Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

You put God in a box. To you God is on the level of the stupidity of humans. Vengeful, angry, jealous, punitive,conditional love, exclusiveness, etc. Accessed through a book and rigid beliefs. These are all low levels of consciousness which leads to spiritual stupidity because these are insulting qualities associated to an infinite being who is not capable of this stupidity.

This is done by those who do not know God, only fear him. It is only one step above ancient ones who used human sacrifice to appease their angry Gods. God only incarnated into this world. He is not of this world or its stupidity be it human sacrifice or threats of eternal damnation.

As usual, you don't answer the tough questions.

Secondly, quit projecting. It's you who puts God in box "on the level of stupidity of humans" because you think that he loves like we stupid, sinful, unrighteous humans do. You think that his love and righteousness are mutually exclusive attributes! You think that God cannot execute his righteous justice and at the same time be a God of love, which is neither a biblical idea nor is it consistent with the real world as we all know it. You think God's love is this visceral, touchy-feely, skull-filled-with-mush kind of love, rather than a love that flows from his unchanging holy, righteous character. Because God's love itself is moral in nature, he must be a just God. He cannot be unjust and righteous at the same time! That would be a contradiction -- not his love and justice -- or his love and righteousness.

You think that Jesus came here to teach us how to be nice to one another and to give us some good advice or how make nice to one another -- or how to get in touch with our divine self, all such foolish ideas totally missing the real purpose that God sent his only begotten Son into this world. God took on flesh to actually pay the penalty of sin for all those who truly believe in him. And I'm not talking about the kind of faith that demons have -- because even they "believe in God" and yet shutter at the doom that awaits them at the end of the age (Jas 2:19).

True faith is actually believing God. This is taught in many places in scripture, and Jesus himself taught it.

Luke 1:20-21
20 "And behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which shall be fulfilled in their proper time."
NASB

Gabriel is speaking above passage, and he was God's messenger sent to Zacharias. And because Zacharias questioned God's appointed messenger, he was disciplined for a season! For whom God LOVES, he disciplines all those who are his sons (Heb 12:6,10).

And look what Jesus said about believing what Moses wrote and believing his own words:

John 5:47
47 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
NASB

And again,

Matt 7:24-26
24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. 25 "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. 26 "And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. 27 "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall."
NASB

"Hears these words of mine and acts upon them". In other words hearing here means understands. And actually acting upon that understanding of Jesus' words means the hearer believes Him. The hearer doesn't get to cherry-pick what he wants to believe and what he doesn't. He doesn't get to sit in judgment of what were Jesus' actual words and what weren't. He doesn't get the luxury of stroking his own ego at the expense of the whole truth of divine revelation. But right here is the crux of your problem. You don't believe the Father or his Son because you don't believe what they say about their own divine revelation. You think all the bible is the product of stupid humans. The bible has largely been corrupted with their stupid, superstitious, backward, ignorant ideas about God -- but of course, you being the quintessential example of spiritual enlightenment have this ability to separate the "wheat from the chaff" -- real truth from their stupidity -- all of which is based solely on your subjective personal feelings.

You will pay a very high price for that very high opinion of yourself.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I was talking generically about public discussions and attitudes.

I don't follow the much of the back and forth on this thread because the physics is outside my area of education and I am agnostic about the religion.

I'm becoming more spiritual again, but not in a way that would be 100% consistent with any religion. What I now suspect to be the "truth" I don't have the IQ to fully understand, comprehend, or explain. In layman's terms, "I don't think it was all an accident".

Our IQ is an obstacle when it comes to "spiritual matters"...IMO. The IQ is a function of the mind...and "true spirituality" is BEYOND the mind. One thing is certain though, as far as I am concerned: the more "spiritual" a person is, the less inclined he is to flaunt his spiritual achievements to others.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Look at your phrasing in the above post. You mention that you are offended when religious people are called "fools"...but you neglect to mention that the opposite occurs at least as often. IMO...you can't say that Dawkins is "arrogant" without also adding that the vocal proponents of religion are ALSO "arrogant". Arrogance rules in BOTH camps, from what I've seen.

You should read the conversation again.

I was agreeing with exactly the point you are making but adding it goes both ways because the original statement did not.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Our IQ is an obstacle when it comes to "spiritual matters"...IMO. The IQ is a function of the mind...and "true spirituality" is BEYOND the mind. One thing is certain though, as far as I am concerned: the more "spiritual" a person is, the less inclined he is to flaunt his spiritual achievements to others.

I don't agree on the first part.

I think at some level of intellect we would be fully capable of understanding and comprehending everything. We just aren't anywhere near that level. I can't even solve pace figures. :-)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I feel sorry for people like Dawkins. He's confident in what he believes because he has a high IQ, examines evidence etc ... but I suspect his high IQ only covers a limited area. If he was truly intelligent in a broad way, he'd be more imaginative and not nearly as confident.

People like Dawkins are to be pitied. They have convinced themselves that they know so much that any talk about God is irrelevant, useless and unnecessary. The Dawkins of this world are very often passed over by God, as He just gives them free reign to puff themselves up with their own pride.

1 Cor 1:26-29
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God.
NASB

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don't agree on the first part.

I think at some level of intellect we would be fully capable of understanding and comprehending everything. We just aren't anywhere near that level. I can't even solve pace figures. :-)

Seriously? You truly believe that finite minds, with all that limitations that would entail, has that kind of capability? I don't even think Christians when in the eternal, visible kingdom of God in their resurrected, glorified bodies will be able to fully comprehend God.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don't agree on the first part.

