Jump to content


Photo

Causal Philosophy - Are CDs Materialists?


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#21 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 06 June 2005 - 02:27 PM

Q: what is the minimum entity needed to be resurrected on Judgment day - to have successfull resurrection? Heres some possibilities

- The same atoms in the same positions as the deceased brain.
- Different atoms in the same positions as the deceased brain.
- Different atoms in the different positions as the deceased brain.

Heisenberg.

Heisenberg's principle is only true for finite beings who cannot omnisciently measure like god can, if we were god and could measure things without effecting them, i.e. we didn't have to hit or break apart things to detect other things. Then their positions were always absolute but beyond our technology to make it clear how they are behaving, taking any scientific investigation that relies on exposing nature through cause and effect on other material objects has no meaning for an omnipotent being who *sustains* and *controls* nature, if nature is sustained by gods power, then it's also clear that natures very substance is an extension of god himself.

For instance:

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, sometimes called the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, expresses a limitation on accuracy of (nearly) simultaneous measurement of observables such as the position and the momentum of a particle. It furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the dispersions of the measurements. For instance, consider repeated trials of the following experiment: By an operational process, a particle is prepared in a definite state and two successive measurements are performed on the particle. The first one measures its position and the second immediately after measures its momentum. Suppose furthermore that the operational process of preparing the state is such that on every trial the first measurement yields the same value, or at least a distribution of values with a very small dispersion dp around a value p. Then the second measurement will have a distribution of values whose dispersion dq is at least inversely proportional to dp.

Then there is dispute:

Einstein was convinced that this interpretation was in error. His reasoning was that all previously known probability distributions arose from deterministic events. The distribution of a flipped coin or a rolled dice can be described with a probability distribution (50% heads, 50% tails). But this does not mean that their physical motions are unpredictable. Ordinary mechanics can be used to calculate exactly how each coin will land, if the forces acting on it are known. And the heads/tails distribution will still line up with the probability distribution (given random initial forces).

Einstein assumed that there are similar hidden variables in quantum mechanics which underlie the observed probabilities.

Edited by mordecai, 06 June 2005 - 02:44 PM.


#22 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 06 June 2005 - 03:09 PM

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that all our decisions are caused by influences of which we are not conscious (thereby providing a mere illusion of free will) I would have to say that this is mere speculation.


I agree it would be illogical to claim that _all_ our decisions are caused by influences we are not conscious of. But it would also be unfair to argue that _none_ of our decisions were influenced by things we are not conscious of. Just as we cannot be dogmatic that we are always acting under the influence of unpercieved influences - we should not be dogmatic that we never are.


I totally agree.

Given therefore that we have not performed an experiment to measure or exclude these unknowns - a definitive statement on the subject can only be a matter of opinion. Those apparently inconsistent 'acts' may be sheerly the result of influences we were not aware that we were acting appropriately of.

Example:

we may like chocolate, but have been ordered not to eat it. Normally we do not ... but on one day, concomitant with a subtle varaition in CSF pH or  concentrations of relevant neurotransmitters - the neurones in our temporal lobe are increased in sensitivity, the memory of 'chocolate taste' is increased .. and we decide to eat choclate! We may not be 'aware' of the cause and effect.... but it was there.


All very well and good, but it doesn't prove that the universe is ultimately deterministic.

Sometimes the decision is automatic (ie. reflexive and instinctive, such as the knee-jerk or recoil of the hand from a hot surface);


Interestingly (and this is sheerly just for interest - I get your point) neither of these reflexes are actually processes by the brain.


Right on.

All I know is that a small, grey lump of flesh and blood - powered by nutrients, oxygen and electricity - is responsible.


Thats it E. almost there, materialism beckons.


LOL, but materialism is not sufficient to explain the origins of life, so I still reject it.

This has revelance on CD theology/eschatology ..


Yes, I know.

I'll illustrate

Q: what is the minimum entity needed to be resurrected on Judgment day - to have successfull resurrection? Heres some possibilities

- The same atoms in the same positions as the deceased brain.
- Different atoms in the same positions as the deceased brain.
- Different atoms in the different positions as the deceased brain.


Saw it coming. It's not as if I haven't been asked before... :shades:

Since I don't even know what role the atoms and their positions play in the existence of a live body (let alone a dead one) I'd have to say that I have absolutely no idea.

And is it merely restricted to the atoms and their positions, anyway? Wouldn't other factors - like the state of those atoms, the amount of energy within them, etc. - come into play? I just don't know - and I doubt that you do either.

I don't believe anyone knows for sure. :popcorn:
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#23 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 06 June 2005 - 03:40 PM

If it's (a) tangible, (b) rational, © logical, it's evidence.

Irreducible complexity - that's evidence.

Specified order - that's evidence.

Inability of science to explain the origins of the universe - that's evidence.

The record of history - that's evidence. (David Rohl has done some excellent work here.)

The record of archaeology - that's evidence. (David Rohl again.)

Ancient manuscripts - they're evidence. (David Rohl again; see also The Admonitions of Ipuwer, in which Rohl finds evidence for the ten plagues of Egypt.)

My beliefs aren't taken from dreams, visions, supernatural experiences or some vague, indefinable "feeling" inside. They're taken from the conclusions I reach on the basis of the same evidence that I'd expect an atheist to examine.


The problem of course is there only a fraction of that evidence can be examined given the shortness of human life.


Well, yeah. And it's the same for science, too.

So what?

Similarly, you reject alarmingly high rates of evidence that do not conform to your first principles for interpreting evidence which are derived from apriori belief in god. The time life has been around on earth for example is indisputable (do the math yourself if you think you're so reasonable), yet most biblical YEC's dispute it, also the sun was made on the 4th day yet we know that is impossible.  The problem is God acts as a substitute for "anything a person can imagine" therefore you cannot convert other people from other religions on teh basis of logic, reason or rationality, it's still blind faith that drives all religions.

Evidence from nature that the bible is false (meteorite impacts and geological processes for example, on earth the moon and other planets, who's age we can measure through logic and reason)


I don't reject the evidence, I simply interpret it differently.

As a YEC, I believe that the earth was created in a state of maturity - and necessarily so - but if someone was to prove to me that OEC was a more viable model, I'd happily accept it.

Since God is perfectly capable of shining light onto the earth without the aid of the Sun (which I believe he did, when He created light) I do not believe that it is impossible for the Sun to have been created on the 4th day.

And if "the time life has been around on earth for example is indisputable", then why do so many scientists disagree on just exactly how long that is?

My refusal to believe in the existence of demons has nothing to do with the question of whether or not nature's laws are unchanging. Nature's laws are totally irrelevant to the issue.


But you believe in an invisible god and invisible angels who keep watch on you ("Angels camp round about us"), who only "special" people "God chooses" can see in history and then mysteriously vanish to some other plane of existence.


Yes, I believe in the existence of things which transcend natural laws.

And your point is?

For instance what is logical about christ ascending up into a cloud and into outer space for example?


What's illogical about it?

This implies that god and jesus live in outer space just above our atmosphere, but we've explored there and they dont seem to have a spaceship orbitting our planet.


It only "implies" this to somebody who cannot conceive of an alternative - and I'd have to say that I feel sorry for anyone whose imagination is so horribly crippled.

If I see a man walk into a room, it is certainly logical to assume that I could find him by opening the door, since his act of entering the room implies that he is located there. But this is by no means the only logical conclusion., for he might have climbed out the window upon entering the room!

So it would be equally logical to assume that the man is not in the room, even though I saw him enter it with my own two eyes.

If angels exist in physical form, just how would they get off the planet and survive?  Your answer is of course "God made them differently" but you have NO EVIDENCE that other life forms can exist differently from the ones on earth, the only ones you have to compare to is our kind of life, that is an EXTRAORDINARY claim with NO evidence.


That's right, I have no evidence for these things. I take them on faith.

That's why it's called "religion", Mord.

I know of no religious book which has predicted future events with certainty, as the Bible has.


It doesn't matter when the bible got the past utterly wrong, this is selective pseudoscientific reasoning at its best. "Count the hits, ignore the misses".

Using boolean logic for all statements that are literally true in the bible you do not get all ones (trues) you get a mixture of 1's and 0's (trues and falses) but for an omnipotent being all statements must come out true or else god's a liar.


I think it does matter what the Bible got wrong in the past - but since you've never actually proved that it's got anything wrong, I'm not going to trouble myself with the speculation that it has.

I know of no religious book so well supported by archaeology and history as the Bible is.


History PATENTLY refutes the bible.


How?

First of all:  God is so dumb that people dont believe in him!


This has nothing to do with history.

Free will isn't an arguement because no one disbelieves in mathematics, and if god can teach people basic mathematics who people have no problem in accepting, belief in him should be cake after all he has the power of your imagination, so any disbelief is in fact evidence that god doesn't exist.


This has nothing to do with history.

I know of no religious book with greater internal consistency (despite being compiled over so great a period and with so many contributors.)


But it is not internally consistent, do you believe the sun was made on the 4th day? If I can show you physical evidence from nature that proves the sun must come before the earth and evidence that the suns energy has been bombarding the earth for billions of years, then what's your standard for rejecting if not apriori theological reasoning from an ancient peoples sacred text?


That is a question of external consistency, not internal consistency.

I would be fascinated to know how you're calculating the age of the sun.

For instance:

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.


Yep.

1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22


Mere anthropomorphism; the sense of the passage is that God allows certain people to pursue the false ideas into which they have fallen. This is a typical Jewish idiom.

It's the same as the passages in which the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is ascribed to God.

JE 4:10, JE 20:7


This was merely the accusation of the prophet; it does not prove that God was indeed responsible. The Targum correctly ascribes the actual deception to false prophets who claimed to speak in God's name.

EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets.


Actually no, that's just an "if" statement; it doesn't say that this is what God did, nor that He was responsible.

JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word.


Yep, there were false scribes who acted against God's will. No problems there. Notice that it does not say that the writers of the Bible falsified the Word therein!

2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them).
(Note: Every word of God cannot prove true if God deceives anyone at all; the Bible cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. The first reference is mutually exclusive with the other three. Thus, the Bible cannot be the perfect work of God since one or more of the above references is obviously untrue. Note also: Some versions use the word "persuade" rather than "deceives." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)


Mere anthropomorphism; the sense of the passage is that God allows certain people to pursue the false ideas into which they have fallen. This is a typical Jewish idiom.

It's the same as the passages in which the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is ascribed to God.

This is pure sophistry, and contributes absolutely nothing to our discussion.

I could just as easily say "Mordecai, how do you know that I'm not God, and that I didn't create you 5 minutes ago with a complete personality and a fake set of memories?"


It's not pure sophistry, there are statements in the bible that says god literally decieves people, either those statements are true or they are false.


The example you provided is pure sophistry, since it is no more than philosophical speculation and proves absolutely nothing.

The problem you fail to see is, in a world of religious gods with different texts, and all claiming omnipotence or omniscience each persons god is equally capable of decieving you or falsifying the natural and historical evidence and you'd never know it simply because your not omnipotent or omniscient (in other words your not in a position of power or authority to judge because you lack the faculty and ability to make those judgements).  But you are as a human a fallible horribly error prone being who's mind is defective.  All choices are based on the quality of information available to a being in it's lifetime, the problem is for a finite being he has no way to divide true claims from false ones about history because he wasn't there he can only guess and use probabilistic arguments about events he was not present for, and this requires a correct theory of time and causal history, if you are using the incorrect causal theory or use your imagination to imagine fictitious causes that are unknown to any human being on the planet then most certainly it becomes impossible task to claim to know anything about a god or creator being and the nature of that being (finite vs infinite, mortal vs immortal, good vs evil, etc).


If you believe that a finite being has no way to divide true claims from false ones about history, then you must believe that modern scientists, historians, paleontologists, archaeologists and a whole bunch of other people are wasting not only their own time, but everyone else's.

I suggest you go and tell them right away. :bye:
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#24 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 06 June 2005 - 07:36 PM

Q: what is the minimum entity needed to be resurrected on Judgment day - to have successfull resurrection? Heres some possibilities

- The same atoms in the same positions as the deceased brain.
- Different atoms in the same positions as the deceased brain.
- Different atoms in the different positions as the deceased brain.

Heisenberg.

Heisenberg's principle is only true for finite beings who cannot omnisciently measure like god can, if we were god and could measure things without effecting them, i.e. we didn't have to hit or break apart things to detect other things.

Heisenberg's principle is true for the physical universe. If you're talking about God putting physical components back together again, then they are subject to the physical laws of the universe. Yes it is true to say that God could suspend these physical laws, but if He does so then you've just eliminated the physical law on which the argument is supposed to depend - these particles in this formation will form this mind/body combination.

There is no guaranttee that the same particles could be put back in the same position again, because after we are dead those particles are transformed into other states of energy. They literally do not exist any more. Furthermore, there is no guaranttee that putting those same particles back together again in the same position would create the same individual.

