Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The problem is the attempt to employ a pre-conceived anthropomorphic faulty mathematical solution to the vastness of things. Zen, and as I mentioned Judaism warns against this. Also touched upon in "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"argued in medieval times to extend knowledge by inference, arguing endlessleely about minutiae. missing the larger picture. The anthropic princiople is best suited to a mathematical and scientific analysis. Trying to ascribe "design" to the universe is putting the cart before the horse.
Math denies the anthropic principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

....The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned Universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.[25]

The fine-tuned Universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination, as it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible.[26] Regarding this, Stenger argued: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."[27]

In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the Universe through the process of evolution, rather than the Universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking, below). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the Universe.[28]

It's no wonder that a world-renowned biologist strongly warned his fellow biologists to don't believe their eyes when the eyes tell them that life is designed.

And Stenger employs the argument from the science of the gaps. He has no reason to believe that our carbon-based life is all there is and that it is all that is possible -- even though there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary. And of course, he appeals to the theory of multi-verses, for which again there is no evidence.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have also been taught by teacher to judge with a righteous judgment, which I have in your case (Jn 7:24).

In (Jn 7:24) Jesus is talking about people judging him. He is not telling people to judge others. Read the full text, fool.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, let's cut to the chase -- now that you have left the door open to an external, visible kingdom. Why don't you interpret Mat 21:43 for us

In modern terms Jesus is talking about "collective consciousness" which is defined as a set of shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within a society.

You cannot experience the divine in a society whose focus is anti God.This is why "the Kingdom" is taken away from a nation whose "collective consciousness" is pure materialism, and greed.

That nation is no longer blessed due to the nature of their collective consciousness. But individuals in that nation who are connected to God (the Kingdom) stay connected.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

In (Jn 7:24) Jesus is talking about people judging him. He is not telling people to judge others. Read the full text, fool.

So? He didn't tell the people to NOT judge but rather told them HOW to judge him. Learn to read!

In modern terms Jesus is talking about "collective consciousness" which is defined as a set of shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within a society.

You cannot experience the divine in a society whose focus is anti God.This is why "the Kingdom" is taken away from a nation whose "collective consciousness" is pure materialism, and greed.

That nation is no longer blessed due to the nature of their collective consciousness. But individuals in that nation who are connected to God (the Kingdom) stay connected.

Forget "modern terms". What did Jesus mean and how would his original audience understood him? Also, you won't find any support for you absurd interpretation in scripture. Nowhere did Jesus or his apostles teach that the kingdom of God is collective divine consciousness.

Also, to which nation did Christ give the kingdom of God? Yesterday, you performed your black magic by saying "a nation" = many nations. Jesus didn't know how to say "nations", if that's what he really meant?

Are you working on that parable yet?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

In In modern terms Jesus is talking about "collective consciousness" which is defined as a set of shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within a society.

The Pharisees definitely had a strong anti-God attitude since they categorically rejected (for the most part) God's son. They were always hostile and antagonistic towards Christ and, therefore, by extension the Father. So...then...you seem to be saying that this divine consciousness is what Jesus is telling the Pharisees (and the other Jews within earshot) would be taken away from them and given to another nation. But this implies that God is not omniscient. Why would an omniscient God, who knows all men's hearts, give this "consciousness" (kingdom) to someone, knowing full well beforehand that this person would never love or believe in Him? If what you say is right, God screwed up big time, since he had to correct his oversight or mistake by soon taking that "consciousness" (kingdom) back and giving it to another nation. This may be your idea of your god, but it's not the God who has revealed himself in scripture.

Your god doesn't seem to be together or very well connected to himself!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'll accept your definition as long as you don't try to redefine the term -- like Halv did the other day did with the term "universe" when he claimed that the universe existed on the first day of creation.

No matter how I define it you will claim I'm redefining the term.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No matter how I define it you will claim I'm redefining the term.

No, I won't. If your definition fits the sense of that of most dictionaries, I'll buy it because I know my definition meets this criteria. Go for it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, I won't. If your definition fits the sense of that of most dictionaries, I'll buy it because I know my definition meets this criteria. Go for it.

Most dictionaries? Which ones don't qualify? If you are going to be that picky why don't you define it. After all, you used the word first.

Do you have an answer yet to why Elohiymn is the creator of the universe and not Zeus, Odin, Shiva or some other deity? It's been 10 days. Is that patience enough?

By the way, are Elohiymn and Yahweh the same guy? Elohiymn is not in the KJV.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, I won't. If your definition fits the sense of that of most dictionaries, I'll buy it because I know my definition meets this criteria. Go for it.

Quantum Theory says that time is quantized, i.e., that there is a limit to how short a time interval can be. Call this limit dt. If S[t] is the state of the universe at time t and S[t+dt] is the state of the universe at time t+dt then S[t] is predictive of S[t+dt]. By definition S[t] is the cause of S[t+dt]. Conversely S[d+dt] is said to be caused by S[t]. Obviously cause is a noun and caused is a verb.

Also conversely S[t+dt] is indicative of S[t].

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

#2549 - Time didn't exist until the universe did?

Just for future reference.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Actor

No matter how I define it you will claim I'm redefining the term.

The definition of the universe is "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos." I never redefined the universe. I simply said that as long as matter and space existed on day one, then even if boxcar believe there was more matter and space to come, whatever matter and space existed constituted the universe at that time. And as an aside, if the universe existed, time had started.

boxcar mumbo-jumboed the question about how the existence of matter and space - and you can't deny the "earth" was matter and existed in a space - would not constitute a universe, suggesting that you couldn't call the limited universe of day one a universe because it was not the universe of day six.

I'm just trying to figure out how you could have matter and space and not call that part of a universe. All existing matter seems pretty obvious, and all matter that did not exist seems irrelevant.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Most dictionaries? Which ones don't qualify? If you are going to be that picky why don't you define it. After all, you used the word first.

Do you have an answer yet to why Elohiymn is the creator of the universe and not Zeus, Odin, Shiva or some other deity? It's been 10 days. Is that patience enough?

By the way, are Elohiymn and Yahweh the same guy? Elohiymn is not in the KJV.

Yes, they are one and the same. And the Hebrew term "Elohihym" is in the KJV.

Elohiymn is the creator of the universe because, as the Unmoved Mover, he's the only one with all the attributes that such a being would logically have and the bible says that he has. See my 28567 in the Religious thread.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Most dictionaries? Which ones don't qualify?

The ones you use.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Quantum Theory says that time is quantized, i.e., that there is a limit to how short a time interval can be. Call this limit dt. If S[t] is the state of the universe at time t and S[t+dt] is the state of the universe at time t+dt then S[t] is predictive of S[t+dt]. By definition S[t] is the cause of S[t+dt]. Conversely S[d+dt] is said to be caused by S[t]. Obviously cause is a noun and caused is a verb.

Also conversely S[t+dt] is indicative of S[t].

Is this a definition? If so, of what?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The definition of the universe is "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos." I never redefined the universe. I simply said that as long as matter and space existed on day one, then even if boxcar believe there was more matter and space to come, whatever matter and space existed constituted the universe at that time. And as an aside, if the universe existed, time had started.

boxcar mumbo-jumboed the question about how the existence of matter and space - and you can't deny the "earth" was matter and existed in a space - would not constitute a universe, suggesting that you couldn't call the limited universe of day one a universe because it was not the universe of day six.

I'm just trying to figure out how you could have matter and space and not call that part of a universe. All existing matter seems pretty obvious, and all matter that did not exist seems irrelevant.

But all matter did not exist on Day One, neither did Time until the rest of matter was created on Day 4. So, yes...you tried to say the universe existed on day one even though 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of it was yet to be created.

All matter that did not exist is not irrelevant, given the definition of "universe, especially since Time could not have existed until Day 4 untile the sun, moon and stars were created.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But all matter did not exist on Day One, neither did Time until the rest of matter was created on Day 4. So, yes...you tried to say the universe existed on day one even though 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of it was yet to be created.

All matter that did not exist is not irrelevant, given the definition of "universe, especially since Time could not have existed until Day 4 untile the sun, moon and stars were created.

No, A universe existed on day one based on the definition of universe. Yes, I said whatever existed was the universe at that time, even if, according to your fable it wasn't the universe of day 6. Notice the definition of universe is not, "all matter and space that exists and some matter and space to be created later." How do you possibly deny that matter and space existed on day one but it didn't fit the definition of universe? It would be like saying the the $100 in my savings account doesn't constitute my existing savings because once my tax refund check gets deposited my savings account will be bigger. I have news for you. If I went to the bank and said I'd like to withdraw $500, I would be told, sorry, the universe of your savings is $100.

You are certainly wrong about this given the definition of the universe. What you don't know, and what you can never know given the limitations of the Genesis story, is whether all the energy in the universe existed on day one, because as I have pointed out, as long as the energy was there, it would have been child's play for your god to convert this to matter on day four. By that assumption, the universe did exist on day one. You say created, I say converted, especially given the law of conservation of energy. The idea that universal laws did not exist just because you have a yarn to spin is about as arbitrary as it comes, especially since the book is silent on energy and matter.

Your reliance on an ignorance of science works neatly to assume things could have only occurred one way. Ignorance of relativity and time also works well for you to suggest that the greatest minds on the planet don't know what they are talking about. We've established you don't understand science or probability, especially when you can't understand that because many low probability events are almost certain to occur given enough time, time is not causal. Why anyone would take you seriously when debating on those topics is a bigger mystery than why god would have chosen you to spread the message.