The GOD Thread~

[Evee]

Beautiful. We both walk in two worlds.

Nights and Days.

 

[Coriolis]

There are many instances in which ID breaks down, including flaws and redundancies. What has been observed in nature is mutation which rither grants a survival penalty, a survival advantage, or does not give an advantage. Those mutations which provide an advantage will permeate the population and slowly build on each other. Some genes will make some creatures unable to breed with some other creatures, but eligible to breed with some other creatures. The species will begin to split. If one species is wildly successful, it may push another species to extinction.

A significant problem of intelligent design is that no one can explain exactly how it works, at least not without invoking a supreme being who just "does things". It has not been demonstrated to have any predictive value, and is not falsifiable. This makes it as valid as any other religious theory (i.e. belief), but not valid as a scientific hypothesis.

Natural selection is a form of intelligence if one considers that order is intelligent by its very nature, meaning that order implies a pattern, and any pattern or system is clearly derived from another system, and so on, on to infinity.

But chaos is actually a euphemism for limitation, or the opposite ofa euphemism which I can't remember right now, but basically there is no such thing as chaos outside of our humanity. Chaos is the limitation of our ability to perceive order which is always there by induction since we have continuously discovered order behind every assumed chaotic event. In other words chaos is even intelligent.

I disagree that order is intelligent by nature, or that there is no chaos outside humanity. Just consider the weather as an example of chaos.

I think what I'm thinking of is more of my own self derived view of intelligent design. I've heard of Thomas Aquinas arguing on behalf of his own views, but mine come from the experience of noticing patterns which seem to be constructions. I would ask what your spiritual, personal, outlook is but that might be somewhat rude so forgive me if it is. Thank you.

I find it hard to maintain any spiritual beliefs that are inconsistent with scientific understanding of the world. I do have beliefs which (by definition) cannot be proven, but should they ever be disproven, I would need to reconsider them. My view of God, or the creator, is of a being who not so much does as simply is. He/she does not make things, or deliberately guide or intervene in the development of things and events, but his/her very being is necessary for everything that exists to exist. If this being stopped existing, so would everything else. I suppose this thought is related to pantheism on some level, in seeing God in everything, but God is more than the sum total of everything. There is more than the physical world, and human/animal consciousness.

This probably sounds vague. I can "see" it much better than I can explain it. Feel free to ask if you have more specific questions.

 

[Mole]

Psychology and Superstition

Natural selection is a form of intelligence if one considers that order is intelligent by its very nature, meaning that order implies a pattern, and any pattern or system is clearly derived from another system, and so on, on to infinity.

But chaos is actually a euphemism for limitation, or the opposite ofa euphemism which I can't remember right now, but basically there is no such thing as chaos outside of our humanity. Chaos is the limitation of our ability to perceive order which is always there by induction since we have continuously discovered order behind every assumed chaotic event. In other words chaos is even intelligent.

As for the common argument of intelligent design - I Don't know it...this is my own idea.

These are very nice sentiments but how do they square with reality?

For instance, as far as we know, intelligence is limited to the frontal cortex of homo sapiens. So no frontal cortex, no intelligence.

Of course we project our intelligence onto animals and inanimate objects. This is a very old religion called Animism.

If Animism was real rather than imaginary, science would be impossible. But look around you and see that science permeates every part of our life.

In the Western Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries superstition, including Animism, was replaced by evidence and reason.

So an interesting psychological question is why is superstition popular on this site, from astrology, to Animism, to mbti?

 

[GarrotTheThief]

These are very nice sentiments but how do they square with reality?

For instance, as far as we know, intelligence is limited to the frontal cortex of homo sapiens. So no frontal cortex, no intelligence.

Of course we project our intelligence onto animals and inanimate objects. This is a very old religion called Animism.

If Animism was real rather than imaginary, science would be impossible. But look around you and see that science permeates every part of our life.

In the Western Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries superstition, including Animism, was replaced by evidence and reason.

So an interesting psychological question is why is superstition popular on this site, from astrology, to Animism, to mbti?

Thank you!

