I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
Offline I'm a believer in God. Can you please help fix it?
- Login to post comments
Offline You've quoted a gem there from Wiki, Paisley, my respect goes out to the author of: "If all properties are relational, then what can be said of the objects they relate?" - this is precisely what I am trying to get across, we really need to start taking this important little nugget out of its box more often, this is about what we are.
This is what I was getting at.
Now as to your question RQM forbids an external observer, sure, but it does not forbid nay it directly describes adiabatic participation. That is to say, you can observe a state in which you are not thermodynamically involved. If you can, God can, in fact God only needs to observe exactly as humans would to be God with all the necessary entailing qualities. (<--- this is called getting ahead of myself, I can see everyone scratching their heads and wondering what I am talking about)
Merriam-Webter defines "adiabatic" as follows:.
adaibatic : occurring without loss or gain of heat <adiabatic expansion of a gas> (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dicitionary)
In light of this definition, what exactly do you mean by "adiabatic participation?" In other words, who or what is in adiabatic participation?
Can the transcendent God (the theistic aspect of panentheism) observe all relative states simultaneously in which he (God) is not "thermodynamically invovled" (I assume that this means there is no heat exchange between the Observer and the system)?
If God is not thermodynamically involved, then in what sense is God immanent (the pantheistic aspect of panentheism)?
If I recall my answer was something along the lines of which is heavier, 9 litres of water or the 500g bucket that holds it, your question is based on an underestimation.
I assume the bucket (500 g + 9000 g). Is the transcendent God the "bucket" in this scenario?
To know the state the universe is in only in retrospect is an anthropomorphic misapprehension, RQM may forbid that there is any meaning to describing a state of t entire universe but it does not discount a law underlying relative observations of the universe being known.
So where is the transcendent aspect of God in all of this?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:I do not believe that an individual will come to know the reality of universal love (God) through a logical proof. I subscribe to gnosticism/mysticism. As such, I believe that "proof" will only come through experiential knowledge which entails faith.My apologies Paisley, I have misread you, your post was an attack on reason; and in that case I will say I thoroughly and totally disagree with it. I am of the mind that if any such God exists whom would refuse to make himself known through reason, and mind that I don't believe that is the case, then that God is no "God" it is a demi-god of an arbitrary physical phenomenon, a pantheon ensemble concept.
It's not an attack on reason. Faith and belief must be upheld by reason in order to come to a knowledge of truth - i.e. "gnosis." But this knowledge is not the knowledge of a logical proof or of some kind of God-concept or theological system. The gnosis is experiential knowledge that entails a change in perception, a change in consciousness.
Fortunately I am also quite confident, as I have said many times, that a God which is consistent with the western biblical descriptions 'love' and 'light' and 'all' is knowable through purely logical proof, I have no need of taking anyone's word that "God" is an anthropical symbol for everything that doesn't bear good sense and integrity.
Okay. Do you have this "purely logical proof?" If so, please share it with us.
Paisley wrote:I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "surrendering your only known identity." But I believe that the aspirant must be willing to let go of the ego in order to find God (love).I too believe in release from attachment to preserving egotistical structure as the way to enlightenment, but to demand or force it from someone is futile and ugly.
Who is demanding it or forcing it? I'm simply stating what I believe as are you.
Letting go of fear is highly unlikely to be the difference between an atheist and a theist, but in a sense I agree with what you are saying.
So you don't think that letting go of the ego will require an act of faith? Especially when the ego is the "most unlikely, innocent looking and personally endeared suspect of all" (your words).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Interesting.....Paisley is now arguing with Eloise. It seems he has turned on the only friend he has here.
- Login to post comments
Offline By "relativistic approach to Quantum," do you mean philosophical-relativistic, or general theory of relativity? I'm asking because to the best of my knowledge (which is a few years out of date) the quantum and relativistic realms were still separate, save for string theory (which as Paisley rightly pointed out [though for the wrong reasons], is not a theory, but still just an hypothesis).
The wrong reasons?
Previously I stated that ...
"String theory has not made one prediction. It does not even qualify as a scientific theory."
Moreover, string theory as it is currently understood has a huge number of equally possible solutions.[23] Thus it has been claimed by some scientists that string theory may not be falsifiable and may have no predictive power.[24][25][26][27]String theory remains to be confirmed. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories.
source: Wikipedia "String theory"
Still from my (possibly outdated) understanding, the problem I (and many others) have with describing this as "awareness" is probably more linguistic than theoretical. As we dont' have a theoretical model for the "awareness" of a quantum state, calling it "awareness" is misleading at best, and wrong at worst. The informational state of a quantum bit is likely completely different (though potentially related) to what we call "awareness" as a conscious being. (I say "potentially related" because I believe, though have no proof, that our minds are likely as much quantum-driven as chemoelectrical.)
This is interesting. The informational state of a qubit (probability wave or superposition) is "completely different though potentially related" to what we call "awareness." Why? Because our minds are likely to be "quantum-driven?"
What exactly do you mean by "quantum-driven?" I trust that this has nothing to do with what we may call "conscious will"....right?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley , you are a dedicated trouble maker, but you are god, and fuck you too ! .... and thanks ....
Is this your dogma?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline You're not agreeing, you're just repeating. I've already expanded on why your comparison fails to bring your arguments up to the same level as probabalistic and inductive conclusions. Since you've chosen the route of feigning vindication through impertinent one-liners, I'm not going to repeat myself. If someone wants to see you fail again, they can re-read our exchange.
And you have failed to justify the belief in inductive reasoning which does not entail induction itself.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
By "relativistic approach to Quantum," do you mean philosophical-relativistic, or general theory of relativity? I'm asking because to the best of my knowledge (which is a few years out of date) the quantum and relativistic realms were still separate, save for string theory (which as Paisley rightly pointed out [though for the wrong reasons], is not a theory, but still just an hypothesis).
I do understand what you are saying. It's a matter of an internal "state" maintained within probability, and no underlying physical antecedent. This phenomena is used in quantum computing, even though it's not well understood.
Still from my (possibly outdated) understanding, the problem I (and many others) have with describing this as "awareness" is probably more linguistic than theoretical. As we dont' have a theoretical model for the "awareness" of a quantum state, calling it "awareness" is misleading at best, and wrong at worst. The informational state of a quantum bit is likely completely different (though potentially related) to what we call "awareness" as a conscious being. (I say "potentially related" because I believe, though have no proof, that our minds are likely as much quantum-driven as chemoelectrical.)
The problem with basing mysticism on QM is simple: we still don't understand the fundamentals of QM. We have models of what it does, but no real understanding of what it is. There are lots of physicists and others who think deeply about what it might be. But our knowledge is still very sparse. This is still just "mysticism of the gaps," rather than a God of the gaps.
Like I said, though, it's been years since I've really read deeply into modern research in QM. I've been waiting for some new experimental evidence, like might be provided by the LHC, should it ever come on-line.
Do you have any suggestions for good tomes on the subject? I've always enjoyed QM; I remember reading about string theory back in 1984 (in high school), back when it was still a young field. And I enjoyed it in my last year of physics, though we covered mostly the history of it, and the physical models (formulas). We certainly didn't get into the philosophy of it.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Okay, No, I'm actually talking about an approach to Quantum which is relativistic, probably the best known work on this is being done by Carlo Rovelli. Rovelli is a relativist of the first degree, ie his primary research field is LQG, however his relational Quantum Mechanics is somewhat left of the centre of that battle. Rovelli has achieved the most for this interpretation, formally, but you can also find very similar approaches in the works of Gyula Bene, and Lee Smolin.
RQM is very compatible with the Everett MWI. It can also be seen to fit well with CI or a consistent histories approach. The basic tenet of RQM is that there are no absolute states. Simply stated like that it appears to say nothing new, but it has quite far reaching consequences. The main consequence, which to Rovelli appears to demonstrate a complete view of the world in quantum mechanics, is that every state corresponds to a relative point of observation.
It's good that you understand this much, the point is that there are major philosophical consequences should we satisfy ourselves that it is a complete view of the world via RQM. And it is quite probable that we will do.
The major consequence stems from the realisation therein that those internal states are as valid and material as any observed state, you would see them if you were 'observing' from the boundary 'cut' relative to them. You could assume they are real.
Actually I am downgrading awareness massively in what I am saying. There is nothing special about awareness when it is considered from the RQM point of view, it is really really ordinary and inevitable. An atom is self aware only in that it pings it's surroundings from several end points and each response corresponds to a different relative 'observation'. Awareness looks special because it is only one relative state, the bit is given to an illusion that the state is unique because the bit does not exist as a bit without the uniqueness. It can only be self aware in that it exists as a state of a bit. This is, of course, an illusion, it also exists as two bits and three bits and etc, and effectively it exists as 1/2 & -1/2 or up/down etc even as itself. Suffice it to say that my use of the word awareness might be misleading, but my point in doing so is to point out that complete self measurement is impossible, self awareness is basically nothing more than 'being' and neither, in that, are much more than an illusion arising from a coordinate within a larger framework of coordinates. I know this sounds just a little drastic but I hope by using the most extreme sort of reference I might make the point sharper that bits are not aware per se, awareness just may not be any different to being material, both these could well be nothing more than very basic automatic results of a relativistic correlation.
I have to argue there that I am not advocating and will not ever advocate a 'mysticism of the gaps'. At most I am saying the facts have a mystical nature in and of themselves, but I'm not really saying that either, what I am really saying most of all is that a great deal of what one might take for granted as the reality of your existence is actually superstition. In those terms this all might look a little mystical, but in reality it is more solid and empirical than many ordinary everyday world assumptions like time, space and self.
You might want to read up a little on RQM here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9703/9703021v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9609/9609002v2.pdf
These are mostly not difficult to read and require little technical knowledge.
Also try this book - (links to a Google Preview)
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I saw a bumper sticker today that applies to this thread.
"The endlessness justifies the meaninglessness"
My attributed wordview of ultimate meaninglessness now has been justified.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I look at it this way, I AM GOD , now what is that exactly ?
The key terms in the foregoing are "premise," "assumes," and "seeming."
Induction cannot be justified except inductively. This is the problem of induction.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
... and so that would be realizing ourselves by our consciousness which has a sense of our present limitation of a grander much larger consciousness potential .... so some call it GAWED, and even today, create fancy dogma often called philosophy and even science.
Buddha smiled .....
Atheism Books.
No, you first gave the pretense that you agreed with it only to contradict yourself by proceeding to level an attack upon the the intuitive mind.
What were you saying about misrepresentation? Please provide me with the quote in this thread in which I stated that "God speaks to me."
The epistemology of empiricism and its stepchild (i.e. the scientific method) is based on belief - namely, the assumption of induction.
I suggest that you look up the "regress argument" in Wikipedia. Perhaps you'll learn something.
The foundation is built on intuition (it's non-rational, not irrational). And inductive reasoning itself arises from the intuitive.
I have never said that "God talks to me."
No, I recognize that both the intuitive and the analytical must function together. This is something which you're only capable of giving lip service to.
This is interesting. First you lambaste me for my God-belief and spiritual practice. Now, you saying that personal spirituality is admirable! Which one is it?
There is nothing I said that misrepresents QM.
It's non-rational, not irrational. Everyone's worldview has some basis in the non-rational (the intuitive).
I hate to burst your bubble but atheists do not have exclusive rights to the accomplishments of science.
Just so I know where you stand. What is your opinion of all those who express faith in God? In specific, what is your opinion of those who express a belief in gnosticism (i.e. the belief that God can be experientially known)?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Restating the premise doesn't validate a false dilemma.
FUCK , can someone please tell me what to do with me ? ..... me is now set up
..... I was actually thinking of all the others as me ...... what are we doing ? I forgot ! 
Oh yeah, Oh yeah , making that pie scream , well that was part of it anyway , you know, the real heavy nitty gritty love stuff ..... GAWED ? What ain't ? What is ? "Relaxe" said a buddha , ...... Jesus said "Fight" , I say "BEER" ..... but there is much more to the bigger story .....
I make me laugh , and I AM glad for that ..... 
Atheism Books.
There is a reason for each and every belief.
Get real! The heat death theory is simply one theory among many.
You keep conflating introspection with mysticism. They're not the same!
Your view of the world (hence the term - worldview) is absurd.
This actually shows the impoverishment of the worldview from the reference point of the ego. The bottomline is that without faith, you can't make sense of the world.
Do you know the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism?
I would argue that the logical positivist is not permitted to say "there is no God." It would be unscientific.
An absurd worldview is an irrational one by definition.
An absurd worldview is "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous"
An absurd worldview is "having no rational or orderly relationship to human life"
An absurd worldview is "meaningless and lacking value."
I realize that this is a point of contention for you but the fact is that I don't have an absurd worldview. I am able to see that there is a greater good at work. Such is the reality of faith. This is the difference between my worldview and yours.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Agreed. Such is the problem of induction.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Someone save me from my inductive deduction .... and false dilemma ....
ummm ? god to the rescue ....
! Dogma works bitches ! 
Atheism Books.
In this particular case, I wish to state that virtual particles are constantly popping in and out of existence, temporarily violating the conservation of energy.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
....but how does this reflect upon Sam Harris' new-found spirituality ?
That light (universal consciousness) manifests itself as the phenomenal world of matter in space-time?
"God is light." 1 John 1:5
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Incorrect. Empiricism is based on experience.
Experiential evidence qualifies as empirical evidence.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The precondition for ultimate hope is faith and trust in God.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This is the point.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"God is light." 1 John 1:5 - Wow, so elegant John was a scientist too ? Buddha said "I am awake". Jesus said "I am one" with the thingy ...... profound ? Not at all, but freakin dogma is profoundly religious !
Understanding Consciousness is the final frontier !
Hey Paisley, I already posted this to you, but no reply. Isn't this basically what you are saying. Yes, No ? I think yes, and I like .....
ONENESS AND THE HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM 7 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7-uySXSCk
Just simply amazing !
Atheism Books.
You just accept it? Good! If indeterminism is true, then materialism is false.
As long as you accept "uncaused" events and events where "something emerges out of nothing," then I will be able to insert "God."
Indeterminism has metaphysical implications.
He places the term in quotes because he knows that indeterminate (uncaused) events are not self-explanatory. Whether he believes that the quon is exhibiting free will is irrelevant. The observation suggests evidence for conscious behavior.
Most computer programming languages have some kind of built-in "random" function. The following "chooses" a number between 1 and 10 in the Perl programming language:
$ChoosesANumber = int(rand(10));
Actually, the number that is selected is completely determined by the internal clock of the computer. In other words, it's not really random. However, if this were a truly random function, then the number selected would be "chosen" without cause. This is what is at issue here. And this is what you are failing to grasp.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Because cursing a non-existent God actually reveals a not-so-subtle belief in the existence of God - a God in whom your are holding accountable for your personal problems and frustrations.
I'm using the term wisdom (a.k.a. gnosis) in the gnostic or mystical sense.
Philosophy literally means the love (philo) of wisdom (sophia).
It's the mystical insight that love constitutes ultimate reality.
A deistic panentheist? LOL
Panentheism is the belief in both the immanent and transcendent aspects of God. It literally means "God-is-all-in-all ism." It is not compatible with deism.
Einstein stated that he believed in a Spinoza God (i.e. pantheism). Spinoza viewed love or knowledge of God as the highest virtue and that only intuitive knowledge is eternal.
The "proof" only comes through faith. Without faith, there is no trust. Without trust, there is no love.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I have already provided you with Merriam-Webster's definition of "absurd." I'm not going to repeat myself.
Your worldview is absurd. I will ask you to take ownership of it.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Wow, based upon your scripture reference I wasn't aware that Sam Harris was actually placing his spiritual beliefs upon ( of all things ) the Christian Bible. That should definitely boost his book sales among the atheist community. Smart man.
Romans 1:22 "Declaring themselves to be wise, they became fools instead"
I'm going a little out on a limb to say this, I know, but I disagree with this statement Paisley. Though I understand that you are most likely referring to your earlier statement that faith is used to establish reason and thus will form the basis of even the reason leading to god, but what you have said here is really reminiscent of the standard protestant attack on reason and it really really seems like a call to abandon reason as you've stated it.
To me Nigel's demands are fair and merit a less dismissive, more specific response. I'm probably showing a little bias by saying this but I've got to say standardised western religious apologetic replies really piss me off and I'd expect atheists to feel no less contempt for them, faith and human belief is entirely too personal to be treated so superciliously I hate it when brazen evangelicals demand I surrender my only known identity in return for empty cli'ched platitudes and I don't expect anyone else to hate it less than I do. Though I know you probably didn't mean it that way, and I'm sorry to take it out on you, it's just that your actual response was really lacking important substance for me.
That said, I am confident that what Nigel is asking is not difficult to do without attacking the essential basis of someone else's known existence ie their inductive faith. This must necessarily be true if the second condition Nigel stated is to be proven true. If you must remove something from a part of the universe in order for Love to be present there then it is not pervading and has failed the second condition. Love must pervade doubt, and doubt must necessarily not be required to be absent from the construct. The point then is to prove that doubt is love. Which isn't actually hard because in doubt you cling to assuredness, if you define love as a bond, and doubt as the bond to assuredness, then you have defined doubt as love, you could likewise do this any 'negative' feeling defining them all as implicitly love. So all that remains is to prove love a force which has existence in a sense that is no less real than material existence which has, somewhat, been the point of this thread.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Thanks for that Eloise. Maybe you have a better sense of what Paisley is trying to say and or accomplish here. This interesting thread is a real lesson in frustration.
Can we agree on anything !?! Geezz , all is "ONE" I say. What is not matter/energy?, and if something is discovered "outside" that definition, of what is presently known to exist, so what !? It is still all ONE, and connected.
Materialism does not deny consciousness or love , or our types of thought processes etc etc. Call them whatever; Faith, belief, reason, logic, hope, love, hate ...... I also don't understand what Paisley means when he says absurd. Is it just to keep the god word attached to a loving awe ? Who the heck doesn't look around in our awareness in awe? Trying to expand and enjoy our awareness is a great idea. What is Paisley trying to do here for us ???????????????????? He won't tell me
Buddha made suggestions, Paisley ? well ? , I don't get it man ???? What's the lesson ?... 
_________________________________________________________________
{ edit: Absurd ? All of us can argue yes and no. The world is fearful, sick, hungry, desperate, greedy, and easily makes war .... and because so much of this suffering is unnecessary, it is indeed absurd. But dogma is not the cure.
On the other hand nothing can be absurd, because there is no divine master "purpose" to judge. All judgment is a personal one.
Atheism Books.
You're not agreeing, you're just repeating. I've already expanded on why your comparison fails to bring your arguments up to the same level as probabalistic and inductive conclusions. Since you've chosen the route of feigning vindication through impertinent one-liners, I'm not going to repeat myself. If someone wants to see you fail again, they can re-read our exchange.
Ok Iam. I'll get into this absurdity thing
On the one hand we have:
1. A worldview is absurd by definition if it is lacking meaning.
And on the other we have:
2. The world lacks meaning and therefore it is absurd but the worldview that recognises it is not.
Now the argument from 2. is that the worldview that acknowledges an absurd world is meaningful - it is given meaning by virtue of it being a knowledge based worldview, it is felt to be honest, which is it's meaning. If integrity leads you to absurdity, then it is still meaningful by virtue of it's integrity. and if absurdity is all there is, then what's left to be meaningful is your intellectual honesty that you have found that to be the case. In an absurd world the ultimate in meaning must be what you do with the reality that your world is absurd. Denying it, then, is the absurdity because denial is meaningless in an absurd world, denial does not confer meaning.
The argument from 1. is that the worldview is absurd by virtue of it's ultimate conclusion being meaninglessness. Meaninglessness is meaningless even in an absurd world - ie if the world is ultimately meaningless, then there is no meaning to refer to it's meaninglessness by. So you've fallen into a dichotomy, either there is meaning by which you have negatively identified this meaninglessness, or your worldview has no meaning and is absurd.
The argument from 1 is a bit difficult to think about, it's what you call knotty and probably a bit semantic. It is kind of true, but not a philosophy that most would spend a lot of time thinking about cause it could give you a headache pretty quick. The argument from 2 is a fair alternative but it doesn't really address the dilemma in the argument from 1 directly, thus the impasse.
The lesson is a question-
Is it meaningless to call the universe ultimately meaningless because there's no meaning to subtract from meaninglessness or is it meaningful to honestly appraise a meaningless universe as being meaningless?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
You are a doll and a genius E. Wish this was voice mail. Typing is hard work.
You struck a word there for me "Meaningless". I never gave it that much consideration. The why thing. For me it's always been the questions of "how" and "what" . Why ??? why ask why ?
But I think I get it , people really do , as if ..... a reason exists !
Thanks so much , really.
I AM laughing and glad ..... Hey E , my love to you
and all that down under! !
Atheism Books.
After 620 some posts it was bound to happen sometime, where I find partial agreement with one of your positions. Most atheists are ex-believers and curse occasionally using terms such as hell, god damn, or damn. This is residual indoctrination left over as floating strands of unconnected data in the mind. In most cases it is said in a way to disrespect the theist or theism in general. I recommend against it as it is part of ultimate meaninglessness. It shows the power of the ultimate fantasy that has deluded people for thousands of years. This is not much different than when you accidently drift into reality from your deluded concepts. As god and terms associated with it are imaginary constructs of the human mind it serves little purpose other than to validate the position of the deluded theist. Instead of utilizing the term "God" or "hell" one should substitute words that do not validate the position of the theist's fantasy. In the above case a proper method would have been to say to you "Oh my fucking evolution hating friend", "Oh my fucking word", or "WTF."
As you said in post 616:
James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Without works therefore you are dead according to your source of inspiration the NT.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Paisley, I must admit that I haven't read all 600 + posts in this thread. I read the first couple of pages and skipped to the end. I'm going to assume that no one else has pointed out the major weakness of your argument or if they did (a much more likely event) you chose to ignore it.
In several of your posts you express your value of the products of your intuition - as if intuitive thoughts can bring you closer to the truth than say . . . reasoning. One of my questions is, have you ever asked yourself from where does this much vaunted intuition come from?
There is some quite good evidence on the structures within and origins of the brain and some very good imaging hardware that tells us how and what portions of it we use to arrive at our intuitive conclusions.
To begin with, we do most of our thinking (the reasoning part) right there behind and slightly above our eyeballs. The thinking is kind of digital in a cascade sort of why and it's done independently in both hemispheres until a cascade event sends impulses through the corpus callosum (a nerve bundle that allows communication between the two hemispheres). The two sides war it out for awhile - each hoping to trump the other. The point here is that the 'logical conclusion' is really the result of the size and duration of a hemisphere's cascade event. This is then weighed against previous bias and current and remembered stimuli. The result of the logic portion is then colored and shaped by the more primitve portions of the brain. You know what I'm refering to - some call it the lizard brain. And on top of that sits the earlier mammal brain that's been around since our ancestors were lemurs. This is the process that drives intuition.
Do you really want to hold this product up and call it the pinnacle of your philosophy? Where is the wisdom in such a practice and how could you possibly love it?
I do not believe that an individual will come to know the reality of universal love (God) through a logical proof. I subscribe to gnosticism/mysticism. As such, I believe that "proof" will only come through experiential knowledge which entails faith.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "surrendering your only known identity." But I believe that the aspirant must be willing to let go of the ego in order to find God (love).
I would probably just say that "love is letting go of fear." This is how I understand living by faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
God is real ! no dout wat so eva
I'll go out on another limb and say that your premise fell from the stupid tree and hit every branch along the way. The only "love" we know is a dynamic that requires variables to be fulfilled. There have to be things that fulfill certain criteria (i.e. the love one extends to one's immediate family, or the love one extends via the recognition of similarity (empathy)). To love is to be something, and have priorities, and distinctions between the implications of one prospect or another. By implication, to be something is not to be something else: a luxury a Yahweh-lite/quasi-pantheistic god doesn't have.
The supposed recognition of this "universal love" clap-trap, I'd wager, is simply the arbitrary application of human principles to nebulous and undefined concepts. Love for humanity, for instance, is not an explicit idea, since humanity represents a category the variables to which can't be known specifically. To love every instance of humanity would require knowledge of such. It is not a meaningful idea unto itself. A person can perform loving or philanthropic actions, but they're only instances of a broad principle, not the validation of the principle as a thing that exists in itself (which would be reification, like the "meaning juice" that dribbles in from other dimensions, as implied by theistic concepts of absolute meaning). The love is expressed in instances, not stored as a substance.
Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. Saying that one requires the other is typical William Lane Craig or Alister McGrath shit.
When are you going to admit you're either a current or recently disillusioned born-again Christian?
Paisley wrote: "I would probably just say that "love is letting go of fear." This is how I understand living by faith."
//// But if faith is dogma it isn't going to work. I think it would be better to say fully "embrace the fear", to understand it . Love the enemy within, because it is your higher awareness of logic that better knows the ying/yang of you, and gives us a better sense or balance of the "middle", as the buddhists say.
Geezz, words are tough
..... Fear is an important awareness. Letting go of fear would make one out of balance. Knowing "fear" adds to ones sense of love or appreciation for the "enjoyable" in life, increasing healthy courage to deal with fear. Unhealthy false courage is dogma and religious based and dangerous.
ummmm, hopefully I will re-write that "better" in the future .... words don't easily cooperate .....
Big bad J said, don't like the enemy (fear) ? , well love (understand) the enemy (fear) Don't let go of it, or try to just wish or fight it away, ..... understanding it is the cure ..... Simple .....
Atheism Books.
Actually, Iam, you're learning your words pretty good. I can almost convince myself, sometimes, that I can almost grasp what it is you think you're trying to say. Used to be I couldn't fathom your missives at all.
This didn't convince me. Is your atheism only in regards to the God of biblical Christianity or do you reject all gods?
Your assumption is wrong.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This begs the question: "Why are you continuing to participate in this thread?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It raises the question... actually. Well, no, it doesn't do that, but that would be the correct way to say it.
OccamsChainsaw
Thanks for the encouragement, Your pen name is a blessing in it self !
Going with Occam , ..... all is ONE. That is my message. To say another way, "We are God" ..... >
<
Atheism Books.
Comment:
RQM seems to imply there is no objective reality.
Question:
Since you identify yourself as a panentheist, I am assuming that you believe in a God who is in some sense transcendent. How do you reconcile your theology with RQM since it forbids an external observer?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley , you are a dedicated trouble maker, but you are god, and fuck you too ! .... and thanks ....
Atheism Books.
My apologies Paisley, I have misread you, your post was an attack on reason; and in that case I will say I thoroughly and totally disagree with it. I am of the mind that if any such God exists whom would refuse to make himself known through reason, and mind that I don't believe that is the case, then that God is no "God" it is a demi-god of an arbitrary physical phenomenon, a pantheon ensemble concept.
Fortunately I am also quite confident, as I have said many times, that a God which is consistent with the western biblical descriptions 'love' and 'light' and 'all' is knowable through purely logical proof, I have no need of taking anyone's word that "God" is an anthropical symbol for everything that doesn't bear good sense and integrity.
I too believe in release from attachment to preserving egotistical structure as the way to enlightenment, but to demand or force it from someone is futile and ugly. If you understand the role of the ego in your human experience then it should not be too hard to understand why one could need logical proof that it is so. You should perhaps consider taking a course in gnostic alchemy to understand the gist of what I am saying, to demand the renouncement of the ego is to level heavy charges at the most unlikely, innocent looking and personally endeared suspect of all, anyone who expects people to simply accept this accusation at face value does not know what they are talking about. (<--- that's me being preachy... very rare...)
Letting go of fear is highly unlikely to be the difference between an atheist and a theist, but in a sense I agree with what you are saying.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
And? I don't understand what you are getting at.
You've quoted a gem there from Wiki, Paisley, my respect goes out to the author of: "If all properties are relational, then what can be said of the objects they relate?" - this is precisely what I am trying to get across, we really need to start taking this important little nugget out of its box more often, this is about what we are.
Now as to your question RQM forbids an external observer, sure, but it does not forbid nay it directly describes adiabatic participation. That is to say, you can observe a state in which you are not thermodynamically involved. If you can, God can, in fact God only needs to observe exactly as humans would to be God with all the necessary entailing qualities. (<--- this is called getting ahead of myself, I can see everyone scratching their heads and wondering what I am talking about)
Where have I spoken of the state of the entire universe? Or do you mean that it forbids God to know the state of the entire universe? I am thinking that's what you mean, and I have been asked that question by DG about 6 months ago. If I recall my answer was something along the lines of which is heavier, 9 litres of water or the 500g bucket that holds it, your question is based on an underestimation . To know the state the universe is in only in retrospect is an anthropomorphic misapprehension, RQM may forbid that there is any meaning to describing a state of t entire universe but it does not discount a law underlying relative observations of the universe being known.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com