OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 24, 2014, 12:35:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Should I continue to debate Jackal?
Definitely, it's educational - 3 (7.9%)
Sure, at least it is providing a little insight. - 7 (18.4%)
Probably not, it's a waste of time. - 12 (31.6%)
Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion. - 16 (42.1%)
Total Voters: 38

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should, I continue my debate with Jackal?  (Read 11387 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2011, 03:55:40 AM »

Who do you believe Jesus is?

A Man like many others. Maybe even a great man. Perhaps a man with a name that is easy to remember as the brand name Nike.

Quote
Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

No..

Then until you encounter someone or have some revelation (of these I am doubtful) who / which embodies the truth for you, endless discussion on the most fine points of the needles of a tree ain't going to get you to see the tree much less the forest.




Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #46 on: February 19, 2011, 04:14:29 AM »

Quote

Then until you encounter someone or have some revelation (of these I am doubtful) who / which embodies the truth for you, endless discussion on the most fine points of the needles of a tree ain't going to get you to see the tree much less the forest.

Uhh, posting an incoherent circular argument did nothing to address the post.

Quote
Then until you encounter someone

I encounter people all the time who embody truths to me. My math teacher correctly taught me that nothing isn't anything... Good to know.

Quote
have some revelation

(rĕv'ə-lā'shən) pronunciation
n.

         1. The act of revealing or disclosing.
         2. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.

I revealed and disclosed Jesus as a liar. This may however be something not previously known or realized by you. And by your reply, I have had a revelation that you are likely deflecting from the argument to post nonsense like this to which is entirely irrelevant to the argument posted.

Quote
endless discussion on the most fine points of the needles of a tree ain't going to get you to see the tree much less the forest.

Can't see nothing, or a tree of nothing.. Thus the forest of nothing is equally and truthfully not something to which can be seen since it isn't anything at all.








« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 04:15:05 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #47 on: February 19, 2011, 04:15:18 AM »


1)  morality is relative. Thus I can have my own moral code. Do try harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....*looks at your post again* wait YOU'RE serious?! HAHAHAHAHA.

"Why am I a relativist? Well look at those moral values, those are relative! Why? Well cultures differ on what is right and wrong, and people do to! In fact, scientific values, reality, art, and basically everything else are all relative. All in all, I am a relativist because relativism is true. Wait..."

Gotta love solipsism...
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2011, 05:00:18 AM »


1)  morality is relative. Thus I can have my own moral code. Do try harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....*looks at your post again* wait YOU'RE serious?! HAHAHAHAHA.

"Why am I a relativist? Well look at those moral values, those are relative! Why? Well cultures differ on what is right and wrong, and people do to! In fact, scientific values, reality, art, and basically everything else are all relative. All in all, I am a relativist because relativism is true. Wait..."

Gotta love solipsism...

That's because energy can do that.. they run on the same basic properties and principles lol

There are 3 laws that govern everything and they are the 3 laws of energy to which can lead to complex... It's also the only 3 laws that can "do work or be a source cause".

Positive
Negative
Neutral

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral:

Action
Reaction
Process
choice
decision
phenomenon
emerging property
environment
Feedback
motion
moral
ethic
thought
Idea
emotion
Selection
Natural Selection
Adaptation
response
Stimuli
system
Piece of information
existence (negative not existing)
Capacity (negative capacity impossible to exist)
time
mathematical equation, or solution
Answer
image
perception
ability
function
sate of being (negative state means no being is existent)
place (negative place doesn't exist, or can't be a place)
Oscillation
inertia
work
belief
opinion
ect...


Energy has 3 properties:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

Ethics or morality has 3 properties:

Positive
Negative
Neutral


Do the math.. energy =/= information and thus ='s all information to which ethical or moral principles are based on.. Anything of complex, especially in moral behaviors can be considered relative in nature just because of those 3 basic laws of energy/information that govern everything to which includes consciousness itself! Again you have a complete and total failure to comprehend information theory! Things can be relative in nature while other things can not be.. Such as the 3 laws lol. Your relativism ends there! Do try harder lol!

Gotta love a solipsist failure without informational value or the 3 laws of existence, and the substance of in the form of energy.



Is it just me, or am I the only one not contradicting himself or self-collapsing? It seems like my argument is the only one that has any sort of coherency and consistency here. Just replying to my post would be equal to you slapping yourself in the face because you will have to adhere to information theory in order to make the reply..

Good luck being relative to that in your responses Aposphet Wink Hmm.. to choose between replaying (+) or not replying (-).. Hmm what benefit would you gain in either case? + or - ? .. Oh how complex this discussion is getting Wink
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 05:23:48 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2011, 06:16:27 AM »

double post deleted.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 06:17:33 AM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,470


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2011, 11:39:49 AM »

Quote
Okay.  Let me show you how theologians use "incomprehensible."  I'm going to use an analogy.  Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.  Suppose God is three dimensional.  (does this analogy sound familiar  Wink )  There is no way we can comprehend three-dimensional understanding completely.  But God made Himself known to us through slices of two-dimensional understanding (what we call "grace.")  At some point, God even became two-dimensional so that we may partake of His three-dimensional glory.
Quote
incomprehensible [ˌɪnkɒmprɪˈhɛnsəbəl ɪnˌkɒm-]
adj
incapable of being understood; unintelligible

Improper use of the term "incomprehensible". And your entire analogy is irrelevant because you claim said deity to have zero dimensional value to which is made of nothing. You even made the illogical claim of "no parts".. So I guess it doesn't have a mind, any information what-so-ever, no memory, no-place to exist in, no abilities, no functions ect.

A proper analogy would be:

God is incomprehensible because he's, according to you,  made of nothing, with no parts, no dimensional value, outside of existence, out side of non-existence, out side of capacity while claiming nothing to be an entity, object, thing, or GOD is literally the dumbest and most pleading argument of desperation in order to maintain one's faith in GOD. This is of course incomprehensible... It's incomprehensible because that exactly the same thing as saying it doesn't exist, and that no understanding could ever exist while trying to argue that it exists. Your entire argument is incomprehensible, and incoherent. Your base of comprehension is only linked to your belief, or conceptual idea to which you have emotionally attached yourself to, and has no relevance to the object of that belief itself because the belief is not the object (god). It's like you are not comprehending how to properly use that term within the context of the rest of your argument. And that is probably because you keep telling yourself it does exist as if that will make it all better in order to try and circumvent logic and reason, or the actual meaning of what you claim to be GOD.. AKA the "NOTHING GOD!"

Quote
Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.

Irrelevant, and that would be untrue. We as 3D+1 beings can fathom more than 3D+1 thinking. And all dimensional beings under that context could share the same thinking that existence can't exist outside capacity. You might want to work on your analogies because they are terrible. Nothing comprehensibly doesn't exist, and can not be a person, place, object, substance, or thing. Learn Basic English please.

Quote
Now, imagine our present scenario as three dimensional creatures.  God cannot be fathomed by any dimensional means of course, but God makes Himself known to us.  The means by which we can understand things higher than three dimensions is by mathematics.  When it comes to how one can comprehend God, we do so by prayer, fasting, charity, meditation, etc.  It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

Your analogy is a total fail. Funny that you have to resort to dimensional values and then collapse the entire analogy by asserting something with zero dimensional value. lol Seriously, are you even understanding the words, or analogies you are attempting to use? Basic English isn't hard, learn how to use it. And prayer, fasting, meditation ect is irrelevant to the subject.

Quote
It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

Aparrently so is creating logical fallacies, circular nonsensical arguments, self-inventing context, self-inventing definitions of words already well defined, using social dogma, pleading for ignorance, and the act of being intentionally ignorant. :/


Quote
So by analogy, when theists say God is "incomprehensible" it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist (if that is even a proper word to use for God).  It simply means that we are unable to understand God fully, but God allows Himself to be understood through certain means, and in fact, He made Himself fully known through the incarnation, through Christ our Lord, so that we may transcend and grow in understanding God.

You can feel free to show evidence that proves any incarnation happened since you are trying to state it in fact form. What a load of crap.. empirical testable evidence or concede that you are making an assertion. Worst of all, you fail completely at understanding information theory and why this very argument of yours fails. Understanding requires information lol. All minds are slave to require information to even know they themselves exist!.. All things that exist must have informational value, structure, and complexity. And I really get a giggle out of this when you claim your GOD to be made of nothing!

Look, I'm trying to be irenic towards you.  I was hoping I'd receive the same courtesy.  There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable.  But if you're going to degenerate this discussion into insults against my character, I'm not going to continue this with you.  If you're genuinely trying to gain insight into our thinking, then act like it.

Now, can you actually fully comprehend 4, 5, or 11 dimensional figures?  Can you comprehend vast infinite multiverse?  Can you even possibly comprehend what atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, etc. exactly look like?  Or can you in fact fully comprehend string theory?

At some point there are things that are incomprehensible.  Incomprehensible can also mean very difficult to understand.  Does not always have to mean failure to understand.  I don't think I'm using it incorrectly at this point.

Theological language has an inadequacy in describing what is considered mysterious.  Even analogies that one tries to make (like what I made) can be inadequate at some point.  It's only there to try to help understand how we think.

And to be quite honest, you're using nothing incorrectly.  God is not made out of nothing.  God is not made out of anything here, but certainly, theological language claims quite the opposite on what God is.  God is something, and we are the ones who are truly "nothing" in comparison to God.  This has been the consistent use of "nothing" in theological language, that it describes the insignificance of all of creation, not God.  In this vast universe alone, our whole solar system can be considered as "nothing."
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 11:44:00 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2011, 01:55:14 PM »

Quote

Look, I'm trying to be irenic towards you.  I was hoping I'd receive the same courtesy.  There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable.  But if you're going to degenerate this discussion into insults against my character, I'm not going to continue this with you.  If you're genuinely trying to gain insight into our thinking, then act like it.

All I am doing is being direct towards you, and addressing problems with your arguments in order to get some kind of honest discourse out of you. Of course there is going to be disagreements here, especially when people start inventing incoherent arguments that improperly use terms to which make their arguments self-collapsing and a self-contradiction. I can't help you there, no can I make your arguments make any sense when you refuse to understand them.
Quote
Now, can you actually fully comprehend 4, 5, or 11 dimensional figures? 

Sure can:

In string theory a string is a 1 dimensional object to where time itself is considered a spatial dimensional plane. Here you can have 4 dimensional objects and multiple universes side by side:

4D<--- 3D<--- 2D<--- 1D ---> 2D -->3D--> 4D

You could have a potential of an 8 Dimensional object to an infinite number dimensional object (existence) with more than one Universe. Things with 11 dimensions are only mathematical theoreticals.. But you can also create logical fallacies with mathematics too.. But not really relevant if such number of dimensions exist or not because they can never defy the law of capacity. Even in string theory the lowest you can get is a 1 Dimensional object before you reach point of convergence because you can't regress to a negative capacity.
Quote

Can you comprehend vast infinite multiverse?  Can you even possibly comprehend what atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, etc. exactly look like?  Or can you in fact fully comprehend string theory?

Yes I can:

Quote
In an infinite volume there is no beginning.. Any point you choose will be relative to only that point. And there is no literal beginning or end.. If you make two points X, and Y then you have made to relative points to which are thus finite unless you specify them to be infinitely distant from each other.And since they are both relative they are not literally a beginning or end because they are still apart of the infinite volume

Finite distances:

Quote
<-----------------------------Infinite distance--->.<------------------Finite (specified distance)------->.<----------------infinite distance---------------------------->

Infinite distances:
Quote
<--------infinite distance------->.<----------------------Infinite distance--------------------------->.<-------------infinite distance---------------->.<-------------Infinite distance----->

If you take the relative points out

<--------------------------------------------------------infinite distance-------------------------------------------------------------------->



 I could even infinitely add more relative points with infinite distances because the nature of an infinite volume states that you can even have infinite volumes within an infinite volume.

example:

Quote
A hotel with infinite number of rooms with each room having an infinite volume. However, you could never have a negative volume or capacity. Thus ground state is the base volume substance. Or the substance of the volume itself.

Another example can be parallel lines:

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

All these lines can be infinitely long. and infinite in number. And each line could represent a universe because our own Universe is measured to be flat. So you get back to the hotel example above.


And since no-capacity can exist, there can only ever be an infinite volume of capacity without beginning or an end... Hence, negative spatial capacity is a literal impossibility. A negative object, thing, or place can not exist by definition alone. You can't contain anything in a negative capacity!


Quote
At some point there are things that are incomprehensible.  Incomprehensible can also mean very difficult to understand.  Does not always have to mean failure to understand.  I don't think I'm using it incorrectly at this point.

That's trying to play a GOD of the Gaps argument as if it's even worth anything as an argument. Well, there will always be gaps in human knowledge between ground state and the infinity. But we do know what Ground state means, and why capacity has always existed simply because the opposite doesn't exist and can't exist. This applies to the energy scale I gave you earlier to which I doubt you even bothered to look at..


1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/energy-scale-of-over-100-orders-of-magnitude/


Theological language has an inadequacy in describing what is considered mysterious.  Even analogies that one tries to make (like what I made) can be inadequate at some point.  It's only there to try to help understand how we think.


Not really relevant.. Capacity and the basic laws I provided above to which include information theory will equally govern that entire argument regardless of what mystery you think is out there. Nothing will never be a mystery object, thing, substance, or entity because it doesn't exist.


Quote
And to be quite honest, you're using nothing incorrectly.

No, I am using the term properly. I am using it in a fashion to show why it's a self-collapsing contradiction. Nothing doesn't exist and that is proper use of the term..

There are two ways nothing is used.. The scientific way and the way in which you describe the absents of something you expect to be there. In either case, there can never literally be nothing.. Even an empty cup is not empty, you can't poor out the space within the cup. Literal zero doesn't exist as an existing object, person, place or thing.

Quote

  God is not made out of nothing. 

Welcome back to logical thinking.. If your GOD exists it can not be made of nothing, have no complexity, no structure, no-form, no substance, or no-cause.. Especially if you want to state it as being conscious, self-aware, intelligent, or posses knowledge. It's bound to the basic rules of existence to which itself can not write, create, or circumvent. It's an emerging property like the rest of us at best. This however doesn't mean it couldn't have set off the big bang.. It just means you need to drop the logical fallacies and make it actually plausible.


Quote

 God is not made out of anything here, but certainly,

Please make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself :/ It's getting rather silly o.O

Quote
God is something, and we are the ones who are truly "nothing" in comparison to God. 

We are truly nothing in comparison to the rest of existence too.. Not really a relevant argument. Nor would either side of that argument translate to no purpose or purpose lost.


Quote
This has been the consistent use of "nothing" in theological language, that it describes the insignificance of all of creation, not God.
 

Again irrelevant argument

Quote
In this vast universe alone, our whole solar system can be considered as "nothing."

Not nothing, it exists and thus has purpose just because it exists. If it didn't exist it would be total complete irrelevance.. Yes, our solar system could vanish and have no-ill effect on the rest of existence. It just means your existence is not required or really relevant to existence itself as a whole. same goes for anything of complex higher than ground state.
[/quote]
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2011, 03:23:00 PM »

lol you guys belief in nothing lol and the information theory of that believing makes me lol you don't even know how things work especially in the Bible where the GODmonster killed everyone lol you guys are dumb! lol

Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2011, 04:37:42 PM »

*sigh*

A part of me wants to go through and debunk everything you just said, but the other part of me thinks its a waste of time. I'm going to choose the later.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2011, 04:47:13 PM »

lol you guys belief in nothing lol and the information theory of that believing makes me lol you don't even know how things work especially in the Bible where the GODmonster killed everyone lol you guys are dumb! lol



This is like the Living Bible of late stage trollogetics.

Well done!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,470


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2011, 05:05:11 PM »

Your insistence on only one use or meaning of terms like "nothing" and "incomprehensible" not realistic.

First, your use of "comprehending" infinity is actually laughable.  Mathematical understanding only draws symbols and numbers of theoretical ideas that one cannot adequately draw a picture of in their heads as a whole.  Therefore, if it becomes difficult to describe in that manner, it just shows how incomprehensible something can be.

The word "nothing" can also mean many things.  But when I say we are nothing and God is something, that doesn't mean God has to obey rules of present existence (when I analogized our nothingness to God in comparison to the universe, that doesn't mean God is the universe, nor does He exist in a manner like creation does).  Your insistence on this is also not realistic, and in fact it's a level of close-mindedness on your part, not as a way of understanding how theists think.  You try to enforce materialistic understanding into spirituality, which are two completely different issues.

Because of a paucity of language, what we consider inadequate to describe, you consider totally non-existent.  But when we describe Him in analogical terms, you consider totality of existence.  It is very black and white for you it seems because you have hard-wired yourself only to look at things within what exists in creation, not transcending creation.  This paragraph pretty much sums up this whole debate we're having.  I hope we move beyond this if you possibly can.

(I can see why the early Christians were accused of "atheism" by the pagans, since they too were too strung up on creation and not beyond it).
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 05:20:05 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,470


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 19, 2011, 11:17:43 PM »

I totally forgot to talk about the "god of the gaps" argument you're making against me.  I never made a god of the gaps argument.  God of the gaps stated that since there are things we don't know about the universe, God made it.  I said there are things that will be always hard to understand in the universe, but it seems mathematics have proven a good tool to help understand at least symbolically those "incomprehensible" parts of existence.  If anything, I've proven a "mathematics of the gaps."

My belief in God does not rest on any gap in human knowledge.  If anything, my appreciation for Him grows the more we know about creation.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #57 on: February 19, 2011, 11:20:58 PM »

lol you guys belief in nothing lol and the information theory of that believing makes me lol you don't even know how things work especially in the Bible where the GODmonster killed everyone lol you guys are dumb! lol

Coherency might help your argument Wink

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #58 on: February 19, 2011, 11:29:28 PM »

Quote
The word "nothing" can also mean many things.  But when I say we are nothing and God is something, that doesn't mean God has to obey rules of present existence (when I analogized our nothingness to God in comparison to the universe, that doesn't mean God is the universe, nor does He exist in a manner like creation does).  Your insistence on this is also not realistic, and in fact it's a level of close-mindedness on your part, not as a way of understanding how theists think.  You try to enforce materialistic understanding into spirituality, which are two completely different issues.

Not really relevant to the claim I was addressing lol... "God isn't made of anything".. AKA the argument for nothing to be GOD. I understand how the term "nothing" is used. Your problems is that you don't know how to properly use the term. And I sure can place materialist rules to it because I just did! Nothing things don't exist lol.. 0 dimensional objects don't exist Wink Your failure to comprehend that is not my problem. This isn't closed mindedness, this is knowing what the words I use actually mean. The English language is not that difficult to understand.

My insistence is entirely realistic.. Try making a reply or communicate without information lol.. I would like to see your supposed god attempt to reply and communicate without information. It's Not going to happen. Like I said, your very own replies to this argument is like shooting yourself in the foot. Do try harder.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 11:37:21 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #59 on: February 19, 2011, 11:39:08 PM »

*sigh*

A part of me wants to go through and debunk everything you just said, but the other part of me thinks its a waste of time. I'm going to choose the later.

Go for it lol.. The very reply you just made just totally collapsed any argument you could possibly make. You can't circumvent information theory Aposphet, You can have fun trying..

You can start with the positive, negative, neutral post above. Wink

« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 11:42:10 PM by TheJackel » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #60 on: February 19, 2011, 11:46:57 PM »

Prove that immaterial === nothing.

(And don't go off on zero-dimensional objects again. Dimensionality is a material property, so an immaterial God does not have dimensions—not zero, nor three, nor five thousand. Non-dimensional [or we could say "undefinable", from a material standpoint] and zero-dimensional are different things, just as "zero" and "undefined" are completely different things in mathematics.)
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 11:53:36 PM by bogdan » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2011, 12:25:53 AM »

Prove that immaterial === nothing.

Immaterial is the absents of substance. Learn how to define the term. No substance = nothing.. Things can not exist and be made of "nothing". Do you even know where the term immaterial came from or what it's original intended purpose was? It was to describe things not seemingly made of solid matter.. AkA heat vs a brick.
Quote
Immaterial:
 1. not consisting of matter

It's common use in this context was to describe energy.. A key term used by religion to describe spirit energy when they didn't know that what they are made of is in fact energy. Or that matter was made of energy.  Well, many years later we came to understand the 4 stages of matter to figure out that energy is the same substance to which matter is made from. So this term came about before people understood that nothing can not be a substance.

They way you used it is in the literal context of it's meaning. "AKA not made of anything".. Anything you think is made of nothing isn't anything at all, but rather just a logical fallacy or Idea in your head. The idea itself is a material physical pattern of energy, but the object of that idea can not exist while being argued to not be made of anything. Thus something made of nothing is nothing more than nothing. Total complete irrelevance!

Quote
Dimensionality is a material property, so an immaterial God does not have dimensions—not zero, nor three, nor five thousand.

An object can not exist without dimensional value.. Again you are applying a nothing attribute to your GOD.. GOOD to know because nothing objects don't exist.

Quote
Non-dimensional [or we could say "undefinable", from a material standpoint] and zero-dimensional are different things

Wrong, they are exactly the same thing lol.



Quote
, just as "zero" and "undefined" are completely different things in mathematics.

To say something is "undefinable" also means you can not define it at all. You can't call it anything, or even call it a GOD. again another attribute to nothing. Literal zero is also undefinable because it can't exist. There couldn't be anything there to define, and that is why it's a logical fallacy lol. It's simple son, no capacity (dimension value) equal no-existence..

Tell me, Where does your GOD exist? It's going to need a place of containment, especially if you think it's an individual entity.. Boundaries would have to be made apparent in order to have separation of individuals. The only thing that could ever be called GOD would be the sum total of Existence itself. Everything to which could or does exist would be slave to require it.. Thus existence itself is the first eternal cause! Information/energy is the substance of existence and the cause of all causation.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 12:34:30 AM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,470


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #62 on: February 20, 2011, 01:17:56 AM »

Dear Papist,

I think by now, I suppose we already gained all the insight we need.  There's nothing new really that needs discussing.  Many others, including me, will keep repeating themselves.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 01:18:02 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #63 on: February 20, 2011, 01:39:55 AM »

This was a very interesting argument posted by someone else:
Quote
Wang Bi once tried to describe the totality of things (Tao) as that which is without form (wu xing). He argued that form implies a limit, and limit requires differentiation. As the totality of things is limitless it contains all things and thus cannot be differentiated from any one thing.  Wang Bi does go on to point out that anything which has no form must also have no name (wu ming), as name (ming) requires form (xing). As the ancient Tao Te Ching puts it: "The Tao that can be described in language is not the constant Tao, the name that can be given is not the constant name". No chance for God.(of that kind)


AKA Nothing can not be defined as a person, place, or thing Wink
Quote
First, your use of "comprehending" infinity is actually laughable.  Mathematical understanding only draws symbols and numbers of theoretical ideas that one cannot adequately draw a picture of in their heads as a whole.  Therefore, if it becomes difficult to describe in that manner, it just shows how incomprehensible something can be.

Incorrect. It becomes completely comprehensible knowing capacity can not exist in the form of zero-capacity or a negative capacity. Thus infinite volumes are entirely comprehensible to be infinite volumes. I can comprehend the fact I could draw a line infinitely. I can comprehend that no-capacity = no capacity to exist lol.

So again.. "Where" does your GOD exist again? Please tell me you aren't going to say "no-where" lol.. If you say everywhere, then all things are god.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 01:49:03 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2011, 01:50:42 AM »

Dear Papist,

I think by now, I suppose we already gained all the insight we need.  There's nothing new really that needs discussing.  Many others, including me, will keep repeating themselves.

Yep, you do keep repeating yourself while repetitively ignoring arguments you don't properly address.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,292


WWW
« Reply #65 on: February 20, 2011, 02:26:43 AM »

I wish I could debate Roman Catholics as effectively as TheJackel.   Roll Eyes

Unfortunately, debating atheists is off the table although I understand where they're trying to come from in that they try to quantify what Orthodox Christians deem quantifiable and that modern science/reason (gifts of Roman Catholicism) is sufficient enough for them.

Carry on....   Smiley
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,292


WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 20, 2011, 03:02:04 AM »

I wish I could debate Roman Catholics as effectively as TheJackel.   Roll Eyes

Unfortunately, debating atheists is off the table although I understand where they're trying to come from in that they try to quantify what Orthodox Christians deem unquantifiable and that modern science/reason (gifts of Roman Catholicism) is sufficient enough for them.

Carry on....   Smiley

Oops.   angel
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,470


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #67 on: February 20, 2011, 03:26:45 AM »

Dear Papist,

I think by now, I suppose we already gained all the insight we need.  There's nothing new really that needs discussing.  Many others, including me, will keep repeating themselves.

Yep, you do keep repeating yourself while repetitively ignoring arguments you don't properly address.

What exactly did I ignore?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #68 on: February 20, 2011, 03:54:21 AM »

So, basically, things in the material world require materiality to exist. Thus, anything immaterial doesn't exist? How does that make sense?
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #69 on: February 20, 2011, 05:08:52 AM »

So, basically, things in the material world require materiality to exist. Thus, anything immaterial doesn't exist? How does that make sense?

A thing you claim to be made of nothing wouldn't have any value!.. there would be no informational value what-so-ever!.. Makes total sense. Nothing can not be a person, place, or thing. Just because you can string words together to form a fallacy doesn't make the fallacy possible.

Information theory states that for an object to exist it must have informational value and structure as an object. All things are made of information, contain information, and give off information. Information =/= energy (material physicality). saying your GOD isn't made of anything is also saying that it contains no informational value, structure, or complexity. And this is really funny when theists want to claim their GOD to be Omniscient, especially when they typically do not comprehend information is the substance to anything that exists, or could exist. without informational value or the capacity to contain information, there can only be utter irrelevance of what that which you try to claim to be made of nothing!. And your argument entirely ignores why consciousness requires information to be conscious. Consciousness has cause, and it can not create that which itself is slave to require in order to exist.

So all you have is an informational idea of a GOD, while claiming the Object (god itself) has no informational value or substance. Any value you think it has only exist metaphorically on paper (as an idea), but not as an actual object. Thus saying it's made of nothing is removing any and all potential informational value from the object you are trying to claim exists.

It's a total self-collapse.. Things can not be made of nothing!

Quote
Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything: no thing. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[1] the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

----

Quote
1) I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

2) Information =: the very core cause to everything, and to which also gives things like consciousness value, existence, substance, complexity, structure, ability, intelligence, knowledge, awareness, the ability to choose, the ability to make decisions, the ability to think, the ability to do, have free will (to some extent), or to be what it is entirely. Without it, there can seem to be no possible existence, and that is impossible since nothing can not literally ever exist under literal context.

3) Energy =/= Information: Both substance and value. Two sides of the same coin. It's the literal source to all person's, places, and things. It's all matter, energy, or things with mass. It's every dimensional value. it's the core to all attributes, phenomenon, and processes! It is the sum total of all existence.

4) All things begin from: Ground state, Zero-point energy, or vacuum energy. Anything less would have zero informational value, Zero dimensional value, No capacity to exist, or no literal value what-so-ever.
Quote
    * Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.[citation needed] Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind.

--

Quote
   ** Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose. For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".

Thus Postive, negative, and neutral is the only base pattern required for the influence and transformation of patterns into complex. Such as consciousness. Thus no thought, idea, choice, decision, path, creation, ability, process, system ect could exist without them.  A GOD could not reply, act, respond, know anything, know of it's own existence, or even communicate without information and those 3 laws that govern it all. Information theory can not be circumvented!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 05:41:23 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #70 on: February 20, 2011, 05:45:17 AM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:07:26 AM by TheJackel » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #71 on: February 20, 2011, 06:24:28 AM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend)  

I know that my God Lives, and that His Love is infinitely greater than this blasphemy of yours.
Like all of us, your life is just a blip on the radar screen of history. Don't waste it on hatred my friend. Only what is turned into Love in our lives will live on after we are worm food.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:32:38 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #72 on: February 20, 2011, 08:35:47 AM »

Jackal,

I think listening to the following mp3 might help you to understand where we are (or should be?) coming from:

'Orthodox Ireland'

Quote
(In this episode of the Orthodox Nationalist) Matt Johnson discusses:

    * The Thought of John Scotus Eriugena;
    * Plato in Orthodox Ireland;
    * Greek thought in ancient Ireland;
    * The metaphysics of John Scotus Eriugena.

The title 'Orthodox Ireland' is a little under-descriptive really I think... He gets into some pretty deep stuff here.

Hope it helps.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2011, 09:47:27 AM »

See the problem you have Jackel is the notion that morality is exhaustively described by one's own personal feelings, ideas, beliefs, and values. This is not a neutral point of view, but rather is a particular view of morality called relativism. You give this long list of positive, negative and neutral ideas which are simply laughable. I'd like to discuss exactly why neutral morality cannot exist and further debunk moral relativism by this article: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6223

Moral relativism has become institutionalized in our education system through different forms of instruction in morality that claim to be values-neutral.  The most well-known, values clarification, was developed in the mid-60s by social scientists Louis Raths, Sidney Simon, and others.  It became very popular and was widely used in public schools during the seventies and early eighties.

According to Simon, values clarification "...does not teach a particular set of values.  There is no sermonizing or moralizing.  The goal is to involve the students in practical experiences, making them aware of their own feelings, their own ideas, their own beliefs, so that the choices and decisions they make are conscious and deliberate, based on their own value systems."

The foundational assumption of values clarification, however, is not the student's own.

This leads values clarification advocates into contradiction, as Paul Vitz, professor of psychology at New York University, points out:  "The theorists clearly believe that values clarification is good....They criticize traditional teaching of values as 'selling,' 'pushing,' and 'forcing one's own pet values.'  But when it comes to the value of their own position, relativism has conveniently disappeared, and they push their moral position with their own sermons."

My youngest brother raised his children in Hawaii.  At the time, the public school system there conducted exercises in values clarification in which the students were encouraged to develop their own beliefs about morality.  The teacher was "neutral," explaining to the students that it was up to them to formulate their own moral conclusions to these ethical dilemmas.

The children were asked to solve this problem.  An aged man had taken the life of his seriously ailing wife to put her out of her misery.  He was being tried for murder.  Should he be punished for his "mercy killing," or should he go free?

My brother made a visit to the school to register his concern, but the teacher defended the practice.  "We're not pushing our views or imposing our values," he said.  "We're careful to let the students know that it's up to them to decide what to do.  This is 'value free' instruction.  We're neutral."

My brother pointed out that the teacher's approach was anything but neutral.  "You're telling my children that when they face the hard questions of right or wrong, when they're confronted with the most difficult problems of morality, there are no guidelines.  There are no absolutes.  There are no rules.  You're teaching my kids that when they must decide critical issues of right and wrong, it's simply up to them."

Philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers exposes the moral confusion of values clarification in this true story she relates: "One of my favorite anecdotes concerns a teacher in Newton, Massachusetts, who had attended numerous values clarification workshops and was assiduously applying its techniques in her class.  The day came when her class of sixth graders announced that they valued cheating and wanted to be free to do it on their tests.  The teacher was very uncomfortable.  Her solution?  She told the children that since it was her class and since she was opposed to cheating, they were not free to cheat.  "In my class you must be honest, for I value honesty.  In other areas of your life you may be free to cheat."

Think about this response for a moment.  Does the teacher's solution follow from the instruction on values clarification she has just given to her students?  Of course not.  If the teacher values honesty, then she should be honest without imposing her values on her students.  They should still decide for themselves, which they had.

At best, the instructor is stuck in a contradiction.  When faced with the destructive consequences of relativism, she falls back into imposing her morality on her students--the very thing she's been teaching against.

At worst, the teacher's lesson is that power is the ultimate element in morality, that might makes right:  "I give the grades.  If you cheat, I'll flunk you."  Technically, this is called the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum, or to paraphrase Mao Tse Tung, "persuasion from the barrel of a gun."

Values clarification is not neutral.  Vitz points out five areas of bias.  First, its exercises embody the moral ideology of a small, ultra-liberal segment of America.  Second, its values are relative to individual tastes.  Third, possible solutions to the moral dilemmas posed to students are limited to the most liberal options.  Fourth, the exercises focus on the individual in isolation from family and society.  And fifth, morality is construed simply as self-gratification.  Vitz concludes, "It is a simple-minded, intellectually incompetent system."

What are values clarification exercises meant to teach?  That there are difficult ethical circumstances in which the lines are not clear and the solutions are ambiguous?  We already know that.  No, these exercises go further.  They imply that because some circumstances are ethically ambiguous, there are no ethical certainties at all.

Values clarification aggressively promotes a particular ethical view called moral relativism.  It uses ethical ambiguities to encourage agnosticism about universal moral rules.  By posing extremely difficult problems to children untutored in ethical decision-making, values clarification destroys their confidence in moral absolutes.  

One of the alleged virtues of relativism is its emphasis on tolerance.  An extremely articulate example of this point of view was written by Faye Wattleton, the former President of Planned Parenthood.  The piece is called, "Self-Definition:  Morality."

Quote
Like most parents, I think that a sense of moral responsibility is one of the greatest gifts I can give my child.  But teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others.  It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.

My parents' morals were deeply rooted in religious conviction but tempered by tolerance--the essence of which is respect for other people's views.  They taught me that reasonable people may differ on moral issues, and that fundamental respect for others is morality of the highest order.

"I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my daughter, Felicia, can inherit that legacy.  I hope the tolerance and respect I show her as a parent is reinforced by the work she sees me doing every day:  fighting for the right of all individuals to make their own moral decisions about childbearing."

Seventy-five years ago, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to liberate individuals from the 'mighty engines of repression.'  As she wrote, 'The men and women of America are demanding that...they be allowed to mold their lives, not at the arbitrary command of church or state but as their conscience and judgment may dictate.'

I'm proud to continue that struggle, to defend the rights of all people to their own beliefs.  When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter or anyone else, that's not morality:  It's tyranny.  It's unfair, and it's un-American.

This is impressively and persuasively written, one of the finest expressions of this view available in the space of five short paragraphs.  It sounds so sensible, so reasonable, and so tolerant, but there's a fundamental flaw.

Faye Wattleton's assessment is based on the notion of neutral ground, a place that implies no moral judgment.  Wattleton is not neutral, however, as her own comments demonstrate.

In her article, Wattleton in effect argues that each of us should respect another's point of view.  She then implies, however, that any point of view other than this one is immoral, un-American, and tyrannous.  If you disagree with Wattleton's position that all points of view are equally valid, then your point of view is not valid.  Her argument commits suicide; it self-destructs. (wonder if she takes this approach with her daughter.  Does she "inflict" Felicia with moral obligations about bedtimes, homework, drugs, cheating, etc., or is she "tolerant" of Felicia's divergent opinions on these issues?)

In fact, Wattleton has her own absolute she seeks to impose on other people:  "Fundamental respect for others is morality of the highest order."  This is a personal moral position she strives to mandate politically.  She writes, "I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my daughter, Felicia, can inherit that legacy."  What legacy?  Her point of view.  How does she ensure this?  By passing laws.  Faye Wattleton has devoted her career to ensuring a world in which her point of view is enforced by law.

I don't object to anyone seeking to use the political process to enforce his or her particular point of view in this way.  In our system, everybody gets a voice, and everybody gets a vote.  We each get to make our case in the public square, and may the best idea win.  Because we each can vote, no one can inflict the majority with his point of view (unless, of course, he's a judge).

What is disturbing in Wattleton's article is her implication she is neutral, unbiased, and tolerant, when she is not.  She is entitled to her point of view, but she's not neutral.  The only place of true neutrality is silence.  Speak up, give your opinion, contend for your view, and you forfeit your claim to neutrality.

As a case in point, in May, 1994, Congress passed a law making it a federal offense to block an abortion clinic.

Pamela Maraldo, then president of Planned Parenthood, commented to the press, "This law goes to show that no one can force their viewpoint on someone else."  The self-contradiction of her statement is obvious:  All laws force someone's viewpoint.

Moral neutrality seems virtuous, but there's no benefit, only danger.  In our culture we don't stop at "sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as [we] do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves," as Wattleton says, nor should we.  This leads to anarchy.  Instead we use moral reasoning, public advocacy, and legislation to encourage virtue and discourage dangerous or morally inappropriate behavior.

Faye Wattleton is offering an ethic which, although it sounds fair and tolerant, turns out to be the most bankrupt of all moral systems.  It's called moral relativism.  It's not even tolerant, as Ms. Wattleton makes clear when she condemns those who disagree with her.  It sounds persuasive, but it's also misleading and fallacious.  

In the Los Angeles riots of 1992, we watched with horror as buildings burned all over the city.  Shops were plundered not by hooded looters, but by families--Mom, Dad, and the kids--moral mutants on the shopping spree of their lives, giggling and laughing with impunity while stuffing their spoils into shopping carts and oversized trash bags.

We shouldn't have been surprised.  During the L.A. riots these families did exactly what they had been taught.  Nobody wanted to "impose" their morality on anyone else, so they learned that values are relative, that morality is a matter of personal preference.  Make up your own rules, define your own reality, seek your own truth.  In the spring of '92, thousands of people did just what we told them to do, and civilization burned.

If we reject truth, why should we be surprised at the moral chaos that follows?  As C.S. Lewis said, "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

GK Chesterton:
Quote
"A vast amount of nonsense is talked against negative and destructive things. The silliest sort of progressive complains of negative morality, and compares it unfavorably with positive morality. The silliest sort of conservative complains of destructive reform and compares it unfavorably with constructive reform. Both the progressive and the conservative entirely neglect to consider the very meaning of the words "yes" and "no". To give the answer "yes" to one question is to imply the answer "no"o another question. To desire the construction of something is to desire the destruction of whatever prevents its construction. This is particularly plain in the fuss about the "negative" morality of the Ten Commandments. The truth is that the curtness of the Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion but of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted precisely because most things are permitted and only a few things are forbidden. An optimist who insisted on a purely positive morality would have to begin by telling a man that he might pick dandelions on a common and go on for months before he came to the fact that he might throw pebbles into the sea. In comparison with this positive morality the Ten Commandments rather shine in that brevity which is the soul of wit.

But of course the fallacy is even more fundamental than this. Negative morality is positive morality, stated in the plainest and therefore the most positive way. If I am told not to murder Mr. Robinson, if I am stopped in the very act of murdering Mr. Robinson, it is obvious that Mr. Robinson is not only spared, but in a sense renewed, and even created. And those who like Mr. Robinson, among them my reactionary romanticism might suggest the inclusion of Mrs. Robinson, will be well aware that they have recovered a living and complex unity. And similarly, those who like European civilisation, and the common code of what used to be called Christendom, will realize that salvation is not negative, but highly positive, and even highly complex. They will rejoice at its escape, long before they have leisure for its examination. But, without examination, they will know that there is a great deal to be examined, and a great deal that is worth examination. Nothing is negative except nothing. It is not our rescue that was negative, but only the nothingness and annihilation from which we were rescued.

On the other side there is the same fallacy about merely destructive reform. It could be applied just as easily to the merely destructive war. In both cases destruction may be essential to the avoidance of destruction, and also to the very possibility of construction. Men are not merely destroying a ship in order to have a shipwreck; they may be merely destroying a tree in order to have a ship. To complain that we spent four years in the Great War in mere destruction is to complain that we spent them in escaping from being destroyed. And it is, once again, to forget the fact that the failure of the murderer means the life of a positive and not a negative Mr. Robinson. If we take the imaginary Mr. Robinson as a type of the average modern man in Western Europe, and study him from head to foot, we shall find defects as well as merits. And in the whole civilisation we have saved, we shall find defects that amounts to diseases. Its feet, if not of clay, are certainly in clay, stuck in the mud of a materialistic industrial destitution and despair. To say it is a positive good and glory to have saved Mr. Robinson from strangling is to miss the whole meaning of human life. It is to forget every good as soon as we have saved it, that is, to lose it as soon as we have got it. Progress of that kind is a hope that is the enemy of faith, and  ta faith that is the enemy of charity.

When our hopes for the coming time seem disturbed or doubtful, and peace chaotic, let us remember that it is really our disappointment that is an illusion. It is our rescue that is a reality. Our grounds for gratitude are really far greater than our powers of being grateful. It is in the mood of a noble sort of humility, and even a noble sort of fear, that new things are really made. We adorn things most when we love them most. And we love them most when we have nearly lost them."
http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/essayist/V1N12.GKCessay.html
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:49:08 AM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2011, 09:49:57 AM »

See the problem you have Jackel is the notion that morality is described by one's own values and feelings. This is not a neutral point of view, but rather is a particular view of morality called relativism. You give this long list of positive, negative and neutral ideas which are simply laughable. I'd like to discuss exactly why neutral morality cannot exist and further debunk moral relativism by this article: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6223

Quote
Moral relativism has become institutionalized in our education system through different forms of instruction in morality that claim to be values-neutral.  The most well-known, values clarification, was developed in the mid-60s by social scientists Louis Raths, Sidney Simon, and others.  It became very popular and was widely used in public schools during the seventies and early eighties.

According to Simon, values clarification "...does not teach a particular set of values.  There is no sermonizing or moralizing.  The goal is to involve the students in practical experiences, making them aware of their own feelings, their own ideas, their own beliefs, so that the choices and decisions they make are conscious and deliberate, based on their own value systems."

The foundational assumption of values clarification, however, is not the student's own.

This leads values clarification advocates into contradiction, as Paul Vitz, professor of psychology at New York University, points out:  "The theorists clearly believe that values clarification is good....They criticize traditional teaching of values as 'selling,' 'pushing,' and 'forcing one's own pet values.'  But when it comes to the value of their own position, relativism has conveniently disappeared, and they push their moral position with their own sermons."
...

If we reject truth, why should we be surprised at the moral chaos that follows?  As C.S. Lewis said, "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
Read the rest in the link, it's very good.

GK Chesterton:
Quote
"A vast amount of nonsense is talked against negative and destructive things. The silliest sort of progressive complains of negative morality, and compares it unfavorably with positive morality. The silliest sort of conservative complains of destructive reform and compares it unfavorably with constructive reform. Both the progressive and the conservative entirely neglect to consider the very meaning of the words "yes" and "no". To give the answer "yes" to one question is to imply the answer "no"o another question. To desire the construction of something is to desire the destruction of whatever prevents its construction. This is particularly plain in the fuss about the "negative" morality of the Ten Commandments. The truth is that the curtness of the Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion but of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted precisely because most things are permitted and only a few things are forbidden. An optimist who insisted on a purely positive morality would have to begin by telling a man that he might pick dandelions on a common and go on for months before he came to the fact that he might throw pebbles into the sea. In comparison with this positive morality the Ten Commandments rather shine in that brevity which is the soul of wit.

But of course the fallacy is even more fundamental than this. Negative morality is positive morality, stated in the plainest and therefore the most positive way. If I am told not to murder Mr. Robinson, if I am stopped in the very act of murdering Mr. Robinson, it is obvious that Mr. Robinson is not only spared, but in a sense renewed, and even created. And those who like Mr. Robinson, among them my reactionary romanticism might suggest the inclusion of Mrs. Robinson, will be well aware that they have recovered a living and complex unity. And similarly, those who like European civilisation, and the common code of what used to be called Christendom, will realize that salvation is not negative, but highly positive, and even highly complex. They will rejoice at its escape, long before they have leisure for its examination. But, without examination, they will know that there is a great deal to be examined, and a great deal that is worth examination. Nothing is negative except nothing. It is not our rescue that was negative, but only the nothingness and annihilation from which we were rescued.

On the other side there is the same fallacy about merely destructive reform. It could be applied just as easily to the merely destructive war. In both cases destruction may be essential to the avoidance of destruction, and also to the very possibility of construction. Men are not merely destroying a ship in order to have a shipwreck; they may be merely destroying a tree in order to have a ship. To complain that we spent four years in the Great War in mere destruction is to complain that we spent them in escaping from being destroyed. And it is, once again, to forget the fact that the failure of the murderer means the life of a positive and not a negative Mr. Robinson. If we take the imaginary Mr. Robinson as a type of the average modern man in Western Europe, and study him from head to foot, we shall find defects as well as merits. And in the whole civilisation we have saved, we shall find defects that amounts to diseases. Its feet, if not of clay, are certainly in clay, stuck in the mud of a materialistic industrial destitution and despair. To say it is a positive good and glory to have saved Mr. Robinson from strangling is to miss the whole meaning of human life. It is to forget every good as soon as we have saved it, that is, to lose it as soon as we have got it. Progress of that kind is a hope that is the enemy of faith, and  ta faith that is the enemy of charity.

When our hopes for the coming time seem disturbed or doubtful, and peace chaotic, let us remember that it is really our disappointment that is an illusion. It is our rescue that is a reality. Our grounds for gratitude are really far greater than our powers of being grateful. It is in the mood of a noble sort of humility, and even a noble sort of fear, that new things are really made. We adorn things most when we love them most. And we love them most when we have nearly lost them."
http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/essayist/V1N12.GKCessay.html

[/quote]
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:51:59 AM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,470


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #75 on: February 20, 2011, 12:09:40 PM »

Information theory can be circumvented, if you're God.  God created information.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2011, 01:09:24 PM »

Information theory can be circumvented, if you're God.  God created information.

Now that is laughable! Creates information from a position of no information LOL.. That's the same thing as saying that he creates existence from a position of non-existence! Wow, good job! Wink
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2011, 02:09:20 PM »

Quote
See the problem you have Jackel is the notion that morality is exhaustively described by one's own personal feelings, ideas, beliefs, and values. This is not a neutral point of view, but rather is a particular view of morality called relativism. You give this long list of positive, negative and neutral ideas which are simply laughable. I'd like to discuss exactly why neutral morality cannot exist and further debunk moral relativism by this article:

Sorry, but I completely disagree! Relativism, or even morality itself is based entirely around those rules LOL. You posted a lot of useless nonsense that failed utterly at trying to circumvent information theory. But for giggles I will open a new thread on morality later on.. It's linked to behavioral adaptation to which is taught within cultural, and social networks of the human species.It begins at birth. However, you can't have morals without positive, negative, or neutral abstract perspectives, opinions, or feelings about any given thing from a conscious perspective. Such as murder, genocide, hate ect. Unconscious things are always morally neutral.  
Quote
I'd like to discuss exactly why neutral morality cannot exist

Sure it can..A rock is morally neutral because it's simply not conscious! .. I myself can be morally neutral on subjects and just say that I have no concern either way on a subject, event, or thing. The problem you are having sir is that positive, negative, and neutral aren't always cut and dry with specific dividing lines. They can be vaguely abstract and complex with a lot of gray areas to which is dependent on abstract perspective of an individual in the case where something has a consciousness. The relativity of that solely relies on those 3 laws. I am going to go into this further in the post below:

---------------

Here we are going to explore some terms:


Noumenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
The noumenon (from Greek νοούμενoν, present participle of νοέω "I think, I mean"; plural: νοούμενα - noumena) is a posited object or event as it is in itself, independent of the senses.[1] It classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. As a concept it has much in common with objectivity. That which is tangible but not perceivable, the reflection of phenomenon.

Phenomena
A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα - phenomena) is any observable occurrence. In popular usage, a phenomenon often refers to an extraordinary event. In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however commonplace it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton's observations of the moon's orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum.

Gemology:
Play-of-color, labradorescence, iridescence, adularescence, chatoyancy, asterism, aventurescence, lustre and color change are all phenomena of this type.
The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "phenomenon", which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses.


Generally Gemology for example only refers to the observation of any given phenomenon or process. However when dealing with consciousness for example, these processes can also be unobservable if one is the subject or product of the process. Hence, we can hear ourselves thinking, but the processing of the information that leads to let's say a 2D image in our minds, or what we are thinking can not be self-observable! Thus is assumed by you to be non-material or non-physical noumenon when in fact it's not! And that is because information must be processed, and information can't exist as nothing!

Thus all things must have substance or pattern of substance. This is where energy by said concept is philosophically considered non-physical or non-material. However, it's actually not non-physical, and is material! All forms of consciousness require the material physical world in order to be possible. And this is why it's impossible to have thought processes without energy, containment, complexity, substance, or information, or a structure capable of processing information. This is why you can't have literal -1 energy, no-capacity, no structure, no substance, no-form, or what ever other attribute of nothing you want to toss around! So the existence of non-material simply doesn't exist because it's definition states that it doesn't and can't exist! Stating so is like trying to state that non-existence can exist as a person, place, or thing of existence!.

Memory:

Here, we can try and state that memory or that anything of memory is non-material or non-physical source of human inquiry, however this is false and has been proven to be directly reliant on the physical universe because it is also comprised of the substance of existence itself (energy.) Energy is self-oscillating and is a prime example of phenomenon. So a noumenon is only a product of a phenomenon. This means that experiences only prove the existence of existence, and the existence or state of existence in which the observer is in, or is apart of!. Experience is essentially tied to memory because an experience is stored information (knowledge) on any observed phenomenon, sensed phenomenon, or unobservable phenomenon such as the processing process of thought.. All of these things are apart of existence and must be comprised of the substance of the Universal Set laws of positive, negative and neutral. Experiences can not be written, stored, or understood without them.

So, what we find to not be perceivable, or what gives you the perception of consciousness being non-material is the physical processes that are involved to which occur within your brain. Hence, we can not consciously perceive the processing process because our perceptions and observations of reality and self are only end products of the process! AKA the end emergent property! Hence, the actual processing of information is independent of internal self conscious observation unless observed by a 3rd party to where it can be objectively studied.. Thoughts, feelings, emotions are simply processed and executed responses to stimuli, this is to where the response is itself a physical pattern or phenomenon. There is a reason why you can't feel an emotion without actually physically feeling it, or have an emotions without physically conveying it. Thoughts may be philosophically considered independent of the physical world outside the body, but they are not independent of it because they directly apart of it and rely on it for substance to give them existence as a pattern of information/energy. This is because they too are products of phenomenon. Hence the firing of neurons carry the messages from the senses that can produce informational patterns to be stored, processed, and then applied. And what you also fail to address is that much of what supports consciousness and self-awareness is the internal sensing of one's self or body because we are deeply connected to our own bodies.

So this is why this is correctly stated:


 * Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization

Abstract

Quote
   The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors


FACT: A Phenomenon can not occur or be of process without material or physical capacity! Thus Existence is a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating energy, and self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, mass, consciousness, morality, an even your relativism possible.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 02:18:42 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,470


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #78 on: February 20, 2011, 02:24:30 PM »

Information theory can be circumvented, if you're God.  God created information.

Now that is laughable! Creates information from a position of no information LOL.. That's the same thing as saying that he creates existence from a position of non-existence! Wow, good job! Wink

No no no...you got it all wrong there.  Clearly God's existence is not like our existence.  So let's say God trans-exist, and we simply exist.  So therefore, God is also transcendant information.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #79 on: February 20, 2011, 02:41:09 PM »

Quote
"A vast amount of nonsense is talked against negative and destructive things. The silliest sort of progressive complains of negative morality, and compares it unfavorably with positive morality. The silliest sort of conservative complains of destructive reform and compares it unfavorably with constructive reform. Both the progressive and the conservative entirely neglect to consider the very meaning of the words "yes" and "no"
.

YES and NO are a positive and negative while the meaning of "maybe" or "no-position" are equally ignored by your entire argument. A negative morality or positive morality are only applicable to those thing to which have a brain, or things capable of responding to stimuli. Even lower life forms with brains display primitive moral dynamics, and even cognitive dynamics. Enzymes themselves display cognitive self-organizing dynamics. So when you are dealing with individuals the moral pendlum will greatly depend on how much they positively, negatively, or neutrally respond to any given event, thing, or subject. This is the fractal nature of a chaotic system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Thus entirely complex things such as individual moral code, or cultural morality can emerge.  

Lets explore cognitive dynamics:

Plants for example show what primitive cognitive dynamics looks like before the evolution of the brain. Hence plants show behaviors that exhibit cognitive dynamics Such as in that plants appear to have the ability to solve problems, avoid obstacles, plant their own seeds, co-evolve to specific species of insects or animals, move in a 3d environment. or communicate ect.. Even though these are chemically or sometimes electrically driven, they are none-the-less dynamics associated with intelligence, the basics to awareness, and cognition.
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Zoology-and-wildlife-conservation/Potential-awareness-of-plants-ATP-dependent-glutathione-S-conjugate-export-pump-in-the-vacuolar-memb.html

Plant stimuli reactions from wikipedia:


* Auxin - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Chemotropism - Plant response to chemicals
* Cryptochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Ethylene - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Gravitropism - Behavior associated with gravitic perception
* Heliotropism - Behavior associated with sunlight perception
* Hormonal sentience - Plant information processing theory
* Hydrotropism - Plant response to moisture
* Hypersensitive response - Local reaction produced in response to infection by microbes
* Kinesis - Movement
* Nastic movements - A type of rapid response to non-directional stimulus
* Osmosis - A means of water transportation on the cellular level
* Phototropin - A light receptor pigment
* Phototropism - A behavior associated with light perception
* Phytochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Phytosemiotics - Analysis of vegetative processes on the basis of semiotic theory
* Plant defense against herbivory - Some plant responses to physical disruption
* Plant hormone - A mediator of response to stimuli
* Plant physiology - The science of plant function
* Rapid plant movement - Description of rapid plant movements
* Sensory receptors - Discussion of organs of perception in organisms
* Statolith - An organ of gravity perception
* Stoma - A plant pore which responds to stimulus and which regulates gas exchange
* Systemic acquired resistance - A "whole-plant" resistance response to microbial pathogens that occurs following an earlier, localized response
* Taxis - A type of response to a directional stimulus seen in motile developmental stages of lower plants
* Thermotropism - Plant response to heat
* Thigmotropism - Plant response to touch
* Tropism - A type of response to a directional stimulus

Now you can ask me why haven't plants evolved consciousness by now? Well, evolution does not state that it would. However you can feel free to reference the Green sea slug here:

 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

You can also see primitive evolution of moral behavioral dynamics in the above.. Thing like self-preservation of a living organism.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #80 on: February 20, 2011, 02:44:38 PM »

Quote
No no no...you got it all wrong there.  Clearly God's existence is not like our existence.  So let's say God trans-exist, and we simply exist.  So therefore, God is also transcendant information.

That is the dumbest possible argument you could possibly make. That's what I would call utter denial of reality.. Non-existence transcends existence silly wabbit!. Thanks for verifying that your GOD doesn't exist, and only exists as an Idea in your head! Smiley That's exactly what your argument states. You people are straight up Nihilists who believe Nothing is GOD o.O Talk about a circular logic fail :<

I tell ya what.. If your GOD can post a reply on this forum without the use of information, and material physicality.. I will concede to your premise lol. After all, he should be Omnipotent and Omniscient to where it could do so.. So I await his post below Wink Oh wait.. What's the definition of omniscient again? Smiley
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:15:11 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,470


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #81 on: February 20, 2011, 03:20:49 PM »

Well that's interesting.  I've heard a famous atheistic cosmologist say that you need nothing to start something.  But to you everything outside of something is nothing.  So who's right?

And if nothing isn't nothing anymore, but randomly firing negative and positive particles from the future, well, first off, isn't that a bit circular about creation, that things continually and constantly created and destroyed in neutral terms?  Does not humanity look for the final circular logical answer in that?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:28:25 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #82 on: February 20, 2011, 03:28:02 PM »

Morality:

www.mukto-mona.com "]- Aparthib

Quote
   ...Moral instinct  itself is rooted in the laws of nature (Physics) via the working of the brain. Morality is latent in the laws of nature. It finds expression through the process of evolution...

 
For the newer members below are the links to the previous eight writeup in this series:

   1. Science, Objectivity &; Postmodernism
   2. Science vs. Mysticism &; Philosophy
   3. Science, Logic, Faith, Beauty.. etc
   4. Science, Miracles &; the Paranormal
   5. On the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
   6. A Scientific View of Life Death Immortality:
   7. Brain and Religion
   8. Freewill vs. Predestination

You can also look at Morality in terms of mental addiction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
Quote
   A positive addiction is a beneficial habit--where the benefits outweigh the costs. A negative addiction is a detrimental habit—where the benefits are not worth the negative financial, physical, spiritual and mental costs. A neutral addiction is a habit in which it is not clear if the organism (or species) benefits from the activity.


In biology and energy, behavioral neutrals, positives and negatives are always present. So when you see them asking how does evolution support morality, we can address it because evolution is a positive and negative behavior itself! active matter exhibits these traits unconsciously. Evolution doesn't think about morality, it just selects from positives and negatives based on pattern interaction with other patterns that influence or exert pressure on any given pattern or set of patterns to swing one way or another. Hence, a species will either adapt in a positive or go extinct in a negative because it fails to apply a positive adaptation or behavior.. This is the same concept of moral behavior, and the evolution of moral behaviors.

Basically evolution is a prime example of neutral moral behavior to where it can swing from to a positive or a negative just like a neutral behavioral addiction can swing to a negative addiction or to a positive addiction. So human brains evolve to satisfy the above into a positive and beneficial mental addiction that can equate to the source purpose of "morality" within the human species... It's a positive and negative flow or balance to where one tends to usually be in a state of neutral addiction. A relative abstract perceptual and perpetual pendulum to which is apart of the system of order from chaos.

---

[size=150]
In layman's terms:[/size]

Things either don't change and stay neutral, or they take a positive or negative route! There is no outside to these fundamental rules!.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:28:30 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #83 on: February 20, 2011, 03:41:20 PM »

Well that's interesting.  I've heard a famous atheistic cosmologist say that you need nothing to start something.  But to you everything outside of something is nothing.  So who's right?

And if nothing isn't nothing anymore, but randomly firing negative and positive particles from the future, well, first off, isn't that a bit circular about creation, that things continually and constantly created and destroyed in neutral terms?  Does not humanity look for the final circular logical answer in that?

I disagree. They are referring to ground state (ground zero) on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale. And any atheist that does might not be aware of this.  If you really read into the science you would know that they don't ever talk about literal nothing or needing literal nothing. Even if our entire universe vanished there would still remain infinite capacity, or spatial capacity. And you miss interpret particle physics because borrowing from the future deals with borrowing energy from it's nearest neighbor. Same concept already proven in quantum computing. In an infinite volume you can have a zero-point energy interfere with another zero-point energy because energy can interfere with itself.AKA the Quantum Foam. Energy self-oscillates and only requires itself to cause particle and anti-particle collisions. All that is required is the base properties of positive, negative, and neutral.Their research into the higgs field or GOD particle is to find out exactly how matter arises from ground state. You can't get any less than ground state. It does bug me though that scientists or cosmologists don't really explain things well in laymen terms. I posted the orders of magnitude more than once here, did any of you bother to review it?

However, even if you wanted to try and make the argument that information was "non-material" the GOD concept would still be slave to require the rules I have stated in accordance to information theory. Those 3 rules are the base cause of all causation.. The ground state of all that can and does exist. To put that into context:

Power, divinity, complexity ect can not exist without the lowest possible level of either of those. Powers that are greater are powerless without first the existence of the lowest level of power. 5 apples can not exist without there first being 4 other apples to which includes itself. The cause of causation begins at ground state! It doesn't matter how you want to argue it because that is how you properly apply and solve infinite regress.. It can only be solved by a literal impossible point to where infinite regress can no longer literally regress. Things with consciousness can not ever solve this because consciousness requires far more cause to exist than things that are not conscious. A rock requires less complexity to be a rock than I do to be a conscious entity.

It's really irrelevant if our consciousness can transcend the biological container, or if we could immortally exist consciously. My only argument is that it will have to follow the rules of information theory. Rules that can not be written or created. Usually GOD's are seen as being more complex and powerful than humans.. not less to the point of being nothing but an implausible fallacy. All theists have to do is dump the fallacies in their belief systems and they are GOLDEN. All that my arguments state is that anything made of something with informational value could plausibly exist, and anything more complex than ground state has cause. 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:07:06 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #84 on: February 20, 2011, 04:19:51 PM »

I will even simplify this further..


Just by stating that your GOD exists would be subjecting your GOD to be +1 above 0.. A positive vs a negative existence. Already bound to information theory, and the rules there of.! It's that simple Wink And there is not a darn thing wrong with that, or in accepting that. The only down side is that you have to give up other fallacies like "boundless", "omniscient", and "Omnipotent"..  If you want to say your GOD is as smart and as knowing as you can actually possibly get..Sure! If you want to say that your GOD can be as powerful as something could realistically get..Sure! I don't have issues with those more realistic positions.  
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:26:11 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #85 on: February 20, 2011, 04:28:56 PM »

I will even simplify this further..


Just by stating that your GOD exists would be subjecting your GOD to be +1 above 0.. A positive vs a negative existence. Already bound to information theory, and the rules there of.! It's that simple Wink And there is not a darn thing wrong with that, or in accepting that. The only down side is that you have to give up other fallacies like "boundless", "omniscient", and "Omnipotent"..  If you want to say your GOD is as smart and as knowing as you can actually possibly get..Sure! If you want to say that your GOD can be as powerful as something could realistically get..Sure! I don't have issues with those more realistic positions.  
Umm, you are still missing it. If God exists, he is beyone information theory, beyond "...-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3..."
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #86 on: February 20, 2011, 04:35:25 PM »

I will even simplify this further..


Just by stating that your GOD exists would be subjecting your GOD to be +1 above 0.. A positive vs a negative existence. Already bound to information theory, and the rules there of.! It's that simple Wink And there is not a darn thing wrong with that, or in accepting that. The only down side is that you have to give up other fallacies like "boundless", "omniscient", and "Omnipotent"..  If you want to say your GOD is as smart and as knowing as you can actually possibly get..Sure! If you want to say that your GOD can be as powerful as something could realistically get..Sure! I don't have issues with those more realistic positions.  
Umm, you are still missing it. If God exists, he is beyone information theory, beyond "...-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3..."

DOES NOT COMPUTE! - Incoherent argument.

You just made a self-collapsing circular argument. :<
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:44:34 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #87 on: February 20, 2011, 05:18:49 PM »

Information theory can be circumvented, if you're God.  God created information.

Now that is laughable! Creates information from a position of no information LOL.. That's the same thing as saying that he creates existence from a position of non-existence! Wow, good job! Wink

No information? I was under the impression God encompesed all information. And mina is right He transceds memory. You say this is not reality?

Suppose you are designing a video game. You make the worlds, create NPC's (Non-Playable Character) to fill this world, put in some environment randomness on the world the NPCs fill up, etc. Now that I have created this world I actually transcend reality itself because I created it. I am not a part of this creation but have became the creator. Now I could freely interact with my creation anytime I would like to, but my presence would remain unknown to my creation. Now you see I know ALL the information because I created it. Suppose my NPCs only can do two actions, walk and sleep. Considering I made these NPC's, and gave them the ability to have these actions, I know what reaction they will have if they walk into a ditch or walk into another NPC. But I want my NPC's to have freedom to choose. So instead of guiding my NPC's not from falling off a cliff, I'll let them decide. Also suppose I gave them a brain to think, and they wonder about their Creator. But I haven't revealed myself because if I was to reveal myself would turn my creation into robots by worshipping me just on presence alone and not by choice. So they contemplate do I exist? What am I like? Why don't I show myself? Why do I let my creation kill itself? So they reject that I actually exist, they believe I'm nothing. I could get angry at them and tell them "No! I am here!" but this would impede on their freedom, so I remain hidden.

Anyway the whole point is that I exist however my existence isn't contingent on if my actual creation thinks I exist. I am in another reality than my NPCs are in. Do you understand how this works?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #88 on: February 20, 2011, 05:35:27 PM »

Quote
No information? I was under the impression God encompesed all information. And mina is right He transceds memory. You say this is not reality?

Thanks for calling me GOD Wink now why would I worship myself?

Now you have invented contradictions ..

1) All information would include me, literally in every infinite way.
2) You are now jockeying for Solipsism - so much for individualism
3) You are contradicting another post that say it transcends information.

Coherency in your positions might help.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 05:40:04 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #89 on: February 20, 2011, 06:07:33 PM »

You cannot be God because you do not have all the information.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.208 seconds with 74 queries.