Re: Cookbook for Creation
Okay, it's now nearly midnight, and I'm very tired. I'll fully address everything at some point tomorrow. For now, I'm only going to address a couple of things again.
I don't think I, or anyone, has ever said anger is the "only" product of ego.
I didn't say that you did. My point was that you pointed out my anger as an example of how I am an egoist, whereas if losing your temper really is a product of ego, then the fact that I don't lose my temper much would prove the opposite of what you were attempting to prove. And now you dismiss this point because it doesn't corroborate your viewpoint. This is exactly the kind of flaw I see in the rest of your thinking, you are too quick to accept what you believe corroborates your views, and too quick to dismiss that which does not.
Either the fact that I've been angry the last few days is relevent or it is not. Either the anger is a product of ego or it is not. You cannot have it both ways, where me being angry is significant because it shows up my ego, and yet me not being a temperamental person says nothing whatsoever about my ego. Either they both speak to the state of my ego, or neither do.
Such a belief would relate to something like "Yes, it is obvious that I, trollface, am here to teach Ray some lessons... but there is nothing here that he could ever teach me."
Actually, the correct way I would phrase my opinion on the subject is "No, it is obvious that I, trollface, am here to teach nothing to anybody...and while there are some interesting things to think about presented, I do not believe that I will learn much of great value to me, in exactly the same way that I never have from such discussions with people" no, I don't think you're learning any big home truths about your subconsious self from me simply because nothing I say seems to make the slightest bit of a dent in your behaviour. If you were learning lessons and growing as a person, would we not be able to see this growth? As it is, over the last week or so Roel and I have both had to repeat pertinent information to you because you simply did not take it in the first time we said it. If you believe that I am here to tach you, would you not pay more attention to what I actually say?
And, yes, as I've said before I've had many, many conversations with people like you about subjects like this one. I have never learned anything about myself that I did not know before. I have learned that most people do not think too hard and certainly not critically about their beliefs and I have learned that there are as many belief systems as there are people who believe them. But that's not about me.
Uhhhh....apples and oranges, perhaps?
In a way, yes. In a way, no. While you've obviously thought about your beliefs (and really believe what you claim to believe) the actual beliefs themselves do not strike me as more reasonable than that which Chronohistorian claimed. If I didn't genuinely think that you were wrong, then I would not say that I think that you are wrong.
How about addressing the following aspect of the debunking issue that I have raised?
I did. In fact, that was the bit you quoted. And do not forget that I've only been doing drive-by postings and have said at the beginning of each post that I will come back and address things that I haven't already, and that I will address that which I have skimmed over in more detail. Again, were you really learning from me would you not have taken this fact in?
But, if you wish, I'll try to be more specific, but I'm still only going to cover this briefly.
Because one may often feel as if they are providing a service to mankind by "debunking" something they think is "wrong", and yet they may not have near enough information on the topic they think they are "debunking".
I claim to offer no service to anyone. What I am doing is stating my opinion. If I could offer a service to mankind it would be to get people to think critically and to assess their sources critically.
And, more specifically, if someone is debunking something that they are not informed enough about, then it would be up to those who do know about it to educate them. That way, there's dialogue and the subject is addressed in a more full and frank manner than it otehrwise would have been. Debate itself, if done in a reasoned, intelligent and polite way, is a service to mankind as much as anything. So I would say that this is also a good thing.
If there are things that you are not aware of, it is quite possible that your "debunking" is wrong, in and of itself.
In which case, as I have said, you have nothing to fear from it.
Can I just point out, BTW, that I've never been called an "uninformed debunker" on this site, just a "debunker". And, ewven though this is an interesting little diversion, you still haven't explained why this is supposed to be a bad thing in and of itself.
In this case, you are not only NOT doing a service to mankind, you are doing a disservice by trying to convince other people that something with value has no value.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. As I have stated repeatedly I am merely giving my opinions. I have also explicity stated on more than one occasion that if you do not agree with my assessments and opinions that you are free to believe as you will. What you do or do not believe is of no consequence to me. The only way it affects me is whether I find it interesting to enjoy discussing or not. Any and all things that I say here and elsewhere are strictly my opinion and you are entirely free to do what you wish with the words that I post.
Another way of describing this would be confidence.
There can be a fine line between confidence and arrogance. You have claimed that I am arrogant and that I am an egotist. And yet I offer nothing but my opinion and I always,
always conceed the possibility that I could be wrong. Maybe I don't explicity say it every single time I post a sentence, but in an infinite universe where my senses are the only sources of information about the world that I have, I find myself loathe to say anything with 100% certainty. And, yes, I will conceed the possibility of there being a God. I will also, in the same manner and with the same weight given, conceed the possibility of Hubert being real or that my "Mad Scientist/brain in a jar" scenario is actually the truth. Think of me, maybe, as Douglas Adam's Man in the Shack from
Life, The Universe And Everything, only a little less vague.
Now, given that, and the fact that you claim to know the absolute truth about the nature of God and that you admit no possibility that you are wrong, can you see how that might be seen as arrogant? It's not the "conviction of being right" that I have the problem with, it's the "to the exclusion of all else". If you cannot conceed the possibility that you may be wrong, then how can you expect people to have a dialogue with you about the subject? What we get instead is a propaganda peice for your religious viewpoint.
I am not without sin. Are you?
Yes. I don't believe in the concpet of sin.
To answer less literally, no I don't believe that I'm perfect.
Showing how numbers align with concepts in science and physics is not always a bad thing[...]
I never said it was. I have no disagreement with you saying that you attatch symbolism to numbers metaphorically. It's just when you attach great importance to that that I find it more questionable.
I mean, I think that the film
Dark City is a great bit of metaphor for the exploration of the workings of the consious and unconsious mind, how they can work against each other and how to conquer madness and be a full person you need to take control of your own mind. I think it's a very good film to analyse semiotically in this manner. What I don't think is that this makes it particularly profound. I also don't think that because it lends itself to this particular reading so well that that means that that's the way Alex Proyas saw it when he was writing, filming or editing it.
Or, to give another example, the film
A Nightmare On Elm Street art 2: Freddy's Revenge is blatantly a story about a young homosexual teen coming to terms with his orientation (in a kind of "God Hates Fags" kind of way, as Freddy is the homosexuality and he is eventually defeated by the love of a good woman). In fact, it's so implicit that it's almost explicit. Except that it isn't. It didn't occur to the writer or the director that it could be seen this way until the film came out (if you'll pardon the pun) and people started mentioning it. They both saw it and went "oh, yeah!" So, yeah, the film
is a great metaphor for coming to terms with homosexuality. But the fact that it is is nothing but coincidence.
I am asking for evidence that either: (a) My science is wrong, or (b) My application of the science is wrong.
I've already said this way back when, as has Roel. I think the phrase Roel used which summed it up perfectly was "weak anological evidence". I mean you say that DNA is a fibbonacci spiral (which it isn't) and that a foetus grows in the shape of a fibbonacci spiral (which it doesn't) and that the planets are aligned in a fibbonacci spiral (which they're not). But, and this is the point, even if they all were, then so what? That doesn't prove that there's a relationship between them, or that said spiral is special in any way. All it would prove was that they were all shaped the same.
You must have some kind of evidence that allows you to think it is more reasonable to believe a low liklihood event over one that has a higher liklihood (even if it is only somewhat more likely).
I don't think that the existence of God does have a higher likelyhood. I think it has a lower likelyhood. In fact, one that is so close to zero as to make any other likelyhood seem so large that it's infinite in comparison.
And it's not evidence of the non-existence of God (again, you cannot prive a negative) that I have, it's there being a lack of evidence of the existence of God. All I have seen to back up the existence of God is dominated by poor evidence, low thresholds of credibility and sloppy thinking.
Let's have a look at what you asked Roel to look at, your assertation that the Tree Of Life can be mapped onto the human body.
We look at the picture on your website and where are the points that supposedly map? I'll do the list:
1. The forehead/top of head.
2. The empty space to the left of the left ear.
3. The empty space to the right of the right ear.
4. An inch or so to the right of the left shoulder joint.
5. An inch or so to the left of the right shoulder joint.
6. The solar plexus.
7. The left hip.
8. The right hip.
9. The groin.
10. The space inbetween the feet.
It's hardly compelling evidence. It's hardly the product of a high standard of evidence. And it's hardly free from sloppy thinking.
