God's Little Joke
03-07-2011
, 11:13 PM
03-08-2011
, 10:11 AM
03-08-2011
, 10:31 AM
We RARELY rely on our senses only, when studying the world around above/below us (macro-, microcosm).
Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is precisely relying on your senses and flawed logic derived from incomplete data/interpolations from interpolations, which created religion.
But you fail to apply that to religion, as the paragraph below indicates.
Quote:
i firmly believe that we do not know anything about God or have anything that could even only indicate such being exists, let alone anything going beyond that. We only think we experience anything beyond the physical realitybased on observations using our limited and flawed senses, thus making our observations flawed and any such assumptions not only illogical but also irrational. Which leads me to believe that many conclusions that we arrive at using logic, have the potential for big holes. Religion is a powerful tool for self-deception and deception of others.
Scientists never depend on "our senses" and nothing beyond that and scientific discoveries and theories never depend on our logic and nothing beyond the data we gather using our senses. In fact, the majority of the scientific discoveries throughout the last centuries were only made possible, because we knew we can never fully trust our senses and logic when observing/trying to understand the world.
Something isn't fundamentally wrong, when it's incomplete (this is what science is; it's incomplete and will go on forever finding out new things and refining old theories!). See Copernicus, through Newton, to Einstein and the recent advancements in Quantum Mechanics. None of these theories and scientific findings are dogmatic, neither did the scientists postulating these theories depend on their logic alone and the data they gathered through their senses.
This is like a scientist claiming he has found the world's biggest fly. It's 3 miles tall, has lived for the last 50 million years, it can fly around the world in 15sec, it speaks Chinese and French and can recite all of Shakespears works. The only problem is, said fly is invisible and only said scientist can see it.
Do you see how this kind of "logic", "reasoning" and "knowledge" applies to your so-called "God"-theory, but not to a single thing science has shown us to be true?
03-08-2011
, 11:17 AM
Quote:
That's absolutely not the case. We use radiotelescopes to observe galaxies which are far away, we don not use our eyes. When you want to find out if a level of radioactivity in an area could kill you/harm you, you do not wait for bubbles appearing on your skin or losing hair. When you study objects, groups of objects and basically anything else (from DNA, movement of birds, plate tectonics to gravity), you use mathematics.
We RARELY rely on our senses only, when studying the world around above/below us (macro-, microcosm).
Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is precisely relying on your senses and flawed logic derived from incomplete data/interpolations from interpolations, which created religion.
But you fail to apply that to religion, as the paragraph below indicates.
Do you see why I did this? To show you how you can be perfectly reasonable, except when it comes to conclusions you have arrived at by ignoring all data which comes from the physical world. Because you know deep inside, that your logic is flawed and that you have neither proof nor any way of showing that your theory ("God") could be real, you revert to HIDING him/her/it "inside" you, saying that you have definite proof and said proof can only exist, because it is hidden from others and unprovable.
You mean "fundamentally", as that in actuality we should use our eyes for hearing and our ears for smelling things, or do you mean "fundamentally", as in, we should use methods which never rely on our senses and reason, because we can never depend on our senses and logic, no matter the circumstances? If it's the first, then you are clearly wrong and if it's the second, you are fundamentally wrong.
Scientists never depend on "our senses" and nothing beyond that and scientific discoveries and theories never depend on our logic and nothing beyond the data we gather using our senses. In fact, the majority of the scientific discoveries throughout the last centuries were only made possible, because we knew we can never fully trust our senses and logic when observing/trying to understand the world.
Something isn't fundamentally wrong, when it's incomplete (this is what science is; it's incomplete and will go on forever finding out new things and refining old theories!). See Copernicus, through Newton, to Einstein and the recent advancements in Quantum Mechanics. None of these theories and scientific findings are dogmatic, neither did the scientists postulating these theories depend on their logic alone and the data they gathered through their senses.
This is like a scientist claiming he has found the world's biggest fly. It's 3 miles tall, has lived for the last 50 million years, it can fly around the world in 15sec, it speaks Chinese and French and can recite all of Shakespears works. The only problem is, said fly is invisible and only said scientist can see it.
Do you see how this kind of "logic", "reasoning" and "knowledge" applies to your so-called "God"-theory, but not to a single thing science has shown us to be true?
We RARELY rely on our senses only, when studying the world around above/below us (macro-, microcosm).
Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is precisely relying on your senses and flawed logic derived from incomplete data/interpolations from interpolations, which created religion.
But you fail to apply that to religion, as the paragraph below indicates.
Do you see why I did this? To show you how you can be perfectly reasonable, except when it comes to conclusions you have arrived at by ignoring all data which comes from the physical world. Because you know deep inside, that your logic is flawed and that you have neither proof nor any way of showing that your theory ("God") could be real, you revert to HIDING him/her/it "inside" you, saying that you have definite proof and said proof can only exist, because it is hidden from others and unprovable.
You mean "fundamentally", as that in actuality we should use our eyes for hearing and our ears for smelling things, or do you mean "fundamentally", as in, we should use methods which never rely on our senses and reason, because we can never depend on our senses and logic, no matter the circumstances? If it's the first, then you are clearly wrong and if it's the second, you are fundamentally wrong.
Scientists never depend on "our senses" and nothing beyond that and scientific discoveries and theories never depend on our logic and nothing beyond the data we gather using our senses. In fact, the majority of the scientific discoveries throughout the last centuries were only made possible, because we knew we can never fully trust our senses and logic when observing/trying to understand the world.
Something isn't fundamentally wrong, when it's incomplete (this is what science is; it's incomplete and will go on forever finding out new things and refining old theories!). See Copernicus, through Newton, to Einstein and the recent advancements in Quantum Mechanics. None of these theories and scientific findings are dogmatic, neither did the scientists postulating these theories depend on their logic alone and the data they gathered through their senses.
This is like a scientist claiming he has found the world's biggest fly. It's 3 miles tall, has lived for the last 50 million years, it can fly around the world in 15sec, it speaks Chinese and French and can recite all of Shakespears works. The only problem is, said fly is invisible and only said scientist can see it.
Do you see how this kind of "logic", "reasoning" and "knowledge" applies to your so-called "God"-theory, but not to a single thing science has shown us to be true?
We haven't been talking about scientific methods. We've been talking about how the brain is a sense organ and the senses can be fooled.
There's no reason to think science is even suppose to be applicable to faith questions. Science as it is practiced today wasn't even around when certain religious events happened. Why would God have allowed faith to fall under the control of science? Science can be used by politicians just as religion sometimes is.
God is a personal God and He chose things to be the way that they are. Because you can test the empirical world doesn't mean you can use those same tools to test a spiritual one.
03-08-2011
, 02:07 PM
Quote:
There's actually a group of philosophers who ascribe to compatibilism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Also the creation isn't finalized. There is a Millenial Kingdom and the New Jerusalem still to come.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Also the creation isn't finalized. There is a Millenial Kingdom and the New Jerusalem still to come.
How I know this? Because I've studied this discussion and related material for years. Nice coincidence, even though I doubt God made you do it.
The completion of a task ("Creation") has nothing to do with the fact that given a set of rules, only a limited number of outcomes is possible. When that's the case (there is an infinite number of "impossible" Universes/histories of events and an astronomically large, yet not infinite number of possible Universes/histories of events), Compatibilism is still incompatible with the notion of a God as monotheists understand it (or better said, claim to understand it).
A game of "perfect knowledge" (for example chess), gives you an astronomically high number of possible outcomes/move histories, but not an infinite number. Same applies for a deterministic Universe.
At ANY point in the game, ANY possible combination of positions or future moves is known/"knowable". A Creator knowing all moves, setting the rules cannot be expected to NOT know a move in advance, hence no Free Will for ANY "player" to ever make an UNEXPECTED move. DUCY?
No need to grant Free Will, if it is impossible in practice.
Giordano Bruno was literally HATED by the Catholic Church for being the main scientist introducing the concept of infinity into science.
Basically that alone makes it clear, that the Catholic Church doesn't have any devine knowledge.
If you realize how knowing all possible moves during a game of chess prevents you from being surprised (read: never heard of/impossible/unknown move) by ANY move of yours or your opponent's, you will understand how Determinism and the concept of an all-knowing God are incompatible.
Now as far as being deceived into thinking you have Free Will in a created, deterministic Universe; I urge you (because I've seen you quote him before) to read the whole/part surrounding Descartes "I think, therefore I am"-argument, because everyone quotes "Cogito ergo sum", but almost no one read the whole argument which led to it. This is the "I know there could exist someone/something, who knows all the whole cards of all possible hands of poker, but I am in a hand right now and don't know my opponents whole cards, so even if I knew all possible combinations of all possible hands of poker which could ever be played, I don't REALLY know anything beside my hand, the community cards, which combinations of hands the opponents CAN NOT have AND that I am playing poker. No matter if I am deceived by said being and he sees my whole cards and all the whole cards of my opponents, I AM THINKING ABOUT THIS HAND RIGHT NOW and I AM PLAYING, THEREFORE I AM A POKER PLAYER!".
"Cogito, hand history, ergo sum"
DUCY?
If you understand the difference between poker and chess, you will understand the difference between what Theologians/believers claim and what's possible. Chess is not poker and determinism isn't non-determinism.
One is a spectacle (because if we knew all possible chess games by heart, we would just WATCH a certain hand), one is a limited set of variables, with an infinite set of outcomes (you couldn't even know you play the same hand TWICE, even if the community cards were the same, your whole cards were the same, your opponents actions were the same and the outcome was EXACTLY the same).
You are dealt a hand and there is no way you can ask for a different one without changing others' hands (new deck, new hand).
Muck your hand, I have a Royal Flush every single time we play and you don't believe me, even though I show you my cards. DUCY?
03-08-2011
, 06:19 PM
Quote:
It is funny that you use a website/content, thinking it is in favor of your argument, which clearly shows, that no matter which strain of Compatibilism you use for your argument (they are not exactly compatible with Determinism as we know it), you won't be able to "marry" it with the concept of the Abrahamic God.
How I know this? Because I've studied this discussion and related material for years. Nice coincidence, even though I doubt God made you do it.
The completion of a task ("Creation") has nothing to do with the fact that given a set of rules, only a limited number of outcomes is possible. When that's the case (there is an infinite number of "impossible" Universes/histories of events and an astronomically large, yet not infinite number of possible Universes/histories of events), Compatibilism is still incompatible with the notion of a God as monotheists understand it (or better said, claim to understand it).
A game of "perfect knowledge" (for example chess), gives you an astronomically high number of possible outcomes/move histories, but not an infinite number. Same applies for a deterministic Universe.
At ANY point in the game, ANY possible combination of positions or future moves is known/"knowable". A Creator knowing all moves, setting the rules cannot be expected to NOT know a move in advance, hence no Free Will for ANY "player" to ever make an UNEXPECTED move. DUCY?
No need to grant Free Will, if it is impossible in practice.
Giordano Bruno was literally HATED by the Catholic Church for being the main scientist introducing the concept of infinity into science.
Basically that alone makes it clear, that the Catholic Church doesn't have any devine knowledge.
If you realize how knowing all possible moves during a game of chess prevents you from being surprised (read: never heard of/impossible/unknown move) by ANY move of yours or your opponent's, you will understand how Determinism and the concept of an all-knowing God are incompatible.
Now as far as being deceived into thinking you have Free Will in a created, deterministic Universe; I urge you (because I've seen you quote him before) to read the whole/part surrounding Descartes "I think, therefore I am"-argument, because everyone quotes "Cogito ergo sum", but almost no one read the whole argument which led to it. This is the "I know there could exist someone/something, who knows all the whole cards of all possible hands of poker, but I am in a hand right now and don't know my opponents whole cards, so even if I knew all possible combinations of all possible hands of poker which could ever be played, I don't REALLY know anything beside my hand, the community cards, which combinations of hands the opponents CAN NOT have AND that I am playing poker. No matter if I am deceived by said being and he sees my whole cards and all the whole cards of my opponents, I AM THINKING ABOUT THIS HAND RIGHT NOW and I AM PLAYING, THEREFORE I AM A POKER PLAYER!".
"Cogito, hand history, ergo sum"
DUCY?
If you understand the difference between poker and chess, you will understand the difference between what Theologians/believers claim and what's possible. Chess is not poker and determinism isn't non-determinism.
One is a spectacle (because if we knew all possible chess games by heart, we would just WATCH a certain hand), one is a limited set of variables, with an infinite set of outcomes (you couldn't even know you play the same hand TWICE, even if the community cards were the same, your whole cards were the same, your opponents actions were the same and the outcome was EXACTLY the same).
You are dealt a hand and there is no way you can ask for a different one without changing others' hands (new deck, new hand).
Muck your hand, I have a Royal Flush every single time we play and you don't believe me, even though I show you my cards. DUCY?
How I know this? Because I've studied this discussion and related material for years. Nice coincidence, even though I doubt God made you do it.
The completion of a task ("Creation") has nothing to do with the fact that given a set of rules, only a limited number of outcomes is possible. When that's the case (there is an infinite number of "impossible" Universes/histories of events and an astronomically large, yet not infinite number of possible Universes/histories of events), Compatibilism is still incompatible with the notion of a God as monotheists understand it (or better said, claim to understand it).
A game of "perfect knowledge" (for example chess), gives you an astronomically high number of possible outcomes/move histories, but not an infinite number. Same applies for a deterministic Universe.
At ANY point in the game, ANY possible combination of positions or future moves is known/"knowable". A Creator knowing all moves, setting the rules cannot be expected to NOT know a move in advance, hence no Free Will for ANY "player" to ever make an UNEXPECTED move. DUCY?
No need to grant Free Will, if it is impossible in practice.
Giordano Bruno was literally HATED by the Catholic Church for being the main scientist introducing the concept of infinity into science.
Basically that alone makes it clear, that the Catholic Church doesn't have any devine knowledge.
If you realize how knowing all possible moves during a game of chess prevents you from being surprised (read: never heard of/impossible/unknown move) by ANY move of yours or your opponent's, you will understand how Determinism and the concept of an all-knowing God are incompatible.
Now as far as being deceived into thinking you have Free Will in a created, deterministic Universe; I urge you (because I've seen you quote him before) to read the whole/part surrounding Descartes "I think, therefore I am"-argument, because everyone quotes "Cogito ergo sum", but almost no one read the whole argument which led to it. This is the "I know there could exist someone/something, who knows all the whole cards of all possible hands of poker, but I am in a hand right now and don't know my opponents whole cards, so even if I knew all possible combinations of all possible hands of poker which could ever be played, I don't REALLY know anything beside my hand, the community cards, which combinations of hands the opponents CAN NOT have AND that I am playing poker. No matter if I am deceived by said being and he sees my whole cards and all the whole cards of my opponents, I AM THINKING ABOUT THIS HAND RIGHT NOW and I AM PLAYING, THEREFORE I AM A POKER PLAYER!".
"Cogito, hand history, ergo sum"
DUCY?
If you understand the difference between poker and chess, you will understand the difference between what Theologians/believers claim and what's possible. Chess is not poker and determinism isn't non-determinism.
One is a spectacle (because if we knew all possible chess games by heart, we would just WATCH a certain hand), one is a limited set of variables, with an infinite set of outcomes (you couldn't even know you play the same hand TWICE, even if the community cards were the same, your whole cards were the same, your opponents actions were the same and the outcome was EXACTLY the same).
You are dealt a hand and there is no way you can ask for a different one without changing others' hands (new deck, new hand).
Muck your hand, I have a Royal Flush every single time we play and you don't believe me, even though I show you my cards. DUCY?
The best we can do is put the scriptures together and it seems there is a complex intertwining of both divine intervention and human free will. I think its the individual who tries to reduce it down to one side or the other from the pressure to explain it. But the best explanation I've seen is Dr. Stephen E. Jones' because he's got more scriptural links piecing it together than anybody. He doesn't try to shortcut with his own reason as much as the typical theologian/philosopher.
03-08-2011
, 08:46 PM
Quote:
That's absolutely not the case. We use radiotelescopes to observe galaxies which are far away, we don not use our eyes. When you want to find out if a level of radioactivity in an area could kill you/harm you, you do not wait for bubbles appearing on your skin or losing hair. When you study objects, groups of objects and basically anything else (from DNA, movement of birds, plate tectonics to gravity), you use mathematics.
We RARELY rely on our senses only, when studying the world around above/below us (macro-, microcosm).
Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is precisely relying on your senses and flawed logic derived from incomplete data/interpolations from interpolations, which created religion.
But you fail to apply that to religion, as the paragraph below indicates.
Do you see why I did this? To show you how you can be perfectly reasonable, except when it comes to conclusions you have arrived at by ignoring all data which comes from the physical world. Because you know deep inside, that your logic is flawed and that you have neither proof nor any way of showing that your theory ("God") could be real, you revert to HIDING him/her/it "inside" you, saying that you have definite proof and said proof can only exist, because it is hidden from others and unprovable.
You mean "fundamentally", as that in actuality we should use our eyes for hearing and our ears for smelling things, or do you mean "fundamentally", as in, we should use methods which never rely on our senses and reason, because we can never depend on our senses and logic, no matter the circumstances? If it's the first, then you are clearly wrong and if it's the second, you are fundamentally wrong.
Scientists never depend on "our senses" and nothing beyond that and scientific discoveries and theories never depend on our logic and nothing beyond the data we gather using our senses. In fact, the majority of the scientific discoveries throughout the last centuries were only made possible, because we knew we can never fully trust our senses and logic when observing/trying to understand the world.
Something isn't fundamentally wrong, when it's incomplete (this is what science is; it's incomplete and will go on forever finding out new things and refining old theories!). See Copernicus, through Newton, to Einstein and the recent advancements in Quantum Mechanics. None of these theories and scientific findings are dogmatic, neither did the scientists postulating these theories depend on their logic alone and the data they gathered through their senses.
This is like a scientist claiming he has found the world's biggest fly. It's 3 miles tall, has lived for the last 50 million years, it can fly around the world in 15sec, it speaks Chinese and French and can recite all of Shakespears works. The only problem is, said fly is invisible and only said scientist can see it.
Do you see how this kind of "logic", "reasoning" and "knowledge" applies to your so-called "God"-theory, but not to a single thing science has shown us to be true?
We RARELY rely on our senses only, when studying the world around above/below us (macro-, microcosm).
Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is precisely relying on your senses and flawed logic derived from incomplete data/interpolations from interpolations, which created religion.
But you fail to apply that to religion, as the paragraph below indicates.
Do you see why I did this? To show you how you can be perfectly reasonable, except when it comes to conclusions you have arrived at by ignoring all data which comes from the physical world. Because you know deep inside, that your logic is flawed and that you have neither proof nor any way of showing that your theory ("God") could be real, you revert to HIDING him/her/it "inside" you, saying that you have definite proof and said proof can only exist, because it is hidden from others and unprovable.
You mean "fundamentally", as that in actuality we should use our eyes for hearing and our ears for smelling things, or do you mean "fundamentally", as in, we should use methods which never rely on our senses and reason, because we can never depend on our senses and logic, no matter the circumstances? If it's the first, then you are clearly wrong and if it's the second, you are fundamentally wrong.
Scientists never depend on "our senses" and nothing beyond that and scientific discoveries and theories never depend on our logic and nothing beyond the data we gather using our senses. In fact, the majority of the scientific discoveries throughout the last centuries were only made possible, because we knew we can never fully trust our senses and logic when observing/trying to understand the world.
Something isn't fundamentally wrong, when it's incomplete (this is what science is; it's incomplete and will go on forever finding out new things and refining old theories!). See Copernicus, through Newton, to Einstein and the recent advancements in Quantum Mechanics. None of these theories and scientific findings are dogmatic, neither did the scientists postulating these theories depend on their logic alone and the data they gathered through their senses.
This is like a scientist claiming he has found the world's biggest fly. It's 3 miles tall, has lived for the last 50 million years, it can fly around the world in 15sec, it speaks Chinese and French and can recite all of Shakespears works. The only problem is, said fly is invisible and only said scientist can see it.
Do you see how this kind of "logic", "reasoning" and "knowledge" applies to your so-called "God"-theory, but not to a single thing science has shown us to be true?
03-08-2011
, 08:51 PM
03-08-2011
, 09:02 PM
03-08-2011
, 09:44 PM
03-08-2011
, 10:28 PM
03-10-2011
, 09:42 AM