| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"NotSoQuick" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2004 10:23:31 PM |
| Object: |
Absolute proof of God |
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
.
|
|
| User: "Tim a" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 10:22:53 AM |
|
|
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
You have an idea of God and obviously that can't be denied. To me God is an
idea that embraces the desires, hopes, and aspirations of some humans. My
problem is why don't people turn to themselves and the world we inhabit to
fulfill these things? Why the need to escape into some other-worldly place?
I believe the answer to the second question and indeed the whole question of
God ties into the fact that the naturally given is often harsh and contrary
to human wants. It is this harsh and uncaring, indeed amoral nature of
nature that shows that God is a myth - an idea only -with no material or
supernatural signifier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not so quick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 03:01:33 PM |
|
|
"Tim" <a> wrote in message news:0K-dnW8luL_4S2OiRVn-jQ@edaptivity.com...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
You have an idea of God and obviously that can't be denied. To me God is
an
idea that embraces the desires, hopes, and aspirations of some humans. My
problem is why don't people turn to themselves and the world we inhabit to
fulfill these things? Why the need to escape into some other-worldly
place?
I believe the answer to the second question and indeed the whole question
of
God ties into the fact that the naturally given is often harsh and
contrary
to human wants. It is this harsh and uncaring, indeed amoral nature of
nature that shows that God is a myth - an idea only -with no material or
supernatural signifier.
Your idea, to me, is a good one with the fact that it is open to change and
could
even become more skeptical. It could also change to be more inspired. And I
don't mean for those two words to be so ... well maybe it would be better to
say
more realistic or more inspired. But you don't have to spend time proving
that God/
god does or doesn't exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
08 Jan 2004 11:18:40 PM |
|
|
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
If I find a mineral ore in the desert, I realize there is value in the
rock...but 'imprisoned' as specks of valuable metal here and there. If I
cannot refine that ore, it remains worthless to me? Perhaps God is a means
by which we might refine self to cultivate value?
.
|
|
|
| User: "NotSoQuick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
08 Jan 2004 11:22:43 PM |
|
|
"tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wOqLb.3120$qC.719@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
If I find a mineral ore in the desert, I realize there is value in the
rock...but 'imprisoned' as specks of valuable metal here and there. If I
cannot refine that ore, it remains worthless to me? Perhaps God is a
means
by which we might refine self to cultivate value?
A great point which isn't always one of which I am aware.
Would you object to substituting 'religion' for 'God' in your
statement?
Thanks, well said.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nzuri" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 01:19:35 AM |
|
|
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If I
cannot refine that ore, it remains worthless to me? Perhaps God is a
means
by which we might refine self to cultivate value?
Er, could you give a specific example of this from your own experience,
preferably pinning down what changed during the refinement process and
exactly what you mean by value.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
10 Jan 2004 02:57:00 AM |
|
|
"nzuri" <nzuri@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mCsLb.12$nY.10@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If I
cannot refine that ore, it remains worthless to me? Perhaps God is a
means
by which we might refine self to cultivate value?
Er, could you give a specific example of this from your own experience,
preferably pinning down what changed during the refinement process and
exactly what you mean by value.
funny...the single entry here, "Er", speaks volumes about intent and
sincerity. I'll play your fool for now I suppose. Two refinements [of many]
are conscience and empathy. by 'value' I mean what makes life 'significant'
to us.
We may attach 'objects' to this envalument...but I think if we look closer,
we might see that 'value' is created in us as a matter of 'state'.
Refining that state is the mystery as I see it. Aspiring to be more
virtuous seems to be descriptive of the process by which refinement is
acquired.
Others will of course argue it is the object that is what's valued. As a
loose example, Gold and money carry no 'real' value in the universe of
course, but are 'cultivated' values we 'create' as we find significanse to
them. Spiritual envalument works at least in a similar context [if a bit of
a jump in association]. But this is more misleading than helpful...for it
gives 'object' to something that has no object.
God to me is not an object...but a state. Through God, I attach meaning to
all things...where otherwise, there is 'nothingness'; no meaning, no
purpose...and life made unbearable; hell invited as the reality we live
under [as an experience].
