Go to page:

Thoughts on the Spirits of Old

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

To Viddax. I really seem to have stumbled into an alien world here. The ‘rules of engagement’ seem decidedly peculiar. In your last post you created a field full of straw man, implying, to say the least, that I had made several ridiculous assertions. You make no apology or justification but simply ignore (a tactic becoming depressingly familiar) my requests for any scintilla of evidence to support your imaginative contentions.

Your reply is the equally familiar one of enigmatic utterances lacking any evidence.
How have I backtracked and denied my words? Please give a clear example. I will not hold my breath.

You pounce upon a presumed minor error, chiding me for using the word Moslem. It is of no importance, but Moslem is an accepted form of the word and indeed, was regarded as the correct spelling during most of my life, which is probably why I used it. So I did mean Moslem Science.

Nor did I mean gesticulation. Testiculation was indeed a play on words, a compound ‘made-up’ word as I believe they are referred to. This should have been clear to anyone who read the definition – waving your hands around and talking bollocks.

Your concern about the lay out seems rather odd. I am used to books and naturally write with a similar layout. Of what importance is it? I am happy to change if people are more comfortable with a different format, though the use of a different layout scarcely makes me an uncouth and unlearned barbarian. The old poisoning the well technique of using pejorative terms. I did not realise that such forums were so proscriptive and hide bound with tradition. I promised Craic that I would write in this format, or I would be sorely tempted to return to my own natural inclinations.

Words are a realm that you have some idea about. I would not dream of casting doubt on your claim but do you think that I do not?  We have the assassination by insinuation technique once more. This is argumentum ad hominem, not proper debate.

You say that an internet forum does not conform to the rules of logical debate. Why should it not? None of the factors you cite preclude it.

On what basis do you think that science is as old as any other aspect (I presume that you mean mode of understanding)? I have defined science, as I have spoken of it, as well as I could and there is absolutely no doubt that it is a modern phenomenon. Elements of scientific thought certainly have existed for a long time – induction, deduction, observation, categorisation, even systematic experimentation (not trial and error), but not as the coherent and organised methodology that we term modern science.

The idea that doing science involves other things, such as breathing, is trivial, or tenuous, if you prefer. Of what possible relevance does this have to your original contention that ‘Science is not divorced from other modes of knowledge?’

As you say, you have said something pointless and tangential. The post would have been better occupied in answering the questions and criticisms of your earlier post. You have not done so.

To Magnetron

If I am doing something else other than debating the issues and trying to ensure that all points are answered then perhaps you would say what you imagine I am doing.

Perhaps I have taken part in too many debates and faced the perennial problems of obfuscation, insinuation and avoidance too often. And, before I am accused of using pejorative terms, I am happy to provide clear instances of them all. I therefore attempt to answer every point, so that the nature of the debate is clear. Perhaps I am wrong and should just ignore them. I don’t know.

To HHMC.
At last, someone prepared to debate the points. Thank you HHMC.

I entirely agree with your contention about creationists.

Oh, I know about telephones. It’s these new fangled mobile phones I can’t cope with. Surely, though, if the transmission is garbled then the message is lost in the noise. You can scarcely claim that the Genesis account is consistent with the Big Bang cosmology, nor that it was a contributory factor in its formulation, if the information is so degenerate. It also asks the question as to why an omnipotent God allows such garbled transmission to occur.

To say that God is not inclined to follow lives down to a microbe does not seem to me to be addressing the issue. Evolution has spent millions of years producing sentient creatures with, there can be little doubt, sensations of pain and terror. The amount of suffering undergone through those millennia is beyond imagination. If God chose such a path then in what possible way can that suffering be justified?

You surprise me by denying the omniscience and omnipotence of God. This is not what one might term the majority view. I would be very interested in your view of God. Is God the creator of the world?

A lawful universe does not need to involve suffering. It depends upon the laws. And God should be able to create a lawful universe consistent with absence of suffering. In fact he has supposedly done so. Or what is Heaven?

History is complex, indeed chaotic, and disentangling it to any degree of certainty fraught with difficulty. Certainly the, admittedly enjoyable, game of ‘what if’ is, to be kind, but shaky speculation. For what it is worth, I do not think that the growth of modern science was inevitable, but I would guess that it was highly probable.

You are right in your guess that some of the non-canonical gospels give a greater role to women. The Gospel of Mary is probably the best example. But the role of women was far more important in the early church than people realise. Read the genuinely Pauline epistles.

I do not disagree with your overall point about the bible translations. I merely wondered why you singled out the KJV. I just looked up Tyndale for example. ‘Thou shalt not suffre a witch to lyue’. The KJV was merely a bible of its time.

I think your broad brush account is a reasonable one, but, as is the way of things, much simplified. For example Greek learning travelled east with the Nestorians long before the Fall of Constantinople. And it returned to Europe by other routes as well. To what extent the Renaissance would not have happened without the injection of new ideas is a matter of debate. As I said, I suspect that modern science would have risen in any case. As to what killed science in the Moslem World, or, at least, diminished its importance and progress, I really have no idea. I doubt that it was the Crusades.

Well, the bell has rung, I have duly salivated, so I think it is time for breakfast.

HHMCameron
BetaWolfinVA
Fire of Insight
United States 4awards
Joined 17th Oct 2014
Forum Posts: 315

Harpalycus said:I entirely agree with your contention about creationists.

only the six thousand year earthers...

not all creationists believe as they do...


Harpalycus said:
Oh, I know about telephones. It’s these new fangled mobile phones I can’t cope with. Surely, though, if the transmission is garbled then the message is lost in the noise.


the game of telephone is where one person whispers something in the ear of the person sitting next to them in a circle...

by the time the message reaches back to them after going around the circle, it has changed considerably...

the torah did not start written, it was an oral traditioin, and this allows for some errors in transmission...


Harpalycus said:
You can scarcely claim that the Genesis account is consistent with the Big Bang cosmology, nor that it was a contributory factor in its formulation, if the information is so degenerate.


the big bang theory was created by a roman catholic preist, and at the time of its formulation those that supported the steady state universe theory said that it borrowed from religion too much for their comfort


Harpalycus said:
The amount of suffering undergone through those millennia is beyond imagination. If God chose such a path then in what possible way can that suffering be justified?


tempered steel is stonger than steel that does not go through the tempering process

Harpalycus said:
You surprise me by denying the omniscience and omnipotence of God. This is not what one might term the majority view. I would be very interested in your view of God. Is God the creator of the world?


god is the engineer that created the universe, he set in place laws that bound space and time

god is not the magician that waved the universe into being with a single thought six thousand+ years ago that waits by the phone waiting for the calls from the preists that raise the most funds.

Harpalycus said:A lawful universe does not need to involve suffering. It depends upon the laws. And God should be able to create a lawful universe consistent with absence of suffering. In fact he has supposedly done so. Or what is Heaven?

why was the universe created... some have postulated that it could have been to refine souls...

you postulate that god would have a reason for the world to not have pain and suffereing...



SirCreepy
Colten Sorrells
Fire of Insight
United States 4awards
Joined 13th Oct 2013
Forum Posts: 375

HOTDAWGG!

lepperochan
Craic-Dealer
Guardian of Shadows
Palestine 67awards
Joined 1st Apr 2011
Forum Posts: 14449

that’s a good question, double H. what is heaven ? is there freedom of thought there ? is there freedom of speech ?  is it a warehouse full of souls ? what do we do in heaven if we get there ?


what. is. it ?

heh :)’ I like that tempered steel line. its much better than the old tried and tested ’all the bad shit is the work of the devil"

anyhow I am not gonna bash your beliefs, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on what heaven is, who will get there, what will they do with themselves for eternity and so forthi

SirCreepy
Colten Sorrells
Fire of Insight
United States 4awards
Joined 13th Oct 2013
Forum Posts: 375

Notthat anyone asked me, but I would imagine that it would be Jesus playing fetch with 'Ol Yeller, because nobody would be "good" enough to get in.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

To HHMC
Your first point is entirely valid. We use the description creationist to identify those who believe in a young earth or a biblical account of creation. But it is rather sloppy. Anyone who believes that God created the world is, by definition, a creationist.

Yes, I am aware of the game of Chinese whispers, the ‘Send reinforcements we are going to advance,’ transmogrified into ‘Send three and fourpence, we’re going to a dance.’
My point is first, that God is capable of ensuring that his message is not adulterated and transformed, and secondly, that if it has been, how can we trust it? How do we know which bits are ‘authentic’ and which are random noise.

What you say about the Big Bang Theory is true, but Lemaitre did not arrive at the theory for religious reasons, but because he recognised that Hubble’s Law entailed the expansion of the universe and so concluded that, if run in reverse, it must have begun as a ‘primeval atom.’ I would be interested in any references to anyone who rejected or questioned it because of a presumed religious dimension.

I am aware that you do not think that God is omnipotent. That does seem rather odd as it implies that God is subject to external laws and constraints. In which case he cannot be the supreme creator. There are existing ‘things’ not dependant upon him. So his very nature stands in question. However, taking the usual theological position that God is omnipotent then he does not need to temper steel in a furnace, he can simply create tempered steel. That is, he does not need suffering to create strength of character, sympathy or whatever. He can simply create it. So why does he allow the suffering? I am afraid that the answer just does not work.

God as engineer v God as magician. I do not really understand the distinction. It seems an artificial semantic one. God creating a world by divine fiat, or creating the laws that create the world by divine fiat do not seem to constitute fundamentally different cases. If there is a true distinction between them, why should one be regarded as superior to the other?

HHMCameron
BetaWolfinVA
Fire of Insight
United States 4awards
Joined 17th Oct 2014
Forum Posts: 315

Harpalycus said:
Your first point is entirely valid. We use the description creationist to identify those who believe in a young earth or a biblical account of creation. But it is rather sloppy.


just because you believe in the biblical account doesnt mean that you believe the six thousand year earth version

when the original time periods were left undefined and then translated as days, that suddenly made it so that the biblical account could not be correct...

beasts of the sea, plants of the land, beasts of the land etc...

it may have some details out of sequence... but it got more than i would expect from some shepards six thousand years ago...  (the 6 thousand year figure is from adding up all the "begats" etc up to the time of christ)  

how far back does recorded history in china and ejypt go?


Harpalycus said:
Anyone who believes that God created the world is, by definition, a creationist.


agreed

Harpalycus said:
How do we know which bits are ‘authentic’ and which are random noise.
that was my point

Harpalycus said:
What you say about the Big Bang Theory is true, but Lemaitre did not arrive at the theory for religious reasons, but because he recognised that Hubble’s Law entailed the expansion of the universe and so concluded that, if run in reverse, it must have begun as a ‘primeval atom.’


when you follow the stages from the big bang to the formation of the earth to the rain falling from the sky to life forming in the primordial ooze (mud/clay) getting more complicated in the ocean, sea and land plants, animals climbing onto land, etc

you get the idea that the theories involved were in some way influenced by the biblical account


Harpalycus said:
I would be interested in any references to anyone who rejected or questioned it because of a presumed religious dimension.
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Development

Harpalycus said:
However, taking the usual theological position that God is omnipotent then he does not need to temper steel in a furnace, he can simply create tempered steel. That is, he does not need suffering to create strength of character, sympathy or whatever. He can simply create it. So why does he allow the suffering? I am afraid that the answer just does not work.


the person that wrote the original form was an athiest, Piers Anthony "On a Pale Horse" Incarnations of Immortality - i guess that was his way of giving a possible reason for a hypothetical god to allow suffereing

and really, his limited treatment makes more sense than what some preists come up with...


Harpalycus said:
God as engineer v God as magician. I do not really understand the distinction. It seems an artificial semantic one. God creating a world by divine fiat, or creating the laws that create the world by divine fiat do not seem to constitute fundamentally different cases. If there is a true distinction between them, why should one be regarded as superior to the other?



God as Magician indiscriminately creates the world , abandons it for little cause, and seems entirely too beholden to preists
it surprised me that the pope actually said that god was NOT like this

God as Engineer creates natural law, creates the world, and follows the laws he created...

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

To HHMC

Thank you for the interesting discussion.

The day age theory. The problem is that the Genesis account does not make sense. How could there be day and night before stars? Indeed how could there be days with evenings and mornings? How could you have grass (which is actually a very recent newcomer in evolutionary history), before there was a sun for photosynthesis? How could you have birds, which almost certainly evolved from dinosaurs, be present before land animals? How could vegetation appear before the stars when the heavier elements necessary for life were created by nucleosynthesis in the first generation of stars? How could we have whales before land animals when they are evolved from land animals that returned to the water? When were there multicellular plants without animals?  There is no fit between Genesis and the scientific account of the evolution of the universe.

What makes you think the Genesis account came from shepherds six thousand years ago? Scholarly opinion is that it dates from the time of the exile. You may disagree, but that simply emphasises that we cannot know exactly when it was written.

The Egyptian King Lists seem to go back to 3000 BCE or so. I don’t know about China. As you may know the flood story is found in earlier Babylonian and Sumerian accounts.

Your point was indeed that the mistakes could be due to errors in oral tradition, but I ask again. How can you trust anything that is written? What came from God and what was garbled in transmission? Without some external source to guide you, as in the scientific account, then it seems to me that you cannot trust anything to be genuine. If you think that you can then what is the criteria that you use?

Your idea that scientific theories were influenced by the biblical account. The examples you give are telling. Where in the bible are there stages described from the Big Bang to the formation of the earth. Where is the quark soup, the formation of matter, the formation of population III stars, nucleosynthesis, supernovae and heavy element formation and the formation of the earth round a star (certainly not before it). Where does the Biblical account speak of rain or ‘primordial ooze’? Where does it speak of life getting more complicated? Where does it speak of animals climbing onto the land? None of the things you mentioned are actually in Genesis.

Thank you for the reference. It is interesting that some scientists thought like that.

Hypothetical ideas of how God permits (creates?) suffering are interesting but need to be rationally analysed. I have never seen an explanation for the existence of ‘evil’ i.e. pain and suffering that is consistent with an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient supreme creator. In fact logically the case is unanswerable.
God made everything.
Everything includes ‘evil.’
Therefore God made evil.
If God is not a supreme creator, then exactly what is he/she/it?

I am still not clear as to what you mean by God the Magician. By definition God is supernatural and works in supernatural ways. They are not magic. Magic presupposes the utilisation of certain postulated laws. Whether God created ‘magical’ laws or ‘physical’ laws, I cannot see the real difference in the nature of his creation.
Nor can I see why such a God ‘indiscriminately created the world’, ‘abandoned it for little cause’ and is ‘too beholden to priests.’ They do not logically follow. They are non sequiturs. Why should an engineer God not behave in exactly the same careless way?

Viddax
Lord Viddax
Guardian of Shadows
United Kingdom 31awards
Joined 10th Oct 2009
Forum Posts: 6672

The internet is not founded upon logical debate because people are not always logical beings. I don't see why I should try to justify and apologise any straw men I created when I was under the presumption that everyone knew they were straw men and honestly could not be arsed either way. I talk bollocks so why apologise for that, just because someone expected logic. You seem to think that ever word will have point, make sense, and be logical.

I despise the idea of logic, or zealotry, as somehow being more important than anything else. That is why when you talk about logic I transfer my hatred of the concept onto you whether you deserve it or not. The sooner you scan-read my posts and understand they are inherently flawed and non-sensical the better. I am not a machine. Though sometimes I can make good points.

So Moslem is an older version of Muslim: I never knew, though I feel it sounds less apt and respectful.

The Crusades hardly killed Muslim science as although the Arabs and Persians were reduced in power, the Ottoman Turks came to be the pre-eminent Islamic power with science and such. While the Byzantine Empire beforehand, was somewhat more stagnant in science, though developing with its Christian doctrine and architecture. Though it never really got that far, when compared to the Roman Empire it was trying to aspire to be: sure it held the Middle East but it never reclaimed the power and glory.
Personally I like the Ottoman Empire more than the Byzantine Empire as the former seems more vibrant. However in terms of who does the best Roman tribute act, then that goes to the Byzantines.

God as Magician leads to the idea of many other worlds like earth, and to the idea that the world is not perfect as it has not been made perfectly.
- Therefore giving the possibility of the idea that the world was made another way.
God as Engineer leads to the idea that everything is pre-determined or at least engineered and supposed to act a certain way, but possibly with humans as autonomouw and with free-will, as spanners in the works.
- Therefore giving the possibility that the world was not only made, but has purpose. It was made by God and the any detailed explanation such as the Big Bang is simply a detailed version of the one attributed to God.


If I was a smart person I could either present facts to go with my words, or shut up and bugger off. Instead I ramble on because well, it beats dwelling in silence, and this thread is interesting if only I could follow all of it.


In short: I do not like Harpalycus for the way he states things, not necessarily what is stated.

SirCreepy
Colten Sorrells
Fire of Insight
United States 4awards
Joined 13th Oct 2013
Forum Posts: 375

Praise his noodleyness
Basted in his perfectly seasoned blood
Boiled to perfection

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

Well, that sorts that one out then, Viddax.

There is no point in a reply, but, just in case anyone else suffers from insomnia and can find nothing better to do than read this, I must observe that the fact that people are not inherently logical does not preclude an attempt at logical debate nor does it suppose that logic is more important than anything else.

To despise logic is odd and hating a person because they express themselves in a different way to oneself is the stuff of intolerance and bigotry.

I am sorry that you feel this way, but, as you find it so painful (?) irritating (?)  exasperating (?) to communicate with me, I shall say nothing more to you.

Except to wish you well.

SirCreepy
Colten Sorrells
Fire of Insight
United States 4awards
Joined 13th Oct 2013
Forum Posts: 375

But hey, at the end of the day, most people still have both arms

ShadowsandWind
Twisted Dreamer
United States 1awards
Joined 10th Aug 2010
Forum Posts: 86

theyre actually extra dimensional beings, art.

lepperochan
Craic-Dealer
Guardian of Shadows
Palestine 67awards
Joined 1st Apr 2011
Forum Posts: 14449

I'll form my questions differently:

I understand that faith is a big thing with most religions. faith that if life is lived with humility, prayer, caring etc there will be a place in heaven for us.

a lot of people, when asked of the suffering, the murder, bad choices made by humanity will say that god gave us free will, freedom to decide and make the bad choices if we so choose.

I've been looking at scriptures for a couple of hours to gain a good description of what heaven or the prize for living a good christian life will be. the best description I could find was in revelations 22-1 to 5:

"Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations"


my questions, borne from curiosity and from listening to a lecture by Hitchens are:

If god's free will thing is primarily a test for earth then does it follow that there will be no free will in god's kingdom of heaven ?  

does anybody have specifics as to what there is to do once accepted into the kingdom ?

does anyone know the rules and regulations that one must adhere to once settled in to the kingdom ?

once there, is there an option to get the fuck outta dodge if it turns out to be a dictatorship ?


thank you kindly :)'


Harpyclause, your posts are much easier to read and digest with the addition of paragraphs. much appreciated  



Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

I shall take that as part of a learning curve. Thanks Craic.

I shall not attempt to answer your questions about the nature of Heaven as I have no reason to believe it exists, but I think the observation about free will is a very important one..

The premier apologetic (explanation of suffering) is the free will defence.
The idea that free will is a greater good than fulfilled love, satisfaction, contentment, happiness etc and worth all the pain, grief and suffering (not only human but in the natural world) to have it.

Hitchens' point is valid.
Either there can be no free will in Heaven, in which case Heaven is lacking a great good or there can exist a world with free will but no suffering (i.e. Heaven)

That the latter is true can be easily proved, using the premises that God is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.

   1. There are an infinite number of possible worlds.
   2. God can choose which world to reify.
Consider a very simple case of worlds A and B.
   3. In A, Eve, of her own free will chooses to obey God and the world continues in its Edenic state. No divorce from God. No pain. No terror. No suffering.
   4. In B, Eve chooses, of her own free will, to disobey God and the world collapses into its fallen state. Divorce from God. Pain. Terror. Suffering.

Now, which world would a benevolent deity choose to reify?
Which would you?

Or, look at it another way.
If the earth is a 'testing ground' for souls, as many argue ('the vale of soul making'), why does God need to test them?
Is he not omniscient? Does he not know the mettle of a soul beforehand?
Indeed, if the soul is weak, flawed, capable of corruption and/or wrong choice then who is responsible for those flaws, that weakness?

Everything is made by God.
If we fail we must have been created by God in such a way that we fail.

And let us not forget the warped antithesis of Heaven, Hell. In my view one of the cruellest and most depraved concepts ever dreamed up by a religion.





Go to page:
Go to: