|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
Posted on: March 13, 2008 - 1:03am
   Offline
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help fix it?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
And you're stealing the concept by having any such expectation. You can either hold that an expectation is valid for the sake of this, and virtually every logical discussion thus far, or you can advocate whatever your nebulous QM abortion of a theory is, and do so without relying on induction or probability.
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
"Paisley , you are a dedicated trouble maker, but you are god, and fuck you too ! .... and thanks .... (kisses)
P asks, "Is this your dogma?" ////////
______________________________________
Call what you will, but I was just saying thanks for bringing the "Sword" of debate. Gets intense, and it need be, as killing god of abe is important work, as the Christ is in me. Big bad atheist J was a tough courageous indignant bastard ! .... J was a "Fuck You" guy too !
Science is our best effort to understanding Gawed, and uses all our inherent, innate thought processes.
"Loosing the ego", the buddhists say, is the realization that there is no "self". Everything is connected to the "whole" cosmos, and or god. Every particle and energy field is god. This realization does alot to calm fear and helps create an inner peace of "Oneness". In this sense we, energy/matter, are the eternal that is recycling (occam's reincarnation).
The god of abe concept of separation, suggesting a master, is dogmatic and destructive. I call it the "devil" within ..... "Atheist" jesus (a buddha) boldly said this is the kingdom / heaven NOW ..... you blind superstitious hypocrites ! We are One with the cosmos (father) ..... Chill out ! Obey the "Golden Rule" ...... "Ye are gods" ...
The videos I previously posted are really worth a review. I found them entertaining and fun. What is consciousness ?
"Holographic paradigm" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_paradigm
"Gariaev reports as of 2007 that this work in Russia is being actively suppressed." Is that really true, and why ?
Re-post - "Loosing the ego", ONENESS AND THE HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7-uySXSCk
New , "The Catalyst" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHzzzjFZSRA
New , "the small man within the small man" , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLiA00wlU2M
A collection - “Holographic Universe” http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Holographic+Universe&search_type=
Any hoot, thanks again Paisley for bringing the "Sword" , and all you swordsmen .....
Atheism Books.
It would help if you included some information here as to how you were getting at this, cause it isn't apparent to me in any way.
As I said, here I got ahead of myself in saying all this. First I should really drive home the point made above - what can be said of the objects to which they [relational states] relate.
What can be said is that they are not objects, basically. They too are relational states. This strikes the heart of how we define our position as observers of these states, no observer is definable independently of it's observation, and yes RQM extends contiguously to relative sized objects like human beings. Our anthropomorphic concept is false in RQM because it is defined independently. Thus you cannot frame God in this concept, you cannot even accurately frame yourself in it. Such a human being does not exist. What exists is a relational 'level' of interaction which represents human-world, and that alone defines what we humans have believed and acted as though we are.
You have assumed correctly that adiabatic means thermodynamically isolated. And yes a God can observed all relative states simultaneously that it is not thermodynamically involved in. Any observer can, all observers do. But we need to stop right there and rewind because there is way too much missing from my argument, first I need to discuss how thermodynamic involvement is related to information.
Firstly, an adiabatic observer should be one that has no information, information exchange is substantially the same as heat exchange. Now we, as we generally define ourselves, are isolated from 'alternate' relational states. That is to say, using a classic analogy we can see the cat not dead, and in having done so we do not see it dead -that information is lost (destroyed per CI).
Now this is a poor definition of ourselves first of all. This state in which we do not exchange information with the dead cat state is not absolute, no such human being would actually exist were we to find the relational interpretation to be a complete description. Again what exists is a relational 'level' on which the interaction of a live cat and a human being exchanging information about those states applies. This information is exchanged relative where you slice up the system of observer-observation, it is not absolute, it is only where you sliced it. The point where information is exchanged, the slice, is arbitrary, move the slice and you'll have a different information exchange, a different scenario, say, a dead cat. Now the question is not whether or not you can observe from the alternate slice, but which slice actually defines you.
You are missing the point, which is the difference between the 500g of plastic and the 9 litres of water. The bucket is not defined by the water and it does not need to be defined by the water in order to sufficiently contain the water.
No, the bucket is not the transcendent God, when you get down to it the bucket represents quite ordinary observation.
It's there, but it is not apparent if you misapprehend what form one should expect it take and yet be beyond the range of the "ordinary human experience" which is entailed in the definition of transcendence.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Excuse me? I could have sworn you just said it was . You said "I do not believe that an individual will come to know the reality of universal love (God) through a logical proof." Does this not unashamedly imply that reason is a totally inadequate and pointless practice?
A change in consciousness which entails no computable mechanism? You can NEVER see or comprehend logically why such a change would occur?
Now I can absolutely respect the notion that it is not necessary to obtain a logical comprehension of the mechanism in order to experience it, but that is a different thing to there not being one, or the statement that one is impossible to derive. I can only refuse to believe in a god that makes himself the exclusive property of the uneducated and the easily lead, such is not a god to me and certainly not a god of Love in any case.
I will be frank, here. Until we all come to realise all the basic precepts of existence that we have misapprehended, there is no point to showing any logical proof. We are taking illusions and relics of experience for granted to be absolutes, that is how we live and in that framework one would be foolish to try and even set up the logic let alone follow it.
Thankyou for asking but I have decided to follow my own instincts on this one. One must first diminish all dependence on false precepts and repeal attachment to relics and illusions. There is a logical process that makes it possible to understand these things and that should probably come first.
I mean by this that you are insisting it must be done. That one must wield their faith unknowing or else be damned to never knowing. It sounds like it has been ripped straight from an evangelical Christian "How to convert your mark" textbook. Yuech! You at least understand that faith is already underlying a persons ego, so I ask you to take a step back from there and consider what that means to the person you are asking to renounce it. It should be obvious that an explanation is much more fairly and reasonably in order than an ultimatum.
Yes it will require an act of faith, but it need not be taken in ignorance of the reality of faith. In ignorance the ego is the unlikely innocent looking and personally endeared suspect, one does not have to renounce the integrity of the ego in ignorance.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
WOW, I love it when Eloise gets onry !
.... and hey mr. P , "I love you more" ..... you devil !
Atheism Books.
So you agree that your worldview doesn't escape what you claim makes materialism absurd?
Under your worldview we have nothing to do with the outcome or "ultimate purpose" so we are in fact meaningless to it.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Also note we have no idea what "ultimate purpose" means, aside from the implication so far that a being that outlives us will remember us. But, as you say, to what end? And what makes that being's existence meaningful? And what is meaning in this context?
There must be a subject for which different prospects present different consequences for something to be meaningful, and I reiterate that a pantheistic god wouldn't have the luxury of comparison. It would be all things; all prospects would be equal. Existence would be moot.
Why do atheists feel the need to be disrespectful?
The theist position will be validated the next time an atheist stubs his little toe on a coffee table.
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.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling: for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Phillipians 2:12-13
The dialectical process can either be viewed as a power struggle or a healing process. The choice is yours.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
'Pantheist,' my little toe.
I'm not saying that I never engage in induction. We all do. What I am saying is that induction is based on an assumption that deductive reasoning cannot prove.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It's all energy matter baby, as far I can tell. Purpose ? Hey what do you want !? Is consciousness something to worship ?
BTW, Bible James was pretty cool .... Paul pisses me off most the time ..... The bible is over rated , obviously .... but a good lesson of our embarrassing past. So what will we do now, and next ?
Go science ..... kill religion .... for heavens sakes !
Atheism Books.
Which you pointed out to establish a parallel between the problem of induction and faith in a cockamamie Yahweh-lite and the museum of Paisley he'll curate when your dumb ass is deader than disco. As I've pointed out, we have the entire functional body of mutually-supporting human knowledge which risks being fundamentally false, versus the nebulous, useless, childish and unsubstantiated load of crap you're peddling because death makes you feel squishy in your drawers.
I haven't attacked the intuitive mind. I've attacked the idea that the intuitive mind is a source of reliable knowledge. The intuitive mind is an excellent synthesizer of information; however, any conclusions reached by the intuitive mind must pass analytic muster. That is the way in which the intuitive an the analytic work together.
Otherwise, you're just thinking shit up.
How do you know that God is there to maintain your experience? The only possible way to know is by direct revelation. God must speak to you for that revelation. Without revelation, you have only supposition.
I apologize. I jumped to the conclusion you based your claim of eternal existence on revelation. I withdraw the statement that God spoke to you.
Yeah. I read Hume many, many years ago. I understand the problem with induction.
The problem with your argument is that science is built up with induction, but tested by deduction. Induction is powered by the intuitive mind. Deduction is powered by the analytic. Science is the balance between these two minds.
Irrational. Non-rational. Whatever. It's still not rational.
No. As I have stated, science wouldn't work without the intuitive mind. Induction relies on creativity. Without deduction and the analytic mind to filter out the thoughts that aren't congruent with reality, we'd just be making shit up, and blaming thunderstorms on a pissed-off God with a hammer.
No. I lambast you for claiming your belief is more rational than a worldview based on science.
That still makes it not-rational.
And though everyone has a little not-rationality in their lives, claiming that makes them more rational is just plain... absurd.
No bubble burst. I never claimed they did.
What I'm saying is that the scientific method is the only proven epistemology. There is no other epistemology that has worked as consistently and reliably as science. None. Not one.
Not even your (still-unstated) epistemology.
For the gnostics, I believe they have found a path to spirituality. I believe they experience a subjective emotion that makes them feel good.
There's no way to have a single opinion of all who express faith in God. My daughter is a fundamentalist Christian, as is her mother. My wife's parents were raised quasi-Quaker, and both still have faith in God. I know and love and respect too many people who believe in God to think poorly of faith.
Each and every one of them holds their faith as a personal matter. Each one claims to have experienced God. Even though they are all Christian, they have very different views on God Himself. Their God is subjective.
To me, that's the biggest proof that God doesn't exist. Or, if He does exist, He doesn't care about us. Otherwise, there'd be some consistency in our views of God. But we don't, so the only logical, rational conclusion is that any experience of God is subjective, and not indicative of an objective reality.
"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
Yeah. That's what I thought. I figured you'd dodge the issue entirely.
Your worldview is subjective and delusional. I will ask you to take ownership of it.
See how that ends up? You're doing the whole, "Am not," "Am too," schoolyard argument. All I asked for was a little logic, an attempt to deconstruct a logical position. Instead, you once again assert your unsubstantiated thesis and call it a rebuttal.
Here's my assertion: you can't support your claim logically. You avoid all the real issues, which are: your definition of "meaning" is arbitrary. A worldview that models a universe with no ultimate meaning, itself has meaning. A rational worldview is one that is congruent with reality; yours is not. introspection has been proven to be unreliable. You have no epistemology to support your metaphysics, and so you have no framework by which to claim knowledge.
Your defence is as weak as herbal tea, and about as offensive. Cowboy up and provide something with substance, and perhaps a little logic, or I will assume your position is indefencible.
"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
In the '90s, a gentleman who's name escapes me did some research in evolution of electronic circuits using FPGAs. He evolved circuits to distinguish a particular frequency. In the end, his evolved circuits were significantly more efficient than a circuit designed for the same purpose. He had a problem, though; the initial FPGA circuits were not portable across devices. The evolution of the circuit took advantage of the specific variances within the FPGAs.
The process of evolution takes advantage of everything available. I believe the mere fact that information may be stored in quantum states makes it highly likely that quantum effects affect the way our brain is wired. They are part of our hardware, as it were. This has nothing to do with "conscious will." I believe "free will" is a linguistic artifact, and is meaningless (and so absurd) within discussion of consciousness.
"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
@magilum and nigelTheBold
You guys are amazing. I left this fray because I couldn't take the merry-go-round anymore. Do you guys take lots of vitamins or something? The exercise of revisiting the same equivocations and misrepresentations over and over wore me right out.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The folks at NASA had amazing results using genetic algorithms to design antennas. Check it out:
GA Antenna
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Why do theists? It's probably for the same reason.
I don't own one.
Salvation from what? Your imaginary friend? When your electrical pulses cease inside your brain as far as you're concerned it's worked out as your imaginary friend dies with you. Yours not mine, I don't have an imaginary friend.
You are the one that came here asking to be fixed or healed not me.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
As a R & D engineer in the computer industry for many years, I think using the terms evolution and evolved are inappropriate for the description of technological advancement. In natural evolution as you say the process takes advantage of everything available but in technological design it is limited to the knowledge available to the designer. Another circuit designer at another company may have access to additional information but this is generally not shared due to competition and company secrets. I am not personally acquainted with the name of the engineer involved in the R & D effort you referenced on FPGAs.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Yes, exactly !
Paisley's OP was: "I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it ?"
When it should have read:
"I'm a believer in an vague, ill-defined, constantly changing, aloof, do-nothing, fucked up God. Can you please help me fix it ?
