An eternal universe and the 'special plead' of God [cosmology]

[Halbhh]

Jesus tells me nothing I cannot find elsewhere and more realistically

You've got a assumption you could gain a lot by critically examining there.

It's basic that most truths -- best ways to live life --- are going to recur endlessly around the world, dozens or hundreds of times.

One can easily find a huge variety of the truths about how to live (best ways to live) in various thinkers and traditions.

From around the world.

If something is the best principle or rule, then people will usually find it over and over. Any continent, any time period.

Past the things Christ says we can recognize from around the world, like compassion for instance, there are things He says that are somewhat less common.

And then things He says that are in an entirely different category (more on that below).

But, for things He instructs that simply seem similar to existing other traditions --
one cannot know whether something Christ says that is different in some details than how they are living may or may not be the most pragmatically, realistically effective to gain the best in life -- such as the specific ways He instructs us to "love your enemy" -- unless you actually do it the particular way He said.

So, that's one problem there.

There's another.

Some other things Christ instructs -- some more parts of how we are to live -- are instructions that are based on using faith (some, not all).

For these faith-requiring instructions, one cannot do them without faith. You don't have faith, right? See the trouble in your too-broad conclusion above?

But aside from that obvious exception, I wonder about just the non-faith instructions, as to how you've tested them.

You'd have to try those in the specific ways He said -- actually do them fully exactly as He said -- and then compare the actual results to other ways that are not quite the same as His instructions, so as to test which works better.

So, be less....prejudicial, and more open, and...

Try and see.

How? By learning more precisely what He said to do, in the particular detail, and then doing it the particular, exact, precise way He said. Try those.

Not just something kinda like it. Instead, the exact detailed way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is a difference between countable, finite numbers and some fictional number called an infinite number.

There is a difference between 'a number that is infinite' (there is no number that is infinite) and 'an infinite number of' whatever (means an unlimited/unbounded set of whatever).

A bounded set is always bounded and it cannot be both bounded and unbounded. That is contradicting the definition of a bounded set.

Having an infinite number of elements doesn't mean a set can't be bounded. There is an infinite number of reals between any two specified reals; I thought the idea of an infinite series that sums to a finite number would help you see that, but apparently not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Try and see.

I did. I found that good lifestyle instructions are effective without the superfluous flim-flam of religious myths, dogma, and supernatural fantasies, and are available from many sources. YMMV.

 

[Halbhh]

I did. I found that good lifestyle instructions are effective without the superfluous flim-flam of religious myths, dogma, and supernatural fantasies, and are available from many sources. YMMV.

Ah...I'm hearing a dogmatic statement alright.


That's what you want to break out of, and it's possible for anyone.

 

[klutedavid]

There is a difference between 'a number that is infinite' (there is no number that is infinite) and 'an infinite number of' whatever (means an unlimited/unbounded set of whatever).

Let me get this straight. You seem to be using a contradictory definition here.

You said that there is no infinite number and that I agree with.

Then you said 'an infinite number'.

You can't use these two words together, number and infinite. Because the word 'infinite' does not mean a number (your definition) and sets can only have a number of elements.

Having an infinite number of elements doesn't mean a set can't be bounded. There is an infinite number of reals between any two specified reals; I thought the idea of an infinite series that sums to a finite number would help you see that, but apparently not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You just said there is no infinite number. Then you said, 'an infinite number of reals'. Real numbers and no matter how many there are, these real numbers are always finite numbers. So to say 'an infinite number of real numbers' is a contradictory statement.

All numbers are finite numbers that is how they are defined.

There cannot exist an infinite series of any numbers as numbers are always finite. There is always another number after every number.

 

[Michael]

I did. I found that good lifestyle instructions are effective without the superfluous flim-flam of religious myths, dogma, and supernatural fantasies, and are available from many sources. YMMV.

I'm afraid that supernatural fantasies and dogma are not limited to religion.

 

[muichimotsu]

Past the things Christ says we can recognize from around the world, like compassion for instance, there are things He says that are somewhat less common.

Sounds suspiciously like special pleading on the part of someone you regard with more respect than he necessarily deserves

And then things He says that are in an entirely different category (more on that below).

But, for things He instructs that simply seem similar to existing other traditions --
one cannot know whether something Christ says that is different in some details than how they are living may or may not be the most pragmatically, realistically effective to gain the best in life -- such as the specific ways He instructs us to "love your enemy" -- unless you actually do it the particular way He said.

Again, you're exercising major confirmation bias in suggesting Jesus did something so particular that there's no way you could deduce that method apart from him, appealing to authority rather than the merit of the thing in itself apart from Jesus

Some other things Christ instructs -- some more parts of how we are to live -- are instructions that are based on using faith (some, not all).

For these faith-requiring instructions, one cannot do them without faith. You don't have faith, right? See the trouble in your too-broad conclusion above?

You assume faith is somehow necessary and have failed to define it properly in the first place, I don't find faith remotely reliable or even accurate in what it supposedly discerns about reality

You'd have to try those in the specific ways He said -- actually do them fully exactly as He said -- and then compare the actual results to other ways that are not quite the same as His instructions, so as to test which works better.

You can't simultaneously talk about being open minded and then encourage meticulous adherence to something you THINK Jesus instructed in a specific manner rather than considering that you're applying your bias in regards to it unrealistically to make him seem more impressive than he is, same as any writer regarding some famous person can embellish

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm afraid that supernatural fantasies and dogma are not limited to religion.

Oh, by all means demonstrate such a thing rather than equivocating supernatural with something you understand just enough to misrepresent as such. Science doesn't make dogmatic statements, you interpret ways they speak about it as dogmatic (fact, for instance)

 

[muichimotsu]

Ah...I'm hearing a dogmatic statement alright.


That's what you want to break out of, and it's possible for anyone.

Where is that dogmatic? It's noting that there are multiple sources, you're the one that has the burden of proof to point out Jesus' instructions were somehow unique even though you also admit that some of it is similar enough that they come about by common sense. You're engaging in cognitive dissonance to say Jesus simultaneously has common wisdom that doesn't need him, but then that he has wisdom that's unique even if it seems common

 

[Halbhh]

Where is that dogmatic? It's noting that there are multiple sources, you're the one that has the burden of proof to point out Jesus' instructions were somehow unique even though you also admit that some of it is similar enough that they come about by common sense. You're engaging in cognitive dissonance to say Jesus simultaneously has common wisdom that doesn't need him, but then that he has wisdom that's unique even if it seems common

Again, but I'll expand slightly with more detail:

Jesus tells me nothing I cannot find elsewhere and more realistically

You've got a assumption you could gain a lot by critically examining there.

It's basic that most truths -- best ways to live life --- are going to recur endlessly around the world, dozens or hundreds of times. Often in less complete forms

One can easily find a huge variety of the truths about how to live (best ways to live) in various thinkers and traditions.

From around the world.

If something is the best principle or rule, then people will usually find it over and over. Any continent, any time period. Not always perfectly stated though.

Past the things Christ says we can recognize from around the world, like compassion for instance, there are things He says that are less common.

And then things He says that are in an entirely different category (more on that below).

But, for things He instructs that simply seems similar (if one isn't noticing detail) to existing other traditions --
one cannot know whether something Christ says that is different in some details than how they are living may or may not be the most pragmatically, realistically effective to gain the best in life -- such as the specific ways He instructs us to "love your enemy" -- unless you actually do it the particular way He said.

So, that's one problem there.

There's another.

Some other things Christ instructs -- some more parts of how we are to live -- are instructions that are based on using faith (some, not all).

For these faith-requiring instructions, one cannot do them without faith. You don't have faith, right? See the trouble in your too-broad conclusion above?

But aside from that obvious exception, I wonder about just the non-faith instructions, as to how you've tested them.

You'd have to try those in the specific ways He said -- actually do them fully exactly as He said -- and then compare the actual results to other ways that are not quite the same as His instructions, so as to test which works better.

So, be less....prejudicial, and more open, and...

Try and see.

How? By learning more precisely what He said to do, in the particular detail, and then doing it the particular, exact, precise way He said. Try those.

Not just something kinda like it. Instead, the exact detailed way.

 

[Michael]

Oh, by all means demonstrate such a thing rather than equivocating supernatural with something you understand just enough to misrepresent as such. Science doesn't make dogmatic statements, you interpret ways they speak about it as dogmatic (fact, for instance)

Let's start with a short list, shall we?

Multiverse (M-theory)
Inflation (Eternal or otherwise)
String Theories
Dark energy
Dark matter (Axions, WiMPS, SIMPS, etc)
Space Expansion
SUSY theories (Plural)

The big bang theory is pure dogma at this point, and it requires no less than *four* supernatural elements that must be accepted on "pure faith" since none of them show up in a lab experiment. Even non standard (exotic) versions of particle physics theories like SUSY theory require unseen (in the lab) entities.

The whole point of inventing "dark energy" was because no other "natural" form of energy would suffice to save the big bang "dogma", thus they created a "supernatural" form of energy, one that defies the conservation laws of energy to boot. Unlike any other form of energy, it's remains constant over multiple exponential increases in volume. That's about as "supernatural" as it gets.

 

[muichimotsu]

Again, but I'll expand slightly with more detail:


You've got a assumption you could gain a lot by critically examining there.

It's basic that most truths -- best ways to live life --- are going to recur endlessly around the world, dozens or hundreds of times. Often in less complete forms

One can easily find a huge variety of the truths about how to live (best ways to live) in various thinkers and traditions.

From around the world.

If something is the best principle or rule, then people will usually find it over and over. Any continent, any time period. Not always perfectly stated though.

Past the things Christ says we can recognize from around the world, like compassion for instance, there are things He says that are less common.

And then things He says that are in an entirely different category (more on that below).

But, for things He instructs that simply seems similar (if one isn't noticing detail) to existing other traditions --
one cannot know whether something Christ says that is different in some details than how they are living may or may not be the most pragmatically, realistically effective to gain the best in life -- such as the specific ways He instructs us to "love your enemy" -- unless you actually do it the particular way He said.

So, that's one problem there.

There's another.

Some other things Christ instructs -- some more parts of how we are to live -- are instructions that are based on using faith (some, not all).

For these faith-requiring instructions, one cannot do them without faith. You don't have faith, right? See the trouble in your too-broad conclusion above?

But aside from that obvious exception, I wonder about just the non-faith instructions, as to how you've tested them.

You'd have to try those in the specific ways He said -- actually do them fully exactly as He said -- and then compare the actual results to other ways that are not quite the same as His instructions, so as to test which works better.

So, be less....prejudicial, and more open, and...

Try and see.

How? By learning more precisely what He said to do, in the particular detail, and then doing it the particular, exact, precise way He said. Try those.

Not just something kinda like it. Instead, the exact detailed way.

You basically just copy-pasted your last response, you think I'm not going to remember something like this? You're not even trying anymore to actually engage, just parroting the same stuff and expecting a different result

You don't get to shift the responsibility back onto me as if you don't have to defend your position at all, that's intellectually lazy

 

[muichimotsu]

Let's start with a short list, shall we?

Multiverse (M-theory)
Inflation (Eternal or otherwise)
String Theories
Dark energy
Dark matter (Axions, WiMPS, SIMPS, etc)
Space Expansion
SUSY theories (Plural)

The big bang theory is pure dogma at this point, and it requires no less than *four* supernatural elements that must be accepted on "pure faith" since none of them show up in a lab experiment. Even not standard (exotic) versions of particle physics theories like SUSY Theory require unseen (in the lab) entities.

The whole point of inventing "dark energy" was because no other "natural" form of energy would suffice to save the big bang "dogma", thus they created a "supernatural" form of energy, one that defies the conservation laws of energy to boot. Unlike any other form of energy, it's remains constant over multiple exponential increases in volume. That's about as "supernatural" as it gets.

You mistakenly assume a lab experiment is the sole way we perform science, showing you don't remotely understand the methodologies that are involved.

Positing something as supernatural without definition makes it easy to dismiss something out of hand without really considering the certainty with which scientists are talking about something when it's in even a theory, the highest respect in science, practically (barring a law, but those are more constrained in nature).

And also you assume the law of conservation of energy applies in terms of what gets into quantum mechanics and such, I'm skeptical that your absolute application of such a law would necessarily be the case anymore than Newtonian physics was the be all end all of how we understood gravity, etc. Science is not static, you're the one making it appear that way based on skewing it

Science isn't making dogmatic claims, you're asserting that based on how you perceive them to be absolutely certain (they're not), it's an explanation that is still rooted in some degree of falsifiability with advanced testing rather than positing an entity with agency outside the universe that might as well not exist with all the qualifications given so it can't be investigated

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let me get this straight. You seem to be using a contradictory definition here.

You said that there is no infinite number and that I agree with.

Then you said 'an infinite number'.

You can't use these two words together, number and infinite. Because the word 'infinite' does not mean a number (your definition) and sets can only have a number of elements.
You just said there is no infinite number. Then you said, 'an infinite number of reals'. Real numbers and no matter how many there are, these real numbers are always finite numbers. So to say 'an infinite number of real numbers' is a contradictory statement.

All numbers are finite numbers that is how they are defined.

There cannot exist an infinite series of any numbers as numbers are always finite. There is always another number after every number.

For 'an infinite number of', read 'an infinite series or sequence of'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm afraid that supernatural fantasies and dogma are not limited to religion.

Indeed, as shown by your 'cosmic brain' fantasy and panentheist cosmology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You mistakenly assume a lab experiment is the sole way we perform science, showing you don't remotely understand the methodologies that are involved.

Positing something as supernatural without definition makes it easy to dismiss something out of hand without really considering the certainty with which scientists are talking about something when it's in even a theory, the highest respect in science, practically (barring a law, but those are more constrained in nature).

And also you assume the law of conservation of energy applies in terms of what gets into quantum mechanics and such, I'm skeptical that your absolute application of such a law would necessarily be the case anymore than Newtonian physics was the be all end all of how we understood gravity, etc. Science is not static, you're the one making it appear that way based on skewing it

Science isn't making dogmatic claims, you're asserting that based on how you perceive them to be absolutely certain (they're not), it's an explanation that is still rooted in some degree of falsifiability with advanced testing rather than positing an entity with agency outside the universe that might as well not exist with all the qualifications given so it can't be investigated

A word to the wise - Michael has had the nature of science and its processes explained many times by many people (including me), but it has had no discernible effect. His posts cherry-pick the physics that suits his purposes and reject that which doesn't, however fundamental. Despite his arguments over relatively abstruse cosmological science, his posts often betray a fundamental lack of understanding of basic physical principles and their application.

 

[muichimotsu]

So I've seen in a more relevant post on science: gets to the point that it's talking to a brick wall, apparently

Compartmentalization, Dunning Kruger and a LOT of confirmation bias, I'd say, on his part. Not that he'd necessarily be willing to consider that *shrugs*

 

[Halbhh]

You basically just copy-pasted your last response, you think I'm not going to remember something like this? You're not even trying anymore to actually engage, just parroting the same stuff and expecting a different result

You don't get to shift the responsibility back onto me as if you don't have to defend your position at all, that's intellectually lazy

But did you read it more this time? If not, I understand. Change isn't what most people seek. You asked for proof, and I lay out the how-to I used.

Then you project your own internal process onto me:

Again, you're exercising major confirmation bias

Which easily one can see I did the opposite of, being an atheist, and testing neutrally, without bias against Christ being correct, nor bias that He would be correct, all in spite of preferring He'd make mistakes somewhere.

To repeat: I was seeking where He failed, and after years, could not find a failure. I kept trying, because it's not comfortable to have to change one's worldview.

But your own confirmation bias, which you keep projecting onto me, has been preventing you from seeing this obvious reality from my posting to you.

So, really you are in a mental cage of your own making, and it's up to you whether to open the door and walk out.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Guys, I really love this discussion and it's suuuper insightful...but let's try not to make passive aggressive attacks on each other, okay?

 

[muichimotsu]

But did you read it more this time? If not, I understand. Change isn't what most people seek. You asked for proof, and I lay out the how-to I used.

Then you project your own internal process onto me:



Which easily one can see I did the opposite of, being an atheist, and testing neutrally, without bias against Christ being correct, nor bias that He would be correct, all in spite of preferring failure.

But your own confirmation bias, which you keep projecting onto me, prevents you from seeing that.

You are in a mental cage of your own making, and it's up to you whether to open the door and walk out.

You also don't seem to understand what proof means in proper context, what you are claiming is absolute certainty and such, rather than something utilized in logic and math, not investigations of a scientific or philosophical nature

You don't have to have a bias against Jesus to still be credulous enough to then believe in Jesus because you're exercising selective skepticism.

You've still failed to show how your methodology is anything remotely conclusive rather than just something that could just as easily convert someone to Buddhism or Islam with a particular control and "experiment"