Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Philosophy & Rhetoric General Discussion => Topic started by: Baruch on April 13, 2017, 10:34:06 PM

Title: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 13, 2017, 10:34:06 PM
http://philosopher.io/Atheism-Fundamentalism-Paul-Tillich-s-God-Part-1

http://philosopher.io/Atheism-Fundamentalism-Paul-Tillich-s-God-Part-2

Based on an comparison of the 60s theologian, Tillich vs the New Atheists.  I found a typo in the second part ... I am so sharp ;-)

Or to make it even shorter, in my own choice of words .. each human being is an incarnate multiverse ... aka demigod.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 04:06:52 AM
Interesting ideas. Makes me wonder if being is quantatative. As in can ones quantity of presence increase and decrease? What about intergrity of being vs flakyness? Looking at the atomic matter that makes up the space of my body, it's 99.999999....% not being there, only tiny amounts of actual stuffness fly around in vast nested probability fields. I would imagine absolute being as all of that space occupied by stuffness.

Like the alleged singularity before spacial inflation, that would be absolute being.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 14, 2017, 07:19:19 AM
Interesting ideas. Makes me wonder if being is quantatative. As in can ones quantity of presence increase and decrease? What about intergrity of being vs flakyness? Looking at the atomic matter that makes up the space of my body, it's 99.999999....% not being there, only tiny amounts of actual stuffness fly around in vast nested probability fields. I would imagine absolute being as all of that space occupied by stuffness.

Like the alleged singularity before spacial inflation, that would be absolute being.

You have intuition.  Can you predict stock prices too?  Here is a useful metaphor, but it plays to the usual mistakes ... the absent G-d.  In eyesight, we have the figure/ground problem.  Show someone one of these made up scenes, and usually their visual habit only lets them see the figure, not the ground.  So why yes, think of the tiny bits of matter as temporality/actuality and the vast space/time in between as eternity/potentiality ... and you would be pretty close to a physical metaphor for the metaphysics that is going on.  Unfortunately reality doesn't have integrity ... proof? ... politicians exist.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 04:34:54 PM
You have intuition.  Can you predict stock prices too?  Here is a useful metaphor, but it plays to the usual mistakes ... the absent G-d.  In eyesight, we have the figure/ground problem.  Show someone one of these made up scenes, and usually their visual habit only lets them see the figure, not the ground.  So why yes, think of the tiny bits of matter as temporality/actuality and the vast space/time in between as eternity/potentiality ... and you would be pretty close to a physical metaphor for the metaphysics that is going on.  Unfortunately reality doesn't have integrity ... proof? ... politicians exist.
I rarely focus on societal scale information, too small, shifty and highly temporal...here one day, gone before the end of it. As if it was never there.

I would argue reality is highly integral or else math would not be so reliably predictive of physical phenomenon. Politicians don't have integrity because they are not real ;)

As the the invisibility of the rest of reality, that's an easy one; of the total electromagnetic spectrum our eyes registers only about .0035% But I'm not looking for God in all this creation...I'm discerning a finger print/signature....
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 12:16:45 AM
This is why politicians can't make budgets.  Arithmetic requires integrity, and accounting requires arithmetic.  QED ... there are no good Congressional budgets.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 12:19:44 AM
I love accounting! Especially for the quark spin relationships in protons and neutrons.

 Second only to accounting for the dark energy expensive constant and dark matter ratio to regular matter in each universe.

A good Logos is a comprehensive and predictively accurate Logos ;-)
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 12:31:06 AM
I love accounting! Especially for the quark spin relationships in protons and neutrons.

 Second only to accounting for the dark energy expensive constant and dark matter ratio to regular matter in each universe.

A good Logos is a comprehensive and predictively accurate Logos ;-)

Don't tell the folks who think that the hidden hand of capitalism will always guarantee abundant and cheap energy sources.  Accounting fraud that.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 12:34:45 AM
Don't tell the folks who think that the hidden hand of capitalism will always guarantee abundant and cheap energy sources.  Accounting fraud that.
Would a quantum implosion free energy device help?  *hiding* wtf am I thinking, there's no hiding on the internets...
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 12:44:40 AM
Would a quantum implosion free energy device help?  *hiding* wtf am I thinking, there's no hiding on the internets...

