The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > God meets a different standard of proof > Comments

God meets a different standard of proof : Comments

By Richard Shumack, published 1/8/2013

Celebrity atheist Lawrence Krauss will face off against Christian apologist William Craig, but will they meet the appropriate standard of proof.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
"He is claiming that scientific knowledge is the only important knowledge."

Religion has had five thousand years to come up with some form of 'knowledge' which is a) generally recognised to be true and b) non-empirical. But no dice. I'd say scientific knowledge wins this one by default, wouldn't you?

"Why should the existence and nature of God be immediately obvious on human scientific terms? What if God deliberately left not proofs, but only clues? What if God deliberately revealed only enough evidence of his existence for the interested observer to pursue, but not enough to pander to the demands of a sceptic?"

Then he's deliberately being a pain in the arse, and we should ignore him, like any petulant child, until he's ready to make himself known and state his position like an mature person. But I won't hold my breath.

If God -- assuming he exists -- wants to play silly buggers that's HIS problem: as responsible adults we should treat this kind of behaviour with the contempt it deserves.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 1 August 2013 7:26:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lets say..god dont egsist
science didnt make..nor create nuthing
it in/of itself cannot..but put forward theories..many theories..=..not scienmce proof

theories that include nature/natural
..are *not..by their nature..*science

take the brane theory..this is heaven and hell
take the big bang..=let there be light..[god created the HEAVENS and the creation..created hell.

let science FIRST*..make its first life..by science method..[not gut a living cell' dna and insert man_made dna..if science first replicate..that god does for the least living as much ass the good..[thereby proving his unlimited love..for *all his creation]

before throwing away the living loving good god,,
sustaining every_life.,.its living

science has theories..for its faithful
religion has its creed..for its faithful

if you cant do it..
stop pretending you can..

if you cant prove it..you got faith*

be it lies pretending to be fact
or in creed needing a mediator
god is one to one..not son
but suns [of the light.]
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:11:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Debating Craig is always a mistake. William Lane Craig is a professional debater, so he doesn’t have to be right - or even belief himself that he is right - in order to appear to have won the debate.

Craig employs the Gish Gallop as his main debating tactic. He uses this to overwhelm his opponents, and waste their allocated time by requiring them to address more points than they possibly could and, worse still, correct his misrepresentations of what they’ve said in the past or point out his fallacies. A classic example was his debate with Sam Harris on morality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg7p1BjP2dA). Harris had to spend so much of his allocated time correcting Craig’s misquotes from, and misrepresentations of passages from his book, The Moral Landscape, that he didn’t have enough time to clarify his own stance sufficiently.

Craig uses repetitively debunked arguments; you’d never suspect this watching his debates, yet a simple Google search of each one will reveal a tonne of fallacies. It doesn’t matter how wrong he is, or who he’s debating, he’ll make anyone look like a goose because, again, he’s a professional debater. He doesn’t have to be right to “win”.

Jon J is correct, too, regarding God playing silly buggers. A God that is hiding everywhere is inconsistent with Christian theology and, therefore, not a defence for his apparent non-existence.

<<And what if God did this so that theological truth could not be discovered on human, objective, spectator terms, but on divine, subjective and personal terms?>>

Then your theology is wrong and you should find another religion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:13:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
heck my guides wont let up

father sun..indisputably
..sustains all living..his sun's light sustains..*ALL_LIFE..*on ear-th

[is indisputable science fact]
if you want a sign..look to the sun
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/spacecraft-sees-giant-hole-sun-video-photo-153040144.html?format=embed#mediaphotosbobaspotlightgallery=%2Flightbox%2Fspacecraft-sees-giant-hole-sun-video-photo-153040144.html

you all got faith*
faith in sciences false theo*wry..;gods
or the infallible lol..creeds..raping gods creation

neither can sustain any claim
till you got fact..you only got deceivers..seeking your trust
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 1 August 2013 8:31:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am grateful to the author for informing also me, living outside Australia, about the Krauss-Craig debate. I hope it will be available online.

From what I know about both the debaters’ positions on the relation science-philosophy or science-religion, I cannot identify with either of them. So I shall follow the debate like I would a football match between two teams without a prior barracking for either of them: and just enjoying the game, if it turns out to be enjoyable.

On the other hand, I think this is a very interesting article. In particular, I can agree with the view, which I see as going beyond the philosophically naive, theist as well as anti-theist, positions: If God is relevant to the physical world, it has to be through personal encounter with Him. The carrier of this possible encounter is consciousness, where “the objective meets the subjective”. And consciousness (in distinction to the concept of God) is what science has access to, although as for now, it cannot explain it satisfactorily (and perhaps never will).
Posted by George, Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:20:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't get it...There is a person called Jesus Christ who claimed to be God (no-one else has), yet proved his claim by a multitude of miracles, raising himself from the dead, (500+ people witnessed to that, and many died for it), not to mention a multitude of proofs fulfilling Old Testament Jewish prophecies as such. He founds the largest and most influential world religion in history, and multitude of Saints, Miracles, and billions of good people have lived by its tenants for 2000 years and still today, and our entire Western civilisation is fundamentally based on its tenants, despite the larger immoral exploits of many in the last 150 years. (Nothing new about that either). I mean what more empirical and personal proof do you want? I think its a little more than just a few clues. I mean get a grip people. The more interesting debate is whether atheists can accept passed on empirical knowledge? (i.e. human scientific or witnessed tradition). If they cannot personally empirically validate their own high school scientific texts, perhaps they should not believe them either?
Posted by aga, Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:28:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi guys,

Thanks for your comments. A couple of rejoinders...

First, I'm not sure which of Craig's arguments you think have been conclusively debunked, but can I assure you that debate about the sorts cosmological and teleological arguments he commonly uses is alive and well in professional Philosophy departments and journals. Not debunked just yet!

Second, God would only be playing silly buggers if he was hiding completely. Moser's argument is not that God hides completely, but instead that God reveals in places that a scientific epistemology is incapable of fully engaging.

Cheers,

Richard
Posted by Richard Shumack, Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:34:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aga,

Right! There is plenty of evidence available in support of Christian belief. The question I am addressing is whether this evidence is "scientific". Clearly much of it is empirical. Nevertheless it is not conclusive by scientific standards. My argument is that this does not matter in terms of personal knowledge.

Richard
Posted by Richard Shumack, Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:41:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article proves yet again that humans are standing in the road of their own evolution.

Many of them refuse to accept what their eyes and brain tell them, ie. that theo-babble is complete B.S., and prefer instead to believe in infantile fairy tales, mythical gods, angels, heaven, and living forever.

They refuse to accept that the very existence of hundreds of religions show clearly that they are all man-made and the people who run them use them to exploit the gullible.

When children are faced with the reality that there is no Santa many are disappointed but they manage to accept the truth. How come so many so-called adults can't give up on the religious crutch?
Posted by David G, Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:49:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig is gonna be on Q&A as well! I'm so proud that the ABC has the conjones to put someone on the show who is, in all likelihood, going to dismantle their Worldview in profound ways.
Posted by progressive pat, Thursday, 1 August 2013 10:06:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Shumack,

<<First, I'm not sure which of Craig's arguments you think have been conclusively debunked…>>

Well, I’m not aware of one that hasn’t been, if that helps you. You could start by Googling his five main arguments. There’s no shortage of sites to choose from; here’s some links from my favourite: -

The Kalam cosmological argument: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
The cosmological argument from contingency: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_Arguments
The moral argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_argument
The fine tuning argument: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument
The ontological argument : http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ontological_argument

<<…God would only be playing silly buggers if he was hiding completely.>>

Not according to Christian theology. I’ve covered this here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398#248464

<<Moser's argument is not that God hides completely, but instead that God reveals in places that a scientific epistemology is incapable of fully engaging.>>

Why would he choose to do that? That’s not a pathway to truth, and anything that could qualify as a god would understand that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 1 August 2013 10:26:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really David?

Not sure how the existence of religious diversity "clearly" shows them all to be false, but, in any case, my article refers to a live philosophical debate about both the philosophy of science and philosophy of religion. Perhaps that debate includes some using "theo-babble" but you really need to show how with arguments, not dismissals.

Cheers,

Richard
Posted by Richard Shumack, Thursday, 1 August 2013 10:28:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi AJ,

Iron chariots? Sorry, I'm talking serious philosophy here.

In any case, my article grants that the arguments are not conclusive. But that is different from being debunked. Even the articles you refer to recognize that the arguments are valid, the question is how strong the premises are, and, again, that is a live question.

Cheers,

Richard
Posted by Richard Shumack, Thursday, 1 August 2013 10:37:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Shumack,

<<Iron chariots? Sorry, I'm talking serious philosophy here.>>

Yes, so am I.

And what’s wrong with IronChariots? It’s run by some very reputable “counter-apologists”.

But like I said, there’s plenty more sites out there for you to choose from. Simply utilise Google (http://tinyurl.com/5j9pzv). We live in the future now.

<<…Even the articles you refer to recognize that the arguments are valid, the question is how strong the premises are…>>

No, they point out why the premises are flawed too. And if the premises are flawed, then the rest falls down.

Valid or not.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 1 August 2013 10:57:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Scientific'? How about just believable. There is actually very little non-Biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus. Early references to the existence of Jesus in non-Christian texts, are generally accepted, even by Christian Biblical scholars, as almost certainly forgeries, probably placed there by Christian Monks, as they copied the old documents to preserve them. Considering how famous the New Testament makes Jesus out to be, this is rather peculiar.

The Bible itself is also written in a way to suggest that the authors weren't actually there. For just one example, consider The Garden of Gethsemane scene. This contains the words prayed by Jesus, but Jesus sent most people away and the ones there were asleep. So who actually observed what Jesus said to write it into the Bible?

Personally, I'm fairly sceptical that Jesus existed in the way he is portrayed in the Bible. Given the available evidence, that's not an unreasonable position.
Posted by SilverInCanberra, Thursday, 1 August 2013 11:18:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aga -- substitute 'Mohammed' and 'Buddha' for Jesus in your first post, make a few minor changes, and you have an equally valid argument for Islam or Buddhism. So which one is right, and why? The success of a movement based on unsupported stories may be evidence of the psychological power of those stories, but it says nothing about their truth.

And Richard, you can't have it both ways. If religion wants to compete with science on a level playing field, then it must open itself up to empirical testing, in the way that science does. If not, then it's obliged to hang out in the locker room with homeopathy, ESP, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster and all the other unsupported assertions that are put before us every day.

It's a common tactic of Christian apologists to treat 'science' as something remote and outside everyday experience, so they can make a false dichotomy between 'science' and 'religion'. But it's not; science is the application of exactly the same methods you and every other rational person use every morning to decide what to have for breakfast, how hot to make your shower, what route to take to work. 99.99% of your daily decision making is already based on the methods of science; why are you so desperately keen to sequester the remaining .01%?

Science is just rational decision-making applied a little more rigorously; while religion, of course, is merely organised fantasy.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 1 August 2013 11:25:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,
A refreshing article on this subject. You are right to emphasise the personal dimension. However, I still find the debate about the existence of God, including your approach, to be mandated on the idea that God is a being among other beings and can be described with the same language we use for other beings. This is the result of the idea of the univocity of being, introduced by Duns Scotus (1266-1308). He argued that we must have a single way of talking about all things, including God, because we cannot be left without a language to talk about God. This filtered down through the ages until Luther and Calvin, for example, unconsciously ascribed to the notion. Now we all do. This destroys the tradition understanding of God as transcendent, that we cannot know Him. Read the church fathers, Augustine and nearer to us Karl Barth for whom God is the wholly other. This means that God can only be talked about in terms of paradox. For example the power of God is revealed in the deriliction of Christ on the cross. My problem with debates about the existence of God is that we automatically assume a kind of being like our own.
Posted by Sells, Thursday, 1 August 2013 11:27:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, if we 'automatically assume' God is a 'kind of being like our own', that can only be because alleged experts on the subject like yourself have completely failed to come up with any remotely plausible alternative, despite having tried for centuries to do so. Give us a coherent and convincing account of what God actually is, and explain how you know, and you will be hailed as the saviour of theism and be up for a Nobel Prize.

The truth is, of course, that people like to tell and hear good stories, and stories about ineffable beings don't really make any sense. You might as well try to sell a novel about parallelograms, or put on a play about rocks.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 1 August 2013 11:50:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"God reveals in places that a scientific epistemology is incapable of fully engaging"

this is very much the point of view I was trying to get across in an earlier discussion with George.

Adherence to a strict empirical/rationalist grounded theory approach is not necessarily conducive to being able to make the sorts of cognitive leaps that we might perceive as being evidence of God.

An interesting discussion. I would like to go along to the debate, but the student seats are sold out and I'm unemployed these days. I'll do as George intends and look for it online.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 1 August 2013 12:00:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now we have Sells and Shumack on the same thread! Is there no rest for the wicked and the godless who are happy living in the real world?

Humans should have strangled the first prelate at birth!
Posted by David G, Thursday, 1 August 2013 12:26:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Adherence to a strict empirical/rationalist grounded theory approach is not necessarily conducive to being able to make the sorts of cognitive leaps that we might perceive as being evidence of God."

Antiseptic, I'm confused. Are you saying that the ability to make cognitive leaps is evidence of God? Or that some cognitive leaps are evidence of God? Because I don't see the connection.

Of course, if by 'cognitive leap' you mean 'a wild assumption', and your argument is that only a wild assumption can lead a rational person to believe in God, then I agree completely.

Now all you have to do is explain why the results of a wild assumption should have any bearing on the truth.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 1 August 2013 12:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jon..<<science is the application of exactly the same methods..you and every other rational person use every morning>>..

yes the same blind faith..preferance's

<<to decide what to have for breakfast,>>

yes your either..a vitabritz/weetbix..porrage or bacon/eggs
or scrambled eggs..kipper/mash..by rote/habit.. each day

,<how hot to make your shower>>

same automated response preferance..EVERY DAY*..
same/sasme
..unthinkingly hot or cold or
bath or shower..same autonomous preferances

<<what route to take to work.>>

same bus same time robotic sdameness
same time same place same fellow commuters..even same seat..same upsets,..same routten..

every weekday..every holiday,..
doing the same..rote robotic somnambulism..just *do your job
samre same

same ignoirant blind faith..lol..NOT*,<<99.99% of your daily decision making is already based on the methods of science;>>

lolthats sofunny

then..lets turn back the question..<<why are you so desperately keen to sequester>>..the 99.9 robotic rotein..leaving the rest of us<< the remaining .01%?>>

anyone else noting the secular advert blitz..
of the atheist foundation..name changes?.

jon..<<Now all you have to do..is explain why the results
*of a wild assumption should have any bearing on the truth.>>

right back at ya ol mate
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 1 August 2013 1:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Richard for a thoughtful article.

Theists have always claimed that God is a relational, personal being, rather than the impersonal force of other philosophies. Furthermore, the Christian scriptures paint a picture of a God who interacts with mankind in various ways, and ultimately in the incarnation. Because of this, Paul Moser’s criticisms of the search for “spectator evidence” make sense to me.

I wouldn’t say that spectator evidence is totally uncalled for, but it does make sense to consider whether we can truly conduct an entirely neutral search for God as if he is mostly just the answer to a cold, philosophical conundrum. No. The scriptures claim that God is a relational being, that humans are relational beings, and thus it makes sense that God may reveal himself to different people in different ways. If God exists, then we finite humans must ultimately open our hearts to him rather than expect that arguments and allegedly objective reasoning will settle “the issue”.

Another philosopher who has written on types at evidence for God is C.Stephen Evans of Baylor University. He argues that if God were to exist, then we would expect evidence for him to meet two conditions: The evidence would be widely available and easily resistible. Call this WAP (Wide Accessibility Principle) and ERP (Easy Resistibility Principle). A definitive philosophical proof for God would violate the ERP principle, as would undeniable evidence of a scientific nature. In fact high level scientific evidence could fail the WAP condition too. The standard arguments for God’s existence fail as definitive proofs, however there are signs underlying the theistic arguments which ultimately provide evidence both against the naturalistic picture of the world proposed by atheists, and for Theism.

Evans’ expands on his ideas in his book Natural Signs and the Knowledge of God. It provides easily the most illuminating discussion on “The God Debate” that I’ve read. He delivered a series of three lectures last year which are available on YouTube. Here’s the first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2H5dQ84Oc

Check it out- I’m hard pressed to think of a better way to spend a few hours :-)
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 1 August 2013 2:08:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the godless have always denied the obvious in order to justify their lifestyles. Pseuso science is used purely to try and give their dogmas some 'intelletual'basis. The corruption of humanity is obvious to anyone seeking truth. Oh that right the IPCC are exempt! The 'moral ' superiority of athiests is nothing short of sickening.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 1 August 2013 3:38:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JonJ I'm suggesting that the sort of cognitive leaps that created all of the great paradigmatic changes in rationalist thought and in scientific endeavour are not explicable by any of the empirically grounded approaches. The leap comes first, then the evidence is gathered. In the case of general relativity, it is still being gathered today, 100 years after the original idea.

I'm afraid that someone thinking in the way that you do could never have come up with the theory of infinitesimals, or relativity, or even evolution, because they would be stuck in the mud of their preconceptions.

Never mind, there are interesting things in mud too.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 1 August 2013 3:46:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I, like most realists, understand the need for so many to ‘believe’. This is how religion took root in different societies and has grown in so many forms, often in complete isolation to other inhabitants of the earth in earlier times.

This is of course a human trait, based on fear and the verbal, passed down knowledge of nature’s hostility toward a finite being. As such ‘God’ and any evidence of this entity are but a human construct.

Orison Swett Marden put it down pretty simply when he wrote the ‘Joys of Living’ in 1913, specifically when he stated “Nothing is more foolish, nothing more wicked, than to drag the skeletons of the past, the hideous images, the foolish deeds, the unfortunate experiences of yesterday into today's work to mar and spoil it. There are plenty of people, who have been failures up to the present moment, who could do wonders in the future if they only could forget the past, if they only had the ability to cut it off, to close the door on it forever and start anew.”

He also cleverly surmised “There is a strange propensity in human nature to locate all the good things of life in an existence that is yet to come to us. Man is immortal now; is not to be, but is immortal.”

A simple mantra the ‘religious’ followers of today have completely gotten wrong!

To put it simply there is no God.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 1 August 2013 4:08:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ockham's Razor applies, there's no reason to postulate the existence of a Creator, or the supernatural.

The only real understanding of the Universe will be achieved by scientists, not philosophers and definitely not theologians.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 1 August 2013 4:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff, you're right! There is no God. And those who claim there is such a thing and promise their followers eternal life are perpetuating a massive fraud that has gone on for thousands of years.

Those who have visited the Pyramids and seen the graphics there know full well how fertile man's imagination is when it comes to denying human mortality.

The fraudsters should be rounded up and jailed. They are con-men pure and simple and they prey upon the gullible and the weak!
Posted by David G, Thursday, 1 August 2013 4:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Shumack,

My debunking claim may have been an overstatement, but the fact remains that the philosophical arguments for god are seriously flawed. For example...

The Kalam cosmological argument: The premise is special pleading and a bald-faced assertion. Nothing physical has ever been shown to be anything other than a re-arrangement of pre-existing parts. Virtual particles are not relevant to Kalam’s notion of causality. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9DLcTfYBcQ)

The cosmological argument from contingency: Special pleading.

The moral argument: The Euthyphro dilemma. Theist attempts to get around this all fail.

Fine tuning: This argument attempts to conjure up some infinitesimally small probabilities based on the unfounded assumption that the laws of physics are mutable. We only have a sample size of 1; so, as far as we can tell, the probability of our universe existing is precisely 1. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pfwgKrdFaDY&t=3541)

The ontological argument: There are many variations, but basically boils down to, “I can conceive of God, therefore he exists”. Can be used to argue the existence of mythical character.

Has it occurred to you that the fact that some philosophers are wasting their time on these arguments could also be attributed to the fact that some simply cannot let go of an idea - especially when they have an emotional dependence on it? There’s still a lot of debate regarding evolution and creation, but does that mean there’s any credibility to creationism? No. It couldn’t possibly be more debunked.

Much of this continuing debate that you speak of is simply the result of some theist philosophers re-working the old discredited arguments to patch the holes that have been poked in them, with others pointing-out the fact that they still don’t work.

Antiseptic,

But that’s not what theists do, though, is it.

<<The leap comes first, then the evidence is gathered.>>

Theists make the leap, arrive at their conclusion, then fill the gap with anything they can find - no matter how fallacious - while ignoring any evidence to the contrary and happily declaring nothing will ever shake their belief.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 1 August 2013 5:08:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Phillips, I think you're generalising from extremes and you're also projecting.

The point about cognitive leaps is that they are rarely evidently true to those who don't experience them. Therefore, demanding a facile answer is simply begging the question.

mac, Ockham's Razor doesn't apply, because the empirical approach doesn't address issues of causality or of perceptual variance.

I have moved recently from a confirmed atheist position to a provisional theist one due to some experiences that I have had. I won't bother going into them, but I can see no reason why anyone would doubt my sincerity or my capacity to judge reality from fantasy. why would I lie and what makes you believe I am prone to hallucination?
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 1 August 2013 5:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"He (Hawking) is claiming that scientific knowledge is the only important knowledge."

And that's the crux of the discussion: science has found the Higgs boson, which is the source of gravity, but it hasn't and never will find some "importance particle". None can ever be found under any microscope or telescope because there is no 'importance' in nature or in existence!

Modern atheists like Hawking claim, irrationally, that science is important, that nature is important, that existence is important, despite never finding even a hint of evidence for the existence of 'importance'.

And to balance, a word for theists too: if you, by far chance, manage to 'prove' God's existence, then whatever you managed to prove would be just an object, rendering your prayers and worship to be towards an object, i.e. you would then be worshipping an idol. Better not - better reject and stay away as from fire from any god whose existence can be proven!

If one constantly casts their eyes to the ground, they would never see the sky. If one constantly gives all importance to the material world, they would never find God. That's not God's fault - it's a perfect result of where one chooses to focus their attention.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 1 August 2013 6:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To recognize visual objects,..our sensory perceptions are transformed through dynamic neural interactions..into meaningful representations of the world..but exactly how visual inputs invoke object meaning remains unclear.

how much more meaning is invoked..if god is perceived as meaningless

or seen via mortal minds
cant conceive the eternal..
or vile puerile minds that cannot conceive true goodness..infinite love..cant see spirit [or concieve grace/mercy etc

To address this issue,..we apply a regression approach to magnetoencephalography data,..modeling perceptual and conceptual variables. ..[ie baffle em with..'ever newer science model illusionist bling]..in lue of the amazing pre-existent omnipresent created reality..before us.

in that case..they look at bits..Key conceptual measures were derived..from semantic feature–based models claiming shared features (e.g., has not eyes..yet is all seeing)..

provide broad category information,..distinctive features (e.g.,loves all/created all..has grace/mercy upon all)..are additionally required for more specific objective identification.

any results show initial perceptual effects..as bias in visual cortex that are rapidly followed..by semantic feature effects throughout ventral temporal cortex..By relating spatio-temporal neural activity to statistical feature–based measures of semantic knowledge,we demonstrate that qualitatively different kinds of perceptual and semantic information are extracted from visualised objects over time,

.. with rapid activation of shared objective features..followed by subjective concomitant activation of distinctive features that together enable that subjectively meaningfully visualized..as an objective recognition.

or something like it..

but whatever is concluded..
all must have the same rules..same disadvantage/opportunities as your peers..had

that until..it can be conceived..it simply wont be believed..
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 1 August 2013 7:46:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

" Ockham's Razor doesn't apply, because the empirical approach doesn't address issues of causality or of perceptual variance."

Have to disagree--why is another concept, a creator necessary? What is the issue of causality in regard to the universe? What caused God?
Any personal experiences and beliefs are just that, personal, and unless they are testable, of no scientific value whatsoever.
There are scientific explanations for belief, there's an excellent book that explains the evolutionary reasons for religious belief--

"why we believe in god(s)" by J Anderson Thomson Jr & Claire Aukofer

There are some "New Scientist" articles that are also useful.

So much intellectual effort has been expended over millennia by philosophers and theologians in attempts justify an essentially irrational concept, modern science has explained the origins and persistence of religious faith.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:24:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Under One God' supports the notion "To recognize (sic) visual objects our sensory perceptions are transformed through dynamic neural interactions into meaningful representations of the world but exactly how visual inputs invoke object meaning remains unclear."

Perhaps you should study something related to photons, this might clear things up a little for you.

Please also note, and I am only writing on my behalf, but probably on a par with many posters 'thoughts' that you should consider giving up prose, you fail badly and no-one appears interested in your rants.

Either add to the argument or give the key-board a rest, nuff said

Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The evolutionary psychological approach begs the question, mac. It doesn't examine whether there may be a God, it looks at the advantages in group selection terms of religious belief.

I agree that such advantages exist and that religious structures within society help to perpetuate the eusociality that is a major part of being human.

However, whether religious belief has independent validity is a separate issue which the evolutionary psychological approach doesn't address as far as I can tell.

Personal perception is what drives insight and whether you are able to experience the same perception as me doesn't invalidate either of our perceptual frameworks. All you are doing is demanding that we must all be identical, when that is patently obviously not the case.

I have lived a different life to you and I was equipped with a different sensorium, cognitive and perceptive capacity to you. You may have much keener eyes than me, for example and I must take your claim that something exists in the distance either on faith or I must try to get closer so I can perceive it myself. If it has moved by the time I am close enough to see, do I then say you must have been mistaken or worse, lying?

Not all things are empirically determinable. Empiricism only allows us to have some consensual reality, it does not define our personal perceptive/cognitive environment.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 1 August 2013 9:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL..nice try jeff
BUT MATE..that line..im quoting ..your re-quotibng
is DIRECT FROM..THE OXFORD journal..re-read it and weep

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/01/23/cercor.bhs002

i did wonder why my guides asked me to rewrite the ABSTRACT
plus not accord the link..but that seems now obvious..or not..[my guides remain silent]..

so i will simply say..there is still honest science..
that dares say..it dont know..even if those lumping the lot together think..that..[have faith],.,that they do.

science isnt as infallible as the faithful to any old god-ree theory..are needing

to trust science as infallible..
or religious creeds..is only for those who NEED
groan-ups..to tell them what to think..what to do..for their faith.
Posted by one under god, Friday, 2 August 2013 8:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

As you know, I agree with much of what you are saying (and am grateful for your, sometimes quite original, insights). In particular, with

>> the sort of cognitive leaps that created all of the great paradigmatic changes in rationalist thought and in scientific endeavour are not explicable by any of the empirically grounded approaches<<

in its generality of “paradigmatic changes in rationalist thought”. However, I would rather not mix the epistemologically rather straightforward representation of physical reality through Einstein’s relativity theory (the case of quantum physics is much more complicated but still remaining within the scopes of philosophy of science, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#264007) with the problem of God which is certainly beyond the scopes of philosophy of science.

You mention empiricism. So may I suggest Bas C. Van Fraassen, considered the father of “constructive empiricism”, developed into what he now calls “empiricist structuralism” in his recent book "Scientific Representations: Paradoxes of Perspective" (Clarendon Press 2010). It looks like Van Fraasen understands recent physical theories and the epistemological perplexities associated with them, better than most other philosophers. I was fascinated by the apparent relevance of his “constructive empiricism” to the philosophically much less sophisticated “model-dependent realism” of Hawking and Mlodinow (see my www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464).

I own the book, and I can tell you, it is not an easy book to understand, but I guess you are much younger than I, with a philosophical background unlike myself, so you would have a better chance of understanding Van Fraassen.

Well these things are directly unrelated to the question of God, but it may be worth noting that here a prominent physicist, who is an atheist, seems to be finding common language with a prominent philosopher of science, an adult convert to Catholicism.
Posted by George, Friday, 2 August 2013 8:16:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

I suspect you've had relatively little experience with theists.

<<I think you're generalising from extremes and you're also projecting.>>

I was a theist for half my life. I attended your average, run-of-the-mill church; surrounding myself with my fellow theists, and let me tell you, you don't have morning tea after church every Sunday, and attend Bible study every Tuesday night, for years on end, then debate them for just as many, without gaining some insight into how your average theist thinks. So I don't appreciate these suggestions that are levied at me from time-to-time here that I'm attacking some sort of a caricature.

<<The point about cognitive leaps is that they are rarely evidently true to those who don't experience them.>>

Maybe so, but your analogy comparing religious belief with the journeys of Einstein et al, when they made their discoveries, was still entirely false. Further to what I said before, too, is the fact that a theist's conclusion is usually arrived at in the same step that the leap is taken.

<<I have moved recently from a confirmed atheist position to a provisional theist one due to some experiences that I have had.>>

I'd believe that. The way you say, "confirmed atheist" is reminiscent of Kirk Cameron's absurd, "devout atheist".

<<...what makes you believe I am prone to hallucination?>>

The very fact that you're human. Our brains are prone to hallucination. You may have developed temporal lobe epilepsy for all you know. There are many rational explanations, so why would you jump to the supernatural one before you rule them out?

<<...I was equipped with a different sensorium, cognitive and perceptive capacity...>>

Which is exactly why we use evidence and reasoned argument, based on logical absolutes, to determine the truth of what we perceive. It's the only reliable method we have given what we currently know. And even if you were to discover another method, how would you demonstrate its reliability without evidence? It all comes back to evidence.

<<Not all things are empirically determinable.>>

Sure, but that's not a licence to just make things up.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 2 August 2013 8:21:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

"The evolutionary psychological approach begs the question, mac. It doesn't examine whether there may be a God,"

It doesn't actually "beg the question", the evolutionary approach explains why the human search for "explanations" and acceptance of authority, leads to religious belief i.e we assume the existence of entities for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. For thousands of years people "knew" that the weather was controlled by gods and that the only possible explanation for speciation was divine intervention, we now know better.

"However, whether religious belief has independent validity is a separate issue which the evolutionary psychological approach doesn't address as far as I can tell."

Of course that's not the business of science.

"I have lived a different life to you and I was equipped with a different sensorium, cognitive and perceptive capacity to you."

That's a significant observation, perhaps it would help if I explained my own experience. I was educated at a Presbyterian Grammar school, however, despite 6 years of Christian education, I can't remember ever, as an adult, being a believer, I just don't have the "genes" for religion. There was no long, arduous, intellectual path to atheism in my case.

I've had a "numinous" experience, however I attribute it to brain chemistry when I was recovering from a severe migraine.You're entitled to undertake any spiritual journey you chose, I only object when believers try to impose their beliefs on the infidels. If there is a God, he/she/or it, must be either a total sadistic bastard or completely uninterested in humanity.
Posted by mac, Friday, 2 August 2013 10:05:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"God meets a different standard of proof"

Not in my universe...

But, being generous, I am prepared to say that God avoids any standards of proof bar one.

That is, a proof which is wholly intrinsic to the individual who believes it acceptable.

Just ask a religious monomaniac. After all, there are no shortages of Jesus's alive - some of whom are still taking their medication.

Upon my soul I can't think of any proof of god(s) which is extrinsic.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 2 August 2013 10:56:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac's quote<<..If there is a God, he/she/or it, must be either a total sadistic bastard or completely uninterested in humanity..>> shows that teaching creed..is a dis-service to god.[the blind leading the blinded]

im thus perhaps fortunate..that i was raised atheist
that my first teachings..was of the science..that when i validated for myself..science decietes..i was prepared to search thus for..*the true cause.

and saw by my own efforts..through the veil of ignorance
the vile-fruits of blind faith..in peers..that i thus too saw through the peers of faith..not as if they..lol..were the god head [end] not way to god

thus when i applied science rigor in reading the many holy texts..of the many of gods messengers..i did so knowing i have their works plus words of their experience of the great god

eg if jesus..doing miracles/peter/the pope
mary baker eddie swedenberg/luther etc and all xtians..would be doing..'as they saw christ do..

but the true miracle..is life/living..
earth/heavens nature/emotion love selflessness/service to other..

and so many other goods..we can give to other..
either too ignorant..or deaf/dumb/blind dead of mind's
that simply dont have awareness of thoughts that will occur to UN-selfish minds

jesus said the mind of a servant is key
he himself denied 'miracles'..]ie any serv-ant..*when told [by a guest]..to serve their masters GUESS..handwash/toilet water..would ignore that suggestion..and serve the masters..'best wine'..rather than..loose face*..[the canna wedding 'mirtacle'

ditto the 2 de miracle..[a teaching re the dangers of blind faith]
where the key is to sit the creed deceived opposite each-other..

*ENSURING none would eat..
lest they get dobbed on..to the priest
lest they get cast out as 'unclean'..

[at the time a skin blemish was considered unclean..[many of jesus miracles were simply him..stating the bleeding obvious..that bruise isnt leprosy..that man isnt dead..god is love..love god by loving[not judging]..neighbor

[at the time the creed of eating REQUIRED..7 handwash jars..one then*..didnt eat with unclean hands..thus did 4000..'eat all they wished..[ps the increase came via others giving food

MY athiest/SCIENCE BASE..saw through the creed
helped my find the prime causer.,.the collective good...G_D
Posted by one under god, Friday, 2 August 2013 11:33:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard claims to be promoting "serious" philosophy. In Truth & Reality Richard and his fellow travelers at the Centre for Pubic Christianity havent even begun to do or practice serious philosophy and serious adult necessarily Spiritual Religion.

The proposing of traditional "religious" myths and illusions may have a limited function in the nursery-room domain of childhood - but the world of truly and responsibly adult life requires a mature and truly civilized culture, founded in Reality Itself.
The fear based ego-bound fixed ideas of "creationist" religionists are direct projections/extensions of a childish, even infantile, state of mind and emotion. A state of mind/emotion that appeals to its moomy-daddy-good-luck Santa Klaus parental deity to provide it with a constant supply of "goodies" and to protect it from the ever present threat of the big-bad-wolf, better known as death.

That having been said the various references available at this site provide a radical critique of conventional philosophy whether secular or so called religious.
http://www.beezone.com/verbal_mind.html
http://www.beezone.com/whiteandorangeproject/index.html

Richard also claims/pretends that there is ample "proof" for the "truth" claims of Christian-ISM. In Truth & Reality there are none, as this essay points. It describes the fabricated origins and institutional power-and-control-seeking POLITICAL purposes of "official" Christian-ISM
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm
Also
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm
http://global.adidam.org/truth-book/true-spiritual-practice-4.html
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 2 August 2013 12:10:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has anybody ever noticed that none of the usual apologists for the naive mommy-daddy Christian world view ever use the word Consciousness with a Capital C, or Light which is the Energy of Consciousness.
Which is quite strange because Consciousness and Light are the two fundamental irreducible elements/factors of our existence/being.
All of this IS Conscious Light.

That having been said please find some serious references re the nature of Reality & Truth.
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-7.htm
http://spiralledlight.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/4068
http://www.adidam.in/nondual.asp
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 2 August 2013 12:21:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thanks for the links daffy
i used them almost immediately..
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14942#14942

to help people comprehend the..'a course in miracles [acim]..teaching...that endlessly repeats the mantra ..i am not body..

your link put it well

so thanks

ps re previous post..''GUESS"..should read 'guest'
once we see life is the true miracle..the christ will rise..in us all
but first* we must comprehend..what he was trying to be teaching us..the last*..[time]
Posted by one under god, Friday, 2 August 2013 1:44:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, I suspect that age aids understanding of some topics. Just to clarify, I don't have a background in philosophy, but in the physical sciences and engineering. I'll try to find van Fraassen's book at the uni library, it sounds interesting.

My point about Einstein's theory (or indeed those of Copernicus, Newton/Leibnitz's integration of infinitessimals, etc) is that they are counterintuitive and met with great resisitance from those grounded in the dominant theory of their day. General relativity is still being tested today, hence the LHC exists.

AjPhillips, I'm afraid you're just concatenating complexity. Why is it easier to consider that I may have a defective form of perception than that my perception may be more acute than yours in some way? Your argument is simply that you prefer to hold the view that your perceptive/cognitive faculties are not just representative but normative and that this implies any variance must be deviant. Frankly, that's just silly and more than a little narcissistic.

Mac, I'm not recovering from any kind of insult to my cognitive faculties and I haven't had a "numinous" experience. I too had a religiously-based education (Anglican in my case) and rejected theism at an early age as incomprehensible in concrete terms. My adult life has been spent in the service of empiricism. My personal cognitive framework is sceptical/rational. I am naturally strongly given to abductive reasoning and a critical approach to problem-solving. I am not given to acceptance of consensus models without reflection.

In other words, I don;t think there is a genetic predispostion to a religious POV so much as an educative overlay on cognitive/perceptual frames and that can change based on observations. I'm happy to be wrong though.

Wm Trevor, your argument is circular: "I think theists are mentally ill, therefore theism is a mental illness". I'd also just like to point out that "extrinsic" is not synonymous with "correct".
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 2 August 2013 1:59:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

<<I'm afraid you're just concatenating complexity.>>

How so?

<<Why is it easier to consider that I may have a defective form of perception than that my perception may be more acute than yours in some way?>>

Because we know that defects in perception exist. They exist in all of us. We can demonstrate this; we have no such certainty when it comes to the supernatural, and in fact, so far, throughout history, every time a supernatural answer had been applied to observed phenomena, a natural explanation was eventually found. What makes you think your experience will be any different?

Then there's Ockham's razor on top of that.

Moreover, it's not about whose perception is better (so I never meant to suggest that). The difference between you and I, it seems, is that I'm not so willing to jump to supernatural conclusions because I understand the above, along with the fact that evidence and reason, based on logical absolutes, is the only reliable pathway to true, given what we currently know. Nothing narcissistic about that at all.

<<Your argument is simply that you prefer to hold the view that your perceptive/cognitive faculties are not just representative but normative and that this implies any variance must be deviant. Frankly, that's just silly and more than a little narcissistic.>>

Sorry, Antiseptic, but it's going to take a lot more than presumptuous arguments peppered with grandiloquence to defend your position, I'm afraid.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 2 August 2013 5:21:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How so?"

Because you do not address the observation, but try to impose a further condition (it must be an hallucination) without providing any analysis other than that people are known to hallucinate! you may as well have said that I must be in space, after all, people are known to travel into space...

On the subject of the "supernatural", I have suggested nothing of the sort. You're projecting.

You say you like evidence and reason, but as I have shown in my response to mac earlier, you have no reason to assume that my evidence does not exist simply because you are unable to see it. you may well choose not to act on my claim and I'd say that's a reasonable, prudent course of action if my claim might lead you into danger, but that's a long way from claiming that I am somehow defective in my cognitive and perceptual capacities. There is no chance of a meeting of minds if one of them has already determined that nothing the other can say could possibly be correct.

"Given what we currently know" is just a deferral to received wisdom, conceptually no different to the most red-necked fundy's acceptance of whatever Oral Roberts says at the last tent revival. Unless you can falsify the basis for what I say, then all you can do is choose not to accept it as applicable to yourself, you can't demonstrate that it has no validity or is the result of some kind of physical infirmity.

I don't need to "defend my position", all I need to do is state it. what you do with it is up to you.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 2 August 2013 7:13:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough, Antiseptic.

<<On the subject of the "supernatural", I have suggested nothing of the sort.>>

On reflection, you did only say, "some experiences".

<<...you do not address the observation...>>

That's because you didn't get as far as describing it (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15301#264279).

<<...but try to impose a further condition (it must be an hallucination) without providing any analysis other than that people are known to hallucinate!>>

I didn't say that it MUST have been a hallucination. I suggested that, if you were appealing to the supernatural, then it would be more rational to entertain hallucination as the likely possibility, until it can be ruled out, since we can actually know that hallucinations occur.

<<...you may as well have said that I must be in space, after all, people are known to travel into space...>>

The difference is that I can know that you weren't because people don't just travel there as they please.

You're really not getting this, are you.

<<You say you like evidence and reason, but as I have shown in my response to mac earlier, you have no reason to assume that my evidence does not exist simply because you are unable to see it.>>

I've never asserted that it definitly doesn't exist. How could I? You haven't even said what it was yet.

<<...you may well choose not to act on my claim ... but that's a long way from claiming that I am somehow defective in my cognitive and perceptual capacities.>>

I said that we're ALL defective, and I don't know of a neuroscientist who would contradict me there.

Stop playing the 'wounded deer' card.

<<There is no chance of a meeting of minds if one of them has already determined that nothing the other can say could possibly be correct.>>

Couldn't agree more.

<<"Given what we currently know" is just a deferral to received wisdom...>>

Wrong.

It's acknowledging the limits of our knowledge so as to not assert too much.

That's all.

<<I don't need to "defend my position"...>>

I never implied otherwise.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 2 August 2013 8:48:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

>>My point about Einstein's theory (or indeed those of Copernicus, Newton/Leibnitz's integration of infinitesimals, etc) is that they are counterintuitive and met with great resistance from those grounded in the dominant theory of their day. General relativity is still being tested today, hence the LHC exists.<<

I agree (except for the phrase ”integration of infinitesimals” that obviously stands for the calculus). This is what Thomas Kuhn meant by his “paradigm shifts” in the history of science. And who can predict what “shifts” are still out there for humanity (or what it evolves into) to go through?

What I was warning against is an expectation - sorry if I misunderstood you - that this could lead to a definite answer to the problem of God. Different “paradigms” might bring about different, hopefully better, understandings of reality as science “sees” (represents) it. However, science will never be able to answer on its own the question of God’s existence - related or unrelated to this or that sacred text - for instance, by providing a theory that will justify His existence in a similar way as e.g. the Standard Model of particle physics justifies the existence of quarks. There will always be scientists who will believe in Something beyond what science of the day can represent, and those who will not. This, at least, follows from my (theist|) understanding of the concept of God.

[I do not think LHC is “testing” Einstein”s general relativity theory (if the word “testing” is at all appropriate here; and if, it was the Higgs boson they were “testing”) which is a well, established theory (e.g. your GPS calculates your position using general relativity: it would be very inaccurate if it used Newton's mechanics). So is quantum physics. Both theories are widely accepted (both many times “tested” if you like), therefore their mutual formal }mathematical) incompatibility causes headaches to physicists and philosophers of science.]
Posted by George, Friday, 2 August 2013 11:33:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it must be clear..that proof of god
much depends how much you try to find him..
as god is love grace mercy..light logic and life..[as well..as servile..[loving serving other]

the dead the hatefull./user/abuser the cruel the judgmental..the un-mercyfull [ie those of the darkness..or even simply those with their passion..being..of the flesh..or self obsessive..simply wont

its simple fact..if
your analogue..your not receiving the digital sig-nature of nurture..
or even simple humbleness..you can never mind meld with the greatness..till you synchronize your..vibe.with love/grace/mercy et....

all you got is the comfort that..he send us..
that which.feed off our delusions of separated-ness..of self..
sustained by that of illusory demons...feeding off/on interacting with our baser passions

mind activity is key hear..as science will in time observe
but as usual will miss accord..because of the obs-erver effect
[we only allow our mind to see that which our conscious allows recognition]..[ie lower heaven and upper hell..are all right 'here'..right now..occupying but different di-mention

as for science proof of god
google..pdf '30 years among the dead
or the story of last law..against witchcraft..passed in briton..

..after details of the sinking of a war ship..was relished as it happened..via seance../

..if you cant find proof

b..its cause your afraid of what you will find..or just not looking thats why god allows us freewill.. [sort of once you know..it obligates us..but thus is the law..of freewill bound by grace mercy

if its too much..god fully comprehends..and forgives
but churches removed that bit..from the record
as some took that .as licence to do eve..il
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 3 August 2013 7:34:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No I didn't describe my observation. The mere fact that I say I had them should be enough for you to take me at my word. It is only by an acceptance of good faith in those we talk to that a discussion can be held. If every claim has to be supported by exhaustive evidence then there is no conversation, merely a cross-examination.

"You're really not getting this, are you"

Au contraire, I "get it" just fine. You reserve the right to assume things about the ontology of my view without evidence, while demanding that I must provide evidence for you to accept my statement about that ontology.

"I said that we're ALL defective"

You're assuming a normative model that only exists stochastically and that variance from the norm is an indication of defect. The problem is that the population variance is so large as to render such a norm fairly meaningless in the context. You may be at one side of it and me at the other, or either of us may be an outlier. I'm not playing the "wounded deer", simply pointing out that you are assuming I am an outlier and you are normative, with no evidence.

"Wrong."

I have no idea of what you may know, but it's safe to assume it's a small set of the total knowledge of all people. Therefore, you defer to a consensus or to the authority of an expert on most aspects of what you "know". This is trivial, surely?

I'm not asserting anything at all, other than my own observations and the conclusions of my own reasoning.

George, I don't know if you're right about whether an ontological proof for existence of God can be developed. It's a fertile field for thought. My own position vis-a-vis theism is not "belief"-based as such, it's an hypothesis to explain some observations and as such is most assuredly based on the epistemiological approach of the scientific method, with one cognitive leap which is that God may be real, which is assumed to be not valid within a scientific context generally.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 3 August 2013 7:48:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
if you cant conceive it..or conceive it in error
your seeing may guide your believing

<<what type of thing..the concept is likely to be.
Identifying an object..(and so differentiating between similar objects—such as a horse and a cow)..requires access to more fine-grained semantic information,..which is provided by distinctive features.>>

ie unique identifiers..only lovers can love
only god can make life live..to get grace first give it

<<edited..Concepts,..which share many features, generate conceptual ambiguity..in which many concepts are activated...This ambiguity can be resolved by information about the distinctive features of a concept,>>

know god is all good
that not ggood isnt 'of'god

features concepts..<<which serve to disambiguate the concept from its semantic competitors...For example, a distinctive feature of a camel is that it has a hump...Knowledge of the feature has a hump in isolation may not be informative..about the identity of the concept; instead,..this information must be combined with the concept's shared features..>>

ie all living..all loving..all grace..all mercy
all serving..all knowing..omnipresent..energy/light

<<in order to identify the concept as a camel...Thus, identifying objects at the basic-level requires the integration of distinctive and shared information.>>

jkusyt the act..of sharting breaks the fixationonself
god is the collective sumtotal..of all selves..[atonment/at-one-meant

<<Given that the coarse-grained or categorical information emerges before fine-grained information, we hypothesize that the effects of shared semantic information will be apparent within the first 200 ms, while effects of distinctive features will occur post-200 ms.>>

edited<<In addition to feature distinctiveness,..the extent to which a concept's features tend to co-occur,..correlational strength, is claimed to be a crucial factor in accessing conceptual meaning (McRae et al. 1997; Taylor et al. 2008).>>

anyhow expose continues

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/01/23/cercor.bhs002.full

on how perception
shades what we are allowing our minds eye to be seeing

<<This account..predicts that the effects of highly correlated features will occur rapidly, while effects associated with the processing of weakly correlated features will occur during later stages of conceptual processing>>

}:(
or
{:}
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 3 August 2013 9:22:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

I certainly agree that here we are into a “fertile field for thought”, and I indeed appreciate your contributions.

>> whether an ontological proof for existence of God can be developed.<<

I would be very careful with the use of the word proof. In everyday language one speaks of proving this or that, implicitly assuming that the context is universally and unequivocally accepted. The same when the context is pure mathematics or formal logic. This is not the case even when the context is our understanding of physical reality and how it is represented by this or that theory. Therefore I spoke not of the “proof for existence of quarks” but rather “the Standard Model of particle physics justifying the existence of quarks”. Even less so, when the context embraces all possible worldviews.

I know, there are many "proof" for the existence of God - for instance, Aquinas’ five - actually arguments, since, as you know, they are not universally convincing (if they were, a single one would suffice). On the other hand, the arguments, or rather supporting evidence, a physicist can provide for the “existence” of quarks are universally (i.e. for all those who can understand them) convincing .

>>hypothesis to explain some observations and as such is most assuredly based on the epistemological approach of the scientific method, with one cognitive leap which is that God may be real, which is assumed to be not valid within a scientific context generally<<

This does not differ very much from what I believe, except that “epistemological approach of the scientific method” sounds like something agreed upon by all scientists. I wonder whether it is the same as what is called “methodological naturalism or atheism” binding for all (natural) scientists. I believe that an “epistemological approach of the scientific method” can establish the existence of quarks, not of God.

As a theist I believe that God is the most satisfying explanation of our quest for beauty, truth and goodness. Hence also of (some) observations.

Otherwise, “a cognitive leap” outside the scientific context is something I would go with.
Posted by George, Saturday, 3 August 2013 9:34:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

Seriously, enough with the strawmen already.

<<No I didn't describe my observation. The mere fact that I say I had them should be enough for you to take me at my word.>>

I haven't doubted your sincerity for a second. As for whether or not you hallucinated, it would be irrational of me to completely discount the possibility - especially if your observation had supernatural qualities. Nor could I assume that your "provisional" theism is the most rational path of inquiry given that I don't know what your observations were.

Ultimately, all I have expressed doubt about, is that your observations had some divine meaning to them. Not that you actually had them (hallucination or not).

<<If every claim has to be supported by exhaustive evidence then there is no conversation, merely a cross-examination.>>

And I've suggested nothing of the sort.

Individual claims require varying degrees of support, depending on how extraordinary or not they are. It would be foolish, a waste of time, and counterproductive to simply take on faith everything that everyone else claimed - no matter how far-fetched - just for the sake of discussion.

<<You reserve the right to assume things about the ontology of my view without evidence, while demanding that I must provide evidence for you to accept my statement about that ontology.>>

No, that's just been your assumption every step of the way despite my continual clarification.

<<You're assuming a normative model that only exists stochastically and that variance from the norm is an indication of defect.>>

No, for the third or fourth time now, I'm simply acknowledging that our brains are prone to hallucination.

<<I have no idea of what you may know, but it's safe to assume it's a small set of the total knowledge of all people. Therefore, you defer to a consensus or to the authority of an expert on most aspects of what you "know". This is trivial, surely?>>

Somewhat, yes. Which is why I suspect you're focussing on this relatively insignificant qualifier at the end of the actual point I was making when I said it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 3 August 2013 9:54:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While all this tedious nonsense is being discussed, because of religion:
- children are being sexually molested by clerics,
- gullible adults are being filled with fear,
- religious institutions and getting ever richer,
- wars are being fought and atrocities commited between the followers of different religions each one of whom claim that god is on their side,
- children are being exposed to concept like hell and eternal punishment,
- clerics are convincing members of the flock to leave bequests to their institutions saying that god will reward them,
- fraudsters are everywhere and are given free reign with no oversight, etc, etc.

Religion, which is based on claims that have no evidence, none, preys upon the gullible with no restriction.

This thread, along with all religion, should be banned.
Posted by David G, Saturday, 3 August 2013 10:03:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i recall earlier..antiseptic..said..<<..based on the epistemiological approach of the scientific metho.. with one cognitive leap which is that God may be real>>,...KEY BIT HERE*<<..which is assumed to be not valid within a scientific context generally.><>

this impoprtant bit MAY*NOT..be clear..to many
[most forums claiming 'science'

have rules..rule one generally states some thing..to the affect of..""god didnt do it..saying he did..will get you banned''

i had hoped via search..to find an example

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=evolution+chat+rules+god

but found this

'There could be a God,' admits David Attenborough:
Sir David Attenborough has speculated that there may be a God – and insisted it would not be ‘inconsistent’ with the theory of evolution.

He told presenter Kirsty Young: ‘I don’t think that an understanding and an acceptance of the 4 billion-year-long history of life is in any way inconsistent with a belief of a supreme being..I am not so confident as to say that I am an atheist.*..I would prefer to say I am an agnostic.’

Three years ago, .in an interview with the Daily Mail, Sir David appeared less convinced of the existence of God...Again describing himself as agnostic rather than atheist,...he said he was a ‘little miffed’ he couldn’t come down more strongly..on one side or the other.

He then said he had no religious background..in his own life,...adding: ‘I almost wish I had one,..so I could say I rejected my parents’ faith,..but, as far as I know,..they had no religious beliefs.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093356/Evolutionist-David-Attenborough-says-God-claims-beliefs-incompatible.html#ixzz2arP2OWsr

anyhow..
what must be clear is aj's claiming to..'have had'..experiences..[lol]..un named]..he could refute..

yet refuses to name..any..
and YET INSISTS antiseptic must*..
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 3 August 2013 1:12:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G.,

"This thread, along with all religion, should be banned."

Perhaps banning "humans" would be the most expedient solution to combating our nasty little ways.....

#notgonnahappen
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 3 August 2013 1:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, human nature being what it is, humans will destroy themselves in the not too distant future.

It will be a fitting fate for such miserable, cruel creatures!
Posted by David G, Saturday, 3 August 2013 2:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G, if you find it tedious, why did you bother to participate? Surely such an enlightened creature as yourself (presumably you're not human, given your views on my species) has better things to do?

Or is it just that you feel a bit left out and you're looking for affirmation of your worth from somebody?

If so, then you'll be gratified to have received this response and now you can feel better about yourself, as can I for having made it.

Isn't reciprocity great?

Poirot, I'm a little concerned about you. I've read a couple of your recent posts and you seem to be a lot more negative than usual. Are you OK? Nil carborundum illegitimatum, my friend. On the whole people aren't that bad, but neither are we all that good. We're all just muddling through as best we can.

AJ Phillips, we seem to have become wedged into some kind of corner. Any desire to find a way out, or is it backs to the wall and kick like hell till the bell rings?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 3 August 2013 3:08:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david..i have naught but..respect for you
both your age..and your wisdom..thus respect your rage

but cant you see..that many did that they did..of good intention
i will admit..THAT MANY perhaps..DID NOT..but their acts..were the acts of men/mankind..god didnt hurt you..nor decree you and others 'be hurt'

the hurt comes via mens institutions..via creed dominating meeting need

that of the baser huh?man..beast..trying to be teaching the higher things..without the comprehension..as their bad work's reveal.

your wise..thus must KNOW*..that energy cant be created..nor destroyed
you must have heard of dying people loosing a few grams of 'weight'..at the time of mortal passing..[crossing over]..

further..that this mass represents energy..[in its changed state]..to wit the soul..and gods life sustaining spirit..[the soul is our id/the sum total..of our works/loves hates and passions..the essential essence of the human we were being.

you cannot be cast into hell..for deny-ing god
its likely..that soonish..you will upon..'dying'..emerge into..a realm..described as late after-noon overcast..

many live here blissfully unaware they have physically 'died'
you will finmd all there feel as you do..you may even feel you are not de-ceased..[you arnt being punished..and few will even bother you[that you chose to hold..is as much 'you'...as that you discard so lightly[gods infinite loving good/grace/mercy..etc]

wasnt god,..but us your fellow travelers
also..travailing through the teaching's of these material realms

we each are 'here'..now..by default
cause we wernt passionate enough for true heaven..or true hell

please note the area..where you are at..when you dream
in time you will know..this here was 'the dream'..

[please note my pasions will take me..to a lowerer place
nearer the darkness]..you however will surely be so close to the lower-heavens..where your good works have earned you to be..

it will only be your rejection of god
that keeps you in the twilight areas

god loves you..its men who hurt you
if i have i am sorry..but im only huh?man 2
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 3 August 2013 4:29:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not at all, OUG.

<<what must be clear is aj's claiming to..'have had'..experiences..[lol]..un named]..he could refute..>>

You see, there's this little thing called the burden of proof. It allows me to exercise a reasonable and healthy bit of scepticism without having to prove anything until the ones making the claim have fulfilled their burden of proof.

<<...yet refuses to name..any..>>

How can I refuse to, when no-one has asked?

<<and YET INSISTS antiseptic must*..>>

Really? Where did I do that?

Antiseptic only needs to do that if he's trying to convince me of the truth of his claims.

You guys really are a confused bunch, aren't you. Whether you're in your provisional stages or completely gone. It doesn't matter.

Your arguments and responses rely heavily on insinuation or just blatantly setting up and attacking strawmen by attributing motivations and meaning to what your opponents think and say, despite them never having alluded to it.

It's truly fascinating to watch.

Antiseptic,

I don't see it that way at all.

<<...we seem to have become wedged into some kind of corner.>>

But I could imagine that it may feel that way when all of one's attempts to read more into what another is saying, than is actually there, keep failing.

And this would have to be the epitome of transference, if you're referring to me...

<<Any desire to find a way out, or is it backs to the wall and kick like hell till the bell rings?>>

Because no-one in their right mind could possibly interpret the patience I've displayed in correcting you through every attempt to misinterpret me as kicking with their back to the wall.

You'll make a fine theist one day, Antiseptic. You really will.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 3 August 2013 4:51:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ANTI,

Things are fine here : )

Just having a bit of trouble processing the recent political shenanigans - and realising, for good and proper this time, that the almost indistinguishable policies by the two majors are representative of the will of the majority.

(mightily impressed with your measured tone these days :)
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 3 August 2013 5:46:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

"the almost indistinguishable policies by the two majors are representative of the will of the majority."

Non, non, mon ami. If the Coalition wins the next election, we'll certainly realise that there's a difference when there's a concerted attack on social democracy under the guise of 'fixing' the non-existent budget crisis. Our problem is that we have compulsory voting and the politicians have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I will say no more since we're OT.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 3 August 2013 6:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've just come across this piece. It's an excellent exposition of much of what I base my own approach on, although obviously much better expressed than my own humble efforts. It brings together much of what I've been trying to think about on all sorts of topics, not just the current one. In short, it's a thoughtful consideration of the ways our experiences, abilities, predispositions and social conditioning lead us into ways of interpreting the world.

Highly recommended.

http://www.academia.edu/4162930/Ch_2._Unchaining_Deconstruction_And_The_Intertextual_from_book_Radical_Research_

You may need to sign up at academia.edu to access it, I'm not sure, but the effort to do that will be worth it anyway, it's an excellent site.

AJPhillips, my question was whether you are interested in finding a way out of this rhetorical corner. I was hoping to imply, although obviously I failed, that defensiveness is not likely to do so. Perhaps the link might provide one possible route?

Poirot, thank you. For the first time in a very long while I'm doing things I genuinely believe to be worthwhile and good in most of my life, rather than scrambling to survive and thinking in the cracks that life throws up. As well, this forum is now largely free of the more rabidly irrational elements that used to infest it and made a decent conversation so hard as to be almost not worth bothering with. I do enjoy thinking and it's great to have thoughtful people to discuss things with and stimulate that thinking.

Don't despair about the commonality of the major parties, perhaps it's a sign of a more mature body politic? Far too much of the discussion around politics in the last 30-40 years has been artificially polarised and simplistic. It's a hopeful sign that we seem to be entering a period in which the problems seem to be recognised as genuine by both sides and the silly politicking is being put aside to try to deal with them, don't you think?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 4 August 2013 2:07:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

Looks like my suspicions were right then.

<<...my question was whether you are interested in finding a way out of this rhetorical corner.>>

So instead of acknowledging that you have unjustifiably (and perhaps even deliberately) misinterpreted me every step of the way, you try to make out as if I had started-out very broadly - encompassing many assumptions and assertions in what I was saying - and have now been forced into some alleged corner by you.

That's dishonest.

Furthemore, if you want to continue down that line, then at least have the courtesy to demonstrate where, and in what way, I started out broad and how you think it's different to my position now. I'd be fascinated to know why you think my current position of is something that I need to 'get out of' too. What's wrong with it?

And as I pointed out earlier, whether you hallucinated or not; had a vision or not, is irrelevant and does not change what I've been saying: that your analogies defending religious thought were false analogies, and that the time to believe something is when there is evidence and/or reasoned argument (depending on how extraordinary the claim is).

I am not talking in riddles here.

<<I was hoping to imply, although obviously I failed, that defensiveness is not likely to do so.>>

Having to to continuously clarify a position that one has held and clearly stated from the very beginning is not defensiveness. If you are going to continue down this line, then please show me the courtesy of pointing to any moment of the discussion at which i have been too vague.

You can't just assume or pretend that the alleged pinning of me into a corner is self-evident. Try demonstrating what you're claiming (it's what I do). I can understand why you may be reluctant to.

Anyway, if you're going continue to be so dishonest, every step of the way, as I have demonstrated you've been (whether it be deliberately with me, or just unintentionally with yourself), then there is no point in me continuing here.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 4 August 2013 6:26:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear. So much for having a nice relaxing Sunday morning.

I seem to have hurt your feelings, AJ, for which I apologise. By all means, you win. The corner's all yours. Enjoy.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 4 August 2013 7:51:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, 

You have not hurt my feelings and I have said nothing to indicate anything of the sort. I have simply pointed out to you that you are obliged to support your claims and that if you don't, then it only comes across as evasiveness.

I have given you the opportunity to support your claims and, not to my surprise, you have apparently declined.

Earlier, I pointed out that I did not believe I had alluded to any of what you have read into my comments. You ignored that and continued on as if nothing had been said. That's rude.

Now, with such a blatantly evasive and snide response to what is a reasonable request from myself, any willingness on my behalf, to give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you are merely confused and are having difficulty keeping up, has faded.

I have provided you with reasoned argument every step of the way, I have not intentionally misrepresenting you at any point and I even had the courtesy to retract a false assumption when I made one. Why am I not entitled to the same respect? Why does requesting the same treatment have to be an indication of hurt feelings?

I suspect it's because it is in fact you who has been backed into a corner and that you are not willing or able to reflect on why that is.

Your actions on this thread have been less-than-admirable, to say the very least.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 4 August 2013 8:33:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

Yes, I suppose one could look at it like that - except the bipartisanship isn't being presented as bipartisan.

Here's a quick run down of the latest developments.

LNP - We'll turn back the boats because Howard did it.

Labor - We'll turn ourselves inside out and - ta da! We'll send every asylum seeker and his cat to Manus.

LNP - Well we're going to put a three star general in charge to shoo 'em away....and if that don't work, we'll send 'em to Nauru

Labor - We'll send 'em to Narua as well!

LNP - Gonski is a "Conski". We'll guarantee it for next year and then we'll have to take it apart and fix up Labor's folly.

Labor - we're still going Gonski.

LNP - (The very next day) We're supporting Gonski now, so you can all have certainty.

(Pyne - Our Gonski is going to be the "real Gonski". Labor's Gonski isn't a real Gonski)

So, Anti, you can see that it isn't really bipartisanship. It's populism and political opportunism for election purposes. It seems neither side has any solid foundation these days.

But I do understand we're you're coming from....however, to me it's more like this:

http://thehoopla.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/bugs-bunny-yosemite-sam.jpg

(Excuse the off topic post - just replying to Anti)
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 4 August 2013 8:37:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
its sad..that facts
are so..limited..that we must take*..leaps/bounds of assumption..just to try..to help other.

<><''Delusion vs Hallucination

Hallucinations..are false
or distorted..sensory experiences..>>

lets go..with that
false or distorted..SENse-SORRY...experiences*

thus input..via the normative senses..stated.,.*smell taste..touch hearing/seeing..[lets expand it..

heat/cold sensation..dread/fear sense....helplessness/omnipotence copmplex
..angst/lack..fullness/puffy senses..
lets add in emotional senses..anger hurt love boretdumb
imp waste/haste..the need to troll..lol

all* sort of common to..non..*sense..
<<that appear to be..veridical perceptions.>>

whatever they are..
im presuming liniar/causal linked perception..
our senses received..by some extraordinary..[not natural]..attributable input?]

<<..These sensory impressions..are generated by the mind !
rather than by any external stimuli..>>that isnt logical..then lol*..this

<<,..and may be seen,..heard,..felt,..and
even smelled or tasted.>>

to wit wasnt ALL..'generated*,in the mind'
it must thus be a real*..[attributable..sensory..
[naturally generated]..real..gene*rated input..

<<A delusion..is a false belief*
..based on incorrect inference*..about external reality>>

like asuming
if one says im athiest,..that they came via logical
..agnost-o-synacysm..not just..blind biassed delusion?

<<that is firmly sustained..
despite what almost everybody else believes>>>..

lol.. tell coppernickers..and the flat earthers

key bit....<<..and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.>>

none presented
thus the need to presume..or ignore the troll$$
but trolls teach us..in refuting them,..t[hus lack 0f fact..presented].,

logical CON-collusion...bias..?

<<The {ERRANT}..belief..is not one ordinarily accepted.. LOL
..by other members of the person's culture>>..lol

<<or subculture..e.g.,it is not an article of religious>>..
{OR faux-SCIENCE BASED DELUSION}....*<<faith).

<<A hallucination occurs..when environmental,>>
circumstance or EMOTIVE..sacred cows..

<<emotional,or physical factors
such as stress,medication,..extreme fatigue,..
or mental illness..cause the mechanism..within the brain
that..[helps to]..distinguish conscious perceptions..from internal,..<<KEY BIT*>>>memory-based perceptions..to misfire.>>

KEY*..<<As a result,..hallucinations occur
during periods of consciousness.>>

contra logical
its really the dream realm..
returning to vivid dreaming sleep..[state]
while conscious..[or so the mind inputs feel may be reasonable]

..<<They can appear in the form of visions,..voices or sounds, tactile feelings (known as haptic hallucinations), smells, or tastes.>>..

no wonder psychiatry..is a fraud [often called a fauxe science
makes sense..or else how else athiest.or a theist.. be validated as deficient..or deviant of otherwise defective

[is re-educating theists
still party=policy.. of the new seculiar..[old athiest]...party..?

ya gotta love
how igot back to..poll-lie..spin
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 4 August 2013 8:51:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

I have to agree with AJ Phillips in regard to the way you continually shift your ground and sprinkle your arguments with jargon.
Posted by mac, Sunday, 4 August 2013 9:05:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac,

I am sure you and AJ Philips can lead a meaningful exchange of arguments between you two on a topic of mutual interest (maybe what are and what are not “shifting grounds”?). An exchange that will lead both of you to enhance and broaden your own positions. And without interference of outsiders who have different debating standards that you call “dishonest” and “sprinkled with jargon”.

The same as my exchange of opinions with Antiseptic about philosophy of science (and the relevance or not to the concept of God) has enhanced and broadened my position (and hopefully also his) on these matters, without us intentionally wanting to upset those who cannot follow the “jargon” necessary in this kind of opinion exchange.
Posted by George, Sunday, 4 August 2013 9:49:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry you feel that way, mac. Two points: first, what you call "jargon" is simply clear language. I could use many more words, but that wouldn't make the points any clearer. The words I use have clear meanings, which anybody is welcome to look up for themselves. Second, I'm not arguing, but trying to hold a discussion of ideas. The only things I assert are those that I can say I have experienced and I show my working, so to speak. I have clearly said what the basis for my reasoning is and that I am hypothesising a particular ontology to explain those experiences/observations. AJ is upset that I don't disclose the observations and that I have shown flaws in his reasoning, he hasn't actually addressed my own reasoning, but that's OK, he has his own epistemiological approach that he feels comfortable with even if I think it's not likely to be very productive in the circumstances.

My position is simple: we all have different experiences and attributes and in my case a combination of those two things has lead me to a particular hypothesis. I'd like to think that there may be a way to generalise to a theoretical approach from that, but if there's not, then so be it. Complexity is intrinsically tough to pin down, after all and a simplistic approach is unlikely to yield useful insights any more than adherence to a dominant consensus is likely to produce new concepts.

Have you had a read of that link I put up? It has a pretty good discussion of the way I think about things generally, although it isn't specifically about this topic.

Poirot, could it be that you're looking at the surface politics rather than the underlying reasoning?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 4 August 2013 9:57:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i jjustwrote keve

the big adgenda item..for g20
MUST BE..youth unemployment...plan is send them 'backpacking'
witha small daily allowence..of bed plus 3 cheap feeds..small
entertainment budget

they effectively are 'our' eyes on the ground..
with DIRECT/ LIVE communication to govt..live web blogs
AMBASSADORS..for their home cuntry..but employed..and
deployable..liker boot camp

whatever YOU decide topay yuour kids..the casdh flow of a bed [say 5
dollars]\..and again say 5 each meal[ plus drink/shower]..the kids
will save us..once

IMPOTANTLY><<<govt becomes like a good mother..
not a bad mutha

anyhow it bails out the euro zone tourism
plus what kid dont want to go to ussa?...eh?

govt needs look afterr our kids*
needs toasure the4basdics
not spend it on the allrerady elite uni-vesities

govt must feed cloth teach
bailout THE POOR FIRST*..,we need to see a clear difference..what would jesus do

ps after g-20
become next..pope
bylovoing other..with empowrment..not impoverishment

AUSTERITY HAS FAILED*
CASH UP THE KIDS
SEND EM BACKPACKING[FOR MINIMUM WAGE

SORRY MATE got excited..[for who you could become...with a little help
from your brothers/sisters..mothers and fathers GOVT..HELPING the
caring/raising LOVING..for OUR kids

kids free*
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:06:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm disappointed antiseptic – in my explaining ability, that is – that you seem to have misunderstood the point I was making… which was not:

"Wm Trevor, your argument is circular: "I think theists are mentally ill, therefore theism is a mental illness"."

Because I don't regard theists as axiomatically mentally ill, nor similarly, do I regard atheists as inherently mentally healthy.

For example, when a relative heard God speaking to her and as a consequence spent 40 years being a Christian missionary in Africa. I don't disbelief for a second her genuine belief in her description of actually hearing God's voice talking to her. Was she mentally ill? No.

Could she prove her claim or I disprove it? No. But obviously in her mind the evidence was intrinsic and proven to her satisfaction.

Will such an example ever stand the test of being an extrinsic proof of God? No.

Are people who claim to be the resurrected Jesus Christ mentally ill? More than likely.

Importantly, a discussion about the existence of God is separate from discussions about the existence of which particular one, which particular religion, which particular denomination, or which particular prescriptions of individual behaviour.

Of course, if God is unseeable and unknowable then none of that really matters.

If He exists that is…

And also, ironically, none of that really matters, if He doesn't.
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:09:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After reading Antiseptic’s generous reaction to mac, I somehow regret having written the last post. It is after all just a matter of personal taste that I prefer debating Antiseptic, david f, Poirot, Yuyutsu, pelican, Pericles, Rhian, Lexi, just to mention a few, rather than others, especially if they call me dishonest or other names, without wanting to offend anybody.

Antiseptic, thanks indeed for the link to Academia.edu. I already signed in.
Posted by George, Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:22:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

You may be right, and I'm merely concentrating on the shallowness of it all.

It diffictult to get more shallow than dog-whistle politics....but, hey it seems to work a treat in modern-day Australia.

From here it seems that they're both attempting to match each other - and the underlying impetus is that they both wish to win the election.

(Hope yous don't mind if I actually say something on topic : )

From my experience those who have been particularly bound up in religion - and then reject it - appear to far more enthusiastic in their denunciation of anything classified as "supernatural".

I've met quite a few people, who having no experience of religious belief, when they examine their rejection of the metaphysical as a matter of course or ideology supporting the supernatural, come away a little less sure of their standpoint.

Thinking about the subject, and philosophically investigating ideas without bias, appears to broaden one's outlook and renders one more accommodating.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:24:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

So it's just about debating standards then? 

<<...without interference of outsiders who have different debating standards that you call “dishonest” and “sprinkled with jargon”. 

Are you honestly suggesting that there is no right or wrong; not good or bad, just personal preference? I realised you did this with regards to your religious beliefs, but I didn't think you extended that to everything else. This is what you indicated at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15077#261139 at least.

I wonder how you can feel comfortable with criminal justice systems then.

<<The same as my exchange of opinions with Antiseptic about philosophy of science ... without us intentionally wanting to upset those who cannot follow the “jargon” necessary in this kind of opinion exchange.>>

Well, if that's not a shameless display of condescension, I don't know what is.

What you conveniently overlook, George, is that I am able to justify my accusations of dishonesty. Just as I did in that last thread. Your overlooking of this and, consequently, insinuating that the claims may amount to mere slander, is in itself slanderous.

Antiseptic,

<<AJ is upset that I don't disclose the observations and that I have shown flaws in his reasoning...>>

Yet you are still unable to point to any of those flaws because you know I corrected your false assumptions on every one of them, and thus pointing them out would highlight this.

<<he hasn't actually addressed my own reasoning...>>

Yes, I have. I did so when I mentioned logical absolutes. You're only response was, essentially, to move on as if nothing was said.

<<...but that's OK, he has his own epistemiological approach that he feels comfortable with even if I think it's not likely to be very productive in the circumstances.>>

In what circumstances? I suspect you don't even know and are deliberately remaining vague.

You people are utterly shameless.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 4 August 2013 10:54:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much is said about the need for proof or evidence, but something seemed to have been overlooked; what actually is proof or evidence? If someone asks "What is the proof/evidence that US president Barack Obama was born in Hawaii", what counts as proof or evidence?

Science advocates like to say that science is the best or something to that effect. So what happens when science contradicts itself? As an example, one scientific study says mobile phones may trigger Alzheimer's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2728149.stm
But another study claims mobile phones may protect against Alzheimer's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443541.stm
So which is it?
Posted by RMW, Sunday, 4 August 2013 12:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

(1) "...different debating standards that you call “dishonest” and “sprinkled with jargon”. "

Where did I call anyone "dishonest"? It really isn't a sound procedure to conflate similar, but not identical, arguments from different individuals

(2) As to "different debating standards", this is precisely the point I'm making, there should be one debating standard.

(3) "... without us intentionally wanting to upset those who cannot follow the “jargon” necessary in this kind of opinion exchange."

You're being patronising--you could have a point, of course, however there's just a hint of the "Emperor's New Clothes" in some of the jargon, or the first year undergraduate essay, now I'm being patronising.

Antiseptic,

We will have to agree to differ.

"theism is not "belief"-based as such, it's an hypothesis to explain some observations and as such is most assuredly based on the epistemiological approach of the scientific method, with one cognitive leap which is that God may be real, which is assumed to be not valid within a scientific context generally."

You will have to explain how the hypothesis of theism can be tested, if it's not testable it's not a scientific hypothesis. What is a "cognitive leap"?
Posted by mac, Sunday, 4 August 2013 12:44:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RMW<<..what actually is proof or evidence?
what counts as proof or evidence?>>

fact?
models?
fossils?

sensory experience?
proof must be in hardcopy!

<<Science advocates like to say
that science is the best or something to that effect.>>

its based on ability to state/replicate
ability to faulsify?

<<So what happens when science contradicts itself?

<<As an example,
one scientific study says mobile phones may trigger Alzheimer's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2728149.stm
But another study claims mobile phones may protect against Alzheimer's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443541.stm

So which is it?>>

first you asked the wrong question
but to reply

both are true..[one in 1000 could be susceptible to cancer]
so ban them from using them..or else build in a levy..to find rectify any damage

but if everyone..was yapping to everyone[on phone
or on the web..they would be so switched on..altzheimers could dissappear all together..s

top the sleeper's sleeping
cause govt nanny state is watching that we do the right 'thing'..
ie talk toeach other..care..stay in touch..etc

you know that active people find to do

so both are fact
but do you let 5 die
by killing the fat guy?
or worse be helping them to kill them-self

or treat his diabetes
feed them vege-tables?
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 4 August 2013 1:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Antiseptic,

It saddens me to see you here like that, torn and trapped by a pack of wolves, all due to an innocent mistake of yours - trying to 'prove' God.

God isn't an hypotheses, but suppose He were and suppose you were indeed able to prove that hypotheses, what then?

Then God would have turned from a hypotheses into a fact, then could you still possibly worship Him? Any form of relating to God as Fact, would degenerate into a business-relationship. Love and devotion would then be replaced by give-and-take. Yes, even AJ Philips and others would be 'convinced' and do the same then, but would it have any value? Worship would have turned into a purely practical, materialistic action: one's ego would see profit in worship - but could the ego itself ever be defeated that way?

Think of it this way: if God actually existed, would He be so cruel as to allow the world to have any 'holes' through which He can be seen? Would he so deny His love and salvation from His devotees just in order to 'show' some atheists that they are wrong and win the argument? In other words, is God such an egoist?

Nay, the world is a perfect and solid trap, without loopholes. So long as you stay focused on the world, more of this world will be revealed to you - but not God.

God's existence is meaningless: what is meaningful is your love to Him, asking nothing in return, not minding that He doesn't exist, that He will therefore not grant you any tangible boons, not minding even leaving this whole world behind, even logic itself, for Him. That you can do this, is the biggest miracle of all.

Your choice is always free, whether to attend to the world, along with its ever consistent phenomenal science; or to turn your back to it, seeking God. When you finally decide to turn away from the world, you cannot take anyone else with you - they too have free choice!

May God's blessings be upon you for ever.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 4 August 2013 2:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Whatever "god" is or isn't - if such an entity is more than an adjunct to human thought - I don't think it's a "He" or even a "he" (or a she).

According to you, in days gone by, we're already God, as is every"thing" - except we don't realise it.

Notwithstanding, it's difficult to talk about such an entity without attributing a gender to it.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 4 August 2013 2:23:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ one under god
"proof must be in hardcopy!"
"its based on ability to state/replicate
ability to faulsify?"
Which if any is valid to determine Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

"so both are fact"
Then reality is contradictory....
Posted by RMW, Sunday, 4 August 2013 2:29:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

<<According to you, in days gone by, we're already God, as is every"thing" - except we don't realise it.>>

Indeed so. But it seems that Antiseptic conceives of God as an entity (but better wait for his response, shall we?), so I reduce that idea for him ad-absurdum.

<<Notwithstanding, it's difficult to talk about such an entity without attributing a gender to it.>>

Though not an entity, gender is a trap indeed. As God is not an entity, gender is not an issue, but I tend to use 'He' as a way of respect, given more of the readers of this forum are Christian rather than worship God as the Divine Mother. Not being able to satisfy everyone, whatever name enhances more devotion, the better.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 4 August 2013 2:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RMW,..<<..Which if any is valid
to determine Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?>>

i have..*SEEN..a copy of a birth extract
i dont know if the president..would be exposded in photo-shopping it

thus 90%..sure he was born..
where document says he was*

yes..<L<"so both are fact">>

statisicly..only one quarter of the..population...can get cancer*
3/4 automaticly self corrects//the damage..add inbody acidity]conductivity..and exposure times..leakage..the stats say
1 in one thousand..will get it from phones..others frommicro/pariculate..yes otheres via injestion..etc

the numbers cant lie..but can be spun
by say 'social costs''..of say smopkinmg..=30 billion
yet actual hodpitalcosts is less thas 1/100..that number
[as reported in media..

800million fro mmemory
was read onto..parlemewnt record hansard

but all cancers = only 15 %..of hospital costs
i agree<<Then reality is contradictory....>>

yes facts say specifically..x will get cancer../given x exposure parameters..at sensitive times..[when dna is in the vulnerable..*uncoiled state.

real life validates..those
with active life..will negate altzheimers..by communicating
say via free ipad..or 7 inch lap top..or micro card..communication is key to keeping minds active..keeping in the flow.

[yet not applicable..to say madcow..as a dirty secret
timebomb..as the elite..try to keep us isolated/dumbed down..

the ideal soviet party man
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 4 August 2013 5:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@oug
"i have..*SEEN..a copy of a birth extract..."
And what's the proof that you've seen this?

"thus 90%..sure he was born..
where document says he was"
So a paper document is reliable?
Posted by RMW, Sunday, 4 August 2013 7:14:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

Your apparent unwillingness to retract what I have clearly shown to be a false accusation regarding my intentions (by accusing me of name calling) suggests that it was nothing more than a smear tactic.

Instead of nursing a resentment towards me for simply pointing out (and demonstrating) what was as clear as day (in the hope that you may take the opportunity to correct the problem) how about you reflect on why you needed to be dishonest in the first place?

And if I wrongly accused you of dishonesty, then all you needed to do was clarify yourself and I would have gladly retracted my accusation, with an apology. I have shown, on a number of occasions, that I am quite happy to make retractions when I'm shown to be wrong, as I see no shame in being wrong. That you ignore this, and instead choose to sit back and take potshots at me, in discussion with others, comes across as petulant and cowardly, and speaks volumes about your sincerity and integrity, or lack thereof.

You pride yourself on your tone, regularly reminding me that you won't reciprocate in certain ways that you apparently find distasteful, and yet, ironically, you are quite happy to slander others by insinuating the most horrible things about their sincerity and intentions, without justification.

What is distasteful if not that?

Again, if I am wrong, then tell me where I have gone wrong and explain why, but please, don't just scramble for the moral highground in yet another attempt deflect attention back on to me as if I were the issue.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 4 August 2013 11:04:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

Your tone throughout this thread (and an earlier one concerning George) has been highly antagonistic and provocative.

It's not surprising, therefore, that people respond in a way that you find less than gratifying.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 4 August 2013 11:31:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac,

>>Where did I call anyone "dishonest"? It really isn't a sound procedure to conflate similar, but not identical, arguments from different individuals<<

I realized this, therefore a few minutes later I wrote the other post, where I explained it as a “personal taste” why I prefer this or that debating style (OK, not standards) and partners. I am aware you never called me dishonest nor attacked me personally, and I apologize for the conflation.

I also apologize for that part in the unfortunate post that you found patronising. However, as for what you call “jargon”, I think it is necessary in debates on abstract topics, in spite of those “hints” you mention that a third person might see in the use of it. After all, we have Google and Wikipedia, that I often use if I encounter a term or phrase I do not understand, or not in the given context (for instance, googling “cognitive leap” gave me 13 000 hits). .

On the other hand, there are topics being discussed on this OLO that I am sufficiently interested in to follow, but do not get involved for various reasons, one of them being that I do not have enough information or do not understand the technicalities (or jargon, if you like).

Poirot,

>>those who have been particularly bound up in religion - and then reject it - appear to far more enthusiastic in their denunciation … (than) people, who having no experience of religious belief<<

You are so right! A person who has left the country of his/her birth to settle in another country will be much more emotional/enthusiastic when giving reason why he/she did not wnat to live in that country than an outsider, who never lived in the person's country of birth, would.

AJ Philips,

>>please, don't just scramble for the moral highground in yet another attempt deflect attention back on to me as if I were the issue.<<

No, I won’t.
Posted by George, Monday, 5 August 2013 12:50:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, thank you for your lovely post. As a dog-lover I tend to see it more as being nipped by some overenthusiastic pooches keen for a play. :-)

You may well be right about the nature of God, but I think you may have mistaken my own position. I'm not interested in "proving" that God exists, but as a lifelong atheist I've had to examine some of my own assumptions in the light of recent observations that I'm finding it hard to fit into that framework. That means coming up with a new hypothesis and testing it, which the good people here are being kind enough to help me with. That doesn't go to the nature of God at this stage, but to the [simple!] question of existence. I have a few ideas on that nature, but they can wait.

AJ, in the circumstances of trying to hold a friendly and productive discussion rather than having a debate with the intent of scoring points. I can assure you that I'm quite capable of the latter, but it doesn't seem very useful to do so on this topic and decreasingly useful on others.

WmTrevor, thank you for the clarification. I think we may be closer in our views than I realised, especially with respect to your comments about the particularity of the way God is envisioned. There is so much fragmentation of the idea that there is "Devil in the detail". I'll try to expand a bit on your post a little later.

mac, it can be tested by the effect on society of having a structural organising moral principle. Every successful society has one that gives people both a personal meaning and a social role. To date, the most successful of those has been based on a conception of God in the case of the Indo European traditions, although the Asian ones tend to a more abstract notion of fundamental goodness.

A cognitive leap is a jump from one mode of thought to another.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 5 August 2013 5:09:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Poirot, I'm a little concerned about you. I've read a couple of your recent posts and you seem to be a lot more negative than usual.'

'Anti, I'm mightily impressed with your measured tone these days :)'

I for one am uncomfortable with this turn of events. I believe Anti is on something, and Poirot is depressed. Perhaps she's off something.

Anyway, know that god is watching. Just a stranger on a bus...
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 5 August 2013 9:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellie,

Sorry to put a spanner in the works of your theory...but I'm not depressed. : )

".....Perhaps she's off something."

Only problem with your theory is that I've never been on anything....(except perhaps my high horse:)

Although......I suspect I imbibe too many cups of tea most days (I like to live dangerously:)

Nah - just got the pip with the two major political parties and having a jolly good rant, as you do.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 5 August 2013 9:59:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

I figured you felt that way. I've had a read through the thread again and given what I've dealt with, I'd say that I've been relatively patient and measured in my responses. I don't think I've been too antagonistic but I'd agree I've been a little provocative at times. Not necessarily in a bad way, though.

If you're not necessarily expressing a disapproval of my actions, and are merely pointing out that I should expect the responses that I've received, then okay, but I disagree. No-one should ever expect to be slandered. Outwitting an antagonist is a far better method of dealing with them. That George is unable to do this only highlights the weakness of his position and/or is a sign of his maturity levels.

However, if you ARE expressing a disapproval of my actions, then I think you’re holding a double standard there. One could describe your communication with AGW deniers as antagonistic and provocative too (and I certainly don't blame you for being that way with them, given what you deal with). Ask yourself, though, why is it alright to be like that with AGW deniers and not theists? This is a common double-standard people hold: thinking that theists deserve some sort of a free pass. I’m sometimes even admonished by my fellow atheists for holding theists to account, yet I never receive a good reason as to why expecting a justification for those beliefs should remain so taboo (a couple of my responses regarding this can be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151500 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#178700).

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 5 August 2013 10:15:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

This is how provocativeness can be productive: if enough of us have the courage to stand up and ask that they either justify their beliefs, or take a backseat and stop wrecking everything because of them, then religion will eventually be humbled into a position where the biggest danger it poses is the lack of critical thought that it endorses and the flow-on effects that can have to other, more important decisions in life. Take George for example, he’s smart enough to know that one is on the back foot when defending religious belief and that is why he would NEVER say this, or that to someone else. Sounds admirable, but it’s to be expected, give the theist’s position.

Antiseptic,

<<…in the circumstances of trying to hold a friendly and productive discussion rather than having a debate with the intent of scoring points.>>

One thing I can say is that I have appreciated your tone. But as I have pointed out with George, tone isn’t everything. A passive aggressiveness can be just as bad. A mild tone is not a licence to say or imply anything we want.

As for point scoring, this is an accusation that is usually levied at me when I attempt to point out how the discussion has progressed after someone has tried to skew the reality there (as if others couldn’t just scroll up and read). Don’t fall for the trap of scrambling for the moral highground, will you. People see through it too easily.

Actually, on second thought, perhaps they don’t..?
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 5 August 2013 10:15:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While so many people are wasting time discussing theo-babble, the Yanks are busy taking over our country.

Yes, all over our land they are spreading like cancer, making moves on our harbors and airfields, expanding their spying facilities, trying to use our islands to launch drones, using Australia as one of their military outposts in the South Pacific!

And while they do, we waste our intellectual energy debating and arguing about mythical creatures called gods.

Stone the crows, are we crazy or what? When the Stars and Stripes hang over our Parliament, will Australians wake up then?
Posted by David G, Monday, 5 August 2013 11:28:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
just need to add a few links..as
i have..too many pages open

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Delusion_vs_Hallucination
<<..Contents

*Different types
Of hallucinations:
Of delusions:
*Causes:
Hallucinations:
Delusions:
Prognosis
Hallucinations
Delusions
Work up and diagnosis
Hallucination
Delusions
Treatment
Of hallucinations
Of delusions..>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14814&page=0#256082

<<..Creation is a more fundamental notion than nature. : Comments>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15077&page=0#261139
<<A resurgence of biblical literalism?>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389&page=0#150883
<<Querying the Dawkins view of science >>

ok...yes any document..is a proof
its falsifiable.. being ..*PROVE ITS A FAKE*

thus i accept obama..on his written word/thesis
and await its fauls-if-ication..if any*

A*J..protest-eth..too much
but is fun..witty and good at trolling..out new info

poirot..isnt depressed
its the times..that shade the words meaning*
cant find it,..but its about a king who has vision/dream
and a man..who betrays the snake..3 times..who explained the vision to him

and inthe ends says his bad manner
was only a reflection of the times

but this other one looks good too
http://www.lafontaine.net/lesFables/fableEtr.php?id=909

try going to keiser..clicking next vidio
next next..etc..these are our times

same lies by different lie*rs
whoisnt depressed must be imbecile[ward of the court]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j615aokEA_Y

anyhow need some vit d
im going to sit in the sun*
warm these aching bones..empty vowels..[b]
Posted by one under god, Monday, 5 August 2013 11:35:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ok..close enough

http://rbedrosian.com/gosh4.htm

page/100.

In a vision,..a certain king/saw foxes..pouring down like rain.
He ordered it proclaimed..that one thousand dahegans..would begiven to whomever interpreted the meaning..of this vision.

When a certain poor man..heard this,..he went
and..said:.."If you will excuse me..for three days,..I will reveal..[the meaning]..to you."

Then he went to a desert/retreat..and wandered about,..meditating.
A dragon (vishap)..was there,,,saw the confused man,and said: "What will you give me..if I interpret the king's vision for you?"

And[the man]..replied:..Half of what the king promised[me]..will be yours."..The dragon spoke:"Go..and say that a time is coming..when men will be deceivers..and treacherous as foxes."

So[the poor man]..went and said this..and his interpretation seemed correct[to the king],..for indeed people/were that way...[The king] gave him the promised one thousand dahegans.

The man,however,deceived the dragon,
not returning..to him.

edited
till..the next kings dream..

dragon said:.."Go..and say that the time has come..when people are as simple-minded as sheep."..He went and interpreted it...[The king] accepted[the explanation]..and gave him an additional..one thousand dahegans.

Taking this,..the man went/betrayed..etc

edited

After this,[the king]..saw yet another vision
wherein,..l0..swords came raining down.

And..had the man summoned again..to have this[vision]..interpreted too...

The man made the same request for time..and went to the dragon..who immediately explained it..as if to a friend.

It said:.."Go and say that the time has come
when people come forth..as tyrants and swordsmen."

He wen.. and related this..to the king a
nd received one thousand dahegans.

Then he went to the dragon,..saying to himself:.."Now why should I leave the dragon one thousand dahegans or bring him five hundred dahegans?

Rather,..I shall attack and slay the dragon."..

And he attempted..to strike the dragon,
..but failed since the dragon eluded him.

The man regretted[his deed]..and thought:

"I have done wickedly, for should it be necessary again..[to get an interpretation] how can I approach him?"..

Seeing the man grieving, the dragon..said to him:

"Grieve not,oh man..
because you are not to blame;
rather,..it is the times.*..For your deception..[belongs to] the time of hypocrites;*..

your repentance..and payment of the one thousand dahegans,
to the time of ingenuousness;..and your attack on me,..to the time of tyrants."
Posted by one under god, Monday, 5 August 2013 12:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

Thanks for the explanation.
Posted by mac, Monday, 5 August 2013 2:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David G.,

<<While so many people are wasting time discussing theo-babble, the Yanks are busy taking over our country...
When the Stars and Stripes hang over our Parliament, will Australians wake up then?>>

Even more so, at times of adversity when all looks bleak and there seems to be nowhere to turn, remember:

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures, He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul, He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil - for Thou art with me, Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies, Thou anointest my head with oil, my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KgqvMPXjYeE/T3bckyFjelI/AAAAAAAACeM/mrWIQd1vZuE/s1600/cat%2Band%2Bdogs%2Bgerman%2Bshephards%2Bpsalm%2B23%2BCat.jpg

Amen!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 5 August 2013 3:36:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
found it

ivan and the snake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9MQ88NEO7Q

antiseptic/quote..:<<A cognitive leap
is a jump from one mode of thought..to another.>

cognition

— n
1. the mental act*..or process
by which knowledge is acquired,..including perception, intuition, and reasoning

2. the knowledge that results from such an act or process

Medical Dictionary

cognition cog·ni·tion
n.
The mental faculty*

..of knowing, which includes perceiving,
recognizing, conceiving, judging, reasoning, and imagining.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Science Dictionary
cognition (

The mental process
.. of knowing, including awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

yet i prefer the LATEST*..new definition
http://philosophy2100.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/cognition-new-definition.html

EDITED...<<..Cognition refers to processes that allow humans to know what is going on out there and how to respond. You can begin to understand cognition by examining how humans find food, eat and move in a coherent spacetime frame. The brain contains feature matrices that create meaningful connections between the body inside and the environment outside.

Humans have an innate sense of spacetime. Maps of spacetime can be found in the cerebral cortex. Sensory information flows into these spacetime maps and motor output flows out. Our speech grows from movements in spacetime and communications with sounds. We often use metaphors of movement in descriptions of everything that happens. Humans act on the world through praxis or skilled movements.

The term, thought, is often used as a synonym for cognition but this is incorrect. A giant leap in understanding cognition is realizing that talking is thinking. We talk to each other and talk to ourselves. Thinking is selftalk, listening to others, speaking with others, reading and writing. Speakers and listeners form thinking groups and in the best case arrive at a common understanding of what is going on out there.

Selftalk is the only conscious mode of thinking and is so implicit in consciousness that “thinkers” fail to identify selftalk as their primary mode of thinking. Thinking is, therefore, storytelling, a form of argument...>>>

edited
Posted by one under god, Monday, 5 August 2013 7:29:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, thanks for that little bit of theo-babble. I remember it well from my Church days when I was a serious believer.

Fortunately, I saw the light, saw the fraud that religion is, and I beat a hasty repeat and have never looked back.

The light hasn't dawned for you yet but I give you full marks for trying to fuse religion and reality.

Unfortunately, they are contradictory, my friend.

Cheers.
Posted by David G, Monday, 5 August 2013 7:39:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
page..95..[self talk]
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nx0ZYrhgwN8C&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=self+talk+l+is+spirit+communication&source=bl&ots=WdKBDQax05&sig=s2xrYC-smThc06x2PlgC02GO2Gc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GHL_UbTaD8bGkQW-64DIAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=self%20talk%20l%20is%20spirit%20communication&f=false

then
http://angels.about.com/od/AngelBasics/f/How-Can-I-Protect-Myself-From-Fallen-Angels.htm
..<<in his book \]..Glimpses of the Devil,
http://www.amazon.com/Glimpses-Devil-Psychiatrists-Possession-Redemption/dp/B000FTBPMI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319726961&sr=1-1

<<and concludes..that:
“Possession...is not an accident.
In..becoming possessed,..the victim must*
at least..in some way,..cooperate with..or sell out..to the d-evil.”>>

ie..our thoughts..are energy..for* spirit
*to think vile..&*IS*..to attract vile.

<<In his book..about evil called...People of the Lie,
http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/0684848597/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319726961&sr=1-3

<< Peck says..that..the way to be free..*of bondage..to evil
is to submit to God..and his goodness*:>>

grace/..mercy/..love etc

<<“There are..two states..of being:..submission to God..and goodness

or the refusal,,to submit to anything*..beyond one’s own..will-
-which refusal..automatically enslaves one..to the forces of evil.

We must..*ultimately..CHOSE*..
to WHAT*..we wish to belong>>..

by..giving aid/comfort..*[help]..to either God..[good]..
or the materialistic..self..referred to..as a devil.”>>..

our thoughts*..are pure energy
E*..food..that feed angels..or feed demons..
both are involved in..'self=talk;..[internal-networking..;IN-spi-ration]

bacteria*..talk..via chemicals
http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html&sa=U&ei=GHL_UbTaD8bGkQW-64DIAg&ved=0CDQQtwIwBw&sig2=IMEufBCWYC1e4VfVxlYtfQ&usg=AFQjCNG_7Q2C1w_OUfeniWLnVK72nK8xvA

Motivational Interviewing..is a collaborative,..goal-­oriented method of communication..
with particular attention to the..language of change.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IZYTpEm2_CAJ:http://www.motivationalinterview.org/Documents/1%2520A%2520MI%2520Definition%2520Principles%2520%26%2520Approach%2520V4%2520012911.pdf%2Bself+talk+l+is+spirit+communication&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&hl=en&ct=clnk

It is designed..to strengthen an individual’s motivation
for*..and movement..toward..*a specific goal..by eliciting and exploring the person’s 'own'..[internal]..arguments for change.

The “Spirit”
of..*Motivational Interviewing

*MI is more than the use..of a set of technical interventions.

It is characterized..by a particular "spirit”..
or clinical “way of being”..which is the context..of interpersonal relationship..within which..the techniques are employed.

The spirit of MI..is based on three key elements
:..collaboration between the therapist and the client;..
evoking or drawing out the client‘s ideas..about change;..and emphasizing..the autonomy of the client.

then

http://www.erinpavlina.com/blog/2006/11/how-to-meet-your-higher-self/

Your higher self is you...You..as living ENERGY*..in the ether.
Your higher self..is the real you,..your total soul consciousness.

The you..that is living..here on Earth
is just a projection..[vessel/vehicle/link]..
of the consciousness*..of your higher self...with ego[id]

Your higher self..is the more complete you,
the one..that isn’t being frustrated..by the veil..that draws down upon us..when we incarnate..*that causes us..*to forget where we came from...indeed where we wish to go..*to.

Before you incarnated,..*your higher self
got together..with some spirit guides..[guilds/societies]..and basically said,..“Will you watch over me..when I incarnate?

I’d particularly..like your help..to accomplish X.”

HS..gets all your guides together,..explains the plan
and how they will be able..to help you,..and then prepares to cast a portion..of its consciousness..onto Earth...

and thus
here we are*..now what?
Posted by one under god, Monday, 5 August 2013 8:16:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David G.,

<<I remember it well from my Church days when I was a serious believer.>>

You still are, my friend, only now you believe in something else - something scary and disturbing at that, something that gives you no peace.

I don't know you personally and have no wish to pass any judgement, but it usually takes masochism to reverse and call the fortunate unfortunate and the unfortunate fortunate.

<<Fortunately, I saw the light, saw the fraud that religion is, and I beat a hasty repeat and have never looked back. The light hasn't dawned for you yet but I give you full marks for trying to fuse religion and reality.>>

In what you consider reality, the only remaining reality that you recognise after losing your faith, i.e. the objective physical world, a disaster is underway, you mentioned it yourself: the Americans are invading - what's then so fortunate about it? what you are left with after taking the objective world for real is... Americans. In my view that's a reason to cry, not to rejoice!

If only you still recognised that the world is but an illusion, of a temporary nature, that true reality has nothing to do with it, that your true nature is divine and unlimited, then you would retain your calm and not be so shaken by the American invasion.

<<Unfortunately, they are contradictory, my friend.>>

But this is so fortunate indeed: who would want a god that conforms with this world (which you consider the only 'reality')? a god that allows the Americans to take over? a god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent, yet allows the Yanks to rule the world - what a nightmare: how fortunate are we that this is a contradiction! How fortunate that God is not just another natural force, person or phenomena! How fortunate that He cannot be found in this terrible world!

Yes, religion and the world are contradictory. One cannot simultaneously believe in both. When one believes in the world, one suffers. When one believes in God, one is liberated and suffer no longer.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 12:55:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, you're most welcome to the link to academia.edu. It's a tiny repayment for the great conversation you've given me. I recommend exploring widely on that site. It's incredibly varied in its scope and even when it runs into a dead end it offers lots of fodder for further research on sites like Springer, pubmed, Sage, etc.

Another site you might like is the Frontiers group. http://www.frontiersin.org/

There is a very interesting interview with Kamila Markram, the founder of that site available on youtube.

Open access publishing is incredibly useful.

OUG, you continue to provoke interesting thoughts. Keep it up.

DavidG, it seems to me, after reading your stuff, that your major gripe is with religious organisations rather than with religion itself. Would that be fair to say?

AJ, I'm not sure what you;re complaining about in your post directed at Poirot. I agree that it is reasonable to expect to be able to converse without abuse, but that cuts both ways and it requires good faith on both sides. If either side presupposes a lack of that good faith then the conversation becomes a debate and that is always going to mean defense of entrenched positions rather than exploration of new ideas. I guess it comes down to what sort of ideas we hold about the purpose of discussing things.

I share your dislike of passive-aggression and I hope I'm not passive-aggressive myself. If you perceive that I have been, I apologise and I'll try to do better.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 8:52:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, while doing a Philosophy course I was taught by a Norwegian who looked just like he'd just come from Ancient Greece. I was enthralled by him.

He taught that no person can live a truly authentic life if they embraced religious belief of any kind because they were avoiding facing the truth about human mortality. He felt that our mortality had to be faced and accepted and to engage in theological fantasies was a cop out!

When I look around our conflicted world, I see the damage that religion causes, the divisions, the hatred, the conflicts. I see the incredible wealth of some religions, the fraudulent claims, the abuse and trickery inflicted on gullible people by all religions, and I am sickened.

The world is not a better place because of religion. It is rather a hell-hole full of greed, depravity, and endless war and always has been!

Religion belongs in the Dark Ages but still it infects us like a cancer.
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 9:53:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

The vast majority of what I said to Poirot was not in reference to you. It was mostly in regards to the false accusations/implications levied at me from George, since I figured that it was my post to him that prompted Poirot’s post to me.

<<I agree that it is reasonable to expect to be able to converse without abuse, but that cuts both ways and it requires good faith on both sides.>>

Agreed. That’s why I make sure that I maintain good faith throughout all my discussions on OLO, and that if I point out something like dishonesty on the behalf of someone else, that it is appropriate to do so; that it is done sparingly; and most importantly, that I can demonstrate my claims. By fulfilling these three criteria, I ensure that my accusations do not amount to mere name-calling. Unfortunately, though, that didn’t stop George implying otherwise:

“It is after all just a matter of personal taste that I prefer debating [some], rather than others, especially if they call me dishonest or other names, without wanting to offend anybody.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15301#264451)

Yes, I take great pains to ensure that I maintain good faith in discussion and so I find extremely offensive when someone implies otherwise; especially when they are only doing so to take a swing at me because they didn’t like that I highlighted the lack of character they displayed at an earlier point.

<<If either side presupposes a lack of that good faith then the conversation becomes a debate and that is always going to mean defense of entrenched positions rather than exploration of new ideas.>>

Absolutely. Which is why, again, I ensure that I am able to demonstrate each and every one of my claims. Presupposing a lack of good faith on the behalf of others would be careless, sloppy and most likely an indication of the vacuousness one’s arguments.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:12:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, surely what you're discussing here is the interpretations of religion mediated by vested interests?

Ideology of any kind can be very bad, but that doesn't mean we should not discuss ideas that might underpin ideologies. Marxism, economic rationalism, feminism, liberalism, libertarianism, etc, etc ,etc have all been blamed for bad outcomes in various ways in the hands of vested interests that emerge in their implementation.

I don't think it could be argued that any of those are inherently evil though.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, humans provide the evil to all ideologies. Humans can't help themselves. We are our own worst enemies!

Cheers!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 11:58:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david/Quote:
.."I was taught by a Norwegian ...I was enthralled>>

im not.. imp-lying..the first word
in the following quote..applies..

but..please note one condition..
stated in it..has been met..[simply by 'being enthralled]'
you may*..have weighted..his declaration..with starry eyes"..
thus not on guard..or suspicious..but..*as if his words are a gospel..* truth

Quote:

<<“Possession...is not an accident.
In..becoming possessed,..the victim must*
at least..in some way,..cooperate with..or sell out..to the d-evil.”>>

i use evil relatively/speaking..
you allowed a thought..OTHERS*..opinion..to become injuriously true..for you.

[see previous yu quote]..as in the usa thing..
when that is only a potentially.. hurtful/fear inducing..negative *voice

IE>>..negative..*self talk
see page 98..or 90?..after previous page link
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nx0ZYrhgwN8C&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=self+talk+l+is+spirit+communication&source=bl&ots=WdKBDQax05&sig=s2xrYC-smThc06x2PlgC02GO2Gc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GHL_UbTaD8bGkQW-64DIAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=self%20talk%20l%20is%20spirit%20communication&f=false

yes the world IS*..conflicted..etc
[recall jesus/saying..*this IS satans realm
to explain..recall i quoted partly earlier

Quote:

<<..HS..gets all your guides together,..explains the plan
and how they will be able..to help you,..and then prepares to cast a portion..of its consciousness..onto Earth...

and thus
here we are*..now what?>>

what was going to be..was from
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S118A.htm

but*
in waiting for a posting window
my guides keep rolling on..
it involves 13.th sperm

plus god being fair..[ie the downwards hs projection..to establish a soul..*MUST be matched..with an equal../but opposing 'projection'..to form..a soul body form..from hell

this leading up to the fertility window..
which when succesfull..becomes that incarnation..that forms the verification..fieldtest/enactment

[request'S..granted..
and the grey streak..appears..and the new life begins

but..by being polar opposites.
.[of itself necessary to establish human soul..in material form

thing is
freewill/equality/truth is all important
we live..thus bring a little of heaven with us..and a little hell

the two parts in time
fold together..[along]..the midline?
[noting cleft palate is incomplete joining..no doubt to remind of mosus eating a hot coal]..for the more silent societies..from each true realm

into this satans real
the higher court to settle disputes....where in the end

YOU JUDGE..(*YOUR HIGHER?
and thy LOWER SELVES*..via the life WE CHOSE to live..[real-ize]

YET*..both love
a good de-bait*

so i posted it here
cause i couldnt wait
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14952#14952

edited

to infer..is to include..or take in a suggestion.
thus..my imp-application..from intent...into word..via deed

Intent implies a sustained unbroken commitment or purpose,
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 2:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The world is not a better place because of religion. It is rather a hell-hole full of greed, depravity, and endless war and always has been! '

and without it we murder the unborn and the oldies and feel very self righteous about. We ignore Stalin and Mao who murder the masses in the name of no god.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 2:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

".....We ignore Stalin and Mao who murder the masses in the name of no god."

It's pretty clear that humans choose, at certain junctures, to inflict murder on each other en masse with or without recourse to God.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 2:56:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

It is completely absurd to suggest that anyone could do anything in the name of the absence of something.

But even if you were right, it still wouldn’t matter, because there is nothing within atheism to support what they did anyway.

And certainly not like there is with religious doctrines and the wars that were justified by them.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 3:53:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Runner,

The world is full of people who claim to be religious, but are not, as well as people who claim to be irreligious, but in fact are.

It is not humanly possible to separate the sheep from the goats based on one's utterances, on whether one says or even thinks the correct sequence of words. What counts is only that which is within our innermost heart of hearts.

Dear David G.,

<<He taught that no person can live a truly authentic life if they embraced religious belief of any kind because they were avoiding facing the truth about human mortality. He felt that our mortality had to be faced and accepted and to engage in theological fantasies was a cop out!>>

This was your teachers view. It seems that he did not make a distinction between humans and us. Few religions (only some rare physical-immortalists) believe that humans are not mortals. Yet we are not humans, we only identify with a human for a while. Most religions would agree that we should face up and accept the mortality of this human which we currently tend to believe is us, that none of this body and mind are going to remain forever.

<<When I look around our conflicted world, I see the damage that religion causes, the divisions, the hatred, the conflicts. I see the incredible wealth of some religions, the fraudulent claims, the abuse and trickery inflicted on gullible people by all religions, and I am sickened.>>

That disgusting cynical abuse of the name of religion which you describe can indeed make everyone sickened.

<<Religion belongs in the Dark Ages but still it infects us like a cancer.>>

The Dark Ages were ruled by the church - religion was almost unknown at the time, even within the church.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 4:34:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14953#14953

[quote]..aj:..<<It is completely absurd..to suggest that anyone
could do anything ...in the name of the absence of something.>>

SOME*..things..=things=something
ab-sense*..means lack..of *things..lack of ANYTHING!

yet..we have a name..for this absurd..absence

based on its qualities..such as life giver..good..omnipotent..omnipresent etc

to clarify
lets goa quote on nuthings
invisible things

from

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S118A.htm

all direct/Quote:

<<Even such sceptics on the subject of the supernatural as Hume or Strauss, would probably not deny the validity of the conception of such intelligences,..or the abstract possibility*..of their existence.

They would perhaps say, "We have no sufficient proof..of the fact;
the difficulty of conceiving their mode of existence is great;

most intelligent men pass their whole lives in total ignorance of any such unseen intelligences; it is amongst the ignorant and superstitious alone that the belief in them prevails.

As philosophers we cannot deny..the possibility you postulate,
but we must have the most clear and satisfactory proof ..before we can receive it as a fact."

But

it may be argued, even if such beings should exist, they could consist only of the most diffused and subtle forms of matter. How then could they act upon ponderable bodies, how produce effects at all comparable to those which constitute so many reputed miracles?

These objectors may be reminded, that all the most powerful and universal forces of nature.. are now referred to minute vibrations of an almost infinitely attenuated form of matter;

and that, ..by the grandest generalisations of modern science, the most varied natural phenomena have been traced back to these recondite forces.

*Light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and probably vitality and gravitation, are believed to be but "modes of motion" of a space-filling ether; ..

and there is not a single manifestation..of force
or development of beauty..*but that is derived..*from one or other of these.
?
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 5:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
condenmsed..from
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14954#14954

Q..<It will be seen..that we are thus
naturally led up..to higher phenomena,..and are enabled,..to bridge over the great gulf..between the so-called natural..and super*natural.

edited

http://transcommunication.org/index.php/transcripts

ok..chose albert einstein
Quote:

edited..albert:..''To make sure..it’s really me''?

edited..I would like..my contribution..to this series
to explore the role..of the scientist..in viewing and participating in..the evolution of the planet..,.

From what I’ve gathered,..this seems to be a key
precept..and basis for each of the interviews...Is that correct?

Questioner:..Yes..participating..in God’s work
in one way or another,as a physician,..a horticulturist,a writer,..a scientist.. or whatever.

Answer:..Well,
one of the major roles..of the scientist
is to view,*..analyse,..and begin to understand..the laws governing the manifestation*..of life..on the physical-plane..

and*..other planes,..too,
but for now..I will confine my comments..to the physical-plane.

I will..try to describe..how divine forces..in-fluence..and govern physical-matter..and how the ideas..of the Creator..move into the worlds..of manifestation.

I think..I will begin there,
and then..we can proceed onto..other topics.

edited..Let’s begin,then,
with the premise*..that the work..of a scientis —
and this was certainly true for me—..is involved..in understanding these laws..[this]..requires a willingness..to look at them..in a fuller perspective..than many scientists do.

The truly successful..scientists..are those who take into
account*..something..more/than..what is occurring physically..they also take into account..the divine perspective.

Not too many..do this,..however.

In fact,..very few scientists..take into account
the divine perspective..of physical manifestation...Most of them focus only on the physical aspects..and do not try/to understand..*why..there is physical-existence..and what*physical life..means..in the greater scheme/of things.

Question:Well,..why is there physical-existence?

Answer:edited..so that life..can gain..the experience..in manipulating..and dealing..in denser-matter/mortality.

edited

In..the same way,..the life..of God
is thrashing about..in physical-matter.

The concept..of perfection for physical manifestation..does exist in the mind of God,..but..what is actually being manifested..through
physical substance..*is less than perfect...

yet..It is moving..toward perfection.

New ideas arise,..in every field..of human endeavour,..every year.
Some are worthwhile,..some are not.

Most are just variations..or opinions of ideas
that have already been..enunciated...they pile one..on top of another,..contributing more..*to the mass of human-thought..and knowledge..*..than to its quality.!*!
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 8:00:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
extraCTED FROM
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14958#14958

FROM
http://transcommunication.org/index.php/transcripts

QUOTE
<<There are times when the sub-conscious mind
acts on various thoughts of yours even in the waking/state.

There are also numbers of persons who even use the subconscious mind more than the commonly..conscious. The souls of these individuals are more or less inspired, as they are ..lol..more often artists of some distinction.

They are always called the dreamers of the world by their fellows.
The look of the distant soul-fire..is shining gloriously in their eyes.

All their ideas are born through the ideal, while the prosaic mind
only forms its ideas through clear-eyed reason.

The sub-conscious mind
dreams dreams which are not even realized.

Hypnotic demonstration
must always act upon the sub-conscious mind and most of the so-called wonders of hypnosis are simply..the actions of the subconscious mind moved by the operator.

Persons who are much given to somnambulism, develop a certain lively action of the sub-conscious mind and often their movements are foolish and aimless, but at times they display a great amount of speed and intelligence.

Somnambulism is a phase of the sub-conscious mind's action that has been studied by many of the best scientific men in your world for many years...But aside from the mental demonstration of the sub-conscious mind, we can find no physical demonstration whatever.

Much of the phenomena of Spiritualism is said to be due to the sub-conscious mind; but if this is true, then all the phenomena of Nature are caused by mind action simply.

This, my friends, you will have to deny, and as the materialization of Nature's garden is acted upon by the same laws as form or spirit materialization,*>>

EDITED
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 7 August 2013 8:37:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cause the logicalminds were here
but now seem gone

last post
as..it seems i chased everyone away..

got trolled off topic..
as previous post..exposes
[as my unconscious mind dominated..thus killed topic..in my zeal]

Sane New World:..Taming The Mind
by Ruby Wax[43 minutes on bbc podcast][last night]

thus/this..maybe a repeat?
but if same 1.. as last night its gold
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02qd1qw

Comedian, writer and mental health campaigner shows us why and how our minds can send us mad and how we can rewire our thinking, especially through mindfulness, to calm ourselves in a frenetic world.

Ruby Wax - comedian, writer and mental health campaigner - shows us how our minds can jeopardize our sanity. With her own periods of depression and now a Masters from Oxford i...more Comedian, writer and mental health campaigner shows us why and how our minds can send us mad and how we can rewire our thinking, especially through mindfulness, to calm ourselves in a frenetic world.

Ruby Wax..shows us how our minds can jeopardize our sanity.

With her own periods of depression and now a Masters from Oxford in Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy to draw from, she explains how our busy, chattering, self-critical thoughts drive us to anxiety and stress.

If we are to break the cycle, we need to understand how our brains work, rewire our thinking and find calm in a frenetic world. Helping you become the master, not the slave, of your mind, here is the manual to saner living(less)

free ebook download..yet..asks for creditcard?

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.gobookee.net/ruby-wax-sane-new-world/&sa=U&ei=Rd4CUomMFciaiQfKkIGYCQ&ved=0CCoQFjAC&sig2=8iy-16FKOWriEo9nej_7eg&usg=AFQjCNERXL-icsDOtiiyiSX3RRNT3Z6bkQ
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:08:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i was going to post this on..other topic
but presume this one has the most 'readers'

but people got the right..to know
what is being done to them..via faux ..authority collusion's

http://undergrounddocumentaries.com/the-inconvenient-tooth-there-is-poison-in-the-tap-water-full-version/

An Inconvenient Tooth is a documentary film about fluoride. Fluoride does horrible damage to human bones, thyroids, the pineal gland, and many other areas of the body, yet big industry, the medical establishment, and those in government continue to promote its use in tap water and in tooth paste and dental treatments.

more..trust us
the science
http://enenews.com/senior-scientist-100-times-more-strontium-than-cesium-in-water-at-fukushima-plant-strontium-gets-into-your-bones-it-changes-the-equation-for-japanese-fisheries-not-too-concerned-u-s

Senior Scientist: 100 times more strontium than cesium in water at Fukushima plant — “Strontium gets into your bones… it changes the equation for Japanese fisheries” — Not “too” concerned U.S. fish will be affected

Researchers propose new experiments
on NEW..mutant bird flu
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/researchers-propose-new-experiments-on-mutant-bird-flu/53241

Scientists proposed developing a more potent strain of the deadly H7N9 bird flu on Wednesday to examine how mutant forms might spread among humans, a topic that has stoked global alarm in the past

back up plan
http://oneradionetwork.com/latest/its-all-playing-out-just-as-we-were-told-article/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/get-ready-for-endless-bogus-terror-alerts/56696/

why

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-new-economy-is-the-no-jobs-economy-2/56722/

http://intellihub.com/2013/08/07/time-magazine-glamorizes-life-without-children/

http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/ben-fulford-real-life-assassins-and-their-role/53230

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/this-little-piggy-was-fed-gmos/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx?e_cid=20130806_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20130806

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/rumsfeld911.html

po-lice state mate
http://xrepublic.tv/node/4764

get your own info
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 8 August 2013 3:38:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a great 3 minutes of vidio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_ds1xQmD4&feature=player_embedded

how were keeping our guides busy
lesson in civics
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/13/a-basic-civics-lesson-for-pseudo-historians/#.UgLiE03E6vE

http://investmentwatchblog.com/wealth-redistribution-is-the-result-of-how-money-is-created/

http://whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/shoutcast/shoutcast.html

http://oneradionetwork.com/latest/its-all-playing-out-just-as-we-were-told-article/

work while you have work
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-new-economy-is-the-no-jobs-economy-2/56722/

they dont got the science
but glimpse the future..no kids
http://intellihub.com/2013/08/07/time-magazine-glamorizes-life-without-children/

or pay to get pregnant..

how on earth did our parents get pregers so easily

no gm
no flueride
no free drugs
no over servicing
Posted by one under god, Friday, 9 August 2013 11:32:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Bombs of August..:
In Remembrance..of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/reggies-commentary/3241-the-bombs-of-august-in-remembrance-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki.html
Nagasaki is famous..in the history..of Japanese/Christianity.
The history..of Nagasaki..*Christianity
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-bombing-of-nagasaki-august-9-1945-the-un-censored-version/5345274

68 years ago at 11:02/am..on August 9th,1945,
*an..all-Christian bomber crew..dropped a plutonium bomb,on Nagasaki,Japan.

Somewhat ironically,..Nagasaki..was the most Christian city..in Japan and..ground zero..was the largest cathedral..in the Orient* St. Mary’s Cathedral..(completed in 1917),

but it also..had the largest concentration of baptized/Christians..in all of Japan...with 12,000 baptized members.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Big Historical Lie
http://orwellwasright.co.uk/2013/08/06/hiroshima-nagasaki-and-the-big-historical-lie/

śLittle Boy” atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima
at a location and time of day when, as the Strategic Bombing Survey commissioned by President Harry Truman..conceded,nearly all the school children ..were at work..in the open”,

a perfect opportunity for mass incineration.!…
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/americas-legacy-of-nuclear-terrorism/56340/
..* and we knew..we didn’t need to do it,
*and,,*they knew..that we knew we didn’t..need to do it,
we used them..as an experiment for two atomic bombs.”

Why Medicine Won’t Allow Cancer to Be Cured
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/08/07/why-medicine-wont-allow-cancer-to-be-cured/

Waking Times

Imagine a commercial plane crashed and there were some fatalities involved...You can be sure that would make the headline of every major newspaper...Well,we have the equivalent of 8-10 planes crashing..*EVERY DAY..with everyone on board dying from cancer.

http://www.naturalnews.com/041512_Gardasil_ovary_destruction_HPV_vaccine.html

Seralini to visit UK to speak about his research
(on links between GMOs and increased cancer risks)
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/14946-seralini-to-visit-uk-to-speak-about-his-research

There are powerful forces..that don’t want you to hear..The US is currently trying to force GM foods..into Europe through the EU-US free trade agreement ..nd sees Britain as the weak link in European resistance to GM.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx?e_cid=20130806_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20130806

That’s not because the British people want GM..they overwhelmingly do not..but because our government is rabidly pro-GM..and is moving in lockstep..with US government lobbied interests on the issue.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/this-little-piggy-was-fed-gmos/

Environment secretary Owen Paterson..mouthpiece for GM industry talking points,even

Study:..Hating on Fat People..Just Makes Them Fatter
http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/2013/08/study-hating-on-fat-people-just-makes.html

There's no denying obesity..is a problem.
While we know many ways..to fight it,..we haven't found an easy, cure-all solution...*We do know what doesn't work,..however...One of those things may surprise you: ..riticizing fat people won't make them skinnier

same/same..but drugs
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-scary-drug-raids-became-a-cash-cow-for-americas-police-2013-7

http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/churches-acknowledge-stolen-land
http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-wtf-new-study-shows-us-debt-6-times-greater-than-officially-declared-its-not-12-trillion-its-70-trillion/

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/when_fundamentalists_get_liberal_about_the_bible_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Text%29_7_30_110

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws#at=19

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2013/08/dear-doctor-do-you-really-know-what.html
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/researchers-propose-new-experiments-on-mutant-bird-flu/53241

http://www.newsforage.com/2013/08/harvard-scientists-create-telepathic.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/041464_glyphosate_Monsanto_toxicity.html
Posted by one under god, Friday, 9 August 2013 9:56:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy