Dear iidb: Guy babbling about Christ, evolution, and the big bang.

[Jarhyn]

What form of publishing would it look like

Why should we care? It could be a thing from materialization of a book from nothing and for no apparent mechanical reason on the birth of every new human being.

It could be something like the burn-in of data on a CD, where are a specific point in time we just have the knowledge written from mysterious sources directly on our brains.

It doesn't matter what it looks like, so long as there is no material structural link that actually connects the apparent cause (birth) to the apparent effect (materialization).

The fact that nothing like that actually happens, instead with reality happening more as would be expected if the lot of it were no more than a book of human fantasies means that it is more likely "no more than a book of human fantasies".

Strange as it may seem to you. I haven't joined any Christian site at all. Thinking about it now...I'm wondering why not?

Honestly if you had come here from such a community, you probably would have ended up getting banned a very long time ago.

This is because the motives held by someone from such a community entering a community like this one as an "outsider with an established home elsewhere" would and generally does treat their excursions here more like a campaign or series of battles/attacks rather than as an opportunity to build friendships or have real discussions.

The result is that they promptly end up doing the things that get them banned: one-sided proselytizing and PRATT spamming.

Worse, those communities encourage that kind of unacceptable behavior by hyping the false solidity of their arguments and then generating angry frustration when that inevitably turns out to not be the case.

 

[bilby]

You can't really argue with someone, however, once they have abandoned reason...

Then why is the "A Revolution in Thought" thread nearly eight thousand posts long and still going?

 

[WAB]

*bites tongue*

 

[steve_bank]

Reason must be very lonely, always being abandoned and left behind.

 

[southernhybrid]

I have a few thoughts and one question for Learner.

First of all, I have no problem with Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc. I do think that JW's are a bit mean since they cut their friends and family members out of their lives if the person leaves their cult. They do at least care for their own people when they become dependent and old. As a former home health nurse, I've seen that for myself. And, of course there are some other extremist cults, but that's enough of that.

I have Christian friends who never try to convince me to become a Christian and I never try to convince them to leave their religion, even if it's just mythology to me. Some people obviously need some myths in their lives. As long as they use it for good, no problem.

But, I was raised in an evangelical Christian home and the vast majority of the adults in the church who I was forced to attend were mean, judgmental jerks. My mom was an exception although she did believe the hateful hell fire and damnation in her Holy Book.

So, here's the question for Learner. What does it mean to you when you say that Jesus is your savior? What is he saving you from? I was taught that by believing in him, I would be saved from eternal torture in hell. It gave me a lot of cognitive dissonance as a child, despite doing my best to try and believe. Why would an all loving god torture his own creation for eternity just because they didn't believe or thought a different god was the true one? Why does one need religion is they are a good person without it. Why would a loving god care what one believes? Wouldn't a loving god be more concerned with a person's character?

Do you believe in the fire and brimstone, eternal hell where all non Christians will spend eternity? If not, what is Jesus saving you from? Why do you call him your savior? One can certainly be a highly moral person without religion. In fact, almost every atheist I've met in person is a highly moral person, often more so than many Christinas I've known or know. Just curious where you stand on the line when it comes to your beliefs and if you don't believe that Jesus saves you from hell, why are you here trying to convince others that your religion is true?

 

[pood]

You can't really argue with someone, however, once they have abandoned reason...

Then why is the "A Revolution in Thought" thread nearly eight thousand posts long and still going?

We’re just pikers. The same thread at FF had nearly 53,000 posts and almost 12 million views. It also involved input from two astrophysicists, two biologists, a philosophy professor, and a number of other worthies. All was ignored by peacegirl who learned not one goddamned thing.

 

[WAB]

I guess that really showed her!

 

[unapologetic]

Strange as it may seem to you. I haven't joined any Christian site at all. Thinking about it now...I'm wondering why not?

Then why the fuck are you here? You don't seem to be learning anything from us. And I, for one, do not enjoy, or learn from anything you post.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I, for one, do not enjoy, or learn from anything you post.

When I'm in the right mood, I'm really amused by believers who regard the Bible's backward elements: its inhumanity, its overkill (literal overkill), its racism, its barbarism, its Rumpelstiltskin-level story spinning -- and justify it as the coherent masterwork of a deity who radiates goodness, mercy, righteousness, and Love Love Love.
(Sidebar: no wonder so many of 'em love their Trump.)

 

[Learner]

Strange as it may seem to you. I haven't joined any Christian site at all. Thinking about it now...I'm wondering why not?

Then why the fuck are you here? You don't seem to be learning anything from us. And I, for one, do not enjoy, or learn from anything you post.

What was it I'm supposed to learn from you?

If there's any consolation..
...I enjoy responding back to your posts (when time permits me).

I take back the above you quoted of mine. I forgot I did join a Christian forum some years back, but very briefly (I forgot the password and email I used, and left it at that). There were challenging atheists on there too. That was 'William Craig Lanes' site btw. I didn't know who he was until this forum. Ain't that irony.

 

[unapologetic]

What was it I'm supposed to learn from you?

I dont realy care. I am questioning your motive for being here. With the name Learner, I asumed 'searching for truth' or something.

(I forgot the password and email I used, and left it at that).

HA. I've done that too.

 

[Learner]

What was it I'm supposed to learn from you?

I dont realy care. I am questioning your motive for being here.

I joined the forum before I became a Christian.

The only motive I have here regards the topic of the bible. The conversation does turn into a debate but that is the idea I think, as I see people debate on the the other threads about politics and race etc.

With the name Learner, I asumed 'searching for truth' or something.

Originally I used the name in context as being a noob on the forum. I should have chosen a better name I suppose.

(I forgot the password and email I used, and left it at that).

HA. I've done that too.

I've also lost the email I used here too lol. I still haven't updated, and If people respond to my posts I won't see the messages automatically via email, only when I happen to browse the site online.

I still have one or two posts that wanted a response. Perhaps after that I'll rest from the religion section and engage in the other forum sections for a change.

 

[unapologetic]

I joined the forum before I became a Christian.

Ouch, we failed.
I'll have to asume you made an informed decision, and i'll back off.

 

[Elixir]

L

I joined the forum before I became a Christian.

More proof of misnomer.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, Learner, what would you like to discuss about the logical impossibility of God?

There are a few rather obvious contradictions that have been presented over the years, from "the problem of evil", to the more recently presented idea of how God = The Set of All Sets = Nonsense because of Russel's Paradox.

I would love to discuss these with you, but AFAICT, you have never actually actually logically engaged with them.

The other problem, I fear, however, is that you are not the sort to even acknowledge that true contradiction (nonsense) cannot "exist" under any "implementation" of any "system".

Contradictions cannot "exist" and all apparent contradictions are mere illusions or images -- This is the fundamental intuition that all computation, logic, and modeling accepts. Its the one thing I would say is necessary under "existence" is noncontradiction owing to the fact that accepting this has allowed a "math" which "models" reality, capable of predicting large-scale events without the complications and delays of the slow mashing-together of many small scale events which they are normally composed of.

Given that the most 'gnostic' texts I have read on the subject just outright accept that Ein Sof -- the "highest" concept of God within Kabbalistic gnostic thought -- is contradiction.

By logic, God (the Ein Sof kind) cannot "exist" in any one singular way. Its just not under the thing we define as "existence". The only in sense in which such singular nonsense creates metaphysics is by having never existed and being incapable of existing as other than an illusion.

I would be glad to discuss any of the core reasons for this, any statement you find yourself lost on (perhaps because I think much more than I type and I realize more and more I just don't end up typing it all, or I assume a word suffices to carry my meanings).

I do not think that this in any way invalidates the idea that "under systems theory and game theory, there is an ethical imperative that makes doing the right thing right for things such as us". I think there is room under logic for there to be a "right" way to treat one another, among those of us who seek to exist and strive and see what comes of it. To that end there is a truth, contextual to US, HERE, NOW, of how we ought treat one another and I don't think it requires belief in impossibilities to understand or implement or care about.

It does, however require accepting that the universe is simply "absurd". Something is here is a self-evident truth, to me, and that's "absurd" and "meaningless" and "reasonless" outside of the "absurdity" that is observed.

 

[Learner]

So, Learner, what would you like to discuss about the logical impossibility of God?

Prt 1.
Thanks, that sounds like an interesting invite to a good discussion.
(I have to post in two parts, not much real estate on this phone screen).

There are a few rather obvious contradictions that have been presented over the years, from "the problem of evil", to the more recently presented idea of how God = The Set of All Sets = Nonsense because of Russel's Paradox.

I would love to discuss these with you, but AFAICT, you have never actually actually logically engaged with them.

I am familiar with the "problem of evil'" and I have engaged with that argument, but with Russel's Paradox you are quite right, I've not logically engaged with this present idea .

The other problem, I fear, however, is that you are not the sort to even acknowledge that true contradiction (nonsense) cannot "exist" under any "implementation" of any "system".

Of course..
...it would be down to me to understand and know 'what the parameters are' in your argument - mutually agreeing with word meanings and contexts.
(it just requires a brief moment of reading-up on my part to catch-up).

Contradictions cannot "exist" and all apparent contradictions are mere illusions or images -- This is the fundamental intuition that all computation, logic, and modeling accepts.

The parameter here then is what we know so far of the vast universe within our human comprehension. Ok, no probs I got it.

Its the one thing I would say is necessary under "existence" is noncontradiction owing to the fact that accepting this has allowed a "math" which "models" reality, capable of predicting large-scale events without the complications and delays of the slow mashing-together of many small scale events which they are normally composed of.

Apologies, I just need to understand: when you say 'modelling on reality', are we establishing the grounds that an existence of God could only exist and 'not be a contradiction'....only if God was "predictably calculable" like you would , when measuring everyday natural physical events?

 

[Jarhyn]

The parameter here then is what we know so far of the vast universe within our human comprehension. Ok, no probs I got it.

Moreover, it is the fundamental assumption that any system of "knowledge" or "understanding" makes.

It is one of the fundamental assumptions behind the vastly accurate modeling of our universe by physicists.

Abandoning this is the very abandonment of the idea of truth.

Apologies, I just need to understand: when you say 'modelling on reality', are we establishing the grounds that an existence of God could only exist and 'not be a contradiction'....only if God was "predictably calculable" like you would , when measuring everyday natural physical events?

No, I am making a much stronger and 'harder' argument: that no "existence" of "God" is possible under any logic capable of understanding truth as consistently separate from falseness.

God (big G, Ein Sof) is impossible, cannot exist, could not ever exist, does not exist, will not exist.

This does NOT speak to 'petty little gods', creators of stimulations.

Its not a matter of whether it is "predictably calculable". I wager that out universe is only "calculable moment by moment from a given frame" rather than "predictably calculable": it's something whose evolution can only be observed through evolving a suitable model of the system step by step.

I am saying that logically speaking, "the set of all sets", which is what you would consider God, has been logically ruled out as an idea worth holding on to.

 

[Learner]

The parameter here then is what we know so far of the vast universe within our human comprehension. Ok, no probs I got it.

Moreover, it is the fundamental assumption that any system of "knowledge" or "understanding" makes.

It is one of the fundamental assumptions behind the vastly accurate modeling of our universe by physicists.

Abandoning this is the very abandonment of the idea of truth.

Ok. I'm taking note of the part in bold as a clarification reference.

Reading it as: "The biblical God is not possible - because this is derived from the fundamental assumptions as logical references, modelled on the universe by physicists."

Apologies, I just need to understand: when you say 'modelling on reality', are we establishing the grounds that an existence of God could only exist and 'not be a contradiction'....only if God was "predictably calculable" like you would , when measuring everyday natural physical events?

No, I am making a much stronger and 'harder' argument: that no "existence" of "God" is possible under any logic capable of understanding truth as consistently separate from falseness.
God (big G, Ein Sof) is impossible, cannot exist, could not ever exist, does not exist, will not exist.

This does NOT speak to 'petty little gods', creators of stimulations.

Its not a matter of whether it is "predictably calculable". I wager that out universe is only "calculable moment by moment from a given frame" rather than "predictably calculable": it's something whose evolution can only be observed through evolving a suitable model of the system step by step.
I am saying that logically speaking, "the set of all sets", which is what you would consider God, has been logically ruled out as an idea worth holding on to.

I think Russell's Paradox could be a mistake (by him) if it's applied as an argument to the biblical God.

For example: The Set of all sets fits nicely the description of Pantheism i.e.that says ALL things, the cosmos, the earth etc and etc. is ONE physical entity.

The God of the bible is not seen that way according to the theology.. God is understood to be a separate entity, distinct rom the universe, a spirit not physical...distinct from his creation which therefore is saying:

The God of the bible can not be a Set of sets! In this regard Russel's Paradox is not the right argument imo.

 

[Jarhyn]

The parameter here then is what we know so far of the vast universe within our human comprehension. Ok, no probs I got it.

Moreover, it is the fundamental assumption that any system of "knowledge" or "understanding" makes.

It is one of the fundamental assumptions behind the vastly accurate modeling of our universe by physicists.

Abandoning this is the very abandonment of the idea of truth.

Ok. I'm taking note of the part in bold as clarification reference.

Apologies, I just need to understand: when you say 'modelling on reality', are we establishing the grounds that an existence of God could only exist and 'not be a contradiction'....only if God was "predictably calculable" like you would , when measuring everyday natural physical events?

No, I am making a much stronger and 'harder' argument: that no "existence" of "God" is possible under any logic capable of understanding truth as consistently separate from falseness.
God (big G, Ein Sof) is impossible, cannot exist, could not ever exist, does not exist, will not exist.

This does NOT speak to 'petty little gods', creators of stimulations.

Its not a matter of whether it is "predictably calculable". I wager that out universe is only "calculable moment by moment from a given frame" rather than "predictably calculable": it's something whose evolution can only be observed through evolving a suitable model of the system step by step.
I am saying that logically speaking, "the set of all sets", which is what you would consider God, has been logically ruled out as an idea worth holding on to.

I think Russell's Paradox could be a mistake (by him) if it's applied as an argument to the biblical God.

For example: The Set of all sets fits nicely the description of Pantheism i.e.that says ALL things, the cosmos, the earth etc and etc. is ONE physical entity.

The God of the bible is not seen that way according to the theology.. God is understood to be a separate entity, distinct rom the universe...distinct from his creation which therefore is saying:

The God of the bible can not be a Set of sets!

No, it is, specifically because omniscience is assigned, and the only way that gnostics managed to square the idea was by viewing the creation that is as a piece of "God", as "God" is all that the only "God" would have to create anything from.

In many respects, whole Russel's Paradox discusses The Set of All Sets, modern discussions on the problem he revealed are worded a different way: an unrestricted comprehension principle.

Its that "unrestricted comprehension" bit that really does most of the heavy lifting here.

An unrestricted comprehension principle is the principle problem to forming a "set of all sets", because in practice, the set itself would be formed by a principle or mechanism by which anything may be comprehended and found and understood.

The answer is that instead of viewing things within some specific singular place, you view them as being "in a lot of places but most likely in the least complex of the places which explain observations", while being as prepared as can be for complications.

I believe I have discussed multiple times "Mario's god" and the conclusions we can make from this? The idea of how Mario as killed by the goomba does not appear to have a distinct creator, for all our observations of Mario are limited to this world we share. Metaphysically, any other "inaccessible" implementation even in a completely different but still "physical" system of things would experience the same "mario-ness".

There is no useful evidence or influence from within of any embedding into which it is!

This is because Mario itself is defined more as a system of things (the patter of behaviors of logical output) created by a pattern (a series of instructions, and a series of graph connections forming a processor) under an abstract set of thing-system systems ("Turing-complete computer architectures") within a tree of inputs (the controls and when they are operated and how).