Well can't argue with that except to ask what if people didn't engage in animism and astrology. Would we still have evolved the way we did considering that we did things like animism for 1000's of years? Would that single variable alter the entire system of evolution by chaos theory and cause us to actually be less intelligent? If so, if that question can be answered with certainty then we can determine more about this matter...otherwise...there's no way I could even argue.
[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

thanks, I certainly will. Appreciate it. I just watched a video by Dr. Mike on how primary intuitive see and receive more than they could explain so I understand what you mean by not being able to verbalize it. It's because your antenna receives just way too much.

But one thing I might say about intelligence is do you think it could be something separate from us? Archetypal perhaps that could manifest in anything given the right conditions or do you think it's intrinsic to the humanoid.

Note: I'm not trying to argue at all really. I'm just trying to probe your minds and see what you both think regarding intelligence being intrinsic to us because you both seem like you work in the field of science. I was good at science in high-school (my best subject) but I didn't keep up with it so I can only speak with my knowledge of math up to stats, calculus, etc.

 

[Coriolis]

But one thing I might say about intelligence is do you think it could be something separate from us? Archetypal perhaps that could manifest in anything given the right conditions or do you think it's intrinsic to the humanoid.

I do not think intelligence is intrinsic to humanoids. Animals have intelligence. Anyone with a dog can tell you that. They don't have the same intelligence as a human, but then dogs are not human. Intelligence is not monolithic, meaning exactly the same wherever it is found. I have read the same about emotion.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I do not think intelligence is intrinsic to humanoids. Animals have intelligence. Anyone with a dog can tell you that. They don't have the same intelligence as a human, but then dogs are not human. Intelligence is not monolithic, meaning exactly the same wherever it is found. I have read the same about emotion.

Last question in case you're busy, I don't want to be a pest.

But do you think that as the brain evolves in becomes some sort of antenna that picks up ideas from an abstract realm? I know many of the old alchemists who are actually considered the founders of science had such notions and it seems true. For example, a perfect circle must exist as an idea right? We use it to perform calculations and operations but I was always amazed in science class when the teacher repeatedly told us there was no such thing as a perfect circle in a "physical reality." I couldn't get my head around it at the time, I was mostly TE, but as my NI started forming I noticed that maybe, somewhere enmeshed between the space of our atoms, is a thought space which flows like a stream, and the brain, as it evolves, reaches in for ideas.

I'm not the best with metaphors and analogies but that's the best I could do.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Last question in case you're busy, I don't want to be a pest.

But do you think that as the brain evolves in becomes some sort of antenna that picks up ideas from an abstract realm? I know many of the old alchemists who are actually considered the founders of science had such notions and it seems true. For example, a perfect circle must exist as an idea right? We use it to perform calculations and operations but I was always amazed in science class when the teacher repeatedly told us there was no such thing as a perfect circle in a "physical reality." I couldn't get my head around it at the time, I was mostly TE, but as my NI started forming I noticed that maybe, somewhere enmeshed between the space of our atoms, is a thought space which flows like a stream, and the brain, as it evolves, reaches in for ideas.

I'm not the best with metaphors and analogies but that's the best I could do.

Asymptotes bro, asymptotes.

 

[Mole]

Last question in case you're busy, I don't want to be a pest.

But do you think that as the brain evolves in becomes some sort of antenna that picks up ideas from an abstract realm? I know many of the old alchemists who are actually considered the founders of science had such notions and it seems true. For example, a perfect circle must exist as an idea right? We use it to perform calculations and operations but I was always amazed in science class when the teacher repeatedly told us there was no such thing as a perfect circle in a "physical reality." I couldn't get my head around it at the time, I was mostly TE, but as my NI started forming I noticed that maybe, somewhere enmeshed between the space of our atoms, is a thought space which flows like a stream, and the brain, as it evolves, reaches in for ideas.

I'm not the best with metaphors and analogies but that's the best I could do.

During the Western Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries we replaced the superstition of Alchemy with Chemistry based on evidence and reason. And we replaced the superstition of Astrology with Astronomy based on evidence and reason. And we replaced the superstition of Creationism with Natural Selection based on evidence and reason. And although we would never guess on this site, the superstition of mbti has been replaced by Psychometrics based on evidence and reason.

What needs explaining is why superstition retains such a hold on us.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

During the Western Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries we replaced the superstition of Alchemy with Chemistry based on evidence and reason. And we replaced the superstition of Astrology with Astronomy based on evidence and reason. And we replaced the superstition of Creationism with Natural Selection based on evidence and reason. And although we would never guess on this site, the superstition of mbti has been replaced by Psychometrics based on evidence and reason.

What needs explaining is why superstition retains such a hold on us.

Good points. Do you think, though, that maybe any belief we have will always have a superstitious component that is simply reduced towards 0 over time but never fully eliminated? Do you think maybe this superstition gives the superstitious person an emotional charge which catalyzes progress? Did alchemy, for instance, speed up the development of science? It was the crystalis of the scientific method.

For example, sometimes when I'm running I imagine that I'm a bushman hunting evil demon spirits. This gives me a sort of charge and then I run better. Or when I listen to music and day dream while I do a task, it makes it better for me. I know it's not real, but some beliefs I have, faith based, may be considered superstitious and I know this yet still believing in them causes a chemical change in me that catalyzes my achievement towards goals.

I'm rambling but trying to make a point I guess.

 

[Avocado]

Last question in case you're busy, I don't want to be a pest.

But do you think that as the brain evolves in becomes some sort of antenna that picks up ideas from an abstract realm? I know many of the old alchemists who are actually considered the founders of science had such notions and it seems true. For example, a perfect circle must exist as an idea right? We use it to perform calculations and operations but I was always amazed in science class when the teacher repeatedly told us there was no such thing as a perfect circle in a "physical reality." I couldn't get my head around it at the time, I was mostly TE, but as my NI started forming I noticed that maybe, somewhere enmeshed between the space of our atoms, is a thought space which flows like a stream, and the brain, as it evolves, reaches in for ideas.

I'm not the best with metaphors and analogies but that's the best I could do.

The realm of perfect forms originated with Socrates.
I believe it exists as poetry, only.

 

[Avocado]

During the Western Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries we replaced the superstition of Alchemy with Chemistry based on evidence and reason. And we replaced the superstition of Astrology with Astronomy based on evidence and reason. And we replaced the superstition of Creationism with Natural Selection based on evidence and reason. And although we would never guess on this site, the superstition of mbti has been replaced by Psychometrics based on evidence and reason.

What needs explaining is why superstition retains such a hold on us.

Pschometrics. I will look into that.

 

[Avocado]

Good points. Do you think, though, that maybe any belief we have will always have a superstitious component that is simply reduced towards 0 over time but never fully eliminated? Do you think maybe this superstition gives the superstitious person an emotional charge which catalyzes progress? Did alchemy, for instance, speed up the development of science? It was the crystalis of the scientific method.

For example, sometimes when I'm running I imagine that I'm a bushman hunting evil demon spirits. This gives me a sort of charge and then I run better. Or when I listen to music and day dream while I do a task, it makes it better for me. I know it's not real, but some beliefs I have, faith based, may be considered superstitious and I know this yet still believing in them causes a chemical change in me that catalyzes my achievement towards goals.

I'm rambling but trying to make a point I guess.

Interesting.

 

[Mole]

Play and the Scientific Method

Good points. Do you think, though, that maybe any belief we have will always have a superstitious component that is simply reduced towards 0 over time but never fully eliminated? Do you think maybe this superstition gives the superstitious person an emotional charge which catalyzes progress? Did alchemy, for instance, speed up the development of science? It was the crystalis of the scientific method.

For example, sometimes when I'm running I imagine that I'm a bushman hunting evil demon spirits. This gives me a sort of charge and then I run better. Or when I listen to music and day dream while I do a task, it makes it better for me. I know it's not real, but some beliefs I have, faith based, may be considered superstitious and I know this yet still believing in them causes a chemical change in me that catalyzes my achievement towards goals.

I'm rambling but trying to make a point I guess.

Of course you are right and have made a very interesting point in that we respond to our imagination in a similar way as we respond to reality. Responding to our imagination we have the same physical changes we get as when we respond to reality.

We can use this remarkable power of our imagination to rehearse events before they happen. We can use our imagination to plan. Or we can use our imagination for its own sake and create art or religion. We can use our imagination to console us for the hurts reality inflicts.

But it is important to remember that the work of children is play. And the purpose of play is to learn the distinction between imagination and reality. As grownups we have formalised the distinction between imagination and reality into the scientific method.

So in a very real sense the scientific method arises from the play of children.

 

[Coriolis]

But do you think that as the brain evolves in becomes some sort of antenna that picks up ideas from an abstract realm? I know many of the old alchemists who are actually considered the founders of science had such notions and it seems true. For example, a perfect circle must exist as an idea right? We use it to perform calculations and operations but I was always amazed in science class when the teacher repeatedly told us there was no such thing as a perfect circle in a "physical reality." I couldn't get my head around it at the time, I was mostly TE, but as my NI started forming I noticed that maybe, somewhere enmeshed between the space of our atoms, is a thought space which flows like a stream, and the brain, as it evolves, reaches in for ideas.

I have seen the capacity for abstract thought and even some level of self-awareness identified as features that distinguish human cognition from that of (other) animals. I don't know enough about human or animal physiology or psychology to comment on this from a scientific perspective. The way you write "picks up ideas from an abstract realm" suggests that when we do perceive abstract ideas, we are getting them from somewhere "out there", that is, external to us. Us as in individual? Us as the human collective? Again, beyond my knowledge base. The alternative is that some of them come from within. I believe this is the case, at least to some extent, though everything within is doubtless influenced by our external interactions, indeed the sum total of our experience.

Good points. Do you think, though, that maybe any belief we have will always have a superstitious component that is simply reduced towards 0 over time but never fully eliminated? Do you think maybe this superstition gives the superstitious person an emotional charge which catalyzes progress? Did alchemy, for instance, speed up the development of science? It was the crystalis of the scientific method.

I do not equate belief with superstition. Superstition seems more like implying a causality with no basis in fact, as in the broken mirror that heralds 7 years of bad luck. Beliefs to me inform understanding without dictating action. They say more about what things are than how things work. Of course we act based on what we understand, but this understanding (ideally) includes more than our beliefs, with the other components serving as a reality or cross-check.

But it is important to remember that the work of children is play. And the purpose of play is to learn the distinction between imagination and reality. As grownups we have formalised the distinction between imagination and reality into the scientific method.

So in a very real sense the scientific method arises from the play of children.

Scientific curiosity is inherent in children. Unfortunately modern society, or at least modern education, tries to drum this out of them, to our collective detriment.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I have seen the capacity for abstract thought and even some level of self-awareness identified as features that distinguish human cognition from that of (other) animals. I don't know enough about human or animal physiology or psychology to comment on this from a scientific perspective. The way you write "picks up ideas from an abstract realm" suggests that when we do perceive abstract ideas, we are getting them from somewhere "out there", that is, external to us. Us as in individual? Us as the human collective? Again, beyond my knowledge base. The alternative is that some of them come from within. I believe this is the case, at least to some extent, though everything within is doubtless influenced by our external interactions, indeed the sum total of our experience.


I do not equate belief with superstition. Superstition seems more like implying a causality with no basis in fact, as in the broken mirror that heralds 7 years of bad luck. Beliefs to me inform understanding without dictating action. They say more about what things are than how things work. Of course we act based on what we understand, but this understanding (ideally) includes more than our beliefs, with the other components serving as a reality or cross-check.

Here's the weird thing though about this - outside vs. inside, external vs. internal.

The way I used to think was that everything was outside and what was inside was just some vague impression. I had moods but I always relied on stimulation to get me out of a bad mood.

But then, the inside, or internal space of my state began to manifest and I started researching how thoughts affect our bodies. Then I started wondering what are thoughts, what is conciousness, what is awareness, what is attention. I thougth they were all the same thing, but as time went by I began differentiating them which is hard for me. As you noted, I pretty much have this extroverted way of thinking where I may lump too many things in one category unless I have some experience with it (SE). But my TI is starting to come out more.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that when I started reading about fields, and understanding how laws are changed according to different scales, I got to wondering about size, inside, outside, etc.

It seems to me that something can get so small, like a quantum, that it could occupy two spaces or travel faster than the speed of light or back in time without violating causality - from what I've read, but you would know more than me so it's why I'm bringing this up, and again feel no need to respond right away, I'm just studying so talking about this is more fun - lol.

But back on the point...so if these really small things can do things that really big things can't do, and they are considered parts of these big things, well I got to thinking one day, what if big things, like the sun, for example, were actually parts of smaller things, like electrons, from a different level of observation, whereby things are inverted.

I never really used to think like his, but I've experienced precognitive dreams and it really got under my skin. It started when I was writing down my dreams in order to get in touch with my anima, and my shadow, working on my active imagination.

I would see these people in my dreams, hear their voices, and I thought my mind made them up and they were subjective figures but then come a few years later, I would meet them in real life and at first didn't notice them.

For example, I once met a guy in my dreams who got out of prison and was wearing a 1993 bulls jacket - fall style without down inside. I wrote that down. Then two years later, I was walking down the street and asked to bum a square and I was talking with the same dude in my dream. He was wearing the same jacket, he had the same face, and he had the same voice, and the conversation was about prisons and how petty thievery lands in you the slammer for way too long.

Same conversation as in the dream: the only difference is that in the dream we were looking at the prison where as in real life, we were just walking down the street and hanging out during a street fair. In that same dream, right before, I was with a girl, dating her, and she turned into a witch in a tower.

That same night, right before I met that guy, I left my ex-girlfriends apartment, called, "The towers," on the lake after she told me she was a witch.

Kind of strange right? This is just one of many dreams that I have where I see people that were in my dream years later.

I don't know...it freaks me out and it makes wonder what is really the past and future, and what is really inside or outside of things.

Again, this is not how I was raised, or how I used to think...I'm very TE and NI and SE based...but these experiences cause me to think differently.

For example, sometimes I think that there are other dimensions: WE HAVE X, Y, Z, and T...T is time....but there are other ones too based on string theory, up to 11. I won't pretend to understand because I don't have the ability to learn science on that level but I imagine it a lot and I meditate on it and I get some strange notions that I like sharing and passing forth, especially to someone well versed in physics. You never know, it might give you an idea!:hi:

 

[PocketFullOf]

Well, if any conclusion can be made from the contents of this thread its who belongs on my ignore list, so thanks.

 

[JAVO]

Well, if any conclusion can be made from the contents of this thread its who belongs on my ignore list, so thanks.

God?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Newest Thought:

God reveals Himself in a drop of water which reflects. http://leadchangegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Fotolia_29467504_XS-300x199.jpg

The circle represents His ultimate infinity and intelligence. That must be why the circle code is embedded so often in the Bible, for those with eyes to see.

He is also in a single cell. I believe this is why we are 'made in His image', along with that we share His heart and the stuff of His soul.

He also reveals Himself in scripture. But the beautiful part is that you only need to read the part intended for you to know He is real. This part can only be revealed to you by Him. So each part of the Bible is intended for individuals. Genesis speaks to me. Psalms speaks to others. And Revelation is more someone else's style.

But He reveals His entirety in the smallest piece of something, which is the ultimate irony, because He is also the totality of the universe. Only a God could do this: Exist in an atom (or what is smaller? antimatter?), but also the universe; always and everywhere.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Oh My Goodness.


I just realized for sure that YHWH (Yahweh) in the Bible is Jesus.

I also see clearly all the allusions to Jesus (as Son, or BYN in Hebrew, meaning My Son) that I never knew were there. I have heard preachers speak of all the allusions but have never really found them (except in the obvious texts like Isaiah or some Psalms, etc). But it is ALL OVER the very beginning of the Bible; the references and allusions to God's Son being the sign of the covenant between ALHYM (Creator God) and man.

Just translated the part about the rainbow covenant. But instead of the 'rain' part, it says every time there is a 'glistening light' in the bow in the cloud, it is a sign of the covenant between ALHYM and His Son and all flesh, including animals. This reminds me of the Ascension of Christ in the cloud. I believe the rainbow covenant was a foreshadowing of the Ascension and redemption of Christ as the final covenant between ALHYM and all flesh.

Anyone who says animals do not go to heaven would be negating what it clearly says in Genesis Chapters 8 and 9.


But. Even before God sent the man who is Jesus, YHWH already functioned as our Messiah. It's just that He was in Holy Spirit form. For some reason, God decided man needed a clear-cut God-man to wake man up from his reverie, so that man would really KNOW YHWH. God keeps trying to help us out and make it obvious. It is insane how much man still denies the existence of God.

 

[Nicodemus]

God keeps trying to help us out and make it obvious. It is insane how much man still denies the existence of God.

The best an almighty god could manage in terms of self-revelation is a number of opaque allusions in texts composed thousands of years ago. Insane indeed.