Big Think

Musycks on November 11, 2008, 6:29 PM

I don’t see much perfection in a cancerous, malignant tumor? In decay and malformities?In destructive acts of nature that will cause pain and suffering?
what’s his plan with extreme weather events… is he just bored?

I think it’s evolved into the only universe possible, then, now and in the future.
No creator required.

Luke Allen on November 11, 2008, 9:07 PM

I agree with you immensly and wonder how atheist can just observe and not assign a creator at our earth’s magnificence’s. Just like belief is completely foreign to you Herbie; disbelief with what you wrote is just as foreign.

One thing both Atheist and Christians alike can agee on is the wonderfullness of earth. Maybe not perfect, Musycks, but perfectly imperfect for development.

Musycks on November 12, 2008, 12:44 AM

Luke, you are a little out of step with the majority of your Xtian brothers, if you don’t think your creator god made the whole lot with humans in mind. As arrogant as that appears to a non-believer, that is mostly the case. We are supposedly made in his image etc, and he’s provided a holding pen for us to see if we’re worthy to get to be with him for eternity… given the size of the universe (and I line up with you and Carl Sagan on the probability of chances of other life-forms in other galaxies) isn’t it a lot of trouble to go to? what would be the point I wonder? we seem to have less point than a giant ant farm.

HerbieP on November 12, 2008, 1:33 AM

Luke I think that you would not see the universe, however your god made it, as other than wonderful. If he’d left Adam as a handful of sentient mud and the earth as a rock, this would be all that Adam knew and he would see it as beautiful and perfect. A part of my point is that the universe is from our point of view necessarily unique. We cannot compare it to anything else. We cannot know that god made good choices or that it is well designed because we have nothing to compare it to.

He may have made other universes, better designed elsewhere. We could be a botched and abandoned practice attempt.

Try to imagine a universe your god could have created that would make you think he hadn’t done a good job and you will see how silly the idea of a god designing it all is.

Giesela Dohrmann on November 12, 2008, 2:40 AM

IF god created the wonderful world, why did he/she reveal him/her-self only so late in Earth’s history? Was Neanderthal man, who lived for so many thousand of years on Earth, included in this otherwise so brilliant “creation”? A bit floored, this whole creation myth…

HerbieP on November 12, 2008, 3:12 AM

To be fair verisoph since early hominids did not leave any written records we are in no position to know if they worshipped similar gods or not. Since written records began man has mentioned gods and creation myths.

Giesela Dohrmann on November 12, 2008, 5:15 AM

So, Adam was not the first human created then… and as soon as post-Adam was able to write things down, he created god in his image, somehow that make sense…

HerbieP on November 12, 2008, 6:38 AM

Just because man took some time to write about god(s) does not mean of itself that he(they) didn’t exist prior to that. It took us until the early 70s to write about quarks (the particles as opposed to James Joyce’s ply on words) but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t around in the 60s.

HerbieP on November 12, 2008, 6:59 AM

Let’s be coherent now.

The creationist argument from design says – Isn’t it marvelous how the universe is so well designed? All of the fine tuned universal constants, the beauty of the natural world, the complexity of the human eye etc. However god being omnipotent doesn’t really need to have the universe fine tuned or well designed. He could make an illogical, uncausal universe work if he wanted. When it suits him he causes miracles, which by definition are events in defiance of natural laws – so we know he can do it. He keeps an uncausal spiritual universe running side by side with the physical just to show that he can.

Really convincing evidence that god created the physical universe would be if it were uncausal and badly tuned and we had things like eyes made out of solid rock that could see just fine.

Science works because it continues to find logical mechanisms for how and why things work but it’s fighting a losing battle.

The creationist argument is really cunning. The logical structure of the universe is apparently evidence that god made it, but at the boundaries of science where something as yet has no explanation and appears illogical that is also evidence that god made it.

God’s ability to create anything can satisfy any observation. He could have created the universe yesterday but made it look old, he can vary the laws as he sees fit and cause miracles and additional spiritual add ons that defy laws. He can make marvelous mechanisms and claim either that he did it with a handful of mud or that he invented a process such as evolution and set it running depending on how sophisticated his followers are.

There is no getting away from it creationism is a powerful explanation.

Jesse Akers on November 12, 2008, 3:32 PM

From a question I posed a while I ago, this isnt a creationist argument at all, I was just wondering what you could have to say about the subject….

Hey Herbie, Long time no see… I ve got a question about physics… It has to do with the spin of everything… I m sure there is some word to describe this that I am ignorant of(it must have to do with gravity)…but… like why electrons spins around nucleuses, why the earth spins around the sun, why the galaxies spin around a core… why black hole seems to be spinning…. I m starting to feel dizzy but I hope you understand my question and I look forward to your repsonse, thanks!

Jesse

Musycks on November 12, 2008, 5:52 PM

Herbie, it’s only a powerful argument if you won’t admit the paradox of an Omnipotent/omniscient god. The god of creation you write about can’t exist because of that paradox, so to ruminate on what he can or can’t do is pointless.
Xtians can’t admit the paradox because it bursts their bubble. Science is fighting a losing battle because people stop thinking in a critical fashion, and accept lazy myth based explanations, supported by a culture where superstition is ubiquitous.

Battle on my scientific friend, I for one am listening, and am thankful for the insight.

and verisoph is right… Adam created god in his image, not the other way round.

Giesela Dohrmann on November 12, 2008, 6:40 PM

the loosing battle of Science will be won in the end…- as soon as our feelings and emotions leave the stone age behind and have cought up with our brains….

dennis ilic on November 12, 2008, 7:32 PM

In my opinion this universe is simply the by product, or waste, of God. And I am merely a fly that loves all this shit. Possibly, when I finally come face to face with the windshield of death, I may be a part of that God, shitting for eternity.

dennis ilic on November 12, 2008, 7:33 PM

I’m not even going to get into fractals.

Musycks on November 12, 2008, 9:19 PM

nice one Bokonon, but who’s driving the car?!

HerbieP on November 13, 2008, 4:13 AM

High Jesse. I’m not sure what you are asking about ‘spin’ but you have mixed several diffrent types of ‘spin’. The spin which is a property of fundamental particles is really an arbitrary property like ‘colour’ and is not really anything spinning about an axis but a value that helps to describe sub-atomic states. Neither are electrons ‘spinning’ about a nucleus, they are in fact in shells of probability distribution that are associated with particular energy values. The ‘solar system’ model of atoms is misleading.

Various bodies can spin on their axis and various celestial bodies orbit each other and this is quite a different phenomenon that results from graviational forces acting on mass.

I think that your confusion is semantic rather than anything to do with the disparate phenomena themselves.

sciencesaves on November 13, 2008, 8:58 AM

Herbie, I tend to disagree with you on your statement that creationism is a powerful explanation. (Presently).

Many years ago, when most folks were fairly ignorant and unable to reason out things, due to lack of knowledge, creationism WAS a powerful explanation.

Why aren’t normal people embarrassed to proclaim belief in such idiocy these days?

Perhaps they’re not normal, just undereducated. That’s what I prefer to think…spread the knowledge, and we can put the bad religion, (it’s all bad), behind us.

Jesse Akers on November 13, 2008, 5:18 PM

Yes I can see now that I was being pretty generic and all over the place. So are the electrons stationary, cloud-like, or what? Why does gravity cause things to spin (like the earth around the sun) instead of eventually just sucking everything in (like the sun does to a nearby comet or anything else)

Musycks on November 14, 2008, 12:45 AM

Hmm…
presumably at the point of creation, when only god existed, and he was 100% good, therefore all of his creation was good? how did evil get a start? from a perfect and loving god, I assume he only had an infinite number of ‘good’ choices? eg, good, gooder, goodest! whereby comest bad?
how did illness and disease and arbitrary destruction in the natural world find a way past the great-all-powerful-big good guy?

Honestly, this nonsense would not tax a 10 year old, how it’s led to an industry of theodicy is a disgrace and failure on the part of anyone with a rational working mind.

Natural progression and selection is a perfect explanation, and it came from the analytical mind of a man…. the fine details are still being sorted but nobody seriously questions the model…. so for explaining the universe let’s congratualte the old man with the beard… Charles Darwin.

onya Charlie.

Giesela Dohrmann on November 14, 2008, 3:05 AM

I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.” “Oh,” says man, “but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn’t it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don’t. Q.E.D.” “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that.” says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[Douglas Adams, “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”]

HerbieP on November 14, 2008, 4:16 AM

Sorry SS my tounge was firmly in my cheek.

Jesse it is a mistake to think of subatomic particles as being like particles that you can see and manipulate. Wave/particle duality problems are only a problem because the words themselves are misleading and cause you to imagine little balls or waves in something. When associated with an atomic nucleus electrons are best described as a probability wave constrained by a particular potential energy shell. There is a peak in the probability of finding the electron at particular distances (energies) from the nucleus, but it isn’t anywhere until something interacts with it. Free electrons are simply the unconstrained wave function.

Stable gravitational interactions are often a balance between momentum and gravitational attraction. An object with mass ‘wants’ to keep going in a straight line (inertia) whilst it is being attracted to another object, it’s a bit like whirling an object around on a piece of string. Object wants to go in a straight line, string (gravitational attraction) keeps it going in a circle. A stable orbit is when a balance has been reached, a decaying orbit is when the gravitational attraction is greater and the object gradually spirals in.

Matt Pidlysny on November 15, 2008, 2:19 PM

presumably at the point of creation, when only god existed, and he was 100% good, therefore all of his creation was good?

Well, firstly, that is correct. But there are 2 different “creations”, so to speak. When the Father created everything, he created it as the Incorruptible Spirit guided him to do. It is considered “Perfect” because there is nothing there to be imperfect about with him. He was given the gift of Foreknowledge and created everything accordingly.

First Ruler’s creation is different. Before he was created, everything beneath the Veil was in darkness. It was natural, perfect nothing. When he was created, it was out of imperfection, and when he came here his light shone through darkness, giving it form.

Concepts within darkness are infinite in number, just as concepts within positivity and light are infinite, and when light mixed with the two, it became an unnatural clash. Therefore, all things made of this light are susceptible to that clash, and illusion becoming real for them. But this light became quantifiable, and thus so did the natural darkness, and so we can measure these things in degrees of positivity and negativity.

how did evil get a start? from a perfect and loving god, I assume he only had an infinite number of 'good' choices?

Only an infinite number ;) But to be fair, you’re looking at Good and Evil wrong in the sense that one has purpose, and the other does not. What we don’t know, in terms of belief, is whether that purpose is to blend both together to create real perfection. While light is positive, it lacks the option to be negative.

If the concept exists (Being evil, in this case), and you lack it…How is that perfection? I’m just speculating here, because I don’t really know the real answer but it’s something to think about. .

I think it’s up to us, after that point, to go to him on our own, but I’m thinking that to create a purpose for ourselves, create a being that possesses both aspects, good and evil. If we just branch off, from the basest of our ancestors, from one spiritual tree, then by blending and pro-creating with other branches diversifies the tree. From that point on, we’d truly be doing something with some meaning by creating both sides evenly.

how did illness and disease and arbitrary destruction in the natural world find a way past the great-all-powerful-big good guy?

Are you telling me you are too weak to find your way past these burdens? You need Gods above you to purify your despair and sorrow? Do you venge them for not doing so?

You have mental ability of your own. You simply know no technique to ease the pain of loss. But it’s written in stone, is all I’m saying. Love yourself, as in sit down and just think about loving yourself. It will fill you with happiness, and THEN you can think clearly about closure.

Musycks on November 15, 2008, 7:49 PM

Res… you have not answered anything, just wild speculation about ‘two’ creations. ‘concepts within darkness and light are infinite’? what is that supposed to mean?
concepts by which the mind of man can render absract ideas may be infinite in your model of belief… but all I see are about half a dozen dopey concepts re-cycled every generation by every half-baked mystic who thinks it’s his turn to provide ‘the answer’!
What is the point of the answer if the question is insufferably stupid?

HerbieP on November 16, 2008, 4:51 AM

PastorJ I’m with Kauffman (and you?) about reductionism. However “This creative process of emergence, is worthy of awe, gratitude and respect, that it is God enough for me. God, a fully natural God, is the very creativity in the universe.” is just a mystical absurdism.

HerbieP on November 16, 2008, 5:02 AM

Resonator I’ve answered you question back on the Sacks post. I am assuming that you imagine that the mind can some how control sub-atomic interactions. Is this what you imply?

Matt Pidlysny on November 16, 2008, 2:12 PM

what is that supposed to mean?

Since you answered your own question I don’t think it’s necessary to go off this but I mean that in a natural order of things, there are an infinite number of variations of nature that can possibly occur. It doesn’t matter whether they can reflect light back at you or not, they still exist in the mind. By light and darkness, I just use them in terms of negativity and positivity, in that the degree of variations in nature is infinite.

What is the point of the answer if the question is insufferably stupid?

I would ask you the same question, except replace “stupid” with “ignored”.

Reductionism

Since we’re on this term, what do you imply with it having to do with Creation? If you want my honest opinion, I’m willing to be Reductionism, as you put it, could determine genetic memory, and thus learning how to read the blueprints is also half the battle.

But then again, if our purpose of living is to move forward, what’s the point?

I am assuming that you imagine that the mind can some how control sub-atomic interactions.

I’ve been wondering about that. Honestly, I think the Satanists have it right, to be fair. Look up “Mindless Self Indulgence”, because I’m pretty sure that concept holds the key to doing it. I could be wrong but I’m fairly positive that’s the right direction to be looking for that answer.

Musycks on November 16, 2008, 8:09 PM

Pastor Jen, I enjoyed your post about reductionism…. thanks. I agree with Kauffman, it works much better in reverse, but he too is just being kind to the religious with his final quote. I don’t think there will be a time when people don’t insert the word ‘god’ for a way of adding a quasi-mystical dimensional quality to something that is only of the natural world, and should therefore be appreciated and admired on those terms only, not with some bullshit supernatural overlay.

Res, you’re out of your depth arguing your particular babble with thinkers like PJv2.
If you want to come across as a credible source of ideas and debate, then skill yourself up in the use of language and defintion… again your last post will be lost on anyone trying to make sense of it.

Matt Pidlysny on November 17, 2008, 3:02 AM

Musycks…Really? Are they THAT hard to read and understand? Like, I’m reading over all of them and I can’t see a lick of difference (Other than adding a few words here and there to fix my grammar mistakes) being made in any way, shape or form. I see all my ideas put forth constructively and I think you’re laying out a pile of bullshit for me to try and dig through and waste my time on purpose.

Get some glasses or pay attention, boy, you’re in the big leagues now. Learn how to read intellectually, like I have to do every time you post some boring purely contradictory crap about the structure of my posts. For the record, I’ll let PastorJ answer my question before some illiterate guy named “Musycks” starts analyzing my posts to any effect.

HerbieP on November 17, 2008, 9:45 AM

“I’ve been wondering about that. Honestly, I think the Satanists have it right, to be fair. Look up “Mindless Self Indulgence”, because I’m pretty sure that concept holds the key to doing it. I could be wrong but I’m fairly positive that’s the right direction to be looking for that answer."

I asked you a simple question about your beliefs relating to the mental manipulation of sub-atomic interations and you refer me to satanists and a punk rock band. Can you see how your postings are often less than illuminating? everything that you write is peppered with non sequiturs.

Despite all my efforts with you I am forced to agree with musycks.

Matt Pidlysny on November 17, 2008, 11:19 AM

Despite all my efforts with you I am forced to agree with musycks.

Really, HP? YOU of all people cannot see anything in the concept? YOU of all people haven’t learned to look past the barriers you’re working around?

I thought it was me for so long on this discussion board, that it was MY view which was construed, and I was trying to catch up. Now I understand it is the opposite, that it is you who must do the catching up. I shall elaborate on MSI for you, since you cannot think for yourself.

Firstly, I am not referring to a rock band. I hate that band, so much.

Secondly, what drives MSI to be so powerful on a person? What is the real connection between mindlessness and emotion? I ask these things, Herbie, so you may understand the real hypothetical purpose to MSI I was referring to. Moving on, in my experience a motion created by passion always serves a purpose, whether to yourself or otherwise. It’s that general FACT, Herbie, that makes me believe that it’s not Mindless Self Indulgence at all that IS the key, rather that MSI is only the landmark to the answer.

Take an experiment now, because I’m a firm believer in control; create MSI around you for a minute. Just indulge in yourself, in your mind for a moment. Act out, speak out, just act randomly and for yourself. It’s so hard to explain, but you know exactly what I mean.

Now ask yourself “How powerful is that for me?” and “What am I doing, what are my brain patterns, what am I experiencing while Indulging Mindlessly for Myself?”

Do you see the connection, at it’s base, to passion and emotion yet? That it’s just breaking a mental barrier to accomplish a feat?

What happens when we do it with a Mind?

HerbieP on November 17, 2008, 4:13 PM

‘…but you know exactly what I mean.’

Resonator no I don’t. I have no idea what you are asking me to believe. Can you keep to the subject please? I asked if you think the human mind can manipulate sub-atomic interactions.

Musycks on November 17, 2008, 6:33 PM

C’est la vie Res, guess I’m not in your intellectual league.
Bon chance.

Matt Pidlysny on November 17, 2008, 9:58 PM

Holy brick wall, batman. I’m sorry I even bothered to waste your time with my tangent you short minded individual.

Musycks on November 18, 2008, 6:33 PM

don’t worry about me Res, I’ll struggle along… and that’s great Jeff Delano impersonation you do by the way.
(has anyone seen them in the same room?)

Matt Pidlysny on November 19, 2008, 2:50 PM

I was referring to Herbie, Musycks. But at the same time, I just don’t think you have the capacity, lest it be learned, to understand. In all honesty, I’m beginning to think that’s why you can’t comprehend religion or concepts of God (You and all the rest).

I propose a study be done. I strongly think now that there’s a barrier in the mind for imagining something that hasn’t been explained by science. Since it’s the imagination that does this for you, neglecting to nourish it as a child ruined it for you. So don’t feel bad, guys, it is probably the fault of your parents.

Musycks on November 19, 2008, 6:27 PM

What makes you think there’s anything at all unfathomable about the tired and worn concepts you trot out Resjeff?
I know every new generation thinks the last one stuffed the planet up, but that they are special enough to fix everything when they get a chance. yawn.

People like you have been adepts, madmen, anarchists, eugenicists, beatniks, hippies,
new-agers et al… it’s an old and tedious game, but essentially involves an unresolved yearning for something beyond reality, beyond the mundane.

To live in the here and now real world, it takes a brave heart to face it down and get on with it… reality is scary, and when you can’t deal with it, retreat into the invisible realm is the option you take. That and then pour scorn on those who are not as enlightened (afraid) as you are.
Pour away.

HerbieP on November 20, 2008, 4:09 AM

Resonator you are so opaque that I didn’t even understand when you insulted me.

I’m with musycks, you’re just like Jeff. I have nothing other than respectful and polite to you (if not understanding). I have also defended you against others suggestions that you are mentally ill. Yet because of my (alleged) disability you have started to use insults. Yet again I am forced to conclude that whatever your beliefs (and I still don’t even understand what these are) your cliams that they lead to better behaviour or improved morality (or love) are not demonstrated by your own behaviour.

I have noted that you attempts to uncover information about people are always wrong (your excuse seems to be that you are being decieved by some supernatural being) and you very quickly become insulting to anyone who challenges you.

Musycks on November 20, 2008, 9:55 PM

Herbie… ask yourself… if Jeff gave himself up to a technique that allowed him no ‘mental restrictions’… who would he sound like?
and how odd that JD falls silent as Resonator takes the ascendant? I called him on it on the first day he posted, and he denied it, and I took that on good faith… but now I can’t help have that nagging suspicion that they are one and the same. What think you?

Matt Pidlysny on November 21, 2008, 2:59 AM

You argue belief, and don’t expect a heated argument? I’m sorry for fuming but you’d be in the same position as me if I were to provide an idealistic logical conclusion to you and everyone agreed with me because my model can withstand the test of time and yours can’t.

But if I may, I seek and crave knowledge. It’s a passion of mine to do so, so when idea’s come to me and I try to present them, it aggravates me to see them shot down without regard. I understand it’s weird to visualize what I see in your head but then again me and you both think differently. Bottom line, to what I can see, that is the issue directly at large here.

You were doing good in the beginning, Herbie, but after a while I began to notice you stopped your questions for me. Is it safe to say that to fully understand something, you must seek the truth about it? I don’t care what your questions entail, and I won’t remain in silence if you ask them.

They are theories, but like I said before and always, I want to find the holes in them so they can grow! I desire, to put it one way, to be the one who finds that truth. What I create for myself in my mind are visions, an image of something working, but if you can see it happening there must be a suitable medium for it (And by “it” I mean anything, really) to happen, right? It may not be natural but it MUST be able to occur somehow, no?

HerbieP on November 21, 2008, 12:39 PM

Resonator an agument can be robus without being abusive.

However I wasn’t aware that we were arguing, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have merely being trying to find out what it is that you believe and you just keep evading my questions or changing the subject.

No musycks I don’t think that he’s Jeff, the style is quite diffrent. However, like you, I did wonder at first.

HerbieP on November 21, 2008, 12:49 PM

Sorry guys my typos get worse. I hope that you can guess what I mean.

Musycks on November 23, 2008, 6:24 PM

I’m not so sure it’s not Jeff Herbie… I revisited some of his last posts and they were taking on a manic edge.. maybe he’s deliberately pushing the Resonator persona upon himself, as a technique to stretch his nonsensical ideals? either way he can argue with me robustly, I’m up for it.. I agree you have been calm and patient with him… he can’t see disagreement as anything other than argument.
I just don’t see that he has anything coherant to argue.

Matt Pidlysny on November 24, 2008, 1:42 AM

Well Musycks, perhaps you do have an imagination on you. Congratulations.

To appeal to your newfound intellect, I will suggest to you that perhaps you are not so wrong after all. If we do indeed, myself and Jeff, resemble something of similar quality, then perhaps there is something to be said about logic, yes? Though I can assure you we are not the same person I would safely call him my brother, and I his keeper, and he mine.

Musycks on November 24, 2008, 6:52 PM

gee thanks Res, praise from you however is like praise from Jeff… worthless.