I was raised to have believe, have faith in God as a baby, and I would have never thought that I would come to this day where I have my doubts. There were times, I admit, where I was angry at God for little things. But there was a long period of time where I stopped having faith in Him not because I all of a sudden decided not to, but because there were things surrounding me such as facts and opinions. Then I remember the book 'God is not great' coming out onto bookshelves, and I would always walk by it questioning myself whether or not I should get it. I convinced myself I wouldn't waste my money, but I would come home and question my belief in this God that I had faith in all my life. I wouldn't really say that I dwell upon facts completely, I mean isn't it obvious?
I just kind of feel that the older I get, the more I feel that I have a better understanding of myself with life and the people that surround me everyday. And when it came to God, I guess the facts overpowers the faith that I either have or had in Him. I feel like I'm in a Harry Potter movie where the sorting hat chooses which house to place you in. But the sorting hat doesn't completely choose for you. If you really really want to be in a certain house, that's where it puts you. I feel like I have a choice between believing in God, or not to believe in God...not to believe in a spirit that I have believed in all of my life.
I have to admit that I do still pray from time to time...when I have nowhere else to turn to. But it's always in the back of my head "Am I relaly praying to someone? Or am I a crazy person kneeling at the side of my bed, talking to my folding hands, with my eyes shut?" I want to be Harry Potter and choose where I want to be. That sounds really corny, but it's true. I want to a follower of God and spread his word and have faith in Him. I just don't want those negative thoughts in the back of my head all the time.
Well, face it if you believe you accept the fact that satan too exists and that he would be one responsible for shouting deception and disbelief into your head. I should know, I nearly lost my life over that.... litterally. I choose God/Jesus because of Faith, and what HE has done through my life... or what HE has brought through,into, and the people I've met. If you hang on long enough Your Faith will grow and so will your comprehension of Miracles of themselves... I've already seen quite a few lol hahaha
An Angel says hello as I say Good bye, hoping nothing may be sighed.
Thanks, it's good to hear that somebody understands what I'm going through. And I am definitely trying to understand the meaning of faith and why I should have it. trust me I go to church as often as I can. With work and everything it's a little hard at times...but I will keep trying.
Every person falters and stumbles.... You know.... (getting off subject) when a bone breaks it grows stronger and faster the next.... Likewise applies to Faith, just as long as it is returned properly it will surely grow stronger and faster. I don't consider myself a Christian till the time I really lost my temper at a Christian Camp, lol I full on rage and pinned a punk down, but after that I bolted hid under God's Shelter...Angel Wings shielded me from sight (no joke seriously happened)....and than I got my Testimony... but I've always been churched raise, untill I got pissed and threw up with anger I wasn't a CHRISTian.... and ever since that rough event, I've faced even harder times... but I'm still STRONG, I'm STILL GOING... and Only God may Guide me now.... (I Hope).... further more every blessing is of God, lol haha
An Angel says hello as I say Good bye, hoping nothing may be sighed.
I've never been in a fight before (well..physical fight) but that's pretty crazy how you fought at a christian camp. I mean I give you props, but I'm pretty sure you regret some of it?
WELL if you consider completely crying my eyes out over what I did, I guess you could call it a regret... but if I hadn't than I would hate to think of where I'd be.... That was my "awakening" yeah sure I did something bad, but it was worth it wasn't it? That's how GOD works, makes you do something horrible just so he can smile at you and return to an even greater standing, and best of all you're still humble even if you've risen to the upper class hahaha. lol :D
-------------
An Angel says hello as I say Good bye, hoping nothing may be sighed.
"I am the Alpha(A) and the Omega(Z)"
"I am that I am"
Faith waivers because we have an image of god. The visualization of some old man on a cloud is comicaly wrong, but so is the collection of religious teachings and ideas that every one of us has.
"Thou shalt not make a graven image"
God is a being whose body is the entire universe. Every Galaxy and molecule that we can see, and amuch greater amount we cannot including known and unknown energy fields connecting it all.
Is it more ridiculous to assume that 8 pounds of mush within our skulls can be self aware, or that the entire cosmos might not be?
A fact is always better than an ideal
Love the lord your God with all your heart.
When you pray do not ask for your needs, or the needs of others. God know your needs better than you do and loves you more than you love yourself. Instead thank God for the blessings that he has filled your world with.
The most rewarding prayer that I have ever experienced was praising God wen it seemed my life was a disaster. Miracle is the only word I have to describe it.
A fact is always better than an ideal
I'll have to find it, but there was this site on the internet that goes into the scientific aspect of the earth. How God doesn't exist, I mean I found it to be pretty sad at first, I was actually angry...but after hearing that it just kinda makes me wonder.
Facts are 'in fact' always better than ideals, but what can I say, we live in an ideal world...whether it has to do with God or not.
I guess it's jut going to take time
If you're concerned that you might be crazy for praying, you're probably not. The truly insane rarely question their own actions. But, that doesn't mean that you're right, either. The simple fact is that there is no actual evidence at all that "god" is real. That doesn't mean that "he" isn't real, but it does mean that if you are going to believe in this "god," you are going to have to accept that you might very well be expending your life in pursuit of a empty dream.
Many idealists live their lives in the pursuit of a dream. Some of those ideals are real, and some are not. Idealism isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be. What matters is that you keep your beliefs in perspective. It is one thing to believe without having the facts to back you up, but it is another thing entirely to cling desperately to a belief even after the facts are revealed and a belief is proved to be inaccurate. An idealist who does this becomes a fanatic.
In the end, you have to consider the facts and make up your own mind. All I ask is that before you do, be honest with yourself about what you believe, and why.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I don't really see it as an empty dream.
I mean I'm not one of those types of people that make my whole entire life about God and decorate my home with pictures of God and crosses and all of that, not that I'm against it or anything, that's just not the way I show my faith/belief.
But you are right, that int he end you have to make up your own mind. And I am being completely honest with myself....and that is what is so confusing about everything! I have always been honest with myself, and I'm not going to just sit here and lie about my feelings towards God. God, facts, opinions...it's surrounds me every single day. It's like an annoying bug!!
One of the first things we do when we start to doubt or faith or question it (neither of which are bad things) is that we seek to develop the answers on our own.
When we do that, we stop listening. While critical thinking skills are important and very valuable, don't put them over listening. Sometimes God is not where we seek him, and it is because we are not seeking in the right places.
1 Kings 19 is a good example. Around verse 11.
And no, you are not alone. You are never alone.. there is always someone you can lean on for support.
I should start reading the bible. that way it will reassure me that there is someone there that I can turn to. I guess that is what has been keeping my faith in God alive.
That is a question that has no easy answers. Is God real? Only you can decide that. Not the Church or your parents but you. You're not going to get any concrete proof that He or She if you prefer exists, it is complete faith. For me, God doesn't have a definite shape. Not an old man. It's okay to question because where would we be. However, you should wait to see what happens to change your mind. Faith is totally individual. If you do decide God doesn't exist, fine. But if you're having frustration, it's not God's fault. It's just life. We make life happen for us.
I understand that completely.
It's just that there are things around me that make me question my faith sometimes.
And I wish I wouldn't. I don't wanna sit here and lie about it either. I'd probably be a crazy person if I did.
But I do choose to believe in God, but I guess it's just been a struggle to commit to that.
Your belief or disbelief in a God doesn't change the actual existance of God.
All that we can do is accept or disbelieve what does or does not exist.
Believe it or not, beliving in God is not the hard part. The lifestyle to lead in response to such belief is where things will become difficult.
Here is a video that I had been sent that, I thought, did a decent job of visualizing how we can sometimes feel seperated from God:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ee73e63418003b47d7d5
As I said before, you are not alone. You will find two groups of people in your struggle:
1 group will tell you to make up your own mind and will try to tell you all of the reasons why they don't believe in God.
1 group will tell you to make up your own mind and will try to tell you all of the reasons why they do believe in God.
In the end, it is your decision to make. Your faith is your own. As a believer in God, specifically a Christian, I have my hopes and prayers for your search, and am always available if you need to talk.about such things. Send a message if you have any questions or feel alone and I can point you to things to look at or consider.
Yes I get a ton of ppl who tell me to make my own decision and don't believe in God, which makes it 10 times harder on me.
but thank you
There is just something scary about that video. I can't put my finger on it.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I have the same problem. Well, it's about God though...more like a religion as a whole. If you think God exists, God exists. If you don't believe God exists, then God does not exist in your world. It's that simple. lol. Sorry, I'm not being helpful. But it's in your mind. If you just listen to everyone else tell you...then you'll be confused even more. Just a thought.
One thing that has really hurt today's society is the idea that 'your world' is somehow what defines reality.
What is, is... and what is not is not.
That we identify or ignore certain aspects does not create nor negate their existance.
If I do or do not believe that apples exist, it doesn't change whether apples exist. It is the same with God. Believing in God doesn't make God Exist, and NOT believing in God doesn't make God NOT exist.
All I can do is believe that God exists or Not believe that God exists. It has no impact on whether or not God exists.
> If I do or do not believe that apples exist,
> it doesn't change whether apples exist.
> It is the same with God. Believing in God
> doesn't make God Exist, and NOT believing
> in God doesn't make God NOT exist.
If someone doesn't believe in apples, all I have to do is go to the nearest apple tree, and bring back an apple for them to taste. Even if they're stubborn, and refuse to eat the apple, I can in a pinch haul off and bean them in the heat with Golden Delicious evidence until they either give in an admit that apples exist, or run off screaming in fear.
The "evidence" for "god" is not comparable to this in any way and the reasons for this should be rather obvious. A book about an apple tree that you've never actually seen, or an explanation of an imagined apple (which you've thought about a lot but have never actually tasted yourself) just wouldn't be all that convincing, and that of course is all that you could offer if we were to really apply your comparison of "god" to apples.
pericvale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Yeah, it is. The belief in something has no bearing on whether or not that something actually exists.
...Apples exist whether you believe in them or not, and more importantly a belief in apples can be proved with easily obtainable, undeniable, objective evidence. Your belief in a "god" is not so cut and dried. It would be more accurate to compare your belief in "god" to a belief in "big foot." At least then your comparison would actually represent something that has a similar amount of actual proof associated with it.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
well, i guess it's just all about opinions. But there are alot of things that happen in this world that we cannot explain, I guess what everyone has been saying is in fact right. YOU have to choose. I've made my choice, and I think it is totally wrong if you think someone is wrong for what they believe. And please, I hope you're not comparin Jesus to big foot...that's just wrong.
I mean face it, atleast us Christians are choosing a good pathway VS evil. NOt saying that you AREN'T, but for all of you who think we're crazy ppl, we're not...we just want to feel that we're doing/following something right and good. not wrong and evil.
One can believe in somehting that is in fact not true, just as easily as one can lack belief in something that is actual and real. It is intellectually disingenous, however, to imply that one has objective knowledge of the existence of something when in fact one does not have that knowledge at all.
Continuing to utilize the example from above, when someone believes in apples they do so because of the evidence. When someon believes in "god" however, they are doing so in spite of the evidence (or rather the lack thereof).
Also, I am not comparing "Jesus" to "Big Foot." There is actually some real evidence that a man named "Jesus" existed, and that he led a movement that eventually developed into what we know today as the religion of chrsitianity. I was comparing "Big Foot" to "God," because we possess no actual evidence that either of these mythical beings are real. When a religious person says, "I believe in God," they are exercising exactly the same process of thought in which a cryptozoologist engages when he says, "I believe in Big Foot."
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
but, my belief in God has no bearing on the existance of God.
I can believe in God because He exists, or I can believe in God even though he doesn't exist.
I can NOT believe in God even though He exists, or I can NOT believe in God because He doesn't exist.
belief doesn't MAKE reality, it only reflects it, like shadows on the wall.
...but some are nothing more than dreams. It is true that belief does not make reality, and that is kind of the whole point behind my comments. Your beliefs only reflect reality "like shadows on the wall" if in fact the object of your belief is really there to cast the shadow. There is a reason that we don't generally afford a lot of credibility to Big Foot enthusiasts, and that reason is because the Big Foot enthusiast has no actual evidence that might convince us that his beliefs are actually true. I see no reason to treat religion any differently. If you have no evidence (and we both know that you don't), then your belief has just as much weight behind it that the proponents of any other wildly speculative theory. You might be right, and your beliefs might be true, but an intellectually honest evaluation of your beliefs inevitably leans rather significantly in the opposite direction from that assumption.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Very true, I don't have any evidence that you would accept as proof of God.
However, that doesn't affect the reality of the existance or non-existance of God.
Remember that when one looks at the universe and sees a godless accident of physics, another looks at that same universe and sees the evidence of an artistic Creator.
I would go so far as to suggest that the very things I look at and understand as proof of God would be the very things another would look at as evidence that there is no God.
One's perspectives define their worldview and the input of any evidence, but (thankfully) Perspectives are not (nor do they affect) what is actually real.
As for Bigfoot... I don't know that he is real, but whether I did or not, it wouldn't change the actual existance or non-existance of Bigfoot.
I do, however, find it easier to believe in God than in Bigfoot.
and people have 'Bigfoot tracks" in plaster.
i get that completely. In my world God does exist. I'm tired of ppl opposing that, and telling it to the whole world like they're proud of it or something. In my opinion, it's nothing to be proud about. It's an interruption of someones faith...and I think it's very cruel. I guess it's happened to me, and now I'm dealing with it. But maybe I can take this as a way of having greater faith in my savior.
Remember, please, that you will be attacked for your faith. You will be insulted, called every crazy name for your faith.
Remember John 15:
18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.'[b] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.
Keep your heart up, remember the goal and never forget that there are people that can help you through the hardtimes.... just as you can be useful to those who are going through their own hard times.
...that even back then, the founders of your religion knew how crazy their claims would sound to men and women of reason. Its rather convenient, don't you think, to arbitrarily preempt all possible forms of criticism so that you don't have to deal with the rational flaws in your beliefs?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Cynical much?
or just anti-christian?
that's exactly how i feel. and I'm glad you're posting up bible verses, it kinda reassures me that my belief in God isn't crazy at all.
yes, i hear ya. and i'm glad that I can somewhat relate to you and vise versa. NObody is perfect.
God is by definition right, perfect, and good. Iam the way the TRUTH and the light.
Serving god is serving good. Beleiving in God is the same as beleiving there is a truth.
Most doubters lose sight of the fact that this is a SPIRITUAL thing not a material one. God cannot be compared to Bigfoot, or an Apple. God is Kindness vs Cruelty or charity vs greed.
God is good, we are not. The best a human can aspire to is to SERVE good(AKA GOD). Read the words of Jesus when his diciples called him good.
Those who cast doubt on the existence of God unwittingly serve evil. Some not so unwittingly.
A fact is always better than an ideal
It is very easy to "define" something that cannot be objective examined and its actual properties discovered. In fact, your response is nothing but more of the same double-speak that seems always to accompany the responses of theists that are challenged over the lack of evidence behind their beliefs. All of this crap about things that are "spiritual" is also nothing but more disingenous crap. Either you can objectively prove that the things that you say are true, or you can't, and let's be honest and admit that we both know that the latter is the case here.
The simple fact is that there is not one iota of substance to your claims, and because of that your belief in "god" is in fact very similar to a cryptozoologist's beleif in Big Foot. You might not like the fact that you are behaving like the crazy guy who puts tin-foil on his head to keep the space aliens from reading his mind, but when you take actions in the real world to prevent something that you can't even honestly say for sure exits, that is exactly what you are doing.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Have you ever studied Math? The entire basis is a few basic axioms from which ALL of the rest is derived. Inteligence itself is spiritual. If you doubt that, 'prove' that it exists in your next post. If you are honest you will see that your 'tin-foil ' hat is based on Math and all of the rest is soft science.
You are stil looking for that 'old man on a cloud' type of diety. I feel sure you can prove that I don't know whether he exists or not.
I think we both love the truth. I just work for the truth. Judging from your signature you think you own it.
A fact is always better than an ideal
And the use of axioms is one of the reasons that almost all scientific explanations begin with an "IF..." As for the question of intelligence, we can easily prove that damage to the brain (a physical part of the body) directly effects the ability of a person to think, to reason and to express himself. Our memories and emotions and reasoning abilities are all directly tied to the physical structures and chemical reactions of the brain. Thus, there is a clearly causal relationship between the physical state of the brain, and one's intelligence. Can you now provide us with a prayer or similar "spiritual" source that would in fact have a similar effect on someone's intelligence?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Equating brain damage to faith illustrates the prejudice that is obscuring your ability to reason. Faith is an Idea not a thing. Have you ever seen emotional trauma and its effects on the ability of a person to think, to reason and to express himself? They can be just as dramatic as physical damage. Amnesia, depression, and even catatonia are examples. Is that physical?
There is also a causal relationship between education and the brains ability to reason, communicate and express itself. Education and ideas are spiritual (intellectual) things not physical ones. A bad idea such as Marxism or Fascism, my apologies if you are possessed(infected), are exactly what authors 2000+ years ago called an 'evil spirit'.
The misconception that chemistry is the root of thought and emotion was only conceived of after man had progressed spiritually (intellectually) for hundreds of generations. Physical and spiritual are not disconnected from each other, but are not the same. Think of Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, and Energy. All can be states of the same matter. Spirit and intellect are not just states of matter, but they do share the same universe.
You have failed to prove that intelligence exists, because it cannot be proven. I have faith that intelligence exists because even though I cannot touch it I am able to perceive it. The same is true of God I can perceive God Though I cannot touch or prove the almighty.
Don't mistake my faith in God with faith in religion.
A fact is always better than an ideal
> Equating brain damage to faith
> illustrates the prejudice that is
> obscuring your ability to reason.
> Faith is an Idea not a thing.
It appears that you are attempting to redirect my comment in some sort of rhetorical shell game. I did not equate brain damage to faith. You said, "Intelligence itself is spiritual. If you doubt that, 'prove' that it exists in your next post." That I have done, and your evasion strikes me as more than a little disingenuous.
> Have you ever seen emotional trauma
> and its effects on the ability of a person
> to think, to reason and to express himself?
> They can be just as dramatic as physical
> damage. Amnesia, depression, and even
> catatonia are examples. Is that physical?
The external causes of these traumas may or may not be physical, but the emotions themselves, and yes even the psychological reactions of trauma are in fact solidly grounded in the physical structures and chemical reactions of the brain. Neither thought nor emotion even possible unless the brain is functioning sufficiently to permit them.
> There is also a causal relationship between
> education and the brains ability to reason,
> communicate and express itself. Education
> and ideas are spiritual (intellectual) things
> not physical ones.
Factually incorrect. The intelligence of a person, or more precisely the potential to reason, communicate and express oneself is not directly related to education in any way. Education is merely a cultivation of this potential. An "education" is also nothing more than the chemical imprint of acquired experiences stored in the brain. This is also easily proved. By damaging specific portions of the brain, memories and yes even one's education can be completely removed.
Furthermore, you are making an unsupportable leap in your attempt to spin the words "spiritual" and "intellectual" into some sort of synonym. These words do not mean the same thing, and your use of them in this fashion is both disingenuous and inaccurate.
> A bad idea such as Marxism or Fascism,
> my apologies if you are possessed(infected),
> are exactly what authors 2000+ years ago
> called an 'evil spirit'.
Primitive people often presumed that things that they didn't understand were some sort of "supernatural" force or being. One can excuse such primitive ignorance in ancient people, because they lacked the knowledge to adequately evaluate the world around them. As our knowledge of the world increases, however, it becomes more difficult to excuse this kind of primitive thought-process. There is no longer any excuse for it.
> The misconception that chemistry is
> the root of thought and emotion was
> only conceived of after man had
> progressed spiritually (intellectually)
> for hundreds of generations.
Again, I have to point out that your use of "spiritually (intellectually)" is essentially meaningless, due to your misapplication of those terms. But to address your point a bit more directly, why do you think that this comment helps your case? The knowledge of each generation grows as it builds on the knowledge of the previous generation. That is why we know today that the world is round and that the sky isn't held up by great pillars or stone. Primitive folks lacked the knowledge and terms to describe the world accurately, and so they guessed at explanations and made do with them until better explanations came along. Some of these guesses were right, but some were not.
> Physical and spiritual are not disconnected
> from each other, but are not the same. Think
> of Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, and Energy.
> All can be states of the same matter. Spirit
> and intellect are not just states of matter,
> but they do share the same universe.
Your metaphor fails due to its illogical premise. Before you can accurately compare the states of matter to things physical and spiritual, you must first be able to prove that things spiritual acutally exist. This you cannot do, at least not based on anything that has thus far been discovered and proved by any human.
> You have failed to prove that intelligence
> exists, because it cannot be proven.
Well, thanks for your arbitrary dismissal, but you really haven't responded to the facts that I placed before you. There is a great deal of objective scientific literature dealing with the subject of intelligence. We regularly measure the intelligence of humans and even some animals (its called an I.Q. test...you've probably taken one yourself). We even know specifically what parts of the brain control intelligence (i.e. the cerebellum). "Proof" is always a bit subjective, but the simple fact is that in terms of empirical evidence, we can and have "proved" that intelligence exists, and know a great deal about how it works.
> I have faith that intelligence exists
> because even though I cannot touch
> it I am able to perceive it. The same is
> true of God I can perceive God Though
> I cannot touch or prove the almighty.
So you say, but then schizophrenics also claim to perceive things that really aren't there. Just because you can imagine something does not mean that it really exists, and unless you can provide some sort of objective evidence that would suggest that your perception is something more than a mere figment of your imagination, I find your claims to be less than credible.
> Don't mistake my faith in God with
> faith in religion.
If your faith was in religion, then at least you could point to something real to back up your statements, though even then you would eventually come up against the wall of logical fallacies which surround the core beliefs of any religion.
> A fact is always better than an ideal
A "fact" is something that you can prove. All you seem to have are ideals.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Yeah, that's how I view it. God is the goodness in our hearts. He teaches us how to be good people. Can we really explain how humans were put on this earth though? I always thought of it as God created us. There's no other explanation. I guess that's a stumping question
People can argue all they want for all I care, until their tongues fall off or the migranes of their attitudes shuts them up. I know my faith, I know who kept me and saved me from death. without God I would have nothing to life for. You either say and accept that the only purpose of man is to procreate and populate this earth Manifest destiny and such, or You accept and Believe that you were created for a purpose that you aren't just some being on the face of this earth that you matter to someone of the Greatest Importance. Exscuse me but what offers the best results in living a Full and Wonderful Life? I would be a dumbass and ignorant insensitive jerk to think anything other Faith in God. It makes the most logical sense, with it you are given Hope. and Hope my Friend is the By-Product of Life itself, face it you all have Hope but what is Hope under scientific standards? In a realist point of view, what will come will come and no Hope exists only certainty. But by the giving of Hope, whom the source of Hope is GOD HiMSELF because HE offers the chance and probability of The OFF CHANCES happening, Like the Hero saving the Day at the last minute. The Final 3-point shot at the buzzer, or even how a man can rise to riches, or even the unlikely possibility of a 7yr old doing Open-Heart surgery and who just might have a chance of curing cancer latter in his life? Again I'm listing all things possible Through Hope, which again is created by God to give us something to hold onto like his Word, which is one of the bigger sources of Hope that we all have. I'm sorry but if You don't have Hope than you don't Believe in God....I'm sorry but that's just the way it is, if you have some sort of Hope you Have Faith and That Faith has to be going somewhere....either way there is always the inkling feeling that GOD somewhere out there exists....I just know who HE is all that serparates me from the rest of you cynically rude folk. No Hope, No chance....what's the point in Living? huh.......
Well I hope this helps you lovely girl....it's gotten me quite far it has. Take Care Beautiful
An Angel says hello as I say Good bye, hoping nothing may be sighed.
The alternative to a religious faith is not nihilism. I don't believe that my life has no meaning. I just don't think that there is a grand scheme. My life has meaning to me. It has meaning to people who I interact with. I am content and happy with the purpose of living my life. I don't think I would be happy if I was just a pawn in some master plan.
I have hope for many things. I also don't believe in god. The things I hope for will either happen or they won't. I wish that they would happen, but if and when they do, I do not consider it god's doing.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Than except this, It's NOT going to happen. simply because there is certainty that there will be nothing to effect the thing you happen, there is no catalyst. Without God you have only yourself to make things happen for you, if you do not cause things to happen than nothing you have not earned will come. And slowly just slowly we are drifting to another GOD hot-spot.....Grace, getting something you don't deserve. Again revolving kinly to HOPE.
An Angel says hello as I say Good bye, hoping nothing may be sighed.
I can only assume that you are referring to things that I hope for.
Many things that I have hoped for have happened. Some off them, I have caused, or helped cause, to happen. Some were caused by other people. Some were just lucky. Some, I deserved. Some, I didn't.
To use your example, a game. Basketball, football, whatever. You're one goal (whatever) away from victory. The time is running out. The person with the ball isn't a great player, but he suddenly shows great strength and gets the goal. Grace of god? No. Try adrenalin.
And, does it really make sense that it is god? No. What about the team that lost? What about when the surgery fails? What happens when the off duty policeman gets killed without stopping the criminal? For all the unlikely things that do happen, there are more times when they don't.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I am enjoying this exchange. The assertion of several of your last few posts is that I am trying to Play a: 'rhetorical shell game","double-speak", or in some way trick you. I deny the intent, and hope you will see it as evidence of my own imperfect ability to reason and communicate, physical limitations no doubt, and not an intention to deceive.
Equating of terms is my attempt to show that the lack of vocabulary when the religious book was written, upon which my specific culture relies, is part of your failure to accept its premise. Here are the terms:
Spiritual=Intellectual/conceptual
spirit=idea/concept/attitude
God=Controller and creator of all reality (All physical laws including the ones that man has no idea exist).
Try very hard to remove the disinformation that organized religion has added to your perception of God. Between 300AD and the time of Martin Luther the Christian church was controlled by people with very worldly, political, and power hungry motives. More purely intentioned believers such as the Gnostics (along with the Celtic druids these were predecessors to the wiccan tradition) were tortured and killed, or at least driven underground and discredited. I do believe that "all things work together for good to those who believe" and God used the Catholic Church for a great deal of good, but I am not trying to support the doctrines of their modern successors.
Go back to the words of Jesus and I'll be glad to defend nearly every word although some of the defense I might offer would be guess work.
Back to the argument. ;-)
-------------------------------------------
"-The intelligence of a person, or more precisely the potential to reason, communicate and express oneself is not directly related to education in any way-"
You need to research the facts on this. Intelligence tests are fairly imprecise in putting their finger on what they measure. The intention is to measure potential, but your background has too much impact on your potential
"A test performance that a half century ago would have ranked at the 84th percentile (a score of 115) now is only good enough for the 50th percentile (a score of 100)."
http://vdare.com/sailer/070903_flynn.htm
To me this fact clearly is a result of the environment (education) of the people being tested. No genetic or nutritional change has happened since the 50s that can be shown to have this effect. Think of how much more complex the average TV show is than ones at that time, and even the vast amount of knowledge and ideas that are available. Consider a child playing cards or Baseball in the 50s and then today’s child playing sim city, or navigating the levels of a video game.
Forgive the metaphor. Intelligence is like a seed planted in the dirt (Physical brain) that is nourished (loved) and basks in the sun (education) to reach its potential. Other factors such as Acidity (Faith) can have a huge impact on the final fruit.
-----------------------
"-'prove' that it exists in your next post." That I have done-"
Here is how you did it.
"-As for the question of intelligence, we can easily prove that damage to the brain (a physical part of the body) directly affects the ability of a person to think, to reason and to express himself. Our memories and emotions and reasoning abilities are all directly tied to the physical structures and chemical reactions of the brain. Thus, there is a clearly causal relationship between the physical state of the brain, and one's intelligence.-"
Does pulling the wings off of a Fly prove the theory of Flight? I was disappointed that you in your role as the defender of reason offered up this weak effort. I understand why you resorted to the shell game since abstract proof is impossible. It does more harm to your argument to deny the obvious, than the ground you surrender by admitting it would.
--------------------------------------------------------
Let's break some fresh ground and consider inspiration. Many of the icons of science credited the divine for the advancements that etched their names in history. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are two whose advancements have taken us as far as any. Both staunchly credited God for their inspiration. Do you feel conceited at all when you think of these two as ignorant and superstitious? Is inspiration a physical thing? Does it exist at all?
This is who God is to me.
http://progressiveu.org/035310-is-god-real#comment-185479
A fact is always better than an ideal---Scientific method is an ideal.--Do you disagree?
> Equating of terms is my attempt to show
> that the lack of vocabulary when the religious
> book was written, upon which my specific
> culture relies, is part of your failure to accept
> its premise. Here are the terms:
The Ancient Hebrew and Greek languages were already quite advanced at the time that even the oldest chapters of the modern bible were written, and I don't think that there is any ambiguity in the words and concepts you are attmepting to blend in the original concept and intent of these texts. For example....
> Spiritual=Intellectual/conceptual
> spirit=idea/concept/attitude
> God=Controller and creator of all reality
> (All physical laws including the ones
> that man has no idea exist).
The following words are commonly translated to include a "spiritual" element in thier meanings...
anastasis an-as'-tas-is
a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):--raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.
apoleia ap-o'-li-a
ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal):--damnable(-nation), destruction, die, perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste.
paliggenesia pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah
(spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), i.e. (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specially, Messianic restoration:--regeneration.
pisteuo pist-yoo'-o
to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ):--believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
pneumatikos pnyoo-mat-ik-os'
non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concretely), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.
sthenoo sthen-o'-o from sthenos (bodily vigor; to strengthen, i.e. (figuratively) confirm (in spiritual knowledge and power):--strengthen.
sklerokardia sklay-rok-ar-dee'-ah
hard-heartedness, i.e. (specially), destitution of (spiritual) perception:--hardness of heart.
sophia sof-ee'-ah
wisdom (higher or lower, worldly or spiritual):--wisdom.
sugkrino soong-kree'-no
to judge of one thing in connection with another, i.e. combine (spiritual ideas with appropriate expressions) or collate (one person with another by way of contrast or resemblance):--compare among (with).
hupnos hoop'-nos
sleep, i.e. (figuratively) spiritual torpor:--sleep.
phortizo for-tid'-zo
to load up (properly, as a vessel or animal), i.e. (figuratively) to overburden with ceremony (or spiritual anxiety):--lade, by heavy laden.
charis khar'-ece from
graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude):--acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace(- ious), joy, liberality, pleasure, thank(-s, -worthy).
charisma khar'-is-mah
a (divine) gratuity, i.e. deliverance (from danger or passion); (specially), a (spiritual) endowment, i.e. (subjectively) religious qualification, or (objectively) miraculous faculty:--(free) gift.
The following words are commonly translated to include an "intellectual" element in thier meanings...
tuwshiyah too-shee-yaw' or tushiyah { too-shee-yaw'}
from an unused root probably meaning to substantiate; support or (by implication) ability, i.e. (direct) help, (in purpose) an undertaking, (intellectual) understanding:--enterprise, that which (thing as it) is, substance, (sound) wisdom, working.
phronesis fron'-ay-sis
mental action or activity, i.e. intellectual or moral insight:--prudence, wisdom.
...sigh...I could go on at length detailing the vocabulary of the Ancient Greek and Hebrew writers, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate the fact that the ideas of "spirit" and "intellect" were not the same thing in the concept of these writers. And their concept of "God"
was not merely a personification of natural forces. They veiwed "God" as an actual being that was not abstract in any way.
If you would like to know more about the depth of these languages, and especially as they relate to the biblical scriptures, you may wish to peruse Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon. It is a resource that I use quite frequently, and is most useful when attempting to decipher the original meaning of the biblical texts.
> Try very hard to remove the disinformation
> that organized religion has added to your
> perception of God. Between 300AD and
> the time of Martin Luther the Christian
> church was controlled by people with
> very worldly, political, and power hungry
> motives.
I'm not at all conviced that the corruption you describe waited until the year 300CE to begin (after all, Jesus was touted by his followes as the descendant of a royal line, which certainly seems to indicate a concern for temporal power), and I certainly am not convinced that this corruption ended in the time of Martin Luther. One really doesn't have to look far in the modern world to see churches that are dripping with gold and jewels, and the major modern sects of both the protestant and catholic divisions of christianity are both highly involved in the struggle for political power.
> More purely intentioned believers such
> as the Gnostics
Why do you consider the Gnostics more "purely" intentioned?
> (along with the Celtic druids these were
> predecessors to the wiccan tradition)
This is not precisely true. Wicca does not have any actual roots in the ancient relgiions. It is a modern religion only, that borrows much of its imagery and philosophy from a number of ancient belief-systems, but there is no direct connection between them.
> were tortured and killed, or at least driven
> underground and discredited. I do believe
> that "all things work together for good to
> those who believe" and God used the
> Catholic Church for a great deal of good,
> but I am not trying to support the doctrines
> of their modern successors.
>
> Go back to the words of Jesus and I'll be
> glad to defend nearly every word although
> some of the defense I might offer would be
> guess work.
Might I suggest that you refrain from guesswork, as any comment generated from such will be poorly grounded and easily dismissed. In any case, I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. I happen to have a (some would say sick) fascination regarding ancient languages, but the question before us in this blog is whether or not "God" is real. Linquistics is fun (for me, anyway), but ultimately language only exists to describe. Of itself, language offers no proof for the existence of an object or being.
> You need to research the facts on this.
> Intelligence tests are fairly imprecise in
> putting their finger on what they measure.
> The intention is to measure potential, but
> your background has too much impact on
> your potential
It is true that there is a still a lack of sophistication in IQ tests that makes for a certain lack of precision, but the tests are still effective in judging the abstract problem solving abilities of subjects in a broad fashion. The largest margin of error seems to come from cultural and familiarity biases in the tests themselves.
> "A test performance that a half century ago
> would have ranked at the 84th percentile (a
> score of 115) now is only good enough for
> the 50th percentile (a score of 100)."
> http://vdare.com/sailer/070903_flynn.htm
>
> To me this fact clearly is a result of the
> environment (education) of the people being
> tested. No genetic or nutritional change has
> happened since the 50s that can be shown
> to have this effect.
By isolating the phenomenon to the last 50 years, you are ignoring the fact that the rising IQ trend has in fact been on a noticeable curve up for the last 150 years. And, there has certainly been a dramatic (in evolutionary terms) change in nutrition and in the physical size of the skull during that period. Dietary alterations do not cause changes overnight, and it may take several generations for the effects of a nutritional shift to be fully realized in a population. There are a number of compelling arguments that link that increase to a number of biological factors, not the least of which is an increase in the size of the skull. There are other factors, certainly, but the evolutionary correlation is almost certainly the leading factor.
> Think of how much more complex the
> average TV show is than ones at that
> time, and even the vast amount of
> knowledge and ideas that are available.
> Consider a child playing cards or
> Baseball in the 50s and then today’s
> child playing sim city, or navigating the
> levels of a video game.
I'm not sure that I agree that our modern entertainments are necessarily more complex than those of our ancestors. More technologically advanced, surely, but do you really think that the interraction of a child with a game like sim city (in which most of the truly complex concepts are compartmentalized into easy to associate iconography), is more complex that the strategy of a game like baseball or the concepts of mathematical probability in a game of cards?
> Forgive the metaphor. Intelligence is like
> a seed planted in the dirt (Physical brain)
> that is nourished (loved) and basks in the
> sun (education) to reach its potential.
> Other factors such as Acidity (Faith) can
> have a huge impact on the final fruit.
I will forgive your metaphor, and respond with one of my own. Intellegence is more like a muscle than a seed. If you exercise it, it gets stronger. If you do not, it atrophies. It is not "planted" in your skull like a seed dropped from some supernatural hand. It is there because it is an inherent expression of the biology of the brain. When the brain frunctions well, so too does your intelligence.
> Does pulling the wings off of a Fly prove
> the theory of Flight? I was disappointed
> that you in your role as the defender of
> reason offered up this weak effort. I
> understand why you resorted to the shell
> game since abstract proof is impossible.
> It does more harm to your argument to
> deny the obvious, than the ground you
> surrender by admitting it would.
Your crows of victory seem to come a bit before the actual dawn. Pulling the wings off of a fly proves one thing...that the reason a fly can take to the air is because it has wings. There is no supernatural element to the flight of the fly. The physical wings make it possible, and removing those wings proves this to be the case. I think you have a deficient understanding of nature of causal reality. If the brain was not the key element behind human intelligence, then removing the brain would not impair out ability to think. Are you suggesting that thought contines even after the death of the brain? If so, what emirical proof do you have of this continuation?
> Let's break some fresh ground and
> consider inspiration. Many of the icons
> of science credited the divine for the
> advancements that etched their names
> in history. Isaac Newton and Albert
> Einstein are two whose advancements
> have taken us as far as any. Both
> staunchly credited God for their inspiration.
> Do you feel conceited at all when you
> think of these two as ignorant and
> superstitious? Is inspiration a physical
> thing? Does it exist at all?
Even men of great intelligence do not necessarily have "all" of the answers to the great questions of human existence. But, I do not feel ignorant at all since I feel that my position is based on the accumulated knowledge and reason of my own experience, which happens to include no small amount of study regarding both of these figures.
It is true that Isaac Newton was a devout theist, but that is not surprising considering the time in which he lived. Atheists (and even deists) were most uncommon prior to the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species, though since that publication the trend in science has moved solidly into the direction of a "godless" universe.
I would however suggest that you might wish to reconsider your attempt to claim both of these men as allies in your cause. The myth of Einstein's religiosity is a terrible fraud, and one to which he responded in his own time and words...
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." ~ Albert Einstein
(You can read more on this particular quote in this blog.)
Darwin was, of course, a post-Darwinian figure, and his vews are fairly typical of the greatest minds of the modern age.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I appreciate your effort and study of ancient languages, but it doesn't clarify anything for me. I would suggest that you are "missing the forest for the trees."
Me: "spirit=idea/concept/attitude"
You: "of "spirit" and "intellect" were not the same thing"
It is tough to carry this on if you don't at least TRY to keep it straight.
I am the one that has equated these terms. I would not try to put words into your mouth, and likewise not into the mouth of authors who have been dead for 2-5,000 years. I do however try to discern MEANING from everything that I read.
If I read a newspaper story about events that occurred yesterday I am painfully aware that the facts are as likely to be wrong as right. I know this because I have been a witness to enough events that were misreported, and areas that I am expert in are usually misrepresented by journalists who only take a passing interest on their way to a deadline.
It is with this same skepticism that I approach the Bible. The Bible states that you should not make a graven image of God. This includes not worshiping a tree, or a book that is made from it. Thus the 'exact' meanings of the words included in a story, that may be a parable rather than a history, are of little or no importance.
----
"Their concept of "God" was not merely a personification of natural forces. They viewed "God" as an actual being that was not abstract in any way.
I share their view. God's intellect surpasses mine by such a large margin that I feel I must pray for his/her guidance before every representation I make here.
-----
"I certainly am not convinced that this corruption ended in the time of Martin Luther."
You are correct; the period that I mention is the time when Catholicism held its strongest control.
----
"Why do you consider the Gnostics more "purely" intentioned?"
The Gnostics disavowed wealth as Jesus instructed, and wandered teaching his words from sources (apocrypha) that had not been approved by the Roman government. Though I am sure they weren’t any more pure as individuals than any of us are they had the state sponsored Papists beat IMHO.
----
My point about intelligence is that it is still being redefined by science. By the nature of what they are trying to define there may never be consensus. Proof of a concept that is larger and more complex than the beings trying to prove it is always going to be elusive.
You may be correct that increase in brain mass may have had a positive effect on average human intelligence. Your argument is fallacious for the simple reason that you cannot measure a person’s intelligence with a tape measure around the scull. Genetics were once thought to be the prime determinant, but nurture of the young child seems to be gaining ground.
Brain damage and the fly are both examples of anecdotal evidence that alone proves nothing.
Just because you have reduced something to a level that is simple enough to understand does not mean you understand the much more complex underlying reality. The tendency to do so is what I would describe as superstition on the part of people who worship rationality. To be truly rational requires a clear admission of your own ignorance
If you were arguing from an agnostic (No way of knowing) perspective I could agree that you were rational. Faith is REQUIRED to believe in God. You are arguing an atheist position from what I can see, so you look as superstitious as any aborigine rubbing Blue mud in your belly button and sacrificing goats.
I assume that you did not address inspiration since you couldn't.
Returning to your Brain Mass theory, how can you be so sure that a few more ounces of protein adds to IQ, and equally sure that millions of galaxies have no intelligence?
A fact is always better than an ideal
...so I will by necessity keep this response relatively short.
> I would not try to put words into your mouth, and likewise
> not into the mouth of authors who have been dead for
> 2-5,000 years. I do however try to discern MEANING from
> everything that I read.
Before attempting to understand the "meaning" of the things that you read, you must first learn to read them. In your own words, your discussion of the ancient biblical texts is based on "guess work" as much as any actual attempt to study the ancient words. You seem to operating under the impression that we don't have a good understanding of these ancient languages, and that simply isn't true. Our knowledge of these languages isn't perfect, I grant you, but its pretty darn close. Words have meanings, and just because the words that are actually used in these texts don't fit your preconceived notions about what you "guess" that the texts say is no reason to go trying to redefine them in order to make your imagined version of the bible seem more accurate than it really is.
> My point about intelligence is that it is still being
> redefined by science. By the nature of what they
> are trying to define there may never be consensus.
> Proof of a concept that is larger and more complex
> than the beings trying to prove it is always going
> to be elusive.
I disagree. On the one hand, science is not "redefining" the concept of intelligence. The methods of testing are being refined to be more accurate, but the underlying concepts of what we are measuring remain the same.
> You may be correct that increase in brain mass may
> have had a positive effect on average human intelligence.
I think that is rather obvious, and it is an idea that is strongly supported in the appropriate scientific literature.
> Your argument is fallacious for the simple reason that
> you cannot measure a person’s intelligence with a tape
> measure around the scull.
I think this comment is a little disingenuous in its oversimplification. Brain size is a factor in intelligence, but like most aspects of the human condition, the full equation is a bit more complicated than that.
> Genetics were once thought to be the prime determinant,
> but nurture of the young child seems to be gaining ground.
That seems to point to the validity of the "muscle analogy," don't you think? In any case, genetics only provides us with the potential. A child with a serious brain defect that limits intelligence is never going to develop into a Stephen Hawking, no matter how much "nurturing" it gets.
> Brain damage and the fly are both examples of anecdotal
> evidence that alone proves nothing.
I don't think you know what the term "anecdotal evidence" means. To a certain degree, all discussions of this sort are anecdotal, simply because we aren't taking the time and effort to exhaustively cite the appropriate scientific studies in the literature in a formal fashion, but in a general sense your accusation is incorrect. I did not say, "I pulled the wings off of a fly once, and then it couldn't fly." I was making reference to the fact that the reason that flies can get airborne is the fact that they have functioning wings.
If a creature has a physical structure that permits a certain action, it is not "anecdotal" to point to that structure's absence as a directly correlative cause behind a lack of ability to perform that action when the structure is removed. In fact, I have to say that your dismissal of the directly correlation between the pretense of a a fly's wings and its ability to fly, and the presence of a properly functioning human brain and the ability of humans to think and reason, to be rather ridiculous.
> Just because you have reduced something to a level
> that is simple enough to understand does not mean
> you understand the much more complex underlying
> reality. The tendency to do so is what I would describe
> as superstition on the part of people who worship
> rationality. To be truly rational requires a clear
> admission of your own ignorance
There are many things that I (and science as a whole) are ignorant about. The Scientific Method contains a "built in" admission of ignorance, because it requires all theories to be re-evaluated and altered upon the discovery of new evidence. However, there are also things that we know with a fair amount of certainty, and the correlation of the brain and human thought is one of those things. There is still a lot of refinement that this knowledge could stand, but the basic point of the fact that the human brain houses and controls human intelligence is a near certainty.
> If you were arguing from an agnostic (No way of
> knowing) perspective I could agree that you were
> rational. Faith is REQUIRED to believe in God.
Indeed. Faith without evidence is necessary to believe in any supernatural being or force. That is (almost by definition) the meaning of the word "supernatural."
> You are arguing an atheist position from what
> I can see,
That is not surprising, since I am an atheist.
> so you look as superstitious as any aborigine
> rubbing Blue mud in your belly button and
> sacrificing goats.
I am sure that it makes modern religious people feel better to pretend that their beliefs are more sophisticated than their blue-mud-smearing ancestors, but the reality is that the modern theist is engaging in exactly the same cascade of decisions as their primitive ancestors. When faced with a natural phenomenon that they cannot immediately explain, they turn to a supernatural source to fill in the blanks, and invent explanations in order to feel less trepidation about the big scary world they live it.
> I assume that you did not address inspiration since you couldn't.
Sorry, I got distracted. One of the defining factors of primates (including humans) is that our advanced brains give us a fine tool for the solving of problems. "Inspiration" is nothing more than the solving of an exceptionally difficult problem, or the discovery of a solution that is exceptionally elegant or efficient. It really isn't a very complicated (relatively speaking) process at all. Your brain analyzes the problem, and attempts to find an answer. Each brain is similar but unique, and thus the solutions are similar, but every now and then the unique aspect of a particular brain hits upon a better solution than the one most people come up with. We (the other humans) see this as an "inspired" act, but that is really just our perception, and not a part of the process itself.
> Returning to your Brain Mass theory, how can you be so
> sure that a few more ounces of protein adds to IQ, and
> equally sure that millions of galaxies have no intelligence?
Simple. We know (more or less) what galaxies are composed of. And we know (more or less) what materials and in what combination produce the phenomenon of intelligence as we know it. Based on this knowledge, galaxies do not appear to contain the necessary materials and structure to be intelligent. Is it possible? Yes, but only in the mathematical sense of an extreme improbability.
I have to go to work, now...
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"imagined version of the bible"
Don't have one. Just an open mind. I consider people studying ancient Greek and Hebrew to better understand God to be wasting their time. From a historians view point they have made valuable contributions, not from a spiritual one.
God surrounds you. God is inside you. The laws of God are being shoved in your face, and shouted in your ear constantly. "Let he with ears to hear hear." Science when applied without prejudice only reveals Gods work.
"Keep it real" is one of the greatest works of modern theology. 5,000 years ago shepherds with nothing but time on their hands while their sheep grazed did all the best theology. If you have thousands of followers calling you father you are not representing Jesus' teachings. Silk robes, huge stained glass windows, and your own country in Rome get in the way of seeing God.
"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God."
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your might."
Doesn't this make sense to you if you first define God as PURE TRUTH?
If God created, and controls ALL reality how could he/she be anything other than Truth?
--------------------
Back to the details....
"We know (more or less) what galaxies are composed of. And we know (more or less) what materials and in what combination produce the phenomenon of intelligence"
You have got to be kidding!
It is stupendous conceit to think our observations in one tiny corner of one minor galaxy have even taught us a fraction of what there is to know about millions of galaxies that we know of because of a few photons emitted thousands or even millions of years ago. You need to quit misrepresenting yourself as 'scientific.' You are superstitious face it.
If you know what creates intelligence provide a link to the laboratory where they have reproduced it with human technology. Databases, Expert Systems, and Artificial Intelligence are my current specialty. Some day, and it may not be soon, we MAY create artificial intelligence. When we do the next generation will be created by a computer and progress take off from there. Perhaps then some day a machine will be intelligent enough to explain the exact nature of intelligence to us. More likely it will just pat us on our furry little heads and give us something amusing to do that we are capable of.
A fact is always better than an ideal
The last paragraph of your previous post kind of set me off. I apologise for the tone, but stand by every word.
I for got to address this.
'"Inspiration" is nothing more than the solving of an exceptionally difficult problem, or the discovery of a solution that is exceptionally elegant or efficient. It really isn't a very complicated (relatively speaking) process at all. Your brain analyzes the problem, and attempts to find an answer. Each brain is similar but unique, and thus the solutions are similar, but every now and then the unique aspect of a particular brain hits upon a better solution than the one most people come up with.'
Basicly you are saying that inspiration is like a room full of monkeys and type writers. Enough monkeys, typewriters and time can produce a great novel. I don't buy it, but if it makes you feel better to simplify it in this way OK.
A fact is always better than an ideal
> Don't have one. Just an open mind.
> I consider people studying ancient
> Greek and Hebrew to better understand
> God to be wasting their time. From a
> historians view point they have made
> valuable contributions, not from a spiritual
> one.
This is rather typical of the intellectual dishonesty that one often encounters when dealing with religious apologists. If you have never taken the time to at least attempt an understanding of the contents of the original texts, then your view of "the bible" is not based on any real understanding of what those texts contain. And to dismiss the original contents only after it has been pointed out to you that your assumptions about those contents are incorrect (such as your erroneous claim that the writers in the original languages lacked the vocabulary to adequately describe the terms we discussed above)...well, one really has to marvel and the intentional and willful ignorance that such a position entails.
> God surrounds you.
Prove it.
> God is inside you.
Prove it.
> The laws of God are being shoved in
> your face, and shouted in your ear
> constantly.
Prove it.
The fact is that you can make claims of this sort all day long, but without any actual evidence to back it up, the insistence with which you make them is completely unfounded.
> "Let he with ears to hear hear." Science
> when applied without prejudice only
> reveals Gods work.
No one that I have ever met or read about has ever presented any credible, objective evidence that would lead one to believe that he had actually heard the voice of any supernatural entity.
> "Keep it real" is one of the greatest works
> of modern theology. 5,000 years ago
> shepherds with nothing but time on their
> hands while their sheep grazed did all
> the best theology.
And yet there is no evidence at all that anything posited from the realm of theology is "real" at all. As Robert A. Heinlein once said, "Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything."
> If you have thousands of followers
> calling you father you are not
> representing Jesus' teachings. Silk
> robes, huge stained glass windows,
> and your own country in Rome get
> in the way of seeing God.
And yet it was men who had those things in abundance that convinced so much of the Western World that these mythological stories were real. Even today, the christian religion is Big Business, and very few sects (if any) can honestly say that their financial bottom lines are not at least part of their motivation for spreading the word.
> "Blessed are the pure of heart, for
> they shall see God."
> Love the Lord your God with all your
> heart and all your might."
>
> Doesn't this make sense to you if
> you first define God as PURE TRUTH?
Lots of things make sense if you re-define the premise so that it matches conveniently with your pre-chosen conclusion. But this line of reason is logically flawed. . The logical fallacy of petitio principii (i.e. "begging the question") is a intellectual error that occurs when one presumes the validity of one's conclusions as part of the premise of an argument. "PURE TRUTH" as you put it is not something that you can legitimately "define," a priori. It is something that you must discover after examining and evaluating the evidence answering the question.
> If God created, and controls ALL reality
> how could he/she be anything other than
> Truth?
This is begging the question (again). Before you can determine whether or not "god" is anything other than truth, you must first answer the question of whether or not "god" actually exists. Until you do this, the rest is pure speculation.
> You have got to be kidding!
>
> It is stupendous conceit to think our
> observations in one tiny corner of one
> minor galaxy have even taught us a
> fraction of what there is to know about
> millions of galaxies that we know of
> because of a few photons emitted
> thousands or even millions of years
> ago.
I think that it is far more conceited to presume that a position with no evidence at all to support it is more likely to be correct than the one that does in fact conform with everything that we do know about our own little corner of the universe. And, it is even more conceited than that to pick out a single religion's doctrines arbitrarily from the many thousands of wildly varied and yet equally supported (or rather, equally unsupported) faiths in the world and to presume that this particular sect of theists is "the right one."
>You need to quit misrepresenting
> yourself as 'scientific.'
> You are superstitious face it.
This accusation is false for one simple reason. All you have to do in order to make me completely alter my position in this debate is to provide me with ONE ACTUAL PIECE OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that supports what you say...just ONE. If you could, then I would be quite happy to refine my position accordingly, as would any responsible scientist. In fact, I consider the experience of being proved wrong to be one of the most enjoyable things possible, for whenever that happens I am afforded the opportunity to replace ignorance with knowledge, and for one who values reason, that is something to strive for.
> If you know what creates intelligence
> provide a link to the laboratory where
> they have reproduced it with human
> technology. Databases, Expert Systems,
> and Artificial Intelligence are my current
> specialty. Some day, and it may not be
> soon, we MAY create artificial intelligence.
Actually, I am a professional coder that designs logic tables that are used by a massive expert system, so in this regard I do actually know something of which I speak. If you are truly a student or expert working in the field of artificial intelligence, you should be aware of the inherent flaw in the challenge that you offer. The current state of artificial intelligence only attempts to simulate biological intelligence. The current technology is nowhere near the level of sophistication to actually attempt to create an independent intelligence.
However, this challenge is just another case of the straw man argument, since we don't need to create electronic intelligence to know a great deal about how biological intelligence works. It is possible that there are non-biological intelligences in the universe, but so far we have detected no evidence at all of them. Thus, the challenge that you present really isn't very difficult to discount. Every intelligence that mankind has every actually encountered is biological in nature, and until such time as there is at least some evidence that would suggest that non-biological systems could generate a similar phenomenon, any speculation in that direction remains just that...speculative.
> When we do the next generation
> will be created by a computer and
> progress take off from there. Perhaps
> then some day a machine will be
> intelligent enough to explain the
> exact nature of intelligence to us.
> More likely it will just pat us on our
> furry little heads and give us something
> amusing to do that we are capable of.
Perhaps it will. But that is more in the realm of science fiction than in the actual laboratories of scientists working in the fields of robotics and A.I. You seem to have difficulty separating the speculative from the real, and even more difficulty in weighing the actual evidence that separates the two.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I admire your persistence even when you have made a ridiculous statement you show no sign of surrender!
Let me begin with a list of assertions you wish to pin onto me without my ever having said them. I understand that you are trying to redirect this onto more firm ground, but stop trying to put words into my mouth.
1)"then your view of "the bible" is not based on any real understanding"
I think we share the view that the bible is not absolute truth. I have said so, yet you have not listened. Unlike you I do not wish to diminish anyone because their view varies from mine.
2)"your erroneous claim that the writers in the original languages lacked the vocabulary to adequately describe..."
I did not claim the fault was theirs. I said it was yours as a matter of fact.
3)"No one that I have ever met or read about has ever presented any credible, objective evidence that would lead one to believe that he had actually heard the voice of any supernatural entity."
What makes you think I'm hearing voices? Spooky! Are you hearing voices?
4)"Prove it."
Never said I could. Prove it isn't. You can't either.
5)"no evidence at all that anything posited from the realm of theology is "real" at all."
I did not say theology is real. Do you enjoy arguing with someone that isn't there? What I said was '"Keep it real" is one of the greatest works of modern theology.' Do you realize you are agreeing with me?
I love Robert Heinlein. If you have read him you may have recognized the influence of Jubal, Balsim the cripple, and Prof on my thinking.
"Lots of things make sense if you re-define the premise"
NOW we are getting somewhere! DEFINE the terms! It is impossible to have clear thought or understanding unless you define the terms. I have defined my terms. You have claimed that I must accept a definition that you will not even provide. Is that logical?
6)"And, it is even more conceited than that to pick out a single religion's doctrines arbitrarily from the many thousands of wildly varied and yet equally supported (or rather, equally unsupported) faiths in the world and to presume that this particular sect of theists is "the right one."
Once again you are arguing with someone else. I have already stated that my beliefs are my own. I have not even called myself a Christian (I am not fit to unlatch his sandals). You are putting down ALL religions except your own. The term I would use for that is bigoted (refer to item 6).
"You must first answer the question of whether or not "god" actually exists"
Logic, my brother, logic. It would be impossible to prove something you did not FIRST define.
""PURE TRUTH" as you put it is not something that you can legitimately "define," a priori."
Here I give you a little credit. My definition is recursive. I agreed with your side of the argument until I realized that the bible was hinting at this definition. I didn't even know what recursive meant when I finally got it. Pure truth, like god is something we are doomed as limited humans to never know.
"All you have to do in order to make me completely alter my position in this debate is to provide me with ONE ACTUAL PIECE OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that supports what you say...just ONE."
I am not trying to teach you any objective facts. If that has happened along the way it is only a coincidence. My intent is to counter the bigoted anti-religious rhetoric that you are trying to pass off as truth. If your eyes are opened to a reality that is larger than the one you could perceive before great. I don't expect that to happen. You have hostility towards religion as I once did.
I discovered the 'definitions' that the bible hints at, and Jesus clearly states, and that you don't think should be allowed (closed minded? Nah!) By the efforts of people in a debate(s) similar to the one we are having here. That was not enough to convince me either. However I am open minded, and realized that it added something to my previous ideas about the whole situation. I then prayed, not expecting anything, as Jesus instructed. The results were, and continue to be miraculous. Because of this personal experience I had to abandon the agnostic world view I had loved.
---------------
"We know (more or less) what galaxies are composed of. And we know (more or less) what materials and in what combination produce the phenomenon of intelligence"
Superstitious, yes I think so. It reminds me of a creationist that has about 100 words in the bible that he thinks mean that he KNOWS how to create an entire universe.
A fact is always better than an ideal
> I admire your persistence even when
> you have made a ridiculous statement
> you show no sign of surrender!
I think that your designation of my position as "rediculous" has been particularly well-supported.
> Let me begin with a list of assertions
> you wish to pin onto me without my
> ever having said them. I understand
> that you are trying to redirect this onto
> more firm ground, but stop trying to put
> words into my mouth.
I am merely trying to point out that the various assertions you have offered, both directly and through implication, are not based on any scholarly consistend understanding of the material that you so inexpertly reference. You are the one attempting to redirect the converstation away from the obvious flaws in your opinion, I am merely responding to those tangents as they occur.
> 1)"then your view of "the bible" is not
> based on any real understanding"
> I think we share the view that the bible
> is not absolute truth. I have said so, yet
> you have not listened. Unlike you I do
> not wish to diminish anyone because
> their view varies from mine.
I am not attempting to diminish your views because they are "different" than mine. I am merely pointing out that your opinions are not grounded in any actual understanding of the actual contents of the bible. It is fine for you to speculate about what you think the bible might be talking about, but if you haven't expended the effort to acutally study the contents of the book you cite, your speculations are irresponsible and devoid of any acutal intellectual merit. It's like trying to write a term paper about War and Peace after just reading the Cliff Notes. You might get a passing grade on a high school test, but you really don't understand the material unless you have actually read the book.
> 2)"your erroneous claim that the
> writers in the original languages
> lacked the vocabulary to adequately
> describe..."
> I did not claim the fault was theirs. I
> said it was yours as a matter of fact.
Perhaps I misread your statement that, "Equating of terms is my attempt to show that the lack of vocabulary when the religious book was written, upon which my specific culture relies, is part of your failure to accept its premise." If so, I apologize...though a second reading still leads me to the same interpretation. In either case, I must say that unlike you I have actually taken some time to study and understand the original languages of these texts, and my familiarity with the appropriate vocabulary far exceeds anything that you have demonstrated thus far in our discussion.
> 3)"No one that I have ever met or read
> about has ever presented any credible,
> objective evidence that would lead one
> to believe that he had actually heard the
> voice of any supernatural entity."
> What makes you think I'm hearing voices?
> Spooky! Are you hearing voices?
Your attempt to substitute humor for intellect will get you nowhere. You suggested that we could hear the truth of you assertions if only we had "ears to hear." But like so much of your argument, this is mere rhetoric, and the fact remains that you have yet to respond with any actual evidence that would suggest to us that your imaginations are anything other than the baseless specualtions which I have named them.
> 4)"Prove it."
> Never said I could. Prove it
> isn't. You can't either.
This response further demonstrates the lack of rationality behind your position. In a rational argument, it is not the responsibility of one's oppoent to disprove the claims that you make. Logic requires that the burden of proof lies with positive claim. One cannot use logic to prove a negative position. This is a classic canard of the theist. You are the one that claims that "god" exists, not I. I am merely asking for your evidence. If you cannot provide it, then your claim is without basis.
> 5)"no evidence at all that anything
> posited from the realm of theology is
> "real" at all."
> I did not say theology is real. Do you
> enjoy arguing with someone that isn't
> there? What I said was '"Keep it real"
> is one of the greatest works of modern
> theology.' Do you realize you are agreeing
> with me?
Horsepuckey. Unless you are prepared to admit that the "god" whose existence you continue to assert is not "real," then you are in fact engaging in the fallacy that the theology you present (and by defintion, your defense of the religious position is a form of theology) is based on a belief in an actual entity (i.e. "god"). You may indeed reject certain aspects of the dogma of various religious sects, but that is not a rejection of the general theology which you imagine and have proposed in your postings thus far.
> I love Robert Heinlein. If you have read
> him you may have recognized the influence
> of Jubal, Balsim the cripple, and Prof on
> my thinking.
Interesting. A Stranger in a Strange Land is an incredible book, though A Citizen of the Galaxy is actually still on my reading list. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was the first book of Heinlin's that I ever read, and is still a well-worn resident of the shelf by my bed.
> "Lots of things make sense if you
> re-define the premise"
> NOW we are getting somewhere! DEFINE
> the terms! It is impossible to have clear
> thought or understanding unless you
> define the terms. I have defined my terms.
> You have claimed that I must accept a
> definition that you will not even provide.
> Is that logical?
Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. If you wish to have an objective, intellectual discussion, then it is necessary for you to use terms consistently with their established defintions, especially when you are discussing something that someone else wrote. If you want to discuss the meaning of the biblical texts, then it is by necessity that you adhere to the meanings of the words that were intended by the original authors. Attempting to re-define a term simply because the intent of the original author does not agree with the point that you wish to make is a frank intellectual dishonesty.
> 6)"And, it is even more conceited than
> that to pick out a single religion's doctrines
> arbitrarily from the many thousands of wildly
> varied and yet equally supported (or rather,
> equally unsupported) faiths in the world and
> to presume that this particular sect of theists
> is "the right one."
>
> Once again you are arguing with someone else.
> I have already stated that my beliefs are my own.
> I have not even called myself a Christian (I am
> not fit to unlatch his sandals).
This is also a most disingenous assertion. You religious references have been essentially exclusive to a christian context. You have quoted the bible extensively, and have specifically tipped your hat to "Jesus" as the source of your religious inspirations. By any stretch of the imagination, you are still at least nominally arguing from a distinctly christian perspective. If you are attempting to argue from a more universal position, you really aren't doing a very good job of it.
> You are putting down ALL religions except
> your own. The term I would use for that is
> bigoted (refer to item 6).
Once again, you are attempting to redifine the terms of our discussion. As an atheist, I do not have a "religion." You really don't have a good grasp on the word "bigoted," either. I am quite tolerant of other points of view. You have a right to believe in whatever you wish, and I have always been a defender of the right for people to make up thier own mind about the contents of their consciences. However, it is one thing to be tolerant of differnt opinions, and quite another to pretent that poorly reasoned, factually inaccurate and intellectually misleading opinions are equally credible to those points of view which are based on a more responsible, thorough and rigorous understanding of historical sources and philosophical concepts.
> "You must first answer the question of
> whether or not "god" actually exists"
> Logic, my brother, logic. It would be
> impossible to prove something you
> did not FIRST define.
This statement demonstrates that you really don't understand the concept of logical argument very well, either. In order reach a sound conclusion, a logical argument must be based on premises that are known to be acutal and true. Religious arguments (almost without exception) tend to fall prey to a series of formal errors known as "fallacies," and the most common is the petitio principii which I previously pointed out in regards to your own meanderings. One cannot base a sound argument on the premise that "god exists" until after you have proved that "god" actually exists, and that is the implied premise of virtually everything that you have argued thus far. Thus, using these arguments to conclude that your initial premise is correct is a circular argument.
> ""PURE TRUTH" as you put it is not
> something that you can legitimately
> "define," a priori."
> Here I give you a little credit. My definition
> is recursive.
The you are admitting that your argument is illogical. Perhaps we are finally getting somewhere.
> I agreed with your side of the
> argument until I realized that the
> bible was hinting at this definition.
> I didn't even know what recursive
> meant when I finally got it. Pure truth,
> like god is something we are doomed
> as limited humans to never know.
I don't necessarily agree. So far, we have never discovered any actual object or phenomenon that is completely beyond our ability as humans to explain. Some of our explanations are incomplete, and some are still in the speculative stages, but so far mankind has proved itself remarkably capable at figuring out the connundrums of the universe as we encounter them.
> "All you have to do in order to make me
> completely alter my position in this debate
> is to provide me with ONE ACTUAL PIECE
> OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that supports
> what you say...just ONE."
>
>I am not trying to teach you any objective
> facts.
Then you are wasting my time.
> If that has happened along the way it is only
> a coincidence. My intent is to counter the
> bigoted anti-religious rhetoric that you are
> trying to pass off as truth. If your eyes are
> opened to a reality that is larger than the one
> you could perceive before great. I don't
> expect that to happen. You have hostility
> towards religion as I once did.
The hostility that you think I direct at religion is merely a coincidence, as well. I am hostile towards ignorance, and have a great contempt for those who intentionally choose to be ignorant even after they are afforded the opportunity to exchange that ignorance for actual knowledge. A lot of religious folk, unfortunately, fall into this category.
> I discovered the 'definitions' that the bible
> hints at, and Jesus clearly states, and that
> you don't think should be allowed (closed
> minded? Nah!)
Where have I ever suggested that the bible or its contents should not be "allowed?" And, how do you even know what "Jesus clearly states," when you obviously haven't taken the steps to actually educated yourself about the historical record that alledge these statements in the first place? Perhaps you should refer back to the character of Jubal who said that "faith strikes me as intellectual laziness." If you aren't willing to expend the effort to adequately educate yourself in the history and contents of a book which supposed form the basis of your beliefs, why should I take your comments seriously when you try to explain those beliefs to me?
> By the efforts of people in a debate(s) similar
> to the one we are having here. That was not
> enough to convince me either. However I am
> open minded, and realized that it added
> something to my previous ideas about the
> whole situation. I then prayed, not expecting
> anything, as Jesus instructed. The results
> were, and continue to be miraculous. Because
> of this personal experience I had to abandon
> the agnostic world view I had loved.
It is sad that you would abandon your reason and grasp for these primitive assurances. A skillful mind would be more cautious about accepting the validity of subjective experiences over the weight of objective evidence.
> "We know (more or less) what galaxies are
> composed of. And we know (more or less)
> what materials and in what combination
> produce the phenomenon of intelligence"
> Superstitious, yes I think so. It reminds
> me of a creationist that has about 100
> words in the bible that he thinks mean
> that he KNOWS how to create an entire
> universe.
It is a common and dishonest tactic of the theological apologist to attempt to pain his more scientific opponents as being guilty of the same sort of foibles that pollute his own arguments, but as is so often the case, the terminology simple does not back up the assertion. A superstition is a "belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation," and the disciplines of neuroscience and astronomy do not fit this definition in any reasonable way. If you wish to prattle on about superstition, might I suggest that you look at yourself in the mirror, before attempting to dismantle these dynamic and evidence driven fields.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Hmm. let's try to break out of the rut. I think you want to argue with 'some bible is the absolute truth' person, and don't seem to be listening to my actual words. I considered pasting the sentences that I got the best laughs out of, but we may not both see the humor.
My definition of God is based on certain phrases to be found in the bible, and other religions. Take for instance Taoism. Tao is translatable into several words, but 'The Way' or 'the path' are fairly central to all of them. I understand that to be curiously close to 'the straight and narrow path' of Christianity. A straight and narrow path could also describe the path toward truth that science seeks. Other monotheistic religions for the most part teach that the deity is a perfect creator of the universe. My faith in God is consistant with all of them. That does not mean that every, or even any ritual or theory is something I agree with.
This brings me back to the Definition you will not allow into your conception of what a person could mean when the word God is used
God=Truth.
I find it interesting that you say you are a coder, and this phrase came out of your mouth:
> Here I give you a little credit. My definition
> is recursive.
"The you are admitting that your argument is illogical. "
Are you familiar with a recursive argument in a computer program?
It is a completely logical and even neccesarry piece of logic in many occasions.
How could you say that recursive=illogical?
A fact is always better than an ideal
> Hmm. let's try to break out of the rut.
> I think you want to argue with 'some
> bible is the absolute truth' person, and
> don't seem to be listening to my actual
> words. I considered pasting the sentences
> that I got the best laughs out of, but we
> may not both see the humor.
You continue to attempt to use humor as a shield, but the fact remains that your entire argument is premised on the assumption that "god" actually exists. As for the rest, I can only argue with what you give me, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of your position amidst all the vague and mercurial evasions.
> My definition of God is based on certain
> phrases to be found in the bible, and other
> religions.
That might be more apparent, if you tended to cite quips from those other religions from time to time, instead of focusing as tightly as you have on statements lifted from the christian scriptures.
> Take for instance Taoism. Tao is
> translatable into several words, but
> 'The Way' or 'the path' are fairly central
> to all of them. I understand that to be
> curiously close to 'the straight and
> narrow path' of Christianity.
The philosopical comparison is appreciable, though I think that there is a significant difference to be found in the numerous pantheistic, shamanistic, animistic and ancestral worshipping religions that are grouped under the term.
> A straight and narrow path could also
> describe the path toward truth that
> science seeks.
I suppose it could be, though I'm curious as to what specific similarities you would point to in the comparison.
> Other monotheistic religions for the most
> part teach that the deity is a perfect creator
> of the universe.
The only thing is that Taoism isn't a monotheistic religion. Taoist creation mythology is also noteably different in that its creation myths tend to view the creation of the universe as a very passive event. The supernatural entities of Taoism are not the "creators of the universe," but rather quite the opposite. The "gods" of this religion/philosophy (at least in those branches that believe in them) were created out of the chaos of the universe. Sometimes, the potential universe is referred to as a great "Cosmic Egg," from which P'an-ku (the first man) emerged.
> My faith in God is consistant with all of
> them. That does not mean that every, or
> even any ritual or theory is something I
> agree with.
That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that your beliefs are still based on a speculative assumption about the existence of supernatural entities and forces which cannot be supported with any real or actual evidence.
> This brings me back to the Definition you
> will not allow into your conception of what
> a person could mean when the word God is
> used
>
> God=Truth.
The reason I am being difficult on this point is simply because equating "god" to "truth" is not a logically supportable comparison when one considered the normally understood defintions of those words. Typically, one determines the truth-value of a particlar subject by examining the subject and testing its veracity. Since one cannot "test" the actual veracity of an being whose existence is only defined by pure speculation, it is irresponsibly presumptuous to attempt to equate these two concepts. The truth-value of the proposed entity "god" would in a rationally and logically consistent argument represent the conclusion of one's considerations. Your equation however simply assumes that the conclusion and the premise are one in the same...which is once again the same logical fallacy of begging the question which I have already pointed out to you.
> I find it interesting that you say you are
> a coder, and this phrase came out of your
> mouth:
> Here I give you a little credit. My definition
> is recursive.
>
> "The you are admitting that your argument
> is illogical. "
I was referring to the use of the term in the sense that the way that you define your position is inherently circular. Because your definition esstentially calls upon itself, one is faced with an infinite regression of unverifiability. Your definition of "god" essentially requires that one accept the definition without providing any external reference for comparison.
> Are you familiar with a recursive argument
> in a computer program?
Yes.
> It is a completely logical and even neccesarry
> piece of logic in many occasions.
That might work well in a programatically called function, but the formal and informal logic, and the logic of computer programming are not exactly the same thing (though they are based the same precepts).
> How could you say that recursive
> =illogical?
I grant that my useage was imprecise. I was actually speaking in the specific context of logical fallacies, and to the nature of circular arguments. Recursion Theory deals in part with the uncomputibility of some functions, and the connection I was implying comes from the degree of unsolveability (a.k.a. the "Turing Degree") that is inherent in some sets. But, I think that I overshot my mark with the metaphor, and I am willing to concede that my criticism relating your recursive comments was not useful.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Thank you for that responce. I think we are moving forward. Forward in my opinion will not acheve 'proof' IMHO but everything is possible.
Because of the collum width I am going to post my next responce on the main thread.
I HATE skinny boxes.
perci
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"In fact, I have to say that your dismissal of the directly correlation between the pretense of a a fly's wings and its ability to fly, and the presence of a properly functioning human brain and the ability of humans to think and reason, to be rather ridiculous."
I am not dismissing the correlation in either case, just the 'proof' that you claim is present.
By removing the fly's wings and observing the lack of flight you have a piece of evidence. If you then reduced the volume of air in a clear container and observed the increased difficulty a fly has in maintaining its' airborne condition you have more evidence. Further evacuating the container and watching the fly die probably won't teach you anything new about flight, as you watch it die. I chose flight as my example because science still conciders all of our knowledge in this area as a theory.
Now back to your 'brain damage PROOF.' If I whack someone in the head with a length of pipe and they fall unconcious to the ground I can observe that they are not moving or speaking. I might even make the ASSUMPTION that I have interfered with their ability to think and perceive (especially if their eyes are closed). I could just as validly assume that their head pumped their blood if the heart stopped as a result of the blow. It would be completely unsupported to think I could learn much about the nature of inteligence by this method. I might learn the contents of their wallet though. ;-)
Proof is REQUIRED by scientific thought just as religion requires FAITH.
A fact is always better than an ideal
> I am not dismissing the correlation in
> either case, just the 'proof' that you claim
> is present.
We shall see...
> By removing the fly's wings and
> observing the lack of flight you have
> a piece of evidence. If you then reduced
> the volume of air in a clear container
> and observed the increased difficulty a
> fly has in maintaining its' airborne
> condition you have more evidence.
> Further evacuating the container and
> watching the fly die probably won't teach
> you anything new about flight, as you
> watch it die.
I hope that you realize that this is a blog, and not a scientific journal, and I had hoped to have this discussion without delving into minutiae that really should be unnecessary in a discussion at this level. But since you insist it is easy to counter your further example above, by extending the experiment to include other insects which do not have wings. When you put expose a wingless insect (such as an ant or aphid) to the same environmental conditions as the fly, they cannot take to the air regardless of the atmospheric pressure in the container. They will die just the same, however, when the air is removed.
If you extended the experiment to include examples of all winged insects and all wingless ones, none of the wingless ones will demonstrate the ability to fly, regardless of the conditions induced. The common factor in insects that can fly when the conditions are right is a biological adaptation that allows them to take advantage of specific conditions. If the creature lacks any such biological adaptation, then it will not fly no matter what the conditions might be.
> I chose flight as my example
> because science still conciders
> all of our knowledge in this area
> as a theory.
It sounds like you are engaging in the common theistic misapplication of the term "theory" as it applies to scientific knowledge. In common useage (and in all theological ramblings), a "theory" is nothing more than a "contemplation or speculation." But when applied to scientific knowledge, a "Theory" is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." (link) This is another example of the "shell game" that you seem to be playing.
> Now back to your 'brain damage
> PROOF.' If I whack someone in the
> head with a length of pipe and they
> fall unconcious to the ground I can
> observe that they are not moving or
> speaking. I might even make the
> ASSUMPTION that I have interfered
> with their ability to think and perceive
> (especially if their eyes are closed).
> I could just as validly assume that their
> head pumped their blood if the heart
> stopped as a result of the blow. It would
> be completely unsupported to think I
> could learn much about the nature of
> inteligence by this method. I might learn
> the contents of their wallet though. ;-)
Unfortunately, if you made the assumption you describe you would have to make it in utter isolation of what we know about brains and impact traumas and how the latter effects the former. Examples of this sort tend to rely collapse when you realize that they reduce the situation they describe beyond the level of rational consideration (another logical fallacy, i.e. the reductio ad absurdum). We have, however, studied the human brain with far more exacting experiments that the one you describe above. We know specifically what parts of the brain control intelligence, consciousness, and memory. We know that trauma to these areas in isolation have fairly predictable effects in terms of human reason, thought and associative responses. The connection is clearly biological in nature.
> Proof is REQUIRED by scientific
> thought just as religion requires
> FAITH.
This is another common misapplication of terms in the shell game of theology. A religious "faith" is "belief that is not based on proof." (link) Scientists do not afford Scientific Theories this same luxury. One could say that a scientist has "confidence or trust in a person or thing," such as a Scientific Theory or the Scientific Method, but that belief would be based one the existence of evidence rather than on the lack thereof that defines all theism at its core.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
We can both get a long way off of the original question. I apologize for my contribution to this side track.
A fact is always better than an ideal
I just read through the blog you referenced: http://www.progressiveu.org/233136-angry-atheists-or-complete-bs
There is a lot of good stuff there. I am closer to Einstein in my religious views, than I am to Newton, though I have great admiration for both. It was an eye opener for me to see how closely my own evolution of thought in this area parrallels his.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
“It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished.”
I certainly agree with this quote from Einstein, and so did Jesus himself.
A fact is always better than an ideal
THIS IS CONFUSING ME!
Trying to unscrew the inscrutiable is always confusing.
A fact is always better than an ideal
The basis of my faith is closer to a unifying theory than it is to any religion.
Percivale,
I have had better luck gaining understanding from people who accept some form of faith, but I am sure the fault for that is my own. You have an analytical mind, and have obviously devoted extensive thought and study to this subject. Some of that study, I am guessing from the debate so far, has given you a little too much detail (We both agree that ALL of that detail is suspect) which interferes with considering only the broad concepts.
I am not going to say which details are worthless; I have my opinions, but also accept that I am wrong in many of my opinions. The question that this blog asks "Is God Real" That requires some definitions 'God' and 'Real.' These are the broad concepts that I think are relevant to the first question: Who is God?
1-God created everything.
2-God is all powerful
3-God is always right
4-God knows everything
Pantheists, for the most part do not accept these premises, but then neither did I when I first looked at it this way. Monotheistic religions are mostly based on similar principles. The only way I found to reconcile these principles was to say that a being with these attributes would only be possible if that being was ALL THINGS collectively. Any entity sitting outside, or composed of only a portion couldn't fit the billing.
So the conclusion is that God would have to be the same as all things together, or the entire universe.
All of the atoms and subatomic particles
All Energy
Every idea and concept known and unknown by man.
Just plain every thing that is.
That is my first definition. I have been carefully reading your responses, and therefore I know you do not believe this. The question I would like you to answer is:
Do you see any other definition that reconciles the 4 broad concepts I have chosen?
----------------------------------------------------------
The next definition is real. I do not accept that science and reality are the same. Science is a process of seeking to know or understand reality. I love and respect science, it just doesn't have all the answers. This is the part where we come to the part that You correctly call circular. Real is:
All of the atoms and subatomic particles
All Energy
Every idea and concept known and unknown by man.
Just plain every thing that is
I have to qualify that known ideas and concepts that are wrong are not real, and unknown things are true in exactly one way. I am a Sci-Fi fan, but when discussing the CONCEPT and DEFINITION of reality I disregard EVERYTHING that is not true. Parallel Universes and Angels I make no judgment on, because I DO NOT KNOW. So it boils down to:
Real is everything that is as it is totally independent of opinion, and even proof since we are not being specific about what is real.
I welcome any comment on that definition, but will refrain from asking if you agree, only because it would seen sarcastic to me, and I've given you too many questions like that already.
-----------------------------------------
As I'm sure you see I have given God and Reality the same definition. What I have not done is passed judgment on the nature of God beyond the 4 broad concepts. So, though it tells you absolutely nothing about God or reality....I am able to say "God is Real" "God is the Truth" and similar statements which I think we can both agree have exactly zero semantic value outside of this frame work.
-----------------------------------------
This entire framework is and was logical to me. I was an agnostic who not only did not have an opinion on Gods existence; I maintained that it was impossible to know.
Had I left it there it would have never changed my opinion. I did not leave it there I began to test the words of Jesus, Old Testament prophets, and even random bits of colloquial wisdom and quips. I found that some of the Bible was completely unrelated, but it was consistent with a remarkable number of the specific statements..
I found that fascinating, but inconclusive.
The Born Again moment came when I experimented with prayer.
I am going to leave it at that. An awful lot of the discussion we have had here has been significantly off topic. It has been fun but not always productive. If you seek you shall find. I am glad I sought, but if you choose not to I can respect you and understand your choice.
Love God.
A fact is always better than an ideal
...I only have one "real" problem with the scenario you describe above, and that of course is the way that you define "God." The reason I have a problem with it, is that your definition attributes qualities to the being/entity that you call "God" quite arbitrarily. When talking about "real" subjects, one generally does not get to define the properties of the subject in the manner you describe. The properties of a real object must be discovered rather than assigned.
I also think that you add a layer of confusion to your argument by referring to "God" in a manner that is culturally unique to the Judaeo-Christian (and Islamic) family of faiths. Most religions do not capitalize the word "god." This is a specific culture's affectation, and its use implies a level of personification that tends to cloud the general, "everything in the universe is 'God'" belief-system that you are describing.
That also leads me to a question. Considering that fraction of an infinite set is also infinite, and since ince you have concluded "that God would have to be the same as all things together, or the entire universe," do you consider yourself to be "God?"
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
'the way that you define "God."'
I can understand, and relate to that problem because I shared it when it was originaly explained to me. It might help to consider it a narrowing of the concept. There are so many religions, and if you take the one with which I am most familiar Christianity, so many contradictory properties, abilities, and political party affiliations ascribed to god that simply using the word by itself doesn't communicate anything. It just triggers preconceptions in the reader, which may be an awfully long way from the authors intended meaning.
"The properties of a real object must be discovered rather than assigned."
What you say is true of a physical object. I'm going to retreat back to coding on this one. A database application and all programs some to a lesser extent contain attempts to mirror reality. I assume you are familiar with the term 'object' in this context. I maintain that a virtual object or intellectual concept often, if not always, requires that you assign the meaning.
Explanation for any non-geeks following along:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
'since you have concluded "that God would have to be the same as all things together, or the entire universe," do you consider yourself to be "God?" '
Valentine Michael Smith says I am....... :-)
I am made in God's image in that I am a self aware being with a tiny bit of intelligence and a hunger for the Truth. I fall far short of the glory of God. Just like every atheist, scientist, and priest my animal origin dooms me to peer out of my narrowly focused eyes and only see the world through the dark prism of my limited experience. It is only through faith that I can touch the infinite.
It took the human race thousands of advancements, some of them huge intuitive leaps, to produce a Confucius, or a Jesus. Many more steps have occurred, and several decades of effort by some of the best mathematicians alive to come up with object oriented programming. Many more steps lie ahead. Consider the increasing pace of the advancement of knowledge. 1000 years from now I know we will be more advanced, if we aren't extinct. We will still be ignorant in comparison to god.
Praying to the truth is very well described by Jesus.
Unless you have some mental/spiritual attitudes straight you might be wasting your time. Fortunately you can pray for help with these attitudes and in my experience you will receive it.
Forgiveness-To understand all is to forgive all. None of us understands all so you have to take it on faith that your enemy had no alternative to his actions if you were able to consider EVERY ASPECT of his situation. Any hostility is poison to clear thought.
Thankfulness-Each of us has a nearly endless list of things we should be thankful for. Air, water, food, friends, mom, dad,..........Just contemplating your own list (praising God) is one of the best ways to pray.
Heinlein note:
R.A.H. Outlined and began to write his Stranger in a Strange Land (An oft quoted Tome of the hippy era) during the 1950s. While he was working on it, and in reaction to events of that time, he stopped and wrote the right wing pro military Starship Troopers.
I like to think that, like him, I shouldn’t be pigeon holed.
Love the Truth.
A fact is always better than an ideal
> > "The properties of a real object must
> > be discovered rather than assigned."
>
> What you say is true of a physical object.
> I'm going to retreat back to coding on this
> one. A database application and all programs
> some to a lesser extent contain attempts to
> mirror reality. I assume you are familiar with
> the term 'object' in this context. I maintain
> that a virtual object or intellectual concept
> often, if not always, requires that you assign
> the meaning.
There is a fundamental (pardon the pun) flaw in your metaphor, unless you are suggesting that "God" does not exist unless you create "him." A computer program in an invention. It is something that the programmer creates for a specific purpose. As such, it makes sense for the programmer to actively define the objects in the electronic microcosm that he is creating. An object in the "real" world, however, already has properties. We can try to identify and understand those properties, but those properties exist (or do not exist) regardless of what we think about that object. The qualification that suggests that this only applies to "physical" objects is a canard. Either the object in question has an objective existence, or it does not. If it does, then we can (in theory, at least) determine its properties. If it does not, then arbitrarily assigning properties to the imagined object doesn't make it any more "real."
> I am made in God's image in that I am a
> self aware being with a tiny bit of
> intelligence and a hunger for the Truth.
That seems to contradict the mathematical metaphor that you have been using to explain your beliefs. Infinity is infinity, and no matter how much you divide up an infinite set, each of those pieces is still just as infinite as the whole. (As an aside, does the concept of infinity make your head hurt as much as it does mine?)
> It is only through faith that I can touch
> the infinite.
It seems to me that when you turn to faith, you aren't touching "inifinity" at all, but rather just the thing that you imagine that infinity might be.
> 1000 years from now I know we will be
> more advanced, if we aren't extinct. We
> will still be ignorant in comparison to god.
Once again, this statement is predicated on the unproved assumption that "god" acutally exists. Its an interesting "if," but in terms of practical reasoning you seem to be putting the cart before the horse.
> Praying to the truth is very well described
> by Jesus.
> Unless you have some mental/spiritual
> attitudes straight you might be wasting
> your time. Fortunately you can pray for
> help with these attitudes and in my
> experience you will receive it.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but in my experience, people who claim that prayer acutally works are just fooling themselves. Anecdotal assertions are simply not convincing, and I have never seen a credible empirical study that would support the claim that prayers acutally work. In fact, quite the opposite would seem to be true.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
'unless you are suggesting that "God" does not exist unless you create "him." '
We agree that the IDEA of God required creation. God is defined as the one who created the one who did it.
---------
Your arguments as a whole strike me as Positivism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
It seems to me that the obvious flaw in that philosophy is its inability to explain conceptual things. For example philosophy. If you limit yourself to material things it is reasonable. It just lacks the imagination to create itself. If you read the article there are links to Kant who puts forth a ‘rational Christianity’ probably superior to my own attempt to explain it.
----------
Before you tell me that makes everything I am saying is imaginary consider Gregor Mendel. He did not have any chance of ever seeing a gene. He imagined an unknown agency, experimented to discover some of its rules, and died with centuries of more 'realistic' people calling him a fool.
You need something other than your own bootstraps to pull yourself up.
----------
"That seems to contradict the mathematical metaphor that you have been using to explain your beliefs. Infinity is infinity, and no matter how much you divide up an infinite set, each of those pieces is still just as infinite as the whole. "
True, but Infinity can be made up of an infinite number of finite things also. If I said that God or reality was infinite that was a mistake on my part. I like the concept of infinity without being able to fathom all of its implications. I have no way of knowing whether or not the universe we live in is infinite. Better terms would be: The Truth, The Universe, All Things.
---------
Faith is reasonable if you place it in facts. By not adhering to any of the details attributed to Gods Will, and defining God as Truth I have not stepped beyond what I know. I would equate that point to an untested theory. Sincere prayer is the experimental portion of the process.
Any concept being stated as a single word is open to misinterpretation. The concept of an all powerful creator is, by its nature, larger than all words in any combination.
I have carefully avoided any details of how the results of prayer convinced me. The reason I have not tried to explain them is, as you have said, because they are subjective.
A fact is always better than an ideal