SpeedOfSound wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Fallible wrote:

John Platko wrote:

That's my point.

People are really only an expert in the God they imagine. And since atheists imagine no God, they are experts in no God.

What a surprise to see you running away with yourself, John. Are we to believe that you truly think atheists never imagine God? Complete toss from you as usual.

I'm open to learning new things. What do you imagine when you imagine God?

(By the way, that original comment of mine might have been a wee bit tongue-in-cheek.)

Well, I ain't no expert you understand. I imagine god mostly when in the forest and confronted by mightier oaks. My church is there. I'm usually holding a copy of scripture with the books of Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, and Watson. My imagines run to complexity and chloroplasts and the vascular, to roots and earth and minerals. Not just minerals like the heathen would have them but rather deeper imagines of XY Silicates and the like. So, masses of complexity playing odds with random, whirling with the photons, clicking through quantum bands.

My imaginings of god are an attempt to blend myself away in all of this. Then to return to my self thus blended and feel where that might leave me be, in terms of some possible activity.

Ahhh I recognize that church, I think that's the one Paul Dirac attended.

Fallible wrote:Er...John isn't the thread starter.

Noted. However, romansh, who did start the thread, appears to have been working off a remark made by John Platko.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:You do realize that "they" are only imagining my perception of my imaginative powers - right? It's not like I'm claiming to be a 0 handicap imagineer or something.

You put the word 'qualified' in the title of your thread, John.

I did???? Like hell I did. Now you're confusing romansh for me. It's not like I'm responsible for all the bat shit threads around here. I can't even remember the last time I started a thread - it's been a while.

Tell ya what: I'll assume for the moment that you didn't actually intend to make book here, and instead of handicapping the race, you're just shitting all over the track and hoping somebody will slip on it.

Assume away. assume I started the thread - I mean, if I squint I could sort of imagining starting a thread with a title like that if I was in the thread starting mood that is - but I'm not.

I sort of imagine that this thread was started as a way of avoiding pigeon chess in the free will thread. Take a chess piece somewhere else and crap over there - something like that.

romansh wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
You put the word 'qualified' in the title of your thread, John. Tell ya what: I'll assume for the moment that you didn't actually intend to make book here, and instead of handicapping the race, you're just shitting all over the track and hoping somebody will slip on it.

Actually I was the proximate cause of this thread and JP was the proximate cause of me causing this thread. Or at least it is one way of looking at this.

I'm looking more at the fact that Cito somehow thought your thread seemed more like a thread I would start.

That kind of thing could have long term life alternating effects. All of the choices your mysterious mechanisms make from now on could be influenced by that. of the ramifications. And there is no known way to undo what has just been done. I suppose we can at least take comfort in the fact that it was destined to happen and dialed into the initial conditions and laws of motion.

John Platko wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Fallible wrote:

What a surprise to see you running away with yourself, John. Are we to believe that you truly think atheists never imagine God? Complete toss from you as usual.

I'm open to learning new things. What do you imagine when you imagine God?

(By the way, that original comment of mine might have been a wee bit tongue-in-cheek.)

Well, I ain't no expert you understand. I imagine god mostly when in the forest and confronted by mightier oaks. My church is there. I'm usually holding a copy of scripture with the books of Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, and Watson. My imagines run to complexity and chloroplasts and the vascular, to roots and earth and minerals. Not just minerals like the heathen would have them but rather deeper imagines of XY Silicates and the like. So, masses of complexity playing odds with random, whirling with the photons, clicking through quantum bands.

My imaginings of god are an attempt to blend myself away in all of this. Then to return to my self thus blended and feel where that might leave me be, in terms of some possible activity.

Ahhh I recognize that church, I think that's the one Paul Dirac attended.

I think it typical of how an atheist would imagine god. Now I'm wondering how you do it. Do you imagine a motive being, kind of like a human?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:Er...John isn't the thread starter.

Noted. However, romansh, who did start the thread, appears to have been working off a remark made by John Platko.

Ohhhhhhhhhh noooooow I get it! That's how this no free will thing works. You don't have to take responsibility for what you do. you just pass the credit on to John. Interesting, very very interesting.

Wouldn't it be easier to just use and old school:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
I think it typical of how an atheist would imagine god. Now I'm wondering how you do it. Do you imagine a motive being, kind of like a human?

John's original point implies you can't be an expert on God ... his exact words were:

I've never understood why atheists often think of themselves as such experts about God.

So who can be an expert on God?

I can imagine a god, perhaps reasonably well ... I don't know. My question becomes who is an expert on god ... and here I don't mean any imagined god ... I mean, you know, the real one?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

John Platko wrote:

I'm open to learning new things. What do you imagine when you imagine God?

(By the way, that original comment of mine might have been a wee bit tongue-in-cheek.)

Well, I ain't no expert you understand. I imagine god mostly when in the forest and confronted by mightier oaks. My church is there. I'm usually holding a copy of scripture with the books of Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, and Watson. My imagines run to complexity and chloroplasts and the vascular, to roots and earth and minerals. Not just minerals like the heathen would have them but rather deeper imagines of XY Silicates and the like. So, masses of complexity playing odds with random, whirling with the photons, clicking through quantum bands.

My imaginings of god are an attempt to blend myself away in all of this. Then to return to my self thus blended and feel where that might leave me be, in terms of some possible activity.

Ahhh I recognize that church, I think that's the one Paul Dirac attended.

I think it typical of how an atheist would imagine god. Now I'm wondering how you do it. Do you imagine a motive being, kind of like a human?

These days I mostly imagine God as a positive force directing the universe - something akin to what we Catholics would call Grace. But when I'm imagining a more personal God, I imagine a connection with all the snippets of knowledge bounding around my brain. So what I would call prayer is really a dialogue with these snippets of knowledge - most of which I am not conscious of. In practice, this can feel like a real dialogue with a being that is very wise. But even though I know it's me, because what else could it be, at times it feels greater, and other, than me.

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
I think it typical of how an atheist would imagine god. Now I'm wondering how you do it. Do you imagine a motive being, kind of like a human?

John's original point implies you can't be an expert on God ... his exact words were:

I've never understood why atheists often think of themselves as such experts about God.

So who can be an expert on God?

I can imagine a god, perhaps reasonably well ... I don't know. My question becomes who is an expert on god ... and here I don't mean any imagined god ... I mean, you know, the real one?

"the real one?"

I can't imagine why Catholics often think of themselves as such experts on god.

Also the charges in the universe appear to balance so there is no net positive charge.

Also if cosmologists like Krauss are right the whole universe adds up to zero energy then gravity has to be considered a negative force.

John Platko wrote: "the real one?"

If you are suggesting there is not a real one then you will find some support here.

romansh wrote:I can't imagine why Catholics often think of themselves as such experts on god.

Well - that's a start. Now tell us about something else you can't imagine. Tell us about the God you can't imagine.

Also the charges in the universe appear to balance so there is no net positive charge.

My "positive force" is not the same thing as positive charge. My positive force drives Dissipative Adaptation .

Also if cosmologists like Krauss are right the whole universe adds up to zero energy then gravity has to be considered a negative force.

Well on the off chance that Krauss is right I suggest you don't pray to gravity. (Platko's Wager)

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote: "the real one?"

If you are suggesting there is not a real one then you will find some support here.

But apparently not from you.

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:I can't imagine why Catholics often think of themselves as such experts on god.

Well - that's a start. Now tell us about something else you can't imagine. Tell us about the God you can't imagine.

Also the charges in the universe appear to balance so there is no net positive charge.

My "positive force" is not the same thing as positive charge. My positive force drives Dissipative Adaptation .

Also if cosmologists like Krauss are right the whole universe adds up to zero energy then gravity has to be considered a negative force.

Well on the off chance that Krauss is right I suggest you don't pray to gravity. (Platko's Wager)

As usual (or at least often) not addressing the topic under discussion.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:I can't imagine why Catholics often think of themselves as such experts on god.

Well - that's a start. Now tell us about something else you can't imagine. Tell us about the God you can't imagine.

Also the charges in the universe appear to balance so there is no net positive charge.

My "positive force" is not the same thing as positive charge. My positive force drives Dissipative Adaptation .

Also if cosmologists like Krauss are right the whole universe adds up to zero energy then gravity has to be considered a negative force.

Well on the off chance that Krauss is right I suggest you don't pray to gravity. (Platko's Wager)

As usual (or at least often) not addressing the topic under discussion.

I'm addressing the topic. Tell us what you know about "the real one"

Then we can all assess your expertise.

John Platko wrote:
I'm addressing the topic. Tell us what you know about "the real one"

Then we can all assess your expertise.

Not at all ... You said

I've never understood why atheists often think of themselves as such experts about God.

Why can't they be experts on something that does not exist ... I am sure we can find experts on luminiferous ether and they can talk knowledgeably as to why it does not exist?

If you think we can't "know" about god then you literally don't know what you are talking about every time you mention god.
If all that exists is synonymous for you with god then fair enough. I can't imagine all that exists but I can induce or perhaps deduce that it does.

Imagining ... is not knowing.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I'm addressing the topic. Tell us what you know about "the real one"

Then we can all assess your expertise.

Not at all ... You said

I've never understood why atheists often think of themselves as such experts about God.

Why can't they be experts on something that does not exist ... I am sure we can find experts on luminiferous ether and they can talk knowledgeably as to why it does not exist?

I'm sure we can find people who think they are experts on luminiferous ether but that doesn't make it so.

If you think we can't "know" about god then you literally don't know what you are talking about every time you mention god.
If all that exists is synonymous for you with god then fair enough. I can't imagine all that exists but I can induce or perhaps deduce that it does.

Imagining ... is not knowing.

And that: "Imagining ... is not knowing" demonstrates that you don't understand God.

It's like this: you can read about riding a bike - but that doesn't mean you know what riding a bike is like. You can watch other people ride a bike, but that won't give you the experience of riding a bike. You have to ride a bike, maybe fall a few times and get back on it, to understand what it's like to ride a bike. Knowing God is like that. It's not something you know about by reading. It's more of a skill to be developed.

Now to be completely fair, there are some atheists who have read a lot about other people's bike riding experiences, and they watched a tremendous number of people ride bikes, and even sort of gave it a slight go but jumped off as soon as it got moving, who sort-of, kind-of, get the idea of what it's like. But I'm not convinced they really know what God is all about.

John Platko wrote:I'm open to learning new things.

No, you clearly aren't, actually.

Bikes are demonstrable, John.