Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What UP are you speaking of? I guess you are trying to speak of a prticles condition's sin.

Wrong again!
The "actualities" of the sub atomic is evident in every day live. Your computer, cellphone, gps, and nucler power plants to begin with. You have not the faintest notion of the difference measuring sub atomic properties and those properties themselves.

Back to ignore bunky!

ugh!

UP = your beloved Uncertainty Principle.

And whatever "actualities" there may be at the sub-atomic, none of them violate the LNC.

Now, answer the questions I posed to you in 5937. You claim that fuzzy logic has made the classical laws of logic obsolete. So, explain to us how this new hoidy toidy logic paradigm that rules the roost at the sub-atomic level would rationally handle the problems I presented in 5937 at the macroscopic level. An inquiring mind needs to know.

[hcap]

Fuzzy logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Classical logic only permits conclusions which are either true or false. However, there are also propositions with variable answers, such as one might find when asking a group of people to identify a color. In such instances, the truth appears as the result of reasoning from inexact or partial knowledge in which the sampled answers are mapped on a spectrum.

Both degrees of truth and probabilities range between 0 and 1 and hence may seem similar at first, but fuzzy logic uses degrees of truth as a mathematical model of vagueness, while probability is a mathematical model of ignorance.

Your beloved ritualistic application of the law of non contradiction only is applicable to yes/no questions. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows a wide spectrum of outcomes.

Not only that, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle clearly states " any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known.

Additional on the sub atomic level, namely in the case of simultaneous measurements (A and B at the same time): the two simultaneous measurements on A and B are necessarily unsharp or weak.

The above illustrates how Heisenberg leads to how humans on the macroscopic level are always without the total picture of properties on the quantum level, and that is why it is fuzzy an fuzzy logic, a recognized branch of mathematics is more appropriate to understanding partially known conditions and why your beloved LNC fails without all the info available. Note that as the time interval approaches simultaneous, the time aspect of your beloved LNC weakens

......the uncertainty principle states that the position and velocity cannot both be measured,exactly, at the same time .

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Like what? Like the questions in 5833.

5833 is a quote from HCap

Originally Posted by boxcar

Jesus did not sacrifice his life for a "principle" but offered himself up on the Cross on behalf of all the sinners whom his Father predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world so that he could satisfy his Father's righteous justice which was death for the penalty of sin under his holy Law.

You make no sense. You reduce God to a thug who uses his son to open some mythical gates of Heaven that for some reason God cannot do with his infinite powers, because he wants to wipe out this large group of sinners on Earth he hates. And he also does this so he can have his "Yes People" around him (like Trump?). Your God is the most immature God I've heard of. Reminds me of you. Hmmm, how coincidental.

When someone comes up to the cross, do you think the impression people get when they see this beautiful man nailed to the cross is:

"Good job getting rid of those sinners asses, hi five. They had it coming. I got my ticket to Heaven punched right here. And we're going to kick the rest of their sorry asses when we roast and toast them in Hell. Party time!"

That ^^^ is another way of mirroring what you are saying.

Most people including myself feel an immediate connection to the love Jesus portrays when they see this beautiful man nailed to the cross. They don't think of saving the world from sinners or opening up your Corporate gates of Heaven. They think of saving themselves and the way they do that is nurturing the love and compassion they feel for Jesus's sacrifice for love. It moves their INNER desire to have that experience of love and compassion in their own lives. They learn by example from Jesus. They don't need to be nailed on the cross nor to hit people over the head with threats of believe me or you will be dammed. Because that is not the way of Jesus nor of Love.

What you preach here is not the way of Jesus who said "turn the other cheek", "Love your enemies". Your way is punitive, and the punitive way is in direct contradiction of what Jesus preached. Therefore you are not a true Christian. You are a "fake Christian".

The atheists on this board are more "Christian" than you because even though they don't believe, their hearts are in a more kinder place than yours which makes them much closer to God than yours. You can turn blue reciting scripture, but when the test comes of what you did on Earth, the scriptures are not in the test and since your Earthly brain will be dead, you won't remember them anyway. But your spiritual heart will be on the test and your punitive heart will not pass the test of love.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Fuzzy logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Classical logic only permits conclusions which are either true or false. However, there are also propositions with variable answers, such as one might find when asking a group of people to identify a color. In such instances, the truth appears as the result of reasoning from inexact or partial knowledge in which the sampled answers are mapped on a spectrum.

Both degrees of truth and probabilities range between 0 and 1 and hence may seem similar at first, but fuzzy logic uses degrees of truth as a mathematical model of vagueness, while probability is a mathematical model of ignorance.

Your beloved ritualistic application of the law of non contradiction only is applicable to yes/no questions. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows a wide spectrum of outcomes.

Not only that, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle clearly states " any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known.

Additional on the sub atomic level, namely in the case of simultaneous measurements (A and B at the same time): the two simultaneous measurements on A and B are necessarily unsharp or weak.

The above illustrates how Heisenberg leads to how humans on the macroscopic level are always without the total picture of properties on the quantum level, and that is why it is fuzzy an fuzzy logic, a recognized branch of mathematics is more appropriate to understanding partially known conditions and why your beloved LNC fails without all the info available. Note that as the time interval approaches simultaneous, the time aspect of your beloved LNC weakens

......the uncertainty principle states that the position and velocity cannot both be measured,exactly, at the same time .

Thanks for repeating what I stated previously in so many words!

And so...here's the proverbial bottom line, Spooky: "Humans on the macroscopic level, which would necessarily include scientists doing science on the quantum level, cannot, do not and will never have the total picture of properties on the quantum level! Not unless you want to redefine the term "cannot" in the definition of UP!

THEREFORE, since the UP guarantees that finite, fallible human scientists are always operating to some degree in the DARK (i.e. in ignorance) at the quantum level, it can never be said with certainty that quantum mechanics violates any of the classical laws of logic, let alone destroys any or all of them!

Furthermore, the UP's definition is grounded on what cannot be known completely; whereas the classical laws of logic find their ground on what is known completely. So, until direct evidence is provided to the contrary, what we do know with certainty is that a thing cannot be in two different places at the same time and in the same sense. And what we do know with certainty, until proven otherwise with direct evidence, is that a thing cannot create or cause itself at the same time and in the same sense.

And finally, what we know with absolute certainty is that the validity of the LNC cannot be refuted, apart from using the law itself, which would imply that the law is valid in its very use! The LNC is does not apply to only "yes" and "no" question but to absolute true or false questions.

In my statement, "The Water is dry today", there is no question being asked or implied. YET...everyone here knows that this statement cannot possibly be true, ergo it is false. How do we know this with certainty? Again, PAY ATTENTION TO ME THIS TIME, SPOOKY, BECAUSE I'M TIRING OF YOUR SELF-INDUCED DENSENESS: We can KNOW because of what I stated a few days ago -- that the human mind is wired to think in terms of antitheses. We are born that way! We know that water is wet. We also know there are no degrees of wetness to water. And we know that the properties of absolute wetness are antithetical to the properties of dryness! Therefore, we all know that the example given above is absolutely absurd, irrational and incoherent and as such must be false. No Ands, Ifs or Buts about it!

In closing, the LNC does not depend on "yes" or "no" questions. It depends on true or false propositions. The LNC is a Truth Detector! After all, people contradict themselves all day long apart from "yes" and "no" questions.

[classhandicapper]

To me, it seems so intuitively illogical to think the physical universe came into being on its own, I would rank that as the least likely scenario.

More likely there is something else (which could be God, something like our concept of God, or something else completely) that we don't have the senses to observe or understand in any way. If we knew what that something else was and could understand it, we would understand where the material universe came from and it would all make sense. But we are so far removed from understanding the material world, understanding this possible non material world is an impossibility for us.

The whole conversation is kind of comical.

At this stage all we have is an extremely limited understanding, intuition, and testimony and evidence that many people understandably reject. All you can do is look at it all and decide for yourself what you are willing to accept, what you will reject, and what you are willing to intuit. When you are done, you should probably realize this is one situation where "it's subjective" is probably the correct answer because the actual answer is unknowable to us.

One exception to this would be a personal experience that is so overwhelming and unexplained it all becomes clear to you. I know someone like that. He had a NDE and has no doubts now. But of course, that's one of the things some people reject.

Those are my primitive thoughts on the subject.

To show you how far away I am, I still have a tough time believing some of the things physicists are fairly certain of. They are so intuitively illogical to me, I'm holding out hope that the reason they are getting the right answer is because they have multiple wrongs leading to a right. Ultimately, they are going to figure out there was another explanation for what they thought they were observing. Then again, I'm probably wrong.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

To me, it seems so intuitively illogical to think the physical universe came into being on its own, I would rank that as the least likely scenario.

If the physical universe did not come into existence on its own, then this rules out a purely natural explanation for the universe.

It would also rule out that something came from nothing, although there are scientists who have actually posited this absurdity.

Therefore, there is only alternative remaining that has two options which speak to transcendence: Panspermia or the Supernatural.

I think the bible offers the most feasible and logical explanation for the origin of the universe and why.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And so...here's the proverbial bottom line, Spooky: "Humans on the macroscopic level, which would necessarily include scientists doing science on the quantum level, cannot, do not and will never have the total picture of properties on the quantum level! Not unless you want to redefine the term "cannot" in the definition of UP!

Why do you continue to ignore evidence of the quantum level here on the macroscopic level?

Your blanket yes/no formulations totally miss all the shades of grey that do exist on both the microscopic and macroscopic levels

Scientists doing science on both scales may never know everything, but so what?

You continue to ignore what science has learned since your 17 th century ignorance. You would never be able to blabber your bullshit on the internet, this board without your computer, partially based on knowledge human scientists here on the macroscopic scale have learned of the quantum level.

I have decided you are much too annoying on 1/2 way ignore.

.................................................. .Be gone, bunky !!!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

To me, it seems so intuitively illogical to think the physical universe came into being on its own, I would rank that as the least likely scenario.

What preceded the creator? If you ascribe infinity to a creator, isn't it as valid to skip directly to infinity, and leave out the human projected notion of a middle man?

[hcap]

Infinity is the problem for the human mind

YouTube (Short URL)

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

...I think the bible offers the most feasible and logical explanation for the origin of the universe and why.

Well, thanks for sharing that opinion. It would be nice if, for a change that reflects a bit of maturity, that you communicated that belief as an opinion, and not fact. You know, admit there's a leap of faith involved in your world view. This is sorely lacking in your posts.

As for the Bible and a logical explanation of the Universe, is there any insight provided on how God was created, or where He originated? I don't recall any quotes, but anything like "God has always been" could be refuted with "The Universe has always been", using that same logic.

In other words, the Bible doesn't have all the answers, in my OPINION.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

...Jesus did not sacrifice his life for a "principle" but offered himself up on the Cross on behalf of all the sinners whom his Father predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world so that he could satisfy his Father's righteous justice which was death for the penalty of sin under his holy Law.

This is another aspect to Christianity which doesn't make any sense to me. Why all the theatrics about crucifixion, death and resurrection? Especially if it's all truly predestined? Why do I get the impression I'm reading a script from a play, rather than a record of actual historical events?

You say Jesus wasn't a martyr. Okay. But it's very common to hear the phrase "sacrificed upon the cross", or as you put it, "offered". So assuming the Trinity in some way, shape or form is true, isn't Jesus really God in the form of man? After all, he's performing those miracles like walking on water, healing the sick, and turning water into wine. Therefore, is He not something MORE than man? And if so, how much of a sacrifice is it to be crucified? How much pain does a god feel when nailed to a cross. Seems like a rigged event, in my OPINION. I don't intend to be blasphemous, it's just my honest viewpoint. This part of the fable never rang authentic with me.

I even went back out to search on Horus, since that's where it's been said that much of the Christian myth originated (a polite way of saying plagiarized). I found no additional insight there, but I did find the following link debunking the Horus/Jesus comparison. In the spirit of the season and a friendly Easter Bunny with no jellybeans, it can be found here:

https://strangenotions.com/horus-manure/

What I find odd about it is that the author's methods could be applied to the Bible's accuracy as well, in my OPINION. Why? Because we're still talking about a very limited number of documents describing events a long, long time ago, and recorded by a very limited number of people, who while educated and literate, obviously were also on the payroll of the elitists of their time. And while attacking the work of a 19th century scholar may be fair play, it comes across more as a disagreement of opinion, and rather petty.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Why do you continue to ignore evidence of the quantum level here on the macroscopic level?

Your blanket yes/no formulations totally miss all the shades of grey that do exist on both the microscopic and macroscopic levels

Scientists doing science on both scales may never know everything, but so what?

You continue to ignore what science has learned since your 17 th century ignorance. You would never be able to blabber your bullshit on the internet, this board without your computer, partially based on knowledge human scientists here on the macroscopic scale have learned of the quantum level.

I have decided you are much too annoying on 1/2 way ignore.

.................................................. .Be gone, bunky !!!

You are so willfully ignorant and obtuse, it is mind-boggling. In your last post had admitted that scientists, according to UP, CANNOT know everything. They are, therefore, partially ignorant. As such, Spooky, you cannot possibly know with certainty that quantum mechanics violates any laws of logic. It is pure conjecture on your part to say so..

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

This is another aspect to Christianity which doesn't make any sense to me. Why all the theatrics about crucifixion, death and resurrection? Especially if it's all truly predestined? Why do I get the impression I'm reading a script from a play, rather than a record of actual historical events?

You say Jesus wasn't a martyr. Okay. But it's very common to hear the phrase "sacrificed upon the cross", or as you put it, "offered". So assuming the Trinity in some way, shape or form is true, isn't Jesus really God in the form of man? After all, he's performing those miracles like walking on water, healing the sick, and turning water into wine. Therefore, is He not something MORE than man? And if so, how much of a sacrifice is it to be crucified? How much pain does a god feel when nailed to a cross. Seems like a rigged event, in my OPINION. I don't intend to be blasphemous, it's just my honest viewpoint. This part of the fable never rang authentic with me.

I even went back out to search on Horus, since that's where it's been said that much of the Christian myth originated (a polite way of saying plagiarized). I found no additional insight there, but I did find the following link debunking the Horus/Jesus comparison. In the spirit of the season and a friendly Easter Bunny with no jellybeans, it can be found here:

https://strangenotions.com/horus-manure/

What I find odd about it is that the author's methods could be applied to the Bible's accuracy as well, in my OPINION. Why? Because we're still talking about a very limited number of documents describing events a long, long time ago, and recorded by a very limited number of people, who while educated and literate, obviously were also on the payroll of the elitists of their time. And while attacking the work of a 19th century scholar may be fair play, it comes across more as a disagreement of opinion, and rather petty.

The mystery of the incarnation cannot be understood. But scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God. As a man, he felt everything any human being would. In scripture he manifested human anger. He manifested human sorrow. He manifested human compassion. He felt hunger. He experienced thirst. He experienced agony. He felt pain, etc.

Heb 2:14-18

14 Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.
NASB

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Well, thanks for sharing that opinion. It would be nice if, for a change that reflects a bit of maturity, that you communicated that belief as an opinion, and not fact. You know, admit there's a leap of faith involved in your world view. This is sorely lacking in your posts.

As for the Bible and a logical explanation of the Universe, is there any insight provided on how God was created, or where He originated? I don't recall any quotes, but anything like "God has always been" could be refuted with "The Universe has always been", using that same logic.

In other words, the Bible doesn't have all the answers, in my OPINION.

How often will you keep repeating the same error? We've been down this road before. God is eternal. God in his very essence is pure existence. He always was, is, and will always be.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Infinity is the problem for the human mind

Most especially yours given the inane question you asked about it.