Lokmer Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 One might precede the other. So wouldn't the next step say that God also includes a transcendant part that is separate from creation... That's garden-variety panentheism. OK, I have a body... all my body is me... yet I am more than just my body... I have an animating force that transcends my body that makes me a living person. Without that animating force in my body, am I no longer me? Perhaps I am just dust. Hqwever... without my body, am I no longer me... or something else? Everything that you call "me" is constituted by your reaction to stimuli. All information you ever encounter enters through one of your sensory apperatuses and is reacted to by the highly complex network of neurons that centralizes in your brain and your gut and stretches all over your body. There isn't an animating "force" - rather, what you perceive as your consciousness arises from all the neurons in your body working together in such a complex manner that it gives rise to an awareness of its own process. Consciousness is a bottom-up process - even conservatice Christian theologians are having to admit this (see the book "Whatever Happened to the Soul?" available pretty much anywhere). NO ONE knows for sure, although it seems that science is starting to lien towards there is still something that may linger... perhaps our body and 'spirit' are joined by our mind, we have thoughts, we also have an 'awareness' of those thoughts... and perhaps that 'awareness' is the transcendant part? You need, seriously, to do some reading on neuroscience. Each part of creation is rather impersonal to each other part, yet could there be a more personal collective awareness.... as to what has led to our impersonal approach to nature to our now ecological priorities... each part is important and interconnected, therefore making all parts personal? No, no, no, no. Impersonal does not mean "unknown" or "treating callously." It means "not a person" in any sense we understand the term. An impersonal God is a god without the identity of a personhood - it is something which can not say "I am." A personal God isn't one that cares about people, it's a God that is a person in the sense that we are persons. A personal God says "I am." It sounds like what you're espousing is a variant form of pantheism or panentheism that holds God as the identity of the universe, where the universe is a cosmic brain and each of us are neurons. There are a few variants of this idea, and it's a fairly new one as theologies go. The best expression I've heard of it is expressed in the phrase "We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out." (J. Michael Straczynski). In technical philosophical terms, this would be a sort of anamistic personal pantheism. -Lokmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invictus1967 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Mr. Neil, It is clear you don’t even pay attention, you just get off on calling people “moron”. It was HanSolo that implied string theory wasn’t unproven. However, is it your contention that gravity is simply a theory? Maybe we aren’t actually walking on the earth. Maybe 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen forming a liquid substance commonly called water is only a theory. But who am I to dispute the word of the “moron labeler”. --------------------- HanSolo, Do you even know what Smoot discovered????? He analyzed the background radiation from the “BIG BANG” and discovered slight variations. These “ripples” were just such to account for the formations of galaxies. In all you dreams where did you ever see that I disputed the Big Bang????????????? Also, if string theory is known to be unproven, why did you make such a big deal out of Steinhardt not labeling it unproven???? Did you want him to talk in circles making redundant statements??? I assume anyone trying to defend these off the wall anti-Creationist theories needs to do that, but I didn’t know you thought that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 HanSolo, Do you even know what Smoot discovered????? He analyzed the background radiation from the “BIG BANG” and discovered slight variations. These “ripples” were just such to account for the formations of galaxies. In all you dreams where did you ever see that I disputed the Big Bang????????????? Also, if string theory is known to be unproven, why did you make such a big deal out of Steinhardt not labeling it unproven???? Did you want him to talk in circles making redundant statements??? I assume anyone trying to defend these off the wall anti-Creationist theories needs to do that, but I didn’t know you thought that as well. Yes I know who Smoot is, and he was not alone. He took the credit for the discoveries the whole team made. He even had to write a letter to make an excuse for his behavior. And the quote I gave you, regarding this, was from a scientific journal 1993. The only reason why I'm arguing with you is because of your violent and agressive way of trying to be right. You don't give any leeway for discussion. You only push on with stonewalled arguments, and we're not getting anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Congratulations Invictus, you're the first one I put on my ignore list. I hope it feels good to be the winner of the looser list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Mr. Neil, It is clear you don’t even pay attention, you just get off on calling people “moron”. It was HanSolo that implied string theory wasn’t unproven. I'm not going to speculate what he implied. Regardless, you expect things in science to be proven, and I find that strange. However, is it your contention that gravity is simply a theory? Maybe we aren’t actually walking on the earth.Gravity is a theory, and that theory has changed. It's the fact that we're drawn to the ground that is the fact. That's science... making theories based on what we observe. You don't "prove" a theory. You can only disprove a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalidasa Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 To answer the original question - Can a Christian really think freely? - I think that to a certain extent, it's possible. It depends on how 'far gone' the Christian in question happens to be. I know for sure that I was a 'freethinking Christian', and perhaps that's why my deconversion was so fast. Being sent to a Christian school from the age of eleven onwards was probably what contributed to my deconversion, now that I think about it Not to mention my countless 'cries for help' during my lowest point (ages 14-16 - depression and contemplation of suicide, amongst other things) going completely unanswered. Christians who are thoughtful, reflective, rational, compassionate, well-informed, and yet still faithful DO exist, and they serve as the counter-argument. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm...maybe this is what a couple of my friends back in high school meant when they said that I acted more like a Christian than most Christians, despite the fact that I'm an atheist. Jury's still out on whether I should consider this a compliment or a downright insult. If any of the Christians who hang out here can set me straight (or even my exie mates, I'm not fussed), I'll be most appreciative. - Fyre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 The simple fact that the word THEORY is used means it is UNPROVEN. If it hasn’t been proven, that means (just in case you didn’t know this either) it is UNPROVEN. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which definition are you using here? the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)n. pl. the·o·ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Are you using #1? Which just happens to be the scientific definition? Maybe you're using #2? Nope... that doesn't fit with your statement. How about #3? No, that's to do with maths. Possibly #4? Maybe... but it rules itself out... #5? Nope, doesn't fit. #6? Yep, that's the one you're using... Shame it's nothing to do with the way "theory" is used in science. Pity that... if you'd used the right definition you might have given us something to worry about. Then again, if you'd used the right definition, you'd have shown yourself to be deliberately providing false information. *waits to be completely ignored once again* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberdiva113 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 ok I'm a little confused, when we use the term "free-thinking" we are saying that said person can except any theories that they like, correct? So on that same thread, doesn't a christian have to except that Jesus is the one and only God/ and that he created the heavens and the earth. So wouldn't a free-thinking christian have problems excepting, say the theory of evolution. I assume their religion would've answered that question beforehand, aka the bible. All I'm saying is, a free-thinking christian can't stay a free-thinking christian for long. They either except their religion, along with all its gaps, or they change their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 ok I'm a little confused, when we use the term "free-thinking" we are saying that said person can except any theories that they like, correct? So on that same thread, doesn't a christian have to except that Jesus is the one and only God/ and that he created the heavens and the earth. So wouldn't a free-thinking christian have problems excepting, say the theory of evolution. I assume their religion would've answered that question beforehand, aka the bible. All I'm saying is, a free-thinking christian can't stay a free-thinking christian for long. They either except their religion, along with all its gaps, or they change their beliefs. I agree to that observation. A free thinking Christian is willing to modify his belief in the only superior Being they call God, but they still are limited to what the Bible says. They're free but only in the box called the Bible. A free thinker in the traditional sense, is someone that is open to any explanation of reality, and doesn't claim their belief on one single dogma. For instance, if abiogenesis would be proven wrong (falsified), then a freethinker would drop the concept and move on to new ideas. It's true that a free thinker claim it's framework to certain concepts too, like the scientific method for finding the answers, so even a freethinker is bound inside a box, but the box happens to be much larger than one single holy book. A free thinker let his mind wander beyond one source of input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Y'know... I'd really like to know why Invictus keeps ignoring me. You don't think it's anything to do with the fact that I demolished his "evidence" by pointing out it's the exact same type of evidence that he's asserted isn't evidence at all... Or maybe it's because he's realised he's got no way of refuting what I've said, so he'll ignore me in the hopes that I'll go away... Possibly it's because I'm not giving him anything to nit-pick... what I AM doing is showing him that his argument is very, very badly flawed and that any attempt to fix it also bolsters any opposing arguments... Anyone got any clues to which it might be? Don't feel bad he ignores me too. I think it is because he doesn't like our avatars. Just because his argument is badly flawed does not mean you can show him that it is so. His memetic structure won't support ideas from outside of his box. His mindset is a roof that just sheds the rain of your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Don't feel bad he ignores me too. I think it is because he doesn't like our avatars. Just because his argument is badly flawed does not mean you can show him that it is so. His memetic structure won't support ideas from outside of his box. His mindset is a roof that just sheds the rain of your logic. So true! I think of him as the bully at the school ground. Whatever you tried to do to please him, he always found reasons to bully someone. He's a myopic ignoramus, and he has a vast "suppository" of arguments. (Misspelling was intentional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 "We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out." (J. Michael Straczynski). In technical philosophical terms, this would be a sort of anamistic personal pantheism. -Lokmer <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lokmer, most everyone seems to like labels... you really cause me to use my brain... AGAIN ...just forget 'animating force'... perhaps I can ask you this another way... Where did the "energy" come from that originally causes neuro-conscious awareness to take place? That very first 'spark' if you will. I know about Stanley Miller's experiment of amino acids in the premordial soup and prehistoric atmospheric conditions that presumably stimulated the conditions for the origin of 'life' to take place, yet it ultimately eludes the similation of the process... has 'something' missing and never been able to reproduce the energy force that ultimately defines life... so what KIND of energy is this other than perhaps an originating animating force? Could there be this unknown energy force that uses those neuromechanisms to temporarily enjoy this experience? Furthermore, would anything concrete exist if this energy did not exist, ...after all... if a tree falls in the forest... and nothing was around to hear it... it seems it would not make a sound because there would be nothing to catch and interpret/produce the sound waves as noise. So if sensory receptors is what defines and gives credence and perameters of reality, would reality exist if we did not? Maybe all we'd be left with is this unknown 'energy'? So, I don't know if I'm in the box with that label you suggest... although I do agree with "We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out." Lokemer... what does the label say on your box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 The label on my box says: "Don't open 'till Christmas!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 QUOTE(crazy-tiger @ Jun 21 2005, 03:10 PM)Which raises the question... Why does he believe the Bible? C-T! You can't question the bible! You got it backwards man. Havent you learned how its done from Manata? It is only proper for Christians to question scienctific theories and it is not proper for heathens to question the bible. Since atheists are evil only our motives/biases should be questioned. Also, since they have faith... only they are allowed to sandbag and speculate. Hope for things not seen is the method given by god. It is scientists who must prove everything to them 100% perfect proof (troy) and not the other way around. The burdon of perfect proof is on the scientists because they are evil and can not be trusted silly. Get with the program! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The lable on Amanda's box clearly says "Amandianity -- 100% query-proof!" Try it once and you'll forget everything about whatever you thought you knew in the first place. Kind of like absinth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts