Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Sendraks · **#161** by **Sendraks** » Mar 31, 2016 1:25 pm

Is that the one with the special blend and roast?

chairman bill · **#162** by **chairman bill** » Mar 31, 2016 1:35 pm

Dunno, but apparently they 'invoked' it. I'm not sure whether there was any goat-burning involved. If not, this could be a source of carbon-free energy. Now I'd generally imagine that demons would be in favour of global warming, but if not, there's a great business opportunity in this. I'm imagining an ad campaign, something like, 'Demon-based energy; it's one Hell of a good idea." Whaddya think?

Thomas Eshuis · **#163** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 31, 2016 1:35 pm

blue triangle wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
blue triangle wrote:I took up AlanB's challenge to provide evidence that there is a non-physical mind interacting with the universe. That's my evidence.

Even if your borrowed nonsense about Pi and e was evidence of a mind at work (and nobody is buying that one) there is nothing there, whatsoever, to show a "non-physical mind" or interaction of non-physical with physical. If seems your best shot at responding to AlanB's challenge is a non-starter that entirely misses the point.
So ungracious. And speak for yourself, mate.

Another transparent blidn dismissal.
Your response is a complete non-sensical non-sequitur to the post you responded.

blue triangle · **#164** by **blue triangle** » Mar 31, 2016 1:41 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
blue triangle wrote:I think many of you act stupid, hiding behind a veneer of rationalism that is really a kind of sneering contempt for life, like those teenagers at school who sneered at everything because they weren't part of the cool set. In truth everybody's cool. So relax, bro'.

Sneering contempt for life? Nothing is more contemptuous of life than imagining the cosmos as a big watch wound up by the hand of god, a toy with the function of entertaining god. That's why theism, every smidgen of it, adds up to hateful, resentful crap instead of reverence for a cosmos with a purpose.

There's a lot of anger there (stay cool bro').

What's worth a feeling of reverence is the fact that we can pursue scientific knowledge without the need for your superfluous guff about a 'cosmic mind'

Of course you can pursue scientific knowledge, up to a point. It's that point I'm interested in exploring (the zero point). This is the ground I wanted to be on along, the Ground of all Being.

Contempt for theism is not the same thing as contempt for existence, so spare me the preachiness.

I like to think of it as an observation. Preaching's against forum rules, you know.

(Mono)theism is an ancient set of superstitions invented by those ignorant goat-roasters in the Fertile Crescent.

You know, I've made this observation (not judgement :naughty:

) before, but I'll say it again, because some of you might benefit from hearing it again. For a simple non-belief in God, you (and some others) seem to have a real animus against him, or against the people you think invented him. Can a mere absence of belief invoke so much passion?

Trying to sex it up to attract moderns with scientific understanding is pathetic shysterism. Take my advice, lad, and just learn to do without your narcissistic conviction that the universe was created to contain believers and their reverence for God.

It's worship of God, not reverence. Its perfectly alright to revere the Earth though, if you want to try paganism.

GrahamH · **#165** by **GrahamH** » Mar 31, 2016 1:50 pm

blue triangle wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
blue triangle wrote:I took up AlanB's challenge to provide evidence that there is a non-physical mind interacting with the universe. That's my evidence.

Even if your borrowed nonsense about Pi and e was evidence of a mind at work (and nobody is buying that one) there is nothing there, whatsoever, to show a "non-physical mind" or interaction of non-physical with physical. If seems your best shot at responding to AlanB's challenge is a non-starter that entirely misses the point.
So ungracious. And speak for yourself, mate.

Is it ungracious to point out your failure to address the challenge? Was is ungracious to pass off bluster as if it were a response to a challenge? It does seem ungracious to reply as you have there, ignoring the very valid point made with a vacuous but testy reply. :naughty:

Sendraks · **#166** by **Sendraks** » Mar 31, 2016 1:56 pm

blue triangle wrote:[There's a lot of anger there (stay cool bro').

What anger? Where?
Why do you keep projecting anger onto your interlocutors.

I mean, I know why you keep doing it but, it'd be refreshing to hear you actually explain your dishonest behaviour for once.

blue triangle wrote:[For a simple non-belief in God, you (and some others) seem to have a real animus against him, or against the people you think invented him. Can a mere absence of belief invoke so much passion?

Again with the dishonest projecting emotions onto people.

Simply stating facts isn't something that you need to get especially passionate about. We know that religious myths were written by a bunch of pig ignorant goat herders "back in the day" and a lot of what the bible contains has been shamelessly pilfered from earlier religious texts, altered and then passed off as a new bit of "wisdom" as an attempt by said goat-herders to impose their worldview on others.

blue triangle · **#167** by **blue triangle** » Mar 31, 2016 1:58 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:you might as well quit while you're ahead

I'm ahead? That's a very nice thing to say: thanks :grin:

But since that hasn't stopped you before, I won't hold my breath.

I'm not interested in scoring points. I'm interested in answering AlanB's questions. That's what the thread's for.

Nice long string of posts, Thomas, a kind of verbal superstring, one might say. Ten I counted! You must have been up all night inputting them. I don't have time to read or answer them at the moment though. Give yourself a break, lad. Go stretch your legs or something. I'll maybe get round to them eventually.

Animavore · **#168** by **Animavore** » Mar 31, 2016 1:59 pm

This guy gets an even closer approximation to pi from Shakespeare's Macbeth using the same formula.

http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=16857.0

chairman bill · **#169** by **chairman bill** » Mar 31, 2016 2:02 pm

blue triangle - how did those people invoke that demon?

GrahamH · **#170** by **GrahamH** » Mar 31, 2016 2:02 pm

blue triangle wrote:
(Mono)theism is an ancient set of superstitions invented by those ignorant goat-roasters in the Fertile Crescent.
You know, I've made this observation (not judgement ) before, but I'll say it again, because some of you might benefit from hearing it again. For a simple non-belief in God, you (and some others) seem to have a real animus against him, or against the people you think invented him. Can a mere absence of belief invoke so much passion?

It seems to me that any "animus" (I see no "real animus" here) is directed at behaviour such as you display. Your supercilious and aggressive attitude may be intended to provoke, or you may not be so self-aware and it may be accidental, but you have no cause to bleat about the robust yet civil responses you have received. Try addressing the arguments rather than sniping at other members.

blue triangle · **#171** by **blue triangle** » Mar 31, 2016 2:07 pm

Sendraks wrote:
blue triangle wrote:[There's a lot of anger there (stay cool bro').

What anger? Where?
Why do you keep projecting anger onto your interlocutors.

Because they spew it out.

We know that religious myths were written by a bunch of pig ignorant goat herders "back in the day" and a lot of what the bible contains has been shamelessly pilfered from earlier religious texts, altered and then passed off as a new bit of "wisdom" as an attempt by said goat-herders to impose their worldview on others.

Do you even know you're doing it?

Sendraks · **#172** by **Sendraks** » Mar 31, 2016 2:15 pm

blue triangle wrote: Because they spew it out.

This is what you're projecting onto them. It is an unsupported assertion you keep making without realising how foolish it makes your comments look and how much it undermines your very diminished stock of credibility.

blue triangle wrote: Do you even know you're doing it?

I know whether I am emotional. You do not.

You're projecting emotions onto to me, because it serves your purpose to do so. It is dishonest behaviour and has no place in the sort of "civil discourse" you claim to crave. Yet, you insist on doing it.

You would be well advised to cease this behaviour and try and marshal some arguments instead.

Shrunk · **#173** by **Shrunk** » Mar 31, 2016 2:15 pm

blue triangle wrote:I'm not interested in scoring points. I'm interested in answering AlanB's questions. That's what the thread's for.

So when do you plan on getting around to doing that?

blue triangle · **#174** by **blue triangle** » Mar 31, 2016 2:17 pm

GrahamH wrote:
blue triangle wrote:
(Mono)theism is an ancient set of superstitions invented by those ignorant goat-roasters in the Fertile Crescent.
You know, I've made this observation (not judgement ) before, but I'll say it again, because some of you might benefit from hearing it again. For a simple non-belief in God, you (and some others) seem to have a real animus against him, or against the people you think invented him. Can a mere absence of belief invoke so much passion?

It seems to me that any "animus" (I see no "real animus" here) is directed at behaviour such as you display. Your supercilious and aggressive attitude may be intended to provoke, or you may not be so self-aware and it may be accidental, but you have no cause to bleat about the robust yet civil responses you have received. Try addressing the arguments rather than sniping at other members.

Try reading my posts from the start. Try not to jump to conclusions. Try to engage with me instead of joining in the sniping (which is about all some of the others have left to do, apparently - and the worst do some downright creepy things). I came here to discuss the gap between religious/spiritual belief and what can be proven by science. I started this thread to answer a challenge set by another member. So either ask me a substantive question related to the evidence I've provided or BUTT OUT! I have enough flies around me as it is.

Sendraks · **#175** by **Sendraks** » Mar 31, 2016 2:19 pm

Flies around shit, bees around honey.

Holy smoke. Holy smoke.
Plenty bad preachers for the devil to stoke.
Feed them in feet first this is no joke.
This is thirsty work
Making holy smoke.

chairman bill · **#176** by **chairman bill** » Mar 31, 2016 2:23 pm

blue triangle - that demon they invoked; how did they do it?

GrahamH · **#177** by **GrahamH** » Mar 31, 2016 2:27 pm

Recap:

blue triangle wrote:I was asked by AlanB if I could provide evidence for the interaction of a non-physical mind with physical matter. This is how it was framed.

Reply to a theist who asserts that a god exists or gods exist:
What you must do now is to prove (or show evidence of) the existence of an interface between a non-physical God (or gods) and a physical universe (or even a physical human being will do). You must then describe the precise nature of the interface: how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must exist solely in the physical universe.

Here is my answer.

In a scientific age religious believers find themselves under fire for their outdated mythologies and unscientific beliefs, flying in the face of evidence that God is nowhere to be found in nature. Personal experience of the divine is regarded as comforting belief at best and dogmatic refusal to listen to the evidence of science at worst. And yet evidence has been provided for those with faith, strongly indicating that a non-physical being or mind or power has been interacting with physical matter in the form of human beings for a very long time. What I am about to present is not evidence for the God of the Bible as such, simply for a non-physical mind guiding the authorship of those scriptures, which is what I was asked to show.

You provided nothing at all to support any non-physical being or mind. Even if we accept, for sake of argument, that a few digits of Pi and e that can be manipulated out of some text are indications of a mind they are not indications of anything non-physical. As such your answer does not address the challenge.

blue triangle · **#178** by **blue triangle** » Mar 31, 2016 2:28 pm

Sendraks wrote:
blue triangle wrote: Because they spew it out.

This is what you're projecting onto them. It is an unsupported assertion you keep making without realising how foolish it makes your comments look and how much it undermines your very diminished stock of credibility.

blue triangle wrote: Do you even know you're doing it?

I know whether I am emotional. You do not.

You're projecting emotions onto to me, because it serves your purpose to do so. It is dishonest behaviour and has no place in the sort of "civil discourse" you claim to crave. Yet, you insist on doing it.

You would be well advised to cease this behaviour and try and marshal some arguments instead.

I have. I'm still waiting on a real response, a refutation, examples of pseudo-encoded material found exactly the same way as Vernon Jenkins found (I've just noticed one though). A rational reason why it couldn't possibly work. Anything! I've gotten very little, and I believe I have answered or am answering them.

As for whether you are emotional about the Judaeo-Christian Bible and those who wrote it, calling them 'pig-ignorant goat-herders' is hardly neutral, is it? There's emotion behind it, even if it's buried. And it's not a nice emotion. The only other possibilities are that you're parroting someone else or trolling, in which case go away. I'm just wondering if you are aware you are doing it. That was a serious question, but please, don't answer. Just go and think about it.

chairman bill · **#179** by **chairman bill** » Mar 31, 2016 2:29 pm

Yes, yes, yes, but about that demon

Shrunk · **#180** by **Shrunk** » Mar 31, 2016 2:29 pm

Animavore wrote:This guy gets an even closer approximation to pi from Shakespeare's Macbeth using the same formula.

http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=16857.0

Oh, look. Yet another answer to one of the questions blue triangle accuses everyone of ignoring. Which he has now ignored, in favour of claiming that everyone here is angry. I admit, it can be difficult to distinguish anger from incredulous amusement at the stupidity of an argument.

Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Re: Mathematical Absolutes in Scripture

Who is online