Author Topic: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...  (Read 680 times)

Offline Shiranu

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #15 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.
"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion..." - Nelson Mandela

"Too much sanity may be madness and the maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be." - Miguel de Cervantes

Offline Baruch (OP)

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #16 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 ;-)
שלום

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #17 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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch (OP)

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #18 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!
שלום

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #19 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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch (OP)

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #20 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 ;-)
שלום

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #21 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.

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #22 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.

Offline Baruch (OP)

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #23 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.
שלום

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2017, 02:25:27 PM »
I was being facetious.
I should've known with the ;-)

Offline Baruch (OP)

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2017, 03:12:42 PM »
I should've known with the ;-)

A smiley is better than a frownie.
שלום

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #26 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

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #27 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?
God Not Found
"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."
Ray Magliozzi
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #28 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*

Re: Some actual theology relevant to Drew's argument ...
« Reply #29 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...
God Not Found
"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."
Ray Magliozzi
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."