Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 153

Thread: God’s Wife.

  1. #1 God’s Wife. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    God’s Wife.

    In discussions with those who read scripture literally, they tell me that God has an actual body the same way we do.
    When scripture says, God spoke, He actually spoke in sounds that we would hear.
    When He walked with Adam, He would have shown tracks and all. He could splash around in the water.

    This inevitably leads to the use of God’s body parts and the parts that few speak about, you know, the more dirty parts, and functions of these parts. Teeth, lips, penis, anus and the sense of touch required for sex.

    If God is true to His nature, then He would use all of His parts to the fullest. This would include a part of God’s natural parts that only a wife would be able to assuage.

    This whole topic sort of came out in jest but then became a head-scratching issue and a rather new view of God and Goddess.

    Can God know what organic orgasm is and if not, who is he then to tell humans how to use their sexuality?

    If He does, then that would mean that there is a Mrs. God.

    If there is a Mrs. God, would She allow Mr. God to use humans to reproduce?
    To Her, it would seem like bestiality.

    Are virgin births allowed or possible?
    Chimera Gods all over the place?
    Hybrid Gods?
    Jesus/God, Sons of God?


    Hmm?

    Scripture does say, ---we created them---. Depending on how you understand scripture, this makes God as part of a society. An alien society.
    We have always known that God, the One, was alien to us but the idea that God is one of many, is a truth that would change our point of view.

    Are there female Gods?
    Should God dictate human sexuality if He cannot know it?
    Does God control the sexuality of other animals?
    Does man have Dominion over the earth and Himself?
    I do recall getting Dominion in Genesis.
    Would a female God, or should it be Goddess, think highly of God’s hybrid and chimera sons?
    Would She then not be having chimera and hybrid children Herself if She thinks it a good idea?
    Can God know human sexuality without being fully a man?

    Regards
    DL


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    God is by definition omniscient, and thus knows all, including sexuality.

    Also, God can take the form of a man, but clearly it is not his true form, or he would be in the world today, and lo, I do not see god, do you?

    What verse & translation is "We created them", I searched several translations and did not find it.

    Also the we could be angels & god...


    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    God is by definition omniscient, and thus knows all, including sexuality.

    Also, God can take the form of a man, but clearly it is not his true form, or he would be in the world today, and lo, I do not see god, do you?

    What verse & translation is "We created them", I searched several translations and did not find it.

    Also the we could be angels & god...
    If omniscient then God would have known that A & E would lead to His having to use genocide on all of Noah's generation. Why gain the title of genocidal maniac instead of just a new pair as the beginning?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: ? 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    God is by definition omniscient, and thus knows all, including sexuality.

    Also, God can take the form of a man, but clearly it is not his true form, or he would be in the world today, and lo, I do not see god, do you?

    What verse & translation is "We created them", I searched several translations and did not find it.

    Also the we could be angels & god...
    If omniscient then God would have known that A & E would lead to His having to use genocide on all of Noah's generation. Why gain the title of genocidal maniac instead of just a new pair as the beginning?

    Regards
    DL
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    God is by definition omniscient, and thus knows all, including sexuality.

    Also, God can take the form of a man, but clearly it is not his true form, or he would be in the world today, and lo, I do not see god, do you?

    What verse & translation is "We created them", I searched several translations and did not find it.

    Also the we could be angels & god...
    If omniscient then God would have known that A & E would lead to His having to use genocide on all of Noah's generation. Why gain the title of genocidal maniac instead of just a new pair as the beginning?

    Regards
    DL
    Thanks for that but you know how Christians are. they will not see the logic of the statement or just say that God works in mysterious ways.

    Their logic begins with talking snakes that are real. What else can I say.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: ? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    What verse & translation is "We created them", I searched several translations and did not find it.
    This is what the poster is talking about,it's from the Book of Genesis.

    001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
    likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
    and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
    all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
    upon the earth.
    Thirst is a “stronger” need than hunger. Likewise, if you are very very thirsty, but someone has put a choke hold on you and you can’t breath, which is more important? The need to breathe, of course. On the other hand, sex is less powerful than any of these. Let’s face it, you won’t die if you don’t get it!.....Maslow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Muad'Dib
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    What verse & translation is "We created them", I searched several translations and did not find it.
    This is what the poster is talking about,it's from the Book of Genesis.

    001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
    likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
    and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
    all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
    upon the earth.
    More like here.

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Her name was Asherah and she was the wife of Yahweh.

    Archaeology (2005) reports on the works of biblical scholar William H. Dever, which include a book as well as examinations of artifacts discovered in sites such as Khirbet El-Kom, Ta'anach, and Kuntilet Ajrud.

    Asherah has long been recognized as the one of the most important (if not the most important) goddesses in the Canaanite pantheon.

    Dever argues that "Asherah was buried long ago by the establishment" as Jewish religion turned from a polytheistic worldview to a monotheistic one. The origin of "Yahweh" as the god of Israel has long be speculated on by archaeologists and biblical scholars and some basic culture changes are present in the archaeological record in the Early Iron Age period of the Palestinian hill country. At that time, numerous small rural settlements appear, consisting of simply houses of sheep and goat herders, who seem to reject the raising of pigs. Pigs, it should be noted, are direct competitors with humans for food: they eat basically what we eat, making their non-viability in economic terms a possible progenitor for the pork taboo.

    Looking through the books of I & II Samuel and I & II Kings, it's easy to see that Asherah was still prominent on the minds of the Israelites and that Yahweh's wife continued to be a part of ritual and cult practices until the conquest of Judah (alleged to be ca. 1000 to 586 BCE). Biblical writers, however, lived primarily after the period of exile and were in the midst of a period of religious reform that included the creation of a monotheistic religion in place of a well-established polytheistic one.

    The Artifacts
    Yahweh and Asherah are directly associated on artifacts found in the sites I mentioned above, both in text as well as illustration (Dever, 2005). It was in Ajrud that plaster walls with the inscriptions of blessings "Yahweh by his Asherah," as well as blessings by the gos Ba'al and El. El is the obviously the singular form of Elohim, the latter, in itself, suggestive of a Jewish pantheon of gods.

    Dever notes that biblical scholars were skeptical and reluctant to accept these inscriptions at face value when they were discovered (in the 1970s I believe), but the newest discoveries are causing some people to re-think their positions.

    Two large storage jars were discovered at the same site that bear not only similar inscriptions, but depict both Yawheh and Asherah, side-by-side. One of the inscriptions on the jars reads, "Yahweh and his Asherah." This site has a depiction of the pot sherd that has the inscription and images, which I'll offer a last comment on at the end of this post.

    Polytheism in the Holy Land seems to be the norm in the archaeological record, even among Jewish peoples, until around 586 BCE, which, in my mind, makes Christianity a very young religion indeed. Navajo religion has endured longer.

    Why did monotheism replace polytheism? Was it a matter of the establishment of priestly power, status and wealth? This might also explain the shift from a more androgynous, perhaps even matriarchal, religious mindset to a patriarchal one. Dever considers the bible "revisionist history" and I'd have to agree. The evidence is there that the "one god" concept is a contrived one. Even the bible alludes to this in passages like thou shalt have no other god before me. If there were no other gods, why mention them. Indeed, in that sentence, Yawheh doesn't state that there aren't any, only that they cannot be placed before him. Perhaps this refers to a group of figurines on an alter table: Yawheh sits in the front, the rest behind him.

    The exile itself was probably a catalyst for the shift to monotheism. The priests, who didn't want to be unemployed, may have used the excuse that Yawheh was pissed and was punishing them. Yawheh becomes the main god for a large portion of the Israelites, El/Elohim for another (both of these gods exist in Genesis, interestingly enough, Elohim is the plural of El).

    So why did polytheism replace monotheism?
    Was Asherah pushed aside by the new patriarchal establishment of priests? If so, perhaps there were female priests until the exile (or maybe this is already established)?

    Could the sherds Dever mentions be out of context? I read a rebuttal somewhere (I'll have to dig a bit if anyone is interested) that indicated that "the asherah" referred to the cow. This is a possibility, but the inscription is just above the heads of the two figures and the smaller, more diminutive figure with the smaller headdress is obviously female (note the two breast circles that she shares with the lyre player).

    References

    Dever, William H. (2005) Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, Eerdmans Press,

    Scham Sandra (2005) The Lost Goddess of Israel. Archeology Vol. 58, No. 2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: ? 
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    God is by definition omniscient, and thus knows all, including sexuality.

    Also, God can take the form of a man, but clearly it is not his true form, or he would be in the world today, and lo, I do not see god, do you?

    What verse & translation is "We created them", I searched several translations and did not find it.

    Also the we could be angels & god...
    If omniscient then God would have known that A & E would lead to His having to use genocide on all of Noah's generation. Why gain the title of genocidal maniac instead of just a new pair as the beginning?

    Regards
    DL
    Thanks for that but you know how Christians are. they will not see the logic of the statement or just say that God works in mysterious ways.

    Their logic begins with talking snakes that are real. What else can I say.

    Regards
    DL
    Because, we were meant to have choice, just because god knows what we will choose does not mean he will deny us that choice. Then we would be just slaves, going down one road, no choice, no free will.

    Also, talking snakes, the serpent may have been the devil, or it may be that the serpents lost their ability to speak and walk when cursed. Or it may be that man could communicate with animals in the garden of eden, who can say?

    Not I, nor you.
    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Her name was Asherah and she was the wife of Yahweh.

    Archaeology (2005) reports on the works of biblical scholar William H. Dever, which include a book as well as examinations of artifacts discovered in sites such as Khirbet El-Kom, Ta'anach, and Kuntilet Ajrud.

    Asherah has long been recognized as the one of the most important (if not the most important) goddesses in the Canaanite pantheon.

    Dever argues that "Asherah was buried long ago by the establishment" as Jewish religion turned from a polytheistic worldview to a monotheistic one. The origin of "Yahweh" as the god of Israel has long be speculated on by archaeologists and biblical scholars and some basic culture changes are present in the archaeological record in the Early Iron Age period of the Palestinian hill country. At that time, numerous small rural settlements appear, consisting of simply houses of sheep and goat herders, who seem to reject the raising of pigs. Pigs, it should be noted, are direct competitors with humans for food: they eat basically what we eat, making their non-viability in economic terms a possible progenitor for the pork taboo.

    Looking through the books of I & II Samuel and I & II Kings, it's easy to see that Asherah was still prominent on the minds of the Israelites and that Yahweh's wife continued to be a part of ritual and cult practices until the conquest of Judah (alleged to be ca. 1000 to 586 BCE). Biblical writers, however, lived primarily after the period of exile and were in the midst of a period of religious reform that included the creation of a monotheistic religion in place of a well-established polytheistic one.

    The Artifacts
    Yahweh and Asherah are directly associated on artifacts found in the sites I mentioned above, both in text as well as illustration (Dever, 2005). It was in Ajrud that plaster walls with the inscriptions of blessings "Yahweh by his Asherah," as well as blessings by the gos Ba'al and El. El is the obviously the singular form of Elohim, the latter, in itself, suggestive of a Jewish pantheon of gods.

    Dever notes that biblical scholars were skeptical and reluctant to accept these inscriptions at face value when they were discovered (in the 1970s I believe), but the newest discoveries are causing some people to re-think their positions.

    Two large storage jars were discovered at the same site that bear not only similar inscriptions, but depict both Yawheh and Asherah, side-by-side. One of the inscriptions on the jars reads, "Yahweh and his Asherah." This site has a depiction of the pot sherd that has the inscription and images, which I'll offer a last comment on at the end of this post.

    Polytheism in the Holy Land seems to be the norm in the archaeological record, even among Jewish peoples, until around 586 BCE, which, in my mind, makes Christianity a very young religion indeed. Navajo religion has endured longer.

    Why did monotheism replace polytheism? Was it a matter of the establishment of priestly power, status and wealth? This might also explain the shift from a more androgynous, perhaps even matriarchal, religious mindset to a patriarchal one. Dever considers the bible "revisionist history" and I'd have to agree. The evidence is there that the "one god" concept is a contrived one. Even the bible alludes to this in passages like thou shalt have no other god before me. If there were no other gods, why mention them. Indeed, in that sentence, Yawheh doesn't state that there aren't any, only that they cannot be placed before him. Perhaps this refers to a group of figurines on an alter table: Yawheh sits in the front, the rest behind him.

    The exile itself was probably a catalyst for the shift to monotheism. The priests, who didn't want to be unemployed, may have used the excuse that Yawheh was pissed and was punishing them. Yawheh becomes the main god for a large portion of the Israelites, El/Elohim for another (both of these gods exist in Genesis, interestingly enough, Elohim is the plural of El).

    So why did polytheism replace monotheism?
    Was Asherah pushed aside by the new patriarchal establishment of priests? If so, perhaps there were female priests until the exile (or maybe this is already established)?

    Could the sherds Dever mentions be out of context? I read a rebuttal somewhere (I'll have to dig a bit if anyone is interested) that indicated that "the asherah" referred to the cow. This is a possibility, but the inscription is just above the heads of the two figures and the smaller, more diminutive figure with the smaller headdress is obviously female (note the two breast circles that she shares with the lyre player).

    References

    Dever, William H. (2005) Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, Eerdmans Press,

    Scham Sandra (2005) The Lost Goddess of Israel. Archeology Vol. 58, No. 2
    A jewish panthenon? This may be easy to accept from a scientific or archeological viewpoint, but from a christian viewpoint it becomes far more difficult to believe. If god had a wife, she would be perfect. So then, why would he turn away from her? Why would he say "You shall have no other gods before me"? Why would their be no mention of her in any of the later books? Why would Jesus have been the son of God with no wife, Rather than of god and his wife?
    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    A jewish panthenon? This may be easy to accept from a scientific or archeological viewpoint, but from a christian viewpoint it becomes far more difficult to believe. If god had a wife, she would be perfect. So then, why would he turn away from her? Why would he say "You shall have no other gods before me"? Why would their be no mention of her in any of the later books? Why would Jesus have been the son of God with no wife, Rather than of god and his wife?
    Obviously the a priori acceptance that a god, Yahweh or any other, actually being in existence is a supernatural and superstitious assumption and one that isn't considered in rational or logical examination of the evidence. With that in mind, the Jewish religious cult originated from the Canaanite cults (the gods are the same) and the priestly classes of the new Jewish cult began a revisionist history, establishing their doctrines which are now know as the Old Testament. At the time, they didn't know that these texts would become part of a bible, but I'm sure they'd be none to happy to find it out.

    In early Mesopotamian life, it was common practice to pair up the gods with goddesses and Yahweh's was Ashera. There would be no mention of her in the later books since the desire was to show a montheistic cult not a polytheistic one. The history was thus revised to project a theology that fits what was wanted not what truly was.

    This is a common practice among many human cultures and was particularly so among the early Jewish cult leaders.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    If omniscient then God would have known that A & E would lead to His having to use genocide on all of Noah's generation. Why gain the title of genocidal maniac instead of just a new pair as the beginning?


    i was going to avoid this thread as i did not want to become embroiled in this topic but i saw this comment above. this shows the lack of 'logic' or 'comprehension' of those who do not believe and who omit the fact that the people of this world are God's creation and He gets to punish people as He sees fit.

    this ignoring of the facts is common among unbelievers who think thatthey get to label what God did and gnore the lesson that is to be learned--they need to repent of their sins so they can avoid punishment.

    Archaeology (2005) reports on the works of biblical scholar William H. Dever, which include a book as well as examinations of artifacts discovered in sites such as Khirbet El-Kom, Ta'anach, and Kuntilet Ajrud.

    Asherah has long been recognized as the one of the most important (if not the most important) goddesses in the Canaanite pantheon
    skinwalker is right here BUT dever would be wrong as his theory depends upon the idea that the israelites were actually a canaanite type people who morphed into the people we have today. it is also dependent upon the rejection of the Biblical account of the origin of the people of israel and of the exodus.

    thus we have dever trying to play God here, much like his counterpart finkelstein who believes the israelites were actually canaanite and who has been thoroughly thrashed and proven wrong by K.A. Kitchen

    Dever argues that "Asherah was buried long ago by the establishment" as Jewish religion turned from a polytheistic worldview to a monotheistic one.
    Yes a conspiracy theory at its best, yet dever brings no proof nor evidence for this claim. (i have read his books also)

    Yahweh and Asherah are directly associated on artifacts found in the sites I mentioned above, both in text as well as illustration (Dever, 2005). It was in Ajrud that plaster walls with the inscriptions of blessings "Yahweh by his Asherah," as well as blessings by the gos Ba'al and El. El is the obviously the singular form of Elohim, the latter, in itself, suggestive of a Jewish pantheon of gods
    .


    Andre lemaire deals with this in his book The birth of Monotheism and both his and dever's viewpoint rests upon an assumption that all ancient inscriptions are truth and do not belong to false beliefs or personal ideas. both lemaire and dever go outside of the biblical texts and israel proper to secular texts to make their case. lemaire turns to the amarna letters (2007, 58) which has nothig to do with israeli beliefs and monotheism in that nation.

    on page 62 lemaire makes the following two statements:

    Although we have solid reference to the goddessasherah in late second millenium b.c.e. ugarit, there is NOT a single certain reference to her from first millenium b.c.e. in israel. even if she did exist and was depicted, we have no knowledge whatsoever of the iconography
    and

    There is no indication that such a goddesswas worshipped in Judah or Israel.
    {capitalization and bold mine}

    thus the arguemnt for God having a wife is moot for it is an extrapolation from beliefs held from outside the israeli civilization and biblical record. such transference is wrong and assumes something NOT in evidence anywhere.

    Could the sherds Dever mentions be out of context? I read a rebuttal somewhere (I'll have to dig a bit if anyone is interested) that indicated that "the asherah" referred to the cow
    .

    according to lemaire it was a 'sacred tree' consept not a cow. (2007)

    Why did monotheism replace polytheism?
    if you look at the chronology, monotheism did not replace polytheism, it was vice versa. dever an dothers forget or conveniently ignore the fact that the israelites were monothesitic from the beginning and strayed to polytheism or other cultic beliefs because they did not remove all the people from the promised land and the israelites fell to the influence of evil.

    those who do not accept monothesim as first usually ignore vast amounts of literature to make their point.

    Dever considers the bible "revisionist history" and I'd have to agree
    dever and you would be wrong as you both ignore the evidence, the bigger picture and the ramifications if that were so. it also ignores the results of people like Billy Graham, Louis Palalu, and others who use the same Bible yet control none of those people who make that decision. if dever were correct, these things would not happen, for no one believes lie when it is proven so.

    secularists tend to ignore the reality and deny their existence to make their theories work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this ignoring of the facts is common among unbelievers who think thatthey get to label what God did and gnore the lesson that is to be learned--they need to repent of their sins so they can avoid punishment.
    This is considered preaching (the repenting sins/punishment part) and will not be tolerated. Consider this an official warning.

    Archaeology (2005) reports on the works of biblical scholar William H. Dever, which include a book as well as examinations of artifacts discovered in sites such as Khirbet El-Kom, Ta'anach, and Kuntilet Ajrud.

    Asherah has long been recognized as the one of the most important (if not the most important) goddesses in the Canaanite pantheon
    skinwalker is right here BUT dever would be wrong as his theory depends upon the idea that the israelites were actually a canaanite type people who morphed into the people we have today. it is also dependent upon the rejection of the Biblical account of the origin of the people of israel and of the exodus.
    The physical evidence supports that the Canaanites were the progenitors for the Israelites. There are not supporting data to show that they aren't (biblical mythology/revisionist history of the early Israelites is automatically discounted, but there are literary clues in biblical mythology that aren't "washed"). The evolution of Canaan culture to an Israelite one is both logical and rational as well as supported by evidence.

    thus we have dever trying to play God here, much like his counterpart finkelstein who believes the israelites were actually canaanite and who has been thoroughly thrashed and proven wrong by K.A. Kitchen
    Except that, while Finkelstein and Dever have several disagreements over details, they're both supportive of Canaanite origins for Israelites and their data are sound. They have not been "thoroughly thrashed and proven wrong" by Kitchen or anyone else. There have been several who have tried, but their arguments aren't strong or convincing.

    Dever argues that "Asherah was buried long ago by the establishment" as Jewish religion turned from a polytheistic worldview to a monotheistic one.
    Yes a conspiracy theory at its best, yet dever brings no proof nor evidence for this claim. (i have read his books also)
    If you read them with the same ignorance and failure of comprehension and demonstrating the same lack of willingness to consider data which don't already support your conclusions, then they were wasted reads indeed, and you clearly missed the evidence or simply ignored it in favor of your own preferred delusions.

    Yahweh and Asherah are directly associated on artifacts found in the sites I mentioned above, both in text as well as illustration (Dever, 2005). It was in Ajrud that plaster walls with the inscriptions of blessings "Yahweh by his Asherah," as well as blessings by the gos Ba'al and El. El is the obviously the singular form of Elohim, the latter, in itself, suggestive of a Jewish pantheon of gods
    .


    Andre lemaire deals with this in his book The birth of Monotheism and both his and dever's viewpoint rests upon an assumption that all ancient inscriptions are truth and do not belong to false beliefs or personal ideas. both lemaire and dever go outside of the biblical texts and israel proper to secular texts to make their case. lemaire turns to the amarna letters (2007, 58) which has nothig to do with israeli beliefs and monotheism in that nation.

    on page 62 lemaire makes the following two statements:

    Although we have solid reference to the goddess asherah in late second millenium b.c.e. ugarit, there is not a single certain reference to her from first millenium b.c.e. in israel. even if she did exist and was depicted, we have no knowledge whatsoever of the iconography
    and

    There is no indication that such a goddesswas worshipped in Judah or Israel.
    Since the relevant inscription comes from Canaanite Ugarit, which reads "I bless you by Yahweh our guardian and by his Asherah;" and since Canaan culture is clearly the progenitor for Israelite culture, there need not be an example found "in Judah or Israel" that depicts Asherah. But there are passages in biblical mythology that mention her. And the inscription above exists on a jar sherd found at Kuntillet 'Ajrud. This is near Hebron in, what was then, Judah.

    Lemaire, if this is what he said and in the correct context, was utterly and gloriously wrong. Though I suspect it has to do with context given that this isn't consistent with other writings of Lemaire I've had the pleasure of reading and it isn't clear why the first millennium BCE is important if she was present in iconography of the second. This would suggest that the replacement of Israelite polytheism with a monotheistic cult is at work, supportive of the Dever conclusion.

    As usual, archy is completely wrong, ignorant, and not willing to listen to ideas or concepts that defy, question or criticize his preconceived conclusions and delusions. Thus, archy is a religious troll, visiting our science forum to stir shit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Archy, could you demonstrate a modicum of competence if you're going to participate in this thread and clean up the tags? Thanks in advance.
    He must have started refering to himself in the third person now.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    9
    Yahweh and Asherah are directly associated on artifacts found in the sites I mentioned above, both in text as well as illustration (Dever, 2005). It was in Ajrud that plaster walls with the inscriptions of blessings "Yahweh by his Asherah," as well as blessings by the gos Ba'al and El. El is the obviously the singular form of Elohim, the latter, in itself, suggestive of a Jewish pantheon of gods.
    I've seen this also.The Hebrew God Yahweh biblically is considered a male deity, also this same deity is reffered to as Elohim.Which in plural form mean "Gods". Like what is implied in Genesis 1:26.

    http://einhornpress.com/yahweh.aspx
    Thirst is a “stronger” need than hunger. Likewise, if you are very very thirsty, but someone has put a choke hold on you and you can’t breath, which is more important? The need to breathe, of course. On the other hand, sex is less powerful than any of these. Let’s face it, you won’t die if you don’t get it!.....Maslow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Archy, could you demonstrate a modicum of competence if you're going to participate in this thread and clean up the tags? Thanks in advance.
    it would have been better to have just said , 'your quotes are off' instead of going to the insult. i guess i need to report your abusive behavior, we shall see. but it is clear that the atheists on this board prove that they are NOT better than christians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Now we get into a 'whos better' arguement. Great.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    SkinWalker

    Thanks for the info.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    God is by definition omniscient, and thus knows all, including sexuality.

    Also, God can take the form of a man, but clearly it is not his true form, or he would be in the world today, and lo, I do not see god, do you?

    What verse & translation is "We created them", I searched several translations and did not find it.

    Also the we could be angels & god...
    If omniscient then God would have known that A & E would lead to His having to use genocide on all of Noah's generation. Why gain the title of genocidal maniac instead of just a new pair as the beginning?

    Regards
    DL
    Thanks for that but you know how Christians are. they will not see the logic of the statement or just say that God works in mysterious ways.

    Their logic begins with talking snakes that are real. What else can I say.

    Regards
    DL
    Because, we were meant to have choice, just because god knows what we will choose does not mean he will deny us that choice. Then we would be just slaves, going down one road, no choice, no free will.

    Also, talking snakes, the serpent may have been the devil, or it may be that the serpents lost their ability to speak and walk when cursed. Or it may be that man could communicate with animals in the garden of eden, who can say?

    Not I, nor you.
    Well, you can believe such nonsense and B S if you like but...

    As to free will, God has given us a freedom to chose His way or hell. not much freedom there at all.

    Much like a ship captain saying we can do as we like but if we want to stay on board, it has to be his way or start swimming.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    If omniscient then God would have known that A & E would lead to His having to use genocide on all of Noah's generation. Why gain the title of genocidal maniac instead of just a new pair as the beginning?


    i was going to avoid this thread as i did not want to become embroiled in this topic but i saw this comment above. this shows the lack of 'logic' or 'comprehension' of those who do not believe and who omit the fact that the people of this world are God's creation and He gets to punish people as He sees fit.

    this ignoring of the facts is common among unbelievers who think thatthey get to label what God did and gnore the lesson that is to be learned--they need to repent of their sins so they can avoid punishment.

    .
    Believers tend to ignore scripture, that go against their own dogma. Like this.

    Deuteronomy 32:4
    He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

    Strange that almost all of the world is created perfect and so many lose it. God's perfect works always seem to rebel. Ever wonder why He has such a poor record that He can only get 8 good souls out of millions, including children and babies?

    Are babies so evil that they deserve death?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Archy, could you demonstrate a modicum of competence if you're going to participate in this thread and clean up the tags? Thanks in advance.
    it would have been better to have just said , 'your quotes are off' instead of going to the insult. i guess i need to report your abusive behavior, we shall see. but it is clear that the atheists on this board prove that they are NOT better than christians.
    I am a believer in God but not the Bible God.

    At least atheists know genocide when they see it and do not recognize it as a good form of justice. Christian do. They would sit back and let some alien God do so again. I call that being a traitor to humanity.

    At least atheists are loyal to their species.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Now we get into a 'whos better' arguement. Great.
    That would be OK if people discussed the morality of the Gods instead of the reality of absentee Gods.

    One must question the morals of anyone or any God who thinks that genocide is a good thing and that mankind deserves it again and again and......

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    equally that of the god that makes man capable of genocide, and then continues to actively encourage it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: God’s Wife. 
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    God’s Wife. .... ..... .... Regards
    DL

    All this are claims of individual God created such a huge universe, perhaps many. We are nothing among his creation, nothing in front of him or his creations, nothing revealed to us, deserves nothing but mercy and good hope, and have no authority over anything but only have a right to lead a normal life. According to me, the good hope include a reward and the rest all is illusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Sumerian Trinity.

    Please for God's sake don't dig up old dirt....
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Please for God's sake don't dig up old dirt....
    Do you seek to end the scientific principle of geology?!
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    God’s Wife.

    In discussions with those who read scripture literally, they tell me that God has an actual body the same way we do.
    When scripture says, God spoke, He actually spoke in sounds that we would hear.
    When He walked with Adam, He would have shown tracks and all. He could splash around in the water.
    yet at the same time, god is attributed as being eternal, the source of creation, etc etc and displaying a host of other attributes that we commonly don't experience due to our bodily limitations
    This inevitably leads to the use of God’s body parts and the parts that few speak about, you know, the more dirty parts, and functions of these parts. Teeth, lips, penis, anus and the sense of touch required for sex.

    Given that we are not celebrated as having accepted a term of existence synonymous with "best intelligence", one could also ask whether he would be inclined (or indeed, forced) to use them in the same way that we commonly experience them.

    For instance we have a very real need to eat, which spells out a certain imperative for our digestive system.

    One could ask whether god is faced with the same eating requirement.
    If God is true to His nature, then He would use all of His parts to the fullest. This would include a part of God’s natural parts that only a wife would be able to assuage.

    This whole topic sort of came out in jest but then became a head-scratching issue and a rather new view of God and Goddess.

    Can God know what organic orgasm is and if not, who is he then to tell humans how to use their sexuality?
    There's the suggestion that what we experience in the way of pleasure is a shadow of what the "real" world has on offer.
    Imagine if eating was simply an act of pleasure, and wasn't complicated by the issue of digestion.
    Similarly, imagine conjugal affairs which aren't complicated by the hormonal drive to reproduce and maintain a population.

    If He does, then that would mean that there is a Mrs. God.

    If there is a Mrs. God, would She allow Mr. God to use humans to reproduce?
    To Her, it would seem like bestiality.

    Are virgin births allowed or possible?
    Chimera Gods all over the place?
    Hybrid Gods?
    Jesus/God, Sons of God?


    Hmm?
    If you can't imagine conjugal affairs without sex you're probably not trying hard enough (or alternatively victimized by an post pubescent adolescent hormonal drive)

    Scripture does say, ---we created them---. Depending on how you understand scripture, this makes God as part of a society. An alien society.
    We have always known that God, the One, was alien to us but the idea that God is one of many, is a truth that would change our point of view.

    Are there female Gods?
    Should God dictate human sexuality if He cannot know it?
    Does God control the sexuality of other animals?
    Does man have Dominion over the earth and Himself?
    I do recall getting Dominion in Genesis.
    Would a female God, or should it be Goddess, think highly of God’s hybrid and chimera sons?
    Would She then not be having chimera and hybrid children Herself if She thinks it a good idea?
    Can God know human sexuality without being fully a man?

    Regards
    DL
    What you term a "full man" is incomplete by definition.
    Just because god cannot be "partially in ignorance" in no way suggests that his comprehension of the state of affairs is lacking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
    likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
    and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
    all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
    upon the earth.
    Proof that aliens created MAN. "Let us". Ohh and I almost forgot "cattle". Those aliens sure have a thing about cows
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Now we get into a 'whos better' arguement. Great.
    That would be OK if people discussed the morality of the Gods instead of the reality of absentee Gods.

    One must question the morals of anyone or any God who thinks that genocide is a good thing and that mankind deserves it again and again and......

    Regards
    DL
    The worst genocides of the 20th Century were perpetrated by atheists, not religions.

    Whatever causes groups to commit mass killing is unknown; however, some groups seem to be resistant.

    Saying that God "thinks genocide is a good thing and mankind deserves ..." is just nonsense.

    However, there are sections in the Old Testament that are quite violent and I cannot explain. However, you cannot look at a mystery and say this must mean: " God thinks genocide is good etc."

    There can be many explanations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    There can be many explanations.
    That God didn't write any of it for instance?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    The worst genocides of the 20th Century were perpetrated by atheists, not religions.
    Really? Which ones?

    While I agree that the causes for much of the conflict in the last century were largely secular, the majority of them were started by religious people. Atheists are, and have always been, a minority.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Saying that God "thinks genocide is a good thing and mankind deserves ..." is just nonsense.
    So is saying that god doesn't like genocide because he loves us, but he lets it happen regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    However, there are sections in the Old Testament that are quite violent and I cannot explain.
    You need not justify your beliefs to others; only your actions. If you don't want to commit genocide; don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    However, you cannot look at a mystery and say this must mean: " God thinks genocide is good etc."
    Of course you can. What you mean is, you don't think that is a sufficient explanation. That would largely be why you are posting on a science forum, rather than some christian forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    There can be many explanations.
    Yes. And none can be dismissed, as you tried to do above, unless there is suitable evidence.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Atheists like Stalin and Pol Pot (some would argue Hitler, but he doesn't appear to be an atheist -some sort of deist at best; Christian at worst) did indeed cause some of the more significant genocides of human history, however, these atrocities were commited not because of their atheism but, rather, their ideologies.

    The significant thing that we can take away from the knowlege that two apparent atheists were willing to commit genocide is that ideology and hegemony are corrupting social strucutres that have the ability to create an "us" and "them" paradigm within a hegemony to the extent that, if the hegemony has enough power over the "them," extermination of the "them" group becomes a solution that the dominant power is willing to utilize.

    Atheism doesn't provide this power, rather, it is ideology. What Stalin and Pol Pot have/had in common with religious leaders who initiated genocides (and there have been many, particularly in the last few decades) is extreme and unyielding ideologies that are perceived to be threatened by an "other."

    This is all way off the topic of "god's wife," however, so if the discussion is to continue (and I think its an interesting one), perhaps we should split the relavant posts to a new thread (perhaps even in the Politics subforum since discussion of genocide is more relevant there).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    The worst genocides of the 20th Century were perpetrated by atheists, not religions.
    EXCUSE ME!?!? A man who harps on and on about his 'God' is most DEFINITELY NOT an atheist. Hitler made it out as if he believed Germany to be his God. I don't believe, for even ONE moment, that the man who orchestrated the slaughter of over 9 million people, was EVER an atheist.

    He was no Christian, but that doesn't automatically make him atheist.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    To be fair, dedo didn't use the word "Hitler."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    He could have been talking about Mao Tse Tsung, Iosef Stalin, or Pol Pot, but like Skin Walker brought up somewhere else, the primary motivation for their genocidal actions was their ideology, not their atheism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Atheists like Stalin and Pol Pot (some would argue Hitler, but he doesn't appear to be an atheist -some sort of deist at best; Christian at worst) did indeed cause some of the more significant genocides of human history, however, these atrocities were commited not because of their atheism but, rather, their ideologies.

    The significant thing that we can take away from the knowlege that two apparent atheists were willing to commit genocide is that ideology and hegemony are corrupting social strucutres that have the ability to create an "us" and "them" paradigm within a hegemony to the extent that, if the hegemony has enough power over the "them," extermination of the "them" group becomes a solution that the dominant power is willing to utilize.

    .
    There is a book called, "The World Peace Diet", by W. Tuttle, that argues for a cause of war that Tuttle calls "reductionism" or the thinking, exhorting, and acting as if a living being is an "object". Tuttle is a vegetarian so he is arguing that cruelty to animals is transferable to humans. Although, I don't know if there is literature on whether vegetarians start less wars than meat eaters, there is data in the criminal violence literature that shows that cruelty to animals is important in the development of violent criminals. (However, you cannot apply data from an individual, to a system of individuals.)

    "Reductionism" would be the ultimate "us" and "them" paradigm, because you reduce "them" (your adversary) to a disposable object making him easier to kill.

    Now some ideologies may very well contribute to "reductionism", or "us" and "them" thinking, more than others.

    This could be important because it has been argued that all wars may have the same underlying (and unknown) cause. Although this is not mainstream foreign policy thinking. The actual cause is unknown. Nevertheless, if there was "one underlying cause" of group violence, then you might be able to interrupt it, and prevent war.
    Or at least you might prevent big wars.

    Also, although there is no evidence that God has a wife, if He did, I am sure she would be in favor of working for the peace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    So is saying that god doesn't like genocide because he loves us, but he lets it happen regardless.
    I cannot explain why God allows genocide or "the mystery of evil". Maybe someone with more theology training could answer that.

    My best thought is that God gives people free will. We can choose to live in peace, or not. However, it probably not that simple. If there are factors/ variables/ ideologies that contribute to whether or not a group will become genocidal, then our choice is really about whether we will work to find those factors and try and reduce them.

    Greatest I Am says that God gives us the choice between His will or Hell. That is not actually mainstream theology. I believe classic theology is that God gives us the choice of "our way" or His way.

    The problems arise when individuals try to say "my way" is God's way, in an effort to control others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    So is saying that god doesn't like genocide because he loves us, but he lets it happen regardless.
    I cannot explain why God allows genocide or "the mystery of evil". Maybe someone with more theology training could answer that.

    My best thought is that God gives people free will. We can choose to live in peace, or not. However, it probably not that simple. If there are factors/ variables/ ideologies that contribute to whether or not a group will become genocidal, then our choice is really about whether we will work to find those factors and try and reduce them.
    I'm no theology expert, but I do have a thought on this.

    God decided not to interfere with us. We are an experiment, and are not special by any means. And by 'we are an experiment' I don't mean people, I mean life. Perhaps God developed a method to create life, and after inciting the experiment (The Universe) he decided to let it run it's course and observe what happens. Maybe he is constantly observing us, never allowing himself to interfere, for the sake of seeing how life will behave without him... Never know, really.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    So is saying that god doesn't like genocide because he loves us, but he lets it happen regardless.
    I cannot explain why God allows genocide or "the mystery of evil". Maybe someone with more theology training could answer that.

    My best thought is that God gives people free will. We can choose to live in peace, or not. However, it probably not that simple. If there are factors/ variables/ ideologies that contribute to whether or not a group will become genocidal, then our choice is really about whether we will work to find those factors and try and reduce them.
    I'm no theology expert, but I do have a thought on this.

    God decided not to interfere with us. We are an experiment, and are not special by any means. And by 'we are an experiment' I don't mean people, I mean life. Perhaps God developed a method to create life, and after inciting the experiment (The Universe) he decided to let it run it's course and observe what happens. Maybe he is constantly observing us, never allowing himself to interfere, for the sake of seeing how life will behave without him... Never know, really.
    While I like and support this idea (Somewhat like the Matrix) it still opens up a whole can of worms. Such as where does this experiment run?, Who created the God that created the experiment ? I think it boils down to the fact that we couldn't possibly begin to imagine the answers to these questions. Why you ask, simple. We are limited in our scope to our physical existence. If we are in fact living inside this simulation as I like to call it we would be governed by the laws of the simulation. It may be far far removed from the reality in which the simulation runs and our awareness of what is real might not be able to begin to grasp this other reality. Much like the Matrix I don't think everyone would want to embrace the truth.

    It has also occurred to me that I can't really prove anyone else even exists. When something is not in your view are you positive it doesn't just vanish in to nothingness only to be rendered again as needed ? For that matter how do you know your hand is made up of atoms unless you look at a cell with an electron microscope and how do you know that those atoms don't exist only at that point for the sole purpose of you seeing them. Think of it as a way to save a massive amount of computing power for this simulation.

    I should start a whole new topic on this very idea, it's not the first time I have mentioned it. We may in fact one day create AI that lives in a world we have created, it might be completely unaware we exist or how it came in to existence.

    Food for thought.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 Re: ? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    9
    Greatest I am

    As to free will, God has given us a freedom to chose His way or hell. not much freedom there at all.
    I disagree.

    It has been said that “God knows all” he knows in advance all that we are going to say and do. If that is the case, how can we have free will?

    If man had free will he would posses genuine moral freedom and true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions,and the freedom to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind.

    If you are a proponent of God’s way then man’s thoughts and volitions, character and external actions are all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances.
    Thirst is a “stronger” need than hunger. Likewise, if you are very very thirsty, but someone has put a choke hold on you and you can’t breath, which is more important? The need to breathe, of course. On the other hand, sex is less powerful than any of these. Let’s face it, you won’t die if you don’t get it!.....Maslow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41 Re: ? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Muad'Dib
    It has been said that “God knows all” he knows in advance all that we are going to say and do. If that is the case, how can we have free will?
    Many things have been said but that does not make them true. I say that God knows all that He chooses to know and that in giving us free will, God chooses not to know what we will choose to do before we do so. We live in a world where the future is a superposition of possibilities.

    But as we know from quantum physics such superpostions does not mean that much of the world and what happens in not highly deterministic and thus predictable. It just means that it is not absolutely so. In fact much of the predictability of the world comes from looking at large numbers, so even if individuals are unpredictable, this doesn't mean that mankind as a whole is not predictable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Muad'Dib
    If man had free will he would posses genuine moral freedom and true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions,and the freedom to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind.
    I don't belive that free will is absolute but that it is of a highly quantitative nature. For one thing, free will depends very highly upon awareness of what choices one has. I think it is rather obvious that awareness is not only something that varies greatly but is also highly changeable. People can become more aware and they can blind themselves.

    THUS, if man has free will then he has the freedom to choose a way of life and thinking that decreases his awareness of the world and otherwise greatly damages his own free will. For I think the problem of the alchoholic and the drug addict who has little free will left to him is a rather universal reality about the consequences that the choices we make in life can have. Another example is the choice between good study habits and bad study habits, and there is little doubt about the differences these make in freedom these afford us later in life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Muad'Dib
    If you are a proponent of God’s way then man’s thoughts and volitions, character and external actions are all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances.
    I think that God's way is to set before us a choice between good habits and bad - which is the choice between greater free will and irresponsibility - which is the same as the relative choice between life and death. But in setting before us this choice, He urges us to choose life. And this is the way it MUST be, because life is something we have to choose for ourselves. No one can live our lives for us because that would not be living.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    So is saying that god doesn't like genocide because he loves us, but he lets it happen regardless.
    I cannot explain why God allows genocide or "the mystery of evil". Maybe someone with more theology training could answer that.

    My best thought is that God gives people free will. We can choose to live in peace, or not. However, it probably not that simple. If there are factors/ variables/ ideologies that contribute to whether or not a group will become genocidal, then our choice is really about whether we will work to find those factors and try and reduce them.
    I'm no theology expert, but I do have a thought on this.

    God decided not to interfere with us. We are an experiment, and are not special by any means. And by 'we are an experiment' I don't mean people, I mean life. Perhaps God developed a method to create life, and after inciting the experiment (The Universe) he decided to let it run it's course and observe what happens. Maybe he is constantly observing us, never allowing himself to interfere, for the sake of seeing how life will behave without him... Never know, really.
    While I like and support this idea (Somewhat like the Matrix) it still opens up a whole can of worms. Such as where does this experiment run?, Who created the God that created the experiment ? I think it boils down to the fact that we couldn't possibly begin to imagine the answers to these questions. Why you ask, simple. We are limited in our scope to our physical existence. If we are in fact living inside this simulation as I like to call it we would be governed by the laws of the simulation. It may be far far removed from the reality in which the simulation runs and our awareness of what is real might not be able to begin to grasp this other reality. Much like the Matrix I don't think everyone would want to embrace the truth.

    It has also occurred to me that I can't really prove anyone else even exists. When something is not in your view are you positive it doesn't just vanish in to nothingness only to be rendered again as needed ? For that matter how do you know your hand is made up of atoms unless you look at a cell with an electron microscope and how do you know that those atoms don't exist only at that point for the sole purpose of you seeing them. Think of it as a way to save a massive amount of computing power for this simulation.

    I should start a whole new topic on this very idea, it's not the first time I have mentioned it. We may in fact one day create AI that lives in a world we have created, it might be completely unaware we exist or how it came in to existence.

    Food for thought.
    THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!!! (pretty much) I feel that questioning the scope of the creator, though a very valid question to ask, is rather pointless, for the reason you stated. Here's another supposition though, How do we know we see real things? How do we know that we ACTUALLY have a body? How so we know, for certain, that we, ourselves, are real, and not just some incorporeal 'mind.' moreover, how do we know we are not all just part of an elaborate dream, designed to believe that we are real, capable of freedom, thought, choice, and are not just a figment of the imagination of little Tritai?? Reality, in this sense, is rather ill-defined.

    On second thought, I'll save the rest of my views and thoughts for a thread dedicated to this kind of talk. I think that was enough for now.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Mitchell gives a great explanation for free will from man's perspective.

    However, the coexistence of man's free will with God's "seeing the future" is a mystery.

    God could choose "not to see" some futures. There is another explanation.

    I once had a problem with this, and I was wondering if we are all just walking in some sort of "predetermined script" where free will was just an illusion.

    My recollection is that this question was answered in two ways. First a thought came to me to the effect" "Would you create something like that?" eg. meaning: If I wouldn't have created something as ridiculous as that, why would God?

    Then I was browsing in this bookstore, and I started leafing through a work of religious fiction that gave an interesting explanation for the coexistence of man's free will and God's ability to "see the future".

    In "Blink", Ted Dekker has a character that develops a super "ESP" where he can see millions of "possible futures" at any point in time. Thus, God can see the future because He sees all possible futures. For example, if a person is thinking of going to a party where illicit drug use is rampant, then this could open up numerous "futures" involving addiction etc. From a theists point of view, that person's conscience (the voice of God) would urge him/her not to go to that party, in order to avoid those negative futures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Mitchell gives a great explanation for free will from man's perspective.

    However, the coexistence of man's free will with God's "seeing the future" is a mystery.

    God could choose "not to see" some futures. There is another explanation.
    I have never understood why this is a problem. Why would God knowing what you will do affect the fact that you still made the choice? If I know that a friend likes a certain dish and I give him/her a choice between that and another one, does the fact that she then chooses the ones I knew he/she would make any kind of difference to the fact that he/she chose it?

    If God knows all the factors that affect our decisions, is it so inconceivable that He/She /It would know what that would be? If He knows everything down to the smallest detail, does that not enable Him to know what will happen? I also don't think knowing what will happen in some way creates the future either. The person in question's decisions still do that on their own.

    Or is this more a question of the role random fluctuations play in the decision making process?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    However, the coexistence of man's free will with God's "seeing the future" is a mystery.
    Or just plain nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    God could choose "not to see" some futures. There is another explanation.
    Its one explanation of a theological position called Open Theism.


    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I once had a problem with this, and I was wondering if we are all just walking in some sort of "predetermined script" where free will was just an illusion.

    My recollection is that this question was answered in two ways. First a thought came to me to the effect" "Would you create something like that?" eg. meaning: If I wouldn't have created something as ridiculous as that, why would God?
    Yep sounds a lot like the idea that God or demons created all the evidence for evolution in order to deceive us.


    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Then I was browsing in this bookstore, and I started leafing through a work of religious fiction that gave an interesting explanation for the coexistence of man's free will and God's ability to "see the future".

    In "Blink", Ted Dekker has a character that develops a super "ESP" where he can see millions of "possible futures" at any point in time. Thus, God can see the future because He sees all possible futures. For example, if a person is thinking of going to a party where illicit drug use is rampant, then this could open up numerous "futures" involving addiction etc. From a theists point of view, that person's conscience (the voice of God) would urge him/her not to go to that party, in order to avoid those negative futures.
    That is basically Open Theism. God can see all the possibilities and the possibilities are real. This isn't what the predestinarians and Mollinists believe. And I just cannot see how their position is logically possible. Deism is another solution. You see there is a hard logcial contradiction between these three propositions.

    1)We have free will, to choose between real possibilities and thus we are responsible for those choices.
    2)God knows what we will choose in these cases before we do so, including the effect of His possible interactions with us.
    3)God is involved in our lives and influencing our decisions.

    One of these has to go.

    2&3) Constitute the absolute control of God over our choices. In this way the Calvinists basically discard the whole idea of free will altogether.
    1&3) This is Open Theism, which does not preclude God's knowledge of the future but only that God at least does not choose to have absolute knowledge of the future in every detail.
    1&2) This is Deism, which is the basic idea of God as the great observer and experimenter just watching to see what happens.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I have never understood why this is a problem. Why would God knowing what you will do affect the fact that you still made the choice?
    My guess is that you like the Deist option. There is however other objections that although this resolves the hard contradiction, that there is still a soft contradiction directly between 1&2. In other words, although you may have a hard time strictly proving that there is a logical contradiction between them they still feel contradictory enough that there is still the feeling that the only free will that you have in this case is an illusory one. This is because it is hard to say how the other possibilites can be called real in any meaningful sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If I know that a friend likes a certain dish and I give him/her a choice between that and another one, does the fact that she then chooses the ones I knew he/she would make any kind of difference to the fact that he/she chose it?

    If God knows all the factors that affect our decisions, is it so inconceivable that He/She /It would know what that would be? If He knows everything down to the smallest detail, does that not enable Him to know what will happen? I also don't think knowing what will happen in some way creates the future either. The person in question's decisions still do that on their own.
    That is the compatibilist position (that free will and determinism are compatable). Like John Polkinghorne, I am an incompatibilist and an Open Theist.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Or is this more a question of the role random fluctuations play in the decision making process?
    That is a reductionist way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the future is a superposition of real possibilities, and the process by which that superpostion of possibilities becomes a single actuality is not a deterministic one. I think this requires setting aside the assumption of time-ordered causality - which is another thing that is hinted at by the failure of Bell's inequality, since the only time ordering we have according to our understanding of space time is the light cone structure of Minkowsky geometry (also known as local causality).
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    In other words, although you may have a hard time strictly proving that there is a logical contradiction between them they still feel contradictory enough that there is still the feeling that the only free will that you have in this case is an illusory one. This is because it is hard to say how the other possibilites can be called real in any meaningful sense.
    You mean meaningful in a way we as humans can understand and/or feel comfortable with?

    That is a reductionist way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the future is a superposition of real possibilities, and the process by which that superpostion of possibilities becomes a single actuality is not a deterministic one. I think this requires setting aside the assumption of time-ordered causality - which is another thing that is hinted at by the failure of Bell's inequality, since the only time ordering we have according to our understanding of space time is the light cone structure of Minkowsky geometry (also known as local causality).
    Ok, but does this not place God in a naturalistic light, i.e. that He must be subject to the laws of the universe? You have spoken about how God must conform to logical consistency, like how he cannot make both an immovable object and an unstoppable force. But does that mean then that He must be naturalistic? If He is to be supernatural, why would he then limit himself to not knowing the whole future if it doesn’t change the fact that our decisions are real? Is catering to our limited ability to understand such things enough of a reason to not do it?

    See, I still don't see a real obstacle to all three of those statements to be true. Our lives on earth are supposed to have a purpose after all and the reason we all have different experiences and become entirely unique people in our own rights, might have a further purpose that is not revealed to us until we die. As you know, the whole concept of heaven and hell is just too much of an archaic, simplistic and all too human concept for me to put any stock in.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    In other words, although you may have a hard time strictly proving that there is a logical contradiction between them they still feel contradictory enough that there is still the feeling that the only free will that you have in this case is an illusory one. This is because it is hard to say how the other possibilites can be called real in any meaningful sense.
    You mean meaningful in a way we as humans can understand and/or feel comfortable with?
    What makes a thing possible? If we know with certainty that something will not happen then what would it mean to say that it is possible. What does "possible" mean other than that there is some nonzero probability that it will occur? But there is a link between such words as "possible" and "probable" and our state of knowledge, isn't there? It is certainly the case with probability. The probability of an event often changes when relevant knowlege is taken into account. The probability of an event becomes the probability of the event given this new information, and we can sometimes use Bayes theorem to calculate this. The probability of an event given that we know that it will not occur is zero, which means that it is not possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That is a reductionist way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the future is a superposition of real possibilities, and the process by which that superpostion of possibilities becomes a single actuality is not a deterministic one. I think this requires setting aside the assumption of time-ordered causality - which is another thing that is hinted at by the failure of Bell's inequality, since the only time ordering we have according to our understanding of space time is the light cone structure of Minkowsky geometry (also known as local causality).
    Ok, but does this not place God in a naturalistic light, i.e. that He must be subject to the laws of the universe? You have spoken about how God must conform to logical consistency, like how he cannot make both an immovable object and an unstoppable force. But does that mean then that He must be naturalistic?
    You have lost me. The reference to physical law here was all about making sense of free will. It had nothing to do with any abilities of God.

    You said, "or is this more a question of the role random fluctuations play in the decision making process?" I was saying yes, but that there was another way of looking at it. In quantum physics we the words "random fluctuations" to refer to quantum superpostions and in fact the latter is a more accurate description of what we actually use in physics to make calculations.

    But if the future only exists as a superpostion of possibilities, then this is what God sees just like dedo's SF story. Can God "see" what will actually happen anyway in spite of this? Yes, I think He has to power to make there be such an actuality. But then it is just like when we do the same thing in science, we can also insist that a superpostion yeild us an actual value in the process of measurement, but that changes it so that there is no superposition anymore but only that value which we have measured.

    I don't think this is a matter of being subject to physical laws for we have said NOTHING about HOW God knows what He knows. I do in fact think that this is ALL about logical consistency. Either the future exists as a superposition of possibilities or it does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If He is to be supernatural, why would he then limit himself to not knowing the whole future if it doesn’t change the fact that our decisions are real? Is catering to our limited ability to understand such things enough of a reason to not do it?
    That He is spiritual and thus outside the structure of time, space and physical law really has nothing to do with this. Every act of creation is by logical necessity an act of self-limitation and in this case limiting himself to not knowing the future absolutely in every detail is part of what it means to create life and free will. A physical universe without a multiplicity of possibilities, without quantum superpositions is just a 4+ dimensional static inanimate object. It may be a pretty picture or an interesting story but that is all, and the characters in the story don't have to believe anything, they only have to act like they believe things - they don't actually have to be aware, they only have to act like they are aware. What is the difference? Well the difference is that there really are no little people walking around inside your television set or DVD player. It is just a recording - a static inanimate object.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    See, I still don't see a real obstacle to all three of those statements to be true.
    OH now you want to talk about the hard contradiction.

    By 2&3 God knows precisely what the effect of what He does will have on what we choose to do, right? Therefore when He decides what He will do, then He is also deciding what we will do, right? But, if God makes the only decisions that matter, deciding what we will do before we do it then why would we be responsible for anything in any way? I don't see that we are and therefore that contradicts number 1.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Our lives on earth are supposed to have a purpose after all
    Says who? Tools are created for a purpose. What use do tools have for life and free will. It is absurd. Would you make a hammer for the purpose of pounding nails into wood and give them the ability to decide if they want to do it or not. It doesn't make any sense. No you create things with life only because you want them to exist for their own sake, not as a means to an end but as an end in themselves. Such is the reason why many if not most people have children.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    As you know, the whole concept of heaven and hell is just too much of an archaic, simplistic and all too human concept for me to put any stock in.
    The traditional concepts of heaven as a reward and hell as an eternal punishment is pure rhetoric for the purpose of manipulation. I do not believe in that rhetoric any more than you do. And yet there are meaniful concepts in these words: that which everyone would aspire to if they knew how and that which everyone would avoid if they knew how. The words are used in secular language for precisely that reason.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    It would appear that all the previous posts come at this kind of broad spectrum discussion from the perspective of an esoteric 'God' existing in some vaporous locale, yet (at some level) peculiarly physical; and not surprisingly, as this has become the millenniums olde default position in the general mindset of mankind, via the habitual work of religion - as a whole.

    For mine in this age of reason; even to consider our existence in the greater ‘what is’ of the physical (and spiritual) world we know, according such a generically accepted view, is nothing less than a gross insult to man’s very intellect. So is it any wonder that science has generally opted to reject such fanciful constructs and sought to focus on the definable and concrete? Still, from even within such lucid circles, we yet find a remnant tarnish of centuries of focused religious indoctrination.

    Truly, there is an entirely differing concept which is profoundly more plausible, definable and gratifying to our every reasoning than some irreproachable 'Super-Guy in the sky' vs. ‘His’ nefarious but equally esoteric underground adversary – in an obscure eternal battle for our ‘souls’ and indeterminate future. Yet this observation is one in which the continuum from science to religion, will find from (at first) offbeat - to highly offensive.

    There surely exists no composite physical/spiritual incarnations of ‘heaven’ or ‘God’/‘Super-Guy’, or ‘Devil’ or ‘demons’ with horns and pitchforks, or ‘angels’ with wings and harps – for the reality is infinitely more perceivable once we begin to appreciate what it is we are looking at.

    It is no secret that there is in existence, the largely definable physical universe, of which we are all aware. Yet there is certainly something else - being an unrecognised (yet equally knowable) - entirely SPIRITUAL counterpart – which clearly for all these years; should have been the focus of religion, but sadly has rather been the subject of a severe dereliction of duty.

    For religion has always been under the control of men who have barely attempted to deviate from the most elementary physical focus; thereby finding (and preaching) a strange amalgam form of physical/‘spiritual’, being at once 'approachable' and omnipresent, yet mysterious and disconnected - when nothing could be more disproportionate or further from the truth.

    Religionists will not only be less than interested in the harmonious facts of this observation, but would generally be indignant in the extreme. It would be expected that scientists should be more interested - provided they can avoid the certain clash with the implanted slant from their remnant religious indoctrinations.

    In short;
    A.The physical ‘Earth’ is basically the brown stuff under our feet, but the ‘spiritual’ counterpart is the stuff of our flesh and bones - the now highly reorganised elements, as generously provided by the physical earth.
    B.The physical ‘World’ is the combination of the living people of our planet and the orb itself. The ‘spiritual’ version is the combination of our reorganised individual (living) self - being at once physical and spiritual.
    C.The physical ‘Heaven’ is what we physically witness by looking up, but the ‘spiritual’ equivalent can only be observed by looking INWARD - indeed the mind, and we all know who lives in 'heaven';
    D.God(were we to use such a disreputable term) is a constructed religious fancy, however there exists an absolute and definable PURE spiritual reality, being the INTELLECT – to which we have individually been given access for the period of our years.

    It is particularly at the above 'D', where religion simply CANNOT be reconciled, and which will also see (an indoctrinated by default) science having difficulty.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Just because god cannot be "partially in ignorance" in no way suggests that his comprehension of the state of affairs is lacking.
    It most certainly is.

    One cannot tell us not to eat something when one does not eat.


    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    However, there are sections in the Old Testament that are quite violent and I cannot explain. However, you cannot look at a mystery and say this must mean: " God thinks genocide is good etc."

    There can be many explanations.
    Give one that justifies killing children and babies.

    A prime example of what religion says is that if it is not God's way then it is wrong. My way or hell has always been the tone of those who believe in hell.

    Gays are a good example. God says fight the nature I gave you and if not then hell is your reward.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'm no theology expert, but I do have a thought on this.

    God decided not to interfere with us. We are an experiment, and are not special by any means. And by 'we are an experiment' I don't mean people, I mean life. Perhaps God developed a method to create life, and after inciting the experiment (The Universe) he decided to let it run it's course and observe what happens. Maybe he is constantly observing us, never allowing himself to interfere, for the sake of seeing how life will behave without him... Never know, really.
    Is Sodom or Noah's genocidal flood examples of non interference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muad'Dib
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am

    As to free will, God has given us a freedom to chose His way or hell. not much freedom there at all.
    I disagree.

    It has been said that “God knows all” he knows in advance all that we are going to say and do. If that is the case, how can we have free will?

    If man had free will he would posses genuine moral freedom and true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions,and the freedom to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind.
    Who decides for you not to beat your spouse and children every night? You or someone else?


    Regards
    DL

    moderator action: fixed quotes and combined posts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It would appear that all the previous posts come at this kind of broad spectrum discussion from the perspective of an esoteric 'God' existing in some vaporous locale, yet (at some level) peculiarly physical; and not surprisingly, as this has become the millenniums olde default position in the general mindset of mankind, via the habitual work of religion - as a whole.

    For mine in this age of reason; even to consider our existence in the greater ‘what is’ of the physical (and spiritual) world we know, according such a generically accepted view, is nothing less than a gross insult to man’s very intellect. So is it any wonder that science has generally opted to reject such fanciful constructs and sought to focus on the definable and concrete? Still, from even within such lucid circles, we yet find a remnant tarnish of centuries of focused religious indoctrination.

    Truly, there is an entirely differing concept which is profoundly more plausible, definable and gratifying to our every reasoning than some irreproachable 'Super-Guy in the sky' vs. ‘His’ nefarious but equally esoteric underground adversary – in an obscure eternal battle for our ‘souls’ and indeterminate future. Yet this observation is one in which the continuum from science to religion, will find from (at first) offbeat - to highly offensive.

    There surely exists no composite physical/spiritual incarnations of ‘heaven’ or ‘God’/‘Super-Guy’, or ‘Devil’ or ‘demons’ with horns and pitchforks, or ‘angels’ with wings and harps – for the reality is infinitely more perceivable once we begin to appreciate what it is we are looking at.

    It is no secret that there is in existence, the largely definable physical universe, of which we are all aware. Yet there is certainly something else - being an unrecognised (yet equally knowable) - entirely SPIRITUAL counterpart – which clearly for all these years; should have been the focus of religion, but sadly has rather been the subject of a severe dereliction of duty.

    For religion has always been under the control of men who have barely attempted to deviate from the most elementary physical focus; thereby finding (and preaching) a strange amalgam form of physical/‘spiritual’, being at once 'approachable' and omnipresent, yet mysterious and disconnected - when nothing could be more disproportionate or further from the truth.

    Religionists will not only be less than interested in the harmonious facts of this observation, but would generally be indignant in the extreme. It would be expected that scientists should be more interested - provided they can avoid the certain clash with the implanted slant from their remnant religious indoctrinations.

    In short;
    A.The physical ‘Earth’ is basically the brown stuff under our feet, but the ‘spiritual’ counterpart is the stuff of our flesh and bones - the now highly reorganised elements, as generously provided by the physical earth.
    B.The physical ‘World’ is the combination of the living people of our planet and the orb itself. The ‘spiritual’ version is the combination of our reorganised individual (living) self - being at once physical and spiritual.
    C.The physical ‘Heaven’ is what we physically witness by looking up, but the ‘spiritual’ equivalent can only be observed by looking INWARD - indeed the mind, and we all know who lives in 'heaven';
    D.God(were we to use such a disreputable term) is a constructed religious fancy, however there exists an absolute and definable PURE spiritual reality, being the INTELLECT – to which we have individually been given access for the period of our years.

    It is particularly at the above 'D', where religion simply CANNOT be reconciled, and which will also see (an indoctrinated by default) science having difficulty.
    Not bad at all.


    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Just because god cannot be "partially in ignorance" in no way suggests that his comprehension of the state of affairs is lacking.
    It most certainly is.

    One cannot tell us not to eat something when one does not eat.

    Still not clear how ignorance gains the upper hand.

    Are the only people who can authoritatively speak about the dangers of eating draino speaking from the school of hard knocks?

    BTW :: God still might eat. Its simply becomes absurd when you also give him a digestive tract much like ours due to our experience of eating. The fact that many people get all sorts of maladies from eating without their digestive tract in mind tends to indicate that there's an aspect to eating divorced from a the raw biological need for survival. If we all bend to the pleasure principle, why shouldn't god?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    There would be two relevant factors; experience of eating, and experience working with food.

    One does not build a computer without learning something of how it works.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    There would be two relevant factors; experience of eating, and experience working with food.

    One does not build a computer without learning something of how it works.
    I'm not what point you are trying to make about the experience of eating and the experiencing of working with food.

    What is it exactly you are trying to say happens between the lips and the teacup in regards to god?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Just because god cannot be "partially in ignorance" in no way suggests that his comprehension of the state of affairs is lacking.
    It most certainly is.

    One cannot tell us not to eat something when one does not eat.

    Still not clear how ignorance gains the upper hand.

    Are the only people who can authoritatively speak about the dangers of eating draino speaking from the school of hard knocks?

    BTW :: God still might eat. Its simply becomes absurd when you also give him a digestive tract much like ours due to our experience of eating. The fact that many people get all sorts of maladies from eating without their digestive tract in mind tends to indicate that there's an aspect to eating divorced from a the raw biological need for survival. If we all bend to the pleasure principle, why shouldn't god?
    Have you heard any new commercials for a new drug?
    They speak of side effects from mild to death. They have no clue as to what any individual will suffer.

    All humans are different. One law cannot suit all over all time. Not even God's law.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    There would be two relevant factors; experience of eating, and experience working with food.

    One does not build a computer without learning something of how it works.
    I'm not what point you are trying to make about the experience of eating and the experiencing of working with food.

    What is it exactly you are trying to say happens between the lips and the teacup in regards to god?

