It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
I think both perspectives are necessary to a certain degree. A mistake would be choosing to favor one over the other. An even bigger mistake is giving yourself the impression that your favoritism makes the chosen perspective superior to the other.
3NL1GHT3N3D1
You have to see it both ways to get the full picture in my opinion. I believe the concrete compliments the abstract and vice versa. What's the field good for if you don't have the bricks in mind before digging, and what is the idea of bricks good for without a field or clay to make them out of?
I disagree with your idea that a few broken parts doesn't mean the whole thing is broken. What good is a car if the spark plugs are no good or the pistons no longer work? If one part is broken, it is best to replace it with something new or it may stay broken or become broken in the future.
This is the problem with religion in my opinion, when their are broken parts believers tend to ignore the faults and not replace them with something newer, better, and more efficient. They justify the fault and keep driving thinking it will somehow fix itself.
S&F for the interesting thread.
windword
reply to post by WarminIndy
But. me personally, I'm a fan of Pythagoras
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by windword
that God is the whole of existence. God is God of the living because God is life itself.
We are our own Gods and we create or reject our OWN salvation.
NiNjABackflip
reply to post by WarminIndy
Plato never saw anything in a concrete way. He believed the world of the senses was merely a shadow, hence the allegory of the cave. Aristotle believed in substance, a mix of matter and form. Both were venerated by the church in some way.
I think you have your philosophers backwards.
You should read them. I'm sure your views on God will change in the process.
windword
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Shucks, thanks.
I edit my post to reflect that I believe that reinarnation represents the 5th dimension.
edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)
And the whole was the substance. Shadows are still concrete because they are determined by physics. Shadows are the result of absence of light because a concrete object blocked the light.
Faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. So yes, I am on track with Aristotle.
And the whole was the substance. Shadows are still concrete because they are determined by physics. Shadows are the result of absence of light because a concrete object blocked the light.
NiNjABackflip
reply to post by WarminIndy
And the whole was the substance. Shadows are still concrete because they are determined by physics. Shadows are the result of absence of light because a concrete object blocked the light.
Faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. So yes, I am on track with Aristotle.
That's simply not true. Plato was speaking metaphorically by using the term shadow. He was saying the physical world is unintelligible, not that he actually sees shadows.
Aristotle rejected Aristotle's theory of forms. He was a natural scientist, concerned with nature and living things.
Seriously, pick up one of their books. There are free copies on the net.
Aristotle “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
Aristotle “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”