Scopes - Part Duex Georgia Strikes Back
-
Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
I don't question the facts, I question this popular interpretation of them that only takes in account only half of human experience while rejecting the other.emmer wrote:The scary thing about this thread is I used to sound just like you, Adex. I even spent a couple months doing missionary service in africa, trying to spread the "word". Hell, I was trained at the wycliffe bible translator center in arlington, probably near your neck of the woods...
That goldfish seems to be talking more with the blind faith of a conditioned creationist, than someone with an arguement based on actual fact... like, say, oh I don't know... evolution?Adex wrote:To say that our existance here is certainly based on evolutionary "facts" is similar to the goldfish who knowing nothing outside his fishtank proudly declares that he was born from the light cast by the desklamp above him.
The reason you are so quick to dismiss facts is because you have none. That is why you will never reach a christian (or any fanatic) who does not want to be reached. They will revert to circular logic and blind leaps of faith before they accept something they aren't ready to accept. After all, that is the basis of religion, an attempt to ideologically philosophize
something which cannot be explained.
A more wholistic approach to interpretation of facts would yeild an theory closer to the truth.
-
Dregor Thule
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
- PSN ID: dregor77
- Location: Oakville, Ontario
your premise that religion is "half" of human experience is arbitrary.
furthermore, science is investingating all manners of observable mental states in people. We are in an age of booming neuroscience research.
but let's for a moment accept the premise that there is a "spirit world", wherein souls, gods, etc reside.
there is some sort of interface between that world and ours, if we know of its existence or if communication between the two is possible. Moreover if a soul is capable of residing within us, and then performing an exodus when our physical form expires, there must be a conduit for this to occur. this interface must have a mechanism that behaves in accordance with the physics of this universe. That is not to say that the "spirit world" must behave that way once the interface is crossed, but for information to be transduced across that boundary, there must be a point of contact.
where is the evidence for a structure with this point of contact. it would obviously be a brain structure, because somebody without a brain is dead, and if they possess a soul, it leaves the body at the point of brain death.
So where in the brain is this "seat of the soul"? If such a thing were to exist, there would be great motivation for a scientist to discover it. Even if they couldnt get NIH funding because the "Scientific Community" then viewed them as a quack, they could get so much more private funding from billionaires and religious groups that would not be nearly as demanding for rigourous interpretation of results. so i think to say that there is no motivation for such discovery is false. i have no doubt there are any number of people who claim to be scientists (if they actually are or aren't) who have thought about this and written books on it for popular consumption, and are also probably looking for this thing.
regardless no evidence for such an interface seems to exist in peer-reviewed literature*. I do not pretend to have a grasp of the full amount of research currently being done in human neuroscience, but i assure you it is massive. Every observable state is likely being looked at, with the technology that we do have. We don't have a complete picture by any means, but the next 20-40 years will show a massive improvement in our understanding of ourselves. I would challenge you to suggest there is any evidence for "half" of our world being ignored by investigation.
obviously in fairness- because we do not know of something existing does not mean it is not real. I am chiefly saying that the notion that science is a grossly incomplete manner in which to view a situation is baseless.
the reason not all things are dealt with by science, is because it has a stated bias towards investigating reality.
* - i acknowledge that you could say that peer-reviewed literature is the scientific community and that means that they wouldnt let this fly even if it were true. I disagree though. The significance of peer-reviewed is that you have to show that your findings are independently verifiable, or in other words "real".
furthermore, science is investingating all manners of observable mental states in people. We are in an age of booming neuroscience research.
but let's for a moment accept the premise that there is a "spirit world", wherein souls, gods, etc reside.
there is some sort of interface between that world and ours, if we know of its existence or if communication between the two is possible. Moreover if a soul is capable of residing within us, and then performing an exodus when our physical form expires, there must be a conduit for this to occur. this interface must have a mechanism that behaves in accordance with the physics of this universe. That is not to say that the "spirit world" must behave that way once the interface is crossed, but for information to be transduced across that boundary, there must be a point of contact.
where is the evidence for a structure with this point of contact. it would obviously be a brain structure, because somebody without a brain is dead, and if they possess a soul, it leaves the body at the point of brain death.
So where in the brain is this "seat of the soul"? If such a thing were to exist, there would be great motivation for a scientist to discover it. Even if they couldnt get NIH funding because the "Scientific Community" then viewed them as a quack, they could get so much more private funding from billionaires and religious groups that would not be nearly as demanding for rigourous interpretation of results. so i think to say that there is no motivation for such discovery is false. i have no doubt there are any number of people who claim to be scientists (if they actually are or aren't) who have thought about this and written books on it for popular consumption, and are also probably looking for this thing.
regardless no evidence for such an interface seems to exist in peer-reviewed literature*. I do not pretend to have a grasp of the full amount of research currently being done in human neuroscience, but i assure you it is massive. Every observable state is likely being looked at, with the technology that we do have. We don't have a complete picture by any means, but the next 20-40 years will show a massive improvement in our understanding of ourselves. I would challenge you to suggest there is any evidence for "half" of our world being ignored by investigation.
obviously in fairness- because we do not know of something existing does not mean it is not real. I am chiefly saying that the notion that science is a grossly incomplete manner in which to view a situation is baseless.
the reason not all things are dealt with by science, is because it has a stated bias towards investigating reality.
* - i acknowledge that you could say that peer-reviewed literature is the scientific community and that means that they wouldnt let this fly even if it were true. I disagree though. The significance of peer-reviewed is that you have to show that your findings are independently verifiable, or in other words "real".
Last edited by Voronwë on February 5, 2004, 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
Allow me to expand a bit.
If we were able to step back out of time and look at the entire existance of the universe as some kind of gigantic timeline on a wall, we might be better equipped to understand how God interacts.
This static state, removed from time must exist if you hold that God created the universe, and subelements of the universe such as time.
It is possible that given this hard to picture perspective, that factual interpretation would line up in support of a creative entity.
If you exist as a brushstroke on a mural, how much of the total mural can come to understand? If you are bound to the creation, or reality, your understanding of the reality or creation is limited.
I think we're stuck in this situation.
If we were able to step back out of time and look at the entire existance of the universe as some kind of gigantic timeline on a wall, we might be better equipped to understand how God interacts.
This static state, removed from time must exist if you hold that God created the universe, and subelements of the universe such as time.
It is possible that given this hard to picture perspective, that factual interpretation would line up in support of a creative entity.
If you exist as a brushstroke on a mural, how much of the total mural can come to understand? If you are bound to the creation, or reality, your understanding of the reality or creation is limited.
I think we're stuck in this situation.
i dont know Adex, i think the evidence shows that we are capable from detaching from "creation" though we may be a brushstroke and taking a look at it. we know what atoms are. I would think that bit alone kind of torpedos what you are suggesting above. We postulated about atoms before the time of Christ. It took Einstein to finally irrefutably prove they exist, and now we can actually take pictures of them.
i understand your desire to try to reduce things for the sake of clarity, but at some point, the offer more impedement than progress to moving the conversation in my opinion.
it doesnt mean anything to say "we cant understand this other dimension".
if there is a spirit world, and if the following exist:
prayer (communication between our thoughts and god/saints)
soul
The Holy Spirit
if those exist there has to be a way for them to interact with us, otherwise we couldnt be aware of any interaction.
if there is no mechanism of interaction , there is no interaction.
perhaps you could say that to be touched by the holy spirit is to have certain number of fundamental particles entangled with others on the recieving end, but since our brains do not really integrate information meaningfully with changes in states/distribution of those sorts of particles, that doesn't really make sense.
how is the localized distribution of electrical potentials in various parts of the cortex transduced to God? i mean sure once it crosses the boundary it is a black box, but where is the electrical field reader in our brain that is activated when prayer happens to traffic information to the 'black box'.
contrary to your assertion that we simply can't understand the true nature of our existence, the evidence is strictly to the contrary. there is a strong timeline of the growth of human understanding, and there amazingly hasn't really been a hard well that we have met yet.
i understand your desire to try to reduce things for the sake of clarity, but at some point, the offer more impedement than progress to moving the conversation in my opinion.
it doesnt mean anything to say "we cant understand this other dimension".
if there is a spirit world, and if the following exist:
prayer (communication between our thoughts and god/saints)
soul
The Holy Spirit
if those exist there has to be a way for them to interact with us, otherwise we couldnt be aware of any interaction.
if there is no mechanism of interaction , there is no interaction.
perhaps you could say that to be touched by the holy spirit is to have certain number of fundamental particles entangled with others on the recieving end, but since our brains do not really integrate information meaningfully with changes in states/distribution of those sorts of particles, that doesn't really make sense.
how is the localized distribution of electrical potentials in various parts of the cortex transduced to God? i mean sure once it crosses the boundary it is a black box, but where is the electrical field reader in our brain that is activated when prayer happens to traffic information to the 'black box'.
contrary to your assertion that we simply can't understand the true nature of our existence, the evidence is strictly to the contrary. there is a strong timeline of the growth of human understanding, and there amazingly hasn't really been a hard well that we have met yet.
-
Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
I don't assert that we cannot understand. We may develop that understanding someday. We make what seems to be good progress all the time.
This is purely speculation on my part but, I belive that whatever method God uses to "talk" to us is within the laws of the physical universe. We are just at a point where we cannot quantify his method. Who knows we may someday, and if so, our understanding of the development of life will be altered.
As of now I allow that there's more to God than I can perceive. I consider this particular lack of understanding and factor it into my interpretation of facts.
This is purely speculation on my part but, I belive that whatever method God uses to "talk" to us is within the laws of the physical universe. We are just at a point where we cannot quantify his method. Who knows we may someday, and if so, our understanding of the development of life will be altered.
As of now I allow that there's more to God than I can perceive. I consider this particular lack of understanding and factor it into my interpretation of facts.
-
Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
Adex_Xeda wrote:I don't assert that we cannot understand. We may develop that understanding someday. We make what seems to be good progress all the time.
Pick an assertion and stick with it eh?Adex_Xeda wrote:A goldfish can learn through it's own capablities that it cannot go past the glass of his fishtank by bumping into it a few hundred times.
FYI...
In regards to the original post...
http://us.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/05/ ... index.html
Cheers!
Marb
In regards to the original post...
http://us.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/05/ ... index.html
Cheers!
Marb
-
masteen
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8197
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
While I'm glad that this got dropped, this kind of shit happens more than you'd believe. Most "history" books used for 1-12 grade are so sanitized and gutted of the context as to make the events almost nonsensical.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
-
Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
?Arborealus wrote:Adex_Xeda wrote:I don't assert that we cannot understand. We may develop that understanding someday. We make what seems to be good progress all the time.Pick an assertion and stick with it eh?Adex_Xeda wrote:A goldfish can learn through it's own capablities that it cannot go past the glass of his fishtank by bumping into it a few hundred times.
I'm by no means the sharpest tool in the shed but those statements seem consistant to me.
It's sad, we could discuss this in 30 minutes face to face, yet over a messageboard it takes days.
Will humanity eventually come to complete understanding the universe in abstraction? maybe
Is a goldfish able to eventually understand the world outside his fishtank? maybe
-
Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
Which is why I avoid obfuscating by metaphor...
In the goldfish metaphor...you seem to be implying that humankind can learn that he cannot exceed a boundary (the walls of the tank) hence understanding the "world of spirit" or the world immediately adjacent to and encompassing his perceived reality...
So yes to me these two statements are inherently contradictory...
And no, science will never come to complete understanding of the cosmos in totality... The nature of science is that it can never eliminate all possible extraneous and intervening variables (or more honestly it cannot say with certainty that it has eliminated them)...Thats why science does not make statements of fact...It make probability statements...
Perhaps if I misconstrue the bit about the loaves and fishes just right...I could form the Church of Jesus Christ, The Ichtheologist! (portmanteau intended)...[/quote]
(edited to address the second 2 positions)
In the goldfish metaphor...you seem to be implying that humankind can learn that he cannot exceed a boundary (the walls of the tank) hence understanding the "world of spirit" or the world immediately adjacent to and encompassing his perceived reality...
So yes to me these two statements are inherently contradictory...
What do you mean here by abstraction?...Religion(s) do purport to understand the totality of the Cosmos in abstraction...Science uses abtraction only in the theorizing stage...Why would we want to understand in abstraction we can understand in reality?...Will humanity eventually come to complete understanding the universe in abstraction? maybe
And no, science will never come to complete understanding of the cosmos in totality... The nature of science is that it can never eliminate all possible extraneous and intervening variables (or more honestly it cannot say with certainty that it has eliminated them)...Thats why science does not make statements of fact...It make probability statements...
Probabilities are against the goldfish given current scientific knowledge, and I don't believe that any religion I am aware of has a position statement on goldfish theology...Is a goldfish able to eventually understand the world outside his fishtank? maybe
Perhaps if I misconstrue the bit about the loaves and fishes just right...I could form the Church of Jesus Christ, The Ichtheologist! (portmanteau intended)...[/quote]
(edited to address the second 2 positions)
-
Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
That is not what I'm trying to communicate.
Everyone has the potiential to exceed their limitations.
Let me try again.
Consider an NPC in Everquest. What if one day due to some kick ass coding the NPC became self aware. After some time strutting across the world of Norrath the NPC declared, I have seen many things, and I now must declare, that since I have seen no physical proof that human players exist. Furthermore from what I've observed, it is unsupported that these mytholigical humans have "created" Norrath. I am positive because I have seen most of this world.
The NPC is limited. The NPC is not able to see the world outside Norrath. How then is he to get absolute proof that his world was created by Brad the human? He may see hints of human intervention as zones are fixed, or elements of the static world changes, but he'll never get a hair, or a scratch of provable Norrathian DNA to prove that Brad the creator exists.
What if one day Brad the creator decides to come down into Norrath and run around as an avatar named Aradune? During this time Aradune displays GM miracles that no NPC could possibly do. Brad claims there's a world outside Norrath to all the NPCs, yet many of the NPCs reject the thought, because it's obviously nonsense.
What if Brad the Creator said to his NPCs, call out to me in /ooc and I will answer your requests, if I see they are worthwhile. One NPC /ooc requests and they start to get answered. Other NPCs see these answered requests and reject them as being from Brad the Creator because there's no physical evidence to suggest it.
Brad is not bound by the laws of Norrath. He can do anything he wants. But because this concept is impossible to empirically prove, some NPCs reject the idea that Brad the Creator exists.
MY POINT "woo I have one"
Some schools of scientific interpretation are just like those NPCs who try to characterize their world based only on things that they can directly quantify. This attitude by default rejects the possiblity of a larger world out there. This attitude by default blinds the NPCs from considering miracles, or claims of a human visiting as a game avatar.
I say our stance should be Yes, evolution is our best guess IF we limit what we consider to what we can clearly percieve and measure.
The bible claims there is more to this universe than what we see or touch.
I've witnessed small and large miracles enough to see the pattern and belive it.
I've /ooced to God and gotten enough direct responses to belive it.
Cause and effect reinforces my gamble to the point where it is no longer a gamble but rather a quiet, peaceful confidence.
If this is too metaphorical for you then I apologize, I'm having a hard time "quantifying" my past experiences into words.
Everyone has the potiential to exceed their limitations.
Let me try again.
Consider an NPC in Everquest. What if one day due to some kick ass coding the NPC became self aware. After some time strutting across the world of Norrath the NPC declared, I have seen many things, and I now must declare, that since I have seen no physical proof that human players exist. Furthermore from what I've observed, it is unsupported that these mytholigical humans have "created" Norrath. I am positive because I have seen most of this world.
The NPC is limited. The NPC is not able to see the world outside Norrath. How then is he to get absolute proof that his world was created by Brad the human? He may see hints of human intervention as zones are fixed, or elements of the static world changes, but he'll never get a hair, or a scratch of provable Norrathian DNA to prove that Brad the creator exists.
What if one day Brad the creator decides to come down into Norrath and run around as an avatar named Aradune? During this time Aradune displays GM miracles that no NPC could possibly do. Brad claims there's a world outside Norrath to all the NPCs, yet many of the NPCs reject the thought, because it's obviously nonsense.
What if Brad the Creator said to his NPCs, call out to me in /ooc and I will answer your requests, if I see they are worthwhile. One NPC /ooc requests and they start to get answered. Other NPCs see these answered requests and reject them as being from Brad the Creator because there's no physical evidence to suggest it.
Brad is not bound by the laws of Norrath. He can do anything he wants. But because this concept is impossible to empirically prove, some NPCs reject the idea that Brad the Creator exists.
MY POINT "woo I have one"
Some schools of scientific interpretation are just like those NPCs who try to characterize their world based only on things that they can directly quantify. This attitude by default rejects the possiblity of a larger world out there. This attitude by default blinds the NPCs from considering miracles, or claims of a human visiting as a game avatar.
I say our stance should be Yes, evolution is our best guess IF we limit what we consider to what we can clearly percieve and measure.
The bible claims there is more to this universe than what we see or touch.
I've witnessed small and large miracles enough to see the pattern and belive it.
I've /ooced to God and gotten enough direct responses to belive it.
Cause and effect reinforces my gamble to the point where it is no longer a gamble but rather a quiet, peaceful confidence.
If this is too metaphorical for you then I apologize, I'm having a hard time "quantifying" my past experiences into words.
-
Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
One more thing,
Voronwe asks "If God interacts with us, where is the boundary, where is the common set of laws that link him to us?"
This Everquest analogy hits on how that might work. Brad the Creator can do anything in the world he created because he controls the sourcecode. That's his link to the creation. What if an NPC asks, "exactly how does Brad the Creator perform GM miracles and create something out of nothing, or change things abstracted from Norrathian physics?" How do you explain to the NPC Brad's use of sourcode? The NPC almost needs to be abstracted from the game to get a decent enough perspective to understand the use of sourcecode modification and Brad's application of it.
So bring this back to earth. Question: How exactly does God perform miracles? How exactly does God answer prayer or speak with people? All I can say is that he does, and that I hear his answers. What method does he use? How does arrange circumstances into forcing my once mulitple paths into a single path that he wants me to take? How does he "whisper" in my ear? How does he place a tugging on my heart to do something?
I don't know, I'm not in a perspective to understand God's use of sourcecode. I AM in a perspective to see his results, and to witness his response to me when I communicate to him via the methods described by the bible.
Ok, Now I need to get back to describing the binary sequence necessary to propel a 200 pole, unipolar, half step, stepper motor clockwise 30 degrees and back at 100RPM, AND type up a 30 page lab report dictating each boring, never used again, minutia of FieldPoint module linkage via LabVIEW and duct tape.
Voronwe asks "If God interacts with us, where is the boundary, where is the common set of laws that link him to us?"
This Everquest analogy hits on how that might work. Brad the Creator can do anything in the world he created because he controls the sourcecode. That's his link to the creation. What if an NPC asks, "exactly how does Brad the Creator perform GM miracles and create something out of nothing, or change things abstracted from Norrathian physics?" How do you explain to the NPC Brad's use of sourcode? The NPC almost needs to be abstracted from the game to get a decent enough perspective to understand the use of sourcecode modification and Brad's application of it.
So bring this back to earth. Question: How exactly does God perform miracles? How exactly does God answer prayer or speak with people? All I can say is that he does, and that I hear his answers. What method does he use? How does arrange circumstances into forcing my once mulitple paths into a single path that he wants me to take? How does he "whisper" in my ear? How does he place a tugging on my heart to do something?
I don't know, I'm not in a perspective to understand God's use of sourcecode. I AM in a perspective to see his results, and to witness his response to me when I communicate to him via the methods described by the bible.
Ok, Now I need to get back to describing the binary sequence necessary to propel a 200 pole, unipolar, half step, stepper motor clockwise 30 degrees and back at 100RPM, AND type up a 30 page lab report dictating each boring, never used again, minutia of FieldPoint module linkage via LabVIEW and duct tape.
-
Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
Ermmmm then they aren't limitations...exceed their limitations
Science does characterize the world based only on things that are quantifiable that is one of the rules of science...This in no way rejects the possibility of a larger world out there...Science limits its probability statements to what it is measuring/talking about at any given time...It does not ever state that that is all there is...It make statements about the variables considered and controlled in a given experiment discussion...But every scientist out there knows with a very high level of certainty that there are uncontrolled variables and often variables which we do not even conceptualize...Most scientists in my experience who are religious folks just hold the personal philosophy that god is an extraneous non-intervening variable in regards to what they are working on...Some schools of scientific interpretation are just like those NPCs who try to characterize their world based only on things that they can directly quantify. This attitude by default rejects the possiblity of a larger world out there.
You are mistaking the philosophy of science for the philosophy of a scientist...
I will tell you that god does not exist...that is a statement of belief (mine)
Science will tell you that if we can't quantify it we cannot talk about it scientifically...
And this is all based on your experience and feelings...And that is your fish tank not ours...The bible claims there is more to this universe than what we see or touch.
I've witnessed small and large miracles enough to see the pattern and belive it.
I've /ooced to God and gotten enough direct responses to belive it.
-
Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
Good question...I dunno...Drasta wrote:now for the big question ! ... is the universe limitless ? ... or does it end somewhere ... do you hit a wall ... whats on the other side of the wall ? how can something go on forever then?
Im reminded of the Cheech and Chong Theory in which our whole solar system is just an atom....*inhales sharply*...
-
Asheran Mojomaster
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1457
- Joined: November 22, 2002, 8:56 pm
- Location: In The Cloud
Another thing is, if there is a life after this one that goes on forever...wouldn't it eventually get boring? Lol, I mean, that really doesn't make sense but it kinda does...like 1673568538786786784678678678678768678648665554445^99999 years from now you will still be here. Ugh, that just makes me feel weird inside to think about.Drasta wrote:now for the big question ! ... is the universe limitless ? ... or does it end somewhere ... do you hit a wall ... whats on the other side of the wall ? how can something go on forever then?
God has no boundaries nor limits... If you believe that as I do you don't need any method of connection. Logical? NOPE But through my experiences and faith I know it to be true. Can't prove it to anyone, I just know it.
Marb
PS - I also know I'm not perfect and never well be but I try to be a little better in different ways, each day and try to take care of others. That, to me, is what I feel God wants from us. It was one of the first if not the first question in the Bible and Jesus' second most important commandment, love thy neighbor. If everyone could do that, even just a little, don't you think the world would be a better place?
But through my experiences and faith I know it to be true. Can't prove it to anyone, I just know it.Marb
PS - I also know I'm not perfect and never well be but I try to be a little better in different ways, each day and try to take care of others. That, to me, is what I feel God wants from us. It was one of the first if not the first question in the Bible and Jesus' second most important commandment, love thy neighbor. If everyone could do that, even just a little, don't you think the world would be a better place?
-
Adex_Xeda
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
- Location: The Mighty State of Texas
Drasta,
You know I heard a speaker present the idea that the fabric of our universe holds itself together like a droplet of water holds itself together in mid air.
This guy suggested that due to the way space/time curves or something that the universe is similar to a multidimentional sphere. That is if you choose one direction and traveled that one direction long enough, you'd eventually end up back where you started. Compare this to the idea of walking along the surface of a sphere, if it's good and round you'll eventually end up back at your starting point.
If this idea is true, the universe would seem to have definable limits.
Ash,
If you subscribe to the God created things model, time is a subset of creation. That is if you did reach the afterlife, you'd acheve a state where you were removed from time. You'd not change, change is a function of time. You wouldn't get bored, Bordom requires the passage of time. You'd just exist in a unchanging state of some type.
This makes sense in a way. Consider that when God Introduced himself to Moses he said that his name was "I Am" "I Am" this name alone communicates at state of unchanging. I am in the past, I am in the present I am in the future. If you are removed from this time-dependant universe and was looking at it on the wall in timeline format you'd exist in the past, future and present all at the same time. Yet again you'd be timeless. Bordom, age, change, all of these things are non existant once you remove yourself from a time dependant universe.
Consider the classical argument about Jesus. How can Jesus's taking our sin and dying on the cross to take the punishment for our sins be sufficient for people who have already died? Or people who were yet to even born yet alone sin?
Well if you step back again in the away from the time model and look at it from God's "Looking at the timeline on the wall" perspective, it wouldn't matter "when" Jesus did his thing, it only matters that he chose to do it. That act alone was timeless and covered the sin of both those who came before him and those who came after him. It also explains how God can see into the future, he sees the whole universe at a glance like some kind of time-faceted object.
Now if you're with me thus far allow me to take it a step further into crazyness. If you reach the afterlife to be with God in heaven, then you must in the same state that God is in, an existance not bound by time. If that is the case then you too can look down on the universe, smeared out as a timeline on the heavenly wall and see your birth, life, and death all as a single thread woven into the timeline. So in essense right now you could be in the afterlife looking down on yourself existing in this world at this moment. Woo two places at once. When you die where do you go? Heck you're already there, and always were there. What a though eh?
Imagine trying to describe something without using language that depends on time. I walked, to the store. eek, walking requires displacement over time. After giving it consideration,, nope giving something consideration requires time.
Our language and our existance is melded with time references. You can't separate them. It's almost impossible to think in a time removed manner, yet that's exactly the frame of reference that God operates in.
I think this time dependence that we're saturated with is one reason why we have a hard time pinning down how God operates. His time abstracted frame of reference is hard to perceive given our current state of time shifting.
But hey who says we're moving in time? With this model our existance is not in the moment but as a collection of infinitely small slices of time. Our existance is more of a thread smeared through time markers. What's to say our entire lives are already static right now, and the only trick is we "experience" our lives one tick and tock at a time?
Well hell that explains the whole predestination question. It also shows that predestination and free will are NOT mutually exclusive.
Please forgive my typos I'm in a hurry to get back to homework.
You know I heard a speaker present the idea that the fabric of our universe holds itself together like a droplet of water holds itself together in mid air.
This guy suggested that due to the way space/time curves or something that the universe is similar to a multidimentional sphere. That is if you choose one direction and traveled that one direction long enough, you'd eventually end up back where you started. Compare this to the idea of walking along the surface of a sphere, if it's good and round you'll eventually end up back at your starting point.
If this idea is true, the universe would seem to have definable limits.
Ash,
If you subscribe to the God created things model, time is a subset of creation. That is if you did reach the afterlife, you'd acheve a state where you were removed from time. You'd not change, change is a function of time. You wouldn't get bored, Bordom requires the passage of time. You'd just exist in a unchanging state of some type.
This makes sense in a way. Consider that when God Introduced himself to Moses he said that his name was "I Am" "I Am" this name alone communicates at state of unchanging. I am in the past, I am in the present I am in the future. If you are removed from this time-dependant universe and was looking at it on the wall in timeline format you'd exist in the past, future and present all at the same time. Yet again you'd be timeless. Bordom, age, change, all of these things are non existant once you remove yourself from a time dependant universe.
Consider the classical argument about Jesus. How can Jesus's taking our sin and dying on the cross to take the punishment for our sins be sufficient for people who have already died? Or people who were yet to even born yet alone sin?
Well if you step back again in the away from the time model and look at it from God's "Looking at the timeline on the wall" perspective, it wouldn't matter "when" Jesus did his thing, it only matters that he chose to do it. That act alone was timeless and covered the sin of both those who came before him and those who came after him. It also explains how God can see into the future, he sees the whole universe at a glance like some kind of time-faceted object.
Now if you're with me thus far allow me to take it a step further into crazyness. If you reach the afterlife to be with God in heaven, then you must in the same state that God is in, an existance not bound by time. If that is the case then you too can look down on the universe, smeared out as a timeline on the heavenly wall and see your birth, life, and death all as a single thread woven into the timeline. So in essense right now you could be in the afterlife looking down on yourself existing in this world at this moment. Woo two places at once. When you die where do you go? Heck you're already there, and always were there. What a though eh?
Imagine trying to describe something without using language that depends on time. I walked, to the store. eek, walking requires displacement over time. After giving it consideration,, nope giving something consideration requires time.
Our language and our existance is melded with time references. You can't separate them. It's almost impossible to think in a time removed manner, yet that's exactly the frame of reference that God operates in.
I think this time dependence that we're saturated with is one reason why we have a hard time pinning down how God operates. His time abstracted frame of reference is hard to perceive given our current state of time shifting.
But hey who says we're moving in time? With this model our existance is not in the moment but as a collection of infinitely small slices of time. Our existance is more of a thread smeared through time markers. What's to say our entire lives are already static right now, and the only trick is we "experience" our lives one tick and tock at a time?
Well hell that explains the whole predestination question. It also shows that predestination and free will are NOT mutually exclusive.
Please forgive my typos I'm in a hurry to get back to homework.
it just means that you cannot make statements like "time is meaningless to god" as if they were assertable facts. in fact time must have meaning to god if he interfaces with this universe as it is an inseperable part of that universe based on any understanding.
anyways, i made this long post and the router ate it, but I want to comment on something you said Marb about the core principles of the New Testament.
I think it is actually a more uplifting thing to consider that a person wrote those things without having to have his "daddy" tell them what they were. I think the God-as-father metaphor is useful as we develope intellectually, but at a point - just like in our physical lives we must break from our parents, we must also shed the notion of our guidance coming from anywhere else. I think the intellectual progression over thousands of years is fairly clear tracing divinity through taking the form of trees and animals to human like gods, to incorporeal all encompassing entities, to finally a mortal human (in Christianity) as to where that is going.
I think obviously Western philosophy has already been at the point that i'm discussing for a couple hundred years in that there is no God, or at least no God as the concept of these old religions would profress.
Compare our development as a species intellectually to our development as individuals. it is kind of like our psycho-philosophy recapitulates our ontogeny! meaning, we're all grown up now, and can nourish ourselves, provide shelter for ourselves.
edit: recapitulates you fucknut
anyways, i made this long post and the router ate it, but I want to comment on something you said Marb about the core principles of the New Testament.
I think it is actually a more uplifting thing to consider that a person wrote those things without having to have his "daddy" tell them what they were. I think the God-as-father metaphor is useful as we develope intellectually, but at a point - just like in our physical lives we must break from our parents, we must also shed the notion of our guidance coming from anywhere else. I think the intellectual progression over thousands of years is fairly clear tracing divinity through taking the form of trees and animals to human like gods, to incorporeal all encompassing entities, to finally a mortal human (in Christianity) as to where that is going.
I think obviously Western philosophy has already been at the point that i'm discussing for a couple hundred years in that there is no God, or at least no God as the concept of these old religions would profress.
Compare our development as a species intellectually to our development as individuals. it is kind of like our psycho-philosophy recapitulates our ontogeny! meaning, we're all grown up now, and can nourish ourselves, provide shelter for ourselves.
edit: recapitulates you fucknut
Last edited by Voronwë on February 6, 2004, 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Drasta,
You know I heard a speaker present the idea that the fabric of our universe holds itself together like a droplet of water holds itself together in mid air.
This guy suggested that due to the way space/time curves or something that the universe is similar to a multidimentional sphere. That is if you choose one direction and traveled that one direction long enough, you'd eventually end up back where you started. Compare this to the idea of walking along the surface of a sphere, if it's good and round you'll eventually end up back at your starting point.
If this idea is true, the universe would seem to have definable limits.
Ash,
If you subscribe to the God created things model, time is a subset of creation. That is if you did reach the afterlife, you'd acheve a state where you were removed from time. You'd not change, change is a function of time. You wouldn't get bored, Bordom requires the passage of time. You'd just exist in a unchanging state of some type.
This makes sense in a way. Consider that when God Introduced himself to Moses he said that his name was "I Am" "I Am" this name alone communicates at state of unchanging. I am in the past, I am in the present I am in the future. If you are removed from this time-dependant universe and was looking at it on the wall in timeline format you'd exist in the past, future and present all at the same time. Yet again you'd be timeless. Bordom, age, change, all of these things are non existant once you remove yourself from a time dependant universe.
Consider the classical argument about Jesus. How can Jesus's taking our sin and dying on the cross to take the punishment for our sins be sufficient for people who have already died? Or people who were yet to even born yet alone sin?
Well if you step back again in the away from the time model and look at it from God's "Looking at the timeline on the wall" perspective, it wouldn't matter "when" Jesus did his thing, it only matters that he chose to do it. That act alone was timeless and covered the sin of both those who came before him and those who came after him. It also explains how God can see into the future, he sees the whole universe at a glance like some kind of time-faceted object.
Now if you're with me thus far allow me to take it a step further into crazyness. If you reach the afterlife to be with God in heaven, then you must in the same state that God is in, an existance not bound by time. If that is the case then you too can look down on the universe, smeared out as a timeline on the heavenly wall and see your birth, life, and death all as a single thread woven into the timeline. So in essense right now you could be in the afterlife looking down on yourself existing in this world at this moment. Woo two places at once. When you die where do you go? Heck you're already there, and always were there. What a though eh?
Imagine trying to describe something without using language that depends on time. I walked, to the store. eek, walking requires displacement over time. After giving it consideration,, nope giving something consideration requires time.
Our language and our existance is melded with time references. You can't separate them. It's almost impossible to think in a time removed manner, yet that's exactly the frame of reference that God operates in.
I think this time dependence that we're saturated with is one reason why we have a hard time pinning down how God operates. His time abstracted frame of reference is hard to perceive given our current state of time shifting.
But hey who says we're moving in time? With this model our existance is not in the moment but as a collection of infinitely small slices of time. Our existance is more of a thread smeared through time markers. What's to say our entire lives are already static right now, and the only trick is we "experience" our lives one tick and tock at a time?
Well hell that explains the whole predestination question. It also shows that predestination and free will are NOT mutually exclusive.
Ok well one can't argue with Fairie Tales...
Vor it would be great I guess if I could believe that, at one time I actually leaned that way... while in college.
However I think what you are referring to is a step in our understanding... Metaphysically I think our philosopy is very sophomoric. Like most teenagers we have gained knowledge believe unattainable a few years (or centuries) before. Like teenagers many now believe they have no need for our Father.
When we were children in our understanding of the universe we needed Him to give us comfort and to protect us. As our understanding has grown we have become the rebellious child, much like Isreal itself, who wants to feel they can do it all alone.
Not believing in God is pretty powerful from a Humanistic standpoint. (Rogers, Maslow, Yallom etc...) Just like the rebellious teenager, we don't need our Father anymore to guide us, we are strong, we can do it all ourselves... if that makes people feel better I guess it's ok for them. Heh, it works for John Travolta right? or is it...
However if we get beyond that, if we get beyond just reason and the secientific method I think we can experience something greater. I think we can experience a greater understanding. As most people eventually realized after college, that their parents weren't so stupid after all, I think Humanity will eventually realize that only through fellowship with God can we get to the next level in our understanding and evolution. God is patient but everyone doesn't have forever to make their decision... as I have said before I'm VERY far from perfect. But try to do a little better each day, through Him and with His strength I do so.
What I'm saying is that "I" am strong, "I" am a Human being with knowledge beyond any other animal. At the same time "I" am nothing without God. I read and listen a great deal but I can expand my knowledge and understanding only so far, His love, knowledge and forgiveness is what takes me further and makes me whole. It is what helps me make the leap beyond reason to a greater understanding... of which I still know very little... but that's ok because He knows all and one day when my days here are over, I too will know and understand.
That is how I personally believe, I truly I have spent a LOT of time thinking about it... While I never expect anyone to say "Dude, your post, I'm convered!" But perhaps it will cause someone it at least consider and think. That is what I want from people most of all, to be open. That goes for the close minded zealots on both sides of the religious issue. At least consider and listen, if you can't defend your beliefs and feelings, AT LEAST to yourslef, how happy can you be with them and how can they help you become the person you want to be.
Cheers!
Marb
PS - We will have to discuss theories on time later
However I think what you are referring to is a step in our understanding... Metaphysically I think our philosopy is very sophomoric. Like most teenagers we have gained knowledge believe unattainable a few years (or centuries) before. Like teenagers many now believe they have no need for our Father.
When we were children in our understanding of the universe we needed Him to give us comfort and to protect us. As our understanding has grown we have become the rebellious child, much like Isreal itself, who wants to feel they can do it all alone.
Not believing in God is pretty powerful from a Humanistic standpoint. (Rogers, Maslow, Yallom etc...) Just like the rebellious teenager, we don't need our Father anymore to guide us, we are strong, we can do it all ourselves... if that makes people feel better I guess it's ok for them. Heh, it works for John Travolta right? or is it...
However if we get beyond that, if we get beyond just reason and the secientific method I think we can experience something greater. I think we can experience a greater understanding. As most people eventually realized after college, that their parents weren't so stupid after all, I think Humanity will eventually realize that only through fellowship with God can we get to the next level in our understanding and evolution. God is patient but everyone doesn't have forever to make their decision... as I have said before I'm VERY far from perfect. But try to do a little better each day, through Him and with His strength I do so.
What I'm saying is that "I" am strong, "I" am a Human being with knowledge beyond any other animal. At the same time "I" am nothing without God. I read and listen a great deal but I can expand my knowledge and understanding only so far, His love, knowledge and forgiveness is what takes me further and makes me whole. It is what helps me make the leap beyond reason to a greater understanding... of which I still know very little... but that's ok because He knows all and one day when my days here are over, I too will know and understand.
That is how I personally believe, I truly I have spent a LOT of time thinking about it... While I never expect anyone to say "Dude, your post, I'm convered!" But perhaps it will cause someone it at least consider and think. That is what I want from people most of all, to be open. That goes for the close minded zealots on both sides of the religious issue. At least consider and listen, if you can't defend your beliefs and feelings, AT LEAST to yourslef, how happy can you be with them and how can they help you become the person you want to be.
Cheers!
Marb
PS - We will have to discuss theories on time later