#25 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 09:52 AM

LOL, but materialism is not sufficient to explain the origins of life, so I still reject it.


oh well E. I don't suppose were allowed to discuss the 'origins of life'. But Forti's made an interesting point lets go there.

Heisenberg's principle is true for the physical universe. If you're talking about God putting physical components back together again, then they are subject to the physical laws of the universe. Yes it is true to say that God could suspend these physical laws, but if He does so then you've just eliminated the physical law on which the argument is supposed to depend - these particles in this formation will form this mind/body combination.

There is no guaranttee that the same particles could be put back in the same position again, because after we are dead those particles are transformed into other states of energy. They literally do not exist any more. Furthermore, there is no guaranttee that putting those same particles back together again in the same position would create the same individual.


Fair points - were stuck in the middle of a just-can't-say topic trying to infer the future actions of an all-powerful being. We were never going to get far.

However, for fun, lets start with a simple materialist model and look at the consequences:

Assumptions:
1. Humans are made of normal matter.
2. Human cognition is a complex phenomenon generated by the physical brain.
3. Omnipotence can and will suspend quantum physics for the afternoon.

A 'dead human' was made up of atoms in particular positions. (By which I mean that carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc.) combined in larger molecules in specific 3D locations and energy states, within even larger organic structures that made the ex-person.

To state the problem we are all aware of - If the atoms are to be reassembled - Is it the same 'stream of consciousness' that wakes up?

I was talking to John Polkinghorne about this recently, he reckoned that the 'atoms' themselves are not important. His view of the after-life is storage and reanimation of the information content alone. Although I don't think its an entirely viable view its got at least 3 points going for it: (i) specific atoms maybe part of several million people through history (ii) atoms change all the time through our lives (iii) in physics a proton or neutron or electron is assumed to be identical to other particles of the same type. So there composite - atoms - are completely interchangable.

#26 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:14 AM

I was talking to John Polkinghorne about this recently, he reckoned that the 'atoms' themselves are not important. His view of the after-life is storage and reanimation of the information content alone. Although I don't think its an entirely viable view its got at least 3 points going for it: (i) specific atoms maybe part of several million people through history (ii) atoms change all the time through our lives (iii) in physics a proton or neutron or electron is assumed to be identical to other particles of the same type. So there composite - atoms - are completely interchangable.

Information theory actually shares a lot of ground with Scripture.

#27 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:17 AM

Information theory actually shares a lot of ground with Scripture.


Now I'm intrigued, do tell.

#28 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:24 AM

Information theory actually shares a lot of ground with Scripture.


Now I'm intrigued, do tell.

Well you were a Christadelphian, you should know how often the entire concept of the Word and 'knowing' is.

For example, resurrection is described in terms of God remembering you, and your name being written in the book of life. That's only scratching the surface of course.

#29 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:43 AM

Ahhh the teasing. Come on forti - Information theory and Scripture. Myself and the ghost of Claude Shannon himself are on the edge of our seats.

#30 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:46 AM

*phew* I just checked and Claude Shannon died in 2001. That could have been embarrassing.

Edited by pantrog, 07 June 2005 - 10:46 AM.


#31 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:56 AM

Ahhh the teasing. Come on forti - Information theory and Scripture. Myself and the ghost of Claude Shannon himself are on the edge of our seats.

It's 1am, and the fact that this is a way of passing the time for you does not inspire me. I'll try and care tomorrow.

#32 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 02:46 PM

If you believe that a finite being has no way to divide true claims from false ones about history, then you must believe that modern scientists, historians, paleontologists, archaeologists and a whole bunch of other people are wasting not only their own time, but everyone else's.

I suggest you go and tell them right away.


The problem is Ev is that scientists first principles are derived from observing reality, religious peoples first principles are derived from the source text or texts they come into contact with.

For instance: As long as religious people want to believe something is true, nothing can convince them it is false because apriori your belief in a particular story about god over-rules logic, evidence and reason. You suffer from a cognitive dissonance whenever adequate evidence is provided that refutes such views.

Mathew 8 proves beyond all doubt that christ was a liar, pretending that demons actually existed in front of a crowd therefore making him sinful not sinless. But you can just say "No thats not the case" but the TEXT itself proves that it IS the case by the WORDS it used to communicate the events to us. There were much better words to use to describe such events in natural terms but Jesus/author took the superstitious route. God cannot be inspiring superstitious descriptions of natural events because it is the exact same thing as lying it is a misrepresentation of reality. You claim "I'm not interpreting it correctly" which is nonsense.

You re-interpret the words to make them mean something they do not:

Here's the definition of re-interpret:

interpret from a different viewpoint

assign a new or different meaning to

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1

Religious people are guilty of playing fast and loose with the definitions of words so as long as they do this, no one can argue with them because they can always assign new meanings to words instead of taking them at their actual values.

The problem is religious minds with strong beliefs are so vague in their internal world of reasoning they can't even come up with criteria that would falsify their own beliefs therefore making their beliefs unfalsifiable in principle.

On what grounds would you consider falsification of the bible? Contradiction? Mis-representation? Things that contradict the idea of omniscience or omnipotence? Historical, geological or comsological errors in events?

The fact is NO one on this forum can give us an account of what is the criteria for failure, because they focus on the POSITIVE evidence only (i.e. prophecy) and their feelings of wanting to survive, they do not use reason, reason itself must be detached from feeling, also reason must have methodology to weed out false positives.

Edited by mordecai, 07 June 2005 - 02:50 PM.


#33 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 03:26 PM

On what grounds would you consider falsification of the bible? Contradiction? Mis-representation? Things that contradict the idea of omniscience or omnipotence? Historical, geological or comsological errors in events?

The fact is NO one on this forum can give us an account of what is the criteria for failure, because they focus on the POSITIVE evidence only (i.e. prophecy) and their feelings of wanting to survive, they do not use reason, reason itself must be detached from feeling, also reason must have methodology to weed out false positives.

Well we have and do use criteia to test the veracity of the Bible and since it contains no contradictions, no misrepresentations, nothing to contradict the idea of omniscience or omnipotence and no historical, geological or cosmological errors in events, then it passes all tests with flying colours.

#34 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 03:47 PM

On what grounds would you consider falsification of the bible?  Contradiction?  Mis-representation?  Things that contradict the idea of omniscience or omnipotence?  Historical, geological or comsological errors in events?

The fact is NO one on this forum can give us an account of what is the criteria for failure, because they focus on the POSITIVE evidence only (i.e. prophecy) and their feelings of wanting to survive, they do not use reason, reason itself must be detached from feeling, also reason must have methodology to weed out false positives.

Well we have and do use criteia to test the veracity of the Bible and since it contains no contradictions, no misrepresentations, nothing to contradict the idea of omniscience or omnipotence and no historical, geological or cosmological errors in events, then it passes all tests with flying colours.

Every scientific experiment begins, and is predicated upon the assumption that God does not exist, and will therefore not interfere with the results of the experiment.

With that as the starting point, it is hardly surprising that 'science' proves that God does not exist!

#35 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 07 June 2005 - 03:50 PM

If you believe that a finite being has no way to divide true claims from false ones about history, then you must believe that modern scientists, historians, paleontologists, archaeologists and a whole bunch of other people are wasting not only their own time, but everyone else's.

I suggest you go and tell them right away.


The problem is Ev is that scientists first principles are derived from observing reality, religious peoples first principles are derived from the source text or texts they come into contact with.


Oh really?

So when I turn to history for verification or falsification of the Scriptures, that's not a case of deriving from observed reality?

And when I turn to the material world around me for verification or falsification of the Scriptures, that's not a case of deriving from observed reality?

And when I turn to ancient non-Biblical manuscripts for verification or falsification of the Scriptures, that's not a case of deriving from observed reality?

And when I turn to archaeology and paleontology for verification or falsification of the Scriptures, that's not a case of deriving from observed reality?

For instance:  As long as religious people want to believe something is true, nothing can convince them it is false because apriori your belief in a particular story about god over-rules logic, evidence and reason.  You suffer from a cognitive dissonance whenever adequate evidence is provided that refutes such views.


You have not even begun to prove to me that any of my beliefs are illogical. You have advanced not one iota of evidence in support of this assertion.

Mathew 8 proves beyond all doubt that christ was a liar, pretending that demons actually existed in front of a crowd therefore making him sinful not sinless.  But you can just say "No thats not the case" but the TEXT itself proves that it IS the case by the WORDS it used to communicate the events to us.  There were much better words to use to describe such events in natural terms but Jesus/author took the superstitious route.  God cannot be inspiring superstitious descriptions of natural events because it is the exact same thing as lying it is a misrepresentation of reality.  You claim "I'm not interpreting it correctly" which is nonsense.

You re-interpret the words to make them mean something they do not: 

Here's the definition of re-interpret:

interpret from a different viewpoint

assign a new or different meaning to

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1


It is merely your opinion that I am making the words mean something different; you haven't actually proved that your interpretation is the right one to begin with.

Religious people are guilty of playing fast and loose with the definitions of words so as long as they do this, no one can argue with them because they can always assign new meanings to words instead of taking them at their actual values.


Even secularists don't always take words at their "actual" (ie. "face") value, so what's the problem?

You're ignoring the fact that meaning is frequently determined by context - not always by the face value of a word.

The problem is religious minds with strong beliefs are so vague in their internal world of reasoning they can't even come up with criteria that would falsify their own beliefs therefore making their beliefs unfalsifiable in principle.


Absolute nonsense.

On what grounds would you consider falsification of the bible?  Contradiction?  Mis-representation?  Things that contradict the idea of omniscience or omnipotence?  Historical, geological or comsological errors in events?

The fact is NO one on this forum can give us an account of what is the criteria for failure, because they focus on the POSITIVE evidence only (i.e. prophecy) and their feelings of wanting to survive, they do not use reason, reason itself must be detached from feeling, also reason must have methodology to weed out false positives.


Nobody's ever demonstrated to me that a prophecy has failed; I'd consider that sufficient evidence.

Nobody's ever demonstrated to me that Jesus didn't exist; I'd consider that sufficient evidence.

Nobody's ever demonstrated to me that the Bible's representation of history is totally inaccurate in every respect; I'd consider that sufficient evidence.

And so on and so forth.
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#36 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 03:57 PM

For instance: As long as religious people want to believe something is true, nothing can convince them it is false because apriori your belief in a particular story about god over-rules logic, evidence and reason.

Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. What you describe may be true of a lot of religion, which might as well be called superstition. But I’ll tell you one thing: my belief in the God of the Bible is firmly based on logic and reason. If it wasn’t I wouldn’t be a Christadelphian.

And please stop bringing up Matthew 8. That’s been explained to you countless time but you just refuse to accept the Biblical explanation of why Jesus uses demon language. You don’t want to believe the Bible, that’s the problem. Maybe you’re just trying to run from responsibility?

#37 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 07 June 2005 - 04:44 PM

Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. What you describe may be true of a lot of religion, which might as well be called superstition.

You cannot call what the Bible reveals as "superstition" or you may as well say God is superstition and just be a atheist.

Their is a spiritual reality (waves), and a material reality (particles), both are full of creations of God, this is not superstition, it just means you are only prepared to believe (with the exception of God and [good] angels) what you can see and perceive at the level of your natural bodily senses. To say Satan is "superstition" is to say angels are superstition, as thats what he is. It just doesnt wash with other Bible believers, except the fraction that call themselves "christadelphians". It is time you changed the tune and became fundamental BIBLE believer like me, drop the overt materialistic rationalism that only appeals to reductionist atheists, and drop the 19th century liberal theology as its just another manifestation of reductionism - this time more akin to materialistic negation and wishful thinking.

Edited by Mercia2, 07 June 2005 - 05:20 PM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#38 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 07 June 2005 - 05:40 PM

We are intensly aware of our physical body because of the sensations it receives, both good and bad. We have in the past assumed that we also have a spiritual body because the religions of the world tell us so. Sinse the era of quantum experimentation, science can demonstrate our spiritual presence with experimental evidence. The dual existance of our physical/spiritual particles seems to be the evidence we have been searching for all of the time.

Quantum theory says that before we measure a particle, it isn’t really a particle It is in fact a wave of possibility. This wave is spread out over a dimension that is more than space-time. It is in fact spaceless and time-less. An unmeasured quantum resides in a less restricted enviroment than a measured quantum. Unmeasured it is part of the information of the quantum dimension and is free to be everything. Measured, it must conform and be a part of our physical world. Unmeasured it can be everywhere and everywhen. Measured it must be here and now.

If an experiment is assembled to measure the velocity of an electron, that answer is allowed. If an experiment is assembled to measure the velocity and also the position of an electron or any quantum, one measurement will be precise and the other only a range of possibilities. There seems to be a rule of nature that if you know where it is, you can’t know where it is going. If you know its destination you can’t know how long it will take.

It may be good to remember that the fuzzyness of the quantum state (unmeasured) can be ascribed to the special dimension in which it resides. The unmeasured quantum exists outside of space-time. It is for this reason that all things are possible for quantum articles (including you and me) are present once. Remember also that the quantum dimension consists totally of information. This information must be assembled by a consciousness, and the waves increased in amplitude by phasing them together so that they add. This enlarged waveform then will have the tip of the wave existing as a physical particle in our material world. The rest of the wave that is below that very high amplitude becomes part of our spiritual body. They must exist together.

Quantum particles that become material particles are always accompanied by their quantum (spiritual) basis. It is for this reason that when we talk about our body, we are talking about two bodies. One resides in our material space-time world and the other still resides in the non-material quantum (spiritual world). I call it spiritual world because it is how we have come to trhink of a spirit. It is non-material and exists in a dimension that is timeless and spaceless. It is however located in the same material place as our matter body as long as the consciousness of the individual continues in that material body. It is our consciousness and will that selects and assembles the quantum waves that will become the material body we think of as “I”.

Keep in mind that even the tissues of our brain are ultimetly quantum materials. The communication that occurs in these tissues is electrical(electrons). Our physical senses have developed to give us information about our material habitate. It appears that our body is being used very much like a satellite in our space-time world. We build machines and send them off to other worlds. We place sensors aboard to send us information about the conditions in an alien world.

We talk a lot about the electron simply because it is the most important quantum component for material things. The electron in combination with the neutron and proton, decide whether a molecule of matter will be lead, or gold. Various combinations of electrons and nucleus components give us all of the elements of the periodic table. These things in turn combine to form all of the matter of the universe.

Because of all of this talk about the electron as a particle and a wave, our brain strains to picture somethin that can be both at once. Our physical science requires that we define things in material ways. The particle and wave are mental pictures that we can understand. A field, such as gravity is a bit more difficult to understand. Nevertheless, physicists have assigned a particle called the graviton to this field, so that we can more easily visualise the transfer of force. A transfer of force is also required between the fifth dimension (the quantum realm) and our limited four-dimensional space. I am convinced that the unnamed field that connects this world with the world of possibilities is intamately attuned with the virtual particles that are not at present considered as part of our space.

Heisenberg discovered that the imprecision that is always present during experiments to discover the momentum and position of a particle, has the inverse relationship that we have talked about. Also that this relationship is true in every immaginable experiment involving the simultaneous measurment of pairs of particles from the same sourse. This uncertainty principal is a challenge to causality. In our scientific studies we have been taught (in the past) that every effect is preceded by a unique cause. The quantum uncertainty will not allow a prediction of an event in the future. In classical physics, if we know the present in every detail, we can calculate the future. This is true only for uncomplicated things. It does’t work that way in quantum physics. Any action can have an infinite number of reactions.

The future for a quantum particle is hazy at best, and larger quantum entities (you and I) have the same long list of possibilities. The question, “what is reality?” Is still a priority for mystery loving physicists. Are things really there, or do we with our conscious observation create them? Nick Herbert in “Quantum Reality” says: "One of the main quantum facts of life is that we
radically change whatever we observe. Legendary
King Midas never knew the feel of silk or the human
Hand after everything he touched turned to gold.
Humans are stuck in a similar Midas like predicament.
We can’t directly experience the true texture of reality,
Because everything we touch turns to matter."

Einstein proved to us that reality is subjectiv. Time, for instance is relative to your velocity or mass. Someone or something at a different velocity or part of a greater mass is subject to a different time. It is just as proper to say that your universe is at rest and the ground is moving by at sixty miles per hour. We have to remember that nothing physical in our universe is stationary (at rest).

The empire state building is in rapid motion as the earth turns on its axis. Our earth moves in its orbit about the sun. Our milky way galaxy is moving away from all other galaxies (with the possible exception of one)

I mention all of this just to remind you that each center of consciousness (youes and mine) in this physical world, live our lives in various stages of isolation. This is true in our world of matter, but does not appear to be true in the world of spirit. When we have finished with our body, because it is worn out, or because it has been injured in some way, we reenter the quantum spirit world where everything is one unit. We will be able to experience true togetherness with all.

Edited by Mercia2, 07 June 2005 - 05:50 PM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#39 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 05:52 PM

Mercia that's just the spiritual wisdom of Egypt and Assyria and Babylon and Persia and Greece and Rome and Turkey.

#40 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 06:01 PM

And Sao Tome & Principe.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users