    Damn, I've forgotten myself....

    Ah, that's it; if god made the food we eat, he would surely know something about it; especially if your respective god is omniscient. He would therefore have as much knowledge about it as you, who eats that food, and probably more.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Just because god cannot be "partially in ignorance" in no way suggests that his comprehension of the state of affairs is lacking.
    It most certainly is.

    One cannot tell us not to eat something when one does not eat.

    Still not clear how ignorance gains the upper hand.

    Are the only people who can authoritatively speak about the dangers of eating draino speaking from the school of hard knocks?

    BTW :: God still might eat. Its simply becomes absurd when you also give him a digestive tract much like ours due to our experience of eating. The fact that many people get all sorts of maladies from eating without their digestive tract in mind tends to indicate that there's an aspect to eating divorced from a the raw biological need for survival. If we all bend to the pleasure principle, why shouldn't god?
    Have you heard any new commercials for a new drug?
    They speak of side effects from mild to death. They have no clue as to what any individual will suffer.
    and your point is what?

    That an authority in a position of partial ignorance is likely to give guidelines that are partially in ignorance?

    All humans are different. One law cannot suit all over all time. Not even God's law.

    Regards
    DL
    All humans display variety and all humans suffer from fallibility. For as long as one draws up an image of god based on human fallibility (whether its the fallible mind or the fallible digestive tract) one will have a fallible god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    There would be two relevant factors; experience of eating, and experience working with food.

    One does not build a computer without learning something of how it works.
    I'm not what point you are trying to make about the experience of eating and the experiencing of working with food.

    What is it exactly you are trying to say happens between the lips and the teacup in regards to god?

    Damn, I've forgotten myself....

    Ah, that's it; if god made the food we eat, he would surely know something about it; especially if your respective god is omniscient. He would therefore have as much knowledge about it as you, who eats that food, and probably more.
    sure

    so whats the problem?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    mitchellmckain:

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if God chooses to know the future in its entirety then it would destroy free will? This is so, because it would not be logically consistent to have both at the same time? This is what I meant by asking if you mean that God would have to be naturalistic. By this I don't mean that if He is supernatural that He could violate logical consistency, but that he could both see the future and not affect it if He does not want to. When he sees the future, he sees the end result of his actions and our choices. As I see it, he sees the future in the same way we see the past. He can look at +1 basically from the perspective of +2, in the same way we look at -1 from the perspective of 0, if that makes sense. We cannot change the past, while God can change the future if He chooses, but not in a way that takes away our ability to make real choices.

    As I look at it, the future does not actually exist. When you talk about a superposition of possibilities, that simply denotes multiple possible futures from what we can ascertain. When we discover new variables and can refine our prediction based on them, it does not actually affect the future one bit, except when our measurements directly affect the direction the future will take. This is where I think that a God would have no trouble seeing the future by knowing the result of random processes without necessarily steering your choices.

    I look at it this way, because I used to think that God's involvement in our lives must have a purpose. I don't agree with your tool descriptive at all (assuming I understood you correctly). While we may be seen as tools in the sense that God uses us in the lives of others, it still means that he gives attention to each of us. He does not make the only decisions that matter, but we all make decisions that shape our futures, while God would only affect the future in ways that would steer it towards crossroads that he wants to put before us.

    The reason I said that God might have a purpose that is to be revealed after our deaths, is that it would explain why he lets people develop into all areas of human existence, which includes everyone from the craziest serial killer, to a Pygmy, to the people that endure the worst suffering imaginable, to Ghandi etc. I think that some of the basics of being fully consciousness are universal and by letting human consciousness venture into all the corners our lives on earth can deliver, he might be preparing us for something more, something far more profound than anything we can imagine (like any kind of heaven or hell). Existing only for the sake of being alive does not really cover the afterlife. That is why I said that existing here on earth must have a purpose related to the afterlife, which is supposed to be into infinity as opposed to the fleeting existence we share on this small rock.


    Anyway, excuse my incoherent rambling. These are some of the things I thought about while still a theist.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    [quote="loftmarcell"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    [
    All humans display variety and all humans suffer from fallibility. For as long as one draws up an image of god based on human fallibility (whether its the fallible mind or the fallible digestive tract) one will have a fallible god.
    To me, the word God is a title only, not an entity.
    God should then evolve along with man. A bench marc that we try to attain.
    Once there we raise the bar again.

    The first God was a man. The last will be a man, not some alien super God.

    None but men have ever spoken for God. We should recognize this as fact.

    Issues of a personal and private nature should be dictated by individuals, not God.

    You might note all the interesting laws in scripture that any sane person should ignore.

    Can God be fallible? Certainly. We are lead by evolution and it's two basic rules, cooperation or competition. I would think that any law then would swing between these two.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane Mathematician
    God decided not to interfere with us. We are an experiment, and are not special by any means. And by 'we are an experiment' I don't mean people, I mean life. Perhaps God developed a method to create life, and after inciting the experiment (The Universe) he decided to let it run it's course and observe what happens. Maybe he is constantly observing us, never allowing himself to interfere, for the sake of seeing how life will behave without him... Never know, really.
    Is Sodom or Noah's genocidal flood examples of non interference?
    Yes, they are. They are the example of an insane man's ramblings and show how when a 'burning bush' talk to you, all kinds of crazy ideas come out.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if God chooses to know the future in its entirety then it would destroy free will? This is so, because it would not be logically consistent to have both at the same time? This is what I meant by asking if you mean that God would have to be naturalistic. By this I don't mean that if He is supernatural that He could violate logical consistency, but that he could both see the future and not affect it if He does not want to. When he sees the future, he sees the end result of his actions and our choices. As I see it, he sees the future in the same way we see the past. He can look at +1 basically from the perspective of +2, in the same way we look at -1 from the perspective of 0, if that makes sense. We cannot change the past, while God can change the future if He chooses, but not in a way that takes away our ability to make real choices.

    As I look at it, the future does not actually exist.
    This last statement contradicts what you are saying in the previous paragraph. My whole point is that it makes no sense to say that God can supernaturally look at what does not exist, therefore to see it He would have to create it, but to create it is to destroy free will, for it is free will to have a choice in creating our own future, at least in so far as creating ourselves. It does not of course mean we can rearrange the world for our own comfort in the fulfillment of fantasies. It simply means that we choose how to respond to the circumstances which we confront - that is the nature of all living things.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    When you talk about a superposition of possibilities, that simply denotes multiple possible futures from what we can ascertain. When we discover new variables and can refine our prediction based on them, it does not actually affect the future one bit, except when our measurements directly affect the direction the future will take.
    That is incorrect. The consensus of the scientific community, called the copenhagen interpretation, which was confirmed by the failure of Bell's inequality, is that hidden variable theory is WRONG. A superposition of states is a reality NOT an artifact of a lack of knowledge. In the two slit experiment the state of superposition where the photon goes through both slits at the same time is different from the state where the photons goes through one or the other. This is NOT a matter of knowing or not knowing but two different realities. This is manifested by the fact that it is only in the first case that there is an interference pattern on the screen.

    SO, when I talk about a superpostion of possibilities it does NOT mean "possible futures from what we can ascertain" -- it means that the future can ONLY be said to exist as such a superposition and the ONLY way you can know what which possibility will occur is to change the way in which the future exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This is where I think that a God would have no trouble seeing the future by knowing the result of random processes without necessarily steering your choices.
    If indeed determinism and hidden variable theory were correct, then I too would think that God would have no trouble seeing what we will choose before we make our choices BUT as an incompatibilist I do NOT believe that this is free will or in fact that that anything in such a universe can be called alive any more than the contents of a DVD recording can be called alive.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I look at it this way, because I used to think that God's involvement in our lives must have a purpose. I don't agree with your tool descriptive at all (assuming I understood you correctly). While we may be seen as tools in the sense that God uses us in the lives of others, it still means that he gives attention to each of us. He does not make the only decisions that matter, but we all make decisions that shape our futures, while God would only affect the future in ways that would steer it towards crossroads that he wants to put before us.

    ...

    Anyway, excuse my incoherent rambling. These are some of the things I thought about while still a theist.
    I do comprehend that many theists think in this manner, but frankly I could never think in this manner myself, and so I don't know what to say except that I entirely sympathize with discarding this kind of thinking.



    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The reason I said that God might have a purpose that is to be revealed after our deaths, is that it would explain why he lets people develop into all areas of human existence, which includes everyone from the craziest serial killer, to a Pygmy, to the people that endure the worst suffering imaginable, to Ghandi etc. I think that some of the basics of being fully consciousness are universal and by letting human consciousness venture into all the corners our lives on earth can deliver, he might be preparing us for something more, something far more profound than anything we can imagine (like any kind of heaven or hell).
    I don't believe the purpose is found in any kind of micromanagement design, but in the nature of life itself which is antithetical to design. In other words, His answer to this would be that it is your life -- He will make suggestions if you allow Him -- but He will not live your life for you. He will only intervene (altering the environment) when the survival of our free will requires it.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Existing only for the sake of being alive does not really cover the afterlife. That is why I said that existing here on earth must have a purpose related to the afterlife, which is supposed to be into infinity as opposed to the fleeting existence we share on this small rock.
    No it does not, but that is not at all what I meant by our purpose being an end in itself rather than a means to an end. The purpose IS life. That is the purpose for which children are created -- not to serve some task -- but to live. And this necessarily means making their own choices about the direction and meaning of their own lives. But make no mistake this DOES NOT mean merely existing in order to continue biological life function -- it certainly does not mean merely to continue breathing. Life is so much more than that. The meaning of life includes growth, excitement, creativity, love, wonder, challenges, passion, and learning. This is the promise of eternal life, for to continue existing without these things that are all that make existing worthwhile is not eternal life but eternal hell.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    This last statement contradicts what you are saying in the previous paragraph. My whole point is that it makes no sense to say that God can supernaturally look at what does not exist, therefore to see it He would have to create it,
    Yes it does, doesn't it. How much does random quantum occurrences affect the way the macro world pans out? I know you believe that consciousness is affected by random quantum fluctuations, while I don't really. I believe that all the processes that constitute consciousness are entirely defined by chaotic rather than random occurrences.

    That is incorrect. The consensus of the scientific community, called the copenhagen interpretation, which was confirmed by the failure of Bell's inequality, is that hidden variable theory is WRONG.
    I meant we can predict with reasonable surety the behaviour of larger systems, like the half life of a clump of Caesium. How accurately would God be able to predict the future if he knew the exact extent of each step in a chaotic series of events along with a statistical knowledge of random processes?

    The act of "observing" a random process determines the outcome because of a necessary interaction with the particle (not simply because a consciousness became aware of it), no? You have postulated about the possible existence of spiritual energy in the past. Do you think this would have the same affect when it interacts with the particle? Is this spiritual energy the way God interacts with the world, i.e. how he is able to know your very thoughts?

    If indeed determinism and hidden variable theory were correct, then I too would think that God would have no trouble seeing what we will choose before we make our choices BUT as an incompatibility I do NOT believe that this is free will or in fact that that anything in such a universe can be called alive any more than the contents of a DVD recording can be called alive.
    This is what I meant with God maybe being able to look at the future in the same way we can look at the past. When you watch a DVD of a football game, it does not affect the free will of the people while they were playing the game?

    I don't believe the purpose is found in any kind of micromanagement design, but in the nature of life itself which is antithetical to design. In other words, His answer to this would be that it is your life -- He will make suggestions if you allow Him -- but He will not live your life for you. He will only intervene (altering the environment) when the survival of our free will requires it.
    I understand. I just think that even those babies that get born only to die a slow death must also have a purpose to their own life other than affecting people around them. We sit in our frankly cosy lives, while a very large part of the world consists out of people that do not have the mental/physical ability or opportunity to make any of the choices we can or be able to experience the luxury of spiritual growth, wonder or excitement other than when the UN decides to drop off a sack of maze.

    No it does not, but that is not at all what I meant by our purpose being an end in itself rather than a means to an end. The purpose IS life. That is the purpose for which children are created -- not to serve some task -- but to live. And this necessarily means making their own choices about the direction and meaning of their own lives. But make no mistake this DOES NOT mean merely existing in order to continue biological life function -- it certainly does not mean merely to continue breathing. Life is so much more than that.
    I agree. The only reason I could think of for the vast variety of different lives that each person has lived on earth was that when we die physically, we all share in each other's experiences in the first person, sort of, and that this collective understanding of consciousness (facilitated by our physical lives on earth) might then open us up to whole new avenues of existence. The rest of the universe awaits.

    Of course, the problem is to try and figure out what remains after every part of our being that was involved with our earthly existence becomes obsolete.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This last statement contradicts what you are saying in the previous paragraph. My whole point is that it makes no sense to say that God can supernaturally look at what does not exist, therefore to see it He would have to create it,
    Yes it does, doesn't it. How much does random quantum occurrences affect the way the macro world pans out? I know you believe that consciousness is affected by random quantum fluctuations, while I don't really. I believe that all the processes that constitute consciousness are entirely defined by chaotic rather than random occurrences.
    LOL But that is impossible! Deterministic chaotic processes can only exist on paper, or in other purely abstract symbolic media. Chaotic systems are only predictable when you know the initial conditions to a infinite degree of precision, but you can only have that degree of precision on paper where you set the initial conditions yourself. Reality is a quantum reality and that means that initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision simply DO NOT EXIST and therefore any process dependent on initial conditions to that degree must NECESSARILY be determined by the outcome of quantum fluctuations.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That is incorrect. The consensus of the scientific community, called the copenhagen interpretation, which was confirmed by the failure of Bell's inequality, is that hidden variable theory is WRONG.
    I meant we can predict with reasonable surety the behaviour of larger systems, like the half life of a clump of Caesium. How accurately would God be able to predict the future if he knew the exact extent of each step in a chaotic series of events along with a statistical knowledge of random processes?
    Sorry but that only works for linear processes not nonlinear processes. This was the whole point of discovery chaotic dynamics, that the way in which fluctuations averaged out in linear processes does not hold for nonlinear processes. So while the statisical analysis of large numbers in a linear system produces deterministic behavior, this does not work in nonlinear systems like the weather and in living organisms. At least, you have to move to an even larger scale where linearity is restored to some degree. So for a trivial example the behavior of animals on the earth has no effect on the motion of the planets. LOL


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The act of "observing" a random process determines the outcome because of a necessary interaction with the particle (not simply because a consciousness became aware of it), no?
    Close but not quite. It is not an interaction with a single partcle. That will not do it. An interaction with a single particle only produces a larger superpostion that includes both particles. No what decoherence requires is an interaction with a very large number of particles such as is required for us to observe anything. SO YES, you are quite correct that our being aware of it does not in of itself have anything to do with it. It is the process by which we become aware of it that changes things. Schrodinger's cat is a great example. There is no dead-alive cat because our looking in the box changes nothing. That is absurd. The decision of whether the cat lives or dies does not happen because of our awareness but happens in the process of decoherence as one (or few) particles affect the behavior of trillions of particles.

    But what you don't seem to have grasped is the nature of the change, which also is not some change in our knowledge of what is happening but an actual change in the state of those one (or few) particles from a superposition with respect one sort of measurement (decoherence interaction) to an eigenstate of that measurement (which is usually a superpostion with respect to some other sort of measurement -- some other kind of decoherence interaction). That is what makes the interference pattern in the two slit experiment disappear, because you cannot have an interference pattern unless the photons go through both slits at the same time. So the point is that before the decoherence interaction there simply is nothing there to know - THERE IS NO "which slit the photon went through" because the photon really does go through BOTH slits at the same time.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Do you think this would have the same affect when it interacts with the particle? Is this spiritual energy the way God interacts with the world, i.e. how he is able to know your very thoughts?
    Yes I did talk about spiritual forms of energy interacting with physical forms of energy, but this has nothing to do with what we were talking about because assuming that God requires no such interaction in order to know things, changes NOTHING. It still remains a question of whether the future exists as a superpostion of possibilities or not. For if it does not, then just saying that the future doesn't exist but can only play out one way is pretty much the same as saying that the DVD player hasn't reach that part of the DVD. This doesn't change the fact that its just a recording - a 4+ dimensional static object. And I don't believe that anything in such a world has any more life or free will than the contents of that DVD.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If indeed determinism and hidden variable theory were correct, then I too would think that God would have no trouble seeing what we will choose before we make our choices BUT as an incompatibilist I do NOT believe that this is free will or in fact that that anything in such a universe can be called alive any more than the contents of a DVD recording can be called alive.
    This is what I meant with God maybe being able to look at the future in the same way we can look at the past. When you watch a DVD of a football game, it does not affect the free will of the people while they were playing the game?
    Right. But I don't believe that the difference between a novel (or DVD) and real life is nothing but the level of detail recorded. I believe that the creation of life is a fundamentally different thing than writing a novel.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I don't believe the purpose is found in any kind of micromanagement design, but in the nature of life itself which is antithetical to design. In other words, His answer to this would be that it is your life -- He will make suggestions if you allow Him -- but He will not live your life for you. He will only intervene (altering the environment) when the survival of our free will requires it.
    I understand. I just think that even those babies that get born only to die a slow death must also have a purpose to their own life other than affecting people around them. We sit in our frankly cosy lives, while a very large part of the world consists out of people that do not have the mental/physical ability or opportunity to make any of the choices we can or be able to experience the luxury of spiritual growth, wonder or excitement other than when the UN decides to drop off a sack of maze.
    So? I believe that in order to be consistent with His intent to create living things, the only way God can do anything about such things is pretty much the same as that by which God created human life in first place - that which is objectively described as evolution - social as well as biological. God will not intervene in a way that destroys our free will, and taking responsibility for things in our physical life would do that because free will and responsibility are inseperable. Now a lot of Christians believe that God can intercede in response to prayer and I think that this is possible because God may be able to intercede to the degree that this prayer can be said to be an excercise of responsibility - which we can certainly say is a rather limited degree of responsibility.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Of course, the problem is to try and figure out what remains after every part of our being that was involved with our earthly existence becomes obsolete.
    I believe that what remains is our choices, but since our choices only have meaning in context, to some degree this means our choices drag a great deal of everything else with them. But of course that is my speculation. Where I become more uncertain is the degree to which logic as we understand it actually depends on the way in which we experience physical life and if the logic changes too substantially then I must wonder how much of our mind and mental achievement have any meaning in our existence after death?



    P.S. Your edit of my quote "BUT as an incompatibility I do NOT believe" changing the word "incompatabilist" to "incompatibility" was odd, or was it a spell checker of some sort that didn't know the word I used?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    [quote="Greatest I am"]
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    [
    All humans display variety and all humans suffer from fallibility. For as long as one draws up an image of god based on human fallibility (whether its the fallible mind or the fallible digestive tract) one will have a fallible god.
    To me, the word God is a title only, not an entity.
    God should then evolve along with man. A bench marc that we try to attain.
    Once there we raise the bar again.

    The first God was a man. The last will be a man, not some alien super God.
    I kind of figured that was your angle.
    I'm simply suggesting that there are other angles.

    None but men have ever spoken for God. We should recognize this as fact.
    what this says, particularly to the degree that god is manlike or man is godlike, is subject to debate however.

    Issues of a personal and private nature should be dictated by individuals, not God.
    that doesn't make sense since even mundane secular government dictates, by necessity, many things to overpower the will of particular individuals

    You might note all the interesting laws in scripture that any sane person should ignore.
    You also might note that applying things relevant to time, place and circumstance is the unique priority of persons capable of application

    Can God be fallible? Certainly.
    then right off the bat you are dealing with a creation that has no requirement for a god, so any further speculations into his wife et al is spurious
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65 Re: God’s Wife. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    God decided not to interfere with us. We are an experiment, and are not special by any means. And by 'we are an experiment' I don't mean people, I mean life. Perhaps God developed a method to create life, and after inciting the experiment (The Universe) he decided to let it run it's course and observe what happens. Maybe he is constantly observing us, never allowing himself to interfere, for the sake of seeing how life will behave without him... Never know, really.
    Is Sodom or Noah's genocidal flood examples of non interference?
    Yes, they are. They are the example of an insane man's ramblings and show how when a 'burning bush' talk to you, all kinds of crazy ideas come out.
    The above is not my quote.

    Regards
    DL

    moderator: fixed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Of course, the problem is to try and figure out what remains after every part of our being that was involved with our earthly existence becomes obsolete.
    I believe that what remains is our choices, but since our choices only have meaning in context, to some degree this means our choices drag a great deal of everything else with them. But of course that is my speculation. Where I become more uncertain is the degree to which logic as we understand it actually depends on the way in which we experience physical life and if the logic changes too substantially then I must wonder how much of our mind and mental achievement have any meaning in our existence after death?
    By my humble assessment, what remains is - the result of our choices, and INTELLIGENCE (alternatively TRUTH).

    Truth has never been the property of 'me', for it is something that stands alone - with or without my acknowledgement or acceptance.

    It is pride and arrogance that would find me regarding any understanding of TRUTH as being my own, for the only thing I have ever been able to bring to the table towards any insight I may have, is my choice of interest and a little time – for the reality (of whatever) to be revealed to my knowledge base. In fact, my UNDERSTANDING is the compounded stockpile of factual data, as revealed to me throughout my years, and therefore I would argue that my INTELLECT is fundamentally an eternal thing, for it is inextricably tied to the undeniable eternal reality. Furthermore, it is entirely SPIRITUAL, for it has zero physical properties, and of course; is the first wellspring towards my thoughts and actions.

    My emotions on the other hand, will entirely expire with my flesh, but had little value to offer in the overall experience of my years. For they have NEVER been about truth as such, but profoundly about my mortality - as corruptible, temporal and fanciful as it undeniably is. They are likewise entirely SPIRITUAL, and represent the other dimension of ‘me’ - the second (opposing) wellspring from which all my thoughts and decisions to enact are generated.

    Therefore again; only the eternal, unrelenting reality of TRUTH, and my choice between an overriding acceptance of UNDERSTANDING (this TRUTH) vs. the wavering temporal alternative wrought by my counterbalancing emotions, will succeed my allotted years.

    Unfortunately the vast majority of mankind lives by the creed ‘If it feels good – go there’, which is clearly a choice of surrender to that SPIRITUAL half of ‘me’, which will expire with ‘my’ last breath, thereby rejecting the other eternal SPIRITUAL wellspring.

    Interestingly enough, via this appreciation, eternity and intelligence have absolutely NOTHING to do with time or space, yet emotions are inextricably entwined in both.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I don't think emotions expire with flesh mainly because I believe spiritual beings have feelings/emotions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I don't think emotions expire with flesh mainly because I believe spiritual beings have feelings/emotions.
    There are diseases (take depression for example) that cause people to have little or no control over their emotions, so if emotions survive death then does that mean that the effects of these diseases are inescapable?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Spirituality is the "world" of illusions. There is a divine "world", but nothing worth pondering. Not because there is nothing worth knowing, but because we are not capable of knowing.

    God is a symbol of unity, wholeness, and is thus complete. Woman and man are symbolic of duality, each half of a whole. Marriage is symbolic of their union. God has no need to be married, because God is not divided.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I don't think emotions expire with flesh mainly because I believe spiritual beings have feelings/emotions.
    There are diseases (take depression for example) that cause people to have little or no control over their emotions, so if emotions survive death then does that mean that the effects of these diseases are inescapable?
    Mitchell,

    I don't think that diseases will enter the spiritual world, just as sin and the other maladies of mankind will probably be absent.

    I agree with Marcus that God does not have a wife since God is whole and I have not seen any scripture discuss such a concept.

    However, I disagree that we are not capable of "knowing" about the emotions/personalities/feelings of the divine because I believe that God does want us to know Him in this life. Personally, I believe that God would prefer that we follow His will in this life not because of fear of Hell etc., but because His will in this life is the best possible life we could have, and fear of "letting Him down" would motivate us enough.

    Thus, since I believe there is evidence that God has emotions and a personality, then we will also have emotions after we die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I don't think emotions expire with flesh mainly because I believe spiritual beings have feelings/emotions.
    Hmm. What emotion would god have had when he used genocide against man in Noah's day if not hate? How about Sodom, was that hate as well?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Spirituality is the "world" of illusions. There is a divine "world", but nothing worth pondering. Not because there is nothing worth knowing, but because we are not capable of knowing.

    God is a symbol of unity, wholeness, and is thus complete.
    My way or hell, does not sound like unity to me. it sound divisive.

    Woman and man are symbolic of duality, each half of a whole. Marriage is symbolic of their union. God has no need to be married, because God is not divided.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Hmm. What emotion would god have had when he used genocide against man in Noah's day if not hate? How about Sodom, was that hate as well?
    Regret. "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Hmm. What emotion would god have had when he used genocide against man in Noah's day if not hate? How about Sodom, was that hate as well?
    Regret. "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."
    LOL.

    True to your avatar I see or was that a joke.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Hmm. What emotion would god have had when he used genocide against man in Noah's day if not hate? How about Sodom, was that hate as well?
    Regret. "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."
    By killing the whole world except for eight people, he effectively cast the whole world into hell, if the Bible's criteria is to be believed. I can't think that he would experience worse pain than millions of people burning for an eternity in a lake of sulfur.

    Anyway, Mitchell, I will still reply to you. In the mean time, yes, my Word 2007 spell checker auto altered that word I think. :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    By killing the whole world except for eight people, he effectively cast the whole world into hell, if the Bible's criteria is to be believed. I can't think that he would experience worse pain than millions of people burning for an eternity in a lake of sulfur.
    He asked for an alternative emotion. I gave him one. It will be helpful to your understanding of my posts if you note the distinction between fact, hypothesis, opinion and simple observation. This was a simple observation with no personal viewpoint expressed and no assessment of the plausibility of the observation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    By killing the whole world except for eight people, he effectively cast the whole world into hell, if the Bible's criteria is to be believed. I can't think that he would experience worse pain than millions of people burning for an eternity in a lake of sulfur.
    He asked for an alternative emotion. I gave him one. It will be helpful to your understanding of my posts if you note the distinction between fact, hypothesis, opinion and simple observation. This was a simple observation with no personal viewpoint expressed and no assessment of the plausibility of the observation.
    I guess I should have provided a clearer indication than an emoticon that I was simply being facetious. Lesson learned.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchellmckain
    LOL But that is impossible! Deterministic chaotic processes can only exist on paper, or in other purely abstract symbolic media. Chaotic systems are only predictable when you know the initial conditions to a infinite degree of precision, but you can only have that degree of precision on paper where you set the initial conditions yourself. Reality is a quantum reality and that means that initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision simply DO NOT EXIST and therefore any process dependent on initial conditions to that degree must NECESSARILY be determined by the outcome of quantum fluctuations........Sorry but that only works for linear processes not nonlinear processes. This was the whole point of discovery chaotic dynamics, that the way in which fluctuations averaged out in linear processes does not hold for nonlinear processes. So while the statisical analysis of large numbers in a linear system produces deterministic behavior, this does not work in nonlinear systems like the weather and in living organisms. At least, you have to move to an even larger scale where linearity is restored to some degree. So for a trivial example the behavior of animals on the earth has no effect on the motion of the planets. LOL
    This is more or less what I mean. I am of the opinion (if this is obviously wrong I will be glad to change it) that there is a jump in scale (no link of consequence) between a determining effect of random fluctuations on relevant initial conditions and the scale of the processes which your decisions act on and your consciousness operates at. What makes you you and all the chemical and electrical processes and patterns that constitutes it are found in chaotic systems, rather than random quantum ones. Therefore, God knowing what your decisions will be won't determine the outcome. Whether we know what the half life of an element is or not, measuring it won't cause it to change. Similarly, if our decisions won't be determined by observing them, then God with his infinite abilities, which includes knowing all the initial conditions, won't change what those choices would be.

    Perhaps I am still misunderstanding. Chaotic processes are still causal, both linear and non-linear, but we cannot predict non-linear chaotic cascades because of an infinite number of contributing factors, right? Would you still think free will exists if our whole consciousness could be described by exclusively chaotic processes, even if it included non-linear ones?

    I fully accept that my understanding of things could be way off and I appreciate your patience!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I think "regret" is a reasonable interpretation of what God might have felt after the flood, since He said that there would not be another mass extinction from a flood.

    There seems to be a paradox regarding whether or not people have free will. If God is almighty then He should have the ability to create beings with free will.

    Thus, although God can see all possible futures, the beings He creates may act in ways that cause "surprise", "dismay", or "joy" to God.

    For example, if someone has a child, they may be fully aware of "possibilities" if that child goes out with his friends. However, if the child chooses to drink and drive, and this results in a tragedy, then the parent would be both surprised and dismayed.

    Thus, the ability to see possible futures, does not mean that the future is fixed or that people do not have free will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchellmckain
    LOL But that is impossible! Deterministic chaotic processes can only exist on paper, or in other purely abstract symbolic media. Chaotic systems are only predictable when you know the initial conditions to a infinite degree of precision, but you can only have that degree of precision on paper where you set the initial conditions yourself. Reality is a quantum reality and that means that initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision simply DO NOT EXIST and therefore any process dependent on initial conditions to that degree must NECESSARILY be determined by the outcome of quantum fluctuations........Sorry but that only works for linear processes not nonlinear processes. This was the whole point of discovery chaotic dynamics, that the way in which fluctuations averaged out in linear processes does not hold for nonlinear processes. So while the statisical analysis of large numbers in a linear system produces deterministic behavior, this does not work in nonlinear systems like the weather and in living organisms. At least, you have to move to an even larger scale where linearity is restored to some degree. So for a trivial example the behavior of animals on the earth has no effect on the motion of the planets. LOL
    This is more or less what I mean. I am of the opinion (if this is obviously wrong I will be glad to change it) that there is a jump in scale (no link of consequence) between a determining effect of random fluctuations on relevant initial conditions and the scale of the processes which your decisions act on and your consciousness operates at.
    YES, so the question is whether small fluctuation effect the course of events on the larger scale? And the answer is that in linear system they do not but in non-linear systems they do.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Therefore, God knowing what your decisions will be won't determine the outcome. Whether we know what the half life of an element is or not, measuring it won't cause it to change. Similarly, if our decisions won't be determined by observing them, then God with his infinite abilities, which includes knowing all the initial conditions, won't change what those choices would be.
    Huh? But by finding out how a particle will react to a particular measurement, you force that particle into an eigenstate of that measurement which means that you know the result of any such measurement thereafter. That is the whole point. Either something is in superposition for a measurement or it isn't. If it is then it doesn't have a particular value for that measurement capable of being known. If it isn't in a superpostion for a measurement (in an eigenstate for that measurement) then the result of that measurement is predetermined and completely predictable.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Chaotic processes are still causal, both linear and non-linear, but we cannot predict non-linear chaotic cascades because of an infinite number of contributing factors, right? Would you still think free will exists if our whole consciousness could be described by exclusively chaotic processes, even if it included non-linear ones?
    No, chaos is not produced by infinite number of contributing factors but an infinite sensitivity to even just one contributing factor. No there is no free will in chaotic dynamics alone, for on paper a chaotic system is completely deterministic. They are just mathematical equations after all. Every time we caclulate a value in a particular location of the Mandelbrot set we get precisely the same answer. Chaotic processes produce a kind of infinite complexity but it does so in exactly the same way every time - ON PAPER.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Perhaps I am still misunderstanding.
    ...
    I fully accept that my understanding of things could be way off and I appreciate your patience!
    Ok let me try this a different way... We know that when we measure some aspect of a particle that it can be in a superposition and thus the result of that measurement will not only be unpredictable but that we have proven there can be no hidden variables that determine the result of the measurement. So what is it that makes such a measurement different than any other event in the physical world? Clearly there is nothing magical or supernatural about our measuring devices right? Therefore they operate by the same physical laws that govern the course of events in nature, right? But by and large most physical processes are determistic so what makes these measurements in quatum physics so different?

    The answer is amplification. In these measurements we must necessarily make the behavior of trillions of particles depend on a characteristic of just that one particle. That is where the decoherence occurs that forces the particle from a superpostion state into an eigenstate. So if we want to understand where determinism breaks down in natural processes we have to ask what kind of processes exhibit this kind of amplification?

    Well the answer is the same kind of nonlinearity that we see in chaotic dynamics. This is the butterfly effect. In a nonlinear system, some of the fluctuations are amplified until they effect the behavior of the whole system. This is not something that stops at butterflies. When Ilya Priogine proved that you had to have initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision that means that NO fluctuation is too small. It means that nonlinear systems make the behavior of the whole system depend on the characteristics of a single particle just like in these measurements in quantum physics.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I guess I should have provided a clearer indication than an emoticon that I was simply being facetious. Lesson learned.
    It will be helpful to my understanding of your posts if I pay attention. (Serious of appropraite emoticons to be imagined at this point.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Hmm. What emotion would god have had when he used genocide against man in Noah's day if not hate? How about Sodom, was that hate as well?
    Regret. "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."
    By killing the whole world except for eight people, he effectively cast the whole world into hell, if the Bible's criteria is to be believed. I can't think that he would experience worse pain than millions of people burning for an eternity in a lake of sulfur.

    Anyway, Mitchell, I will still reply to you. In the mean time, yes, my Word 2007 spell checker auto altered that word I think. :wink:
    God must be S & M then. That means that He would have enjoyed the pain. No wonder then that He did what He did. It must have been quite the orgasmic experience. At end time, He is supposed to use fire. I wonder what king of orgasm that will give Him.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I think "regret" is a reasonable interpretation of what God might have felt after the flood, since He said that there would not be another mass extinction from a flood.
    It would certainly seem apparent that there is a promise of no further mass destruction as such by a flood of water, yet by my interpretation of scriptural text, there is certainly another adjustment of planet encompassing magnitude ahead - this time via a far more destructive consequence; being a flood of fire. Interestingly enough, this extinction has been also expressed as 'eternal', and widely interpreted by the ongoing (physical) religious misappropriation of a (spiritual) observation, as 'hell'.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    There seems to be a paradox regarding whether or not people have free will. If God is almighty then He should have the ability to create beings with free will.

    Thus, although God can see all possible futures, the beings He creates may act in ways that cause "surprise", "dismay", or "joy" to God.

    For example, if someone has a child, they may be fully aware of "possibilities" if that child goes out with his friends. However, if the child chooses to drink and drive, and this results in a tragedy, then the parent would be both surprised and dismayed.

    Thus, the ability to see possible futures, does not mean that the future is fixed or that people do not have free will.
    I cannot fathom how any reasoning, deductive intellect can entertain for more than a couple of seconds; any concept of the normally functioning human being being somehow deprived of ‘free will’.

    If we lacked free will, I might be compelled to correct the above (initially coincidental) duplication of ‘being’ without giving it a second consideration, yet I will for the purposes of an exercise in the painfully obvious, now freely select ‘submit’ with the error intact. For mine, it is as self explanatory as all that.

    It would seem that sometimes we can become so determined on the excessively cerebral and avant-garde, that we risk losing touch with the obvious and self evident.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Ok let me try this a different way.......It means that nonlinear systems make the behavior of the whole system depend on the characteristics of a single particle just like in these measurements in quantum physics.
    This and the rest makes it clearer, thanks. I guess I just don't understand how the random behaviour of one particle would change the outcome of deterministic systems. I don't quite understand where the jump comes in.

    With the half life of an element, the decay of any single particle is entirely random, but the larger the clump of matter you have, the more precise you would be able to predict the percentages as times goes on. So with this knowledge you can build a very precise atomic clock and the time it keeps in that sense becomes somewhat linearly deterministic. I can't think, though, of any examples of non-linear cascades. Would a mud slide be linear or non-linear? A crowd clapping hands? I keep thinking that our consciousness may be influenced by random occurrences, but at the exact time of making a decision, those factors all influence the decision directly.

    A similar situation would be if you had a 10<sup>100</sup> differently coloured round dices, each colour representing one factor that determines how you will act or choose and the numbers on the dice represents the precise nature/degree of that factor. You then throw them down a mountain. Each factor is then subject to random changes as it tumbles down until it lands on a value and then the collection of factors directly determine how your consciousness, in the state it is at at that point in time, will decide.

    I don't quite see where free will comes in or even where it fits into the picture and how we can act on it without automatically being determinant in doing so. I don't see how it could make sense without our consciousness being independent to some degree. I don't understand how or where free will and random fluctuations fit into each other. Do you understand what I mean?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Hmm. What emotion would god have had when he used genocide against man in Noah's day if not hate? How about Sodom, was that hate as well?
    Regret. "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."
    By killing the whole world except for eight people, he effectively cast the whole world into hell, if the Bible's criteria is to be believed. I can't think that he would experience worse pain than millions of people burning for an eternity in a lake of sulfur.
    For mine, the problem here, as in all discussions and observations of religious hue, is the ongoing bent on this physical/spiritual concoction 'God', being removed and detached – either as a loving generous Father, or a heartless despot. Yet regardless of how we might visualize this entity – even those of us who do not ‘believe’ as such, would still see his residing in some remote utopian environment, whilst perhaps observing on his wide plasma screen; our world and it’s struggles as some kind of petri dish full of the consequence of good vs. evil.

    When are we going to recognize and embrace the obvious realisation that this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever on a scientific, or for that matter- ANY logical basis, and start to make an adjustment or two based upon a far purer reasoning and perception?
    **Actually, to be fair - it DOES make sense – on the fanciful, mythical, unidentifiable, unexplainable, unreal, religious front.

    But notice something here; the ethereal and unrecognisable nature of the above observation happily suits (ONLY) - religion and the religious - for it is this style of passively drowsy determination that thrives on the secretive and recondite - thereby making it immune and excused form all acquisitive investigation; yet surely this is not where we would determine ourselves to remain in this era of enlightenment - or is it?

    Well, it sure is NOT acceptable in my world, for I have long rejected any tendency on the part of Apopohis Reject at a complacent laziness towards the requirement of a reasoned investigative process in such matters. This required at first; a conscious rejection of anything that makes no sense - regardless of how scary such a objective might sound - in the trusting expectation that if it was ultimately to be proven correct, it would again present as such - via an alternative seeking based upon logic, and necessarily removed from anything universally binding due to any pervasive religious overview.

    Not surprisingly, the return of anything profoundly ethereal failed to eventuate, yet something infinitely more real and attainable stepped in to fill the breech.

    Sadly, and perhaps even less surprising; those of religious buttressing seem highly offended by such emerging clarity.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I don't think emotions expire with flesh mainly because I believe spiritual beings have feelings/emotions.
    Hmm. What emotion would god have had when he used genocide against man in Noah's day if not hate? How about Sodom, was that hate as well?

    Regards
    DL
    I'm not sure how you figured that, since if the wielder of emotions (both god and ourselves) is tentatively held to have an existence beyond death
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    This required at first; a conscious rejection of anything that makes no sense
    That is not a good idea. Things are not required to make sense for them to be true. Even the most intelligent and informed person cannot claim that something has to make sense for it to be true.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This required at first; a conscious rejection of anything that makes no sense
    That is not a good idea. Things are not required to make sense for them to be true. Even the most intelligent and informed person cannot claim that something has to make sense for it to be true.
    The 'anything that makes no sense' of my previous post would have more comprehensively been worded ' anything that requires the imposition of circumstances that are in defiance of the known, logical and reasoned.

    Thank you for the clarification. Even so, the point of the post was to do with the observation that we do NOT have to sedately settle for the (almost) universally accepted 'unattainable and ethereal', as if we have no option other than to remain as having lost touch with our powers of reasoning.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I think "regret" is a reasonable interpretation of what God might have felt after the flood, since He said that there would not be another mass extinction from a flood.
    It would certainly seem apparent that there is a promise of no further mass destruction as such by a flood of water, yet by my interpretation of scriptural text, there is certainly another adjustment of planet encompassing magnitude ahead - this time via a far more destructive consequence; being a flood of fire. Interestingly enough, this extinction has been also expressed as 'eternal', and widely interpreted by the ongoing (physical) religious misappropriation of a (spiritual) observation, as 'hell'.
    I believe you are correct. However, I cannot quote which part of the Bible says this.
    My main concern about whether a large sudden population decline could occur does not come from the Bible, it is because we remain in the nuclear age, and I don't see that much in the way of moral evolution since the genocides of the 20th Century.


    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I cannot fathom how any reasoning, deductive intellect can entertain for more than a couple of seconds; any concept of the normally functioning human being being somehow deprived of ‘free will’.

    If we lacked free will, I might be compelled to correct the above (initially coincidental) duplication of ‘being’ without giving it a second consideration, yet I will for the purposes of an exercise in the painfully obvious, now freely select ‘submit’ with the error intact. For mine, it is as self explanatory as all that.

    It would seem that sometimes we can become so determined on the excessively cerebral and avant-garde, that we risk losing touch with the obvious and self evident.
    Agreed. However, I think it is a mistake to go too far in applying the "scientific method" to determine whether or not God exists or what His nature is. Religion is not science any more than a sport is a science. A sport cannot be learned from journals. Understanding of a sport really only comes from participation; although, a superficial knowledge can come from observation.

    I believe that understanding of God's existence comes from God directly to the believer who seeks God. In my opinion this has very little relation to "childhood indoctrination and upbringing". It seems to be more related to a conscious decision on the part of the believer to seek out God in a "relationship". This is not something that is "reproducible" any more than any other relationship is reproducible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I cannot fathom how any reasoning, deductive intellect can entertain for more than a couple of seconds; any concept of the normally functioning human being being somehow deprived of ‘free will’.

    If we lacked free will, I might be compelled to correct the above (initially coincidental) duplication of ‘being’ without giving it a second consideration, yet I will for the purposes of an exercise in the painfully obvious, now freely select ‘submit’ with the error intact. For mine, it is as self explanatory as all that.

    It would seem that sometimes we can become so determined on the excessively cerebral and avant-garde, that we risk losing touch with the obvious and self evident.
    Agreed. However, I think it is a mistake to go too far in applying the "scientific method" to determine whether or not God exists or what His nature is. Religion is not science any more than a sport is a science. A sport cannot be learned from journals. Understanding of a sport really only comes from participation; although, a superficial knowledge can come from observation.

    I believe that understanding of God's existence comes from God directly to the believer who seeks God.
    For mine, this is a common and profoundly understandable misconception - which included my position of just a few years ago.

    What you express as 'comes from God directly to the believer who seeks God’ would more correctly be worded ‘comes directly from an (almost) inbuilt, highly inculcated reliance upon what is an almost universal acceptance’ – that ‘God’ exists, and especially what/whom/where he is.

    This is the result of years, centuries and millenniums of drip feeding into the air into which we are born to breathe. We fundamentally know of no other, much less; a reasonable alternative to such an incredibly impossible synopsis - which is precisely the same as what our parents, grandparents and so on down the line - and then - we were born into.

    Therefore, from deep within our gut, comes forth a predilection to fall into line with the overriding pervasive atmosphere, even if our intellect KNOWS it makes little sense to our every reason.

    This truly is NOT 'God' talking to you my friend, it is centuries of evolutionary deception, as drip fed via both a conclusive and subliminal (yet obvious to all who seek to notice) - process of fear based indoctrination by religion - all religion, no less.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ok let me try this a different way.......It means that nonlinear systems make the behavior of the whole system depend on the characteristics of a single particle just like in these measurements in quantum physics.
    This and the rest makes it clearer, thanks. I guess I just don't understand how the random behaviour of one particle would change the outcome of deterministic systems. I don't quite understand where the jump comes in.

    With the half life of an element, the decay of any single particle is entirely random, but the larger the clump of matter you have, the more precise you would be able to predict the percentages as times goes on. So with this knowledge you can build a very precise atomic clock and the time it keeps in that sense becomes somewhat linearly deterministic. I can't think, though, of any examples of non-linear cascades. Would a mud slide be linear or non-linear? A crowd clapping hands? I keep thinking that our consciousness may be influenced by random occurrences, but at the exact time of making a decision, those factors all influence the decision directly.

    A similar situation would be if you had a 10<sup>100</sup> differently coloured round dices, each colour representing one factor that determines how you will act or choose and the numbers on the dice represents the precise nature/degree of that factor. You then throw them down a mountain. Each factor is then subject to random changes as it tumbles down until it lands on a value and then the collection of factors directly determine how your consciousness, in the state it is at at that point in time, will decide.

    I don't quite see where free will comes in or even where it fits into the picture and how we can act on it without automatically being determinant in doing so. I don't see how it could make sense without our consciousness being independent to some degree. I don't understand how or where free will and random fluctuations fit into each other. Do you understand what I mean?
    It is interesting that some authors are starting to try and explain historical events including war as well as societal collapse using the principles of non-linear systems.

    Although this is a small group of authors in the foreign policy arena, some of them have backgrounds in physics (like Mitchell).

    It is hard to know which principles apply in a given situation. I think that most of the authors are talking about self organizing systems that organize to a "critical state" to explain "cascades" of change such as war. I believe this is called "self-organized criticality" or SOC.

    I think the classic computer model is a sand pile where sand falls on a table and avalanches, or "cascades" occur that can be small or catastrophic. However, the frequency and severity of avalanches is described by a power law.

    Thus, the start of WW I, triggered by the assassination of Duke Ferdinand in the Balkans, would be an example of a huge avalanche or cascade.

    Many natural systems work this way, like earth quakes, forest fires, and wars.

    My take on this is that this is the most survivable way to "manage" change in a system subject to some continual input of a "stressor", such as fuel in the forest, or tension in the Earth's crust. (Otherwise, the Earth would be "vibrating' all the time.)

    Unfortunately, if there is some "stressor" that causes people to kill each other in groups, we don't know what it is, or what any "counter variables" might be (such as rain in the forest).

    It would be interesting to see if anyone has written a paper that attributes a sudden historical change in human affairs to an amplified effect in a chaotic system (the butterfly effect). I believe this might apply more to preventing catastrophic failure in ships at sea, and in error prevention in high risk areas like aviation where "standardization" is known to prevent huge outliers (catastrophe).

    Clearly, God would know the identity of any causal variables that create cascades, and He should be able to see if they are "building up", making prophecy possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    [quote="Apopohis Reject"][quote="dedo"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    This truly is NOT 'God' talking to you my friend, it is centuries of evolutionary deception, as drip fed via a conclusive and subliminal, yet obvious to all who seek to notice - process of fear based indoctrination by religion - all religion, no less.
    The funny thing is there does not seem to be much talk from religion (in my experience) about this sort of thing.

    I am sure you listen to your conscience, and do many good things. A believer would say you are in contact with God.

    I am only saying that it can be taken farther than this. Also, I believe that this is not necessarily related to merit, or righteousness etc., but is related to God's purpose and the efforts of the believer. God's purpose could be to save a misfit, which could mean someone who has seen little, could be way ahead of someone who has seen much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ok let me try this a different way.......It means that nonlinear systems make the behavior of the whole system depend on the characteristics of a single particle just like in these measurements in quantum physics.
    This and the rest makes it clearer, thanks. I guess I just don't understand how the random behaviour of one particle would change the outcome of deterministic systems. I don't quite understand where the jump comes in.
    Well they wouldn't by definition. If the random (non-deterministic) behavior of one particle changes the outcome of a system then clearly you cannot say that the system is deterministic. However I think you mean that you cannot see how a system where all the large scale processes going on are deterministic in nature can be affected by the the behavior of a random particle. Well to answer that we need a more precise language. It would seem that a system is basically deterministic when its behavior is governed by a mathematical equation. The problem with nonlinear equations, however is that their instability makes this intuitive connection a lot weaker because these equations have no effective predictive power, because what they would predict always depends on things we cannot know. We don't have that trouble on paper or in a computer program because we just plug in whatever values we choose and thus get a definite answer.



    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    With the half life of an element, the decay of any single particle is entirely random, but the larger the clump of matter you have, the more precise you would be able to predict the percentages as times goes on. So with this knowledge you can build a very precise atomic clock and the time it keeps in that sense becomes somewhat linearly deterministic. I can't think, though, of any examples of non-linear cascades. Would a mud slide be linear or non-linear? A crowd clapping hands?
    So the question is what makes a system nonlinear. Well it is some sort of feedback mechanism where the result of a process effects the process itself. Your atomic clock wouldn't work if a significant portion of the decays triggered other atoms to decay. This is what happens in a nuclear bomb or a meltdown. In a nuclear reactor, the control rods absorb neutrons in order to prevent them from inducing further decays and starting a cascading chain reaction. They make the reaction linear and thus give it safety region of linearity where the control rods can be adjusted to keep it under control.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I keep thinking that our consciousness may be influenced by random occurrences, but at the exact time of making a decision, those factors all influence the decision directly.

    A similar situation would be if you had a 10<sup>100</sup> differently coloured round dices, each colour representing one factor that determines how you will act or choose and the numbers on the dice represents the precise nature/degree of that factor. You then throw them down a mountain. Each factor is then subject to random changes as it tumbles down until it lands on a value and then the collection of factors directly determine how your consciousness, in the state it is at at that point in time, will decide.

    I don't quite see where free will comes in or even where it fits into the picture and how we can act on it without automatically being determinant in doing so. I don't see how it could make sense without our consciousness being independent to some degree. I don't understand how or where free will and random fluctuations fit into each other. Do you understand what I mean?
    Oh yes I do indeed understand what you mean. But in that we have wandered far afield of our original discussion about the compatability of free will and an absoulute foreknowledge of God. I have certainly explained how I do not see any possibility for free will in a deterministic system where the future is not an unresolvable superposition of possibilities. This is of course because the free will I am talking about is an incompatibilist free will. But I believe that the question that you are now raising is whether such an idea of free will makes any sense at all.

    First lets clarify what we are talking about. This incompatibilist free will is the idea of free will where we are the cause of our actions but our actions are not determined by pre-existing conditions. This might seems like a direct contradiction to you but that is because you are limiting yourself to time-ordered causality. I don't believe in the kind of free will where what we become is only a product of what we have been. I believe that the cause of our actions is found in what we become not in what we have been. Now just for a moment assume that this is in fact correct and consider what the scientific world view would observe of such a process. It would see events occuring that have no cause (no hidden variables) within the assumptions of local causality (assumption upon which Bell's inequality was based), which is exactly what it does observe.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    This truly is NOT 'God' talking to you my friend, it is centuries of evolutionary deception, as drip fed via a conclusive and subliminal, yet obvious to all who seek to notice - process of fear based indoctrination by religion - all religion, no less.
    The funny thing is there does not seem to be much talk from religion (in my experience) about this sort of thing.
    Strange that, huh?

    Now why would you suppose that the religious world - above everyone else; would design to keep such observations as hidden from general view?

    Helpful Hint; to get you started; you may notice that the solution to this conundrum may contain a very similar resonance to the one which witnessed countless thousands (millions/billions?) innocent people martyred for recognising such realities that conflicted with the all conquering universal religion, as issuing from Rome. Aditionally (for instance), less than just 400 years ago; saw Galileo being ostracised mercilessly for suggesting the heretical, audacious and revolutionary concept that the sun did not rotate around the earth.

    Do you still think it funny, my friend?

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I am sure you listen to your conscience, and do many good things. A believer would say you are in contact with God.
    I can assure you to my dying breath - I am NOT, and never again will be convinced otherwise - that I am in contact with anything remotely resembling a physical/spiritual construct 'God'.

    What I am in contact with by design and focus; is my (non-emotional) intellectual suggestions - at the determined expense of my (non-intellectual) emotional demands. Furthermore, my aim these days, is to evolve along such lines to the fullest extent possible.

    Therefore; 'God' by any religiously constructed definition, will henceforth be fiercely denied a look in - whilst Apopohis Reject has any remnant free will, that is.

    On the other hand my friend, you also have your own free will at your disposal, and therefore may continue if you so please; to serve and love and devote yourself to a catholic mythical illusion; yet Apopohis Reject must send his regrets, that he will certainly NOT be able to join in the party fun - ever again.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I am only saying that it can be taken farther than this
    .
    On that score, we have no suggestion of disparity.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Also, I believe that this is not necessarily related to merit, or righteousness etc., but is related to God's purpose and the efforts of the believer. God's purpose could be to save a misfit
    Provided I accept your illusional ‘God’, which I do NOT – the question remains; save him/her from what, and for what?

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    which could mean someone who has seen little, could be way ahead of someone who has seen much.
    This result, as per your suggestion; is dependant upon what the individual has ‘seen’ via his physical eyesight vs. what he has ‘seen’ via his version spiritual; being a statement, which fundamentally should be more appreciated by a religionist than anyone else. More essential however; is that which underpins such witnessing; indeed being the relevant interpretation/s and gravity placed - from the above observations, that 'he' subsequently permits to become part of the evolving amalgam of ‘himself’.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I don't think emotions expire with flesh mainly because I believe spiritual beings have feelings/emotions.
    Hmm. What emotion would god have had when he used genocide against man in Noah's day if not hate? How about Sodom, was that hate as well?

    Regards
    DL
    I'm not sure how you figured that, since if the wielder of emotions (both god and ourselves) is tentatively held to have an existence beyond death
    We were speaking of God's emotional state as He kills humans. Not if any exist after death.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    This truly is NOT 'God' talking to you my friend, it is centuries of evolutionary deception, as drip fed via a conclusive and subliminal, yet obvious to all who seek to notice - process of fear based indoctrination by religion - all religion, no less.
    The funny thing is there does not seem to be much talk from religion (in my experience) about this sort of thing.
    Strange that, huh?

    Now why would you suppose that the religious world - above everyone else; would design to keep such observations as hidden from general view?
    Actually, I believe the reason for this is that religion can teach people how to approach God. However, no religious leader/teacher can tell someone what God's response will be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    Helpful Hint; to get you started; you may notice that the solution to this conundrum may contain a very similar resonance to the one which witnessed countless thousands (millions/billions?) innocent people martyred for recognising such realities that conflicted with the all conquering universal religion, as issuing from Rome. Aditionally (for instance), less than just 400 years ago; saw Galileo being ostracised mercilessly for suggesting the heretical, audacious and revolutionary concept that the sun did not rotate around the earth.
    I think this is a separate issue and gets to social science, and possibly the application of complex systems theory to social behavior (if such principles are valid). For example, I believe that history does not support the idea that religion causes groups to be violent. Rather, whatever causes groups to become violent can effect secular, atheist, or religious groups.

    The issue of trying to suppress scientific discovery has to do with hierarchical control of groups. Groups with excessive "top-down" control are known to resist change.
    This is the opposite of "adaptation", which is a very healthy aspect of groups that is directly associated with "bottom-up" change. It is not something that is unique to religion.

    Also, Apopo, I did not suggest that you join anything. However, the scripture suggests that God will always welcome you. God is no illusion. Your reaction ("never again") suggests that you had some sort of bad experience with religion/religious, and you were formerly a believer.

    This seems to be common among nonbelievers. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of pattern.

    As far as being "saved", there are two aspects to this. The first involves eternal life in heaven which Christians believe comes from faith in Jesus Christ. However, many Christians also believe that Christ can choose to save nonChristians who live a good life.

    However, my personal belief is that God has a "destiny" for each person that He created, and God's destiny is the best possible life that you can have in terms of making a positive impact on the world. Thus, it is worth trying for. However, not being a Bible scholar, I cannot quote passages to support this belief.

    Best,

    Dedo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    [quote="mitchellmckain"]
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ok let me try this a different way.......It means that nonlinear systems make the behavior of the whole system depend on the characteristics of a single particle just like in these measurements in quantum physics.
    This and the rest makes it clearer, thanks. I guess I just don't understand how the random behaviour of one particle would change the outcome of deterministic systems. I don't quite understand where the jump comes in.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Well they wouldn't by definition. If the random (non-deterministic) behavior of one particle changes the outcome of a system then clearly you cannot say that the system is deterministic. However I think you mean that you cannot see how a system where all the large scale processes going on are deterministic in nature can be affected by the the behavior of a random particle. Well to answer that we need a more precise language. It would seem that a system is basically deterministic when its behavior is governed by a mathematical equation. The problem with nonlinear equations, however is that their instability makes this intuitive connection a lot weaker because these equations have no effective predictive power, because what they would predict always depends on things we cannot know. We don't have that trouble on paper or in a computer program because we just plug in whatever values we choose and thus get a definite answer.

    So the question is what makes a system nonlinear. Well it is some sort of feedback mechanism where the result of a process effects the process itself. Your atomic clock wouldn't work if a significant portion of the decays triggered other atoms to decay. This is what happens in a nuclear bomb or a meltdown. In a nuclear reactor, the control rods absorb neutrons in order to prevent them from inducing further decays and starting a cascading chain reaction. They make the reaction linear and thus give it safety region of linearity where the control rods can be adjusted to keep it under control.
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I keep thinking that our consciousness may be influenced by random occurrences, but at the exact time of making a decision, those factors all influence the decision directly.

    I don't quite see where free will comes in or even where it fits into the picture and how we can act on it without automatically being determinant in doing so. I don't see how it could make sense without our consciousness being independent to some degree. I don't understand how or where free will and random fluctuations fit into each other. Do you understand what I mean?
    When you guys study nonlinear systems in physics, do you spend much time on biological systems or on human behavior in groups?

    For example, the concept of "strange attractor" is a hard one for me to grasp and a real world example helps. I saw it used to explain the capsize of a ship in a storm (chaotic seas). This then made it easier to understand emergence of catastrophe in a human system with and without standardization.

    Would a "strange attractor" describe an internet stalker?

    Also, in biological systems like swarms, they seem to be very "adaptive" because they change from the "bottom-up", and have essentially no "top-down" control.
    I read an interesting paper that attributed the loss of the Vietnam war to the failure of Westmoreland to "adapt" compared to his North Vietnamese adversary.

    Understanding the principles of how these systems work in human behavior, can give us insight into how groups behave. Also, our "free will" will be effected if there is "momentum" or forces in the group moving individuals in a particular direction, especially if we are unaware of these forces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    This truly is NOT 'God' talking to you my friend, it is centuries of evolutionary deception, as drip fed via a conclusive and subliminal, yet obvious to all who seek to notice - process of fear based indoctrination by religion - all religion, no less.
    The funny thing is there does not seem to be much talk from religion (in my experience) about this sort of thing.
    Strange that, huh?

    Now why would you suppose that the religious world - above everyone else; would design to keep such observations as hidden from general view?
    Actually, I believe the reason for this is that religion can teach people how to approach God. However, no religious leader/teacher can tell someone what God's response will be.
    Again, you make the fundamentally religious error of perceiving and relating to a generic 'god' as some form of a detached and distant observer being, rather than an intrinsic part of all that exists. There simply is no such removed physical/spiritual entity in order for you to approach; and nor has there ever been.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    However, the scripture suggests that God will always welcome you. God is no illusion. Your reaction ("never again") suggests that you had some sort of bad experience with religion/religious, and you were formerly a believer.
    The 'bad experience' I had was being a part of organised religion for more than 15 years. Even so, serving my time as I did, certainly helped in developing an appreciation of the fundamentals of the endemic destructiveness religion has always enjoyed over the human spirit.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    This seems to be common among nonbelievers. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of pattern.
    Indeed the 'pattern' is all about the worldwide destruction that religion has wrought; as mentioned above.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    As far as being "saved", there are two aspects to this. The first involves eternal life in heaven which Christians believe comes from faith in Jesus Christ. However, many Christians also believe that Christ can choose to save nonChristians who live a good life.
    Religious mumbo jumbo, and not worth the paper upon which even the first word if it was originally written.

    Heck my friend; you can't even explain in greater detail than any 5 year old; just where your 'heaven' is, so why would you ever want to live for eternity there? Provided that is; (*IF*) you have a concept of eternity??

    When you decide to get real about such things, your eyes will begin to open to far greater realities than you can, right now; possibly dream of.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    However, my personal belief is that God has a "destiny" for each person that He created, and God's destiny is the best possible life that you can have in terms of making a positive impact on the world. Thus, it is worth trying for. However, not being a Bible scholar, I cannot quote passages to support this belief.
    My humble suggestion is for you to aim your gunsights at being more of a Bible scholar realist and less of a ethereal religionist.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Again, you make the fundamentally religious error of perceiving and relating to a generic 'god' as some form of a detached and distant observer being, rather than an intrinsic part of all that exists. There simply is no such removed physical/spiritual entity in order for you to approach; and nor has there ever been.
    I am not sure that I disagree with you on this. God is a part of His creation. I don't think He is a detached observer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Indeed the 'pattern' is all about the worldwide destruction that religion has wrought; as mentioned above.
    Violence perpetrated by groups is what causes destruction. I think it was Koestler?
    that said that all the criminal violence in the world is insignificant compared to violence committed by groups. Religion is not the cause of group violence. Otherwise, atheist communists would have been pacifists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    When you guys study nonlinear systems in physics, do you spend much time on biological systems or on human behavior in groups?
    The basic requirement is something that is described or modeled by a non-linear mathematical equation. Certainly this is not applicable to biological systems and human behavior in general but there are cases where such equations exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    For example, the concept of "strange attractor" is a hard one for me to grasp and a real world example helps. I saw it used to explain the capsize of a ship in a storm (chaotic seas). This then made it easier to understand emergence of catastrophe in a human system with and without standardization.

    Would a "strange attractor" describe an internet stalker?
    I don't see the applicability. A strange attractor is simply a system with two fixed point attractors and a region in the state space where determining which attractor dominates the behavior in the short run depends on the state of the system to an infinite degree of precision. The result is usally that in the evolution of the system sometimes it orbits one fixed point and sometime it orbits the other.

    Perhaps peaceful civilized behavior and violent mob-like behavior are two such fixed point attractors in the behavior of a crowd of people. This could be because violence begets violence and the fact that acts of extra-ordinary rationality and altruism inspires others to emulate these same things (notice that these are elements of feedback, which would make such a system non-linear).


    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Understanding the principles of how these systems work in human behavior, can give us insight into how groups behave. Also, our "free will" will be effected if there is "momentum" or forces in the group moving individuals in a particular direction, especially if we are unaware of these forces.
    Not really. I mentioned this before. Even when individual elements are fundamentally unpredictable, this does not preclude large numbers from forming a basically linear and thus predictable system. Furthermore I do not believe that free will is absolute, inviolate or even qualitative in nature, but quantitative and changeable. Our most significant free will choices are those which increase or decrease our free will. I gave an example of how this can happen by explaining that our free will necessarily depends on awareness, but awareness also depends to some degree on knowledge and beliefs.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    When you guys study nonlinear systems in physics, do you spend much time on biological systems or on human behavior in groups?
    The basic requirement is something that is described or modeled by a non-linear mathematical equation. Certainly this is not applicable to biological systems and human behavior in general but there are cases where such equations exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    For example, the concept of "strange attractor" is a hard one for me to grasp and a real world example helps. I saw it used to explain the capsize of a ship in a storm (chaotic seas). This then made it easier to understand emergence of catastrophe in a human system with and without standardization.

    Would a "strange attractor" describe an internet stalker?
    I don't see the applicability. A strange attractor is simply a system with two fixed point attractors and a region in the state space where determining which attractor dominates the behavior in the short run depends on the state of the system to an infinite degree of precision. The result is usally that in the evolution of the system sometimes it orbits one fixed point and sometime it orbits the other.

    Perhaps peaceful civilized behavior and violent mob-like behavior are two such fixed point attractors in the behavior of a crowd of people. This could be because violence begets violence and the fact that acts of extra-ordinary rationality and altruism inspires others to emulate these same things (notice that these are elements of feedback, which would make such a system non-linear).
    Sorry Mitchell, the ref. to "internet stalker" was a lame attempt at humor. I was reading something that advised people to show more "personality" on line, and humor was just an example. I think I will try something else.

    Still it is fascinating to me to try and see if anything can be learned about a human system from principles of how complex systems work. It is easy to over reach, since there are so many variables. However, it may also be possible to find new insights that are otherwise hard to see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •