PDA

View Full Version : Is there a God?



LWW
12-23-2012, 11:38 AM
I'm taking an idea from another forum.

Let's try to keep things civil.

llotter
12-23-2012, 12:05 PM
While there are many useful idiots doing the devils work (showing their close relationship to the lower parts of their evolutionary chain), God's work can everywhere be seen.

Soflasnapper
12-23-2012, 12:24 PM
Is this to be discussed, or just answered poll-style above? (I registered my answer already there.)

I'd expressed the second most certain attitude, only because I'll accept the limitations of human imagination and understanding, and therefore have some humility as to how certain I can be of anything.

Meaning, mainly, that I wouldn't be surprised to find that God is considerably different from the conception I've received and refined over decades, and perhaps far less a personal God, and more a Deist's notion of a rule maker, not a day to day ref.

But I believe He is all that-- rule maker and day to day ref, trainer, coach, and friend, as well as Creator.

LWW
12-23-2012, 01:49 PM
Of course it's meant to be discussed.

My beliefs are pretty similar to yours.

LWW
12-25-2012, 03:09 PM
This same topic has ran on AZB for over a month with well over 1,000 posts ... and has done so with a high level of intellectual discssion from all sides without jumping into the gutter of personal attacks, other than the brief appearance of Secaucus Fats, and I had honestly hoped this forum could approach that level of civility and intellectual discourse.

That it has not disappoints me greatly.

Soflasnapper
12-25-2012, 03:46 PM
The presence of the polling function at the beginning might get people to think the poll is the thing, not the discussion. And the poll got all the 5 we now only have as regulars to answer, apparently. It's not as if we have 20 regulars as a base of responses and then responders to the responses.

cushioncrawler
12-25-2012, 06:39 PM
I voted certainly not.
God iz impossible -- ie the jewish christian islam God.
But the poll shood hav sayd a god, not a God. For starters u kan say God (not here), but not a God (not here and not anywhere).
Alltho praps kathlix might beleev in 3 Gods -- hmmmm, getting komplikated.
Anyhow, god or gods or God or creator, i vote no.

The question of a creator iz praps a sort of separate item i suppoze. I mean u might beleev in a god or gods but dont beleev in creation az such. And u might beleev in a creator but not in a god (unlikely i admit).
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-25-2012, 06:44 PM
While there are many useful idiots doing the devils work (showing their close relationship to the lower parts of their evolutionary chain), God's work can everywhere be seen.I thort that Satan woz God's righthandman. But even if u mean some other sort of devil, then wouldnt God hav made the devil.
mac.

LWW
12-25-2012, 06:52 PM
I voted certainly not.
God iz impossible -- ie the jewish christian islam God.
But the poll shood hav sayd a god, not a God. For starters u kan say God (not here), but not a God (not here and not anywhere).
Alltho praps kathlix might beleev in 3 Gods -- hmmmm, getting komplikated.
Anyhow, god or gods or God or creator, i vote no.

The question of a creator iz praps a sort of separate item i suppoze. I mean u might beleev in a god or gods but dont beleev in creation az such. And u might beleev in a creator but not in a god (unlikely i admit).
mac.

Do you believe that you have a choice in your belief?

cushioncrawler
12-25-2012, 06:54 PM
Of course it's meant to be discussed. My beliefs are pretty similar to yours.Hell, so are mine. Look, there are (hav been) say 2,860 gods in human history.

Fellas in category 1 dont beleev in 2,859.00 ovem.
Fellas in category 2 dont beleev in 2,859.25 ovem.
Fellas in category 3 dont beleev in 2,859.50 ovem.
Fellas in category 4 dont beleev in 2,859.75 ovem.
Fellas in category 5 dont beleev in 2,860.00 ovem.

I am in category 5. How similar iz that.
mac.

LWW
12-25-2012, 06:56 PM
So why didn't you answer?

Solomon Grundy
12-25-2012, 06:57 PM
This same topic has ran on AZB for over a month with well over 1,000 posts ... and has done so with a high level of intellectual discssion from all sides without jumping into the gutter of personal attacks, other than the brief appearance of Secaucus Fats, and I had honestly hoped this forum could approach that level of civility and intellectual discourse.

That it has not disappoints me greatly.

Post up the proof of my so called "gutter personal" attack in that thread, go ahead and post it. You are lying, and you know it. Once again you show yourself for the lying spineless worm that you are. Like I said, IF IT'S TRUE GO AHEAD AND POST IT SO YOU CAN HAVE PROOF. Otherwise go $#%& yourself. (How's that work for you?)

LWW
12-25-2012, 07:01 PM
I'm not sifting through a thousand posts just to hear your denial ... you know you behaved as a troll, but that's what trolls do.

Back under your bridge, let the grown ups talk.

cushioncrawler
12-25-2012, 07:04 PM
Do you believe that you have a choice in your belief?"Absolutely not, i have no doubt" fits me like a glove for sure.
But if u mean do i hav a choice outside this poll, then yes i do. I havnt studyd every religion etc, but i havnt seen any evidence that would pursuade me in the slightest that there might be some sort of creator etc.

But i do hav a softspot for religion of sorts. I kan see myself joining in the antix of a pagan club of some sort celebrating nature or a solstice, or any excuse for sex and drinking and feasting.
mac.

Solomon Grundy
12-25-2012, 07:05 PM
Yeah this is such a "gutter personal attack" isn't it?

Quote:


Originally Posted by BeiberLvr http://forums.azbilliards.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3874367#post3874367)
I see. If I may, I will ask a few more uniformed questions.

If they all believe in the same god. Why do they have different beliefs? Why aren't all of their religious texts the same?

What about religions like buddhism and scientology? Do they also have the same god?




Do Buddhist believe in god?

No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".

Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.

Solomon Grundy
12-25-2012, 07:19 PM
I'm not sifting through a thousand posts just to hear your denial ... you know you behaved as a troll, but that's what trolls do.

Back under your bridge, let the grown ups talk.

You are a lying sack of sh*t and you know it, I know it and everybody here knows it. What does your God say about bearing false witness?

Here is the link to the thread for anyone that cares to see the truth with his or her own eyes. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=296647

Yeah you're real Christian and religious ain't you? Hypocrite, you are against everything the Nazarene taught, and if he came back you'd crucify him again for being liberal scum. Here it is, Christmas day, and instead of offering something good, or positive, you spew your lies, ignorance, and hatred...way to go man, you're a real Christian alright.

BTW punk, do you not know how to use the search thread by author function? There's a troll here all right and it's you, you sick degenerate!

cushioncrawler
12-25-2012, 07:38 PM
Had a look at azbilliards and i see that NO plus MIGHTBE equalled YES.
I had a glance at some postings -- the uzual arguements.
And the only one that i saw that half interested me woz the arguement relating to the unlikely universe.

In fakt i hav spent much time recently reading up on the unlikely universe -- and the whole topik iz very interesting. However the science fakts are wrong (very wrong, but very interesting) and the logik iz flawed (but i admit very sticky).
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-25-2012, 07:42 PM
.....you are against everything the Nazarene taught and if he came back you'd.......Uzing the title "the Nazarene" iz the sign of a scholar a goodly bit more learned than your average ignorant christian.
mac.

hondo
12-25-2012, 07:52 PM
I'm not sifting through a thousand posts just to hear your denial ...

.

LMFAO! Since when? You've gone back years to dig up my posts.

Solomon Grundy
12-25-2012, 08:04 PM
LMFAO! Since when? You've gone back years to dig up my posts.

Perhaps he was referring to my only other post in the thread, which incidentally does not amount to a "gutter personal attack" but rather an observation on Dub's narcissistic view of himself as a veritable fountain of knowledge:

Quote:


Originally Posted by LWW http://forums.azbilliards.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3877384#post3877384)
OK ... what small has been learned in phsics since Eistein?

Answer ... little to nothing.

Lots of Eistein's ... and his peers ... predictions have ben verified, and that's about it.






Secaucus Fats replied:

39

hondo
12-25-2012, 08:07 PM
You are a lying sack of sh*t and you know it, I know it and everybody here knows it. What does your God say about bearing false witness?



Yeah you're real Christian and religious ain't you? Hypocrite, you are against everything the Nazarene taught, and if he came back you'd crucify him again for being liberal scum. Here it is, Christmas day, and instead of offering something good, or positive, you spew your lies, ignorance, and hatred...way to go man, you're a real Christian alright.




Solomon, I have to admit that most of what you say here is accurate.
Sometimes i wonder if larry/johnny isn't an agent of Satan trying to draw us into his evil web.
larry has searched through years of posts to attack me. He has taken so many things I've said and twisted them to appear to say something quite different.
He has taken my confessions of past transgressions and used them over and over against me.
I've made him swear to God when I know he has lied and he went ahead and swore.
He and his alter ego johnny have mocked the Lord over and over again while posing as Christians and accusing me of terrible things including questioning my faith.
He has yanked my chain and drawn me into saying very un-Christian things in the past which I deeply regret.
johnny/larry may actually believe he is a Christian but he is certainly doing Satan's work on here.

Don't let him bait you into getting the boot on here, Solomon. You are a valued member.

hondo
12-25-2012, 08:11 PM
Perhaps he was referring to my only other post in the thread, which incidentally does not amount to a "gutter personal attack" but rather an observation on Dub's narcissistic view of himself as a veritable fountain of knowledge:

Quote:


Originally Posted by LWW http://forums.azbilliards.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3877384#post3877384)
OK ... what small has been learned in phsics since Eistein?

Answer ... little to nothing.

Lots of Eistein's ... and his peers ... predictions have ben verified, and that's about it.






Secaucus Fats replied:

39

Who is Eistein and what is phsics?

LWW
12-25-2012, 08:22 PM
Mac ... do you believe you have any free will at all about anything?

LWW
12-25-2012, 08:25 PM
LMFAO! Since when? You've gone back years to dig up my posts.
Your have gnerally been of a more personal note and were logged at the moment for future reference.

Sodoman Bundy's trolling has never risen to the level being recorded.

cushioncrawler
12-25-2012, 09:02 PM
Mac ... do you believe you have any free will at all about anything?Yes. But the questions of what are consciousness time thinking mind being life memory etc are praps the biggest questions of all.
One kood say that if u hav certain pre-existing conditions then u must hav certain future conditions. In which case no-one haz any choice about anything, and zero free will.
In which case someone might say that God duzz not play dice. Or, someone might say that God duzz play dice. In both cases u hav God anyhow. It iz all a mystery.

Scientifik thinking simply replaces silly ignorant questions with a greater number of less-silly less-ignorant questions, the sillyness diminishing and the number of questions inkreecing for ever and ever amen.
mac.

In fakt i am thinking that the unlikely universe iz explainable. But explaining freewill aint gonnabe eezy.
“If the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect—what is the source of the free will possessed by living things throughout the earth?”—Titus Lucretius Carus, Roman philosopher and poet, 99–55 BC

cushioncrawler
12-25-2012, 11:25 PM
Below are some of the more common viewpoints meant by, or confused with "Determinism".

Many philosophical theories of determinism frame themselves with the idea that reality follows a sort of predetermined path
Causal determinism in its most general form is the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions.[3] In the case of scientific or nomological determinism, these conditions are considered events also, implying that the future is determined completely by preceding events - a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature.[4] Yet they can also be considered metaphysical of origin.[5] Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused. Historical determinism (a sort of path dependence) can also be synonymous with causal determinism.

Nomological determinism (or scientific determinism) is the most common form of causal determinism. It is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events. Quantum mechanics and various interpretations thereof pose a serious challenge to this view. Nomological determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon.[6]

Necessitarianism is very related to the causal determinism described above. It is a metaphysical principle that denies all mere possibility; there is exactly one way for the world to be. Leucippus claimed there were no uncaused events, and that everything occurs for a reason and by necessity.[7]

Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.[8][9] The concept of predeterminism is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain. Predeterminism can be used to mean such pre-established causal determinism, in which case it is categorised as a specific type of determinism.[8][10] It can also be used interchangeably with causal determinism - in the context of its capacity to determine future events.[8][11] Despite this, predeterminism is often considered as independent of causal determinism.[12][13] The term predeterminism is also frequently used in the context of biology and hereditary, in which case it represents a form of biological determinism.[14]

Fatalism is normally distinguished from "determinism".[15] Fatalism is the idea that everything is fated to happen, so that humans have no control over their future. Fate has arbitrary power, and need not follow any causal or otherwise deterministic laws.[3] Types of Fatalism include hard theological determinism and the idea of predestination, where there is a God who determines all that humans will do. This may be accomplished either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience[16] or by decreeing their actions in advance.[17]

Theological determinism is a form of determinism which states that all events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen, by a monotheistic deity, or that they are destined to occur given its omniscience. Two forms of theological determinism exist, here referenced as strong and weak theological determinism.[18] The first one, strong theological determinism, is based on the concept of a creator deity dictating all events in history: "everything that happens has been predestined to happen by an omniscient, omnipotent divinity".[19] The second form, weak theological determinism, is based on the concept of divine foreknowledge - "because God's omniscience is perfect, what God knows about the future will inevitably happen, which means, consequently, that the future is already fixed".[20] There exist slight variations on the above categorisation. Some claim that theological determinism requires predestination of all events and outcomes by the divinity (i.e. they do not classify the weaker version as 'theological determinism' unless libertarian free will is assumed to be denied as a consequence), or that the weaker version does not constitute 'theological determinism' at all.[21] With respect to free will, "theological determinism is the thesis that God exists and has infallible knowledge of all true propositions including propositions about our future actions", more minimal criteria designed to encapsulate all forms of theological determinism.[22] Theological determinism can also be seen as a form of causal determinism, in which the antecedent conditions are the nature and will of God.[5]

Logical determinism or Determinateness is the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false. Note that one can support Causal Determinism without necessarily supporting Logical Determinism and vice versa (depending on one's views on the nature of time, but also randomness). The problem of free will is especially salient now with Logical Determinism: how can choices be free, given that propositions about the future already have a truth value in the present (i.e. it is already determined as either true or false)? This is referred to as the problem of future contingents.

Adequate determinism focuses on the fact that, even without a full understanding of microscopic physics, we can predict the distribution of 1000 coin tosses
Often synonymous with Logical Determinism are the ideas behind Spatio-temporal Determinism or Eternalism: the view of special relativity. J. J. C. Smart, a proponent of this view, uses the term "tenselessness" to describe the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future. In physics, the "block universe" of Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein assumes that time is a fourth dimension (like the three spatial dimensions). In other words, all the other parts of time are real, like the city blocks up and down a street, although the order in which they appear depends on the driver (see Rietdijk–Putnam argument).

Adequate determinism is the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. This is because of quantum decoherence. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics).[23] Stephen Hawking explains a similar idea: he says that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, quantum effects rarely alter the predictions of classical mechanics, which are quite accurate (albeit still not perfectly certain) at larger scales.[24] Something as large as an animal cell, then, would be "adequately determined" (even in light of quantum indeterminacy).

LWW
12-26-2012, 03:39 AM
Yes. But the questions of what are consciousness time thinking mind being life memory etc are praps the biggest questions of all.
One kood say that if u hav certain pre-existing conditions then u must hav certain future conditions. In which case no-one haz any choice about anything, and zero free will.

Well, if you accept that you have true free will then you must believe that a god exists.

cushioncrawler
12-26-2012, 04:49 AM
The universe iz a mystery, and life too, but any such mystery aint explained by gods.
Replacing one scientifyk question with another iz ok -- but that dont mean that replacing one mystery with another iz ok.
mac.

LWW
12-26-2012, 05:22 AM
So how do you have true free will?

In an atheist determinist universe, the die was cast for every future event at the moment of the big bang.

As physicist and authorbBrian Greene stated, without a god “All you are is a bag of particles acting out the laws of physics. That to me is pretty clear.”

Soflasnapper
12-26-2012, 11:04 AM
The obvious answer to your question is that there is no true free will, but merely an illusion of that that we are all mainly tricked by. Not saying that's true, but it would answer your query. Some argue strongly that it is true-- there is no free will-- showing the brain waves in the motor cortex preceding the supposed 'choice,' so that the later explanation we make of it that we 'chose' to do anything is post hoc revisionism.

It's also true that predetermination and fated salvation were preached in Calvinism, also a denial of free will, from a Christian perspective of how God's omniscience must be interpreted. It's a weird notion that has mainly been scorned in more recent centuries, in that whatever one may do, if one is destined to be saved for eternity, one will be, regardless.

So apparently, the topic of free will is not only different from a question of God's existence, but both crude materialist determination theory and certain Christian theologies together argue there is no free will under those opposite kinds of theory of the world (that is, God's existence may be immaterial to that question).

LWW
12-26-2012, 12:13 PM
It cannot be separate from a God's existence if you believe you have free will.

Let's look at our options:

- A determinist universe with a god. Although I disagree with it, the hypothesis makes some sense. A creator could mke a universe, wind it up like watch, and let it wind down. In this scenario no free will exists, nor does morality, nor does the universe have any purpose.

The problem is that free will is so blindingly apparent, moreso even than "I think, therefore I am!"

- A determinist universe without a god. Essentially the same problem, except worse, for free will. In such an existence free will could not be granted even on a temporary basis.

- A universe with a god. The only hypothesis which allows for libertarin free will. Quantum mechanics, as well as theology and philosophy, point to this being the case.

QM demonstrates that "REALITY" exists only once the probability wave has been observed by a conscious obserserver, causing the wave to collapse. With this being the case, a Creator becomes a neccessity as the big bang probability wave could not have collapsed without an outside agent making an observation.

Soflasnapper
12-26-2012, 02:27 PM
Most of what you argue is subjective, and not necessarily true. It depends upon what place one makes for consciousness within a materialist reductivist world view. If as only an epiphenomenal event attendant to the real deal-- the electrical and magnetic operations of neuronal networks-- then consciousness is mainly an illusion and free will, a mistake of language relating to that illusion. Or, one may take consciousness as an emergent phenomenon from material interactions, and then it might not be subject to material determinations at all or in chief. The observing necessity for collapsing the probability wave is merely one interpretation of QM phenomena (the Copenhagen interpretation iirc), and hardly without controversy, and it applies of course at quantum level dimensions, not at the universe-as-we-know-it dimensions. But weren't the original dimensions of the Big Bang at quantum level dimensions? Not exactly. They were at SINGULARITY dimensions (at first), so at least as I understand it, there is no quantum probability wave for the Big Bang's pre-/post-existence collapse to result from.

cushioncrawler
12-26-2012, 03:31 PM
QM iz mostly rubbish. The bigbang iz rubbish. Cahill and aether theory tell us that. Uncertainty iz certainly rubbish. The things making matter are billions smaller, and in turn mightbe made by mini-things billions smaller again, which mightbe etc etc.

One kood insist that God makes consciousness, and that God makes free will by suspending determinizm and causality for some things for some times. This would make at least a little bit of sense kompared to God setting things up and letting it all go on autopilot.

But what of the unlikely universe???
mac.

And, einstein iz rubbish, probability waves iz rubbish, the constant G aint constant, etc etc.
Its funny aktually, science iz nowadays az much a dogma az religion and krappynomix and psychology and dietology.
Science advances one funeral at a time (planck??).

LWW
12-26-2012, 04:13 PM
Most of what you argue is subjective, and not necessarily true. It depends upon what place one makes for consciousness within a materialist reductivist world view. If as only an epiphenomenal event attendant to the real deal-- the electrical and magnetic operations of neuronal networks-- then consciousness is mainly an illusion and free will, a mistake of language relating to that illusion. Or, one may take consciousness as an emergent phenomenon from material interactions, and then it might not be subject to material determinations at all or in chief. The observing necessity for collapsing the probability wave is merely one interpretation of QM phenomena (the Copenhagen interpretation iirc), and hardly without controversy, and it applies of course at quantum level dimensions, not at the universe-as-we-know-it dimensions. But weren't the original dimensions of the Big Bang at quantum level dimensions? Not exactly. They were at SINGULARITY dimensions (at first), so at least as I understand it, there is no quantum probability wave for the Big Bang's pre-/post-existence collapse to result from.

There is no room for consciousness in a godless determinist universe ... and every leading physicist who professes atheisms in agreement with this.

The reason is simple ... if I fire a single photon into a mirrored box, it will bounce for eternity. Knowing all of the variables, and with sufficient computing power, every bounce ... and every angle of every bounce ... can accurately be predicted.

Taken to the next level ... from the moment of the big bang, the die was cast for the future movement of every particle which sprang into existence. That includes the particles which makeup the chemicals of the brain. Hence, free will and consciousness do not exist.

What is or isn't an emerging trait has no relevance as it ... in a godless determinist universe ... cannot have a random element to it.

If one accepts liertarian free will then one accepts the mysticism that allows for it.

LWW
12-26-2012, 04:16 PM
Mac, aether may be the mysterious dark matter ... but it doesn't change the topic.

cushioncrawler
12-26-2012, 04:45 PM
Subatomic and atomic theory must affekt any discussion re FREE WILL etc (the topic here) az well az THE UNLIKELY UNIVERSE etc.
And shood affekt any discussion re God too, but uzually dont.

Aether theory obviates dark matter, dark energy, dark fluid and dark flow. And of course eliminates einsteins SR and GR, and other silly notions. Alltho there are lots of different aether theorys too.

Aether etc theorys dont (yet) answer any questions re cause and effekt and determinizm (ie free will), but uzing modern junk science like QM and SR and GR etc iz wasting time bigtime. And aether theory probly helps (today) to answer questions re the unlikely universe. And aether theory will certainly help answer all such questions and more "tomorrow".
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-26-2012, 05:10 PM
God. God uzes some unknown (to us) force and energy and matter and time or something to make us and our universe out of known (kinda sort of) force and energy and matter and time or something, and to keep watch on us, and to know everything on us, and to remember everything on us, and in some instances to change somethings on us (miracles etc). But that whole sort of rationalization and thinking iz silly human thinking, and duznt kum into play in heaven.

God. God haz allways been and will allways be. But time and being etc are silly human notions, and dont kum into play in heaven.

God. There iz only one God. There aint two. And there aint an infinite number of Gods. But that whole sort of notion of a God iz silly human thinking, and duznt kum into play in heaven, God iz everywhere and in everything in everyway. Hell God woz in every little bullet that went straight throo every little skoolkid.

God. God came from nowhere, in no time. But the notion of where and time iz silly human thinking, and duznt kum into play in heaven.

God. The existance of God thusly explains simply and direktly anything and everything u like. Mystery solved. Next question pleez.
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-27-2012, 03:10 PM
SOUL.
Christianity See also: Soul in the Bible

Soul carried to Heaven by William Bouguereau
Most Christians understand the soul as an ontological reality distinct from, yet integrally connected with, the body. Its characteristics are described in moral, spiritual, and philosophical terms. According to a common Christian eschatology, when people die, their souls will be judged by God and determined to spend an eternity in Heaven or in Hell. Though all branches of Christianity –Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Evangelical or mainline Protestants – teach that Jesus Christ plays a decisive role in the salvation process, the specifics of that role and the part played by individual persons or ecclesiastical rituals and relationships, is a matter of wide diversity in official church teaching, theological speculation and popular practice. Some Christians believe that if one has not repented of one's sins and trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, one will go to Hell and suffer eternal damnation or eternal separation from God. Variations also exist on this theme, e.g. some which hold that the unrighteous soul will be destroyed instead of suffering eternally (Annihilationism). Believers will inherit eternal life in Heaven and enjoy eternal fellowship with God. There is also a belief that babies (including the unborn) and those with cognitive or mental impairments who have died will be received into Heaven on the basis of God's grace through the sacrifice of Jesus. And there are beliefs in universal salvation and Christian conditionalism.

Among Christians, there is uncertainty regarding whether human embryos have souls, and at what point between conception and birth the fetus acquires a soul and consciousness. This uncertainty is the general reasoning behind many Christians' belief that abortion should not be legal.[54][55][56]

The Damned Soul. Drawing by Michelangelo Buonarroti c. 1525
Soul as the personality: Some Christians regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human – the seat or locus of human will, understanding, and personality.[citation needed]

Trichotomy of the soul: Augustine, one of western Christianity's most influential early Christian thinkers, described the soul as "a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body". Some Christians espouse a trichotomic view of humans, which characterizes humans as consisting of a body (soma), soul (psyche), and spirit (pneuma).[57] However, the majority of modern Bible scholars point out how spirit and soul are used interchangeably in many biblical passages, and so hold to dichotomy: the view that each of us is body and soul. Paul said that the "body wars against" the soul, and that "I buffet my body", to keep it under control. Philosopher Anthony Quinton said the soul is a "series of mental states connected by continuity of character and memory, [and] is the essential constituent of personality. The soul, therefore, is not only logically distinct from any particular human body with which it is associated; it is also what a person is". Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher of religion at Oxford University, wrote that "it is a frequent criticism of substance dualism that dualists cannot say what souls are... Souls are immaterial subjects of mental properties. They have sensations and thoughts, desires and beliefs, and perform intentional actions. Souls are essential parts of human beings..."

Origin of the soul: The origin of the soul has provided a vexing question in Christianity; the major theories put forward include soul creationism, traducianism and pre-existence. According to creationism, each individual soul is created directly by God, either at the moment of conception or some later time (identical twins arise several cell divisions after conception, but no creationist would deny that they have whole souls). According to traducianism, the soul comes from the parents by natural generation. According to the preexistence theory, the soul exists before the moment of conception.

cushioncrawler
12-27-2012, 03:12 PM
Philosophical views

The Ancient Greeks used the same word for 'alive' as for 'ensouled', indicating that the earliest surviving western philosophical view believed that the soul was that which gave the body life. The soul was considered the incorporeal or spiritual 'breath' which animates (from the Latin, anima, cf. animal) the living organism.

Francis M. Cornford quotes Pindar in saying that the soul sleeps while the limbs are active, but when one is sleeping, the soul is active and reveals in many a dream "an award of joy or sorrow drawing near."[10]

Erwin Rohde writes that the early pre-Pythagorean belief was that the soul had no life when it departed from the body, and retired into Hades with no hope of returning to a body.[11]

It has been argued that a strict line of causality fails to explain certain phenomena within
human experience (such as free will) that have at times been attributed to the soul. (See also: Determinism and free will)

cushioncrawler
12-27-2012, 03:19 PM
I think that, for christians, free will iz attributed to the soul -- koz the soul iz outside of the ordinary universe, and thusly outside ordinary causality etc, ie the soul defys cause and effekt etc.
And i guess that in heaven the soul will continue to hav free will.
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-27-2012, 03:33 PM
POLL.
YES............... 3
NO.................1
NOT SURE...... 2

AND THE WINNER IZ MAC -- JUST KIDDING.
The NO's (1 in 6) are probly a bit less than in the general population (say 1 in 4), but the inbetweens (2 in 6 here) iz praps more.

That 3 YES's in 6 iz about right for the general population (of say the usofa), but will go down down down with time.
And anyhow the 50% figure iz a lie -- true beleevers are probly less than 1 in 10.
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-28-2012, 03:41 PM
malta turkey romania and poland -- 1% of adults dont beleev in god or spirit or life force.

LWW
12-28-2012, 08:24 PM
Myself ... I don't believe atheists are real.

cushioncrawler
12-28-2012, 10:28 PM
Studys (true story) show that fewer atheists beleev in God (even tho they ticked atheist) than the number of Christians who dont beleev in God (even tho they ticked Christian).

I reckon that zero peeple beleev in God. If they truely beleeved they would be out there pushing 100% for God and the The Holey Bible, rather than just paying lip service.
Or, on the other hand, i suppoze that there are some out there who truely beleev, but they are in the nuthouse.
mac.

LWW
12-29-2012, 05:42 AM
People claiming to be atheists does not prove they are atheists.

cushioncrawler
12-29-2012, 02:59 PM
But people claiming to be Popes are atheists.
100% of Popes were atheists.
90% of Cardinals are atheists.
80% of Bishops are atheists.
70% of Priests are atheists.
60% of Nuns are atheists.
50% of peeple are atheists.
40% of doctors are atheists.
mac.