I think at some level of intellect we would be fully capable of understanding and comprehending everything. We just aren't anywhere near that level. I can't even solve pace figures. :-)

Our "intellect" has advanced markedly through the years, but when we talk about the world's truly "wisest" men...we have to go back a couple thousand years to find them. Who is the Jesus, Buddha, Socrates and Plato of today? It seems that the more we improve "intellectually"...the more we are left behind "wisdom-wise".

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Seriously? You truly believe that finite minds, with all that limitations that would entail, has that kind of capability? I don't even think Christians when in the eternal, visible kingdom of God in their resurrected, glorified bodies will be able to fully comprehend God.

I'm willing to believe that. As we are above the earthworm, something could be above us except many many many times over. I suspect they'd be able to figure it all out. They'd certainly do better with pace figures. :-)

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Our "intellect" has advanced markedly through the years, but when we talk about the world's truly "wisest" men...we have to go back a couple thousand years to find them. Who is the Jesus, Buddha, Socrates and Plato of today? It seems that the more we improve "intellectually"...the more we are left behind "wisdom-wise".

Sadly I agree with you on that.

We are making progress technologically and in other ways, but in some ways we are probably going backwards.

[boxcar]

Recently, our resident physicist denied that I had proved in my 5736 how the finite model of a universe within the framework of atheistic materialism is a self-refuting, self-defeating, self-stultifying belief system. So, then I challenged him in my 5844 to emulate how I structured the "Diane is-isn't my mother" within the framework of the LNC itself. But of course, he never did, and this is understandable. After all who wants to commit intellectual harakiri by refuting his own denial? But this is what I'll do in this post. I will demonstrate again how the above model in a worldview of atheistic materialism is patently absurd.

Again, the LNC: A thing cannot be (exist as) A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense (i.e. in the same respect or in the same relationship).

a) universe = a thing

b) cannot be in a state of existence necessary to cause/create itself = A

c) cannot also be in a state of non-existence = non-A

d) for A thru C to be true, the universe would have had to exist and not exist at once and in the same respect, since something cannot be caused by nothing

e) therefore, this finite model of a universe within the structure of atheistic materialism is self-defeating, i.e. self-contradictory.

And so it will forever be until such time as someone provides direct evidence contrary to what has been stated above. Hypotheses or theories don't count. Probabilities don't count. Inferences don't count. Someone must provide irrefutable proof by direct evidence and observation.
And this is an eminently reasonable bar to set since the LNC operates on what we do know about reality, including our thought processes and what constitutes rational, reasonable, coherent communication.

We know that rabbits can be pulled out of empty hats by magic tricks of illusion. And we also know that rabbits cannot be pulled out of empty hats by any of the known physical laws of the universe.

We know that things in this macroscopic realm do not pop into existence without a cause. And we also know that things can appear to have vanished in thin air, again by magic tricks of illusion.

I go by things that we know, rather than by probabilistic theories. I go by what I know is actually real in this macroscopic world through direct empirical observation, study and experience, not by what may be merely possible. And for this I offer no apology.

And once more to remind everyone: If anyone thinks he is going to refute what I have laid out above, they must use this very law of logic to deny its validity. And this, too, is obviously self-defeating. To use the Law to invalidate itself implies in the first place that the law if valid to be used! Of course, this is what Hcap did. He kept insisting that that Casimir Effect violated the LNC, and in so doing it was impossible for him to not use the LNC to invalidate itself. This is a great example of wanting it both ways all at once and simultaneously.

Everyone, have a pleasant evening and a great weekend.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And that makes you an expert scientist by comparison!?

Superposition and entanglement all fall under the heading of quantum mechanics. And both fall under the category of probabilistic theory.

I have quoted experts in quantum mechanics. You have even decided to call me Spooky after a statement by Einstein who was confounded by quantum entanglement.

Gee, not only have you taught the late expert Hawking a thing or two, now it comes out you have solved something Albert Einstein had difficulty with.

There is more to quantum entanglement than "And both fall under the category of probabilistic theory"

Oh wait, you and Einstein and Hawking all fall under the category of "people born within the last 200 years", probabilistic-ally speaking that is.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

We've had some pretty good disagreements on a few topics over the years, but beyond momentary frustration I don't have a negative feeling in my body about you. I hope the same it true of you.

I can accept where you are coming from, and allow for your concerns. I think we prioritize differently.

I suspect it is inly a matter of time until our resident "expert on everything" objects to something you will say.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And once more to remind everyone: If anyone thinks he is going to refute what I have laid out above, they must use this very law of logic to deny its validity. And this, too, is obviously self-defeating

If I refuse to believe you can fly, must I refute gravity?

To use a semi-satanic analogy.

The devil is in the details.

You do a very lousy job with details. In science, technology, history and religion

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I have quoted experts in quantum mechanics. You have even decided to call me Spooky after a statement by Einstein who was confounded by quantum entanglement.

Gee, not only have you taught the late expert Hawking a thing or two, now it comes out you have solved something Albert Einstein had difficulty with.

There is more to quantum entanglement than "And both fall under the category of probabilistic theory"

Oh wait, you and Einstein and Hawking all fall under the category of "people born within the last 200 years", probabilistic-ally speaking that is.

Yeah, Spooky, you're a real expert by virtue of quoting "experts".

Yeah, what more is there to QE than it falls under the heading of quantum mechanics and is in the category of probabilistic theory? As stated earlier it's just another version of a potato. And what direct evidence is there to support QE theory? (Inferences don't count.)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I can accept where you are coming from, and allow for your concerns. I think we prioritize differently.

I suspect it is inly a matter of time until our resident "expert on everything" objects to something you will say.

I don't agree with everything CH has said. There is the wisdom of this world and then there is God's wisdom -- and the twain shall never meet.