51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194121 by Kardashovel on June 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm

@ Reverend Dark:

I dunno... it's possible, but it seems a bit of a coincidence that cultures on five continents would all choose the same type of disaster to exaggerate. Why not fire, or drought?

Sea level rose by over 100m in a relatively short period of time. Assuming the ancient populations clustered on the coasts, near river deltas, they would see their homes consumed by the flood waters and the ocean.

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194104 by Kardashovel on June 16, 2008 at 12:25 pm

It is noteworthy that many cultures around the world have flood myths. I suspect that the end of the last ice age is responsible for this phenomenon.

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194097 by Kardashovel on June 16, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Keep it up and RD will be able to charge admission.

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194093 by Kardashovel on June 16, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Uh. There is a sent items page...

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194086 by Kardashovel on June 16, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Hey Steve, your PM to me from a month back (or so) got garbled. Please resend.

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194085 by Kardashovel on June 16, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Crikey! I nearly shat myself, there.

Y'all are making this stuff up. Admit it.

Don't stop on my account, tho.

57. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176631 by Kardashovel on May 7, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Al-Rawandi,

I recommend that you purchase this disk and give it a listen:
http://www.amazon.com/Hashisheen-End-Law-Bill-Laswell/dp/B00000IAEW

I think it may interest you.

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172276 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Thanks Quine, I'll check it out.

Bonzai, I'll get back to you, but here are the short answers:

No, I am not saying that time should be treated as a variable instead of a parameter, although that is also an interesting topic.

There is nothing specific that you can do to promote God's plan. In general, love God (or the world, if you like), love your neighbors, love yourself. Try to be fair and just. Promote peace, but defend your rights. Seek knowledge, and help others to learn. Be good. That will all help.

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172270 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I played Karda's thought experiment game and he ignored my post. Apparently, he didn't like the outcome. So get in line with your questions.

Don't panic! There is plenty of Kardashovel to go around.

If I didn't assume that I were having psychiatric troubles I suppose I would do this: Since I base all of my conclusions on evidence, I would probably keep my mouth shut since I would have no other evidence than my word, which is virtually useless.

The point is that you are personally convinced. I hear you saying that you would be embarrassed to carry on as I have, under my assumed name. But I'm not asking how you would act towards others, I'm asking what kind of ideas you might have to explain what you experienced, in the thought experiment.

I would reason, however, that if this being were real and that he/she/it revealed him/her/itself to me, that he/she/it would also be revealed to others in a similar fashion and that hopefully at some point he/she/it would reveal him/her/itself to everyone by some sort of tangible evidence so that I wouldn't have to think of myself as a possible lunatic any longer. :-)

OK. Good one.

I came to the same conclusion, on the grounds that I am not special, and the topic was mundane, so why would God talk only to me? That lends some sort of credibility to other peoples religious experience, in the context of this thought experiment. Whereas before I would have dismissed anyone that said they talked to God as a crack pot, now I kind of needed to deal with the possibility. This opened up the world of religion in a way that I had not considered before... I didn't buy into the idea that religion is truth and that I needed to appeal to professional voice-hearers; but I could no longer dismiss religion as irrelevant to my life or understanding. I begin to look into the matter more seriously than I had in the past.


MaxD:

But why would God be talking to you? That is isn't intended to be a slam. But why not someone else? More, oh I don't know, important?

More important than me? I don't get it. :)

Seriously though, importance is only part of the equation; there is also the issue of whether that person is ready to hear and process what needs to be done. And I do think that God talks to other people, presumably some of which are more important than I am. In any case, I am only a means to an end. The person of importance is someone I know, and it is unlikely that God will talk to them.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172184 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 10:18 am

If you mean Kate Winslet, then she is definitely telling the truth, no matter what she said. That woman is the truth.

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172142 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 9:02 am

Makes no sense to me at all, sorry.

Forgive me if my didactic capabilities are somewhat impaired.

