Omniscience and quantum mechanics

[Chesterton]

I disagree. An abstraction is just that: abstract. It doesn't actually exist.

It exists in your mind, and your mind is part of reality. The idea of a unicorn likewise exists, even if a unicorn doesn't. It's in that way that I say these things are "referenced in reality".

The idea that some things reference reality and some things don't involves tautology, and that's not helpful for the question you're posing in the OP. If you can imagine a thing, you are by definition referencing reality. The only thing that can "not reference reality" is the unimaginable, e.g., 2+2=5, and to say that that is unimaginable is the same thing as saying that it doesn't reference (this) reality. And I guess that's my last comment on that; I think we'll just disagree.

I believed that even the gods were the result of natural phenomena; there were no creator deities, but there were deities nonetheless.

And the natural phenomena were the result of what? Why not the result of intelligence? We have solid proof that intelligence exists: we are it. Is there anything impossible, or even mildly doubtful, in the idea that the same thing (intelligence) can exist in a greater, higher form? Certainly this nature is riddled with heirarchy, greater and lesser types of the same thing: there are holes in the ground, then there is the Grand Canyon; there are specks of dust floating in space, then there is Jupiter; there are dogs and then there are men; there are bad writers, then there is Shakespeare.

We know some things are true now that were summarily dismissed by previous scholars, such as heliocentricism.

As soon as you guys prove a "unified theory of everything", get back to me.

 

[98cwitr]

My point is that particles can still have velocity and acceleration even when you stop time.

Totally agree, but the uncertainty is now gone

The difference is that it's the Dirac constant, not the Plank constant. It's irrelevant to our conversation, but it's a distinction I wanted to point out.


What do you mean, 'any similar mass'?

That's the definition of a cloud link

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cloud


But that's just it: there can't be measured with pin-point accuracy. Doing fancy things to time doesn't change that.

Then explain this

, see where t is? In the denominator, and since we cannot divide by zero, then we have a major problem then, right? D=V/T for velocity right? If you set T equal to zero, then you are dividing by zero...so what happens when you stop time? What happens when you divide by zero? Since, we as humans cannot stop time, quantum physics is appicable, but for God, I believe is not subjected to Laws involving time


I'm just saying that there exists a specific equation for dealing with quantum mechanical systems that don't change over time. Nonetheless, they still have velocities and momenta.

I understand that, I'm not trying to say there are not velocity nor momentum, I'm saying that it becomes an abstract/static value and thus uncertainty is gone (that is your agrument, right? absolute uncertainty)


As a scientist, I go where the evidence leads. If have evidence of God, or Jesus, or Vishnu, let me know .

See sig

Commented, this is fun

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It exists in your mind, and your mind is part of reality. The idea of a unicorn likewise exists, even if a unicorn doesn't. It's in that way that I say these things are "referenced in reality".

The idea that some things reference reality and some things don't involves tautology, and that's not helpful for the question you're posing in the OP. If you can imagine a thing, you are by definition referencing reality. The only thing that can "not reference reality" is the unimaginable, e.g., 2+2=5, and to say that that is unimaginable is the same thing as saying that it doesn't reference (this) reality. And I guess that's my last comment on that; I think we'll just disagree.

That seems likely.

And the natural phenomena were the result of what?

Quite simply, we don't know.

Why not the result of intelligence?

Why not indeed. There's no reason why it couldn't be, but, then again, there's no reason why it should be.

We have solid proof that intelligence exists: we are it. Is there anything impossible, or even mildly doubtful, in the idea that the same thing (intelligence) can exist in a greater, higher form?

No, it's entirely possible. But so too is the existence of a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars, and a deity made entirely of pasta.

Certainly this nature is riddled with heirarchy, greater and lesser types of the same thing: there are holes in the ground, then there is the Grand Canyon; there are specks of dust floating in space, then there is Jupiter; there are dogs and then there are men; there are bad writers, then there is Shakespeare.

Yes, but all these things are just composites of more fundamental things. The difference between a mote of dust and Juptier is not qualitative, but rather quantitiative.

I contend that there is no such thing as a top-down heirarchy, but rather a bottom-up foundation from which everything is ultimately based.

As soon as you guys prove a "unified theory of everything", get back to me.

Oh, we found that out years ago. We just don't tell anyone. Look what happened when we told people they were related to Chimps!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Totally agree, but the uncertainty is now gone

Actually, it's not. The uncertainty doesn't exist because of time.

That's the definition of a cloud link

I think you're stretching the analogy somewhat.

Then explain this

, see where t is? In the denominator, and since we cannot divide by zero, then we have a major problem then, right?

Err, that's not a fraction, that's a derivative. What do you know about differential calculus?

D=V/T for velocity right? If you set T equal to zero, then you are dividing by zero...so what happens when you stop time? What happens when you divide by zero?

You can't divide by zero. But again, you're misusing the equations. You can't just set T equal to 0, anymore than you can set it to an imaginary number.

I understand that, I'm not trying to say there are not velocity nor momentum, I'm saying that it becomes an abstract/static value and thus uncertainty is gone (that is your agrument, right? absolute uncertainty)

And I'm saying it's not. The uncertainty doesn't just go, and velocity and momentum don't become static, when time is stopped.

See sig

I saw it, but I'm not sure what you want me to do with it . How do the coincidences in your life 'add up' to an overarching deity? Are they not just coincidences?

Commented, this is fun

Question: do you know how to use quotes? It'd make things easier for both of us.

 

[98cwitr]

Actually, it's not. The uncertainty doesn't exist because of time.

Then, according to your orginal equation, the change in momentum x the change in position, must be greater than the constant, right? I am reading it wrong? With momentum you have to consider time, therefore time is a part of the uncertainty.

I think you're stretching the analogy somewhat.

As I said previously, I wasn't going to take you literally, but metaphorically...still lets take physical sense here.

Err, that's not a fraction, that's a derivative. What do you know about differential calculus?

okay, I see that now. It's the change in time, right? Still p=mv involves velocity, which definitely includes time.

You can't divide by zero. But again, you're misusing the equations. You can't just set T equal to 0, anymore than you can set it to an imaginary number.

Why can't we? What stops us? Why can't we use i? I'm being a bit rhetorical with this, but I still ask the question to take this conv. in a direction I want you to see.

And I'm saying it's not. The uncertainty doesn't just go, and velocity and momentum don't become static, when time is stopped.

When time is stopped, the equation becomes unworkable. That's kinda my point.

I saw it, but I'm not sure what you want me to do with it . How do the coincidences in your life 'add up' to an overarching deity? Are they not just coincidences?

How are you with summations and probabilities?

Question: do you know how to use quotes? It'd make things easier for both of us.

I'll use quotes for you then...they just make page load time a lot worse for viewers.

oh btw, you'll like this article

Is time an illusion?
One group of physicists has recently found a way to do quantum physics without invoking time. If correct, the approach suggests that time really is an illusion, and that we may need to rethink how the universe at large works.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16607-seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-time.html

To sum all this up dude, in our current understanding time is an essential component in its operation

To physicists, time is defined by quantum mechanics.

http://www.sankey.ws/time.html

Another aspect of the universe that Everett's formulation can help to understand is time direction. Time has two distinct attributes. Cyclic time is like a pendulum. It's reversible, related to Planck's constant, and is obvious from Schrödinger's equations. But, time also has a direction to it, and that's not obvious from Schrödinger or Heisenberg at all. In fact, many physicists whose student days predate Everett still consider the arrow of time to be a flaw of our understanding. It is, however, self-evident in the Everett formulation - quantum worlds abruptly appear, then gradually fade from existence, a clearly time direction dependent phenomenon analogous to the appearance and spread of ripples on a pond after a point disturbance. Things do happen to individual quanta in QM.

As of now, our understanding of quantum mechanics does not compute with time stops...period

http://www.sankey.ws/qm.html

 

[Chesterton]

No, it's entirely possible. But so too is the existence of a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars, and a deity made entirely of pasta.

Do you really find equal validity in the ideas of orbiting teapots and the FSM, and the almost unanimous idea of humanity in a Supreme Being, or Great Spirit, or Prime Mover, or God? I'm prepared to answer you whether you say "yes" or "no", so just give me your honest answer.

I contend that there is no such thing as a top-down heirarchy, but rather a bottom-up foundation from which everything is ultimately based.

If you believe that, then you should have an idea of what the bottom is. If a man wants to sell me something (including an idea), but can't tell me what it is, I'm going to walk away. I point you to the idea of a God. What do you point me to?

Of course you've already given the answer above: "we don't know".

Oh, we found that out years ago. We just don't tell anyone. Look what happened when we told people they were related to Chimps!

Good one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you really find equal validity in the ideas of orbiting teapots and the FSM, and the almost unanimous idea of humanity in a Supreme Being, or Great Spirit, or Prime Mover, or God? I'm prepared to answer you whether you say "yes" or "no", so just give me your honest answer.

My honest answer is a hesitant yes. I acknowledge the difference between 'actual' deities and parodies, but, equally, these differences have no bearing on their veracity; just because Lord Krishna has genuine believers doesn't make him any more probably than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who is a parody of genuine religion.

If you believe that, then you should have an idea of what the bottom is. If a man wants to sell me something (including an idea), but can't tell me what it is, I'm going to walk away. I point you to the idea of a God. What do you point me to?

Of course you've already given the answer above: "we don't know".

Exactly: I point you to nothing. I'm just espousing my own ideas. I don't claim to have all the answers, not least because we can't know all the answers with absolute certainty. Ah, epistemology, how I loathe thee.

And pointing to God isn't, I think, any better or worse than saying "I don't know". You could define God to be that which is at the bottom or top, but that does little more than give a name to the unknown.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then, according to your orginal equation, the change in momentum x the change in position, must be greater than the constant, right? I am reading it wrong?

Yes: Δx refers to the uncertainty in x, not the change in x. The bigger Δx, the less accurately I know the value of x.

Think of it as "I've managed to narrow x to between this value and that value, and the range of values it could be is Δx".

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates, among other things, the uncertainty with which we know x and p[sub]x[/sub].

okay, I see that now. It's the change in time, right? Still p=mv involves velocity, which definitely includes time.

Indeed, and if time didn't exist, velocity and momentum wouldn't exist.
You can only differentiate with respect to something if you know what that something is. If time doesn't exist, then nothing is dependant on it, and it becomes pointless to differentiate with respect to it. Mathematically, you can still do it, but there's no point.

Why can't we? What stops us? Why can't we use i? I'm being a bit rhetorical with this, but I still ask the question to take this conv. in a direction I want you to see.

You can't divide by zero because division only works on non-zero complex numbers.
You can't set T equal to zero because the definitions of D, T, and V (which I presume to mean distance, duration, and average velocity) require that T be non-zero: the equation relates how far you travelled, how long it took you to travel, and the average speed with which you travelled. The reason the equations break down when you make one of these equal to zero is that one or two of the other variables can take on any value. For instance, if D = 0 and/or V = 0, then T can equal any positive value: if we're not moving, then our distance will remain zero no matter how much time elapses.
You can't set T equal to i because T is a real number, not an imaginary number. You can't set it equal to i any more than you can set it equal to cheese.

When time is stopped, the equation becomes unworkable. That's kinda my point.

And my point is that time isn't something that stops, any more than space is something which stops.

How are you with summations and probabilities?

I'm also good with common statistical fallacies and the working of the human mind. Try me .

I'll use quotes for you then...they just make page load time a lot worse for viewers.

oh btw, you'll like this article



Seven things you need to know about time - physics-math - 16 February 2009 - New Scientist

To sum all this up dude, in our current understanding time is an essential component in its operation



What is Time?



As of now, our understanding of quantum mechanics does not compute with time stops...period

The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics

Not all theories and interpretations thereof are compatible. Some scientists believe time exists, some believe it is an illusion, and others believe even more wacky things. Since there is by no means a consensus on this issue (unlike, say, quantum mechanics or common descent), I wouldn't take any one scientist's words as the gospel truth.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Yes: Δx refers to the uncertainty in x, not the change in x. The bigger Δx, the less accurately I know the value of x.
Think of it as "I've managed to narrow x to between this value and that value, and the range of values it could be is Δx".
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates, among other things, the uncertainty with which we know x and p[sub]x[/sub].
Indeed, and if time didn't exist, velocity and momentum wouldn't exist.
You can only differentiate with respect to something if you know what that something is. If time doesn't exist, then nothing is dependant on it, and it becomes pointless to differentiate with respect to it. Mathematically, you can still do it, but there's no point.
You can't divide by zero because division only works on non-zero complex numbers.
You can't set T equal to zero because the definitions of D, T, and V (which I presume to mean distance, duration, and average velocity) require that T be non-zero: the equation relates how far you travelled, how long it took you to travel, and the average speed with which you travelled. The reason the equations break down when you make one of these equal to zero is that one or two of the other variables can take on any value. For instance, if D = 0 and/or V = 0, then T can equal any positive value: if we're not moving, then our distance will remain zero no matter how much time elapses.
You can't set T equal to i because T is a real number, not an imaginary number. You can't set it equal to i any more than you can set it equal to cheese.
And my point is that time isn't something that stops, any more than space is something which stops.
I'm also good with common statistical fallacies and the working of the human mind. Try me .
Not all theories and interpretations thereof are compatible. Some scientists believe time exists, some believe it is an illusion, and others believe even more wacky things. Since there is by no means a consensus on this issue (unlike, say, quantum mechanics or common descent), I wouldn't take any one scientist's words as the gospel truth.

WHY SO MUCH ADO OVER IRRELEVANT TRIVIALITIES?

The "what", "why" and "how" are all subsumed in the WHO! Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a poor diet indeed.

ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

WHY SO MUCH ADO OVER IRRELEVANT TRIVIALITIES?

The "what", "why" and "how" are all subsumed in the WHO! Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a poor diet indeed.

ephraim

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread. Please, if you have any other startling revelations, feel free to drop by again.

 

[Chesterton]

My honest answer is a hesitant yes. I acknowledge the difference between 'actual' deities and parodies, but, equally, these differences have no bearing on their veracity; just because Lord Krishna has genuine believers doesn't make him any more probably than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who is a parody of genuine religion.

No need to be hesitant. You're right they are equally valid, because they are the same thing. FSM is Jehovah with a couple of physical attributes asserted. So what then does the FSM tell us about the validity of theism? Nothing at all. Technically, it's not even parody. It's just the same claim, with the inclusion of pasta so that flippant people can giggle at a serious idea. They're equally valid and, to my mind, both superior to a claim that our universe created itself. Some like to think that a claim of God and a claim of an FSM cancel each other out, but a single claim, repeated with some non-essential variation, cannot cancel itself out.

So if you think they're equally valid, you should go to the next step - which one is more likely: Jehovah, Krishna, FSM, etc.

But I suspect you might reply that you really mean to say that they are equally invalid? If so, then all you're saying is "I don't believe in either one. I'm an atheist." Which we both already know, and which an FSM neither helps nor hinders.

If I were a smart guy like you, I wouldn't bring up ideas like orbiting teapots and the FSM. My initial reaction to the FSM (before I was Christian) was that it is childish and irreverent. After analysis, I found it is childish, irreverent, and logically ineffectual.

Exactly: I point you to nothing. I'm just espousing my own ideas. I don't claim to have all the answers, not least because we can't know all the answers with absolute certainty. Ah, epistemology, how I loathe thee.

And pointing to God isn't, I think, any better or worse than saying "I don't know". You could define God to be that which is at the bottom or top, but that does little more than give a name to the unknown.

Christ does more than give a name to the unknown. The Unknown came to us so it could be known. As I said, I see it as slightly intuitive; that's what I would do. I wouldn't concern myself much with satisfying scientific minds, but with satisfying human hearts. The heart is the instrument you use to observe Christ. (Sorry, that sounds corny, but it's true.)

WHY SO MUCH ADO OVER IRRELEVANT TRIVIALITIES?

The "what", "why" and "how" are all subsumed in the WHO! Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a poor diet indeed.

Well, he didn't care for that, but I say "hear, hear!"

 

[ephraimanesti]

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread. Please, if you have any other startling revelations, feel free to drop by again.

MY FRIEND,

Why that is a most generous and loving offer. Thanks!

The point being that it seems to me that the main obstacle--or more correctly handicap--which atheists and, to a lesser extent, agnostics, labor under when trying to deal with Spiritual matters--the existence of God, for example--is that there is a total disconnect between their minds and their hearts with the result that whichever one they are most comfortable living in/by/with becomes their "god" and their sole means of experiencing, evaluating, processing, and dealing with reality--giving them, to say the least, a skewed and highly distorted view of how things really are and little or no chance of arriving at ultimate Truth.

The solution to this crippling handicap is to re-establish the connection between mind and heart so that the mind and the heart inform, complement, and utilize each other in real time, on the ground, and thus begin to function as what they were created to be IN TOTO--the image and likeness of God. In other words, a fully functioning human being rather than an alleged "evolved animal" trying to understand and adapt to the world around him/her.

With the heart and mind connected, the existence of God become glaringly obvious and arguments about trivial side issues become passe because they are no longer needed as a shield to hide behind.

BLESSINGS TO YA!

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No need to be hesitant. You're right they are equally valid, because they are the same thing. FSM is Jehovah with a couple of physical attributes asserted. So what then does the FSM tell us about the validity of theism? Nothing at all. Technically, it's not even parody. It's just the same claim, with the inclusion of pasta so that flippant people can giggle at a serious idea. They're equally valid and, to my mind, both superior to a claim that our universe created itself. Some like to think that a claim of God and a claim of an FSM cancel each other out, but a single claim, repeated with some non-essential variation, cannot cancel itself out.

The point isn't to cancel the other one out, it's to highlight the fallacy in some theist's thinking. Namely, the completely arbitrary style with which people seem to pick deities.

So if you think they're equally valid, you should go to the next step - which one is more likely: Jehovah, Krishna, FSM, etc.

That, my friend, has plagued man since he first turned a scrutinising eye on his gods.

But I suspect you might reply that you really mean to say that they are equally invalid? If so, then all you're saying is "I don't believe in either one. I'm an atheist." Which we both already know, and which an FSM neither helps nor hinders.

If I were a smart guy like you, I wouldn't bring up ideas like orbiting teapots and the FSM. My initial reaction to the FSM (before I was Christian) was that it is childish and irreverent. After analysis, I found it is childish, irreverent, and logically ineffectual.

Which might be because you misunderstood its purpose. The teapot, the IPU, the FSM, they all serve to underline the fact that, if you can believe in one arbitrary thing, you can believe in any arbitrary thing. Believing in something without any reason to is the very definition of faith, and the parodies point out that this isn't a good thing.

Christ does more than give a name to the unknown. The Unknown came to us so it could be known. As I said, I see it as slightly intuitive; that's what I would do. I wouldn't concern myself much with satisfying scientific minds, but with satisfying human hearts. The heart is the instrument you use to observe Christ. (Sorry, that sounds corny, but it's true.)

If the Unknown came to us to be known, I would think the best way would be to satisfy scientific minds. As I said to ephraimanesti, what can the heart do that the mind cannot do better? I would think a sceptic would be better than a romanticism at analysing whether an alleged deity is, in fact, a deity.

We've all heard of crystal healing and homoeopathy, but there's a reason scientists don't buy it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

MY FRIEND,

Why that is a most generous and loving offer. Thanks!

The point being that it seems to me that the main obstacle--or more correctly handicap--which atheists and, to a lesser extent, agnostics, labor under when trying to deal with Spiritual matters--the existence of God, for example--is that there is a total disconnect between their minds and their hearts with the result that whichever one they are most comfortable living in/by/with becomes their "god" and their sole means of experiencing, evaluating, processing, and dealing with reality--giving them, to say the least, a skewed and highly distorted view of how things really are and little or no chance of arriving at ultimate Truth.

To the atheist, there is nothing more damaging to the pursuit of truth than involving one's heart: it is with a clear head, not an emotional heart, that we can realise how specious theistic arguments are (e.g., a miraculous healing becomes a lot less miraculous when you see it for what it is).

The solution to this crippling handicap is to re-establish the connection between mind and heart so that the mind and the heart inform, complement, and utilize each other in real time, on the ground, and thus begin to function as what they were created to be IN TOTO--the image and likeness of God. In other words, a fully functioning human being rather than an alleged "evolved animal" trying to understand and adapt to the world around him/her.

With the heart and mind connected, the existence of God become glaringly obvious and arguments about trivial side issues become passe because they are no longer needed as a shield to hide behind.

And how does one connect the heart and mind? What does the heart do that the mind cannot?

 

[ephraimanesti]

To the atheist, there is nothing more damaging to the pursuit of truth than involving one's heart: it is with a clear head, not an emotional heart, that we can realise how specious theistic arguments are (e.g., a miraculous healing becomes a lot less miraculous when you see it for what it is).

MY BROTHER,

It is primarily in the secular West that the heart has become wrongfully defined as the seat of a person's emotions--Valentine's Day, fat little kids with bows and arrows, soap operas and Harlequin Romance novels, etc. In spiritual considerations, this definition is 180 degrees from reality and REAL Love, of course, is not an emotion but a decision (which, of course, explains why over half of all marriages end in divorce.)

i am really loath to go into this subject because, like most spiritual matters, it is hard to comprehend and even harder to communicate accurately--especially for me (i am rather slow in these areas.) May i just quickly hit the high points--the basics--as i see them. Others, i'm sure, would differ, and i would be loath to defend my particular ideas given that i have heard many different explanations of these matters and all appear plausible to me. So . . .

Scripture teaches that human beings were created as triune beings, with a physical body, a mind, and a spirit. Our bodies are, in a sense, the seat of our material existence and allow us to physically function in the material universe which God has graciously provided for our existence and pleasure.

Our minds, as i see it, are basically infinitely intricate computers designed to process and utilize data provided by our bodies and our spirits and to direct our lives by allowing informed choices to be made based upon the outcome of the data processed.

Our spirits, on the other hand, are the "spark of God" within us which allows us to communicate with God and to understand that communication and respond to it appropriately. It is the "breath" God breathed into man at the time of his creation.

Then there is the heart. (Again, i must stress as i see it, as others more qualified than i would probably explain it differently [although i think perhaps the differences are more semantic than functional, words being the slippery objects they are]). The heart, to my understanding, is the seat and center of our being. Its function is primarily to make decisions based on the data provided by the mind and the spirit, and then live out those decisions. Thus, you might say that the heart is the center of our being--our identify which, because we are created in "the image and likeness of God," is primarily spiritual rather than material.

The above is highly inadequate and grossly superficial, i know, but it is the best i can do with my limited understanding and capabilities.

And how does one connect the heart and mind?

Because of mankind's rebellion against God--"original sin", if you will--our direct communication with God though our spirits was broken and we died spiritually as God promised--"You shall surely die." When this break in direct access to God occured--i look at it as having the cable system unplugged--Scripture says that our hearts turned to stone and ceased to function as they were created to. In this vacume, the mind of man took over control and, being informed only by material data from the body and the physical environment, turned us in on ourselves and our ego-centric little universe and left us fumbling in the dark, caught in an existence that was more dead than alive--with the disasterous results we see today. (It is very easy to see why atheists consider human beings as animals because of what we have become!)

To re-unite the mind with the heart, the residence within us of God's spirit must first be reestablished--a process described by God as "replacing your hearts of stone with hearts of flesh"--which was the primary reason for God's incarnation and His life, death, and resurrection.

Once the spirit has again taken up fully functioning residence within, the mind will be forced to reliquish control and the system--as created--will be returned to it proper balance, with the spirit in primary control and the person thus under God's control. It is only then that the mind can return to the heart and, in proper balance, process data from both material and spiritual sources and act as the directive choice-making source of man's existence by forming a synthesis of spiritual and physical inputs and judging rightly the correct life-course for the individual to pursue based upon God's will and material realities (as opposed to illusions.)

What does the heart do that the mind cannot?

The mind, as mentioned above, when functioning in isolation, gives a very lopsided picture of reality due to a lack of sufficient data--"garbage in, garbage out" in computer terms. It must be informed by spiritual realities to be able to function in a healthy and effective manner. The idea of the "mind in the heart" is that the heart--the center of a person's being--is the crucible where God is able to blend, according to His will, material and the spiritual realities into a continuous unique path for each of His children to follow in order for them to live lives of maximum happines, peace, and joy through living lives of service to others to the glory of God.

i apologize for the muddledness above! If i were to go back through it and try to organize it better i would probably delete the whole thing so i'll just leave it be and hope it answers at least one of your questions.

ephraim

 

[Chesterton]

The point isn't to cancel the other one out, it's to highlight the fallacy in some theist's thinking.

Could you specifiy the fallacy being highlighted?

You're just expressing the same idea differently. The intent of saying "your idea is as arbitrary as mine" is to cancel out both ideas. There's no fallacy involved in it.

Say I claim "I ate a good sandwich today (whether true or not)". You say "I also ate a good sandwich today, but a different kind (whether true or not)." Same thing here: "I believe in God." "I believe in the FSM." The second statement has no bearing whatsoever on the first; nothing is being demonstrated.

Namely, the completely arbitrary style with which people seem to pick deities.

For this to be true, the burden is on the FSMian to show that the style with which people "picked" Jehovah is the same style with which people picked the FSM. And that burden is not met or even addressed; the fact is merely assumed.

That, my friend, has plagued man since he first turned a scrutinising eye on his gods.

You may call it a plague (I felt that way once), but regardless, it is the next step.

Which might be because you misunderstood its purpose. The teapot, the IPU, the FSM, they all serve to underline the fact that, if you can believe in one arbitrary thing, you can believe in any arbitrary thing. Believing in something without any reason to is the very definition of faith, and the parodies point out that this isn't a good thing.

If I'm misunderstanding, can you explain to me how the FSM highlights or demonstrates the abitrariness of Jehovah?

The parodies underline a "fact" which they assume. They in no way demonstrate that the thing they're parodying is arbitrary, they just assume it. That's worthless thinking.

If the Unknown came to us to be known, I would think the best way would be to satisfy scientific minds. As I said to ephraimanesti, what can the heart do that the mind cannot do better?

Sometimes it can perceive and acknowledge Truth better, or first, and the mind can follow. Sometimes it may be the other way around: the heart follows the mind. In either case, both are needed. We possess them both, so again it's somewhat intuitive; I can assume both might be needed in life.

I would think a sceptic would be better than a romanticism at analysing whether an alleged deity is, in fact, a deity.

The trouble is, some sceptics who consider the matter honestly and deeply eventually become romantics, at which point a person like you discounts their ideas because they're romantic. Which is circular reasoning, of course.

Thomas Aquinas, a great intellect if there ever was one, studied the sciences of his day, and acknowledged questioning the existence of God as legitimate. Philosophically, he was very sceptical in that he analysized the question deeply. So if he remained a Christian, and a great one, what do you say - he just wasn't a very good sceptic, or not sceptical enough for you? You may disagree with someone like Aquinas, but if you read him, you can't write him off as a mere romantic, and the same goes for a lot of others.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Could you specifiy the fallacy being highlighted?

The fallacy is that of a double-standard: they standard with to which they justify their belief in X is not used when considering other, equally (im)probable entities. As far as the Pastafarian can tell, there is no difference between believing in Santa Claus and believing in the Christian god. Thus, whatever internal justification the Christian uses to justify their belief in God is applied inconsistently: if they took it to its logical conclusion, they would have to believe in a number of other things.

The aim is obvioulsy to negate them both: Pastafarians don't actually believe in the FSM. But the method by which they negate both is, ultimately, by pointing out the double-standards.

You're just expressing the same idea differently. The intent of saying "your idea is as arbitrary as mine" is to cancel out both ideas. There's no fallacy involved in it.

Say I claim "I ate a good sandwich today (whether true or not)". You say "I also ate a good sandwich today, but a different kind (whether true or not)." Same thing here: "I believe in God." "I believe in the FSM." The second statement has no bearing whatsoever on the first; nothing is being demonstrated.

If you said "I believe in God", and I replied "Well, I can fly to the Moon on a magic cow"; can you really not tell what I'm getting at?

For this to be true, the burden is on the FSMian to show that the style with which people "picked" Jehovah is the same style with which people picked the FSM. And that burden is not met or even addressed; the fact is merely assumed.

On the contrary, the Pastafarian has to show nothing: it is the Christian who asserts the existence of the Christian god and the Christian god only. The Pastafarian just points out that the Christian hasn't justified that assertion. To counter the whole FSM movement, then, the Christian has to do just that: justify their beliefs.

Presumably, a Christian will either realise their lack of rationale and lose their faith, or find a way to justify their faith and become stronger for it. It's a win-win.

You may call it a plague (I felt that way once), but regardless, it is the next step.

I completely agree. My point was simply that humanity has been trying to take that step for millenia. Our generation is no more closer to it than before.
That fact alone is one of the reasons I'm an atheist: every religion, every proposed deity and superstition, seems as irrational, arbitrary, and utterly baseless as the next. It seems far more reasonable to throw out the whole lot until someone can show, once and for all, that their brand of mysticism is the real deal.

After all, the onus is hardly on me .

The trouble is, some sceptics who consider the matter honestly and deeply eventually become romantics, at which point a person like you discounts their ideas because they're romantic. Which is circular reasoning, of course.

I disagree: the sceptic who becomes a romantic ceases to be a sceptic. Thereafter, by definition, they cease to subject new ideas to scrutiny. Why should their ideas be taken seriously? The sceptic doesn't accept anything unless it can stand on its own two feet; the romantic accepts anything that appeals to his inner fuzz.

Now, that's not to disparage romanticism entirely. I just don't think it has any use whatsoever when it comes to making rational, educated opinions.

The romantic does away with peer review and gives us homoeopathy, crystal healing, and phrenology. The sceptic undergoes rigorous clinical trials to give us medicines, vaccines, and anaesthetics.

Thomas Aquinas, a great intellect if there ever was one, studied the sciences of his day, and acknowledged questioning the existence of God as legitimate. Philosophically, he was very sceptical in that he analysized the question deeply. So if he remained a Christian, and a great one, what do you say - he just wasn't a very good sceptic, or not sceptical enough for you? You may disagree with someone like Aquinas, but if you read him, you can't write him off as a mere romantic, and the same goes for a lot of others.

Indeed: Aquinas was a great sceptic. He scrutinised his faith and came flying out the other side with some fantastic proofs for the existence of (a) God. I may disagree that his proofs and his conclusions, but he's a sceptic through-and-through.

The fact that he remained Christian is a testament to his ability to justify his faith. Obviously, we've had a good few hundred years to scrutinise his own scrutinies, and have (in my opinion) found flaws in his justification. But he justified them nonetheless, which is the point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

MY BROTHER,

It is primarily in the secular West that the heart has become wrongfully defined as the seat of a person's emotions--Valentine's Day, fat little kids with bows and arrows, soap operas and Harlequin Romance novels, etc. In spiritual considerations, this definition is 180 degrees from reality and REAL Love, of course, is not an emotion but a decision (which, of course, explains why over half of all marriages end in divorce.)

i am really loath to go into this subject because, like most spiritual matters, it is hard to comprehend and even harder to communicate accurately--especially for me (i am rather slow in these areas.) May i just quickly hit the high points--the basics--as i see them. Others, i'm sure, would differ, and i would be loath to defend my particular ideas given that i have heard many different explanations of these matters and all appear plausible to me. So . . .

Well, I'll try my best to understand .

Scripture teaches that human beings were created as triune beings, with a physical body, a mind, and a spirit. Our bodies are, in a sense, the seat of our material existence and allow us to physically function in the material universe which God has graciously provided for our existence and pleasure.

Our minds, as i see it, are basically infinitely intricate computers designed to process and utilize data provided by our bodies and our spirits and to direct our lives by allowing informed choices to be made based upon the outcome of the data processed.

Our spirits, on the other hand, are the "spark of God" within us which allows us to communicate with God and to understand that communication and respond to it appropriately. It is the "breath" God breathed into man at the time of his creation.

Fair enough. I'd say that our minds are simply part of our bodies (namely, our brains), but there you go.

Then there is the heart. (Again, i must stress as i see it, as others more qualified than i would probably explain it differently [although i think perhaps the differences are more semantic than functional, words being the slippery objects they are]). The heart, to my understanding, is the seat and center of our being. Its function is primarily to make decisions based on the data provided by the mind and the spirit, and then live out those decisions. Thus, you might say that the heart is the center of our being--our identify which, because we are created in "the image and likeness of God," is primarily spiritual rather than material.

So it's something of a process: the body collects data, the mind processes what the body collects, the heart decides on what the mind has processed, and the spirit powers the whole thing. Yes, no, maybe?

If so, where does the spiritual part come in?

Because of mankind's rebellion against God--"original sin", if you will--our direct communication with God though our spirits was broken and we died spiritually as God promised--"You shall surely die." When this break in direct access to God occured--i look at it as having the cable system unplugged--Scripture says that our hearts turned to stone and ceased to function as they were created to. In this vacume, the mind of man took over control and, being informed only by material data from the body and the physical environment, turned us in on ourselves and our ego-centric little universe and left us fumbling in the dark, caught in an existence that was more dead than alive--with the disasterous results we see today. (It is very easy to see why atheists consider human beings as animals because of what we have become!)

To re-unite the mind with the heart, the residence within us of God's spirit must first be reestablished--a process described by God as "replacing your hearts of stone with hearts of flesh"--which was the primary reason for God's incarnation and His life, death, and resurrection.

Once the spirit has again taken up fully functioning residence within, the mind will be forced to reliquish control and the system--as created--will be returned to it proper balance, with the spirit in primary control and the person thus under God's control. It is only then that the mind can return to the heart and, in proper balance, process data from both material and spiritual sources and act as the directive choice-making source of man's existence by forming a synthesis of spiritual and physical inputs and judging rightly the correct life-course for the individual to pursue based upon God's will and material realities (as opposed to illusions.)


The mind, as mentioned above, when functioning in isolation, gives a very lopsided picture of reality due to a lack of sufficient data--"garbage in, garbage out" in computer terms. It must be informed by spiritual realities to be able to function in a healthy and effective manner. The idea of the "mind in the heart" is that the heart--the center of a person's being--is the crucible where God is able to blend, according to His will, material and the spiritual realities into a continuous unique path for each of His children to follow in order for them to live lives of maximum happines, peace, and joy through living lives of service to others to the glory of God.

i apologize for the muddledness above! If i were to go back through it and try to organize it better i would probably delete the whole thing so i'll just leave it be and hope it answers at least one of your questions.

ephraim

Well, I have a few more questions, but I think I see where you're coming from: humans need God to see spiritual things, but God is spiritual, hence the need for faith.

Why did Adam and Eve's original sin pull the plug, as it were? At the very least, why didn't it just pull their plugs?
Why did God need to incarnate, die, and resurrect, just to plug us back in? Could he not have snapped his proverbial fingers and reconnect?

It's all very well and good, but there are... plot holes .

 

[ephraimanesti]

Well, I'll try my best to understand .

MY DEAR BROTHER,

Can't ask more than that!

Fair enough. I'd say that our minds are simply part of our bodies (namely, our brains), but there you go.

Actually, i wouldn't argue your point. Perhaps our differences, if any, on this particular point are merely semantic. Either way, the function is the same. Only the hardware/software makeup would differ slightly.

So it's something of a process: the body collects data, the mind processes what the body collects, the heart decides on what the mind has processed, and the spirit powers the whole thing. Yes, no, maybe?

Almost. The spirit and the body are two sources of data--the spirit for spiritual data, the body for data from the physical world. The heart forms and uses a gestalt of the body/spiritual data to make choices in like with who the person is and what they believe about themselves and the created (or not) universe around them. If the spirit is fully functional and heeded, decisions would be based primarily on spiritual considerations--primarily on what God's will is regarding the situation. If the spirit is crippled or ignored, decisions and actions will be based on materialistic criteria. The spirit only "powers the whole thing" if we are completely surrendered to God and obedient to His will.

If so, where does the spiritual part come in?

For an atheist, of course, it isn't a factor. For a Christian, it is, as you say what "powers the whole thing."

Well, I have a few more questions, but I think I see where you're coming from: humans need God to see spiritual things, but God is spiritual, hence the need for faith.

Well, yeah, sort of. Obviously, if there were no God there would be no spiritual reality and therefore nothing to "see." And, yes, faith is the eyes with which spiritual realities--including God--are seen. However, faith, to exist and persist, must, at some point, translate into personal experience or it will wither. Do you REALLY believe that Christianity would have survived Christ's crucifixion and death if its promises were not fulfilled in the Resurrection and its claimed spiritual powers--mediated by the indwelling Holy Spirit--not been experienced by millions in all parts of the world?

"Faith" in spiritual things is just as valid a "proving tool" for Christians as the "scientific method" for scientists dealing with physical matters in the material realm.

Why did Adam and Eve's original sin pull the plug, as it were? At the very least, why didn't it just pull their plugs? Why did God need to incarnate, die, and resurrect, just to plug us back in? Could he not have snapped his proverbial fingers and reconnect?

You, of course, already know--but refuse to accept--the answers to the above questions so i won't bore you with redundant answers you have already heard and discarded.

It's all very well and good, but there are... plot holes .

That there are no "plot holes" is what drew me to Christianity in the first place. i have not discovered any since. Obviously, if you reject the existence of God, nothing that follows from His existence would make much sense or contain any credibility for you--just as no one could understand and appreciate the beauty of a sunset who does not believe in the existence of the sun.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[sk8Joyful]

Nonetheless, man, the creature, has discovered something about this reality: there are fundamental limits to how things behave. Namely, particles have spectra of positions and momenta, rather than the intuitive single position and single momentum. Quantum mechanics tells us that...

The question, then, is how can God be omnipotent, if he himself has placed fundamental limits on what can be known about particles? It's not that we humans have a practical difficulty determining the exact location of a particle, but that the very notion of a location becomes blurred at the quantum scale.

To what degree is God 'omnipotent'?

Hi,
You want the short answer?


GOD, as the creator of everything, ie "ALL of the territory", lives OUTside & beyond man's very limited awareness, as is obvious by the contrapulations, if you will, re: "what we observe in 'quantum mechanics' ".
Iow, any short-sighted conclusions, mortals/scientists have made re "waves & particles" is, not as it is to GOD who continues exponentially... expanding the universe.

Iow, that dimly-lit map, is NOT the territory and this is where GOD is *omnipotent* Got it?