Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Non-offensive Books about God


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 192 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 10:50:54 PM PDT
I have mostly pure math books, but my spouse may have a copy of the some civil engineering books by Robert Dalrymple, but you'd need to be more specific. It has been too long since I knew the head of the department of geology's name -- his specialty was Radioactivity -- but my first introduction to radioactive decay was in a civil defense course.

This is normally not my source but it isn't a bad one:
http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/AE7/ExpDecayL.htm which says
In exponential decay, the rate of change decreases over time - the rate of the decay becomes slower as time passes. Since the rate of change is not constant (the same) across the entire graph, these functions are not straight lines.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 10:52:59 PM PDT
Certainly the time is constant ... not the rate.

I'd like a journal-published citation that says the rate is constant.

Posted on May 20, 2012 10:54:49 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
Elena asks: Is there a book where an intelligent and humane author talks about God?

Yes : ) .... Two excellent books that changed my life dealt not with dualistic religion but with non-dual Spirituality. I rejected dogmatic religions at the age of 13 and never looked back... for many of the same reasons you list. I became an Agnostic... to say, I wanted to Know "God" but belief was just not good enough. I needed proof. So I neither Believed OR Disbelieved.
At the age of app. 34 "God" showed up... Big TIme, but it took 10 more years for a personal "Inner" dialog to really get going.
Suddenly the right people, books, and circumstances began to flood my life... it is as they say... When the student is ready THE Master appears.
`
I would say that I did not chose my non-dual spiritual path but rather.. it chose me. Mystical? Ohh yea. That is because it is "God" / our Higher SELF which is in charge of our true spiritual awakening.. and not so much our own dualistic finite mind. So.. my advice? Follow your Heart.... which it sounds like you are doing. : )

~
One very helpful book was ~AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI ~ by Yogananda, (and all His books actually), and another is ~ PLAY OF CONSCIOUSNESS ~ , by Muktananda, which has more of an "Eastern" flavor, though TRUTH Absolute itself belongs neither to the East or the West.
Both were shaktipat Gurus / Grace Bestowing Masters who could give the direct Transcendent 'experience' of "God". Such BEings are extremely rare... just NOT so rare as some might have us believe. :P

Another book which may resonate for you is "OF HIGHER WORLDS" by Rudolph Steiner, a Christian Mystic . His own commentary on the Bhagavad Gita brought that sacred scripture alive for me.
The Anthroposophical Society still makes many of his books available.
There are some wonderful books out there which speak to the true greatness of "God" which do not 'dumb' "God" down to human levels as dualistic religion does. I suspect the ones that are correct for you WILL find their way into your hands. Many Blessings on your Divine Inner Journey to Truth Absolute
~ Peace ~

~The Heart is the hub of all sacred places, go there and roam ~

Bhagavan Nityananda

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:05:16 PM PDT
Robert,

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x43.htm

Let me begin by clarifying one point. The rate of decay of a radioactive element is not a constant.

However, this tends to be a question and answer discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:09:57 PM PDT
It isn't the rate of decay (particle emissions per time) that is constant; it is the equation (and half-life) that stays the same.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:12:44 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
RAS says: Until you do, your argument is simply meaningless words.

FR: We do agree here Robert. Words, without the direct experience of those words will keep those words meaningless. When I was very young my view of "God" was what others TOLD me. It was not until I actually MET "God" / Higher Consciousness that I realized that religion had no idea what "God" even was.
Religion models God after themselves and so falls far short of that Absolute REality.
I don't expect anyone to believe me.... what good is that? I simply suggest that it is possible to KNOW "God"... one's own Higher SELF... and that whatever one's finite mind THINKS THAT ONE is.... ain't it. : ) Still, I have been made aware that those who seek Truth Absolute in earnest do eventually find THAT.

Will YOU be able then to give the word "God" any real meaning to others with your own mundane, dualistic words? No, not really, ... but YOU will know, and that is worth a lot.
~ Peace ~

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:13:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 20, 2012 11:18:30 PM PDT
Eugene,

Rate of decay has almost always been defined as half life and vice versa. That implies that particle emissions per time, as you point out is also not constant.

Certainly the equation causes a curve, which is normally not considered constant. My guess is that we would actually both get the right answer. But I can find nothing suggest that a curve (equation) is constant.

Edit: A constant equation would imply a straight line.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:15:59 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
RAS says: I suspect that most any thesis about god (including existence, or the lack thereof) will be offensive to SOMEBODY.

FR: Well put Robert. It does seem that some manifest here just for their ego to be offended. <g>

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:24:17 PM PDT
The half-life doesn't change, and the whole curve doesn't change. What is not constant about these items?

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:42:28 PM PDT
Eugene,

The best I can figure out John was/is/wants to be a creationist correct? Believe it or not I only recently hear anything about the carbon dating "flaw"! All I could say, to quote Charlie Brown (?) was "Oh, Good Grief".

I would have thought my posts were clearer than that!

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:44:03 PM PDT
Re Dark, 5-20 11:05 PM: "The rate of decay of a radioactive element is not a constant." As I pointed out previously, it is the half life (or decay constant) which is constant. And that is the number which is used throughout science to date things, find out how "hot" fuel rods are after a reactor is shut down, how quickly you need to use an isotope for radiotherapy after getting it from the source, and innumerable other applications. Yes, the decay is NOT a straight line on a linear amount vs. linear time graph -- but that is NOT what we speak of when we say that the decay is at a "constant rate". We are ALWAYS aware that we are speaking of an exponential decay.

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2012 12:01:50 AM PDT
Eugene,

I've heard similar arguments over speeding tickets. I was going down a hill, I didn't change my speed, I set my cruise control so I was going at a constant rate.

The rate of decay of a radioactive material continues to go on into infinity. But the number of particles lost changes until it approaches zero. In theory, it never reaches there. The concept of only losing 1/2 of what is left is not a constant loss or rate. When I first ran into curved equations, we were taught that their slopes were not constant. Big deal who cares. But before long I was sitting in a classroom being told that when a nuclear bomb hit outside the 100 mile radius of where I could survive I had to know that it would be a long long long time before I could go outside. Later a geologist tried to convince and entire class that had filed out a question that read almost as bad is blank is blank of blank. And there was only one answer. In the actually question: The rate of decay of a radioactive material is blank ------ everyone, or nearly, wrote its half-life. The correct answer was constant. The head of department he went to confirm that he was correct and the large number of the 400 students that were science/math students had questioned told him he was wrong. I respected the professor's opinion not just it match what I had been taught in two previous courses, but because he admitted he was wrong.

I believe that he truly was looking at the question like you are. He claimed that a curve was a constant curve (we both agreed on the curve). But the rate of decay is still not constant, just the time. Basically, the amount of decay has to change --- which was certainly not an easy concept in high school, and then to have a re-run in college seemed odd!!!

For these posts, I feel like I have been being told that you have to believe me because I say it is so. And the louder one or two people say it makes it so. And even name calling might change my mind. Although I recognize that ideas that become ingrained in our understanding are hard to not do that about it does sound a bit like a political discussion rather than one that is based on science or fact. And, stating facts that differ from someone else's facts need to have more than a Yes your are no I'm not discussions. I fell in that trap at the end..

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2012 3:32:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 21, 2012 4:56:08 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
Hi, Reed -

The decay constant (or, equivalently, the half-life) in the exponential decay equation defines the _shape_ of the exponential decay curve (for a particular radioisotope) with respect to time.

That is: it defines how much time must pass before half of the atoms in the original sample will decay.

Saying that the decay constant itself does not change with time is equivalent to saying that the shape of the exponential decay curve does not change over time.

That is: the amount of time it takes for half of a sample of carbon-14 atoms to decay is the same now as it was in 20,000 BC.

This is a fact.

It is also an important part of what makes radiocarbon dating of wood samples (for example) so reliable.

All the best,

'prob

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2012 5:15:22 AM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Robert,

You said :"Kindly demonstrate that there actually IS such a thing."

Am I to understand that you don't consider anything immaterial, like spiritual truth, as something that exists in the real world?

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2012 7:56:43 AM PDT
Astrocat says:
Vicki, there seem to be lots of people who don't consider spiritual truth to exist in the "real world". Whether it's by design, and they are simply being argumentative, wanting you to say you can't prove it so they can say "gotcha!", or they are incapable of such understanding - and maybe it's both - it's an interesting phenomenon. I'd like to know how you'll answer Robert's response, if you get one.

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2012 8:27:56 AM PDT
Bubba says:
Radioactive decay follows an exponential decay curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_constant

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2012 5:01:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 21, 2012 5:02:55 PM PDT
Re Vicki, 5-21 5:15 AM: "Am I to understand that you don't consider anything immaterial, like spiritual truth, as something that exists in the real world?" Not unless its existence can be shown by some means. Subjective things such as love, fear, and hate clearly exist: these are demonstrable. As for "spiritual truth" (whatever that is), not so much.

Nancy -- please take note.

In reply to an earlier post on May 22, 2012 4:23:30 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
Eugene,

I'd guess that you are curious because you don't find his Christian Apologetics very convincing?

Not that this tells us why he is thought to be a serious philosopher, but Michael Martin in his book

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

written in 1992 took him seriously enough to dedicate 78 pages attempting to refute those apologetics.

In reply to an earlier post on May 22, 2012 6:09:41 AM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Robert,

You said :" Not unless its existence can be shown by some means. Subjective things such as love, fear, and hate clearly exist: these are demonstrable. As for "spiritual truth" (whatever that is), not so much."

We Christians believe that the best demonstration of spiritual truth was Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection.

What do you think about historical evidence?

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 8:54:55 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
"Am I to understand that you don't consider anything immaterial, like spiritual truth, as something that exists in the real world?"

Translation: I have no proof.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 8:57:51 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
"We Christians believe that the best demonstration of spiritual truth was Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection.

What do you think about historical evidence?"

Translation "What do you think about historical "evidence?""

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 9:35:46 PM PDT
Re Vicki, 5-22 6:09 AM: "What do you think about historical evidence?" Like any other kind, it has to be validated, by comparison with other sources as well as physical reality. The Jesus tales fail on all of these grounds:
- There is no evidence supporting these tales from any contemporary source -- and at least some of the tales are demonstrably erroneous.
- The entire proposition makes no sense. Are we seriously to believe that a god created Jesus for the purpose of dying to convince said god to remit sins? Are we even supposed to believe that people should be taxed based on the purported actions (which in this case are demonstrably false) of some ancestor thousands of years before?

Bottom line: There is absolutely no reason to believe in any of this.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 9:41:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 27, 2012 9:43:57 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
Robert, to be fair there are lots of reasons to believe that. None of them are very good but there are lots of reason. One reason could be that you were inculcated into this world view and said view makes it nearly impossible to actually listen to any evidence that questions it. In fact, any questioning of said beliefs automatically causes the person to go on the defensive and makes them almost unable to actually understand the questions.

This is not just for religion obviously but many things. Think of Huxley's "Brave New World."

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 9:58:06 PM PDT
Vicki says:
Dear Robert,

You said :"Are we seriously to believe that a god created Jesus for the purpose of dying to convince said god to remit sins?"

Jesus did not have to convince God to remit sins.
The Bible explains what Jesus did in various ways, but convincing God is not one of them.

You said :"Are we even supposed to believe that people should be taxed based on the purported actions (which in this case are demonstrably false) of some ancestor thousands of years before?"

The Bible teaches that we are responsible for our own sins. I'm not sure what you mean about us being taxed. Adam and Eve sinned- is this what you are referring to, when you say we are being taxed for what an ancestor did?

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 10:03:29 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
Vicki-

What about original sin?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  45
Total posts:  192
Initial post:  May 12, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions