God?

[RainmanTime]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

Roel,

Well... I guess I'm about 90% sure. There's an uncertainty factor.
...
I admit that it sounds quite logical that there's a scale, but we can never be 100% certain.
...
However, from a scientific point of view there is simply no evidence (0%) that energy is selfaware.
...
We can both have our own theories, but we can't possibly be 100% certain.
...
Now I am aware of the fact that using logic will provide 100% solid proof and I never claimed that either.
...
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
...
Not if I can help it...
...
Oh yes, that ball was at least 5 sigma out.

All of these quotes show precisely why we need to discuss probability, the Gaussian normal distribution (bell shaped curve), and how it all pertains (as yet more evidence) to my statements about God, Energy, and self-awareness. We also really need to discuss it because it is precisely this subject that you do NOT want to discuss, as you refuse to answer my question with regard to probability of the universe being purposefully created, or just a big accident. If you continue to ignore these issues, and not wish to discuss them, I can only infer it is because you know it will be yet another link in my list of evidence. Oh yes, this was another one you missed from your list of my argument: Probability theory says design of systems with tight operating tolerances is more normative (closer to the center of the Gaussian distribution) than complex things forming by accident (further out from the center, closer to the edges of the distribution).

Your claims about how you believe your "normative" state of mind when you are awake and aware deliver you the best, most accurate picture of "reality" means that you tend to only believe those things that fall in the center of the bell-shaped curve. 1-Sigma is called one standard deviation from the center (norm) of this curve, and it aligns with 68% of the distribution...or 68% certainty. 2-Sigma gets you 95% of the total distribution. From what you are saying about how you only believe what your waking mind tells you as real, I would say that you probably only believe things if they are within 1-Sigma of the norm, would you? If your dream states or other altered mind states are out at 95% or further, you are saying these are much more highly questionable as far as being real...right? I think this is what you are saying.

This is exactly why we need to talk what proabilities are when it comes to whether we think the universe was designed, or whether it came about by accident. I can tell you that the probability that the universe came about by accident is easily beyond the 2-Sigma (95%) range. It is pretty much in the 3-Sigma and beyond range (99.7%). That is HIGHLY unlikely. I think one could also support the claim that the probability of the universe being purposefully brought into being (designed to meet its tight tolerances) is surely within 2-Sigma, and maybe pretty close to 1-Sigma, if not within it. In other words, closer to the norm.

So....you believe your "normative" senses within the 68% band, but you believe the universe came about by accident, which is beyond 95% from the norm? That is not a consistent view, or approach, to probabilistic reasoning. In essence, that is not scientific at all, Roel. This probability stuff is at the heart and soul of the safety evaluations for the systems I work on, so I think I know what I am talking about. I'd like you to address how you can use probabilities in two very different ways to justify very different beliefs?

I think it's more likely for a tree to be selfaware than a rock.

Ah yes, I'd agree...or at least I would agree the tree has a higher probability of exhibiting some traits of awareness. Now do you know that the earth itself exhibits a level of awareness? And that it is related to how the earth uses and exhibits energy around it? And that spirals (recurring theme!) play a very big part in these energetic expressions of the earth's self-awareness? Indeed, there are two very powerful forces of earth energy that manifest as spirals: Hurricanes and tornadoes. Would you like to discuss how, even in our advanced knowledge of today, we still do not really know the mechanisms by which both of these storms form? It really has to do with how the earth "thinks", or is self-aware, if you will.

No, this does not necessarily imply that we were created as well, although there is a theoretical possibility.

Do you know what a Golem is? If one can be (or has been) created, then this would greatly increase that "theoretical" possibility, wouldn't it? I'd say, if a Golem could be created that can "think for itself" and be self-aware, that the possibility that we were also purposefully created is....oh...certainly in the believable range of probability.

I admit that it sounds quite logical that there's a scale, but we can never be 100% certain.

Well, certainly with the evidence we have on all different animals (there are dolphins and whales too), I would say it is not that much of a stretch to say we know there is a continuum of awareness to somewhere over 95% certainty. That's enough for me to conclude it is true.

I could have added that to the list as well, but it's still no evidence. Again, the fact that energy is required for creation only shows that it's a requirement, nothing more, nothing less.

This statement would tend to say you are ignorant (i.e. unaware or uninformed) about the details of many of the ways that energy exhibits itself, naturally, around the earth. The earth may not make "decisions" in the same way that you think of what a decision is. However, the myriad of energetic displays that the earth is capable of generating can be very complex, In addition to hurricanes and tornados, we also have lightning storms, earthquakes, aurora, and do you know what sprites are? These energy forms are expressions of how the energy of the earth is shifting. They are the earth's signs of life, literally.

I'm using logic to decide for myself what to believe and what not to believe. Now I am aware of the fact that using logic will provide 100% solid proof and I never claimed that either.

You seem to be using linear logic to decide what to believe. At least that would be "normative". You gave absolutely no reply about the concept of non-linear logic, or the link that I supplied. Did you look at it? Do you wish to talk about how the linear logic we have used for years, and which we think defines our reality, is incomplete? This is really my purpose for bringing up the Incompleteness Theorem. It is relavant to learning how to employ non-linearity in how we think. If linear logic only gets us to 1-Sigma probability, then non-linear can get us out to 2-Sigma or better, right? And don't you think exploiting non-linearity is going to be a large part of achieving time travel? Well...if you don't, let me clue you in as someone who understands the science of non-linear behavior...it is. We will not achieve time travel without closed-loop, non-linear control systems. I know this for a fact.

Say what you want, but I still think your reasoning regarding energy is flawed and I've shown why on multiple occasions.
...
I never claimed you were overapplying the concepts of energy.

OK. These two statements are completly contradictory, and you cannot deny they are not! Either you never claimed it, or you have shown me it is flawed on multiple occasions...which is it? For the record, I do not recall you ever showing me how my energy reasoning is technically\ flawed, on ANY occasion. If you actually did, then it should not be a big deal for you to reconstruct that explanation to me....OK?

but we can't possibly be 100% certain. In my opinion it seems highly unlikely that an intelligent, selfaware creator "gave rise" to the universe.

OK...so help me understand "highly unlikely". In the world of aerospace (actually, in the world of the US Federal Aviation Adminisation) the specific words "extremely remote" have a very specific numerical meaning for probability of an event. This range of probabilities is between 1x10^-7 and 1x10^-9. That is from 1-in-10 million to 1-in-1 billion. Is this the sort of range you mean with "highly unlikely"?

However, you are attributing selfawareness to energy, which you still haven't been able to proof.

The earth shows self-awareness in how energy is constantly played-out around the globe. You may not think it is self-awareness, but this is only because you are using your narrow human view to gauge self-awareness. If you apply non-linear logic to look deeper, you can see and understand the earth, which is also energy, expresses itself in a great many different ways.

If anyone should get a prize for taking words out of context, it's you. Geesh, unbelievable.

I doubt you read the rest of the paragraph at all, but I think it was quite clear that I was talking about MY personal experiences with dreams and deja-vu's. Therefore you are in no position to dispute the conclusions I have made.

I am not disputing your conclusions, and I am not taking them out of context. The context is normal distributions and the probabilities that go with them. I am pointing out your conflicting views. You only believe what your mind tells you when it is in the "normative" state...near the center of the bell-shaped curve. And yet you also believe that the universe came about by accident, which is VERY far from the normative mean of the bell-shaped curve. Those two beliefs are contradictory, with respect to how you apply probability.

So I wouldn't be able to make a decision that God does not know about, even if I wanted? That's not free will!!!!

Of course it is still free will. You are being silly now. The fact that YOU are the one permitted to make the decision means you are FREE to exercise your WILL. You make the decision, so it is free will. It is no less free will just because God knows all decisions you will consider, and can make, across many different timelines. In fact, this is another bit of "evidence" for reincarnation. In past lives, you have "done this before", and you HAVE made different decisions in those other lives.

RMT

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

You have called to him, he will respond in his time, not yours.

Ever consider that if he wants to make you suffer, he might go after someone besides yourself?

So am I to assume that if something bad happens to me, or anyone I know over the course of the rest of my life, that I owe it to Beleth? Forgive me if I'm of the opinion that chances are that something bad will happen to me or someone I know at some point in the future regardless.

As for your scratching 3 of my names, the challenge was to find great thinkers who did not follow the Kabbalah, not great thinkers who had no religious beliefs whatsoever.

Roel said:
I'm a bit curious what your music sounds like.

You can download one of our old tunes for free here: http://stage.vitaminic.co.uk/zone_fluffy

Our new stuff is more aggressive and features more in the way of distorted drums and the like, and our output overall is fairly eclectic in any case, but it should give you some idea of the fusion of styles that we have in one track.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

As for your scratching 3 of my names, the challenge was to find great thinkers who did not follow the Kabbalah, not great thinkers who had no religious beliefs whatsoever.

Uh, no. The list of names were people that were that believed in God.

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

It certainly seemed a bit more Kabbalah-specific when you said:

Just a point of interest, the following is a sampling of some individuals captivated by the Kabbalah and/or the premises contained within it...

But if all it really is is a list of people who have been religious in one form or another, then that's even less significant is it not? 97.5% of the world's population believes in a supreme being or beings of one sort or another, so it's hardly surprising that some of them would be great thinkers, is it? Maybe what's of more significance is that so few are?

And let's take, say da Vinci. What do you make of this? http://www.pharo.com/wild_talents/leonardo_da_vinci/articles/wtlv_01a_heretic.asp#top

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

No, and that reply was only one of a few regarding the masters of thought. These men and women had a great impact on our lives, and were very well versed in scientific inquiry.

...even less significant is it not?

No.

Maybe what's of more significance is that so few are?

You aint Whistleing Dixie with that one, Trollface.

...da Vinci. What do you make of this?

I see a bunch of paintings and drawings, in essence symbols ( i.e the triangle, etc. ), that someone is trying to force meaning on. But they, of course, have no inherent meaning, so all their conclusions about Leonardo's intentions are useless and mean nothing. Why, what do you see?

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

So am I to assume that if something bad happens to me, or anyone I know over the course of the rest of my life, that I owe it to Beleth?

Perhaps you would be willing to take it to the next level?

www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#conjuration11

This will provide you with the proper way to disrespect Him. Just replace the names they have inserted and put in his.

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

No, and that reply was only one of a few regarding the masters of thought. These men and women had a great impact on our lives, and were very well versed in scientific inquiry.

Well, okay. I've never denied that intelligent and significant people have been religious. I believe I've said as much about Jesus. But I'm back to "so what?" I've already shown there to be a number that also don't. If you say that I'm dismissing the people you cite and calling them "morons that hadn't a clue about the world they existed within", then does that mean that you are saying the same about those people that I have cited?

What applies to one group has to apply equally to the other.

No.

But surely it does if we're dicussing the validity of the Kabbalah and the Tree Of Life? How does the Wright brothers not flying on a Sunday say anything about whether the Tree Of Life is "true" or not?

You aint Whistleing Dixie with that one, Trollface.

Well, yes. If the fact that the majority of people known for rationality and deep and significant thought aren't religious, then would that not suggest, if anything, that the belief in a Deity was the incorrect one?

Why, what do you see?

I see two things. Firstly I see one of the most commonly held beliefs about da Vinci named - that he was an atheist. So you can probably scratch him off your list. He certainly can not be listed as a "definate".

Secondly, I see an interesting theory regarding his work and what it may possibly say about his beliefs. Do I think it's true? I have no idea. Nobody really does. However, I don't see any real reason why it cant be true. Certainly, for example, I believe that it is the generally accepted academic view these days that da Vinci was responsible for the Turin Shroud - a relic that would be blasphemous at best.

Are you just saying what you think I might say again, or have you really read the site and come to the conclusion that it's bunk? If so, can you explain your reasoning in greater detail, please?

Perhaps you would be willing to take it to the next level?

www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#conjuration11

This will provide you with the proper way to disrespect Him. Just replace the names they have inserted and put in his.

What, do I have to recite the whole thing? Or could I maybe cut and paste it? You see, you have to remember that I'm coming from the position that there are no demons for me to summon or offend, so I'm disinclined to put too much effort into it. Depending on how I feel tomorrow, I might be bothered to cut and paste it and substitute the names in text, but to actually go through it all and say it all out loud? It just doesn't amuse me enough to be worth the effort.

BTW, what exactly did your cow-orker do to get her ankle snapped? Because we're supposed to be replicating that situation are we not? Did she recite the whole thing?

BTW, I recieved two very good peices of news today, if you're interested in how my life is going. If I was the kind of person to read into such things, I'd say that my new, demon-bashing sigline was my lucky charm - possibly because God appreciates it when someone pokes the opposition in the eye.

 

[zerubbabel]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.
In Russia, nihilism became identified with a loosely organized revolutionary movement (C.1860-1917) that rejected the authority of the state, church, and family. In his early writing, anarchist leader Mikhael Bakunin (1814-1876) composed the notorious entreaty still identified with nihilism: "Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unsearchable and eternally creative source of all life--the passion for destruction is also a creative passion!"

The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions.

Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism. Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

I am sorry to use cut and paste here, but this speaks volumes over what I could put down in my own words. Let's call a spade a spade. It is obvious, to me, that this thread is degenerating to nihilism(which may have been the purpose of the nehilist Trollface on this forum all along). Atheism is simply a stand that some people take. Nihilism is, by its very nature, degenerate. As the link above states, its offspring is anarchy. The latest statements by Trollface are definitely going in this direction--whether by design or not is still yet to be determined. I found, early on in this thread (and forum), that many (if not most) of his statements were shallow and self-serving. He could not even express Philosophy 101 tenets. His ignorance of even the most basic models used by others to express ontology, axiology, empistimology, etc.; was so telling as to make his entire series of arguments to be nothing more than kindergarten responses.

One thing is certain about his posts. From the very first words of each post, his spirit is evident. I didn't even have to look at his avatar to tell who was spouting such drivel. Every single one of his posts is wrapped in negativism and it shows from his very first words. If it were not for the fact that he was providing the very platform needed to let others point to the real truth of things, he would have absolutely no purpose here. I see very little that he can contribute to the subject of timetravel, let alone the human condition or the subject of spirituality. I doubt that he has even read many of the links provided him. I have a feeling he read the above link with relish--no doubt relating to much of it. I doubt the statements that show how this line of reasoning leads to dead ends (despite the fact that it has created such a crisis in human thinking), will even make a difference to him. Tunnel vision does this to all of us, I suppose, but I doubt, again, that he would ever make that kind of admission.

I can certainly understand a nihilist surfing a timetravel site in search of pure science, but it does make me wonder why so much interest in trolling a thread on God. Yes, I mean trolling in the fullest sense of the word--regardless of the claim made that this was a former nickname. Former nickname or not, he understands fully the meaning of troll and chose to retain this name, probably with the full expectation of the negative connotation it would give him. Misery seeks company, I suppose. I do not for a minute believe that he is a happy man. I see no happiness in his posts nor any desire to share any happy things. It is obvious from one of his last posts that he seeks to serve only himself and what HE believes in. He certainly seeks to place himself in exclusive territory (top 2 or 3%)--according to nihilistic standards. A little arrogant to say the least.

Having a teaching and counseling background, I have dealt with this personality type before. Rarely does this type ever say "I was wrong". Even if they do grudginly admit error, it is always with a qualifier. My brother was exactly this kind of personality. He took great pleasure in terrorizing weak minds and abasing those were of a spiritual bent (not the same of course). What few people realized was that he had been sexually abused by a priest as a 15 year old and it totally destroyed his belief in goodness. He spent his entire life degrading others to the point that he had been degraded. Nihilism does not emerge as a normal course of events. There usually is a cause, however, few will ever know of it except for its consequence. He never believed in a God after that nor were there any constraints to his behavior. He alienated everyone he came into contact with including his own very wonderful two boys. No one but me ever understood the underlying causes, and I never revealed them until after his death. His heart was revealed to me in the end. Although he never allowed me to give him comfort in his last hours--other than his physical needs, I found that he had accepted spiritual comfort from a complete stranger that showed up at his door the day before his death. This one act is beyond the understanding of the nihilist. The only comfort the nihilist can offer is the grave--and the only comfort he can look forward to.

I expect no response from trollface nor do I want one. All I can expect is more negativism. I find that he has (literally) nothing to offer--neither scientifically, spiritually, humanistically or otherwise. My only hope for him is that a stranger will show up at his doorstep and show him what he has never before seen or heard because of his obstinate refusal. The evil spirit I prayed for has returned and its work is done. He has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. These are MY words. God help him if he hears these words from the destroying angel. My words are temporal. His shall be eternal.

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I've always found Nihilism to be somewhat interesting, but it's always seemed somewhat like an excuse to be depressed. I agree with some of the aspects of it - I certainly believe that there is nothing beyond ourselves and that no-one can truley know another person and so we will all die alone - but I don't really see this as a cause for gloom and destruction. I mean, I've got 40 years left on this Earth if I'm lucky. Why should I spend it moping around and actively trying to be miserable? If anything, it's a good reason to enjoy yourself while you've got the oppourtunity, no?

Oh, I also find that Nihilism is rather pretentious. Usually more of an affectation than a real belief. Kind of like a teenage goth (and I'm talking about 1980s Goths who would know who Andrew Eldritch, Carl "I am the Nephilim" McCoy and Wayne Hussey were) who will wear multiple layers of black in the summer and then complain about being hot.

[...]the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement.

This fails to take into account the very real factor of human nature. Human beings thrive on politics, social structure and religion. These things will never, ever be eliminated from our society (in fact, you cannot have a society without socialisation and politics) bacause they're part of who we are as a people. Man will never be an entirely cerebral animal. Man is an animal that is self-aware and can think. As such, we have to acknowledge both sides of our nature.

As the link above states, its offspring is anarchy.

Wonderful example. I think that Anarchy, as Anarchists describe it (those Anarchists who belong to the Anarchists society, and who go to Anarchist rallys without seeing the inherant irony) is a lovely idea. Just as I think that Communism is a lovely idea. They both suffer from the same problem, however - they both deny human nature.

The latest statements by Trollface are definitely going in this direction--whether by design or not is still yet to be determined.

I'm interested, can you tell me which statements of mine you have found to be Nihilistic? I'm not denying that I can be and think that way, but I think that if that side of me is all you see then you're missing the bigger picture. If you could point out what I've said and what about it makes you see me as such, then I can either say "it's a fair cop" or maybe clarify where I've been less claer than I intended.

I found, early on in this thread (and forum), that many (if not most) of his statements were shallow and self-serving.

Again, I'm interested. Could you expand on this and maybe give some examples, please? I'm not necessarily going to say that you're wrong.

His ignorance of even the most basic models used by others to express ontology, axiology, empistimology, etc.; was so telling as to make his entire series of arguments to be nothing more than kindergarten responses.

Hmmm, now both you and Rainman have downplayed my style of debating because it does not adhere to classical, layed out forms of argument, as if this were a game of chess. I'm only expressing my opinion. If there's some "correct" counter to any argument I'm presented, then I don't care. I'm not trying to win points. I'm trying to have an interesting debate, and I'm succeeding, at least as far as I'm concerned. If you think my responses are only worthy of an under-ten then the solution is simple - do not waste your time on them.

I didn't even have to look at his avatar to tell who was spouting such drivel.

At the risk of this being another of Azkaban's clever traps, I feel I should point out that I don't have an avatar.

Former nickname or not, he understands fully the meaning of troll and chose to retain this name, probably with the full expectation of the negative connotation it would give him

Well, just FYI, I've been called "Troll" IRL for about 10 years. Yes, I know the connotations (and, if you know your internet history you'll know that the word has more than just the negative connotations), but I see tham as incidental. The meaning of the word "troll' with regards to the internet I see as having as little to do with me as if I were called "Mary" and people kept thiking of me as the mother of Jesus. Why should I change my name just because other people can't get over their own preconceptions? It's not like the word "troll" originalted with the internet, is it? If you believe my screenname makes me a troll, then that is your problem, not mine.

FWIW, I've used this name for at least 4 years on 6 or 7 different fora and have had to explain how it does not refer to internet trolls 4 times (I think). That's not so bad. I've met people IRL who have heard my nickname being what it is and have asked "does he live under a bridge?" Should I change to suit them, too?

I do not for a minute believe that he is a happy man.

Believe what you will.

I see no happiness in his posts nor any desire to share any happy things.

Ah, now, sharing happy things with a bunch of people I hardly know (I've been here, what, 3 months?) in a forum that it's wholly inappropriate at? I wonder why I haven't spent my time sharing the warm and fuzzies...I've been at snopes for nearly 4 years now, and I still don't share all of my personal life there. But, if you want to see how I am there, go there.

I posted a link to a tune my band does in a thread. Why not listen to that and tell me how depressing you find that? That's a happy thing that I've shared. But that's besides the point.

Don't take 400-odd posts I've made, in a medium in which I'm never fully expressive, over the course of 3 months and assume that you can see every side of my character.

It is obvious from one of his last posts that he seeks to serve only himself and what HE believes in.

Well, if by that you mean that I'm not going to start believeing in god on your say-so then you're right.

He certainly seeks to place himself in exclusive territory (top 2 or 3%)--according to nihilistic standards.

Sorry? Care to cite where I've placed myself in the top "2 or 3%"?

Rarely does this type ever say "I was wrong".

Yup. You really don't know me at all.

What few people realized was that he had been sexually abused by a priest as a 15 year old and it totally destroyed his belief in goodness.

I'm sorry to hear this.

I find that he has (literally) nothing to offer--neither scientifically, spiritually, humanistically or otherwise.

Then ignore my posts. Simple as.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

We also really need to discuss it because it is precisely this subject that you do NOT want to discuss, as you refuse to answer my question with regard to probability of the universe being purposefully created, or just a big accident.

Pardon me? Which question have I failed to answer? I thought I was clear on that. My believes are that the universe have not been purposefully created. I have always maintained that we do not know how exactly the universe came to being.

I can only infer it is because you know it will be yet another link in my list of evidence.

The main reason why I am not inspired to look further into spirituality and god is the fact that all of your evidence so far doesn't make any sense to me at all. I can not relate to the things you are saying and they are definitely not scientific proof.

I think this is what you are saying.

Yes, although I prefer my own description, which was shorter and more to the point

This is exactly why we need to talk what proabilities are... *snap* ...In other words, closer to the norm.

On what, other than your own perception, are you basing these calculations? Or do I just go ahead and take your word for it?

That is not a consistent view, or approach, to probabilistic reasoning.

Bullocks, you're comparing two completely different things.

First of all, the fact that I trust my senses more when I'm awake is only logical. Why would I trust a state of mind where random images from my brain are being combined in a non-coherent way? We've discussed the fact that one can control their dreams. This means that the validity of the content of a dream is doubtful to say the least.

Second, the fact that I believe the universe did not arise as the result of an act of creation, has nothing to do with my perception of dreams. Therefore...

I'd like you to address how you can use probabilities in two very different ways to justify very different beliefs?

...is not a relevant question. Until you tell me where you based these calculations on, I can only disagree with your findings.

This probability stuff is at the heart and soul of the safety evaluations for the systems I work on, so I think I know what I am talking about.

Ah, so you decided if this stuff is good enough for engineering systems, it will fit nicely into a discussion about religion? Again, please tell me how you came to the conclusion that the probability that the universe came about by accident is "pretty much" in 3-sigma?

Do you know what a Golem is?

I'm guessing you mean <a href="http://www.atomick.net/fayelevine/pk/golem00.shtml" target="_blank">this?</a> I'm sorry but you lost me here. What are you trying to say?

Let me say first that what we were talking about - selfaware robots - is just a theory. Also, in my opinion these robots would be able to see and touch us. So if the probability that we were created lies in the believable range of probability then so does the fact that we would be able to see and touch our creator.

we still do not really know the mechanisms by which both of these storms form? It really has to do with how the earth "thinks", or is self-aware, if you will.

We can't explain it, so it must be the earth thinking? In my opinion that's exactly the type of misconception that started pretty much every religion. "Oh, look, lightning... the gods must be angry". I'm really looking forward to hearing your story about tornadoes and hurricanes and why we should believe that it is actually "the earth being self-aware".

That's enough for me to conclude it is true.

I already said that it sounds quite logical that there is a scale, but again... we can not be 100% certain. So I tend to agree, but I think there's a slight possibility that in fact we experience the same level as awareness as a goldfish.

They are the earth's signs of life, literally.

To me they are not. I do not recognise them as intelligent or selfaware actions by the earth.

This is really my purpose for bringing up the Incompleteness Theorem.

I understand Gödels Incompleteness Theorem. In fact it made me realize that this discussion is endless. We are both part of the same system, so we can't possibly prove that god does or doesn't exist. Which is why I claim that both our believes are based on theory and not THE truth. I agree with you when you say that non-linearity is the key to timetravel. We need to look at time in a non-linear fashion.

I do not think non-linear logic renders any other type of logic obsolete.

OK. These two statements are completly contradictory, and you cannot deny they are not! Either you never claimed it, or you have shown me it is flawed on multiple occasions...which is it? For the record, I do not recall you ever showing me how my energy reasoning is technically\ flawed, on ANY occasion. If you actually did, then it should not be a big deal for you to reconstruct that explanation to me....OK?

I can't believe you even try to claim that these statements are completely contradictory, since they are not. I've never claimed that your were overapplying the concepts of energy, but that doesn't mean your reasoning regarding energy can't be flawed. I've indeed mentioned why I think it's flawed on multiple occasions.

For the record, I do not recall you ever showing me how my energy reasoning is technically\ flawed, on ANY occasion. If you actually did, then it should not be a big deal for you to reconstruct that explanation to me....OK?

Okay. You claim that energy is selfaware. The evidence you have provided does not proof this statement. To my knowledge you have provided the following evidence:

1) We consist of energy, we are selfaware, therefore energy is also selfaware.
2) Energy is required for creation.

If I left something out you are free to correct me, but the reason I find this evidence insufficient is:

1) we are constructed in a way that allows us to be selfaware, ie. we have a central nervous system. Not all things that consist of energy have the same properties. Therefore it does not automatically follow that energy is selfaware.

2) Energy is indeed required for creation, but this only proofs that energy is a requirement and does in no way imply that energy is selfaware.


I hope I've made clear why I think your reasoning is flawed as opposed to overapplied.

Is this the sort of range you mean with "highly unlikely"?

What, do you want me to express "highly unlikely" in numbers? Do you not understand what I mean when I say that I personally find it highly unlikely that an intelligent, selfaware creator "gave rise" to the universe? My opinion is based on my own experiences, just like you base your believes on yours.

You may not think it is self-awareness, but this is only because you are using your narrow human view to gauge self-awareness.

And you are using your broad human imagination to believe that the earth (or energy for that matter) is selfaware.

If you apply non-linear logic to look deeper, you can see and understand the earth, which is also energy, expresses itself in a great many different ways.

Show me how you apply non-linear logic to look deeper. Hurricanes and tornadoes are not exhibitions of selfawareness, at least I don't see the non-linear logic in this.

I am not disputing your conclusions, and I am not taking them out of context.

Oh please. Read the paragraph you were replying to. I was talking about MY experiences with dreams and dejavu's. I told you how MY dreams have PROVEN not to be a very accurate representation of the reality. You can't dispute this in any way.

You only believe what your mind tells you when it is in the "normative" state...near the center of the bell-shaped curve.

No, I said: "...but I think the way I perceive reality when I'm awake is still normative." That does not rule out anything. I just indicated what I think is the most reliable way to perceive reality. In my opinion dreams are not reliable, since they are random distorted images from your brain. The fact that you can control what you dream, proves that it's not a reliable reproduction of reality. Unless you want to claim that I really did get married to Holly Marie Combs in a weddingchapel on Mars? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Of course it is still free will. You are being silly now.

Of course I was being silly, god doesn't even exist! But again:

I want to make a decision that god is unaware of. Since you claim that god knows all possibilities, I am unable to make a decision god is unaware of. This prevents me from practicing my free will.

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Great music. You weren't kidding when you said fusion /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[creedo299]

Re: TTI actual used defination terms

Control information from the institute:

Golem, both as proper name and a character in mythologies.

Golem, a character in J.R. Toklins Lord Of The Rings.

Modus Envictus, Def., A conjure made by either a soucer, magician, wizard, witch, or mystery school graduate, so skilled in the art of aether creation.

A.I. computer self intelligence; The super supposed off-board intelligence that all Earthbound P.C.s carry, to where after a certain point in time, they both adopt their own thinking and imprint their masters, or users love, so making thought patterns and decisions of their own, in what platform or operating system that they might use.

A moderus envictus, is a demand aether conjure, so made by a conjurer, which takes the demands within characteristics, that that conjurer places into this conjure.

God; The said placement of christianism, endowed at the time era of 1989, as said in the Andreasson series of books, as an ather being, which did inhabit the crystal array, as described by Mrs.Betty Andreasson Luca, said to be below the ocean floor level, housed as a guest, within a crystal lattus array, said to be some two to five cubic miles, of crystalline rock structure.

God's Union; A user term constructed by TTI under expert Creedo 299 derived from the terms given within the book, Psychic Warriors and other FATE Magazine sources, as Gods that are probably not based within the known Christian lattus as said by Andreasson Luca, but still function on Earth, as part of a multi real eithenic need, for multiethnic as well as races based here on Earth.

*Note, no time limit is given to the range of use of any said god here on Earth.
Creedo only described structured use of these known and apparently defined gods, not the action in their projected use and efficacies.

 

[RainmanTime]

o-o _I_ IoI

OK.

RMT

 

[zerubbabel]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

>>>>>Absolutely. It's not like I have prejudice against those who do have beliefs. That's 97.5% of the world. i'd be a pretty miserable guy if I were to dismiss anyone and everyone who fell outside of that 2.5%.>>>>>>

I assume you consider yourself part of the 2.5%?

>>>>>it seems that 30 or 40 years ago, people believed in the Bible in a much less literal way than they do these days. Many of the actual miracles that people hold stock by were believed in mainstream religious teachings to be allegorical.<<<<<

This is very shallow thinking. I KNOW many people who were even MORE literal than today--from 30 or 40 years ago. This was before you were even born so your theory holds no water.

>>>>>More so, in fact because in the 50s the governments were (wrongly) trusted by the people. It really took the assasination of Kennedy and the subsequent revelations about him, as well as the discovery that the government had lied about Vietnem to destroy the faith in our leaders that had been prevalent.<<<<<

Another example of shallow thinking. I was an ADULT during this time and you are simply wrong in your deduction.

>>>>>In the 60s, it was the importing to the US of British newspapers where the casualty figures listed were 10 times higer than the ones the US apapers were publishing, and the atrocities were worse.<<<<<

More shallow thinking. I was, again, watching this stuff every day and you are simply wrong again.

>>>>>So we have access to more information than before, but we don't trust those we elect (and the apathetic turn outs to vote reflect this), and we feel less safe than we ever have done. Is it any surprise that people are invoking higher powers and setting new rules by which to order their lives?<<<<<

Another blatant example of shallow thinking and self-serving. This clearly shows your "elite" position and "their" supposedly fear-based decisions. You cannot even conceive of the real reasons people turn to God. To you it's just an effect from some negative cause. Very shallow.

>>>>>I would expect most people to fall somewhere in between our viewpoints. I realsise that, despite CAT's claim to the contrary, my skeptisism of and disbelief in claims of the paranormal or the preternatural or the spiritual is highly unusual, and is not likely to win many converts. Similarly, Ray's claims and beliefs could also be somewhat accurately described as "fringe".<<<<<

Well, at least you admit to being "fringe". However, you certainly "seem" to be seeking converts. Change some of the vernacular and you would certainly sound like any modern-day evangelist. I don't hold much regard for most of these evangelists and their "tactics".

This is just a small example of what I consider to be shallow and self-serving thinking. Just because you READ somewhere some revisionist history and it fits into your worldview does NOT make it the truth. I find similar shallow thinking throughout all of your postings. I will not debate with you and your tactics. As far as I am concerned, I will ignore your postings from now on as superfluous and off-topic. I joined TTI to discuss timetravel and ALL avenues as to its makeup and design. I cannot see how atheism, nihilism or skepticism adds to this topic unless it is to debunk the concept of time travel. If this is your claim, then please do so. If not, then what IS your concept of time travel and what you would hope to achieve if it became possible. Perhaps it is time to put the God thread to bed. Nothing is really being accomplished and I noticed that when Rainman left for a short period and the debate waned, others started to post. Even Creedo resurrected some old threads to get something else going. Time travel is the passion here. Rainman has endlessly tried to relate some exotic ideas about the structure of the universe. I'm sure he doesn't try to convince his students in the classroom what he has been trying to convey to you--no more than I did when working with juveniles within the state system. However, the principles can be used with an amazing degree of success. Ninety-nine percent of my "students" never re-entered the system as opposed to the 60% that did in other programs. That doesn't mean that they all embraced God. They all became "human" in the way that Christ really taught. They learned that their point of view is not necessarily correct--even if it WAS correct. They learned to integrate to get along with others--including authority figures.

Again, I will not debate with you. Life is too short to waste time in banalities. If you cannot reach "down" to us, you cannot expect us to reach "up" to you. In any case, I am done with this thread. As I've mentioned before, you have "proved" or "disproved" nothing. What's the point if nothing has been gained. Entertainment? Hardly. Enlightenment? I don't think so. Just polarization--much like what is going on in the world. With that said, I bid you adieu. "As far as it is possible, be at peace with all men."

 

[trollface]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

Unless you want to claim that I really did get married to Holly Marie Combs in a weddingchapel on Mars?

I wish that I had.

Great music.

Thank you. Albums are available....

You weren't kidding when you said fusion

You've not heard the half of it. You should hear "Chumblefunk", which is breakbeat techno, heavy metal, jazz, funk and Latin American music melded into one.

zerubbable said:
I will not debate with you and your tactics.

Then don't. Stop assuming wrong things about me and drawing negative conclusions from them. Until you can actually base your psychobabble off something concrete and can draw some reasonable conclusions, just go away.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

What, do I have to recite the whole thing? Or could I maybe cut and paste it? You see, you have to remember that I'm coming from the position that there are no demons for me to summon or offend, so I'm disinclined to put too much effort into it. Depending on how I feel tomorrow, I might be bothered to cut and paste it and substitute the names in text, but to actually go through it all and say it all out loud? It just doesn't amuse me enough to be worth the effort.

BTW, what exactly did your cow-orker do to get her ankle snapped? Because we're supposed to be replicating that situation are we not? Did she recite the whole thing?

Actually, I would rather you didnt do any of it. I am not interested in having a demon make you suffer. Even if my point was proven to be valid, to do so at your expense isn't the way to make a point.


To address the rest of the points, I am getting tired of talking about all this. I think this has become counter productive to everyone at this point. It can't be helped that someone is going to feel like they are being personally attacked. Alot of effort seems to be going into making others look stupid or ignorant( on both sides). I dont believe this is what this forum is all about, nor are my beliefs founded on the pursuit of acheiving those types of goals.

I wrote this after my previous post in one of these God? threads ( I cant even keep track anymore ), but those are my sentiments at this point.

To discuss theories about time travelling and the essenses of creation is one thing, but to try and prove somebody wrong for their beliefs and that they are stupid/ignorant is another.

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Actually, I would rather you didnt do any of it. I am not interested in having a demon make you suffer. Even if my point was proven to be valid, to do so at your expense isn't the way to make a point.

And my point is that bad and good things happen no matter what. I am not about to start attributing the bad things in my life to the outside influence of malevolent spirits, just as I am not about to start attributing the positive aspects of my life to the outside influence of God or angels or anything of that ilk.

It, again, seems to be confirmation bias. Over the last two days I have had overwhelmingly positive experiences, including some of the best news I've had in years. Am I to discount this because it's not the work of Beleth, yet when something bad happens to me or someone I know I am to assume that it's his work?

To address the rest of the points, I am getting tired of talking about all this.

That's fair enough, but it's a shame. You're the person I've enjoyed talking to the most on this subject as, although we disagree, you are open-minded and receptive and provide thoughtful and intelligent counter-arguments to my points. I hope you'll reconsider, but ultimately you've got to do what you've got to do, and I can respect that.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

That's fair enough, but it's a shame. You're the person I've enjoyed talking to the most on this subject as, although we disagree, you are open-minded and receptive and provide thoughtful and intelligent counter-arguments to my points. I hope you'll reconsider, but ultimately you've got to do what you've got to do, and I can respect that.

I dont mind debating, but not to the point I am encouraging you to summon demons. If nothing happens, than I would be relieved. But if something did happen,it would be a hollow victory to be able to say.."I told you so!"

Also I will still debate with you. The points I will debate will be on the contents of texts and theory, and I wish to do so as equals pursuing truth together as brothers. I am not going to try and establish God's existence for you by demeaning your belief system, and I am not going to shift my view that He does exist.

I found myself preparing to act in a manner that is against what my beliefs are built upon. I was looking for a way to elevate myself above you, to be superior by your defeat. My foundations of spirituality were not constructed for that purpose.

I actually asked you to summon a demon. It is just plain irresponsible of me to do that, regardless of your belief in them or not. I do not want any harm to befall you, demon or otherwise.

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

But if something did happen,it would be a hollow victory to be able to say.."I told you so!"

My point is that something will happen, regardless. Ultimately at some point, I am going to end up dead. Rest assured that this won't be your fault, though.

Even if we assume that this Demon does exist and now wishes me harm, in no way did you make me do anything. I am old enough and ugly enoguh to take responsibility for my own actions.

The points I will debate will be on the contents of texts and theory, and I wish to do so as equals pursuing truth together as brothers.

Okay, that sounds like a plan.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It

Pardon me? Which question have I failed to answer? I thought I was clear on that. My believes are that the universe have not been purposefully created.

You have avoided discussions of probabilities associated with your beliefs. That is what got us where we are now. It is often said "science is done with numbers". If you wish to be scientific about exploring the possibility (or impossibility) of God's existence, you cannot ignore probabilities and statistics. Anything less and I could simply call the foundations of your beliefs in the non-existence of God "totally illogical and not at all based in science." Got it?

I can not relate to the things you are saying and they are definitely not scientific proof.

And yet they have a MUCH more solid foundation of science than anything you have offered on the opposing view. Sure, you can always say "I can't prove a negative", and yet you never extend yourself to provide scientific explanations for your views. You can do so right now by discussing what is more probable than not.

On what, other than your own perception, are you basing these calculations? Or do I just go ahead and take your word for it?

On the basis of entropy, energy, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, when applied to complex systems. I've explained it all before, but I guess, as you have admitted, you are not very knowledgeable in these topics. Open loop processes follow a path of increasing entropy, which means less and less organization, which means lower complexity. Greater organization, increased complexity, and decreasing entropy can only be achieved through closed-loop processes. And a closed-loop process is a mark of self-awareness. Indeed, any closed-loop system, being self-referenced, has a measure of self-awareness. The system is aware of its goals, and it knows the states of (has information on) the external environment it is seeking to affect.

Bullocks, you're comparing two completely different things.

And so are you telling me we should apply two DIFFERENT forms of statistical analysis and probability theory to them, just because they are different? That would not be scientific, now would it?

First of all, the fact that I trust my senses more when I'm awake is only logical.

I don't disagree. I only seek to clarify that what you are talking about is LINEAR logic. Did you know that non-linear phenomenon actually have a higher information content than linear ones? You can extract more knowledge from non-linear phenomenon than you can from "normative" phenomenon.

...is not a relevant question. Until you tell me where you based these calculations on, I can only disagree with your findings.

1) It is relevant, for you have described how you rely on "normative" logic to determine your beliefs. The mathematics of normal distributions deals with probability.
2) I explained it to you. See above.

Ah, so you decided if this stuff is good enough for engineering systems, it will fit nicely into a discussion about religion?

Ah, well, yes... you DO know that my mission in this incarnation is to reconcile science and spirituality. (Now I am beginning to get insulted that you keep bringing up religion. I have told you before the difference between the two.) I've asked before: If I cannot use science and engineering to show the evidence for a Creator, how, precisely, am I supposed to go about it?

Again, please tell me how you came to the conclusion that the probability that the universe came about by accident is "pretty much" in 3-sigma?

Again, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when applied to complex systems. "There is no free lunch" or "Organization just doesn't happen on its own."

I'm sorry but you lost me here. What are you trying to say?

If man can create a self-aware being, which, like us, could think, act, and reproduce, then in doing so we validate that it is much more "normal" to believe our highly complex universe (which is also self-aware) came about as a direct act of creation.

Let me say first that what we were talking about - selfaware robots - is just a theory.

It would be a bit more than a theory if one were actually created, wouldn't it?

Also, in my opinion these robots would be able to see and touch us. So if the probability that we were created lies in the believable range of probability then so does the fact that we would be able to see and touch our creator.

Not a linear logical imperative. We (actually NASA) are already planning on sending self-aware robots on long duration exploration missions. They will obviously not be able to see or touch us. So your argument does not stand. Furthermore, when one studies AI techniques for creating self-awareness, one can see reasons why we would NOT want our creations to have detailed knowledge about us, their creators. The reason being is that, since it is self-aware, if it knows who/what we are, it WILL seek us out...rather than perform its mission to gather data and report back to us via broadcast communication.

In fact, this issue you have touched off, Roel, is actually getting close to the root of the matter for why God is not readily apparant to us. We are all on missions. And the exact things you disbelieve as being "non-normative" are the means by which "mission control" sends commands to us and receives data from us. It is all spelled-out by the 3x3 Matrix of Non-Physical Mind (a complement to the 3x3 Matrix of Massive Spacetime), which we have yet to discuss.

I'm really looking forward to hearing your story about tornadoes and hurricanes and why we should believe that it is actually "the earth being self-aware".

They are the energetic means by which the earth renews itself. The earth is a closed-loop system, and it takes actions to keep itself in balance and "on track" to reach its goals. The earth "knows" it cannot reach out to the rest of the universe without us. Our human desire to explore ever larger boundaries (outward spiral, anyone?) will be the precise means that will permit the earth to begin to stretch out, and form networks with other living planets.

I do not think non-linear logic renders any other type of logic obsolete.

I never said it did. But when you look at linearity as a mere subset of a much more rich tapestry of non-linear phenomenon, you can't deny the fact that linear logic can lead to false "truths" because it does not take into consideration non-linear effects. Linear logic is based solely on what we perceive, and we have both agreed in the past that what we perceive is far from "the whole story".

If I left something out you are free to correct me

Well, you've left a helluva lot out...in fact, most of the evidence I have provided in this long thread. You could start by adding back in what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us about entropy. And then add in information theory, and how information is the element used to transition from open loops to closed loops. And then add in your own statement, which I agree with, that said "in order to create you need to be self-aware". Add to the mix that a closed-loop system forms a continuous loop of creation, that is self-referent (self-aware, to one extent or another), and top it all off with the tidbits of chaos theory and fractals, which explain to us how we live in a predominantly non-linear universe.

we are constructed in a way that allows us to be selfaware, ie. we have a central nervous system. Not all things that consist of energy have the same properties.

So far as you are aware. Again I point to the general topological structure of the central nervous system (and any form of intelligent self-awareness): the network. Have you ever looked at the structures and phenomena of the universe to see if they DO have the same sorts of properties? For instance, electrical impulses within a chemically-based substrate are the mechanism for information exchange within our own central nervous system. Seeing that mankind has yet to provide a good explanation (and/or reason) for both gravity and magnetism, do you see the distinct possibility that these two phenomenon form a means for information exchange within the universe? I'll tell you what I do know about gravity and magnetism: They are the effects of an interdimensional phenomenon that we perceive in our 3x3 Matrix of Massive SpaceTime. We see only these effects, and not their purpose in linking the dimensions. We do not see the information they carry, we only see their result on matter in our dimension.

What, do you want me to express "highly unlikely" in numbers?

If you wish to be scientific about it, yes.

My opinion is based on my own experiences, just like you base your believes on yours.

And you are content that you cannot provide scientific evidence that backs-up your belief? Ok, then. As long as we are both in agreement that I am using science to describe the evidence for my beliefs, and you are not. Works for me.

And you are using your broad human imagination to believe that the earth (or energy for that matter) is selfaware.

Yep...and proud of it. It puts me in the league of great scientists who knew that the only way we could advance our knowledge is by taking broader and broader views of how things integrate in our universe. Maxwell would not have quantified the laws of electromagnetism if he did not think beyond what he could perceive. This type of "outside the box" thinking is what leads to those big "A HAs!" that move us forward.

Show me how you apply non-linear logic to look deeper.

Did you not read the website I offered? If you don't like that, then I would again refer you to the mathematics of fractals and chaos theory. These maths, used in analytical ways, are non-linear tools that help us probe the depths of reality... to uncover relationships between things that we previously referred to as "second order effects". It is becoming clear, as we study highly non-linear phenomenon, that those "second order effects" are really the driving forces, and what we see as linear observations are simply the byproducts (and the linear effects are also big time energy wasters, as well!). Did it ever seem absurd to you that our electronics waste so much energy in the form of the heat they give off? That is precisely because all of our electronics have been designed to "linearize" their effects. If we started to develop designs that leveraged the inherent non-linearity of nature, there would be a lot less energy wasted as heat!

The fact that you can control what you dream, proves that it's not a reliable reproduction of reality.

It proves nothing of the sort. All this belief of yours "proves" is that you still maintain that "reality" is defined by what your senses perceive. It "proves" that you are content living in the 2% universe... while some of us have tasted the full-cream, whole milk universe and are already using it to make some of the best butter ever! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT