Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
SpeedOfSound wrote:
I have always been confused about this FW thing. What is that garden variety again? How are you different to the plant willing his stem to bend to the light?
Dark energy wrote:i gained more about GOD by debating with atheists then theists.
archibald wrote:SpeedOfSound wrote:
I have always been confused about this FW thing. What is that garden variety again? How are you different to the plant willing his stem to bend to the light?
I am very different from the plant in terms of complexity. In terms of whether either of us can contravene the laws of physics, we are the same. A plant exhibiting the common or garden variety of free will would be capable of not bending towards the light on alternate Thursdays if it freely willed itself not to.
SpeedOfSound wrote:But I still don't see what the problem is. Complicated plants are growing all around me right now.
SpeedOfSound wrote:John Platko wrote:SpeedOfSound wrote:John Platko wrote:
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? 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.
I identify as an atheist and I have my reasons. My guard immunity comes up when I run into someone who identifies as a theist. With good reason. The other shoe ALMOST inevitably drops. You could be the exception which makes me very happy. My issue with the attack of the a-theists here is that they may have missed a subtle opportunity to look back on their own imaginings and thus reveal new material on both sides of the big Split.
I have understood that I have my own gods imagined conveniently by leaving the details to some undefined higher order function. I believe that I can specify that function fully if given an infinite number of pens and papers and times. I guess what makes me an atheist is that I believe in that possibility and I believe that the process wouldn't involve anything that would surprise or startle me in a super-naturale sort of way.
What you are seeing here is war-wearied individuals who have had the other shoe dropped almost every god damned time. It's an interesting discussion to be had; what that mechanism is and how does it fail to serve. It's the power behind my conviction that all xtians and muslims should be ushered off our planet. I proffer you a provisional exception.
SpeedOfSound wrote:John Platko wrote:SpeedOfSound wrote:John Platko wrote:
Well - that's a start. Now tell us about something else you can't imagine. Tell us about the God you can't imagine.
My "positive force" is not the same thing as positive charge. My positive force drives Dissipative Adaptation .
Well on the off chance that Krauss is right I suggest you don't pray to gravity. (Platko's Wager)
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.
So here is one place that I have to defer to that higher order unspecified function. My testing on my own behavior has left it clear that I feel better when I do 'good'. I think there must be biological reasons for that. I BELIEVE there are.
I used to question my mom about what 'good' consists of and she would always tell me "mikey, you know god damned well what good is!". She is right but I'll be damned if I know why.
John Platko wrote:But as it stands, the set of things I believe to be supernatural is empty.
PensivePenny wrote:Arch, what's the jp subscript?
archibald wrote:
Right off the top of my head I could think of about half a dozen better explanations (and terms) than the mangled notion of angels you are trying to foist.
Does it matter if I tell you? Does it matter that Deutsch isn't doing angels, or 'making provision' for them (or doing science but that's by the way).
Does it matter that your 'angels' aren't even a good fit for the phenomenon?
Does it matter that you've already said in this thread that your 'angels' occupy a supernatural place, which is now empty?
No, it'll be like everything else anyone here has ever explained to you.
You'll ignore it and just bounce back with your same daft assertions no matter what, as you always have, because you're clearly not actually one whit interested in trying to get to the facts, or a better understanding, about anything at all.
John Platko wrote:I'm thinking neuroscience will figure this out.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests