The Sun is 333,000 times larger than Earth.It takes light 2 1/2 seconds to travel around the Sun.
It takes light 50,000 years to travel around the Sombrero Galaxy.
There are hundreds of billions of galaxies.
There aint but 1 God and he's a bad muhfuggah.
Chris said...
The New Atheists embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. They propose a route to collective salvation and the moral advancement of the human species through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving towards collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and the Enlightenment. Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are impediments to human progress. They turn their particular good into a universal good. They are blind to their own corruption and capacity for evil. They soon commit evil, not for evil's sake but to make a better world.
88 comments:
Hello Mr. Vesey,
Can you explain to me what the folowing image represents.
Peace,
John
Hello John.
I don't really know what the image represents.
How does it make you feel?
Please explain what creation at that scale has to do with creation at this scale?
... Please explain what creation at that scale doesn't have to do with creation at this scale?
Viewed in terms of time, distance, and energy, that's the equivalent of viewing an order of existence a few levels above that of the sun.
The Sun is 333,000 times larger than Earth.
It takes light 2 1/2 seconds to travel around the Sun.
It takes light 50,000 years to travel around the Sombrero Galaxy.
There are hundreds of billions of galaxies.
There aint but 1 God and he's a bad muhfuggah.
A good example is the symbol "constellation." We observe several stars, which we consider to form a "group" we call a "constellation." If we measure the distances between the earth and these stars, we find some are much closer to us than others. If viewed from a very different point in the universe, anyone suggesting that these stars are in a "constellation," would be laughed at.
We can test our symbols against physical reality by using our senses. Many people have seen stars; nobody has really seen a so-called "constellation." Of course, anyone can draw a map with a number of stars on it, and then draw connecting lines between them and claim they are a "constellation." Our symbols are essentially mind-maps of the territory of physical reality. But the map isn't the territory. The menu isn't the meal.
Breaking it down, from the unattainable symbolic level of cosmology and delusion, to the practical, knowable, and psychological truth of the matter.
DV peeping at the cosmos and deluding himself about the divine.
Brah, you don't even see the Earth as it sees itself.
Based on the text you appended to those post pictures, you evidently assume that the planetary world is a small collection of spherical bodies in orbit around the Sun.
But what do you really know about the life of a planetary body and how feebly do you conceive of its objective cosmic nature?
For instance, in a higher dimension of time, planetary orbits become solid bodies, spiraling around a moving Sun.
It is difficult to imagine the nature of the electromagnetic interactions on this level of being.
Perhaps the distinction between satellite and inclusion relationships is merely an artifact of limited human intelligence, and would dissolve with the application of correct scale?
You seem a little eager to argue CNu.
With what exactly do you disagree?
a) That it takes light 50,000 years to cross the Sombrero galaxy or
b) God is a bad muhfuggah?
This little preoccupation of the Footnote Negros to "know" God is exactly why you don't.
rotflmbao...,
Your fantasy that anything even remotely approaching the uncreated energies knows you is what I find endlessly amusing.
It's even more absurd than some piss-ant or flea in Muskogee Oklahoma pretending to be personally acquainted with Denmark Vesey and telling all his "boys" that Denmark Vesey knows him too...,
All y'all name-dropping fantasists tickle me mang.
"Your fantasy that anything even remotely approaching the uncreated energies knows you is what I find endlessly amusing." CNu
Knows me? Corny nigga, he IS me.
LOL..,
Having come from good seed merely fallen among thorns and weeds, your possibilities aren't totally lost grasshopper.
That's why I check in on you like a kindly gardner.
{now some of these aggressive weeds I have to pull up by their roots and cast into the fire. most of the unfotunate seeds I just leave to the evangelically pimping buzzards who eat them up and shit them out to fertilize the moon}
Hey Mr. Vesey,
Everytime that I see that image, I feel like I'm a insignificant peace of living matter.
DV...
"It takes light 2 1/2 seconds to travel around the Sun.
It takes light 50,000 years to travel around the Sombrero Galaxy.".
Actually that depends on vantage point. From the vantage point of the photon it took 0 time to travel around the sombrero galaxy.
DV. Why do you clamor so much for the concept of God? If you studied some quantum physics or cosmology you'd find that ALL of the concepts of God are incredibly limited and primitive in light of reality.
"DV. Why do you clamor so much for the concept of God? If you studied some quantum physics or cosmology you'd find that ALL of the concepts of God are incredibly limited and primitive in light of reality."
LOL.
Ahh Fish. Why would you "study" something that left you with the impression God was limited and primitive?
You should study something else.
Nulance,
When one thinks of "constellations," he has the stars to reference.
When one thinks of "flying spaghetti monsters," he has flying, spaghetti and mosters to reference.
When the God meme originator thought of God, to what did he reference if not the empirical evidence?
Excellent try Fisher!!!
Pointing at "vantage point" or "perspective" is right on the mark.
Notwithstanding this deft touch, young grasshopper, remains blocked by his infatuation with the artistry of his map.
One of these days some generous soul will slip him a shot of psychoactive wheat grass juice and he'll finally subjectively come to know that the map isn't the territory and the menu isn't the meal.
LOL.
That's cute CNu.
Like a deaf man trying to convince Miles, music is a figment of his imagination.
When the God meme originator thought of God, to what did he reference if not the empirical evidence?
It's broken down on page 90 of this document. (18th page of the pdf)
Nulance on...
Homosexuality:
A beneficial genetic disposition triggered by an unknown environmental catalyst. In other words, perfectly normal evolution.
A belief in the existence of God:
A deleterious genetic disposition triggered by an unknown environmental catalyst. In other words, a neurobiological sickness.
Can anything you say be taken seriously?
Again, AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS, how did the God meme originator conceive of God without the benefit of empirical evidence for God's existence?
Can you show us how to conceive of the inconceivable without benefit of empirical evidence?
I say it's impossible, but certainly you can do it, right?
DV...
"Why would you "study" something that left you with the impression God was limited and primitive?
You should study something else.".
...said the Pope to Galileo.
Thordaddy,
Can you prove your God exists? What about the gods of Greek antiquity, or Norse mythology, or those who were worshiped in the time of Ramses II?
No.
And since when do you embrace empirical evidence (you actually made me spit coffee on my computer screen).
Farst...
"Again, AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS, how did the God meme originator conceive of God without the benefit of empirical evidence for God's existence?".
Ok, Farst. For the sake of argument, let's concede the point. Where then is this empirical evidence you are speaking off?
Can you show us how to conceive of the inconceivable without benefit of empirical evidence?
LOL
why yes....,
here you go Farce.
A little cartoon you can perhaps relate to.
This should be just about exactly your speed.
DMG said:
"Can you prove your God exists?"
Watch a baby being born and you'll never ask such a stupid-ass question ever again.
DMG,
You know that scientists work with a limited notion of "empirical evidence?"
The resistance to the existence of God for fellas like you, Fisher and Nulance is to some degree or another an aspect of your desire for radical autonomy.
But at the same time, your resistance to God is also an aspect of your conformity to the idea that only redundant, repeatable and therefore testable and predictable phenomena occur.
In the case of the God meme, Dawkin's "understanding" is that of the "atheist scientist." Meaning, Dawkin's takes the "finding" of science (there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God) and makes his assertion (God does not exist). Nevermind the fact that such an atheistic assertion renders one unscientific, how does the "atheistic scientist" acknowledge God before dismissing Him if there is no empirical evidence for His existence?
To which Dawkin's replies, "It's the God meme."
Meaning, Dawkin's contention that there is no empirical evidence for God and therefore God does not exists rests on nothing more than the ASSERTION that some dude made God up without any reference to empirical evidence.
My question is simple.
How did dude do it?
How did dude conceive of the inconceivable without benefit of empirical evidence?
And don't give me Nulance's sorry answer.
The Quantum physics did it.... The Quantum Physics did it....
Fisher,
You must first acknowledge that some phenomena are unique and singular events. Meaning, these phenomena are outside the scope of science because science only deals with what is predictable and therefore testable. Predictable phenomena are redundant and repeatable phenomena.
Self-evidently, the recognition of God is a unique and singular event and so science is not nearly as sensitive and speedy enough to "observe" this phenomenon directly in real time. All it can do is accept or reject those that have experienced this unique and singular event.
Instead, it claims NO empirical evidence for the existence of God, but doesn't bother to then tell us how God was conceived if not from the empirical evidence?
Farst...
"Self-evidently, the recognition of God is a unique and singular event and so science is not nearly as sensitive and speedy enough to "observe" this phenomenon directly in real time. All it can do is accept or reject those that have experienced this unique and singular event.".
Well, ok then. Have YOU experienced that "unique and singular event"?
If so, please describe it to us as that would be the empirical evidence you say exists.
Hi Sasha,
I've watched. I've actually delivered them too. I still don't believe god exists. Should I ask if god exists when the fetus being born is horribly deformed? How about when it has no brain? Or when it dies in your hands as you are doing CPR? You see, I've seen all of these situations, but thanks for your comments.
And Thordaddy,
Why are you so sure YOUR god exists, but (ironically) not Thor? Why is Anubis fantasy but Jehovah somehow fact? I don't care what you believe, just don't tell me that you can prove it. Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean Jeebus did it.
DMG
Did you stop believing in God when you saw tragedy, or did you never believe in the first place?
Just curious.
DMG
I'm going to assume it's your dislike for Thor that's provoking you to speak about God and faith in such a disrespectful manner.
Otherwise, you're lying when you say you don't "care" what people believe?
Matter of fact, if you don't care what people believe, why do you care that they "believe" they can prove it?
Hey Big Man,
I don't think I was ever convinced even as a child. It just never made any sense to me.
My grandfather was a preacher. I do like the black church because it serves a community function. But I don't believe in a god a slave master told my ancestors to believe in. I don't see why you all get all excited over a god forced upon our people. Unless of course you believe that the middle passage, mass rape, brutality, enslavement, mutilation, denial of rights or even status as a human being was somehow gods will.
But why do I personally not believe? In addition to the above, reading the Bible several times I noticed inconsistencies, contradictions, porno, etc. I also realized there was no evidence to prove that this particular deity existed. My parents are some of the most devout people on Earth, yet not one of their prayers have ever been answered. EVER.
Technically I'm probably more of an agnostic, as I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a supreme deity.
Actually, like most things Thordaddy has nothing to do with it. And I don't see how questioning the existence of a deity is disrespectful. Apologies to you if I've offended...but I won't stop.
Somebody has speak for the other side. But I don't really care if you believe or disbelieve, that is your choice and I respect your right to believe as you do. Just don't tell me that there is proof. If you have some, perhaps I'll change my mind.
I think believing in a deity (even if completely fictional) serves a purpose in life. The realization that there is no safety net is hard for some to bear.
DMG
I find that lots of folks use bad stuff to disprove the existence of God, but rarely use good stuff to prove his existence.
I find it hard to believe that your parents were devout Christians and NONE of their prayers were answered. Weren't you a Marine? You mean they never prayed for your safe return from combat?
Aren't you a doctor? You mean they never prayed for their son to be successful and happy in life? Come on, I say look a little deeper and you'll find lots of prayers that were answered for you parents.
As for reading the Bible and finding all the problem you found, I can see your point.
The Bible can be a difficult book to understand and to some it appears full of contradictions. I've read it a lot over the years, and I've found very few true contradictions. I've found that a true understanding of the book requires a lot of study, patience and prayer.
I've come to believe that folks get out of religion exactly what they put into it. The people who find God are typically the folks who are looking for him. Those thinking he doesn't exist don't usually find him.
Finally, I didn't get offended because you questioned God. Why would that offend me?
I'm not God. Why would God need me to protect his name or guard against folks talking bad about him?
I just pointed out that your tone when discussing religion crossed the line from respectful disagreement to open mocking (Jeebus). I think it's a sad thing that folks can't disagree about something as massive as God without having to resort to childish attitudes. Now, I thought this might have something to do with Thor since he has a habit of provoking cats to behave in manners they aren't proud of, but I was just checking to be sure.
Oh, and I spoke about "proof" on another thread.
Proof is subjective. You're basically asking if I can present evidence that will convince you of something. So, the validity of my "proof" is completely dependent on your willingess to accept what I have to say.
Right?
I mean, DV believes he has proven a connection between the polio vaccine and HIV. You think that's hogwash. Some folks agree with him, folks agree with you.
Seems like some folks see proof, and some folks don't.
All depends on your perspective from what I can tell.
DMG;
My point is that it is incredulous to me that people can look at all the amazing, miraculous experiences in the world and say straight-faced that those things happened by chance or due to quantum physics.
Look at the photo that is the subject of this post, the moment that a baby takes it's first breath in the world, that instant you looked up just in time to avoid being hit (or hitting that person/car), the majesty of mountain ranges, the serenity of ocean waves. Personally, I look at those things and say, "how can someone say there is no God."
Certainly, I respect your view and non-belief although my previous post may find that difficult to believe. :-) I just am bothered when people say "prove there is a God." My reaction, "look around and now prove that there isn't." Your scientific calculations and sterile equations can't change the fact that I know MY prayers have been answered. See, I don't pray for things. I don't pray for a bag of money to fall from the sky or to get the new iPhone, flat screen t.v., or Prada bag next week. I pray for clarity, the safety and health of my family. I pray for comfort and peace of mind. More often than not, I pray for strength and the ability to endure. With those prayers, I know I have to do my part too. God IS busy, so you can't just sit back with your hand out expecting to receive without helping yourself.
"You mean they never prayed for your safe return from combat?"
Nope. I try not to be a hypocrite.
About my parents...if you met my mother you wouldn't find it hard to believe the depth of her devotion.
"Aren't you a doctor? You mean they never prayed for their son to be successful and happy in life?"
If you knew the route I took, you'd not question if their prayers were answered. There was nothing miraculous about my obtaining a medical degree. I didn't thank Jesus when I got my diploma. I thanked my wife and son for putting up with me. I thanked the old Drill Instructor for showing me how to dig deeper.
About Jeebus...I'm a Simpson's fan. What can I say?
Sasha,
I know that the moment a baby takes his first breath, after having amniotic fluid squeezed from its lungs, while it exited its mothers vagina, sets off a cascade of events that will transition him/her from life in utero to life outside. And they are all perfectly explained by science. It's not miraculous to me, but I still find it quite amazing and exciting. As a miracle implies something extraordinary that cannot be explained by the laws of nature. As billions of births have occurred I don't think miracle is a precise description. I prefer wonderful.
By the way, my parents never prayed for material things either. They probably pray as you do. And there was no trauma that pushed me "away" from your god. I just realize that if my ancestors were not captured, my parents would likely NOT be Christian, but perhaps Muslim, or something else. Therefore, I think one god is just as good as the next. So, I choose none.
If you think your prayers have been answered, I'll only say I'm happy you are content in life. Your beliefs are your own. I'll never try to convince you not to believe.
Fisher,
If, according to the materialists, all that exists is "empirical evidence," then how did the God meme originator conceive of God if not via the empirical evidence?
Your main boy Nulance says, "The Quantum physics did it."
Of course he would being a post-Darwinian radical autonomist and such.
So now Quantum physics "thought" of god instead of God thinking of quantum physics.
Is there empirical evidence for this...?
In the mind of the radical autonomist, of course.
DMG,
You still aren't confronting the fundamental assertion of your scientific circle.
The scientific consensus is that "There is NO empirical evidence for the existence of GOD."
The question that arises is how are you able to reference GOD before dismissing Him if not via the benefit of empirical evidence?
Thordaddy,
I wonder what it would be like to be you for a day. Do you ever have constant headaches? I would think that you do.
Anyway, there's no need for me to indulge your silliness today.
And don't give me Nulance's sorry answer.
The Quantum physics did it.... The Quantum Physics did it....
rotflmbao...,
GAWD I LOVE it when monkeys encounter simple things that will forever be beyond their capacity to comprehend.
Your helplessness in the face of Hameroff's simple, succinct, and evidentiary explanation is priceless Farce.
Tell me you could at least make heads/tails of the cartoon I posted in direct and precise response to your question about conceiving the inconceivable without evidence.
I know MY prayers have been answered.
How do you know this?
See, I don't pray for things. I don't pray for a bag of money to fall from the sky or to get the new iPhone, flat screen t.v., or Prada bag next week. I pray for clarity, the safety and health of my family. I pray for comfort and peace of mind. More often than not, I pray for strength and the ability to endure.
So..., how do you know that your prayers are causal or correlative instead of simply coincidental?
With those prayers, I know I have to do my part too. God IS busy, so you can't just sit back with your hand out expecting to receive without helping yourself.
Who/what is this God to whom you self-talk?
Why doesn't it ever answer you directly in the simple way that everybody can understand?
Farst, I asked you a very simple question. Namely: "Have YOU experienced that 'unique and singular event'?".
If you have, tell us about it. If you haven't you are basing your assertion upon the BELIEF that some other person experienced such an event in the past.
Nulan...
"Why doesn't it ever answer you directly in the simple way that everybody can understand?".
Why Cnu You ought to know the answer to that one. God speaks through a leaf. Preferably a tea leaf. While executing a Hegelian head-fake-power-move, of course.
Oh, and don't forget the Kantian slam dunk. Combined with the Schopenhauser straight hook. And, of course, the Wittgensteinian pirouette.
DMG
You dodged my questions.
I wasn't questioning your parent's devotion, I was pointing out that you were doing that by claiming none of their prayers were answered.
Like all parents, they prayed for you to be successful and happy.
You're saying that although your successful and happy, their prayers were not answered.
That doesn't compute. They prayed for something, it happened. Case closed.
Now, the idea that prayers are answered like wishes from a genie goes against most of what the Bible teaches Christians.
Cnulan said
"Why doesn't it ever answer you directly in the simple way that everybody can understand?
Nulan
When was the last time "everybody" understood anything?
Also, the belief system you have, the one that you believe is true. Does "everybody" understand what occurs in that belief system?
I can respect cats who don't believe in God. Lord knows I've thought about the question enough times.
What bothers me is when cats try to explain their disbelief by complaining that God has failed to live up to criteria they created in their minds. They have a list of demands, and if God fails to come through on any of those demands, well he doesn't exist.
When did it become God's job to do what you wanted Him to do?
Big Man...
"Like all parents, they prayed for you to be successful and happy.
You're saying that although your successful and happy, their prayers were not answered.".
And where is the causality between that prayer and DMG's success?
How about the causality between hard work/networking and success?
"What bothers me is when cats try to explain their disbelief by complaining that God has failed to live up to criteria they created in their minds.".
Seems to me that neither Nulan, DMG, or I created any such criteria. We are working with YOUR criteria.
Now, using YOUR criteria I can prove to you that there is no God. How? You posit that the definition of God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. You also posit that you have Free Will, i.e. the freedom of choice to turn against or towards God. If that is so there can be no such entity that is omniscient and omnipresent. Therefore there can be no God as you define that entity.
Fisher said:
And where is the causality between that prayer and DMG's success?
How about the causality between hard work/networking and success?
Fisher, come on man. DMG made the statement that NONE of his parents' prayers were ever answered. First and foremost, this assumes that DMG is aware of EVERY prayer his parents ever made. But let's move past that.
I pointed out that like most religious parents, DMG's parents probably prayed for their son's success and happiness. He did not deny this.
Instead, what you and he have said is that despite the fact that these things occurred after his parents prayed, their prayers were not answered.
This doesn't make sense. If you pray for something, and it happens, how can you argue that a prayer was not answered? If that is not a case of a prayer being answered, exactly what is?
This has nothing to do with whether you can find the cause and effect relationship between prayer and events. It's long been my contention that can't be "proven" because it's a matter of perspective.
If something happens in my life that I deem beyond my control or ability to accomplish and I attribute it to God answering my prayers, how can you prove my prayers weren't answered?
You can attribute it to luck, but can your provide empirical proof of the existence of luck? These are the facts in this situation. DMG's parents prayed that something would happen. That event then occurred. Thus, their prayers were not answered. I wasn't arguing whether their prayers made him succeed, just that their prayers were in fact answered.
Fisher
We already had the free will discussion.
I explained to you that I am not privy to God's information about what choices I will make, therefore when I make choices I am acting upon my own free will. I make a choice, thus I have free will. The fact that God knows what choice I will make has no bearing on me since I do not know what choice I will make.
Now, I provided this explanation. You said that doesn't work for you. Fine.
But, I provided an explanation. I'm sure I wasn't the first person to provide that explanation. It wasn't enough "proof" for you, because you have your own definition of what would be proof. Because "proof" is always subjective.
Big Man said:
DMG's parents prayed that something would happen. That event then occurred. Thus, their prayers were not answered. I wasn't arguing whether their prayers made him succeed, just that their prayers were in fact answered.
My bad, that should read "Thus their prayers were answered."
Big Man...
"If you pray for something, and it happens, how can you argue that a prayer was not answered?".
Because there is such a thing as coincidence.
It's like astrology. There are 12 astrological signs. But there are 6 billion people. That means hundreds of millions per sign. If I make a statement about what will happen to "Virgos", it will likely actually happen to a person who is a Virgo. Why? Because there are hundreds of millions of Virgos.
"I explained to you that I am not privy to God's information about what choices I will make, therefore when I make choices I am acting upon my own free will."
Nope.
Your ignorance of God's knowledge has nothing to do with your ability or inability to exrecise free will. If God already knows what you are going to do, you can not do anything else. Even out of ignorance.
"It wasn't enough 'proof' for you, because you have your own definition of what would be proof. Because 'proof' is always subjective."
In that case you don't use the English language correctly. Proof, by definition, is NEVER subjective.
Big Msn, there in no way around it. You can torture the English language all day long. However, it remains: according to your own criteria, God does not exist. That's all there is to it.
Nulan
When was the last time "everybody" understood anything?
Pentecost Big Man.
It was one of the signifying capabilities by which one's "accomplishments" as a Nazarean might be known.
Not the first time a protocol substitution happened in the annals of the bible. Think also about the confusion of tongues on the plain of the valley of Shinar, when nothing would be withheld from these sons of adam that they set out to do.
Do any of you "christians" ever bother to study scripture?
Let's think about this simply Big Man.
Do you suppose that members of the human species, who can interoperate in so many and sundry ways, might also, at some level below that of internal dialog, of self-talk in a hodgepodge of "languages" - might also share a universal grammar and communications protocol that might say undergird the oft-tauted, seldom seen/experienced faculty called "telepathy"?
Is "telepathy" another attribute, or objective accomplishment often attributed to those of advanced religious achievement?
Have you ever personally experienced "telepathy"?
Do you remember what the circumstances of that event were and could you, if you wanted to, repeat them?
CNulan
First, your definition of "everybody" seems to be an interesting one if Pentecost is your example.
Did not some folks claim that the apostles were drunk babblers? Seems like if they seemed like drunk babblers, it's hard to argue that "everybody" understood what was going on. Sure, 3,000 folks got the message, but that doesn't seem to be "everybody."
(By the way, that's ignoring the fact that the few thousand folks present on that day can't really constitute everybody by any definition of the word.)
Fisher said
Because there is such a thing as coincidence.
It's like astrology. There are 12 astrological signs. But there are 6 billion people. That means hundreds of millions per sign. If I make a statement about what will happen to "Virgos", it will likely actually happen to a person who is a Virgo. Why? Because there are hundreds of millions of Virgos.
Fisher, what do you think Christians believe prayers are?
When believers make a request to God through prayer, are they not asking for something to occur?
If that thing then occurs, were not their prayers answered. We can argue about whether the events happened because of an action by God, but the simple fact is that a believer prayed for something to occur and then it occurred. Right?
So, the prayer was answered. Could have been answered by coincendence, could have been answered by God. I can't prove either. But, a prayer was made and it was answered.
Also, proof is evidence of a fact or truth.
Or you saying that evidence has not been provided of the existence of God? That nobody has presented you with things they claim "prove" the existence of God?
Every time you express your disbelief in God around folks who believe I'm sure many of them try to provide you with evidence of his existence. You decide the evidence they provide has no merit.
It's like your GSWS. You presented a theory that you felt had merit and was backed up by proof. Many folks on the internet said you lacked proof for your theory.
How did folks determine who was right in that argument?
By subjectively deciding which group's "proof" is most believable.
Some folks came down on one side, some folks came down on the other. Each side would claim they have "proof."
Big Man...
"Every time you express your disbelief in God around folks who believe I'm sure many of them try to provide you with evidence of his existence.".
Nope. They usually say it is a matter of FAITH.
"Each side would claim they have 'proof.'.
CLAIMING proof and HAVING proof are two different concepts entirely. You are merging the two concepts into the fallacious concept "proof is subjective" you advocated earlier.
By the way, when I posited the existence of the GSWS, I developed a proof based on logic for it. As I recall no one has yet been able to dismantle the proof.
First, your definition of "everybody" seems to be an interesting one if Pentecost is your example.
Sorry Big Man, you introduced the term "everybody". I was speaking of the genuine Christians present.
Also, the belief system you have, the one that you believe is true. Does "everybody" understand what occurs in that belief system?
Orthodox Christianity is organized in concentric circles of capability and seriousness.
There is an exoteric circle of people who observe and practice church ritual and who live in the uncloistered world.
There is a mesoteric circle of priests and nuns who provide guidance, aid, and comfort to the exoteric laity. The mesoteric circle also supports and administers the institutional supports for both the church at large and for the cloistered communities.
Finally, there is an esoteric circle of hesychast monks and nuns who are wholly devoted to religious praxis and participation in the uncreated energies.
Each of these circles make up the body of Christ and are involved in an interpersonal communion of ethical praxis. It is ethical praxis as spiritual discipline which distinguishes orthodox Christianity from all the rest of the world's religious traditions.
Did you perchance read the historical and theological summaries written by Fr. John Romanides that I linked earlier on a related discussion thread?
When did it become God's job to do what you wanted Him to do?
To whom is this rhetorical question directed Big Man?
Big Man,
"I pointed out that like most religious parents, DMG's parents probably prayed for their son's success and happiness. He did not deny this."
Sorry brother, I'm just catching up. You assume to much about my parents prayers. I love my parents, but they are more interested in church matters than what their oldest was doing. By the time they knew I was in medical school, I was finished with my first semester.
Sorry again. There was nothing miraculous about getting A's in Metabolic Biochemistry, or Eukaryotic Gene Regulation, or any of my other coursework. That's called studying my ass off and dedication. Jesus was not helping my pick the correct answers. I knew them already. And the ones I got wrong can't be blamed on Satan, but rather my lack of preparation. If they were praying so hard, maybe I would have gotten my financial aid on time and not had to take a job during my first year? Maybe I wouldn't have had to go three days without eating before my first set of finals? You get my point. I'm not making fun of your faith, I'm telling you I don't believe in it. I triumphs and failures are because of my actions alone.
Nulance,
The problem with asserting that quantum mechanics is the "cause" of consciousness is that mechanical consciousness is the stuff of radical autonomists.
What is mechanical about consciousness?
A further problem seems to be self-evident. Has ANY scientist ever shown quantum mechanics to conceive of that which wasn't gleaned from the empirical evidence?
In short, is there a real world example that ANY scientist can point to and say this is evidence of quantum mechanics conceiving of something without benefit of empirical evidence?
Fisher,
I think that similar to a lot of people my sense of God goes back to my childhood, but only within the last couple years can I say that that sense was solidified by a specific event. That event, reflected upon at a later time, expressed to me the utter irrationality of the atheist's position that God does not exist.
But YOU still don't confront the issue at hand and that is the belief of the "atheist scientist" and whether falsifying that belief means God exists.
If the "atheist scientist" is wrong, does God exist?
Thordaddy owns!
OK I tried to stay away from this thread but when terms like quantum mechanics come up, I feel compelled to respond.
How could you believe in the precepts of qm without believing in a God? QM makes no intuitive sense when you get down to it; not at all.
In order to believe in qm, you DO need to take a leap of faith. You need to take a leap of faith that says that the Stern Gerlach experiments results have been interpreted correctly. You must have faith in how the term INFORMATION is defined in order to convince yourself that information cannot travel faster than light.
You must also believe and have faith that the mathematical foundation for qm is correct, despite its consistency.
From taking a few qm courses, one thing I see is that consistency in a theory is important, but something can be self consistent yet incorrect.
Personally I think qm is neat and wonderous, but I also feel as though it presents many mysteries and paradigms that are open to interpretation.
Good example, The Heisenberg v. Schroedinger pictures of qm. Both are about the same topic but approach it from completely different perspectives...
Mahndisa,
I thought you were the Physic person on this site. I was hoping all day you'd jump in. But this? Come on.
"How could you believe in the precepts of qm without believing in a God? QM makes no intuitive sense when you get down to it; not at all."
I'm going to call my uncle (not the religious one) and see if he'll get in on this conversation. Maybe you two will get along better than we do.
The fundamental assertion of qm is that the material universe has infinite potential material configurations with only one probable material outcome. That one being the one "observed."
Well perhaps you aren't familiar with the paradoxes that qm presents, which is why you don't understand my statement about its lack of intuitiveness.
Sure I was hyperbolic in that sense...I am not insinuating that the majority of physicists believe in a God concept per se...
There are many physicists who don't have religious faith at all. But almost all of the ones I've ever known or spoken to allude to a 'design' of some sort. This is particularly true of the theoretical physicists.
Perhaps it is because certain equations and their solutions that actually describe natural phenomena have an underlying beauty and symmetry in many cases; even if the symmetry is non Euclidean.
In the macroscopic world, we routinely experience things that run counter to what we might experience in the quantum realm. An example that everyone is familiar with is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you play baseball and you catch a fly ball, you know the position of the ball and its momentum at the same time. It is in your hand and stationary with respect to your frame of reference.
Quantum effects are negligible in scales that we are accustomed to because the wave functions that are associated with the macro world are sharply peaked and have very little dispersion.
But as soon as we enter the quantum regime, uncertainty plays an extremely large part and things that are so certain on the macroscopic scale cease to be certain at all. Dispersion effects at those scales are quite noticeable.
This quantum indeterminacy DOES run counter to human experience in general, imho. Just an example.
In terms of theories being self consistent but not being correct, physics and other scientific disciplines are full of such examples.
To be succinct, this author presents a thorough mathematical analysis of why many scientific studies are simply exercises in bias confirmation and or bad design from lack of understanding underlying fundamental principles. His contention is that MOST of the scientific studies he researched were disproved later on and largely because of flawed systemic designs and poor statistical analysis.
The fundamental assertion of qm is that the material universe has infinite potential material configurations with only one probable material outcome. That one being the one "observed."
TD:
That depends upon how you look at it. Since you seem to have some knowledge of this area, recall that prior to the measurement the state of the system is unknown. It is indeterminate. It could be in a superposition of all possible configurations for all we know or care. But once we take a measurement, we are Forcing the system into an eigenstate that we can quantify.
Ergo quantum indeterminacy...we can only speak about a systems properties if we measure them, but until then we don't know exactly what the system is doing.
Mahndisa, I have to concur with DMG here. To derive a God who is omnsicient from qm is not logical. First of, qm is a THEORY. A predictive theory that works well in real-world applications (thus we can communicate via computer, for example), but it does not describe EVERYTHING, as we know. Secondly, and more importantly, qm (as you yourself alluded to) is the very essence of uncertainty. Omniscience is impossible in the quantum realm, it's all based on probabilistic wave functions, on uncertainty. Thus there is no room for God as defined "omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent" in qm.
As to design: Everything that is mathematically describable by definition is a design. The question is, does the design need a designer or it is self-designing. Moreover, if there is a designer, the question again arises (as always) who designed the designer?
The problem with asserting that quantum mechanics is the "cause" of consciousness is that mechanical consciousness is the stuff of radical autonomists.
LOL
Where was any such assertion made?
What is mechanical about consciousness?
Given the extent to which yours is language based, the more important question for you would be, what "isn't" mechanical about your consciousness?
Farce, I'm not going to waste any cycles on helping you chase your tail in public.
Go read Penrose-Hameroff and try to understand what they're saying.
Try asking an intelligent question in good faith for a change.
Or, simply continue marinating in your own insufferable ignorance.
Nulance,
The thing with the quantum theorists is that they believe quantum mechanics defines the classical world. In reality, it's the classical world that defines quantum mechanics.
To say consciousness is mechanical is to redefine consciousness. Yet, this is par for course if one is a radical autonomist.
Again, "mechanical consciousness" is the stuff of the radical autonomist who seeks absolute freedom to define and alter the environment the rest of us must survive in by way of persuading "us" that we are slaves to an unmalleable set of physical and biological "mechanisms."
no farce.., I needn't persuade you of anything. You know the facts of your situation better than anyone else.
YOUR consciousness
DOMINATED as it is by language operations.
is primarily mechanical.
You know that your ordinary waking state is made up of pictures and words, and far more of the latter than the former.
If you need to believe in and talk to an imaginary friend to relieve yourself of the insufferable tedium of that mechanical existence, laissez le bon temps roulez.
I have pointed you in another direction. It's entirely up to you to put that information to use.
Continue pretending, or, do the Work.
Nulance,
If you control the mechanics, how mechanical can your existence really be?
Isn't that the game the radical autonomists like to play...? Control the mechanics?
LOL.....,
Mahndisa,
You of course know that I think most of what you say is silly, so there's no love lost. But I'll tell you what, for this one brief moment, I'll suspend all critical thinking and give your theory of qm and god consideration. Now could you explain how Quantum Mechanics proves it's your god, and not the Norse, Greek, Roman, Fon, Sioux, or Hindu gods?
Once again you have misunderstood everything I've said. I reitierate, most physicists I've known don't necessarily believe in a God concept per se, but more or less that there is a design underlying the universe. Now to what to we attribute this design?
No, this isn't a segway into the intelligent design conversations of a few years ago. I am talking about descriptions of physical law and natural phenomena that are so beautifully complex that one wonders if all of this is really coincidence.
The crux is to what to we attribute these beautiful coincidences?
1.Self consistency of mathematical framework
2.Self organization of complex systems
3.Does the consistency come from man or God?
That is something that we might never know. But ever so often man's rules are broken by some new discovery and each new discovery deepens this mystery.
In no way shape or form am I putting forth any theory at all. My personal opinions are just that; personal thoughts that I share. In order to put forth a theory, notwithstanding the falsifiability criteria, there are many other considerations that should be in order.
To me, a conversation about proving the existence of God is about the dumbest thing I could possibly think of. Those who ask believers to put up proof silly and know that this debate is terminal.
Therefore I did not interject to discuss or convince anyone that there is a God. More or less, I said that given my knowledge of qm which was invoked here, it is easy to believe in a god or a design of some sort.
And yes you can say that you think what I write is silly and I can say that what I think you write is stupid. Whatever.
It is apparent that you do have a limited knowledge of the precepts of qm and it is also apparent that your reading comprehension is lacking.
Otherwise you would not attribute ANYTHING of what I've said to be construed as entering this debate. I simply made a declaration or two based upon a tangent.
Fish:
I am surprised at your comments towards me. You are attributing things to me that I've not said. Since when have I invoked omnicience at all? I have not. Your notion of the design being self organizing was a fair point which is at the crux of the qm discussion. However, get it straight that all of you have come up with a framework of how you define God to exist or not.
I haven't nor will I go there at all. Because whatever this God is, its mechanisms are unknown and likely unitelligible to me and the majority of humanity.
Read what I said above; most physicists don't necessarily have a religion or believe in a god concept per se, but allude to a design.
Now, Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in a first cause as did Newton because he believes in quantum indeterminancy. However he did say that the universe 'just is' in a talk he gave in San Jose a few years back.
The universe 'just being' is an entity that was self created. OK anything that is self creating sounds godlike to me.
Its how you define God, which is why this conversation was boring to me until qm was brought up.
And now, I recuse myself again since I was misunderstood.
"Since when have I invoked omnicience at all? I have not."
Fair point. I am working within the framework of the God-believers present here. And their definition of God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Apopolgy for having attributed the same to you.
Mahndisa,
Why is it that everyone misunderstands you?
DMG
Where did I try to give God credit for your accomplishments?
I said your parents likely prayed for two things:
1. For you to return safely from the Marines.
2. For you to have a successful and happy life.
Check what I wrote. I didn't assign any details or specifics. Given the information you provided us, I made a logical assumption that your parents prayed for those two things.
Do you agree or disagree with me?
Did they pray for those things and did those things happen?
I'm not trying to prove to y'all that God made those things happen. That's dumb.
I just pointed out that there was a massive amount of hyperbole in DMG's assertion that NONE of his parents prayers were ever answered.
I get you don't believe in God. I get how you view Christianity. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing out that in order to make your argument your resorted to statements that were untrue.
CNulan
CNulan
Actually, you introduced the term "everybody" when you asked why God didn't answer people in terms that "everybody" could understand.
Cnulan said:
Who/what is this God to whom you self-talk?
Why doesn't it ever answer you directly in the simple way that everybody can understand?
I questioned why you expected God's answers to be simple and understandable by "everybody."
You are a student of the Bible. Where did God promise that his actions or answers would be simple and understandable by "everybody?"
My point was that in your flippant question (and I am a fan of your flippancy at times) you held God to a standard that you hold no other thing to, and a standard that runs contrary to what he has said he would do.
You've even quoted several scriptures that talk about how God communicates.
So, why would you say that? Why would you ask that question?
Seems like a dishonest way to conduct a discussion.
Actually, you introduced the term "everybody" when you asked why God didn't answer people in terms that "everybody" could understand.
I questioned why you expected God's answers to be simple and understandable by "everybody."
My bad Big Man.
Because I distinguish between Christians belonging to an ancient and continuous culture of competency which practices a religious science in which one's developmental accomplishments can be measured or assessed - and the rest of y'all practicing some or another concocted variant of Constantinianity - it becomes very difficult to keep track.
This difficulty is only further compounded by the fact that you all have no traditionally established praxis, no methods, barely even a liturgy.
Orthodox prayer consists of standardized psychophysical exercises repeated to achieve certain definite ends.
Everybody participating in these exercises understands what they're for to the extent of his/her development. (think kata in martial arts)
This is in startk contrast with what you all do.
What you all do is talk to yourselves (or an imaginary friend) and ask this imaginary friend for things that you want.
Father Romanides quite bluntly referred to the syndrome of beliefs and "practices" in which you all are engaged as a "neurobiological sickness"
I concur with the good Fr.'s summary assessment.
You are a student of the Bible. Where did God promise that his actions or answers would be simple and understandable by "everybody?"
Both old and new testament accounts of manifestations of the uncreated are unambiguous.
By the time of Jesus, "prayer" is systematic and is something which must be taught in secret to the disciples.
Much like the blood drinking at the last supper - which was done for a definite purpose.
My point was that in your flippant question (and I am a fan of your flippancy at times) you held God to a standard that you hold no other thing to, and a standard that runs contrary to what he has said he would do.
No.
I'm setting forth a standard by which to judge what you've been taught and what you profess to believe.
I only point out the existence of something entirely different from that teaching and that belief - something still grounded in and connected by carefully preserved knowledge, practice and tradition to its origins - but which many of you claiming Christianity have never endeavored to question or explore on your own.
So, why would you say that? Why would you ask that question?
It is a neverending mystery to me how otherwise sensible and well-grounded people can incorporate and abide gross logical and practical discontinuities into their personal belief systems.
I was done with Constantianity by the age of 10 or 11 - and on about the process of actively and aggressively interrogating religious practice until I found a systematization that was internally consistent in its traditions, practices, and objectives - and which produces verifiable and measurable results - at the very least - on its practitioners.
Seems like a dishonest way to conduct a discussion.
You haven't noticed the suspension of disbelief required to profess what you profess, and to defend what you've attempted to defend on these threads?
Seriously?
Cnulan
I wasn't arguing with you about whether believing in Christianity or Constantianity was the way to go.
I was just pointing out a problem I had with the comment you made using the term "everybody."
Nothing more. The way you phrased that rhetorical question bothered me.
Your belief that Christians like me pray to an imaginary friend does not bother me.
I'm not really interested in the the overall outcome of this debate, just interested in how y'all conduct it. That's the same way if feel about most of the topics on this blog.
As far as my suspension of disbelief, I can get with that. Never argued that my belief system didn't require a leap of "faith." In fact, I've argued the exact opposite.
Nulan
Do you really believe that I have no way to measure my progress as a Christian?
That's interesting.
Share your metrics?
How do you gauge your progress in relation to these?
What is the scriptural basis for each?
Absent a scriptural instruction, please cite the authoritative traditional source or instruction to which your measurable practice and steady progress refers?
CNulan
In my reading of the Bible I've come across specific instructions on how to behave as a Christian. I constantly evaluate my personal conduct compared to these instructions.
Since you have read and studied the Bible extensively, you are aware of these instructions.
Do you deny their existence, or do you say they aren't specific enough in their directives?
Or do you say that I am not qualified to evaluate my own progress towards these goals?
I didn't say anything Big Man.
Matthew 7:3 tells you why that's an unsound idea, however;
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own?
I asked you to provide an example of a measurable standard by which you gauge your developmental progress as a Christian.
Oh, and don't give me any lame nonsense about how you didn't covet your neighbors wife yesterday, screw her, and falsely snitch her husband out to the authorities.
While refraining from those pastimes might be an incremental improvement for ball-shaving Big Wayne, I'm not sure YOU get to claim refraining from those activities as a sign of progress.
Seriously dude, let's hear what you call yourself doing/measuring?
I'll reciprocate with details concerning the most widely known, often imitated, and readily accessible practice given to orthodox aspirants.
I use the two top commandments.
Do I place God above all other things in life and seek to draw closer to his plan for me as revealed in his word?
Do I love my neighbor the same way I love myself?
So, I judge myself based on how am I doing as far as following those two directives on a consistent basis. Some days are better than others.
oh..,
ok.
Here's something very basic and fundamental that we do.
done consistently and over an extended period of time,
it can be a very powerful tool for self-observation and self-remembering.
Thanks for the acknowledgment Fish. Ultimately God is a pretty slippery concept to those that both believe and do not believe in its existence.
Interesting link. Thanks for the info.
Post a Comment