I mean "sampled" in the same way that a helium atom samples all of the classical orbits of given energies, at all times, in order to yield a consistent answer for the energy difference between states involved in a transition that we observe in the spectrum.

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172134 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 8:59 am

That is not a theory. You clearly do not understand - despite our best efforts - what a theory is.

You are making an unsubstantiated assertion.

As you do not view my conversation as evidence of the "supernatural", you won't accept that what I have is a theory.

For me, the evidence is there, and I am attempting an explanation for this data that fits within the context of my other understanding. This is my theory, in common parlance.

Since I have been clear in noting where I am speculating, the only assertions I have made are about the nature of the experience that I consider to be evidence. You can mock those, if you like... but you can't accuse me of asserting that God has a plan, because I have not done so.

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172128 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 8:54 am

Anna, it is a thought experiment.

Suppose you became convinced that there is a personal "god" with detailed knowledge of the past and of the likely future. This god will not roll over and beg for you, but nevertheless he/she/it did respond to certain questions on the fly and succeeded in persuading you that it is real. You have no reason to believe that this experience is unique to yourself (although it is uncommon), and you have poor information about the nature or motivations of this being, but no reason to assume malevolence.

What theories would you develop to explain this experience, aside from the conclusion that you were just loopy for a moment and that could be cured by getting some psychiatric assistance?

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172115 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 8:45 am

As well, you haven't really described the god's plan. I am having difficulty seeing what the plan could be that I would agree to help. Perhaps I lack the imagination for it, so unless there is more that you can reveal, it still sounds to me like an anomoly that occured only inside your own head.

I'm not really sure what is God's plan. My theory is that he is creating Himself, and the universe, by repeatedly interacting with it and making adjustments.

I do not expect you to believe this based on my testimony. Even if I were to provide details of my second conversation, and explain the context of my life and circumstances, you would still be left in the same position that you are in now... looking at me like I am a little strange.

That's ok. I don't mind.

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172107 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 8:39 am

I can't speak for Frankus, but for myself, I couldn't think of anything which would convince me of the existence of Yahweh as he is normally conceived.
If you had have stuck with some nebulous intelligence from the future, then you'd probably fare better, at least from me. Linking said intelligence to the bible is the bit I can't understand. Did this intelligence suggest it was Jesus or Yahweh, or was that what you surmised?

I spoke about the bible some with Bonzai yesterday. I will return to this issue, as well as Buddhism, Islam, etc. later. I need to tend to my life now.

66. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172101 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 8:34 am

...you could always ask God...

I have tried. The voice does not return.

67. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172100 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 8:33 am

You really don't need any of this. You don't need the consciousness at the primordial universe. If you really want to allow for consciousness having an effect like this, it can work retrospectively.

This is the basis of Paul Davies's current work - attempting to overcome matters of fine tuning by suggesting that the universe was self-tuned by the presence of future intelligence (look, I know it doesn't seem to make sense. It doesn't make sense to me either).

What I am trying to say here is that all the time travel stuff you have been trying to get working is redundant.

Steve,

Consider the spectrum of the hydrogen atom. The bound states are the time averaged sum over all of the classical paths that the electron could take in its orbit around the proton, considered for all time (-infinity to infinity). In the case of the hydrogen atom, both the classical and quantum dynamics are linear equations, because it is such a simple problem. One can calculate the spectrum exactly because of the simplicity of the sum of the orbits. Transients are just a superposition of those states, and represent classical solutions that are none-the-less predictable for all times.

But now consider the helium atom. The third body makes the classical dynamics non-linear, so that the phase space is chaotic. At certain energies it is hard chaos (resembling a Bernoulli system, like a coin toss). Calculating the solution to the (linear) Schroedinger equation is now considerably more difficult, as we must sum over all of the orbits at a given energy (from t=-infinity to t=infinity), and they are often not even classically deterministic. As such, approximate methods are used to solve for the helium spectrum.

But if you measure the spectrum of helium atoms, they always come out the same. Each helium atom is a little, exact solution to this intractable problem of solving for the steady state solutions over infinite times. The reality that underlies the theory of quantum mechanics seems to be able to sample the arbitrary future an past, and come up with an instant solution. It's bizarre. Quantum mechanics seems to say that, while time is a variable of the dynamics, nothing happens without being affected by the entire future and the entire past.

High energy physicists don't like to think about bound states. I had the privilege of taking quantum field theory from a gentleman that insisted on beginning the class with a three week treatment of QFT using a Hamiltonian formulation that dealt with bound states, prior to moving on to the Lagrangian formulation and the more typical calculations used to explain the products of collisions in particle accelerators. As such, I got the notion that QM samples all time drilled into my head.

So, to bring this back to your quote above, I have considered that the fine-tuning problem could be the result of the universe arranging itself to promote an anthropic principle, merely by sampling the necessary end of time. As you say, no consciousness and no time travel needed.

But this is unsatisfying to me for two reasons: I am a gut-feeling proponent of the importance of consciousness for measurement, and the conscious being that I talked to knew the possible futures depending on what actions I would take, as well as the influences from my past. Moreover, stating that the fine tuning happened because our time was sampled when the big bang happened is just postponing the question raised by the anthropic principle. Why was it so that a universe was selected within which consciousness evolved? It is equally likely that a universe could have unfolded which sampled the cold-dark death of the future and arranged itself to support that conclusion. Then why are we here?

68. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172075 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 7:55 am

Complexity arises subsequent to the initial state of the universe. It did not have to be built in. In fact, there wasn't room for complexity, as the universe was probably only a Planck length in diameter.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, Steve. When questioned about how the universe could arise from nothing, you responded that quantum fluctuations are an example of something arising from nothing, right?

But those are virtual particles, so it begs the question if they are really "something", since they must disappear in a time that is inversely proportional to the energy of the fluctuation. However, you stated that the total energy of the universe might be zero, allowing for an infinite age for this wonderful vacuum fluctuation that we are living in.

Great. We came from nothing and we are all "virtual" in the context of some greater universe. OK, at least it is logically consistent. But you must then accept that every subsequent interaction between all of this universes virtual particles are just higher orders on the Feynman diagram... in all of our glorious complexity.

If you wish to say that the vacuum fluctuation just held for the beginning of the universe, why did you indicate that zero energy implies the possibility of infinite lifetime? And if you meant that the vacuum fluctuation was just the spark that got "something" to come from nothing, and that the current something is not part of that fluctuation, then you need to show how those virtual particles became real by interacting with real particles outside of the initial fluctuation (aka, outside of the entire universe). Which kind of begs the question...

Am I right? What's wrong with thinking that the universe is just a long lived and spectacularly complex (and unlikely) vacuum fluctuation?

69. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172061 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 7:39 am

I tried but it is like asking that I pretend that 2 and 2 is 5.

I'm not sure that I see the analogy. By definition of the natural numbers (and those symbols) 2 and 2 make 4.

Do you not say that "if you saw some evidence for God, you would believe; but that in the absence of such evidence, you cannot believe"?

Well, I am suggesting that you do a thought experiment in which you receive such evidence, and I am asking what it is that you would then believe. If you tell me that this is like asking you to throw mathematics out of the window, then this puts the lie to your assertion that you would believe, provided evidence. Do you see the bind you're in?

You can get out of it by asserting hard atheism, and insisting that God cannot exist, because God's existence would be entirely illogical. Now you do have a burden of proof because you are making a definite statement. But if you want to retreat to thinking that God is simply unlikely, and that you would believe if you had the evidence... well then I wonder what you would think, given some form of evidence (similar to mine).

Of course, you are under no obligation to play this game, because God didn't talk to you... yet. So don't worry about it if you decline to continue the experiment. Thank you for trying.

70. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172053 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 7:27 am

5658. Comment #172045 by Steve Zara

???

Are yo saying the universe is not complex? Imagine the Feynman diagram!

71. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172050 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 7:25 am

Basically how do you know this being is as you believe it to be?

I don't. That is why I am interested to hear what others think about my ideas.

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172040 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 7:14 am

Quine:

Did you happen to leave out:

0) the "primordial universe"

and

3) a means of selection

It seems to me that you do not get (0) until "someone" uses the time loop to go back and create (0), and you do not get "someone" unless you already have (0).

Well, first of all your number 3 is just part of my very hand wavy number 2. The idea is that the fundamantal constants are determined by measurement by a conscious observer.

As for the primordial universe, I actually noted that I have no explanation for the existence of logic and the laws of physics... but once they are there, as Steve has pointed out, our universe could just be a spectacularly complex and unlikely vacuum fluctuation. The question is why it is so well tuned for life, and that is what I am after.

How is the "barest essence" going to do the selecting? It seems like a big job for such a bare essence, what with having to consider the vast possibilities of universes without any prior input as to how they would work out in practice. It would need to get it right (a universe with evolving life) on the first go or there is no second edition.

As there is no theory of consciousness in physics, I cannot begin to answer these questions. A solid contingent of physicists believe that the process of measurement involves a conscious observer, but there has been precious little research in this direction because a) it is a very difficult problem, and b) the payoff of such studies is not apparent to the vanguard of funding. Many great physicists have stranded their ships on the shoals of measurement theory.

In any case, the first selection need not immediatly produce a universe capable of supporting evolution, or even stable star systems for that matter. One condition the measurement would need to validate is that the time loop remain in existence "after" it had been exploited. Additionally, the same type of "entity" that arose the first time would need to arise again the second time, and so on, with each successive edit refining the quality of the solution that yields this conscious observer. Ultimately, after many generations, a mechanism for supporting the chemistry of self-replicating molecules would result, leading to a spike in the information complexity of the universe (hand-wavingly improving the quality of this consciousness and refining the requirements for the tuning of the constants).

If you want to say that this is all the most flighty conjecture imaginable, then I won't argue with you about that. We have no good tools to discuss measurement prior to the existence of humans... but you cannot say that this sloppy model necessitates an immediate jump to a universe that supports evolution.

My basic problem here is that I am trying to see where you have something over basic Deism. Right now, I don't see it. You are postulating an uncaused cause powerful enough to make a universe with life, and then using the edit loop to bootstrap it up to a full Biblical Hairy Thunderer. My tendency at this point is to wonder if you have not, through progressive iteration, packed this with just enough complexity so you, yourself, do not see it won't work. This comes up often with inventors of purported free energy machines.

In the absence of evidence for the violation of energy conservation, I must assume that no "free energy" machine exists. :p

All of this speculation on my part is simply my attempt to grapple with the context for my experience. Perhaps you would like to try Frankus' thought experiment. It is natural that there is just enough complexity for me to think it might work, because I am not inventing complexity for the sake of inventing some system that I can use to manipulate people. I'm just trying to make sense of what happened to me.

73. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172023 by Kardashovel on April 29, 2008 at 6:47 am

Havok:

Did this being reveal the whole of the plan to you, in broad brush strokes or did you deduce much of it?

To the extent that I have discussed God's plan, it is all based on deduction and speculation. See my recent conversation with Frankus... perhaps you would like to try the thought experiment.

How do you know this being wasn't being duplicitous in order to fulfill some other agenda, something you wouldn't have reverence for?

Considering the nature of the conversation, that would have become apparent fairly quickly in the following weeks. Nothing was discussed that would create a situation that would be damaging or dangerous to anyone. It was more about optimization and warnings.

Did you write down the details of the conversation, and then check back on it weeks later, or were you relying on your memory of the conversation?

Actually, yes I did... in the form of emails that I exchanged with a friend. But even if I had not written down the content of the conversation, it was such that memory could not fail me. It was not about this complex hazy path or that one... it was black and white, correct or incorrect.

How do you know that?
Perhaps your mind simply made up the memory of the conversation post-hoc?

I know it because I experienced it. And after sitting for a while to question the experience and review what was discussed, I wrote my friend.

Kardshovel's "god" appears to be capricious and selfish *edit: much like the usual one really*. If I've read his posts right, god (Jesus?) contacted him so that Kardy could help it come about in some way.
Sound about right Kardy?

The fellow you quoted has a chip on his shoulder about Jesus and he is taking it out on me. As I have indicated, God is not omnipotent, and every edit of the time stream is risky, so God can hardly make as many edits as He wants to bring our current time to the state of paradise. It is hard enough to achieve that state for the future.

Does that make God selfish? No. Your wish that God should expend all effort to bring paradise to our time assumes that there is no cost to do so, and places your own selfish emphasis on what God should do. Paradise requires immense resources to maintain, as well as a fundamentally different mindset for each of the inhabitants. We are too primitive, as yet.

As for the assertion that my view is self-centered and extremely arrogant, all I can say is that I am simply "lucky"... I was in the right place at the right time. Realistically, though, I still have a lifetime of challenges, successes and suffering ahead of me. I have no guarantees that I am to live in the Kingdom of God. I remain in the same boat as everyone else... I just caught a glimpse of land, and it gave me hope.

74. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171791 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 8:43 pm

as a god it seems strange that he would lust after human females.

Are you kidding? All the nephilim lust after the daughters of man.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171786 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 8:30 pm

It seems that we have gone astray from the article.

Guilty.

76. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171770 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Karda, I thought your model had a first edition; is that wrong? Is it edits all the way down?

Yes, there must be a first edition. I don't think that it will involve sophisticated aliens creating time machines though.

If you wade back through my posts to my first conversation with Steve, you'll see that I suggested that the barest essence of consciousness, trapped in a time loop from the primordial universe, would be necessary to select from the extremely improbable, but infinite number of universes that would support life.

This requires two controversial physical possibilities: 1) A naturally occurring time "machine", with sufficient stability to permit the observation to happen. 2) A mechanism for a measurement, or observation to take place. The stability requirement for possibility 1 is not necessarily that stringent if the initial measurement mentioned in possibility 2 takes little time. The subsequent revisitations would refine this god from an itch in the universe's pants into the being that could and would talk to me. As the God improves, so does the specification of the universe.

While we have spent a bunch of time here debating whether 1) is possible (it is according to GR, but there are many practical problems), the uncharted territory is really the issue of what defines measurement, much less consciousness. That is the deep water. We have no field equations for measurement. Well... Bohm did, but if he is right my theory is screwed. Fortunately for me, he is a man on an island.

Anyway, Quine... it isn't turtles all the way down. Unless you ask me who invented math and the laws of physics. That I dunno how to approach. They just are.

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171762 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 7:36 pm

I am having a hard time. I am getting stuck at God. :)

Yes, well that is understandable. But the thought experiment involves certain givens...

If I were to believe in a god it would be along the lines of a sum totality of all that there is.

As you say, such a god is unlikely to be personal, much less capable of a conversation with you. But that is one of the givens. Such a god would not care about my dealings any more than I care about some skin flakes I just scraped off my arm. So that won't work.

There does not seem to be a universal caring that goes on. So how could it be said that god cares?

Exactly. The universe is god theory just won't satisfy the conditions of this thought experiment. In fact, it is as non-committal as deism.

Some being that plays with space and time and the elemental forces of the universe is an interesting idea but I cannot see any evidence of this.

Sorry Frankus, but you are out of character. It is a given in the thought experiment that you have seen evidence of this, at least in so far as the God can predict the future and get directly inside your head with your own inner voice (while leaving your inner voice and consciousness unhindered and available for the conversation).

You say the Bible is His handiwork. It is not perfect but it does the job; just like evolution.

Actually, no. I think the bible is man's handiwork, and that God arranges for the parts that are necessary to promote His plan. Certainly I do not believe that God dictated all of the passages of the bible. If something were to appear that threw off the plan, God would arrange to change it. That is what I mean by arbitrarily powerful, rather than omnipotent.

My problem with this idea is that it leaves far too much to chance. Chaos theory/the butterfly effect would seem to preclude any idea of this sort.

Classical non-linearity places some limitations on our ability to predict certain outcomes, but not others. Not every system is Bernoulli, with every orbit in the phase space exhibiting chaos. And quantum mechanics is inherently linear, with the only possible non-linear element arising from measurement. Prediction is clearly possible in many systems, and given the ability to know the past to arbitrary detail, root causes of disaster can be eliminated even if the repercussions of making those changes are uncertain.

My wacky theories involve the explanation of repeating patterns and synchronicity. I think coincidences happen far too often to just be coincidences. I think there may be some underlying unifying structure to the universe,(perhaps involving other dimensions) that we are yet to discover.

Are you sharing, or fishing? I will acknowledge that synchronicity beyond a reasonable doubt is some of the evidence that prepared me for my first conversation with God.

Will we/ought we to worship It if we do find it? I don't think that is a proper relationship.

That depends on what you mean by worship. My feelings of awe and wonder at the majesty of the world are the same before and after my conversion. My specific feelings about God obviously changed... I doubt that most theists would consider my activity to qualify as worship (although I have great reverence for God and His plan).

I talk to you and think about things and I care about my family and other people. That's enough for me. It is enough because that's all there is.
For now.
What would a universal mind add? Universal caring?
Maybe, but I'm just a monkey.

A domesticated primate? Frankus, I don't even believe that a monkey is just a monkey, much less a freakasaurus rex like you. We are connected.

78. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171742 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Steve,

Where can I find your discussion of the fine tuning problem?

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171736 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 6:29 pm

I am waiting a bit to see if Karda hangs in past the speculative physics discussion so we could move on to the associated theology. For example, suppose Fred and Ernie are two super advanced beings in the far future:

Fred: Hey Ernie, you know at some point we need to use the reverse time travel technology to start this Universe going. Is it time to go now?

Ernie: No, we can do it later, after all, we KNOW it does get done because we are here having this conversation.

On the contrary, they know that it has already been done in a prior edit, because of their existence. Their challenge is to decide whether or not they should attempt to sacrifice their own version, and try to improve matters.

If they can arrange to gain exquisite knowledge of the past without affecting it, and if they feel confident in their model of predicting the ramifications of any given perturbation, then they may decide to travel back and attempt to quicken the development of the ability to time travel, or to remove some perceived flaw that developed in their existence.

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171726 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Oh I don't know. His hypotheses make for interesting sci-fi, but not philosophy - I find Heidegger's views challenging and philosophically interesting... Karda? Nice Sci-Fi, as I said :)

I will take my revenge by relating an anecdote to you, my friend. At the university where I studied physics, the philosophy department was situated in-between the physics building and a popular area for meeting and eating. As such, I often passed through their main corridor.

One day there appeared a fancy plaque bearing the following inscription: "On this spot, nothing of consequence has ever occurred, nor has any significant thought been uttered."

It took almost no time for someone to tape a note to the wall pointing to the plaque and simply noting: "Of course not. It's the philosophy department."

If you haven't watched it recently, it's always good for a laugh: http://youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvM

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171704 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Nice wheels, MPhil. That would make a good platform for a time machine. What is it, exactly?

So, Frankus... what did you come up with?

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171625 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Omnipotent? No.
Omniscient? No.
Benevolent? Generally.
Personal? Yes.
Transcendent? Not as such.
Interventionist? Yes, as it serves Him.

Impossible? No.
Improbable? Everything is improbable.

83. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171608 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 3:57 pm

My my, I'm away for a few hours... and so much happened.

Did you see that I am to be the officiant at Anna and Al-Rawandi's wedding? Well, the details aren't settled. They want me to refrain from mentioning God, or even elliptically implying His existence.

Splitters.

84. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171459 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 1:54 pm

believerb2,

Are you saying that God is not extraterrestrial?

85. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171449 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Frankus,

"Knowledge" would imply that what I have presented is more than just my theory... I don't know if it is true.

I'll tell you what. As an exercise, pretend for thirty minutes that you are absolutely convinced of the reality that there is a God, and that this God intervenes directly in your life and the lives of others. He does so in a way that does not permit you, or others, to go out and say, "Here look at this piece of physical evidence I have for God's existence." (Perhaps because it serves His purpose to remain hidden for now).

Now, imagine that you know this for a fact, but that is all you've got. You are a gifted thinker, you develop a working model to explain what you observed. No fair copying mine. Let me know what you come up with.

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171430 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Anecdotal, schmanicdotal. Wander over to the physics department at your university and walk through the grad students offices. Ask around. Get a feel for what people think their career paths are likely to be, an what they think is typical.

Anyway, it's an emotional issue for me. I deleted a couple of posts that were a little too revealing. All I can say is that I get a sick sense of deja-vu every time I read some article bemoaning America's lack of science talent in our schools. It's sad. If people actually feel that way, cough up some money to pay for basic research.

IMO it isn't for lack of funds. I think that science is too crowded. It is an issue of administration. They should refuse to accept so many PhD candidates. But if we want to have the number of schools, professors, and students that we have here in this country, we need to come up with enough funds to let people live decent lives while pursuing their dreams. Or we need to make it more clear that you swim at your own risk and that people pursuing science should expect to work very hard for very little compensation for a very long time.

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171400 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Al, Anna... you may find yourselves in need of a minister. I volunteer!

88. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171384 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Polyannabananna... I'm with Al here. If you can't find something crabby to say, shut your pie hole.

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171281 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Comment #171254 by SharonMcT

OK.

The effect on science of belief in God is fairly neutral, in my opinion. On the one hand, many people are motivated by their belief in a deity, and may feel encouraged to learn more about how God operates. On the other hand, belief in God may serve as a crutch that discourages one from curiosity, and enables one to retreat from the challenge of coming to a difficult understanding.

In terms of the masses of students in a classroom, the latter effect is probably more prevalent. Students that might otherwise seek understanding would retreat because of doubt and their assurance that "God knows", so they don't need to.

However, one of the most insidious lies that is constantly repeated to kids in schools is that we need more scientists. If that were true, then we wouldn't treat scientists like a bunch of indentured servants or starving artists. The practice of science in this country makes it essentially incompatible with the desire to start a family and actually take part in raising your children. It's a disgrace that science educators do their best to get as many students as possible hooked on the thirst for knowledge when the end result will be either settling for a disappointment or slaving until age 45 for tenure.

90. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171244 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 11:46 am

Not saying that I agree with your assertion that the bible was a necessary evil to advance science, but let's move on to now.

I definitely did not say that. That is twice now you have misrepresented what I have said. I don't appreciate your behavior.

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171230 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 11:34 am

IMO you are much more deserving of a thoughtful response than Dick.

This is what we call damnation by faint praise.

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171182 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 10:55 am

Holy crap. If there is one thing for certain it is that RD.net loves a troll.

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171180 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

Bonzai:

Can you elaborate what the job is and how the Bible fits into the picture.

The plan is to create Himself, and we are but a step along the path.

The job is to promote or even outright provide the ideas that will advance the plan, given the state of affairs of humans at the time.

The bible is clearly an important book, if for no other reason that it has affected so many people's lives and ideas for so many centuries. It does not need to be perfect, self-consistent, and the answer to all questions. It just needs to be good enough to promote societal growth in a certain direction.

The old testament provided a model for an insular and cohesive society, based on some very harsh laws, that would produce a society that could weather the storms likely to occur naturally or perhaps be induced by an adversary to this plan.

The new testament provides a model for a society that cooperates while retaining some measure of individualism and a personal relationship between the believer and the godhead. This model may have been corrupted by vicars (root word same as vicarious) and by ignorant twits like Dicky here... but the basic message shines through the tarnish: Love God, love your neighbor, love yourself.

The fundamental meme was powerful enough to capture the western world against the odds of savage persecution, and by the time that it was corrupted and harnessed by existing power structures, the root concept was spread too widely and deeply to simply bury (even with centuries of avoiding the vernacular). You may see the renaissance and enlightenment as being movements that sprung up in spite of the bible; I would disagree. But even if they are merely reactions to the bible, then the job has been accomplished.

The universities that were set up to study the word of God were turned to the purpose of studying God's creation, and modern science was born. The Greeks (and to a lesser extent) the Romans that made a foundation for science prior to the advent of Christianity were an aberration, not robust against the hunger of the teeming masses and the constant churning of political power. Christianity became the first truly transnational institution, providing a robust platform for the birth of science that could not be squelched by political maneuvers.

And science is absolutely vital to God's plan (as I understand it), for reasons that should be obvious to you.

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171127 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

Dick's self portrait in post 5201 offended me, and his behavior can only be described as trollish. So I marked him too. Now he can also falsely accuse a theist of being a "Nazi". What a maroon.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171113 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 10:15 am

Sorry, Karda, but by refusing to kill Steve, you would sin and be damned for eternity. Who are you to pick and choose and not follow in the footsteps of Abraham when he was ordered by the magic voice to sacrifice his son?

You don't believe that and neither do I. So why say it? Because you are an asshole.

I'm done talking to you.

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171100 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 10:08 am

I have considered the possibility that the voice was just me... that was my working model until reality began to unfold as predicted in detail.

Now I don't entirely reject that possibility, but I find it at least as troubling to think that some unconscious agent within me has the capability to:

a) Know about people and events that I had previously never witnessed or heard about. (Weakness: perhaps I simply forgot about learning of those things, or overheard them while focusing on something else).

b) Predict the details of my future experience, weeks after the conversation.

Edit, addition:
c) Out think my conscious mind in terms of quickness and understanding, while requiring no discernible processing power, and leaving my conscious mind free to converse and ask questions that it answered on-the-fly.

If the voice said, "kill Steve", then I would refuse. If it attempted to justify why I should kill Steve, then I would argue to the best of my logical abilities, and also resort to base programming: "Killing is wrong." If it still insisted, I would threaten my own life before I took another out of compulsion from some external agent, and insist the the voice leave my presence.

This all assumes that Steve represents no mortal threat to myself, or any third party that he has no business threatening.

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171084 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 9:56 am

SharonMcT:

In one post you say that the bible is good enough to get the job done, and then in another post you say that we should pity the fools that have been duped by it. Suspend your disbelief, but only so far as I tell you to. That sounds very familiar.

I suspect that you have misapprehended my intentions. I am not telling anyone to believe anything.

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171080 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 9:52 am

I hope that you are already aware that personal experience has no scientific merit.

Of course. And I trust that you are aware that posting on RD.net does not obligate one to adhere to the notion that all evidence is scientific, or that personal experiences must be shared upon demand... though you make it sound like so much fun.

If you are curious, click on the link that says "Other comments by Kardashovel", and you will be able to uncover some discussion of two of my experiences that led me to theism. But I'll save you the trouble if you are interested in whether they will convert you too: they won't.

As for knocking them down, you are welcome to try, but I will not be persuaded by insinuations that I am schizophrenic. Nor will I be moved by more gentle suggestions that what I experienced was all generated by my own mind.

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171070 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 9:40 am

MPhil,

If this set of beliefs was uncommon, then I would be forced to agree with you. But under the circumstances I cannot agree that many of our friends and colleagues deserve our contempt for having been duped by a ubiquitous power structure that has been wielded with cynical precision for thousands of years.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171066 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 9:37 am

Bonzai, I do not base my theism on the bible.

Nor for that matter do I base it upon my theory about God's plan, although I place more significance on this matter than on the bible, per se. I think that the bible serves the plan; imperfectly, perhaps, but good enough to get the job done.

My theism comes from a set of experiences that I had a few years ago.