Well I haven't seen any fake studies by fraudsters, of employing quantum entanglement and the Higgs boson field, to produce Cold Fusion (tm) ... but it should be coming along any day now.  Remember, technology will save you from all the distraction and detritus that technology generates (cough, cough).
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Mike Cl on April 15, 2017, 09:11:41 AM
I rarely focus on societal scale information, too small, shifty and highly temporal...here one day, gone before the end of it. As if it was never there.

I would argue reality is highly integral or else math would not be so reliably predictive of physical phenomenon.

I find it interesting that both you and I view the same universe, yet come to almost opposite conclusions.  You view it as part of the totality of god and I view it as absolute proof there is no god.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 10:04:20 AM
I find it interesting that both you and I view the same universe, yet come to almost opposite conclusions.  You view it as part of the totality of god and I view it as absolute proof there is no god.

There is sensation and there is perception.  But measurement requires some conceptualization ... there are no truly raw measurements.  It is primarily the perception that differs from person to person, and the more abstract the concept, the greater the deviation from person to person ... naturally.  You still hold to the shibboleth of objectivity ... a habit I have managed to break only recently.  But many years ago, I had started with the Objectivism of Ayn Rand.  That took a lot of electroshock therapy to get over from ;-))  So I differ from both you and Ananta.  Ananta hasn't yet realized that Pythagoras was Jim Jones.  Don't drink the retsina!
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 02:35:26 PM
I find it interesting that both you and I view the same universe, yet come to almost opposite conclusions.  You view it as part of the totality of god and I view it as absolute proof there is no god.
I "look" at a lot of things hidden from direct view...like poly-galactic distribution, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the whir of quarks and virtual particles in atom nuclei, and the structural arrangement of DNA. Also helps to be familiar with the standard model of particle generation to know what else this universe is capable of supporting.

When looking for the signature of God, it helps to compare patterns vertically through the scales.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 03:44:57 PM
I "look" at a lot of things hidden from direct view...like poly-galactic distribution, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the whir of quarks and virtual particles in atom nuclei, and the structural arrangement of DNA. Also helps to be familiar with the standard model of particle generation to know what else this universe is capable of supporting.

When looking for the signature of God, it helps to compare patterns vertically through the scales.

"through the scales" ... yes, the real harmony of the spheres ;-)
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 05:42:16 PM
"through the scales" ... yes, the real harmony of the spheres ;-)
Once you get out of the belly of the leviathan, things get much easier.  It's a big fish, gotta spear it! ;)

The harmony of the spheres I discern flow between the infinite spherical universes in a metaversal stack. It stretches forever horizontally, and is finite vertically.  The same pattern of flows exist around each universe. Geometric fine-tuning.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Mike Cl on April 16, 2017, 12:10:45 AM
I "look" at a lot of things hidden from direct view...like poly-galactic distribution, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the whir of quarks and virtual particles in atom nuclei, and the structural arrangement of DNA. Also helps to be familiar with the standard model of particle generation to know what else this universe is capable of supporting.

When looking for the signature of God, it helps to compare patterns vertically through the scales.
God is a fiction.  So, you then are combing through the various authors of these works of fiction looking for a signature of a fictional character?  That is like looking for the signature of Bugs Bunny.  Neither astronomy nor physics lead me to think there is a god. 
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Shiranu on April 16, 2017, 04:20:15 AM
If I read through the fancy words correctly, you are simply saying that the repetition of certain patterns at multiple scales is a possible sign of a shared designer? But isn't it simply more logical and rational to view that as an effect of set rules rather than being a cosmic signature motif of one artist?

Even if you want to look at it in a purely aesthetic sense, isn't the act of art creating art infinitely more romantic than an artist doing it? It seems to take away the beauty of the universe to say it was designed, rather than it designed. Therefore it is neither logically or emotionally the best position to take. You add unnecessary steps and diminish the beauty at the same time, rather than see the beauty in what simply is.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 08:09:51 AM
... Neither astronomy nor physics lead me to think there is a god.

And that is where "design" people and "no design" people differ.  Perception.  I am not sure that the existence of a mysterious order is a G-d signature, I would think that pure random chaos would be more of a G-d signature ;-)
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Mike Cl on April 16, 2017, 09:32:14 AM
And that is where "design" people and "no design" people differ.  Perception.  I am not sure that the existence of a mysterious order is a G-d signature, I would think that pure random chaos would be more of a G-d signature ;-)
Are you also searching for the Bugs Bunny signature?  Or the Pecos Bill signature?  Why not?  God, Pacos Bill and Bugs are all fictions.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 10:52:16 AM
Are you also searching for the Bugs Bunny signature?  Or the Pecos Bill signature?  Why not?  God, Pacos Bill and Bugs are all fictions.

I am a fiction.  And could show you my signature ;-))  But I am incarnate, and Pecos Bill isn't.  So don't accept any autographs of Pecos Bill as authentic!  Some fictions are incarnate (human beings etc) others are not.  You think you are real, and you are relative to Pecos Bill.  But who you are, is a fiction created in your mind, and at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  The mystery is ... incarnation.  Christianity has that nailed, sort of.  Judaism and Islam deny incarnation emphatically ... though in the Bible, Judaism did accept partial incarnation ... but the rabbis have banned it.  Hinduism and Buddhism clearly support incarnation (and even reincarnation).  But the Buddha is correct, that your "self" is a fiction.  But I like fictions, so I have no reason to meditate to eliminate my ego.  I like myself.  I am no puritan, I like sex too.  Buddha was a bit of a puritan ... hence the vegetarianism.  Hindus can be vegetarian too.  But someday the Vegetable Beings will take vengeance on all the animals ... or my name isn't Vegita!
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Mike Cl on April 16, 2017, 11:17:48 AM
I am a fiction.  And could show you my signature ;-))  But I am incarnate, and Pecos Bill isn't.  So don't accept any autographs of Pecos Bill as authentic!  Some fictions are incarnate (human beings etc) others are not.  You think you are real, and you are relative to Pecos Bill.  But who you are, is a fiction created in your mind, and at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  The mystery is ... incarnation.  Christianity has that nailed, sort of.  Judaism and Islam deny incarnation emphatically ... though in the Bible, Judaism did accept partial incarnation ... but the rabbis have banned it.  Hinduism and Buddhism clearly support incarnation (and even reincarnation).  But the Buddha is correct, that your "self" is a fiction.  But I like fictions, so I have no reason to meditate to eliminate my ego.  I like myself.  I am no puritan, I like sex too.  Buddha was a bit of a puritan ... hence the vegetarianism.  Hindus can be vegetarian too.  But someday the Vegetable Beings will take vengeance on all the animals ... or my name isn't Vegita!
Actually, Baruch, you are not a fiction.  Part of your persona very well could be a fiction.  And I really think we do create our own universes in a mental fashion.  But I can be in the same room as you and talk with you; but I cannot be in the same room with your god nor talk to it, since your god is a fiction.  It is really not all that complicated.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 12:03:12 PM
Actually, Baruch, you are not a fiction.  Part of your persona very well could be a fiction.  And I really think we do create our own universes in a mental fashion.  But I can be in the same room as you and talk with you; but I cannot be in the same room with your god nor talk to it, since your god is a fiction.  It is really not all that complicated.

I am from Crete, and all Cretans are liars ;-)
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 02:14:08 PM
If I read through the fancy words correctly, you are simply saying that the repetition of certain patterns at multiple scales is a possible sign of a shared designer? But isn't it simply more logical and rational to view that as an effect of set rules rather than being a cosmic signature motif of one artist?

Even if you want to look at it in a purely aesthetic sense, isn't the act of art creating art infinitely more romantic than an artist doing it? It seems to take away the beauty of the universe to say it was designed, rather than it designed. Therefore it is neither logically or emotionally the best position to take. You add unnecessary steps and diminish the beauty at the same time, rather than see the beauty in what simply is.
The patterns are not intentionally designed, just like the child of a mother is not directly intelligently intently designed. The child is unfolded from the nature and pattern inherent inside the parent.

 If God is like light, then each universe is like a rainbow and our type of atoms (made from the lightest of three possible quark densities) are in the yellow band.

If God is like infinite solid wood, each universe is like a cello with further internal resonant chambers.

God as infinite solid matter has specific spacial relationships with its own substance. It's relativities.  It is all around itself equally in all directions, at the center of itself everywhere, and as a field in equilibrium throughout.

These relativities quantize into a sphere and point relationship with a field of probability strung in between them. It cannot break symmetry any other way. If the universal resonant chamber is a sphere with a central point in a field between, this directly patterns for the organization of atoms.

The atom is a micro standing wave form of the macro universal container.... which would be referred to as the image of God.

 Beauty I see is that it was a reproductive act, God expressed itself. This isn't creation, this is procreation…and here we are! The universe is a gestating God in GOD.  And so are we.

To recap: the pattern or signature of God I see is a geometric set of equal/opposite reactions that occur within an infinite substance to make stabilized voided space. It could not occur any other way and no deliberate "intelligent" design is needed.

It's panentheistic but it's also purely geometric.

The sphere point field relationship is the first tier order of pattern. There are three more tiers.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 02:20:03 PM
And that is where "design" people and "no design" people differ.  Perception.  I am not sure that the existence of a mysterious order is a G-d signature, I would think that pure random chaos would be more of a G-d signature ;-)
Random chaos is an oxymoron. The word has been bastardized over time. Chaos is pure formlessness of substance, no space, no rising and falling of forms, no randomness, no change.  Like perfectly still water.  That is the original ideation of chaos. The same idea is found throughout ancient religions and sciences.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 02:20:57 PM
Random chaos is an oxymoron. The word has been bastardized over time. Chaos is pure formlessness of substance, no space, no rising and falling of forms, no randomness, no change.  Like perfectly still water.  That is the original ideation of chaos. The same idea is found throughout ancient religions and sciences.

I was being facetious.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 02:25:27 PM
I was being facetious.
I should've known with the ;-)
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 03:12:42 PM
I should've known with the ;-)

A smiley is better than a frownie.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 03:32:52 PM
A smiley is better than a frownie.
I've heard it takes more muscles to frown than it does to smile…so be lazy and happy! Lol
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Unbeliever on April 18, 2017, 04:55:43 PM
Like the alleged singularity before spacial inflation, that would be absolute being.


Well, to paraphrase the Church Lady...isn't that spatial?
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Ananta Shesha on April 18, 2017, 05:04:04 PM

Well, to paraphrase the Church Lady...isn't that spatial?
I think you get the terrible pun of the day award! *thumbsup*
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Unbeliever on April 18, 2017, 05:04:55 PM
I am from Crete, and all Cretans are liars ;-)
Quoting St. Paul now, are you? That's the only joke in the Bible, as far as I know. Surely Paul jests...
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Unbeliever on April 18, 2017, 05:09:15 PM
I was being facetious.
What!? You - facetious?

hoodathunkit?


(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/965/flashcards/840965/gif/facetious-14476C9952757922271.gif)
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 04:37:23 AM
When looking for the signature of God, it helps to compare patterns vertically through the scales.
When looking for the signature of God, it helps to avoid false pattern-recognition; something humans are very good at.  And it helps to use Occam's Razor.  The mere concept of a deity fails Occam's Razor.
Title: Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2017, 08:27:38 AM
When looking for the signature of God, it helps to avoid false pattern-recognition; something humans are very good at.  And it helps to use Occam's Razor.  The mere concept of a deity fails Occam's Razor.

The mere concept of relativity and QM fails Occam's Razor.  If you borrowed it, give it back, he needs to shave ;-)