Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#161  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 7:23 am

John Platko wrote:

3.3 Impossible states

Similarly, impossible substrates, or impossible states of substrates, are those that are forbidden by laws of nature. The task of transforming a possible state into an impossible one is of course impossible, but impossible states may nevertheless appear in the formalism of subsidiary theories, and transforming one impossible state into another may well be a possible task. For example, Maxwell’s electrodynamics denies the existence of magnetic monopoles, but also predicts how, if they existed, they would interact with electromagnetic fields. This allows the construction of monopole-detecting instruments, which are constructors capable of testing the prediction that no monopoles exist. 3


Those two underlined parts are the key to understanding this. In the example I linked to, blues licks, the general evolution of states proceeds by applying possible transition tasks that result in a new state that is not impossible. More specifically, two existing licks might produce an offspring which is a piece of the beginning of one lick and the ending of another lick. This offspring will be viable if it fits the requirements of what is possible. If not, that offspring might be tossed in the bit bucket, or it might be placed in a special domain for impossible states. Then, at a later time, that offspring may be mated with another lick and create a new viable offspring that that is a possible state. In that way, an impossible state is transformed into, or helps in the transformation of, another possible state.


You appear to have garbled what Deutsch said.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#162  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 7:34 am

John Platko wrote::sigh: Do you ever consider the potential benefit of saying something simple like: John, I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, :scratch: could you explain more about _________________?


Speaking as someone who has done this, in earnest, I have to say that it didn't lead anywhere. Your ideas about soul snippets were incoherent when examined and your take on free will was at best just a version of already existing fudge compatibilism and offered nothing (other than that plants have the sort of 'free will' you were on about).
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#163  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 7:42 am

romansh wrote:shit ... I just noticed the depth of your pun Archi

It was so terrible it would be a little yellow demon dot on one of John's plots.
Definitely supernatural shit.


Sort of like how the number 21 is 'supernatural' if the arbitrary rule is 'even numbers only', apparently. Later we can add two 21s and get a non-'supernatural' number.
Last edited by archibald on Apr 21, 2017 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#164  Postby Manticore » Apr 21, 2017 8:08 am

I don't think anyone has stated which god we are talking about - and there are so many...
(I'm fairly sure it's not Yob-Soddoff the god of English football hooligans - but it doesn't sound much like any of the others i've heard of either.)

Here is a list (probably incomplete of just the gods of Africa.

Abassi [Sky] Abonsam [Evil] Abora [Supreme] Abzu [Water] Acoran [Supreme] Adaheli [Sun] Adro [Sky] Adroa [Sky] Agassou
[Panther] Agbe-Naete [Water] Age [Animals] Aigamuxa [Monster] Ajalamo [Unborn Children] Aje [Wealth] Ajok [Supreme] Akonadi
[Oracle] Akongo [Supreme] Akuj [Supreme] Ala [Earth/Fertility] Alatangana [Creator] Amma [Creator] Anansi [Trickster] Anyiewo [Snake] Aondo [Creator] Apap [Creator] Apedemak [War] Arawa [Moon] Arebati [Sky] Arom [Contracts] Arsan Duolai [Underworld]
Asase Ya [Earth] Ashiakle [Wealth] Asis [Sun] Astar [Sky] Ataa Naa Nyongmo [Creator] Ataokoloinona [Supreme] Atete [Fertility] Avrikiti [Fishermen] Ayabba (Ayaba) [Hearth] Bacax [Cave] Bagba [Wind] Balubaal [Earth+] Bandara [Superior Gods] Banga [Clear water] Behanzin [Fish] Beher [Sea] Bera Pennu [Vegetation] Bo [Warriors] Bomazi [Ancestors] Buadza [WInd] Buck [River] Buku [Sky] Bumba [Creator] Cagn [Creator] (!Kaggen) Cghene [Creator] Chiuke (Chuku) [Creator] Chiata [Supreme] Chwezi [Hero] Col [Rain] Chikara [Sky] Danh (Dan Ayido Hwedo) [Snake] Deng [Sky] Deohako [Beans+] Dii Mauri [Moorish Gods] Dongo [Outer Space] Dugbo [Earth] Dxui [Creator] Emeli-hin [Supreme] Eranoranhan [Protector] Eshu (Elegba) [Trickster] Fa [Destiny] Famien [Fertility] Faro [Sky/Water] Fidi Mukullu [Creator] Garang and Abuk [First Humans] Gbeni [Chief] Gei (Gou) [Moon] Gu [War/Smiths] Gua [Sky] Gulu [Supreme] Gunab [Evil] Guruhi [Evil] Gurzil [Bull] Gwalu [Rain] Hammon [Setting Sun] Harun and Haruna [Water Spirits] Heitsi-Eibib [Sorcerer] Hevioss [Thunder] Huntin [Tree] Huvean [Creator] Ifa [Oracle] Ikenga [Supreme] Imana [Creator] Iruwa [Sun] Juok [Creator] Kalumba [Creator] Kalunga [Supreme] Katavi [Demonic] Ka Tyeleo
[Supreme] Khebieso [Lightning] Kho-dumo-dumo [Demon] Kholomodumo [Monster] Khuzwane [Creator] Kibuka [War] Kokola [Guardian] Kwammang-a [Supreme] Kwoth [Spirit] Kyala [Creator] Legba [Trickster] Leza [Chief] Libanza [Supreme] Lisa [Chameleon] Lyangombe [Chief] Macardit [Demon] Mahrem [Chief] Mantis [Creator] Massim-Biambe [Creator] Mawu [Sky] Mawu-Lisa [Supreme Couple] Mbotumbo [Supreme] Medr [Earth] Moomb [Creator] Mon [?] Mugasa Mugu [Sky] Mujaji [Rain] Mukasa [Supreme] Mula Djadi [Creator] Muluku [Supreme] Mulungu Mungu [Creator] Mungo (Mungu) [?] Musa [Teaching] Musisi [Supreme] Mwari [Supreme] Nampa [Personal] Nana-Bouclou [First Gods] Nana Buluku [Creator] Ndjambi [Sky] 'Ndriananahary [Supreme] Nduru [Jungle] 'Nenaunir [Storm] Nesshoue [River] Ngai ('Ngai) [Creator] Ngewo-wa [Creator] Ngworekara [Demon] Niamye [Supreme] Nkosi Yama'kosi [Supreme] Nommo [Elemental] Number Eleven (Dubiaku) [Hero] Nommo [Spirit] Nyama [Animal] Nyambe [Supreme] Nyambi (Nyambe) [Supreme] Nyame [of the Akan: Supreme] Nyami-Nyami [Guardian] Nyankopon
(Ashanti:Nyame) [Supreme] Nyamia Ama [Supreme+] gNyan [Trees/Stone] Nyasaye [Supeme] Nzambi (Nzambi Mpunguo) [Supreme] Nzame [Supreme] Obassi Osaw [Supreme] Obatala [Sky] Oduduwa (Odudua) [Earth] Ogun (Ogoun) [War] Olokun [Sea] Olorun [Supreme] Omumbo-Rombonga [Tree of Life] Orahan [Supreme] Orisa Nla [Creator] Orishako [Agriculture] Orunjan [Midday Sun] Orunmila [Compassion] Oshalla [?] Osun [Beauty and Love] Oya [Passion and Power] Pemba (Bemba) Mother] Qandisa [Demon] Qamata [Quamta: Supreme] Rock-Sene [Supreme] Ruwa [Supreme] Sagbata [Smallpox] Sakarabru [Medicine] Sakpata [Smallpox] Sango [Thunder] Shango [Thunder] So [Lightening] Tokoloshi [River imp] Tano [River] Tore [Forest] Trowo [Spirits] Tsui'goab [Rain] Twe [Lake] Umvelinqangi [Creator] Unkulunkulu [Supreme] Unumbotte [Creator] Waka [Rain] Wele
[Supreme] Wulbari [Supreme] Wuni [Supreme] Xewioso [Thunder] Yemaja [Creation] Yo [Impersonal] Zin [Water]

If it matters, I am known as 'Masanja' which, I am told, means 'Omnipresent' in the Sukuma language.
The existence of just one racist is proof that there exists at least one person who could be reasonably classified as sub-human.
User avatar
Manticore
 
Posts: 168

Country: Tanzania
Tanzania (tz)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#165  Postby SpeedOfSound » Apr 21, 2017 12:19 pm

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?


I disagree with him and think in fact the opposite. Atheists are the experts. We actually go that extra step of picking out exactly what it is we imagine about god. Too much talk about god without any specification is the realm of the faith driven believer. Now I am just dying to read the next post here where he responds to my ask about his imaginings. My hope for him is that he actually tells me something instead of just blowing me off as the 'opposition'.

Before I read that, I would make the point that humans CAN be happy just driven by faith and belief without spec. It involves a lot of humming and a certain ability to discount and turn down the volume on any interrogators. But it works damned well. So well in fact that most humans just do this and call it a day.

My issue with that is when dogma is called upon, in those rare moments when one must think a thing through (like having a gay neighbor for instance), then unexamined dogma may render a NEW belief, which makes some other human's life (the gay neighbor) difficult. Then I get pissed.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 31687
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#166  Postby SpeedOfSound » Apr 21, 2017 12:23 pm

John Platko wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:

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.


Thank you Sir. You have given me new hope for our species. Me, the atheist, and you, the believer, are no different. I am BTW an atheist who prays and almost daily uses the g-word in my practice of recovery from addiction.

Now I am left with the supposition that you just like to play here at pissing people off or am I missing some history?
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 31687
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#167  Postby SpeedOfSound » Apr 21, 2017 12:28 pm

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) :nono:


Last night in a group I attend, and earlier with my mentor, the subject of this positive force and doing good kept getting tossed around. I have this concern over how it was decided that good is the positive direction toward which I should goal. I don't like arbitrary things like that. Do you know what I am talking about here?

Is it enough that it just makes me happier overall to do it that way?
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 31687
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#168  Postby SpeedOfSound » Apr 21, 2017 12:31 pm

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?

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.


But it's obvious that something about humans has this god thing persisting. I think it undeniable that it's something about our makeup that causes it. Not culture, not blindness, not ignorance, but some consistent DNA prescribed development that makes us this way. A Pycho-logical Fact.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 31687
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#169  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2017 1:17 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:God, do you ever get tired of hearing your own bullshit? :lol: That's the most meaningless pile of drivel I've seen you write this week, and you've made some doozies. It's like Deepak Chopra on crack.


:sigh: Do you ever consider the potential benefit of saying something simple like: John, I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, :scratch: could you explain more about _________________?

I do when someone says something I don't understand. But even if I hadn't done reading on your current bullshit inspirer, this constructor business, it's pretty easy to see when someone's just talking bullshit. Sure, I don't know everything about the jumbled mess of quantum bullshit Deepak Chopra likes to blather on about, but it's obvious from the second you start reading it that it's complete nonsense, snippets of things strung together in a meaningless way. It's so obvious, you don't need a PhD to see it. This sort of thing features heavily in your posts. I appreciate that you can consistently play a character that is blissfully unaware of how bullshitty their posts are, but it doesn't really fool me and I doubt it fools many others either. I do enjoy pointing it out, though.

So I said:

But experts like me know that beyond the limits of what is possible and impossible, i.e. beyond "the laws" that define the possible transformations for a constructor, lies the supernatural domain where the angles live. Where that which the "the laws" make impossible can never-the-less still effect transformations that are possible. Perhaps a picture will help. The angels, residing in supernatural space are shown in yellow on the last plot of this post. They are beyond, what another member might call, "the horizon of optimization" but they can still play a roll in the optimization.


From CT we learn that possible tasks of a constructor are defined by what is possible and what is impossible. That part is pretty straight forward. However, Deutsch points out an interesting aspect that constructors may have where - well here's how he explains it:


3.3 Impossible states

Similarly, impossible substrates, or impossible states of substrates, are those that are forbidden by laws of nature. The task of transforming a possible state into an impossible one is of course impossible, but impossible states may nevertheless appear in the formalism of subsidiary theories, and transforming one impossible state into another may well be a possible task. For example, Maxwell’s electrodynamics denies the existence of magnetic monopoles, but also predicts how, if they existed, they would interact with electromagnetic fields. This allows the construction of monopole-detecting instruments, which are constructors capable of testing the prediction that no monopoles exist. 3


Those two underlined parts are the key to understanding this. In the example I linked to, blues licks, the general evolution of states proceeds by applying possible transition tasks that result in a new state that is not impossible. More specifically, two existing licks might produce an offspring which is a piece of the beginning of one lick and the ending of another lick. This offspring will be viable if it fits the requirements of what is possible. If not, that offspring might be tossed in the bit bucket, or it might be placed in a special domain for impossible states. Then, at a later time, that offspring may be mated with another lick and create a new viable offspring that that is a possible state. In that way, an impossible state is transformed into, or helps in the transformation of, another possible state.

You're just taking the part of the impossible one that is possible and merging it with the same in another. While that might be meaningful for science, it's deepity as you've applied it.


I'm not taking the part of the impossible one that is possible and merging it with another, I'm taking part of the impossible one and merging it with another, and creating a new thing which is possible. There's a difference. One could also take an impossible state and mutate it and have it then become possible. A bit of a fallen angel that one.


You can't just slap frameworks on whatever the fuck you want and pretend it's gold. That's what Deepak Chopra does. In terms of your blues licks your limits are basically arbitrary, and in terms of angels and supernatural they reek of unevidenced wishful thinking.


In a sense the limits are arbitrary, they could be moved a bit here or there - but they are not completely arbitrary, :no: if I expanded the limits in a certain dimension I would leave the domain of the blues and be clearly in Jazz territory. The exact boundary between the Blues and Jazz is not fixed, but it's not like any random lick will fit the blues. :no: And so, a definite Jazz lick, (although I don't think Miles Davis would agree. :no: ) which is beyond the limits of the Blues, i.e. it's impossible there, could merge with a blues lick and create a new blues lick that reaches an area of the Blues domain previously inaccessible. And that gives the heuristic new freedom to build more licks in that area of he domain.

Why slap a boiler plate, "that's Deepak Chopra" on every comment you don't like, and/or understand, and pretend it's gold? :nono:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 7993
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#170  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:18 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:But it's obvious that something about humans has this god thing persisting. I think it undeniable that it's something about our makeup that causes it. Not culture, not blindness, not ignorance, but some consistent DNA prescribed development that makes us this way. A Pycho-logical Fact.


Don't forget the role of brainwashing. Look what happened to poor old John Platko. :(
Last edited by archibald on Apr 21, 2017 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#171  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2017 1:19 pm

archibald wrote:
John Platko wrote:

3.3 Impossible states

Similarly, impossible substrates, or impossible states of substrates, are those that are forbidden by laws of nature. The task of transforming a possible state into an impossible one is of course impossible, but impossible states may nevertheless appear in the formalism of subsidiary theories, and transforming one impossible state into another may well be a possible task. For example, Maxwell’s electrodynamics denies the existence of magnetic monopoles, but also predicts how, if they existed, they would interact with electromagnetic fields. This allows the construction of monopole-detecting instruments, which are constructors capable of testing the prediction that no monopoles exist. 3


Those two underlined parts are the key to understanding this. In the example I linked to, blues licks, the general evolution of states proceeds by applying possible transition tasks that result in a new state that is not impossible. More specifically, two existing licks might produce an offspring which is a piece of the beginning of one lick and the ending of another lick. This offspring will be viable if it fits the requirements of what is possible. If not, that offspring might be tossed in the bit bucket, or it might be placed in a special domain for impossible states. Then, at a later time, that offspring may be mated with another lick and create a new viable offspring that that is a possible state. In that way, an impossible state is transformed into, or helps in the transformation of, another possible state.


You appear to have garbled what Deutsch said.


Well when you actually figure out if I have or haven't be sure to let me know. :roll:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 7993
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#172  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:21 pm

John Platko wrote:
archibald wrote:
John Platko wrote:

3.3 Impossible states

Similarly, impossible substrates, or impossible states of substrates, are those that are forbidden by laws of nature. The task of transforming a possible state into an impossible one is of course impossible, but impossible states may nevertheless appear in the formalism of subsidiary theories, and transforming one impossible state into another may well be a possible task. For example, Maxwell’s electrodynamics denies the existence of magnetic monopoles, but also predicts how, if they existed, they would interact with electromagnetic fields. This allows the construction of monopole-detecting instruments, which are constructors capable of testing the prediction that no monopoles exist. 3


Those two underlined parts are the key to understanding this. In the example I linked to, blues licks, the general evolution of states proceeds by applying possible transition tasks that result in a new state that is not impossible. More specifically, two existing licks might produce an offspring which is a piece of the beginning of one lick and the ending of another lick. This offspring will be viable if it fits the requirements of what is possible. If not, that offspring might be tossed in the bit bucket, or it might be placed in a special domain for impossible states. Then, at a later time, that offspring may be mated with another lick and create a new viable offspring that that is a possible state. In that way, an impossible state is transformed into, or helps in the transformation of, another possible state.


You appear to have garbled what Deutsch said.


Well when you actually figure out if I have or haven't be sure to let me know. :roll:




I'll give you a clue. Where did he say it was possible for impossible states to create possible ones? Because that's what you have suggested.

Plus, you have ignored his example in favour of something else.
Last edited by archibald on Apr 21, 2017 1:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#173  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2017 1:23 pm

archibald wrote:
John Platko wrote::sigh: Do you ever consider the potential benefit of saying something simple like: John, I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, :scratch: could you explain more about _________________?


Speaking as someone who has done this, in earnest, I have to say that it didn't lead anywhere. Your ideas about soul snippets were incoherent when examined and your take on free will was at best just a version of already existing fudge compatibilism and offered nothing (other than that plants have the sort of 'free will' you were on about).


As I recall, you never explained what was incoherent about my ideas of soul snippets. It's a pretty simple idea, there's not a lot of room for incoherence to creep into it. :no:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 7993
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#174  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 1:24 pm

John Platko wrote:
archibald wrote:
John Platko wrote::sigh: Do you ever consider the potential benefit of saying something simple like: John, I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, :scratch: could you explain more about _________________?


Speaking as someone who has done this, in earnest, I have to say that it didn't lead anywhere. Your ideas about soul snippets were incoherent when examined and your take on free will was at best just a version of already existing fudge compatibilism and offered nothing (other than that plants have the sort of 'free will' you were on about).


As I recall, you never explained what was incoherent about my ideas of soul snippets. It's a pretty simple idea, there's not a lot of room for incoherence to creep into it. :no:


It was totally incoherent. I explained. I'm not getting back into it again. Disagree if you wish. I gave it as much consideration as it deserved, probably more. It was utter and complete bollocks.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#175  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2017 1:29 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
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?


I disagree with him and think in fact the opposite. Atheists are the experts. We actually go that extra step of picking out exactly what it is we imagine about god. Too much talk about god without any specification is the realm of the faith driven believer. Now I am just dying to read the next post here where he responds to my ask about his imaginings. My hope for him is that he actually tells me something instead of just blowing me off as the 'opposition'.


I don't think of you as the 'opposition' :no:



Before I read that, I would make the point that humans CAN be happy just driven by faith and belief without spec. It involves a lot of humming and a certain ability to discount and turn down the volume on any interrogators. But it works damned well. So well in fact that most humans just do this and call it a day.


That and leave a certain amount of carnage in their wake.


My issue with that is when dogma is called upon, in those rare moments when one must think a thing through (like having a gay neighbor for instance), then unexamined dogma may render a NEW belief, which makes some other human's life (the gay neighbor) difficult. Then I get pissed.


Me too. I could say a lot more about that but perhaps that's enough for now.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 7993
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#176  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2017 2:00 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
John Platko wrote:

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.


Thank you Sir. You have given me new hope for our species. Me, the atheist, and you, the believer, are no different. I am BTW an atheist who prays and almost daily uses the g-word in my practice of recovery from addiction.

Now I am left with the supposition that you just like to play here at pissing people off or am I missing some history?


Well I stumbled upon this place by accident years ago, I was looking for a group that could talk rationally about the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, google sent me here. They were mostly horsing around in that thread but I did eventually get what I was looking for about that.

So once here I thought I'd post a bit and pretty much immediately the forum's immune system kicked in because I identify as a theist. Some rule #3 nonsense. I had never encountered anything like it before, and it took me a while to sus out what was going on. Let's just say I did a few experiments to help me figure it out.

But you didn't seem to have any problem cutting through my posts. You asked a few pointed questions, I gave you a few honest answers. And it is obvious that there isn't much difference between us. As I try to untangle the religious, and other, nonsense that was impressed on my neurons before I was old enough to protect myself from such doings I find it sensible to keep the bits that aren't crap - and that heuristic seems to bug the hell out of some members. Why? :dunno: Maybe they just want to be able to wave a magic wand and make all that kind of damage go away - but it doesn't work that way. :no:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 7993
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#177  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 2:05 pm

John Platko wrote:Maybe they just want to be able to wave a magic wand and make all that kind of damage go away - but it doesn't work that way. :no:


Question: how many psychotherapists does it take to change a lightbulb?



I wish I knew how to do that concealed answer thing. Damn. Nothing for it but the big-gap-plus-small-text heuristic.




















Answer: only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change. Boom boom.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#178  Postby Greyman » Apr 21, 2017 2:38 pm

archibald wrote:I wish I knew how to do that concealed answer thing.

[Reveal] Spoiler: The Spoiler?
Code: Select all
[spoiler=The Spoiler?]Like so.[/spoiler]
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 391
Age: 49

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#179  Postby archibald » Apr 21, 2017 2:43 pm

Greyman wrote:
archibald wrote:I wish I knew how to do that concealed answer thing.

[Reveal] Spoiler: The Spoiler?
Code: Select all
[spoiler=The Spoiler?]Like so.[/spoiler]



Thanks!
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 8720
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Who is qualified to be an expert on god?

#180  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2017 2:56 pm

SpeedOfSound 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) :nono:


Last night in a group I attend, and earlier with my mentor, the subject of this positive force and doing good kept getting tossed around. I have this concern over how it was decided that good is the positive direction toward which I should goal. I don't like arbitrary things like that. Do you know what I am talking about here?

Is it enough that it just makes me happier overall to do it that way?


I can't speak for what is right for you but I find that I'm not much good, certainly not at my best, when I'm unhappy. The most positive thing I've ever found in being unhappy is that it pushes for change - although not always positive change.

For me, this idea of a positive force, doing good, means helping someone or something grow - maybe myself. Whether or not someone is happy during that process depends on the perspective they take about change and growth. It could make them happy or miserable. If I was growing but long term miserable I would think I should try another direction of growth. I don't find long term unhappiness positive. But if I were happy and not being destructive, I might just stop for a while and enjoy.

That's probably not much help but, there is a certain amount of arbitrariness around what to help grow - it's a choice. It's a lot less arbitrary if you're actually helping something grow or helping it decline - you can see the results.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 7993
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest