.

Dear One Under God,

.

[ banjo..<<>.on/the..basis of..the current..state/of the art..of science,..there is..no way science..could validate..the hypothesis of God.>>

im..presuming..george..feels..much the same
i..disagree..both..of you..of course.

to validate..the/existance..of/the unseen..of spirit..
is a further step..to-wards confirming..the holistic unseen cause..[singular]..cause of causes.]

.

As you then posted a link to that 1924 article, “Thirty Years Among the Dead” by Dr. Carl A. Wickland, I presume you are in agreement with its conclusion, (chapter XVII, page 350 :

« Demonstrative evidence clearly indicates that much which now seems mysterious can be brought to light by appropriate research. The supernatural is only the natural not yet understood. »

While I can’t say I am in agreement with the rest of the article, it seems we both agree on the conclusion.

.

“in..heaven..it works..just fine
banjo..we arnt..dependent..upon science/peer funding
we can read..the proof..with an..open_mind..and judge..the thesis..for ourselves.”

.

We do not call that “proof”, One Under God, we call it “belief”.

.

{<<..so-called..“scientist”,..>>
the so-called priest?..so-called theist..so called atheist..
[all..shall/must..present proof..or exposed..as fraud?]

just..the names..used
indicates..the bias..or pre judgment?}

.

No, not fraud, error. I posit that nobody can be a scientist and believe in God. If he truly believes in God then he is not a scientist because, as I explained in my post: “on the basis of the current state of the art of science, there is no way science could validate the hypothesis of God.”

Therefore, it follows that no real scientist can believe in God. It is an error to call him a scientist if he truly believes in God. Hence my expression: “so-called” scientist.

.

[ <<..If he/is capable..of not/considering God..as..a given..in his scientific endeavour..then he/is not..a true believer..and vice versa>>

thats both sad..and pathetic
are you..better capable?..of judging other?..in error..without proof?

please present..proof..then you..can act aloof
till then..lets sing..the french-drinking song..feme/le busche..
till..you can/give proof..you seem willing..to demand..from other..yet cant present yourself ]

.

According to the popular saying “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”. Having eaten the cake, some are delighted, others are “sad and pathetic” there is no cake left.

.

Dear david f,

When you wrote
>>They made me feel like stopping my posts to this thread so I will. Maybe we can communicate on another thread.<<

I thought you wanted to stop this long (and stimulating for me) discussion, so I reacted only briefly to your description of one aspect of awareness shared also by some (non-human if you like) animals.

Now you opened another Pandora’s box, namely about what is “free will”.

[Of course I agree with you that what Banjo described was that God’s existence is not a (natural) scientific hypothesis (like e.g. the existence of the Higgs boson) that can be investigated using (natural) scientific methods, as R. Dawkins and L. Krauss seem to believe. It has nothing to do with whether a scientist can believe in God - or speak Hungarian or ride a bicycle, etc. A better counterexample than Newton would be our (almost) contemporary Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest and author of the widely accepted Big Bang theory, or the monk Gregor Mendel, founder of the science of genetics. ]

In my understanding, free will is an important concept but it is not a scientific concept, the “existence of which” can be established through scientific methods, although IF ONE BELIEVES IN FREE WILL - and I cannot envisage how one could not since without it we would not have ethics, legal systems, jurisprudence -THEN ONE CAN investigate how to interpret our scientific findings to allow for manifestations of free will. Not the other way around, asking science to find “evidence” for free will.

As I indicated in my article, this is not unlike the situation where God is not a concept whose existence can be established through scientific methods, but IF ONE BELIEVES IN HIM (for whatever reasons) THEN ONE CAN ask how to interpret our scientific findings to allow for manifestations of Him, i.e. for divine acts. Not the other way around, asking science to find “evidence” - e.g. in "miracles" - for God’s existence.

(ctd)

(ctd)

Of course, the big difference here is that not many people feel compelled to believe in God, whereas “belief” in free will comes from ethical and legal needs mentioned above: Psychologists and psychiatrists have to decide whether e.g. a criminal was responsible for his actions, i.e. whether he/she acted from free will. Hitler, to anybody who watched his appearances, must look like a madman. However, the more one assigns madness to him, the less can he be held responsible for his crimes, and vice versa. Without free will, Hitler would be just another terrible catastrophe, like an earthquake or tsunami, not to be passed moral judgements on.

I have to admit, that what I know about scientific approaches to consciousness (and its “active aspect” free will), comes from (the atheist) Roger Penrose’s “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness”.

He does not define free will explicitly to be quoted here, and considers it only implicitly when discussing the possibility of a mind-brain duality:

“In my own opinion it is not very helpful, from the scientific point of view, to think of a dualistic ‘mind’ that is (logically) external to the body, somehow influencing the choices that seem to arise in the action …” (a process which leads to the collapse of the wave function). … To have an external ‘mind-stuff’ that is not itself subject to physical laws is taking us outside anything that could be reasonably called a scientific explanation … Those readers who, for whatever reasons retain a conviction … that science must remain forever incompetent to address issues of the mind, I ask merely that they continue to bear with me to see what room there might eventually be found within a science which will undoubtedly become extended far beyond the limited scope that it admits today.” (p. 350)

This honest opening that he leaves for believers (in mind-body or hardware-software duality? free will? even God?), is exactly what I had in mind above (and in my discussions about consciousness with Banjo earlier in this thread).

(ctd)

(ctd)

>>How do we know when we are acting from free will? Was it a compulsion that I responded to your post? Was I free not to do it?<<

I think this is an unanswerable (though I might be wrong) self-referential question. If you drop the self-referential form, you get to the kind of questions that psychologists and psychiatrists ask, as I indicated above.

>>Inconsistency is not the same as incompatibility.<<

True, however why do you need this? Ten percent of people here in Cologne prefer to speak Turkish, for me an incomprehensible language, but I am aware that this is purely personal. It is not incomprehensible for Turks. Why can’t some people - atheists but also theists- accept that what is incomprehensible or inconsistent to them might not be so to others?

.

Dear David,

.

« I personally think being a scientist is inconsistent with believing in God since there is no evidence for the existence of a God. However, all of us, scientists included, live compartmented lives, and one part of our lives may be inconsistent with another part of our lives.

Inconsistency is not the same as incompatibility.»

.

I think we are close to an agreement, here, David.

Anybody who is an inconsistent believer is a part time believer and a part time believer is not, in my view, a true believer (perhaps an agnostic?). The fact of choosing when to belief and when not to believe disqualifies that person as a genuine believer. Either you believe or you don’t. Just as you either love somebody or you don’t.

That is my whole point.

I agree that there are probably more strange cases of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in this world than one may imagine, but, happily, the in-built monitoring mechanism of the scientific method is there to avoid the “mélange des genres” (confusion of science and belief in God).

Allow me to call your attention, once more, to the example of potassium and mineral acids. Any inconsistency in their strict separation is totally incompatible with their harmonious coexistence.

Inconsistency is not incompatibility but inconsistency may result in incompatibility in certain circumstances.

Prevention is better than cure, don’t you think ?

.

the..thinking..in/sync..with my present..mind-vibe..
is that..of t-cells..role..n organ rejection..as being an..illustration..of the importance..of synchronization..with our specifics..of..the..[ego]..person-specific/mind

let me..try to..draw-out[extend[,the thought..
[we are..each unique..genetically]..thus too..are our omnipresent..[saturated]..t-cells..uniquely..within our/body..saturated..throughout our..very/flesh..body/being

my organ/dna./.personal items[allcontain..traces..of my unique/code

[think voodoo/with craft..need personal/items]....
these necessarily..will/still hold..my unique/access code..to my mind vibe/file..[securely held..in the files..within..the 'cloud']..[cloud-mind]..accessible..USUALLY..only by..my unique[dna]..code..as held within..my body....within/even..my t-cells..

until..that day..an/organ..is taken out..
and gifted..to..say..a heart/recipient..and..my t-cell..unique code..is breached..into your min..[or via..the heart/mind/vibe specific..to me..

now within..the..body-computer ..of the..heart recipient

[like the encoding..of a t-cell]..
think of that..as like a tuned transistor..[tuned into..its UNIQUE/vibratory spectrum..or..like..a pin acces/ code..or a security access code..that ensures the cloud..recognizes what is mine..

[of my mind]..and that which..*is of thyne..via your own unique..access/code as coded..by thy own..dna..[as reflected..by our own..specific trans..t-cell vibratory rate]

think of..the length..of a string..
vibrating..at its key..wave link..but at..an infinitesimally tiny..scale..according as/to our..dna code length..

in toto..so..my codon..may be only..one different..longer or shorter..but specifically..unique..to me/my-line/my-race

it..would/be clearer..if we saw..it..in math..
[see how..our dna mutations..Ensure endless variability..
so our unique..dna..length..could mind-vibe..its own..unique cloud access..which stays clear..[on the right vibe/wave length]..to access my own memories..and not yours

then there..is the demystification..[generational mutation]
changing..dna's tonal vibe..[code]..as it divides..much/like..twins are never..completely identical..

yet..if so/where-so..defacto..this explains..the phenomena
often associated..to twins..but as..they evolve their..own/unique ..life experiences..they set up..their own unique/cloud files/access codes/transistors/wave forms

this also..explains organ/rejection
and the..other phenomena..organ-haunting..further..mentioned..here..which begun..the previous post start/point

http://auromere.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/memory-transference-in-organ-transplant-recipients/

i receive..this stuff by..induction..sympathetic/reacting to the vibe
in..wave-forms..of the_*words used..[in..others writings..to extrapolate..further info..from..the other files...held within..our fathers/version..of cloud-mind..as accessed..by the..original scribe

see..how science..even steals gods coding[cloud]
and..filing system's..[nothing new..under the sun..son]

master mind/cloud-mind..god mind..holds the toto..of all..everything

those files inspired/from..by the original works..[i edit from]..WERE..first found..by the writer./.of the words..

in editing them..i merely..add back into..the text..the extra-new-words..i see..via my..unique vibe/codon..access..to the source-codes[discovery..not invention]

the more..broadly..the communal/tribal-vibe..the clearer
the..[sticky]..retentive/fixated..the..end product..

its always..a work..in-process

[call-it reverse/engineering..
engendering..new text..via present-context]

much-like google..knows..which file pages..i had to open..to get the source info..that then..directs..me automatically..back to the original-mind/vibe file..[spirit/AUTHER-ity]..that inspired*..the original work...but..only according to..their unique/comprehensions...access codons.