Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Flesh And The Spirit


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.  For example, we predict hurricanes before they emerge from certain weather and climate conditions.  We're actually pretty good at it.  We cannot predict the emergence of earthquakes to the same specificity at all.  We are not very good at that.  

 

Earthquakes - because we don't have all the information available to make an accurate prediction. Hurricanes are easier to predict because they are easier to study and are more frequent. 

 

This reminds me of a video I saw talking about chaos theory and math - from a purely theoretical standpoint, we can predict anything with perfect accuracy, so long as we know all of the variables involved in the system, no matter how complex. The problem is, we never have enough information about any complex system to make accurate predictions, but that doesn't mean it's possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.  For example, we predict hurricanes before they emerge from certain weather and climate conditions.  We're actually pretty good at it.  We cannot predict the emergence of earthquakes to the same specificity at all.  We are not very good at that.  

 

Earthquakes - because we don't have all the information available to make an accurate prediction. Hurricanes are easier to predict because they are easier to study and are more frequent. 

 

This reminds me of a video I saw talking about chaos theory and math - from a purely theoretical standpoint, we can predict anything with perfect accuracy, so long as we know all of the variables involved in the system, no matter how complex. The problem is, we never have enough information about any complex system to make accurate predictions, but that doesn't mean it's possible. 

 

 

Good points, D.I.B.

 

Catch is, those demanding perfect accuracy, perfect knowledge and perfect predictability only do so to generate a 'gap' into which they can insert God.

 

In real life they don't (and can't) live this way, but like everyone else they get by on less-than-perfect knowledge, less-than-perfect accuracy and less-than-perfect predictability.

 

They insist on this impossible-to-satisfy (i.e., perfect) standard of proof, yet never once admit that they do not live by the very standard of perfection they require us to satisfy.

 

Instead, like everyone else, in their everyday lives they use imperfect, but reasonable standards of proof and reasonable standards of knowledge, accuracy and predictability.

 

But what they dare not do in this forum is to lower their unreasonable demands for perfect standards down to the reasonable levels they themselves use 24/7.

 

If they did that they would have no reason to keep on refusing to accept that science plugs the gaps they want to keep open for God.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Simple question, End.

 

I want to drive from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

You will also need to have faith in your vehicle... just sayin'.

 

Not sure I am getting the point you are trying to make with regard to the subject....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Simple question, End.

 

I want to drive from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

You will also need to have faith in your vehicle... just sayin'.

 

Not sure I am getting the point you are trying to make with regard to the subject....

 

 

 

Hint:  Which definition of "faith" is he using, the secular one or the religious one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.  For example, we predict hurricanes before they emerge from certain weather and climate conditions.  We're actually pretty good at it.  We cannot predict the emergence of earthquakes to the same specificity at all.  We are not very good at that.  

 

Earthquakes - because we don't have all the information available to make an accurate prediction. Hurricanes are easier to predict because they are easier to study and are more frequent. 

 

This reminds me of a video I saw talking about chaos theory and math - from a purely theoretical standpoint, we can predict anything with perfect accuracy, so long as we know all of the variables involved in the system, no matter how complex. The problem is, we never have enough information about any complex system to make accurate predictions, but that doesn't mean it's possible. 

 

 

Good points, D.I.B.

 

Catch is, those demanding perfect accuracy, perfect knowledge and perfect predictability only do so to generate a 'gap' into which they can insert God.

 

In real life they don't (and can't) live this way, but like everyone else they get by on less-than-perfect knowledge, less-than-perfect accuracy and less-than-perfect predictability.

 

They insist on this impossible-to-satisfy (i.e., perfect) standard of proof, yet never once admit that they do not live by the very standard of perfection they require us to satisfy.

 

Instead, like everyone else, in their everyday lives they use imperfect, but reasonable standards of proof and reasonable standards of knowledge, accuracy and predictability.

 

I had a christian try and argue on patheos the other day that getting paid at work is an act of complete, subjective faith. Meaning that all the evidence of other people getting paid, the workers obviously still working, the business still surviving was all "moot". You take work hours assuming you would be paid and that assumption is faith.

 

The thing is, that assumption is built on some verifiable 3rd party evidence. So you can assume, with a high probability, that you would be paid. If you weren't paid, then you would reevaluate your situation and assume that maybe, due to new evidence, that your boss is untrustworthy and perhaps you shouldn't work there anymore. After not getting a paycheck for several weeks, it's safe to assume with high probability that you will not get paid, thus you quit.

 

This is the core of rationality and the scientific method - you go with what evidence you have and you adjust your predictions accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Simple question, End.

 

I want to drive from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

You will also need to have faith in your vehicle... just sayin'.

 

Not sure I am getting the point you are trying to make with regard to the subject....

 

 

Ok End,

 

If you're not sure what point the Prof was trying to make, then please put his comment to one side and answer my question.

For the avoidance of doubt and confusion, all you need to do is to choose between the two options given to you.  

 

A.  I need perfect knowledge of every road there is on Earth to drive from just Amarillo to Dallas.

B.  My limited and imperfect knowledge of the route is sufficient to get me from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

In case you think that there aren't just two options, please let me explain why I've offered just two.  

Your stated position (that unless we have perfect knowledge we have to go with faith and not with our limited human knowledge) is represented by option A.

So, in answering my question, you'd tell me that I can't drive from Amarillo to Dallas using my limited and imperfect human knowledge.

You'd say that to make this journey I must have either perfect (God-like) knowledge or I must proceed without knowledge and drive purely by faith.

 

Option B represents the way human beings (including you) actually do things in the real world.

That our limited and imperfect knowledge is sufficient for us to know enough about how reality works.

That not knowing every last thing perfectly doesn't stop us from living in the real world.

That going with faith because we are limited and imperfect is not how we actually live.

 

Finally, if you think that this question doesn't relate to anything beyond a road trip, please let me refer you back to our dialog about the Fruit of the Spirit.

The salient point of that thread was that despite your claim that you love Jesus, your behavior (how you live) clearly indicates that you don't.

The praise you give to Jesus and the insults you give to your fellow members come from the same source - inside you.

So the true indicator of your spiritual life and spiritual relationship to Jesus is... how you live.

Not what you claim is true or what hymns you sing or what rituals you perform.

 

The very same measure (how you live) applies here.

You do NOT live exclusively by option A, going with faith in every decision you make because you don't have perfect knowledge.

Instead, you live mostly by option B, going with the limited and imperfect knowledge you have most of the time and going with faith some of the time.

That's how you live, End.

B, not A.

 

.

.

.

But that's enough from me.

 

Now, please answer the question.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me give an example I heard today. Apparently one recent study suggests that strict veganism leads to genetic mutation and a higher risk for certain cancers. Granted that was just what caught my ear, but reasonably sure they mentioned colon cancer.

 

So let's say that science for years has been touting roughage, etc. as a prophylactic for colon cancer.

 

The quick and dirty point is this. Our propensity to lean on science to the point of throwing out all other babies in the bath has the potential to do big harm.....i.e. loss of freedom(s).

 

So HOW do we argue that that our lack of omniscience gives us any reason to dispute the grace aspect of Christianity.

 

 

To your question BAA with respect to the Christian perspective.

 

Obviously there is/are mechanisms in place that give rise to reality. And this we probably can agree on because we seem objectively real in a subjective perspective.

 

Sure we may travel from A to B without knowing the complete mechanisms that get us there, but I honestly don't know how you may ignore unknown mechanisms conveniently pushed aside for ego or what have you. What would we wish to label these things?

 

From a religious perspective and nomenclature I guess they label them God vs. human nature, but that doesn't make the gap of knowledge any less viable.

 

And with respect to human behavior, I dare say there is a heck of a lot of gap left.

 

It's just amazing to me that we are very willing to dismiss our lack of knowledge and then discount it with language like "god of the gaps".

 

The God of the gaps is about to force us to pay fines for not adhering to the governments healthy lunch initiative and give people disease at the same time. And you want to dismiss God and omniscience?

 

Is this what we really want for humanity....to press on without acknowledging God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to follow this End, and I'm confused. Are you saying that there is a god to fill in the gaps in knowledge because a new study suggests that Michelle Obama's lunch program may not be all that good?

 

As to this:

"So HOW do we argue that that our lack of omniscience gives us any reason to dispute the grace aspect of Christianity."

 

Our lack of knowing everything means that almost anything beyond our current knowledge is possible. But anyone can look at Biblegod's book and see glaring contradictions and outright mistakes, and conclude that it isn't accurate enough to base one's life on in a realistic manner. Before you can argue Christianity's grace aspect, you have to show that Christianity is true and real. Otherwise it's just a personal philosophy, no better than any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to follow this End, and I'm confused. Are you saying that there is a god to fill in the gaps in knowledge because a new study suggests that Michelle Obama's lunch program may not be all that good?

