Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are doing the same thing as you did bragging about your Ray Talbot system. And just like the Anthropic principle you only picked the correct solution after the race was run. Never before.

For your info science does much better predicting future events than any religious selector of anything has done, and that includes you and your really lunatic theories about time and space, let alone craziness about "evil" genes responsible for original sin passed down from Adam and Eve.

Blah, blah, blah, blah...This is all you got: Deflection? And I didn't pick any "correct solution". I was teaching how to use racing angles, using actual race results.

The irrefutable fact remains is that numerous physicists and astronomers have made their scientific observations of the workings of the cosmos and have made the logical inference that the universe is indeed "finely tuned" to make life possible on this planet. And this fine tuning didn't happen by "chance". Nor is it a result of a very long series of coincidences either. There is precisely 0.00 chance that all this fine tuning is accidental.

If you're waking along an isolated strip of beach with no one around and suddenly come upon an elaborately built sandcastle, normal people do not logically infer that "nature" or "natural selection" caused a colony of crabs to sculpt the design into the sand.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have lied, sir. You said a few weeks ago in your 1781 that I am not interpreting anything. You are.

Now, you're telling me that you have been interpreting LK 17:21 and that syntax alone is sufficient to understand the passage. So, which is it, you deceiver:

Dude, easy on the theatricals. Liar and deceiver? You're confused and amusing.

Look, I will repeat: there is no interpretation necessary for "The kingdom of God is within You" Period. What is there to interpret? It's pretty clear. I said Jesus is talking about "consciousness". You could say that is my interpretation but that is just another way of saying the same thing.

I graciously conceded that was an interpretation but actually, it's not. It's another word for the same thing. After all, if "the Kingdom of God is within you", its requires a higher consciousness to experience it. Get it?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why are you attributing comments to me that I didn't make?

In your post #2479 a statement appears saying "Assuming there are 10(22) planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it)." I simply point out that the correct notation for 1 with 22 zeros following it is 1.0E22. I make no attempt to attribute the comment to anyone in particular. However, you did not put it in quotes, nor did you wrap quote tags around it, so it's fair to assume the comment was yours.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Dude, easy on the theatricals. Liar and deceiver? You're confused and amusing.

What part of this sentence that you wrote in 1781 don't you get?

I am not interpreting anything. You are.

Look, I will repeat: there is no interpretation necessary for "The kingdom of God is within You" Period. What is there to interpret? It's pretty clear. I said Jesus is talking about "consciousness". You could say that is my interpretation but that is just another way of saying the same thing.

I graciously conceded that was an interpretation but actually, it's not. It's another word for the same thing. After all, if "the Kingdom of God is within you", its requires a higher consciousness to experience it. Get it?

(emphasis mine)

So you contradicted yourself! And then you call me "confused"? You can't make up your mind if you interpreted Jesus' words or not, especially since recently you sung the praises of "syntax" -- which by the way is a subordinate consideration to understanding sentences, as sentences must ultimately be understood in their context. People structure sentences and pick and choose the words they use (syntax) out of consideration of their larger thought (context) in which the sentence is uttered or written.

And it appears you have no answers for what Jesus told the Jews a little later in his ministry:

Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.
NASB

What part of this passage don't you get? Jesus promised to take your so called "Jesus consciousness" away from the Jews and give it to another nation. Jesus took the kingdom of God out of the Pharisees and all other Jews. End of story. The above passage needs no stinkin' interpretation either.

Syntax Rocks!

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What part of this sentence that you wrote in 1781 don't you get?

I am not interpreting anything. You are.


(emphasis mine)

So you contradicted yourself! And then you call me "confused"? You can't make up your mind if you interpreted Jesus' words or not, especially since recently you sung the praises of "syntax" -- which by the way is a subordinate consideration to understanding sentences, as sentences must ultimately be understood in their context. People structure sentences and pick and choose the words they use (syntax) out of consideration of their larger thought (context) in which the sentence is uttered or written.

Apparently you have difficulty following a train of thought. My condolences .

Originally Posted by boxcar

And it appears you have no answers for what Jesus told the Jews a little later in his ministry:

Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.
NASB

What part of this passage don't you get? Jesus promised to take your so called "Jesus consciousness" away from the Jews and give it to another nation. Jesus took the kingdom of God out of the Pharisees and all other Jews. End of story. The above passage needs no stinkin' interpretation either.

Syntax Rocks!

Yes I have an answer here for you. But what's the point of discussing a new subject with you when you still can't understand what I say in the old subject?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The irrefutable fact remains is that numerous physicists and astronomers have made their scientific observations of the workings of the cosmos and have made the logical inference that the universe is indeed "finely tuned" to make life possible on this planet. And this fine tuning didn't happen by "chance". Nor is it a result of a very long series of coincidences either. There is precisely 0.00 chance that all this fine tuning is accidental.

The argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance. But many people define "come about by chance" as a synonym for "come about in the absence of deliberate design." Not surprisingly, therefore, they think improbability is evidence of design. Darwinian natural selection shows how wrong this is with respect to biological improbability. And although Darwinism may not be relevant to the inanimate world - cosmology for example - it raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology. A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity. Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed, but they couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design should have immunized us by raising our consciousness. Would that he had succeeded with all of us...Intelligent design is not a plausible alternative to chance...Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes...
- Dawkins

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance. But many people define "come about by chance" as a synonym for "come about in the absence of deliberate design." Not surprisingly, therefore, they think improbability is evidence of design. Darwinian natural selection shows how wrong this is with respect to biological improbability. And although Darwinism may not be relevant to the inanimate world - cosmology for example - it raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology. A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity. Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed, but they couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design should have immunized us by raising our consciousness. Would that he had succeeded with all of us...Intelligent design is not a plausible alternative to chance...Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes...
- Dawkins

Not surprised that Dawkins has it all backwards! He should have said: Chance is not a plausible alternative to intelligent design, since chance has no causal power.

Those who trust in their god of chance are simply trusting in their own ignorance. "Chance" is that convenient, polite-sounding, shame-hiding, self-forgiving euphemism that is used by many high priests of scientism as a coverup for the real issue, which is: We really don't have a clue.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Apparently you have difficulty following a train of thought. My condolences .

No! The real issue is that you have difficulty in keeping your feet from stumbling over contradictions of your own making.

Yes I have an answer here for you. But what's the point of discussing a new subject with you when you still can't understand what I say in the old subject?

You're right. There is no point because Mat 21:43 nullifies your bogus "interpretation", sytnax" or whatever you use to try to understand LK 17:21.
The two texts are irreconcilable. What you think Jesus said the Pharisees had "within" them in the latter passage, in the former he very plainly said that they would lose, for it would unequivocally be taken away from them.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not surprised that Dawkins has it all backwards! He should have said: Chance is not a plausible alternative to intelligent design, since chance has no causal power.

Those who trust in their god of chance are simply trusting in their own ignorance. "Chance" is that convenient, polite-sounding, shame-hiding, self-forgiving euphemism that is used by many high priests of scientism as a coverup for the real issue, which is: We really don't have a clue.

The underlying point is that the same logic applies to both sides of the argument. The intelligent design people believe that the improbability of the universe arising by chance through natural processes must mean it was designed by a supreme creator. But by the exact same logic, given all the evidence on the age of the universe and the fact that Darwinism has been confirmed over and over again scientifically, the improbability of the universe being created according to Genesis must mean it arose through natural processes.

In a great irony, highly trained theologians believe they have achieved a higher level of religious consciousness, and this has given them a great advantage over those who have not achieved such a level. Cosmologists, physicists and biologists have also had their consciousness raised through careful study of natural processes, similarly giving them a great advantage over those who have not achieved such a level.

Clearly asking a devout Christian to modify his beliefs is a monumental job because the physical evidence of the the universe and biology is dismissed as being impossible because the Genesis story undermines it, and so the best strategy for the Christian is to be sure he is not educated on the science, since the science and the theology are in no way compatible. The problem for the scientists is that the story of Genesis is no more verifiable through physical testing than the hare and the tortoise, although as metaphor Aesop's story works very well. You can believe it to the extent your consciousness tells you to believe it, but every (not just most, but every) attempt to demonstrate it through observation of the physical universe fails.

Imagine a very tall mountain. One one side of the mountain is a sheer face, straight up and smooth. One the other side of the mountain is a very long, gentle slope. Trying to scale the mountain in one great leap on the sheer side is improbable to a point near impossibility. But the probability of reaching the top of the mountain from the gentle side one small step at a time is much higher and far more believable. The consciousness about science leads one to understand that very slow, gradual operation of the universe (and species) is a very sensible explanation for what we see today. If Christians mistakenly believe cosmological, biologic, or physical explanations that rely on great catastrophic leaps are generally an explanation for the universe, they do not have the consciousness of scientists about science.

Scientists differ from the intelligent design people because when they want information about space they go to a cosmology book, and when they want to understand the nature of species they go to a biology book, and when they want to know about religion they go to a religious book. When the intelligent design people want to know about cosmology, biology or religion they go to the same book. If that makes sense to you, you might consider having your scientific consciousness raised.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're right. There is no point because Mat 21:43 nullifies your bogus "interpretation", sytnax" or whatever you use to try to understand LK 17:21.
The two texts are irreconcilable. What you think Jesus said the Pharisees had "within" them in the latter passage, in the former he very plainly said that they would lose, for it would unequivocally be taken away from them.

There is no inconsistency with Mat 21:43 and LK 17:21. In the latter Jesus is talking of the Kingdom within, its geographical location which is in the heart.

In the former Jesus is talking to corrupt people in power and explaining that the Kingdom will be taken away. That's true because the Kingdom is in everyone and the more corrupt one becomes in their heart, the farther the kingdom within becomes. When you are absolutely corrupt it is tantamount to having the Kingdom taken away.

This is in line with some of Jesus's well known quotes such as:

Matthew 16:26 :For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (I.E the Kingdom within)

or

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (I.E The Kingdom within)

You see things on your own superficial external level and therefore cannot see the bigger internal picture Jesus was talking about.

I speak from experience.

When I meditate, it is a communication with God. If my mind is preoccupied with more worldly things, my communication and experience with God diminishes. If I was to become as one of those men in power where materialism is my main focus my communication with God would probably be
nil or taken away.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Chance is not a plausible alternative to intelligent design, since chance has no causal power.

Does anything have causal power? Define "causal power."

Originally Posted by boxcar

We really don't have a clue.

Science does not know everything. Religion does not know anything. - Aron Ra

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

There is no inconsistency with Mat 21:43 and LK 17:21. In the latter Jesus is talking of the Kingdom within, its geographical location which is in the heart.

In the former Jesus is talking to corrupt people in power and explaining that the Kingdom will be taken away. That's true because the Kingdom is in everyone and the more corrupt one becomes in their heart, the farther the kingdom within becomes. When you are absolutely corrupt it is tantamount to having the Kingdom taken away.

This is in line with some of Jesus's well known quotes such as:

Matthew 16:26 :For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (I.E the Kingdom within)

or

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (I.E The Kingdom within)

You see things on your own superficial external level and therefore cannot see the bigger internal picture Jesus was talking about.

I speak from experience.

When I meditate, it is a communication with God. If my mind is preoccupied with more worldly things, my communication and experience with God diminishes. If I was to become as one of those men in power where materialism is my main focus my communication with God would probably be
nil or taken away.

Man, you really do TOTALLY IGNORE CONTEXT when you give your interpretation, which in this case is totally off the wall! Verse 43, begins with the adverb therefore, which means that what Jesus is about to say has a very close connection to what he said immediately prior to that. To help you out here..."therefore" means "because of..." or "for this reason" or "consequently". Therefore, (no pun intended) this term always refers back to a speaker's or writer's prior immediate remarks. And those prior remarks (given in parabolic form) have nothing to do with an internal, invisible kingdom.

Your second problem is that you conveniently ignored a very inconvenient truth, which is that Jesus predicted that the kingdom would be taken away from the entire geographical nation of Israel. This, of course, would have to include from his disciples -- even from those who loved him, believed in Him, followed him, served Him, etc. The only exception to this would be the relatively few Gentiles who came to believe on Jesus and lived in Israel, since they were not part of the Jewish, geographical nation known as Israel.

Your third problem, which again you conveniently ignored, is the identity of the nation to whom the kingdom would be given. Does scripture identify this nation for us? Do we know who this nation is? Do you know who this nation is?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Actor

Does anything have causal power? Define "causal power."

Why would you ask him to define causal power? I mean, it wasn't a very sharp thing to say - it would be like explaining how the tote board caused a horse to win - but it seems like you're not going to get any kind of elucidating answer. At the end of the day (not a biblical day) as long as the probability of something happening is greater than zero, it can happen. And the probability doesn't "cause" it to happen or not happen.

How in the world can anyone be a horseplayer and not understand this. Cause and probability are two entirely different realms.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The underlying point is that the same logic applies to both sides of the argument. The intelligent design people believe that the improbability of the universe arising by chance through natural processes must mean it was designed by a supreme creator. But by the exact same logic, given all the evidence on the age of the universe and the fact that Darwinism has been confirmed over and over again scientifically, the improbability of the universe being created according to Genesis must mean it arose through natural processes.

In a great irony, highly trained theologians believe they have achieved a higher level of religious consciousness, and this has given them a great advantage over those who have not achieved such a level. Cosmologists, physicists and biologists have also had their consciousness raised through careful study of natural processes, similarly giving them a great advantage over those who have not achieved such a level.

Clearly asking a devout Christian to modify his beliefs is a monumental job because the physical evidence of the the universe and biology is dismissed as being impossible because the Genesis story undermines it, and so the best strategy for the Christian is to be sure he is not educated on the science, since the science and the theology are in no way compatible. The problem for the scientists is that the story of Genesis is no more verifiable through physical testing than the hare and the tortoise, although as metaphor Aesop's story works very well. You can believe it to the extent your consciousness tells you to believe it, but every (not just most, but every) attempt to demonstrate it through observation of the physical universe fails.

Imagine a very tall mountain. One one side of the mountain is a sheer face, straight up and smooth. One the other side of the mountain is a very long, gentle slope. Trying to scale the mountain in one great leap on the sheer side is improbable to a point near impossibility. But the probability of reaching the top of the mountain from the gentle side one small step at a time is much higher and far more believable. The consciousness about science leads one to understand that very slow, gradual operation of the universe (and species) is a very sensible explanation for what we see today. If Christians mistakenly believe cosmological, biologic, or physical explanations that rely on great catastrophic leaps are generally an explanation for the universe, they do not have the consciousness of scientists about science.

Scientists differ from the intelligent design people because when they want information about space they go to a cosmology book, and when they want to understand the nature of species they go to a biology book, and when they want to know about religion they go to a religious book. When the intelligent design people want to know about cosmology, biology or religion they go to the same book. If that makes sense to you, you might consider having your scientific consciousness raised.

No! The "underlying point is [NOT] that the same logic applies to both sides of the argument." And here's why: Because Christians live in the real world, and in the real world, intelligent, rational people make logical inferences to the best conclusions based on their real world knowledge and experiences. Christians operate from ground level zero THE PRESENT -- the way things are and have been. So...as but one example, when we see a 100-story fully functional high-rise, we don't reason that that hi-rise happened by chance. We know that there is intentionality, purpose and design behind that building -- that the building just didn't appear out of thin air. Nor do we attribute its existence to such nonsense as "natural selection" or "chance". This is the key difference between believers and unbelievers. The latter live in an alternate reality that is grounded in the naturalistic philosophy of Naturalism which says the universe doesn't need any god to explain or understand its existence. So...when the naturalists run into their brick walls of their own ignorance (which is quite often), they call upon their twin gods of Time and Chance. Conversely, believers use their God-given reasoning powers to reason back to an Unmoved Mover or an Uncaused Cause from all their observations of the world around them. Paul makes a big point of this in Romans 1 when describing unbelievers and how they categorically reject the plain truth in front of their noses.

Rom 1:18-23
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NASB

So, despite your vain attempt to try to make my argument cut both ways, it doesn't because of what Paul teaches above. Everyone is privy to the same natural and intuitive revelations of God; yet sinful men respond to it in different ways.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Does anything have causal power?

"Anything", no, not ultimately. Anyone, yes.

Define "causal power."

Heb 1:3a
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,
KJV

Rev 4:11
11 "Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created."
NASB

You do believe in the Law of Causality, right? But on the other hand, why would you ask such dumb question?