Is this Escape from reality? It's ironic that the intellectual materialism
most would prefer, will end up in such nihilistic meaningless that it
doesn't matter anyway...all we are left with are few moments of 'experience'
while alive.
Either way, escaping to or escaping from, the belief in God becomes a good
bargain when at least we might find justification for civlization away from
the harsh jungle. On a personal level of course, one's cup runneth over
with the envaluement of existence. The state is real enough...that thing we
call love...though the word fails miserably to convey the transcendent and
overhwelming 'perfection' of it's condition [no one can convey this
properly, but only experience it I believe]. We do have proper language for
God's love; perhaps only the word 'perfection' comes to bear...we all
struggle to find the words [and the intellect needs words I realize].
Intellectually, you'll dismiss all this of course. Actually, the "Er"
really told my you have your mind 'already' made up...so honest discussion
is really bogus on your part. Your are just looking for opportunity for
self aggrandizement...to bully...who knows...but not discuss. Not that it
matters. Perhaps if you work backwards, discarding God for the moment [as
an idea] and struggle to cultivate 'empathy' and 'conscience'...aspire to
understand better what 'virtue' is...perhaps it might work in reverse
leading back to God? I don't know. But you have to at least entertain the
word...not seal your mind off from it. I once thought I was smart too.
There's another refinement...'humility'...where the greater intelligence is
understanding how stupid one is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not so quick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 02:55:30 PM |
|
|
"nzuri" <nzuri@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mCsLb.12$nY.10@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If I
cannot refine that ore, it remains worthless to me? Perhaps God is a
means
by which we might refine self to cultivate value?
Er, could you give a specific example of this from your own experience,
preferably pinning down what changed during the refinement process and
exactly what you mean by value.
For me, the scriptures of the Judaism that I read in school influenced me
in the fact of their attention to detail and obvious concern for the
happiness
and mutual benefit of the Jewish people of the time. It includes provisions
for the rich and poor, stranger and neighbor, old and young. It gave me the
feeling for the good intentions of the elders of a culture. There were also
some negative things towards women and I'm not going to rationalize that.
The idea of a "Great Spirit" from the native American Indian tradition still
affects me. Sort of a God that is apparent in nature but not restricted by
the religions of man.
The mythology of the Greeks and Norse gods have helped me deal with
the powers of unconscious drives.
Others that I think I will feel like listing later when my thoughts are a
little
more focused. But "A Course in Miracles" and "Conversations with God"
are very real in a personal way of relating to God or whatever it is that is
our higher selves. Maybe the biggest influence was realizing that there is
a real superior intelligence to my own. I've done pretty well in school and
have a pretty high opinion, honestly, of my own intelligence, at least I did
when I was younger and my memory didn't seem so porous, anyway...
after reading "A Course..." I knew that whoever wrote that book is way
beyond me, not in a limited way as the theoretical mathematicians or
philosophers who may be deeply involved and accelerated in their own
fields but in the area of things that affect all of us, questions about
death
and goodness and getting along with others...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
08 Jan 2004 10:38:29 PM |
|
|
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
But God's existence has never been scientifically proven.
I've tried to do it many times, but never succeeded.
I for one know beyond all doubt that God exists, but that knowledge was
implanted into my spirit and mind by some exterior force.
I also know that I can see God whenever I look or listen in the right place.
But no one else seems to be interested enough to check and see if this is
true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NotSoQuick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
08 Jan 2004 11:04:21 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:btlb89$cp8@library2.airnews.net...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
But God's existence has never been scientifically proven.
I've tried to do it many times, but never succeeded.
I for one know beyond all doubt that God exists, but that knowledge was
implanted into my spirit and mind by some exterior force.
I also know that I can see God whenever I look or listen in the right
place.
But no one else seems to be interested enough to check and see if this is
true.
Mark,
I believe through experience that I can get answers by asking
whatever it is that resides in me. One of the worst things ever
said when taken in the wrong context, perhaps, is that talking to
yourself is a sign of insanity and that answering yourself is worse.
If my better self was driven down into unconsciousness or sub-
consciousnessI don't know but I tend to believe so. There is a
saying that the child is father to the man, and if that what the still
small voice is then so be it.
I've agreed with so much of what you have said and I don't say that
to support you because I don't believe in that and you seem to be
quite strong or resilient anyway. But I do have trouble believing that
that voice is somehow related to the creator of nature in all of its cruelty
that we experience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 02:34:58 AM |
|
|
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:SDqLb.57614$PK3.5660@okepread01...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:btlb89$cp8@library2.airnews.net...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
But God's existence has never been scientifically proven.
I've tried to do it many times, but never succeeded.
I for one know beyond all doubt that God exists, but that knowledge was
implanted into my spirit and mind by some exterior force.
I also know that I can see God whenever I look or listen in the right
place.
But no one else seems to be interested enough to check and see if this
is
true.
Mark,
I believe through experience that I can get answers by asking
whatever it is that resides in me. One of the worst things ever
said when taken in the wrong context, perhaps, is that talking to
yourself is a sign of insanity and that answering yourself is worse.
Talking to yourself can be painful, in my experience, but it rapidly gets
you to where things are well once again.
If my better self was driven down into unconsciousness or sub-
consciousnessI don't know but I tend to believe so. There is a
saying that the child is father to the man, and if that what the still
small voice is then so be it.
I've agreed with so much of what you have said and I don't say that
to support you because I don't believe in that and you seem to be
quite strong or resilient anyway.
Thank you, anyway.
But I do have trouble believing that
that voice is somehow related to the creator of nature in all of its
cruelty
that we experience.
God maybe the most painful thing that there is, especially when you approach
him broadside. To look at his face unprepared is to die.
But this is the price, for something far greater. Which becomes the still
small voice that you find inside. Which is O.K., because it becomes part of
you.
God may seem cruel, and he often seemed that way to me, too.
But this is a world of prices, and that is a part of the price...for
something far greater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 10:54:02 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:34:58 -0600, "Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net>
wrote:
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:SDqLb.57614$PK3.5660@okepread01...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:btlb89$cp8@library2.airnews.net...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
But God's existence has never been scientifically proven.
I've tried to do it many times, but never succeeded.
I for one know beyond all doubt that God exists, but that knowledge was
implanted into my spirit and mind by some exterior force.
I also know that I can see God whenever I look or listen in the right
place.
But no one else seems to be interested enough to check and see if this
is
true.
Mark,
I believe through experience that I can get answers by asking
whatever it is that resides in me. One of the worst things ever
said when taken in the wrong context, perhaps, is that talking to
yourself is a sign of insanity and that answering yourself is worse.
Talking to yourself can be painful, in my experience, but it rapidly gets
you to where things are well once again.
If my better self was driven down into unconsciousness or sub-
consciousnessI don't know but I tend to believe so. There is a
saying that the child is father to the man, and if that what the still
small voice is then so be it.
I've agreed with so much of what you have said and I don't say that
to support you because I don't believe in that and you seem to be
quite strong or resilient anyway.
Thank you, anyway.
But I do have trouble believing that
that voice is somehow related to the creator of nature in all of its
cruelty
that we experience.
God maybe the most painful thing that there is, especially when you approach
him broadside. To look at his face unprepared is to die.
The 'self' must die to see God. There cannot be both self AND God.
By assuming the powers of selves, we must deny the possibility of God.
If there are in fact no selves, then God is the only explanation.
But this is the price, for something far greater. Which becomes the still
small voice that you find inside. Which is O.K., because it becomes part of
you.
God may seem cruel, and he often seemed that way to me, too.
But this is a world of prices, and that is a part of the price...for
something far greater.
Cruelty is abhorent but only apparent. Life is a gift that will
be taken back. It is only the good gift that makes possible
the evil of it's having to be returned. The good and the bad
die, young or old. We make judgements on the justice of
this and find God guilty of not pleasing us. If only we could
drag God into court, we'd get our justice then, providing
we could get the prosecution and the defense to agree on
anything at all.
Pleasure and pain are our guides to behavior. Without them
how could we preserve our lives? To hope for the removal
of all 'bad' things is to pray for chaos and destruction, which
we might even consider to be a bad thing in itself. As it is,
we all have our heavy cross to bear, to keep us from floating off
into the stratosphere of meaninglessness.
But it seem to me that man is not an unbiased judge even
over himself. Judging God is damnably futile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
10 Jan 2004 01:35:51 AM |
|
|
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u3mtvv85i5rra6sadhhfm1hh71rpeob3r0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:34:58 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net>
wrote:
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:SDqLb.57614$PK3.5660@okepread01...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:btlb89$cp8@library2.airnews.net...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
But God's existence has never been scientifically proven.
I've tried to do it many times, but never succeeded.
I for one know beyond all doubt that God exists, but that knowledge
was
implanted into my spirit and mind by some exterior force.
I also know that I can see God whenever I look or listen in the right
place.
But no one else seems to be interested enough to check and see if
this
is
true.
Mark,
I believe through experience that I can get answers by asking
whatever it is that resides in me. One of the worst things ever
said when taken in the wrong context, perhaps, is that talking to
yourself is a sign of insanity and that answering yourself is worse.
Talking to yourself can be painful, in my experience, but it rapidly
gets
you to where things are well once again.
If my better self was driven down into unconsciousness or sub-
consciousnessI don't know but I tend to believe so. There is a
saying that the child is father to the man, and if that what the still
small voice is then so be it.
I've agreed with so much of what you have said and I don't say that
to support you because I don't believe in that and you seem to be
quite strong or resilient anyway.
Thank you, anyway.
But I do have trouble believing that
that voice is somehow related to the creator of nature in all of its
cruelty
that we experience.
God maybe the most painful thing that there is, especially when you
approach
him broadside. To look at his face unprepared is to die.
The 'self' must die to see God. There cannot be both self AND God.
By assuming the powers of selves, we must deny the possibility of God.
If there are in fact no selves, then God is the only explanation.
But this is the price, for something far greater. Which becomes the
still
small voice that you find inside. Which is O.K., because it becomes part
of
you.
God may seem cruel, and he often seemed that way to me, too.
But this is a world of prices, and that is a part of the price...for
something far greater.
Cruelty is abhorent but only apparent. Life is a gift that will
be taken back. It is only the good gift that makes possible
the evil of it's having to be returned. The good and the bad
die, young or old. We make judgements on the justice of
this and find God guilty of not pleasing us. If only we could
drag God into court, we'd get our justice then, providing
we could get the prosecution and the defense to agree on
anything at all.
Pleasure and pain are our guides to behavior. Without them
how could we preserve our lives? To hope for the removal
of all 'bad' things is to pray for chaos and destruction, which
we might even consider to be a bad thing in itself. As it is,
we all have our heavy cross to bear, to keep us from floating off
into the stratosphere of meaninglessness.
But it seem to me that man is not an unbiased judge even
over himself. Judging God is damnably futile.
No one ever seems to like this angle to things, but a good measure of a
thing's value is it's cost. A spiritual synonym to the idea of 'labor
theory of value' may be that of the idea of "suffering".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
13 Jan 2004 10:01:17 PM |
|
|
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u3mtvv85i5rra6sadhhfm1hh71rpeob3r0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:34:58 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net>
wrote:
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:SDqLb.57614$PK3.5660@okepread01...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:btlb89$cp8@library2.airnews.net...
"NotSoQuick" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:z1qLb.57511$PK3.11153@okepread01...
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
But God's existence has never been scientifically proven.
I've tried to do it many times, but never succeeded.
I for one know beyond all doubt that God exists, but that knowledge
was
implanted into my spirit and mind by some exterior force.
I also know that I can see God whenever I look or listen in the right
place.
But no one else seems to be interested enough to check and see if
this
is
true.
Mark,
I believe through experience that I can get answers by asking
whatever it is that resides in me. One of the worst things ever
said when taken in the wrong context, perhaps, is that talking to
yourself is a sign of insanity and that answering yourself is worse.
Talking to yourself can be painful, in my experience, but it rapidly
gets
you to where things are well once again.
If my better self was driven down into unconsciousness or sub-
consciousnessI don't know but I tend to believe so. There is a
saying that the child is father to the man, and if that what the still
small voice is then so be it.
I've agreed with so much of what you have said and I don't say that
to support you because I don't believe in that and you seem to be
quite strong or resilient anyway.
Thank you, anyway.
But I do have trouble believing that
that voice is somehow related to the creator of nature in all of its
cruelty
that we experience.
God maybe the most painful thing that there is, especially when you
approach
him broadside. To look at his face unprepared is to die.
The 'self' must die to see God. There cannot be both self AND God.
By assuming the powers of selves, we must deny the possibility of God.
If there are in fact no selves, then God is the only explanation.
By dying of self you seem to mean acquiring selflessness. Yes, that is
required to see God.
But this is the price, for something far greater. Which becomes the
still
small voice that you find inside. Which is O.K., because it becomes part
of
you.
God may seem cruel, and he often seemed that way to me, too.
But this is a world of prices, and that is a part of the price...for
something far greater.
Cruelty is abhorent but only apparent. Life is a gift that will
be taken back. It is only the good gift that makes possible
the evil of it's having to be returned. The good and the bad
die, young or old. We make judgements on the justice of
this and find God guilty of not pleasing us. If only we could
drag God into court, we'd get our justice then, providing
we could get the prosecution and the defense to agree on
anything at all.
Yes, cruelty is only apparent. Just like when one is depressed, it seems
like their whole life was depressing.
Pleasure and pain are our guides to behavior. Without them
how could we preserve our lives? To hope for the removal
of all 'bad' things is to pray for chaos and destruction, which
we might even consider to be a bad thing in itself. As it is,
we all have our heavy cross to bear, to keep us from floating off
into the stratosphere of meaninglessness.
But it seem to me that man is not an unbiased judge even
over himself. Judging God is damnably futile.
Yet some get a grudge against him, or think that they cannot forgive him.
I have been angry with him a few times. It is just human.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
08 Jan 2004 10:54:45 PM |
|
|
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"There is a tension building between cautious
Spirit engineers and heavy-breathing scientists... "
-- Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, space.com
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
08 Jan 2004 11:13:18 PM |
|
|
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE3415.FBEB54C9@fuzzysys.com...
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Then you support the '2001:Space Odyssey' theme perhaps? If brains are
transports of mind, then could there be giant centers somewhere, where
'mind' is collected. What's the relationship between a university and brain
for example?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 12:03:44 AM |
|
|
tooly wrote:
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE3415.FBEB54C9@fuzzysys.com...
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Then you support the '2001:Space Odyssey' theme perhaps? If brains are
transports of mind, then could there be giant centers somewhere, where
'mind' is collected. What's the relationship between a university and brain
for example?
Nah, there is no such thing as mind. "Mind" is another magical folk theory on brain
function. You going to collect and functionally interconnect brains?
Universities are now diversities, plus the brains are only simplistically
interconnected, no direct neural paths for instance.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"There is a tension building between cautious
Spirit engineers and heavy-breathing scientists... "
-- Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, space.com
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 11:04:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:03:44 -0800, Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
tooly wrote:
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE3415.FBEB54C9@fuzzysys.com...
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Then you support the '2001:Space Odyssey' theme perhaps? If brains are
transports of mind, then could there be giant centers somewhere, where
'mind' is collected. What's the relationship between a university and brain
for example?
Nah, there is no such thing as mind. "Mind" is another magical folk theory on brain
function. You going to collect and functionally interconnect brains?
Universities are now diversities, plus the brains are only simplistically
interconnected, no direct neural paths for instance.
Brains are all interconnected by that folk theory called
external reality. It brings them into temporal phase,
as well as supplying all of them with the raw material that has
to fill up the folk theory called brains. The brain after all
is supposed to deal with external realities exclusively,
including the palpable externality of the brain itself.
So where is the separation?
If it weren't so, we could not even converse in
even our unsatisfactory way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
09 Jan 2004 01:59:56 PM |
|
|
Keynes wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:03:44 -0800, Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
tooly wrote:
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE3415.FBEB54C9@fuzzysys.com...
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Then you support the '2001:Space Odyssey' theme perhaps? If brains are
transports of mind, then could there be giant centers somewhere, where
'mind' is collected. What's the relationship between a university and brain
for example?
Nah, there is no such thing as mind. "Mind" is another magical folk theory on brain
function. You going to collect and functionally interconnect brains?
Universities are now diversities, plus the brains are only simplistically
interconnected, no direct neural paths for instance.
Brains are all interconnected by that folk theory called
external reality. It brings them into temporal phase,
as well as supplying all of them with the raw material that has
to fill up the folk theory called brains. The brain after all
is supposed to deal with external realities exclusively,
including the palpable externality of the brain itself.
So where is the separation?
If it weren't so, we could not even converse in
even our unsatisfactory way.
You are as good as JJ at Welsh science.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"There is a tension building between cautious
Spirit engineers and heavy-breathing scientists... "
-- Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, space.com
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
10 Jan 2004 02:52:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:59:56 -0800, Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
Keynes wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:03:44 -0800, Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
tooly wrote:
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE3415.FBEB54C9@fuzzysys.com...
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Then you support the '2001:Space Odyssey' theme perhaps? If brains are
transports of mind, then could there be giant centers somewhere, where
'mind' is collected. What's the relationship between a university and brain
for example?
Nah, there is no such thing as mind. "Mind" is another magical folk theory on brain
function. You going to collect and functionally interconnect brains?
Universities are now diversities, plus the brains are only simplistically
interconnected, no direct neural paths for instance.
Brains are all interconnected by that folk theory called
external reality. It brings them into temporal phase,
as well as supplying all of them with the raw material that has
to fill up the folk theory called brains. The brain after all
is supposed to deal with external realities exclusively,
including the palpable externality of the brain itself.
So where is the separation?
If it weren't so, we could not even converse in
even our unsatisfactory way.
You are as good as JJ at Welsh science.
Another fascinating story. (From the wee folk perhaps?)
You, me and JJ are wise because we know we are nuts.
The rest of humanity had better catch up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
10 Jan 2004 06:02:14 AM |
|
|
Keynes wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:59:56 -0800, Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
Keynes wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:03:44 -0800, Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
tooly wrote:
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE3415.FBEB54C9@fuzzysys.com...
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Then you support the '2001:Space Odyssey' theme perhaps? If brains are
transports of mind, then could there be giant centers somewhere, where
'mind' is collected. What's the relationship between a university and brain
for example?
Nah, there is no such thing as mind. "Mind" is another magical folk theory on brain
function. You going to collect and functionally interconnect brains?
Universities are now diversities, plus the brains are only simplistically
interconnected, no direct neural paths for instance.
Brains are all interconnected by that folk theory called
external reality. It brings them into temporal phase,
as well as supplying all of them with the raw material that has
to fill up the folk theory called brains. The brain after all
is supposed to deal with external realities exclusively,
including the palpable externality of the brain itself.
So where is the separation?
If it weren't so, we could not even converse in
even our unsatisfactory way.
You are as good as JJ at Welsh science.
Another fascinating story. (From the wee folk perhaps?)
You, me and JJ are wise because we know we are nuts.
The rest of humanity had better catch up.
It doesn't matter, crud by any other name,
is still crud.
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"There is a tension building between cautious
Spirit engineers and heavy-breathing scientists... "
-- Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, space.com
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
10 Jan 2004 08:54:00 AM |
|
|
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFFE9C6.32F33E3@fuzzysys.com...
Keynes wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:59:56 -0800, Sir Frederick
<mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
Keynes wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:03:44 -0800, Sir Frederick
<mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
tooly wrote:
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE3415.FBEB54C9@fuzzysys.com...
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be
confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more
consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Then you support the '2001:Space Odyssey' theme perhaps? If
brains are
transports of mind, then could there be giant centers somewhere,
where
'mind' is collected. What's the relationship between a university
and brain
for example?
Nah, there is no such thing as mind. "Mind" is another magical folk
theory on brain
function. You going to collect and functionally interconnect brains?
Universities are now diversities, plus the brains are only
simplistically
interconnected, no direct neural paths for instance.
Brains are all interconnected by that folk theory called
external reality. It brings them into temporal phase,
as well as supplying all of them with the raw material that has
to fill up the folk theory called brains. The brain after all
is supposed to deal with external realities exclusively,
including the palpable externality of the brain itself.
So where is the separation?
If it weren't so, we could not even converse in
even our unsatisfactory way.
You are as good as JJ at Welsh science.
Another fascinating story. (From the wee folk perhaps?)
You, me and JJ are wise because we know we are nuts.
The rest of humanity had better catch up.
It doesn't matter, crud by any other name,
is still crud.
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"There is a tension building between cautious
Spirit engineers and heavy-breathing scientists... "
-- Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, space.com
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
My take on this issue is that "Mind" is to brain as software is to computer.
Software resides in a computer as series of ones and zeros. Mind resides in
the brain as a series of electrical biases in the synapses of the brain.
Could a 'mind' be transferred from one brain to another? It is doubtful that
an exact duplicate could be made, since, unlike computers, two identical
brains probably don't exist.
Perhaps an approximation could be achieved in principle, but the task would
be analogous to taking the binary image of a program written for an IBM PC
and twiddling the bits in such a way that it would run successfully on a
Mac. (If we could see the source code, the task would be much easier, but
source code doesn't exist for the mind).
As for God, perhaps He resides in the brain in the same way as the mind
does. Certainly, we can cultivate any idea in this forest of synapses. 'God'
is one idea, 'I' is another. This, of course, does not prove that the God I
personally experience is the creator of the universe or even that He has any
external reality.
But, if there is a Creator of space-time, It is by definition an agency
that came/comes/will come from beyond space-time. (Here, of course, the
tenses of English fail to encompass the idea). It held/holds/will hold
space-time Its appendages and manipulated/manipulates/will manipulates it a
will, in much the same way as a four dimensional human manipulates a three
dimensional piece of plasticine. By definition, It resided/resides/will
reside outside of space-time and therefore Its existence cannot be proven.
/Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
10 Jan 2004 02:42:40 PM |
|
|
"Joe" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:40001210_2@news.cybersurf.net...
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFFE9C6.32F33E3@fuzzysys.com...
Keynes wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:59:56 -0800, Sir Frederick
<mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
Keynes wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:03:44 -0800, Sir Frederick
<mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
tooly wrote:
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3FFE3415.FBEB54C9@fuzzysys.com...
NotSoQuick wrote:
If you prove that my idea of God doesn't exist, I will
change my idea of God. If it turns out that God is just
an historicl reference or an idea like Unicorn, then God
exists as an idea unless you think that ideas don't exist.
So what is the point? Quit arguing about whether God
exists and argue about what God is. Maybe? Maybe
not, that's too easy.
There are probably gods or Gods. Intelligence need not be
confined to
we humans. The question is whether they have any more
consideration
for us than we humans have consideration for a local
cockroach colony.
--
Then you support the '2001:Space Odyssey' theme perhaps? If
brains are
transports of mind, then could there be giant centers somewhere,
where
'mind' is collected. What's the relationship between a
university
and brain
for example?
Nah, there is no such thing as mind. "Mind" is another magical
folk
theory on brain
function. You going to collect and functionally interconnect
brains?
Universities are now diversities, plus the brains are only
simplistically
interconnected, no direct neural paths for instance.
Brains are all interconnected by that folk theory called
external reality. It brings them into temporal phase,
as well as supplying all of them with the raw material that has
to fill up the folk theory called brains. The brain after all
is supposed to deal with external realities exclusively,
including the palpable externality of the brain itself.
So where is the separation?
If it weren't so, we could not even converse in
even our unsatisfactory way.
You are as good as JJ at Welsh science.
Another fascinating story. (From the wee folk perhaps?)
You, me and JJ are wise because we know we are nuts.
The rest of humanity had better catch up.
It doesn't matter, crud by any other name,
is still crud.
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"There is a tension building between cautious
Spirit engineers and heavy-breathing scientists... "
-- Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, space.com
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
My take on this issue is that "Mind" is to brain as software is to
computer.
Software resides in a computer as series of ones and zeros. Mind resides
in
the brain as a series of electrical biases in the synapses of the brain.
Could a 'mind' be transferred from one brain to another? It is doubtful
that
an exact duplicate could be made, since, unlike computers, two identical
brains probably don't exist.
Perhaps an approximation could be achieved in principle, but the task
would
be analogous to taking the binary image of a program written for an IBM PC
and twiddling the bits in such a way that it would run successfully on a
Mac. (If we could see the source code, the task would be much easier, but
source code doesn't exist for the mind).
As for God, perhaps He resides in the brain in the same way as the mind
does. Certainly, we can cultivate any idea in this forest of synapses.
'God'
is one idea, 'I' is another. This, of course, does not prove that the God
I
personally experience is the creator of the universe or even that He has
any
external reality.
But, if there is a Creator of space-time, It is by definition an agency
that came/comes/will come from beyond space-time. (Here, of course, the
tenses of English fail to encompass the idea). It held/holds/will hold
space-time Its appendages and manipulated/manipulates/will manipulates it
a
will, in much the same way as a four dimensional human manipulates a three
dimensional piece of plasticine. By definition, It resided/resides/will
reside outside of space-time and therefore Its existence cannot be proven.
/Joe
All interesting. First, if all is just 'crud'...then you won't mind me
prefering God. Just more crud...right? I am quite sure everyone is nuts in
this world. How else can pissants you can't even see from just a few
thousand feet up, contemplate the very universe.
But what I wanted to offer here, my take...as Joe gave his. Synapses and
brain function aside, I see us a 'machine'. But what usefulness is it?
Brass tax [or is it tacks :)] logic tells me it's only use is that of
'experience'. That may not say much to most here of course...but perhaps it
does serve up the question what are the offerings of experience while the
opportunity lasts. I hate this word we call 'love'...it's so, I
dunno...overused for one thing; frilly...all silly emotion and stuff.
Still, after all these years, it seems to be top of the heap. I'd argue
putting the machine's switch into that mode. It's all nuts anyway; crud.
Funny thing about this stupid emotion though...turns crud into
buttermilk...uh...I mean, into non-crud. God is a helpful word I'd
offer...perhaps that switch...some sort of software icon you double click or
something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute proof of God |
10 Jan 2004 03:51:38 PM |
|
|
tooly wrote:
All interesting. First, if all is just 'crud'...then you won't mind me
prefering God. Just more crud...right? I am quite sure everyone is nuts in
this world. How else can pissants you can't even see from just a few
thousand feet up, contemplate the very universe.
But what I wanted to offer here, my take...as Joe gave his. Synapses and
brain function aside, I see us a 'machine'. But what usefulness is it?
Brass tax [or is it tacks :)] logic tells me it's only use is that of
'experience'. That may not say much to most here of course...but perhaps it
does serve up the question what are the offerings of experience while the
opportunity lasts. I hate this word we call 'love'...it's so, I
dunno...overused for one thing; frilly...all silly emotion and stuff.
Still, after all these years, it seems to be top of the heap. I'd argue
putting the machine's switch into that mode. It's all nuts anyway; crud.
Funny thing about this stupid emotion though...turns crud into
buttermilk...uh...I mean, into non-crud. God is a helpful word I'd
offer...perhaps that switch...some sort of software icon you double click or
something.
It's a quandary. All we can do is confabulate stories, so that's what we do.
Thus, 10,000 religions. Even nature gets into the act by evolving our brains
to be confabulation and religious experience prone. We need a new religion that
deals directly with our natural brain structure and function rather than
the old magical folk lore theories. Unfortunately it is more difficult dealing
with the old "genetic lore" theories on self and others that Ma Nature has forced
onto us. It may take a new species to find less built in insanity, or perhaps
we need a "Rise of the Machines".
IMO the situation is meaningless for us in the big picture, thus arbitrary,
so we must make our own meaning. Plus blind brute breeding no longer
fully satisfies.
In the bigger big picture I surmise (confabulate) we are like a super soap
opera, a form of entertainment for the gods, like a dynamic qualia painting,
with humans NOT stage center, more like the mice in the walls, crud.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"There is a tension building between cautious
Spirit engineers and heavy-breathing scientists... "
-- Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, space.com
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