 

As to this:

"So HOW do we argue that that our lack of omniscience gives us any reason to dispute the grace aspect of Christianity."

 

Our lack of knowing everything means that almost anything beyond our current knowledge is possible. But anyone can look at Biblegod's book and see glaring contradictions and outright mistakes, and conclude that it isn't accurate enough to base one's life on in a realistic manner. Before you can argue Christianity's grace aspect, you have to show that Christianity is true and real. Otherwise it's just a personal philosophy, no better than any other.

I'm just saying that writing off the gaps is.....not sure I have a good word.....shortsighted maybe. I don't want to do it for myself. Was just giving today's zealot vegan anecdote as an example. Sure we know a lot about the body, but we may have missed a prediction in this case. And NOW, stuffing green things down our throat is so "right", we may do harm to our children......all because we thought we knew.

 

Again, I think the wise approach is in type this: Saying we believe we know right, and acting accordingly with faith, but still understanding there is an outcome we can't see. And I think this matches with Christianity pretty well.

 

In other words, why would we ignore Christianity if it analogously fits so well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Apparently one recent study suggests that strict veganism leads to genetic mutation and a higher risk for certain cancers.

...

 

 

You base your belief on one "apparent" study.  A study you have not read in an area you have not researched.

 

Yeah, that'll work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've been trying to follow this End, and I'm confused. Are you saying that there is a god to fill in the gaps in knowledge because a new study suggests that Michelle Obama's lunch program may not be all that good?

 

As to this:

"So HOW do we argue that that our lack of omniscience gives us any reason to dispute the grace aspect of Christianity."

 

Our lack of knowing everything means that almost anything beyond our current knowledge is possible. But anyone can look at Biblegod's book and see glaring contradictions and outright mistakes, and conclude that it isn't accurate enough to base one's life on in a realistic manner. Before you can argue Christianity's grace aspect, you have to show that Christianity is true and real. Otherwise it's just a personal philosophy, no better than any other.

I'm just saying that writing off the gaps is.....not sure I have a good word.....shortsighted maybe. I don't want to do it for myself. Was just giving today's zealot vegan anecdote as an example. Sure we know a lot about the body, but we may have missed a prediction in this case. And NOW, stuffing green things down our throat is so "right", we may do harm to our children......all because we thought we knew.

 

Again, I think the wise approach is in type this: Saying we believe we know right, and acting accordingly with faith, but still understanding there is an outcome we can't see. And I think this matches with Christianity pretty well.

 

In other words, why would we ignore Christianity if it analogously fits so well?

 

 

In real life, we do the best we can according to what we know, and move forward, not always knowing the outcome.  In Christianity, Biblegod has taken care of everything, wrote 66 books to tell you about it, and you know the outcome by the time you finish reading them. These two things are hardly analogous.

 

Every time there have ever been gaps in knowledge, have they been filled in by science and human reasoning, or by Biblegod (or any god)?

For example, there are huge gaps between mental health medicines and treatments, and drilling holes in people's heads to let the demons out. There were huge gaps in performance and safety between the Model T and my 96 Dodge, and between my Dodge and what cars are like today. Were those gaps filled by engineering or god? 

 

I'd say that science, human reasoning, and engineering have filled quite a few gaps in what we didn't know before. How many gaps has your God filled, and can you give some concrete examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...

Apparently one recent study suggests that strict veganism leads to genetic mutation and a higher risk for certain cancers.

...

 

 

You base your belief on one "apparent" study.  A study you have not read in an area you have not researched.

 

Yeah, that'll work.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/long-term-vegetarian-diet-changes-human-dna-raising-risk-of-canc/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
And you want to dismiss God and omniscience?

 

You mean YOUR god?

 

Yes, I dismiss attributing any unknown to the childish explanation of "magic." We have a long history of facts discovered and proven by science that displaced previous attribution to gods, demons and other various supernatural agents. You can't use the fact that people make mistakes, science hasn't answered everything and sometimes theories don't pan out to justify the unsupported, illogical and fantastic conclusion that your god knows everything and doesn't make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And you want to dismiss God and omniscience?

You mean YOUR god?

 

Yes, I dismiss attributing any unknown to the childish explanation of "magic." We have a long history of facts discovered and proven by science that displaced previous attribution to gods, demons and other various supernatural agents. You can't use the fact that people make mistakes, science hasn't answered everything and sometimes theories don't pan out to justify the unsupported, illogical and fantastic conclusion that your god knows everything and doesn't make mistakes.

 

I hear you and understand. Yes I can, as we have no way to measure the aforementioned. For ME, I'm holding out that I don't have all the answers and giving that part of the reverence to God. You seem to want to place the unknown is a special category of certainty without certainty.

 

Btw, I'm not saying it's magic. I'm saying there are many things we don't understand. I'm gathering you are placing religion with the likes of sacrificing a mud wrestler to the volcano....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

I hear you and understand. Yes I can, as we have no way to measure the aforementioned. For ME, I'm holding out that I don't have all the answers and giving that part of the reverence to God. You seem to want to place the unknown is a special category of certainty without certainty.

 

Btw, I'm not saying it's magic. I'm saying there are many things we don't understand. I'm gathering you are placing religion with the likes of sacrificing a mud wrestler to the volcano....

 

Yes, you ARE saying it's magic when you invoke your god. You seem to want to give that god reverence, credit and total power over the universe all because you don't know everything yourself. When we don't understand something it implies nothing more than that we don't understand. At least not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me give an example I heard today. Apparently one recent study suggests that strict veganism leads to genetic mutation and a higher risk for certain cancers. Granted that was just what caught my ear, but reasonably sure they mentioned colon cancer.

 

So let's say that science for years has been touting roughage, etc. as a prophylactic for colon cancer.

 

The quick and dirty point is this. Our propensity to lean on science to the point of throwing out all other babies in the bath has the potential to do big harm.....i.e. loss of freedom(s).

 

So HOW do we argue that that our lack of omniscience gives us any reason to dispute the grace aspect of Christianity.

 

 

To your question BAA with respect to the Christian perspective.

 

Obviously there is/are mechanisms in place that give rise to reality. And this we probably can agree on because we seem objectively real in a subjective perspective.

 

Sure we may travel from A to B without knowing the complete mechanisms that get us there, but I honestly don't know how you may ignore unknown mechanisms conveniently pushed aside for ego or what have you. What would we wish to label these things?

 

From a religious perspective and nomenclature I guess they label them God vs. human nature, but that doesn't make the gap of knowledge any less viable.

 

And with respect to human behavior, I dare say there is a heck of a lot of gap left.

 

It's just amazing to me that we are very willing to dismiss our lack of knowledge and then discount it with language like "god of the gaps".

 

The God of the gaps is about to force us to pay fines for not adhering to the governments healthy lunch initiative and give people disease at the same time. And you want to dismiss God and omniscience?

 

Is this what we really want for humanity....to press on without acknowledging God?

 

Sorry about this End, but something important has come up and I won't be back here till the middle of next week.

 

Can I please request that you and I pick this up again exactly from this point (posts # 56 & 57) for the sake of continuity?

 

Gotta go now.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I hear you and understand. Yes I can, as we have no way to measure the aforementioned. For ME, I'm holding out that I don't have all the answers and giving that part of the reverence to God. You seem to want to place the unknown is a special category of certainty without certainty.

 

Btw, I'm not saying it's magic. I'm saying there are many things we don't understand. I'm gathering you are placing religion with the likes of sacrificing a mud wrestler to the volcano....

Yes, you ARE saying it's magic when you invoke your god. You seem to want to give that god reverence, credit and total power over the universe all because you don't know everything yourself. When we don't understand something it implies nothing more than that we don't understand. At least not yet.

 

Just saying that the story that Christianity places to fill the gaps is plausible...i.e. "why don't we see this or that" because "verse x or y". I don't know if that really fits the definition of magic.

 

All this made me think of politics.....perhaps religion and politics are emergent properties of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Just saying that the story that Christianity places to fill the gaps is plausible...

 

By their own definition, Christianity is NOT plausible. Were it plausible there would be no need nor even a use for their cornerstone, which is FAITH.

 

Historically, the gaps have been systematically filled by facts as we learn more about our reality. There is no reason to continue holding the place for any remaining gaps with theological guesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just saying that the story that Christianity places to fill the gaps is plausible...

By their own definition, Christianity is NOT plausible. Were it plausible there would be no need nor even a use for their cornerstone, which is FAITH.

 

Historically, the gaps have been systematically filled by facts as we learn more about our reality. There is no reason to continue holding the place for any remaining gaps with theological guesses.

 

There will always be gaps. And Katie bar the door if we ever learn to predict the human mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Undoubtedly there will always be things we need to learn and there will be gaps in the future as there have been in the past. So what? Does not knowing an answer feel so uncomfortable you need to make up an answer anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

End3,

 

Every time science makes some new discovery about life, the universe, and everything, it affects the gaps.  Every new scientific discovery makes some already small gap out there somewhere even smaller.  If your god is the god of the gaps, then, by proxy, he gets smaller every time science ensmallenates a gap.

 

How small can your god get and still be considered a god?

 

Thanks,

TRP

 

...

 

 

Just so we're clear on our definitions:

 

Ensmallenate: (en-SMALL-uhn-ate) verb.  To make smaller

 

"You can ensmallenate your computer's screen by clicking the _ icon in the upper right hand corner"

 

etimology--from the old redneckenese "uhnsmallun"

 

antonyms: embiggen, inbigorate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undoubtedly there will always be things we need to learn and there will be gaps in the future as there have been in the past. So what? Does not knowing an answer feel so uncomfortable you need to make up an answer anyway?

Yes, I am uncomfortable with who I am on some level. The best science can offer to this from my perspective is "counseling" where we are explained, "Well END, everybody has these feelings and it's ok, it's normal". No, it's not really ok with me. I don't want to be a douchebag and am taking steps to be responsible for my shit, but that doesn't really change that those feelings exist. Christianity offers deliverance from those things I attempt to control but can't....and those things I do in ignorance.

 

Not a biggie, but I don't like the excuse of "it's ok, we all...".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Just saying that the story that Christianity places to fill the gaps is plausible...

By their own definition, Christianity is NOT plausible. Were it plausible there would be no need nor even a use for their cornerstone, which is FAITH.

 

Historically, the gaps have been systematically filled by facts as we learn more about our reality. There is no reason to continue holding the place for any remaining gaps with theological guesses.

 

There will always be gaps.

...

 

 

 

History demonstrates those gaps have become and are becoming smaller and less relevant.  Hiding your sky fairies in the diminishing remaining gaps must be hard work.  Put another way, your sky fairies have become less necessary, needed or required.  Your addiction continues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End3,

 

Every time science makes some new discovery about life, the universe, and everything, it affects the gaps.  Every new scientific discovery makes some already small gap out there somewhere even smaller.  If your god is the god of the gaps, then, by proxy, he gets smaller every time science ensmallenates a gap.

 

How small can your god get and still be considered a god?

 

Thanks,

TRP

 

...

 

 

Just so we're clear on our definitions:

 

Ensmallenate: (en-SMALL-uhn-ate) verb.  To make smaller

 

"You can ensmallenate your computer's screen by clicking the _ icon in the upper right hand corner"

 

etimology--from the old redneckenese "uhnsmallun"

 

antonyms: embiggen, inbigorate

Nice job on the def.

 

To answer your question.....let's suppose we get to a near miraculous point of accounting for ever subatomic particle being pushed and pulled and reacted in our daily walk to the mailbox. With that level of accountability, we still wouldn't come close to predicting the results of our actions very far in front of us....in my opinion. So from my perspective, I think we have a long while before God approaches zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Just saying that the story that Christianity places to fill the gaps is plausible...

By their own definition, Christianity is NOT plausible. Were it plausible there would be no need nor even a use for their cornerstone, which is FAITH.

 

Historically, the gaps have been systematically filled by facts as we learn more about our reality. There is no reason to continue holding the place for any remaining gaps with theological guesses.

 

 

There will always be gaps.

...

 

 

 

History demonstrates those gaps have become and are becoming smaller and less relevant.  Hiding your sky fairies in the diminishing remaining gaps must be hard work.  Put another way, your sky fairies have become less necessary, needed or required.  Your addiction continues.

 

Dang S, I thought we were getting close to communicating a few days ago, but it appears you have turned sour.

 

Did you ever think(you probably didn't), that even if we knew our entire reality, that we still couldn't determine that our reality was not created.....unless you can shit me out a universe... Granted you probably could because your asshole is likely reminiscent of a rubber band dried in the sunshine. Just fuckin with you...pun intended. Now go do something lawyerish...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.