovascular disease? Does this mean that somewhere in the north pole, lives a jolly fat man in a red suit who delivers presents once a year to all the good little boys and girls?

I cannot disagree with this statement enough. The most sublimely impossible fountain of majesty is this very moment, right here, right now, in the space you are reading these words. There is nothing you could ever conceive that would begin to approach the sheer wizardry of the present moment. The fact that there is something instead of nothing, this is the base of wonder and paradox. Don't think that because I use my head and demand evidence and try not to be bamboozled by used car salesmen that therefore I am somehow blind to the real magic all around us. Here's the great part about that magic; you don't have to believe anything on insufficient evidence in order to not just see the magic, but be the magic.

Careful not to incorrectly infer my worldview; better to ask me.

The implication being that this would give you knowledge about HOW they are navigating the ship, which would be your real measuring stick for determining whether you should trust them or not.

 

Sure, I just need you to define god for me.

I asked you first. And we've already discussed how i feel about it.

I'm talking about a star chart; a chart of the stars above, and nothing more. This was not created or invented by astrologers. Anybody can make a star chart, you just look up, and carefully draw what you see, and don't draw anything you don't see.

Your efforts to conflate astrology with astronomy are entertaining.

And so the constellations and their designs and names came from where then?

I don't even take you 1% seriously

We are at an understanding of what the project entails. Take me not seriously all that you wish. Good luck.

Sure, as long as each one stays way the hell away from the other one. Science is interested in data, evidence, experiments. Astrology is interested in perpetuating astrology and creating customers.

Well that's too bad because they aren't the hell away from each other in India.

 

Following the arrival of the British East India Company in the 18th century, the Hindu and Islamic traditions were slowly displaced by European astronomy, though there were attempts at harmonizing these traditions. The Indian scholar Mir Muhammad Hussain had traveled to England in 1774 to study Western science and, on his return to India in 1777, he wrote a Persian treatise on astronomy. He wrote about the heliocentric model, and argued that there exists an infinite number of universes (awalim), each with their own planets and stars, and that this demonstrates the omnipotence of God, who is not confined to a single universe. Hussain's idea of a universe resembles the modern concept of a galaxy, thus his view corresponds to the modern view that the universe consists of billions of galaxies, each one consisting of billions of stars. The last known Zij treatise was the Zij-i Bahadurkhani, written in 1838 by the Indian astronomer Ghulam Hussain Jaunpuri (1760–1862) and printed in 1855, dedicated to Bahadur Khan. The treatise incorporated the heliocentric system into the Zij tradition. ~ Wiki

 

don't confuse the poor boy with facts..