God's "message" to humans?

[Ssel]

obviously intelligent - in a unibomber sorta way.

Ha ha

But, as Amethyst said - most of us here have learned the hard way to not take what anyone says at face value. Call us gullible-no-more.

I have absolutely NO objection to this thought at all, as long as you don't then go to the opposite extreme and decide that because you got burned once, you never, ever listen to anyone again.

 

Realize, that even though I have NEVER said to have "faith" in me, extremist accusations are made. IF you stop judging what is truth by your passions, then you can fine it much easier.

 

Who knows - maybe he's got the key to unlocking the "mysteries" of the bible.

I could gaurantee that at least 1000 people in the world know of these metaphors. They have nothing to do with ME.

 

You have been surrounded by the SCC Protestants mostly. Priests don't speak of these things They allow you to sort yourselves by either seeing the spiritual point of view or seeing a earthly point of view.

[Amethyst]

You can take the Bible metaphorically all you want to, but it still doesn't prove that god exists, or even that whatever is out there is the same deity depicted in the Bible.

 

I tried taking the Bible metaphorically when I was close to my deconversion. It didn't work because I realized that I was cherry picking what I wanted to believe in (which is very common among Christians nowadays). If you're going to believe in a myth, you should either believe in all of it or none of it.

 

It's like trying to partly believe that Harry Potter = god (which is admittedly ludicrous, but it's just an example, so bear with me). Either Harry Potter is god and everything in the Harry Potter novels are true, or he is a literary character, the same as Jesus. You can't really have it halfway in between. You can try to, but then you're lying to yourself.

 

The difference is that the Harry Potter novels do not claim to be literally true, while the Bible does and we live in a culture where most people accept the Bible at face value because they have been raised from birth to believe that it is true.

 

If children all around the world were raised to think for themselves and to question everything, religion would meet its demise within a few generations. But that does not happen, so we still have religions.

 

I certainly am willing to listen to others' opinions, but listening does not equal blind belief. I've said multiple times that scientific evidence of god's existence would change my mind. It has yet to be discovered, AFAIK.

[Mythra]

I have absolutely NO objection to this thought at all, as long as you don't then go to the opposite extreme and decide that because you got burned once, you never, ever listen to anyone again.

 

No - that doesn't apply to me. I've never put anyone on ignore since I've been here. I do occasionally tell people that they're full of shit, though.

 

But, I kinda like you Ssel. You've got spunk.

 

I'm not so protective of my viewpoint that I repel all invaders. I like to learn new things (at least those range of things that are within my capability to learn) .

[Ssel]

What he says can be said for all books of the world. What happens if you take the Qur-An and say that Allah = Reality? What happens if you take a book about japanese cooking and you say that rice = Reality? I don't know if I've made myself clear.

Yes, you can effectively apply that same word "Reality" to Allah with success. But 2 things to also consider.

 

1) Each of the "Holy Books" are truly written by men who believed that they had a clear grasp on Reality and they proved that they at least had a pretty effect idea. The fact that each book might conflict with another merely means that either no more than one is correct or that they are looking at reality from 2 different perspectives and are both correct.

 

2) As far as using the words on a cook book; I said to keep those 3 qualifiers in mind

1) Consistency throughout

2) Completeness of the entire context

3) Relevance considering the intent

 

And I'm still waiting an answer to my questions. It's a bit too easy for the guy to just say "she's not agreeing with me so I won't talk with her anymore, since she's clearly not humble enough to understand the great importance of what I'm saying". Come on: answer me.

I have no idea of what your questions were, please restate them.

 

If you had said "I have no regard for what this guy says", then yes, I would not have answered. Why would I bother?

 

You can take the Bible metaphorically all you want to, but it still doesn't prove that god exists, or even that whatever is out there is the same deity depicted in the Bible.

The point is that if,if you finally see that the particular metaphor of "God = Whatever is out there", then obviously that God would exist. Thus a proof for existence would indeed be made.

 

But if you don't really care, then neither do I, it isn't an issue.

[Asuryan]

The fact that each book might conflict with another merely means that either no more than one is correct or that they are looking at reality from 2 different perspectives and are both correct.

Or they're both wrong. Why couldn't they be both wrong, and maybe the "correct" point of view on life, science and religion is something entirely different still?

 

2) As far as using the words on a cook book

 

Rice is a very important part of the oriental diet. Japanese eat a lot of rice. They have rice for breakfast, for lunch, for dinner. It is even more omnipresent and important, for them, than bread is for us. So, maybe...

 

 

I have no idea of what your questions were, please restate them.

 

The bible explicitly talks about God (or, reality, as you would call it), as something sentient, with an intelligence, a decisional capability, and meta-thought too.

Reality is, from what I know, the sum of everything that exists.

This includes my chair, my table, my keyboard, my bathroom tiles. Right?

Now.

 

Transitive property says that if the A group has a particular property, then all subgroups of A share that particular property. Es. if A is "Colours", and it contains B ("Red") and C ("Green"), both B and C will also be "Colours"; since they are subgroups of A.

Since god is sentient, as shown in the bible... does this mean that chairs, tables, keyboards, and bathroom tiles, are sentient too? Intelligent, even? Capable of indipendent thought and even meta-thought?

 

If you say no, you'll have to understand that our experience shows us that a brain is necessary for having thoughts, even the simplest ones, and that in order for something to be sentient, it must have a brain. Agreed?

Does God-Reality have a brain? Where is this brain? If he/she/it doesn't need it, how can you be sure that he/she/it doesn't?

[NotBlinded]

You can take the Bible metaphorically all you want to, but it still doesn't prove that god exists, or even that whatever is out there is the same deity depicted in the Bible.

See, that is what makes this understanding unifying. Of course it doesn't prove that this 'god' is the god of the bible. It just shows that these people were writing about god in a way that would be understood by their culture. The same applies to all religions. They are all writing about god. And in order to actually write, words (forms) had to be used when describing 'god'. It doesn't mean that one is more correct than the other because god can't be known. They are all trying to describe something that can't be described so of course there is going to be contradictions when taken literally. One has to look beyond the words.

 

I tried taking the Bible metaphorically when I was close to my deconversion. It didn't work because I realized that I was cherry picking what I wanted to believe in (which is very common among Christians nowadays). If you're going to believe in a myth, you should either believe in all of it or none of it.

Why? They are just stories of the gods (myths). I believe all of them contain truth and it doesn't matter if there are parts that I can't understand. It doesn't negate what is true.

 

It's like trying to partly believe that Harry Potter = god (which is admittedly ludicrous, but it's just an example, so bear with me). Either Harry Potter is god and everything in the Harry Potter novels are true, or he is a literary character, the same as Jesus. You can't really have it halfway in between. You can try to, but then you're lying to yourself.

I disagree. What if the Harry Potter novels were written to convey a message about god? They would still by novels (or myths now), but it wouldn't negate what they were talking about. The same feeling can be inspired by any myth.

 

The difference is that the Harry Potter novels do not claim to be literally true, while the Bible does and we live in a culture where most people accept the Bible at face value because they have been raised from birth to believe that it is true.

Are you refering to what was added later to the bible and it's understanding or are you refering to parts of the bible that claim truth and thus can be seen as true when taken with metaphoric understanding? I understand that most people take it literally and they should mentally face problems with this. They believe it is true because they were taught that the bible is true. Well, they are right and wrong. It is not true when taken literally when it is obvious that it could not be true on the surface. But, it is true on a deeper level. They are all speaking about 'god' and all the problems that face humanity. Surely there can be more than one story that can depict the trials and tribulations of man's spiritual journey without negating any of the others. Can't there?

 

The bible explicitly talks about God (or, reality, as you would call it), as something sentient, with an intelligence, a decisional capability, and meta-thought too.

Reality is, from what I know, the sum of everything that exists.

This includes my chair, my table, my keyboard, my bathroom tiles. Right?

Now.

 

Transitive property says that if the A group has a particular property, then all subgroups of A share that particular property. Es. if A is "Colours", and it contains B ("Red") and C ("Green"), both B and C will also be "Colours"; since they are subgroups of A.

Since god is sentient, as shown in the bible... does this mean that chairs, tables, keyboards, and bathroom tiles, are sentient too? Intelligent, even? Capable of indipendent thought and even meta-thought?

 

If you say no, you'll have to understand that our experience shows us that a brain is necessary for having thoughts, even the simplest ones, and that in order for something to be sentient, it must have a brain. Agreed?

Does God-Reality have a brain? Where is this brain? If he/she/it doesn't need it, how can you be sure that he/she/it doesn't?

But are all the colors equal to the whole or is the whole greater than it's parts? Am I greater than my lung or leg?

 

We tend to think as things as being a whole. When looked at from a more conceptual point of view, all these 'wholes' are subgroups of the Whole (all that is) and we are not greater than the Whole. Of course there are differing degrees of intelligence in those subgroups.

[Asuryan]

But are all the colors equal to the whole or is the whole greater than it's parts? Am I greater than my lung or leg?

 

You are!

That is why I asked about a brain.

If god is sentient, and if god is reality, then reality is sentient.

To be sentient, a brain is needed. This is what our experience (...what "Reality"!) shows us everyday.

Where is god's brain? Does he have a brain? Where it is?

 

It's not easy to express complex concepts in a foreign language .Ack. I try my best here.

[NotBlinded]

But are all the colors equal to the whole or is the whole greater than it's parts? Am I greater than my lung or leg?

 

You are!

That is why I asked about a brain.

If god is sentient, and if god is reality, then reality is sentient.

To be sentient, a brain is needed. This is what our experience (...what "Reality"!) shows us everyday.

Where is god's brain? Does he have a brain? Where it is?

 

It's not easy to express complex concepts in a foreign language .Ack. I try my best here.

I don't know. Maybe reality is it's brain.

 

Italy huh? Cool! You are doing fine, a lot of times I just don't understand what people are trying to say. Sorry!

[Ssel]

Or they're both wrong. Why couldn't they be both wrong, and maybe the "correct" point of view on life, science and religion is something entirely different still?

In the UNHoliness thread, I have already pointed out just what it takes to be truly "right"/Holy and it became very apparent that none of them are right in proclaiming absolute "Holiness"

 

But this is NO excuse to dismiss them as mere fantasy trash. They have proved to be worthy of understanding because they HAVE had serious effect. Seeking to understand the effect and its real cause is what science and thinking are all about. Dismissing it without investigation is prejudice.

 

Rice is a very important part of the oriental diet. Japanese eat a lot of rice. They have rice for breakfast, for lunch, for dinner. It is even more omnipresent and important, for them, than bread is for us. So, maybe...

I'll take it that you're really NOT that stupid and take this as mere sarcasm.

 

 

The bible explicitly talks about God (or, reality, as you would call it), as something sentient, with an intelligence, a decisional capability, and meta-thought too.

Reality is, from what I know, the sum of everything that exists.

This includes my chair, my table, my keyboard, my bathroom tiles. Right?

This was ansered with the post to thomas. Basically Reality, as a whole, behaves with very many human qualites. By understanding what intelligence is actually made of, it can be seen that without doubt, the Universe as a whole is extremely intelligent from many perspectives.

 

Now.

Transitive property says that if the A group has a particular property, then all subgroups of A share that particular property. Es. if A is "Colours", and it contains B ("Red") and C ("Green"), both B and C will also be "Colours"; since they are subgroups of A.

Since god is sentient, as shown in the bible... does this mean that chairs, tables, keyboards, and bathroom tiles, are sentient too? Intelligent, even? Capable of indipendent thought and even meta-thought?

Your mixing your concepts here it seems.

 

See if this helps clear it up;

Since a table and chair are a subset of Real things, then they are also real things. But they are not the entire set as a whole and thus do not have the properties of an entire set.

 

Else merely your monitor could be said to be your computer with all of its capabilities when it is actually only a piece.

 

..to be sentient, it must have a brain. Agreed?

Does God-Reality have a brain? Where is this brain? If he/she/it doesn't need it, how can you be sure that he/she/it doesn't?

This again is a question I expected the very first day during that pseudo-debate.

 

A brain is merely the "body" of the intelligence. This is the same as the hardware of your PC being the body whereas the programming going on inside is it's intelligence and/or spirit.

 

The issue is trying to find where God's/Reality's brain would be right? But you must realize what constitutes intelligence. A human is only one form of intelligence, a computer is another form. Many don't like to call a PC intelligent. This is merely a preference for the use of the word.

 

The concept is that Intelligence "resolves problems" or "seeks goals". It is identified when it reacts in a corrective manner to an apparent balance that it seems to prefer.

 

What Lao Tzu and many since have been pointing out is that the universe behaves just like that. It seems to react to an imbalance in the same way that humans do, but it is unstoppable and far beyond our grasp of total understanding.

 

That reactive intelligence actually caused Man to come into being and happened to have created that Man to be very similar to the intelligence of Reality itself.

 

God's brain is what Reality is, not really separate from its hand or foot, fore reality and the intelligence within, is everywhere. But if you like, you can limit which part of reality your looking at so as to limit what degree of intelligence might be reflected within that small part. Then you can proclaim that that part is not a part of the brain.

 

In the long run, it doesn't matter. All of reality as a whole responds to correct for imbalances. Which part you want to call its brain is up to you.

 

Reality is the alpha and the omega. It creates itself. IT created the Heavens and the Earth. It gets "jealous" if you worship some false idea and will kick your ass for doing so. IT gets angry when you ignore it with stubborn blindness and eventually smacks you so hard you wake up or die for not trying.

 

On and on...

[NotBlinded]

I'll take it that your really that stupid and take this as mere sarcasm.

Before someone jumps your butt, you might want to correct this error!

[Ssel]

I guess I should add..

 

Truly love whatever Reality really is and it will respond in likeness.

 

But don't take this to mean that it will give you just whatever you want. A parent often loves a child but still will not destroy the entire Earth just do satisfy the wishes of the child. And sometimes a parent must even give up his child just so as to not cause the death of others in his stead.

[NotBlinded]

Reality is the alpha and the omega. It creates itself. IT created the Heavens and the Earth. It gets "jealous" if you worship some false idea and will kick your ass for doing so. IT gets angry when you ignore it with stubborn blindness and eventually smacks you so hard you wake up or die for not trying.

 

On and on...

Oh yes, metaphysical justice bites!

[Ssel]

I'll take it that your really that stupid and take this as mere sarcasm.

Before someone jumps your butt, you might want to correct this error!

WOW, damn, your right. I do that now and then. THANK YOU

 

I meant "I'll take it that you're NOT really that stupid and take this as mere sarcasm."

 

I sincerely appologize.

[Ssel]

I would like to add..

 

Science and Religion ARE merely 2 sides of the same mountain. Science is merely enumerating the details of God. They are not going against God's apparent desire.

 

But also;

 

If you truly see what I have been saying here and then go convince an SCC of these things, then you will be tampering with someone else's life in a serious way.

 

If you truly convince him that his Santa Claus God wasn't real, then he will react just as a child who suddenly discovers that Santa isn't real. He will feel the same strong depression and disappointment inside.

 

It takes a while before the higher understanding can get into place. IF he reaches that point, then he will find that all of the feelings that he had before apply even better with his new understanding. But are you going to carry him to that point? Or are you just going to kick him down and leave him there?

 

You are a group who have already discovered that the Santa version of God isn't real. So explaining these things to you does not disillusion you and leave you feeling lost or hopeless.

It will be seriously inhumane of you to deflate an SCC if you do not ensure that you can take the time to build him back up again into the higher and better understanding.

[Antlerman]

Okay...now I feel about tall (and that is pretty small for me...I'm 6'3"!). I shouldn't have assumed what I did and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt when you posted that. It is me that should apologize...I sincerely apologize Antlerman.

You have no need to apologize. I respect you challenging my actions. I'm a far from being without fault and will accept responsibility for my behaviors. You are a very polite and respectful person, and have very valuable insights for me.

[SkepticOfBible]

But this is NO excuse to dismiss them as mere fantasy trash. They have proved to be worthy of understanding because they HAVE had serious effect. Seeking to understand the effect and its real cause is what science and thinking are all about. Dismissing it without investigation is prejudice.

 

I was gonna start a new topic on this, but I guess I am too lazy.

 

Well what evidence is there anything in the bible is true? Even if you take away the "Magical" part there is no evidence that a man name Moses, David or Solomon every existed?

 

Biblical archealogy is virtually dead, because archealogical evidence disproves the bible.

 

So logically we would treat them as mythology, just like the we treat the stories of the Greek and Indian characters.

 

 

 

It will be seriously inhumane of you to deflate an SCC if you do not ensure that you can take the time to build him back up again into the higher and better understanding.

 

I can assure that I try limit my theological discussion to this forum. I only debate a Christian unless he pushes me into it.

[Ssel]

Well what evidence is there anything in the bible is true? Even if you take away the "Magical" part there is no evidence that a man name Moses, David or Solomon every existed?

Think about how much of that archeological evidence has been centered around trying to find literal relationships. They try to find an actual ark for Noah. They try to find evidence in the Red Sea of anyone crossing it. They try to find Egyptian writings which would verify the miraculous events.

 

None of these will ever work. The literal reading isn't the true reading. They are looking for all of the wrong things.

 

On the other hand, we have a nation of people who have maintained these stories as their history for apparently 3000 years without variation. If the stories were indeed metaphoric in nature, which is the only sane conclusion that could be drawn, then the simple fact that you have millions of people still using and maintaining the historical truth of these (as metaphor) is more evidence than any archeological dig.

 

The idea that the entire nation of Israel was built from mere fantasy fairytales is ridicules. The other nations, such as Greece, also have "mythological" stories. But those stories also have a metaphoric understanding.

 

The issue with the Bible God was that all of those gods that other people were using are comparatively weak and not really what is controlling their situations. Moses was saying that their formulae were not accurate. Just as with the Egyptian gods, the Bible God proved to be able to replace their formulae with that of Moses and/or Jesus.

 

They became what we call "myth" simply because they lost the battle and had no more following. But the Bible God DOES still have a very large following. This is evidence that the Moses formula was indeed more effective.

 

Just because something, from any part of history has been labeled "myth" does not mean that it had no truth to it (metaphorically). It merely means that it got displaced as a useful formula.

 

But in addition, when you disqualify the Bible or any similar document from being valid evidence, then you have taken away what others already gathered as their archeological evidence from many years ago. They gathered all they could find back then and put it into their book.

 

When archeologists now go looking for evidence, the strongest evidence has already been gathered but removed as invalid for debate. Your insisting on gathering OTHER evidence after the primary evidence has already been gathered.

 

If you truly see what I have been saying here and then go convince an SCC of these things, then you will be tampering with someone else's life in a serious way...

 

It will be seriously inhumane of you to deflate an SCC if you do not ensure that you can take the time to build him back up again into the higher and better understanding.

I can assure that I try limit my theological discussion to this forum. I only debate a Christian unless he pushes me into it.

What the norm is, is to argue with the SCC about literal details. That's fine, I said only IF you see the metaphoric reality of it and use those arguments.

[MQTA]

But are all the colors equal to the whole or is the whole greater than it's parts? Am I greater than my lung or leg?

 

You are!

That is why I asked about a brain.

If god is sentient, and if god is reality, then reality is sentient.

To be sentient, a brain is needed. This is what our experience (...what "Reality"!) shows us everyday.

Where is god's brain? Does he have a brain? Where it is?

 

It's not easy to express complex concepts in a foreign language .Ack. I try my best here.

 

We're always hearing about his HEART, where is that?

 

All anyone ever saw were his Back Parts. LOL

[Asuryan]

 

We're always hearing about his HEART, where is that?

 

All anyone ever saw were his Back Parts. LOL

 

 

Well, our experiences show us that a heart is not needed to live: amoebas and viruses are alive without a heart. However, our experiences show us that a brain is needed, it is a necessary prerequisite, to be sentient.

We draw our experiences from everything that exists - Reality. This means that Reality has always shown us that a brain is a necessary prerequisite for Sentience. If reality, via experiences and factual demonstrations, teaches us that a brain is needed for Sentience, and then the bible talks about an entity that does not need a brain to be Sentient, well... there is a contradiction.

 

 

The issue is trying to find where God's/Reality's brain would be right? But you must realize what constitutes intelligence. A human is only one form of intelligence, a computer is another form. Many don't like to call a PC intelligent.

 

We're talking about sentience, here. I'll assume that your switching the subject from Sentience to Intelligence wasn't deliberate and was caused by a mere distraction, rather than a real inability to grasp both my words and the sense of what I was saying.

Computers are not sentient. The AI shown to us in most science-fiction movies don't exist yet, and we don't know if they will exist in the future.

But, EVEN IF AIs existed, they would need a material substrate for their Sentience to happen (CPU).

Living things need a material substrate for being Sentient (a brain)... Computers need a CPU for even the most basic of functions (even simply allowing you to compute 2 + 2)... Why shouldn't "god" "reality" follow these same rules - rules taught to us by reality itself?

 

I'll take it that you're really NOT that stupid and take this as mere sarcasm.

 

What was the problem - Freud got your tongue?

However before throwing names around, it could be nice for you to make some research, i.e., about the importance of bread in the Italian culture (and if I tell you that it permeates everything, from literature to our point of view on religion to our language, everything, you can believe me), and presumably rice in the japanese culture. Simply because it's food and it isn't "God reality", does not mean that it is "not enough" for you to discover something new about.

I think that you are biased, and that the word "god" elates in you an emotional response (those emotional responses you seem to despise so much). You are simply not able to read the word "god" and read the word "rice" or "bread" and think that they are mere words expressing mere concepts, instruments of our language. You are religious, and so, when said that for a population a food can be as important as god, you get really angry...

...So angry to throw names around?

There were, I think, hundreds of words in that post of yours.

The only word that you forgot in *all* of the posts you made until now (thousands... tens of thousands of words, maybe even hundreds of thousands?) was the "Not" word.

I don't believe in coincidences. Do you?

I ask you again: Freudian lapsus? And I won't be angry if you tell me it was. You are allowed to have emotions, you know?

 

 

But this is NO excuse to dismiss them as mere fantasy trash. They have proved to be worthy of understanding because they HAVE had serious effect. Seeking to understand the effect and its real cause is what science and thinking are all about. Dismissing it without investigation is prejudice.

 

You are the one showing biases, here, not I.

You can allow one of those two texts to be wrong. You gladly admit that both can be true. But you simply cannot allow or admit that they *COULD* (I said, COULD, not *ARE*, Ssel. It seems that I am the one that was trying to make an hypotesis here, and your reaction about "dismissing" is out of place and out of sense) both be wrong.

Why not?

If one of them can be wrong, why not both of them?

What if both of them are wrong, and, let's say, the Buddhist texts are instead right? What if even those are wrong, and the ancient Viking religious texts are right? What gives you the right to decide that EITHER the bible OR the Qur-An MUST be true, exactly? There are so many religious texts in the world...

 

Your mixing your concepts here it seems.

 

It's "you are". as in "You are not really that stupid".

I brought to your attention two things at the same time: transitive property and the necessity for a brain. Those two things were there to parry two possible considerations of yours.

Transitive property = "Are all and each part of reality sentient, as it is reality as a whole?".

Necessity for a brain = "If they are not, and you compare them to an human body with its cells, then where is and what is the center of reality's Sentience? What materials are, so to say, the neurons of Reality?".

Is it clearer now?

 

The last part of your post is addressed to a strawman.

Again, I was talking about Sentience. Not Intelligence.

I don't want to know if Reality is intelligent, in the sense than a computer may or may not be (this is material for another debate, I think), I want to know if Reality is Sentient, and then maybe even if Reality is capable of meta thought.

[Asuryan]

After watching the History Channel last night about Decoding the Bible, I have to admit that I am a little taken back.

 

I didn't see it, so I guess I can't say anything about it yet.

However, I'm not convinced by this "decoding". I think it is too easy to take a book, and to give of it an interpretation based on already happened events. Meaning... if years ago they knew everything about the twin towers, date included, how come no one said anything about it?

They *would*'ve been published, had they had such knowledge and decided to share it. Other considerations on prophecies, foresight and the like can be found on the CICAP website. www.cicap.com I think should be the right URL.

2012, earth destroyed by a comet. This is an explicit prophecy, complete with a date. This is something we can really verify! So, let's wait for 2012.

If nothing happens and a comet doesn't even pass near the sun or endangers the earth on that year, we can be sure that it was all a hoax. It reminds me of the 3 Fatima Secrets... it was wayyy too easy for the Catholic church to blabber that they were referring to important historical events... AFTER those events *had already happened*!

[Ssel]

We're talking about sentience, here. I'll assume that your switching the subject from Sentience to Intelligence wasn't deliberate and was caused by a mere distraction, rather than a real inability to grasp both my words and the sense of what I was saying.

No. It was caused by paying attention to your words and the inability to read your mind. But I think I'm started to see a bit more of that.

The bible explicitly talks about God (or, reality, as you would call it), as something sentient, with an intelligence, a decisional capability, and meta-thought too.

The subject became intelligence because you specified intelligence. Can I assume that you accused me of changing the subject because you don't really understand what sentience is made of and therefore any discussion with you on the subject is going to be a case of me trying to explain and you trying to accuse?

 

Perhaps you could explain why you "changed the subject" to a speculation of my motives, psychology, and hope for weaknesses?

 

A discussion of sentience and/or intelligence is useless if the participants don't have a very clear understanding of what they are formed. I'll defend the issue of Reality having it, when you figure out what it is made of so that we don't just waste our time. Quoting a definition is not the same as understanding of what it is made.

 

Rice is a very important part of the oriental diet. Japanese eat a lot of rice. They have rice for breakfast, for lunch, for dinner. It is even more omnipresent and important, for them, than bread is for us. So, maybe...

In this, you are baiting a conclusion, which seems to be your style. So rather than me again speculate that because we were speaking of a god issue, that this quote somehow in your mind was related and whatever conclusion you wished to imply was related, and instead just tell us so I don't have to hear your psychological analysis and innuendo efforts again.

 

You are the one showing biases, here, not I.

You can allow one of those two texts to be wrong. You gladly admit that both can be true. But you simply cannot allow or admit that they *COULD* (I said, COULD, not *ARE*, Ssel. It seems that I am the one that was trying to make an hypotesis here, and your reaction about "dismissing" is out of place and out of sense) both be wrong.

Why not?

OR maybe you could possibly read the post and see that I already addressed that possibility and your speculation of emotionalism and psycho-dramatic hopes are really unnecessary.

[Ssel]

After watching the History Channel last night about Decoding the Bible, I have to admit that I am a little taken back. Keep in mind here that last night when the word "bible" was said that it means the Jewish Torah....

 

1) Consistency

2) Completeness - this is where such shows skew the truth

3) Relevance - this is where they capture your attention

 

Its just a mind game much like making the Statue of Liberty dissappear.

[Ouroboros]

You're talking about the Bible Code.

 

I studied it some years ago, and the funny thing is that you can find the same kind of patterns and messages in other books. They claim you can't, but that's not true. The method they're using is very flexible. (They even modify the steps, skipping one or two letters here and there to make it fit)

 

You only find the messages you want to find. It's not like you scan and whoops there was something cool I didn't knew, but the way it works is: "Search for combinations of 'Dart Vader', 'Death Star' and 'Luke Skywalker', and see if we get a match." And if you don't find it you search for "DrtVdr", "DthStr" and "LkSkwlkr" and you have increased you chances.

 

Besides, I found a site once that had other messages from the Bible, and the messages "God is dead" and "God does not exist" and "God is a liar" and "The Devil is God" was repeated hundreds of times in the Bible.

 

So what does that mean? If the Bible Code is correct and true, then it tells us that we shouldn't believe that there is a True God.

[Amethyst]

We're talking about sentience, here. I'll assume that your switching the subject from Sentience to Intelligence wasn't deliberate and was caused by a mere distraction, rather than a real inability to grasp both my words and the sense of what I was saying.

Computers are not sentient. The AI shown to us in most science-fiction movies don't exist yet, and we don't know if they will exist in the future.

But, EVEN IF AIs existed, they would need a material substrate for their Sentience to happen (CPU).

 

Don't we have a thread about this in the Colosseum somewhere?

 

2012, earth destroyed by a comet. This is an explicit prophecy, complete with a date. This is something we can really verify! So, let's wait for 2012.

 

I thought in 2012 there was supposed to be some sort of freaky alignment of the planets and stars or something to bring about the age of aquarius, or some such thing. I don't think the New Age groups really agree on what is supposed to happen, but it is supposedly a magic date.

 

The reason all the New Age groups chose 2012 as a magic date was because that was when the Mayans ended their calendar, IIRC. But other than the Mayans ending their calendar then, there's really no evidence that anything's going to happen then, other than a bunch of people getting drunk on New Year's Eve as usual.

[Asuryan]

The bible explicitly talks about God (or, reality, as you would call it), as something sentient, with an intelligence, a decisional capability, and meta-thought too.

The subject became intelligence because you specified intelligence.

...Along with the words "Sentient", "Decisional capability" and "Meta thought". Plus there was an "And" too, meaning that in the bible, god is shown to have ALL of these, and not just intelligence. I didn't say "or", if I had, you could've simply chosen one of those words and ignore the others, but since I said "and", I explicitly meant that God in the bible has all of those 4 capabilities.

But you decided to focus only on intelligence and skip the others. Why?

Oh yeah, I remember that you don't like having people pointing at the flaws in your posts, silly me...

 

 

Can I assume that you accused me of changing the subject because you don't really understand what sentience is made of and therefore any discussion with you on the subject is going to be a case of me trying to explain and you trying to accuse?

 

Sure you can, as long as I can assume that you deliberately (and cowardly) addressed intelligence and avoided the other 3 aspects of god I mentioned because "intelligence" was the simplest to debate and the only one you could use your computer similarity with. Deal?

Or you can (try to) stop with your air of superiority and I can (try to) stop putting my annoyance in my posts with you. Deal?

 

Perhaps you could explain why you "changed the subject" to a speculation of my motives, psychology, and hope for weaknesses?

 

It seems to me that I'm still discussing the original point of the topic. God and Reality. I didn't change a thing.

 

A discussion of sentience and/or intelligence is useless if the participants don't have a very clear understanding of what they are formed. I'll defend the issue of Reality having it, when you figure out what it is made of so that we don't just waste our time. Quoting a definition is not the same as understanding of what it is made.

 

First of all, I said that god in the bible is Sentient, Intelligent, has Decisional Capability and Meta-Thought. And I asked you if reality has these 4 characteristics too, "where" is the material substrate that allows for them, and if you can demonstrate it.

Still no answer.

And I am still waiting for your answer.

Saying "You don't understand so I won't talk to you until you will understand" is no good to me. If you are so convinced to know everything, included a "better" meaning of Sentience and Intelligence than the meanings I know, explain that too. And maybe try and climb down from your throne, while you're there...

 

In this, you are baiting a conclusion, which seems to be your style.

 

Nice! You are the very first person that tells me such a thing.

However, I am "only" the 5612nd person that tells you that you are an arrogant person.

(the word "first" is to be taken literally. The word "5612nd" is not to be taken literally)

So?

 

OR maybe you could possibly read the post and see that I already addressed that possibility and your speculation of emotionalism and psycho-dramatic hopes are really unnecessary.

 

Of course you addressed the possibility that the bible and qur-an are both wrong. But what good is it if you say "there are two possibilities: either they're both right, or one of them is right and the other one is wrong".

So, what kind of possibility-addressing is that?

 

On a side note: I can't avoid but noticing that you are just ignoring Nivek and Antlerman. Could you explain me why it is so?