The collective answer from atheists should have been condensed to:
Fuck off and quit wasting our time !!!
Evolutionary Quantum Computation (EQC) is based on the view that consciousness arises from quantum indeterminacy and that everything is conscious (this is known as 'panpsychism'). This obsviously has implications not only for pantheism but also for panentheism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
But you seemed to be condoning the practice.
But you're the one who started to quote bible verses (apparently to argue for some kind of soteriological viewpoint).
I know. (Actually, it was more of challenge than a request.) However, you're the one who perceives "greed" as the only principle by which the world is governed. This is a rather cynical worldview.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I did. I provided an excerpt from the Wiki article which explained why RQM was a form of antirealism.
So, is God a transcendental state of consciousness or awareness?
Okay, here you say that "you cannot frame God in this concept (RQM)." But what is this that exists "a relational 'level' of interaction wich respresents human-world?" Can you substitute "subject-object" for "human-world?" Duality? Observer-observed? Is the interaction the "observing?" The unity in the duality?
Here you suggest that God can observe "all relative states simultaneously." This would qualify as a transcendent God. However, you said elsewhere that "it (the transcendent aspect of God) is not apparent if you misapprehend what form one should expect it take." You also stated elsewhere that "you cannot frame God in this concept (RQM)." So now I am confused. Which one is it?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I said that I believe that God is love.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
But I was not making an argument for the existence of God. I was simply using induction as an example to demonstrate that faith underlies rationality.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, I don't. I do not use names of imaginary gods or imaginary places to curse. I suggested if someone must, they used WTF etc instead.
Actually you used Bible quotes starting at Post #393 in response to Nigel you quoted Hebrews
That therefore made it justifiable to show your faith according to one of the writers of a book you had quoted at least 6 times said your faith was dead without works. You opened the door to the Bible, I just noticed it and exploited your use of it in a reply.
Actually I don't. This was intended as cynical satire. The point which buzzed right past you was you can support any non-rational view by claiming there is evidence for it. There clearly is a lot of evidence suggesting greed and lust drives man. There is also much evidence showing cooperation and respect in order to advance society even back to the ancient civilization of Sumer. Possibly even between Neanderthals and humans based on the discovery of common burials together. What there isn't found is actual evidence of your claim that god is involved as love. It's all non-material. As you say mystical.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
The traditional method to achieve spiritual enlightenment or God-realization is through contemplative prayer or meditation. As I see it, meditation is primarily an intuitive process. It does not employ logical analysis. In fact, it may be seen as the "letting go" of analytical thought. This is not to say that I never use logical reasoning or that I am opposed to analytical thought. However, I do not see logical analysis as the primary means of communing with God.
Now, if you found some analytical thought process that has lead you to God realization then more power to you.
Yes, I can. The analytical mind is basically the domain of the ego. The process of analysis is to break things down into their constituent parts. You will never see "wholeness" by ripping it apart.
Being uneducated is not a virtue in and of itself. However, there is something to be said for simplicity. I think this is what Jesus had in mind when he stated...
"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 18:3
Instincts? Is that a logical process or an intuitive one?
I agree that we have to discern between truth and illusion in our daily lives. But this entails intuition as much as it entails analysis.
I have never condemned or damned anyone in here. And if you believe I have, then please provide me with a quote in this thread which demonstrates that I have.
What I have said is that letting go of the ego is a prerequisite to spiritual enlightenment. And it would appear that you hold the same belief. So I fail to see the reason for this hostility that you are directing my way.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Agreed.
"God is love" ? , whatever..... "God of abe" is a mean evil dog too ! So much for the bible "god is love" .....
(Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
(Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"
"I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, ... The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." (Isaiah 45:5-7).
"And the Lord said to him, "Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" (Exodus 4:11).
"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6).
God of abe must die ,
Atheism Books.
The thread of this particular part of the discussion is now completely snipped out, leaving nothing but naked assertions. Let's try again.
So... you're saying that you were originally getting at - what can be said for the objects which are observed - by providing an excerpt of the article including that statement. Fair enough, but that's not what I meant by How.
If you please, could you explain how you mean that pointing out anti-realism in RQM relates to the details we are discussing? How is anti-realism what you are getting at, in making which point to me?
Going back to what I initially proposed about awareness - Use RQM to obtain that awareness is fundamental as a process equivalent to materialisation of a state then-
Firstly, a transcendent awareness is then a transcendent material state - A material state which is apart from the 'ordinary human experience'. This description applies to things which are in no way God; societies, for example fit this description - the materialisation of the shared bounds of a society is a relational awareness.
Secondly Consciousness and matter are not apart from this principle, they are encompassed in it. Consciousness, then, is not defined by a quantity of interactions ranging to complexity encompassed in a deterministic bound but by the actualisation of interactions in a relational bound. So you don't need 'more' interactions - as might be suggested, to acquire a consciousness outside of human experience, consciousness can be defined by a smaller number of interactions as well as by a greater one, and this defines all relational states of consciousness equally real at any level, as with matter.
Therefore it is not consciousness which is transcendent, but awareness. However awareness and actualisation are synonymous therefore a transcendent awareness must necessarily be actual and in being actual is no different to any level of consciousness. That is to say, as I mentioned earlier, God can "look through any eye" and be God with all the trimmings. ie Panenetheism.
No that's not what I said. I said our anthropomorphic concept presupposes that humans are objectively real and RQM (among other resilient proposals) overturns it, there is no objectively real thing, no absolute state, just a relational coordinate of interaction to which those concepts apply. So you can apply the concept in it's relational frame but you cannot frame a definition of your self in the concept, it would be a false definition. To frame God in the common anthropomorphic concept of an objective state of being then is equally false.
I'm saying that if RQM continues it's successful run all the way to the finish line, we will altogether abandon subject-object as nothing but superstition. Human-world or Observer-observed would then be slightly more accurate concepts representing the nature of our reality but not as a substitute for subject-object.
I have clarified the third point for you already so I'll ignore that, but now I don't see your objection at all, could you rephrase?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Yicks , will dogma ever stop ? Thank goodness science is rising as the highest moderator. Science says we don't know fucking jack shit ! Sometimes I feel like shouting, mathematics is dogma ! "
WOW , This link below is kinda fun. I need a summary, I AM lazy, please save me, please help me, is god in here somewhere ? ! Did Abraham know god ? !
>>> Quantum Dogma ! http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003967/
..... “dogmas of empiricism” The other dogma rejected by Quine is the “cleavage between analytic and synthetic truths” ..... "but aren’t the truths of mathematics analytic, those of physics synthetic? " WOW !
Some copy paste below,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_consequences
" ..... according to the theory of quantum decoherence, the parallel universes will never be accessible for us, making them physically meaningless. This inaccessibility can be understood as follows: once a measurement is done, the measured system becomes entangled with both the physicist who measured it and a huge number of other particles, some of which are photons flying away towards the other end of the universe; in order to prove that the wave function did not collapse one would have to bring all these particles back and measure them again, together with the system that was measured originally.
This is completely impractical, but even if one can theoretically do this, it would destroy any evidence that the original measurement took place (including the physicist's memory). " ////
"Quantum mind", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Philosophy
As David Chalmers puts it:
"Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as nondeterminism and nonlocality. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori.
But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is entirely unanswered.
Other philosophers, such as Patricia and Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett reject the idea that there is anything puzzling about consciousness in the first place." ////
Atheism Books.
Paisley,
Is not the real truth that you don't really believe. You were indoctrinated, you feel peer preasure to believe and feel fear of Hell if you don't believe. None of this is real belief. You are just here looking for justification in your own mind to come out of the closet. You are really a closet atheist, right?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
But you didn't qualify this statement with the word "primary": I do not believe that an individual will come to know the reality of universal love (God) through a logical proof. - as you are doing now. And even if you had, I'm still finding that it rings the hollow of an attack on reason as pointless and inadequate.
No I'm not speaking of my experience, it is a pure statement that the conclusion of God is logical and thereby can be logically reached, by extension I conclude also that God does not shun reason.
So you can comprehend logically why the change occurs, but it can not be logically arrived at? That makes no sense.
I beg to differ, didn't you say you were panentheist? How do you reconcile God indwelling all things with God (the whole) being imperceptible in a part of all?
It may be that you are right, considering this passage is quite widely open to interpretation, but I stand by what I've said, for the conversion method alluded to here to be an exclusive treasure of ignorance is to make it as much the property of contempt and vanity as if the reverse were true, and I couldn't believe in that.
LOL. I use my instincts in decision making, I am of the mind that instincts and intuition possess an analytical character of different proportions to logic, but that is beside the point.
I didn't say that it doesn't. What I am trying to say is that to make a logical argument you must have a basis free of logical errors. We are still working on that.
There isn't a quote, the question of damnation is implied. When one says you can not discover God by logical means, it has implied by extension that a desire for logical explanation leads to damnation.
I do not hold the same belief. I believe letting go of the ego is intrinsic to spiritual enlightenment, I do not hold it as a prerequisite. And I advocate strongly that there are logically attainable prerequisites to the relinquishing the integrity of the ego.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
You're admitting to the very thing I'm accusing you of, you dumb bastard. I've already gone over the problems with the comparison between the two -- I've done so several times, in fact. It's time you started wearing your prescription bike helmet.
LOL. I stayed on hoping to be post #666, but that was cruelly snagged from me.
I hold my ego the highest and the lowest , as I WE ARE ONE ... and so is the buddha lesson of the "middle" !
Then big J , 600 yrs later, had a word of wisdom too , "Ye are God, one with the thingy" ! 
What do YOU think, god as YOU ? 
.... if you ain't god , you fucking scare me ....
RRS, "Believe in God ?" ..... Fuck no , I AM GOD, and I don't believe ME !
Atheism Books.
I think Magilum is really George Carlin , just a guess ..... but wait , all is ONE ! Of course , now I get it, .... Hi George ! ..... all is george ...
..... it's a middle kind of philosophy I AM fond of ..... after all, we are rather connected .... as we have one sun ..... one earth .... one race ..... ONE.
Atheism Books.
Sorry. Next time you can have it.
I wasn't trying to be cruel. Really.
"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
For you Iam - Michel, Bitbol (2007) ONTOLOGY, MATTER AND EMERGENCE.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Eloise,
Thanks. I do appreciate the links. I've not read Rovelli yet, but I'm a huge fan of Lee Smolin. (Actually, I'd never heard of Rovelli before.) I look forward to catching up on RQM, at least from a layman's perspective.
"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
Ah! That's what *I* was trying for. Figures nigel got it, that bastard.
Hey nigel, put on a blue shirt and take a picture of yourself! I want to see how close you end up looking to mazid (click the link on my signature).
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well, I am speaking of experience! I have said this repeatedly. Believing in the existence of God based on a logical conclusion and experientially knowing the reality of God based on a spiritual transformation are not the same thing!
Yes, I did.
I believe you said the separate parts were illusory. Right?
I think the following quote probably best expresses my panentheistic sentiment.
Unless we have experiential knowledge of the truth, then we are all in a state of ignorance.
No, it isn't beside the point. It's the whole point. I have been using the term "intuition" to refer specifically to the non-rational (the atheists here are referring to it as irrational). Now, if this is what you are taking issue with me, then it is only over a matter of semantics. Personally, I see the intuitive as synthetic, not analytical.
The term "damnation" clearly means to be condemned to eternal hell. I trust that you fully understand this. I will kindly ask you not to engage in such low-level tactics.
I have simply expressed a belief that God is love and that love itself entails faith and trust. That this should be such a point of contention for someone who professes to be a "gnostic panentheist" is mind-boggling.
Not only are you engaging in contradictory double-talk but this whole charade of yours is nothing but a straw-man argument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Are you still equivocating? If it was a simple expression of God = love, and love happens to be something that goes on in the real world, then why would anyone bother talking about God? We'd just say "love" instead. You clearly have something else in mind, and you dance around it. You've been dancing around it this whole time.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I agree Will, .... if a 12 yr old can't understand you Paisley regarding teaching god, it's basically worthless. I've asked you for a simple summary, but that obviously isn't your style ..... Geezzz, you make me think of bible Paul ..... that dog breeder .....
Do you even mean well ? 
Atheism Books.
And what I have repeatedly said is that they may not be the same thing but they entail the same conclusions! A spiritual transformation based on the logical reality of God is the inevitable result of the logical understanding of all, since God is All. This is a pantheism 101, surely? Do you not agree?
Probably, but I would have inferred that mainly as a figure of speech I'm sure. It is common conceptualisations which I would call out to be illusion, actual pieces of reality are as real as real gets, formally. While colloquial concepts of what constitutes 'real' are, I would say, illusions.
That is a perfectly good quote and I have no issue accepting this position or even agreeing with it. I only have some niggles on the details, for example with this quote, we previously established that you did not hold a dualist philosophy, while I am seeing that to be true I cannot see that you any basis in your philosophy for a difference between a mind and a fragment of reality within which God may be perceptible. That is to say - if you are not dualist, and every mind contains all minds, then it follows that you have implied every'thing' contains all things. If you are, perchance, a property dualist, then it is plausible that you are allowing for 'mind' to be unique among 'things', but I thought that wasn't the case. Am I wrong?
Don't you think that is an equivocation here?
It's beside the point because it is my decision as to what I have to contribute of value in this discussion, and not what I, or others, do or do not believe. There is a difference between using my intuition to inform my contribution or actions within a social setting and arguing reasons why or how others should use theirs.
I agree that intuition is synthetic insofar as you would define synthetic, but I have not regard for this dichotomy, I would argue for synthesis as a form of analysis, but that is beside the point, now. We (Nigel, You and I) are all already in agreement here that intuition is a viable source of real knowledge.
Huh? I apologise that it may have appeared I was engaged in tactics there, I wasn't. I genuinely meant that as a statement of fact, damnation is a logical extension of the argument over God, it's really just part of the furniture here. In a very real sense it is, by default, the topic of any conversation on this forum, unless we overtly rule it out. Again, I'm sorry, no offense was intended.
I don't see why it's mind-boggling, all these atheists are asking for is a little logical justification for Love being God, rather than just 'Love', and I merely feel that it warrants a fairer reply.
Que? That doesn't seem at all a reasonable thing to say.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Geezz I AM getting MAD, getting dogma shit on my shoes .... thank GOD can laugh ..... I hope you aren't a practicing psychologist Paisley, you would drive people fucking nuts !
.... But I love ya , really ..... and thanks for your g a w e d ..... I learned a thing or two ......
, just had to add, Eloise is a goddess
We are ONE !
Atheism Books.
This thread is now almost 700 posts long and Paisley is still not through trying to explain his panentheistic mumbo jumbo. He is even debating differences of opinion
with Eloise, the only other panentheist on this forum. ( geez, how fucked up is that ? )
I predict ( with absolute certainty ) that unless this thread is closed by the moderators Paisley will keep this futile discussion alive for as long as he possibly can.
Why ? ...what else about panentheism needs to be said that hasn't been repeated a dozen times already?
What is your logical method to achieve God-realization? If God-realization entails understanding all logical relations and assuming that the number of relations are infinite, then how does a finite mind achieve this? Logic tells me that logic itself is incapable of this feat.
What are the "actual pieces of reality?"
What exactly is a "fragment of reality?"
I would characterized my view has having affinity with either idealism or dialectical monism. I also said before that I am attracted to process theology which is based on panexperientialism. This is probably compatible with dual-aspect monism or neutral monism. The bottom line is that all these views involve a basic element of paradox. Life itself is paradoxical. I accept the paradox and I don't think that logical analysis will ever fully resolve it.
No. What's the equivocation? I am not feigning to have the gnosis or spiritual enlightenment. I acknowledge that I am living by faith. This is called being intellectually honest.
Quite honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.
The point is that you have vehemently criticized me for "assaulting reason" because I suggested that the experiential knowledge of God is primarily an intuitive process. Now, you are saying that intuition is a rational process. That being said, if intuition is a rational process, then how am I assaulting reason?
I haven't defined by what I mean by the synthetic. But now I will...
"synthesis : the dialectic combination of thesis and antithesis into a higher stage of truth" (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
Incidentally, Nigel argues that "intuition" is irrational. I say that it is nonrational (mainly because the term "irrational" has a negative connotation).
I don't believe in eternal damnation. I'm surprised to learn that you do. At any rate, I certainly do not believe that anyone who disagrees with me will be banished to eternal hell.
Fairer reply? Surely you jest.
I wasn't attempting to prove that love constitutes ultimate reality and therefore I felt no obligation to prove it scientifically. I was simply stating that both the scientist and mystic are searching for the same thing (namely, truth) in their own way. The scientist is searching for a unifying principle or law which explains everything (the elusive 'theory of everything') while the mystic is seeking a unitive experience which he calls love.
By the way, if you feel you can scientifically prove that God is love to the complete satisfaction of the atheists in this forum, then I suggest that you do it. But until then, please do not lecture me how I should or should not conduct my own arguments.
It's called duplicity. And I am simply calling it as I see it.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead