The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

[back to earth]

. I can assure you god CAN manifest in any form it choses to

yet you said in earlier posts that God and Gods action was limited by certain restrictions ... like why God has to rely on you donating money to help feed starving people .

Xeno asked why God could not just do some miracle and fix the problem and you said NO< God is restricted and must work through sensible and logical agents.

Or are you saying Walker's God / it can manifest as a flying buffalo and talk, but he cant really do anything effective about things ... just give you good advice to help others ?

[back to earth]

and as for the rest of your bull**** post about Australia Walker ... have you realised you were trying to BS to an Australian (psyche 101 ) about Australia ?

[Mr Walker]

Thank you !

influence (n.) late 14c., an astrological term, "streaming ethereal power from the stars when in certain positions, acting upon character or destiny of men," from Old French influence "emanation from the stars that acts upon one's character and destiny" (13c.), also "a flow of water, a flowing in," from Medieval Latininfluentia "a flowing in" (also used in the astrological sense), from Latin influentem (nominative influens), present participle of influere "to flow into, stream in, pour in," from in- "into, in, on, upon" (see in- (2)) + fluere "to flow" (see fluent). Walker postulates that a child seeing something suddenly appear, with no obvious cause , will postulate an 'unseen (or mysterious ) agent ) responsible ... (brilliant that ... but lets move on ) . It wont have the form of a Christian or Hindu God or Santa ... but it will be somehow God like ... or Santa like . ... without the influence of another . Then as the child receives influence from anothe it will form that belief more according to the influence ... like God or Santa ... even though they had that in the fist place . So what we have basically, a self generated influence .

or should I say ;

Only problem here is that this is not my postulation nor even a postulation of science. It is a demonstrated reality of children's cognitive process All humans, from birth, interpret and perceive ALL external environments via the workings of their mind, and both the new external data and the new understandings of the mind contribute to their evolution of cognitive abilty Children work with what they have, but are no different to adults. If you really had the SLIGHTEST understanding of human cognition, this would be apparent to you.

How do YOU think a child would reason when it encountered an inexplicable event, given that it has already established that the environment contains agents of change which are self directed and motivated. (ie parents cats etc). And also given it has NO actual knowledge which it can use to explain the event?

It's mind, like all human minds, COMPELS it to provide a solution, because not having a solution poses a danger of unpredictability, and thus an inability to act safely and with predictable outcomes. . .

[back to earth]

Maybe I'll join you one day. The Nambucca Valley is just a short skip and a jump from Dorrigo (the earlier picture you linked to the waterfall down the walk at the National Park, breathtaking when I walked it a few months ago).

Sure , why not . You would have been very near my place when you went to crystal showers .

The Tarzan swing into the river is near Gleniffer Pools - pristine rainforest water flowing over a granite boulder intrusion (I like geology too ) ... very refreshing and cleansing ;

[back to earth]

why do you believe this is faulty?

it is self evident that we can only make logical factual conclusions if we have both sufficient data AND sufficient experience of alternatives in order to make those decisions. Two year olds lack both information and comparative experiences. There is quite a bit of evidence that even much older children struggle to do so.

because thats what you wrote and when you quoted me, that showed what I meant, you removed half my quote and then acted all confused about what I meant

[Mr Walker]

yet you said in earlier posts that God and Gods action was limited by certain restrictions ... like why God has to rely on you donating money to help feed starving people .

Xeno asked why God could not just do some miracle and fix the problem and you said NO< God is restricted and must work through sensible and logical agents.

Or are you saying Walker's God / it can manifest as a flying buffalo and talk, but he cant really do anything effective about things ... just give you good advice to help others ?

Think it through for your self. I am tired of trying to help you reason.

My take on it is thus.

God can certainly do things but being real and not omniscient or omnipotent, god is limited. Certain options work better than others. Being intelligent, god works in the most effective way possible

My opinion on this is that god is bound by a sort of star trek prime directive rule. it can assist us only without revealing itself to the point where it alters our whole culture and civilization to become dependent on it.

Like all potential star faring entities, we must survive our adolescence, and become wise enough to join the 'galactic federation" ourselves. Not because we are forced to do so by a very powerful race of beings. You cant grow up without doing this independently for yourself. . To the "galactic federation" it is safer if we destroy ourselves now than if we achieve star travel while still the primitive primates we are today. WE have to learn wisdom control and the abilty to realise we are one species on one planet. we can be helped with understanding and ideas and even some individual contact, but not full contact.

This is a view expressed through my cultural understandings shaped by my long affinity to science fiction. When i met god i HAD to comprehend him in some way. Using science fiction allegories and metaphors helped me adapt and cope until we became better acquainted.

[back to earth]

As usual you have it wrong I got HALF the question right.

You liar!

The response was "no, nothing like that, I dont know what you are talking about " Shall I go into my PM file and resurrect the conversation with said witness and ask them to post here and affirm that .... that in no way did you even get close !

And now you are claiming to be half right !

You are a joke !

And i had already explained i didn't do that sort of challenge

But you did ... and you failed ... not half failed Walker ... you failed !

but would do so for you to humour you.

bull**** It was the other poster saying your alleged powers of being able to psychically see things from a distance and be accurate about it were a croc of **** ... and you volunteered to have a go at it.

We agreed that your question ( about a jet fighter) was based on a mutual advertisement appearing on our computer screens

We did no such thing and I certainly said no such thing . you are very confused ... or are hoping I am . I never said I could see images you were looking at because I saw them on my screen too .

not on any psychic ability, and i have never posted much outside the these two sections Some in the psychology ad supernatural sections I think that post was shifted from, or into, this section.

if you are a god or superhuman then telling us would not be boasting, but simply telling a truth. NOT telling us would be lying by omission. .

Oh yeah ... get all logical on me and my God like powers then .

Would you like to see another demo Walker ? One you wont be able to lie about ?

[back to earth]

Only problem here is that this is not my postulation nor even a postulation of science. It is a demonstrated reality of children's cognitive process All humans, from birth, interpret and perceive ALL external environments via the workings of their mind, and both the new external data and the new understandings of the mind contribute to their evolution of cognitive abilty Children work with what they have, but are no different to adults. If you really had the SLIGHTEST understanding of human cognition, this would be apparent to you.

How do YOU think a child would reason when it encountered an inexplicable event, given that it has already established that the environment contains agents of change which are self directed and motivated. (ie parents cats etc). And also given it has NO actual knowledge which it can use to explain the event?

It's mind, like all human minds, COMPELS it to provide a solution, because not having a solution poses a danger of unpredictability, and thus an inability to act safely and with predictable outcomes. . .

you havent got a clue what I mean as you cant follow the thread of the conversation ... it isnt about that , you keep trying to make pout the problem is with me not understanding the first part , I do , its what you are adding to it to try and make it prove your original statements, which you are now in the process of re saying and massaging and backing away from ... while still insiting, what I have said I already accept, is something I cant comprehend

In other words, its useless to respond or communicate with you , especially when its been done over and over and you just default to the same silly position.

and now make up BS about what happened before

Walker, if you ever get busted for anything , whatever you do - do not try to talk your way out of it !

[back to earth]

Think it through for your self. I am tired of trying to help you reason.

My take on it is thus.

God can certainly do things but being real and not omniscient or omnipotent, god is limited. Certain options work better than others. Being intelligent, god works in the most effective way possible

My opinion on this is that god is bound by a sort of star trek prime directive rule. it can assist us only without revealing itself to the point where it alters our whole culture and civilization to become dependent on it.

Like all potential star faring entities, we must survive our adolescence, and become wise enough to join the 'galactic federation" ourselves. Not because we are forced to do so by a very powerful race of beings. You cant grow up without doing this independently for yourself. . To the "galactic federation" it is safer if we destroy ourselves now than if we achieve star travel while still the primitive primates we are today. WE have to learn wisdom control and the abilty to realise we are one species on one planet. we can be helped with understanding and ideas and even some individual contact, but not full contact.

This is a view expressed through my cultural understandings shaped by my long affinity to science fiction. When i met god i HAD to comprehend him in some way. Using science fiction allegories and metaphors helped me adapt and cope until we became better acquainted.

and this folks ... is why I call this 'it' Walker has invented 'Walker's God'.

[psyche101]

Certainly ! (PM me for details )

Its Bellinger Valley and Dorrigo world heritage park

http://www.nationalp...o-national-park

come on a sunday come to my church ;

have to baptise you first though ;

Now THAT would convert me.

Not sure into what though.............

Alright to bring tin lids?

[psyche101]

there is an evolved purpose to this. Used properly and with intelligence it will enable humans to grow in wisdom as well as knowledge MAny religions are really the ONLY widespread source of positive human moralities and ethics, and belief remains the oNLy effective driver of behaviour The best response is to direct and channel these beliefs more positively and constructively Humans cannot live without beliefs and faith, and will never do so, or they would not be human.

Growing is wisdom and knowledge makes relgion and belief redundant. That is indeed what has happened already.

It is total nonsense that Humans cannot have morality and ethics without relgion. total nonsense.

[psyche101]

Na i just have knowledge and evidences There is some contextual proof in that iI talked to peole about wha ti saw and described it, BEFORE thety were discovered by space craft. For example i flew through the planetary rings of saturn at a time when science thought they were kilometres thick and found they wer only a few metres thick. i rested on an asteriod s whose surface looked JUST like that photographed in the recent landing. i overflew active geysers on a number of planetary moons in the late 50s/early 60s These weren't discovered by science until decades later but i was describing them as what i had see in my "dreams" when i was a pre teenager . I noticed what are now known as the oort clouds, including one right outside the solar system . I talked to other people about these "dreams" describing wha ti had seen. but no one realised they were accurate.

When carl sagans cosmos first aired on TV i did a running commentary to my wife explaining what would be shown, before it appeared, because i had been there, seen that "in person"

Of course until the discoveries were confirmed i could not claim knowledge, only that i had seen these things in my travels. In a sense i came to KNOW my projection of consciousness was real and not a dream, ONLY when these confirmations occurred, piece by piece. The last piece was the giant ice block mountains around an old impact crater on Pluto, where ice is pushed up in pressure ridges. In my "dreams they looked just like the photos emerging now, and much like superman's fortress of solitude in the arctic. as constructed for some of those films.

Now all science has to find is the 'stargate" or wormhole which exists outside the last oort cloud, somewhere on the planetary axis of the solar system. Visually it looks just like a shimmering distortion in space, like ripples on still water and will be quite hard to find, unless it is emitting some form of radiation, which i did not sense at all. .

So no proof at all then, just 20/20 hindsight? Your wife must be an exceptionally wonderful woman to stand by you whilst all this is going on. I hope you appreciate her.

Wormholes now!!

You do realise that according to the calculations by Einstein and Rosen, furthered by Kip Thorne, that a wormhole - if it was found to exist - would be miniscule and last for fractions of a second?

[psyche101]

Not that I don't agree with you, I do. But I believe that was Bush senior who said that. The one term Bush, not his two term son, Bush.

Then again, two termer did get sayings and books named after him.

"Bushism".

Yeah, I do think you have a point.

100% Correct, Bush H.W.

The full quote is:

No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.… I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Those dollar bills spell it out I reckon. I cannot see that his son would be of a different opinion. Religion seems to have a heck of a lot of sway with Politics in the US.

[psyche101]

and as for the rest of your bull**** post about Australia Walker ... have you realised you were trying to BS to an Australian (psyche 101 ) about Australia ?

LOL, I picked up on that and was wondering too......

[+Sherapy]

of course he doesnt ! and I know that as he told us so , he said he doesnt tell people that stuff as they will judge him adversely and that he only tells us as here his real identity is masked ... then tries to convince us that everyone else in his life, but not on here thinks he is okay ... and it is just that we , for some reason, think he is fruitcake ... when no one else does

eye yi yi yiyi !

x

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Dang you have MW pegged to a t...

And don't forget his wife tells him in a gentle way that his problem is "he doesn't think like anyone else."

Which in wife speak ( the nicer ones, smarter ones ) means shut the frick up, stop talking, you are embarrassing yourself, you need to think more before you talk etc, etc.

And, I am sure Mrs. Walker is careful not to get him to riled up on one of his rants like we deal with here, that is why she has him garden and read books all day, or use his "imagination" to explore it gets him out of her hair and gives him constructive ways to deal with his frustrations, the ones he claims he doesn't have. What he has is a saint of a wife who knows how to re-route him. To bad she is not on here. I think he should be thanking his lucky stars for her.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

You liar!

The response was "no, nothing like that, I dont know what you are talking about " Shall I go into my PM file and resurrect the conversation with said witness and ask them to post here and affirm that .... that in no way did you even get close !

And now you are claiming to be half right !

You are a joke !

But you did ... and you failed ... not half failed Walker ... you failed !

bull**** It was the other poster saying your alleged powers of being able to psychically see things from a distance and be accurate about it were a croc of **** ... and you volunteered to have a go at it.

We did no such thing and I certainly said no such thing . you are very confused ... or are hoping I am . I never said I could see images you were looking at because I saw them on my screen too .

Oh yeah ... get all logical on me and my God like powers then .

Would you like to see another demo Walker ? One you wont be able to lie about ?

Even though I don't know of this challenge with MW, and I don't need to, I will say this I believe you implicitly not knowing a thing.

I cracked up on your don't try and talk your way out of trouble MW.

I don't know if you have ever heard of the Trailer Park Boys it's a comedy series out of Canada anyways you will appreciate this clip of Ricky (the dumb guy )trying to talk his way out of getting arrested. Ha ha ha ha ha!

Disclaimer:

It has grown up language so be warned if anyone is offended by the F word do not watch this.

[XenoFish]

Doesn't EVERYTHING that influences the development of a child occur through external influences?

External influences can still offer a choice though, relgion does not.

They get it.

No until you do the push ups it is ONLY belief. Once done it is knowledge and can not be belief.

The push-ups are a belief until you act on it. Then it becomes a fact (after you succeed) that can be proven. As it can be shown to those who doubt you.

No human being completely outgrows magical thinking because it is our earliest and default cognitive position. We merely learn other forms of thinking and also, perhaps more significantly , gain more data and knowledge upon which to make informed decisions; but, faced with the unknowable, all we have is some form of belief/disbelief position, or a refusal to chose ethe,. and admit to not knowing.

We grow up and start calling these coincidences, not putting much of an esoteric meaning to them. At least those who have more of a rational mind don't.

Not knowing in an external environment is dangerous to humans and in crisis situations leads us to freeze, so we generally adopt a prior position of belief/disbelief which enables us to act. eg we build a position of belief that that rustling in the bushes signals danger, whether it actually does or not.

I call this paranoia. Jumping at ghost and other figments of the imagination. While our instinct beckon us to survive. We can imagine scenarios in which we'd need to do so. Thus building a mental construct of a situation based on environmental hazards.

i edit all my posts

God is not only dopamine because humans are not only chemically reactive animals. A god is an intellectual and rational construct of belief for many. it can also, as evidenced by other studies, come from the experiences of the very young. (or indeed from the individial experiences of a human at any age.) Belief faith and spirituality have been shown to be INDIVIDUAL constructs often growing from a child's individual experiences and perception of the people and things around it. Faith belief and god are basically originally different in every human being. Religions tend to codify and make more uniform those individual beliefs, allowing more cooperative and social endeavours by groups of humans.

God is only intellectual and rational because that how your construct of god was created. It has more to do with magical thinking and external influence than an ingrain spiritual belief. While religion does solidify a beliefs. It create a form of magical thinking based around an imaginary friend. Which sounds a lot like a coping mechanism to me.

So in a sense god is the same for all, as love is the same for all, and yet, in that god is an intellectually aware construct, every human's god is different, and tailored to their own sense of identity.

Again your god is just a mental construct, as it is with every religious and spiritual belief. To say god doesn't exist is both true and false. As an external cloud riding god of lightning, no. As a psychological construct that represents certain ideals and more esoteric beliefs then yes. 'God' is an idea, it's spreads from mind to mind like a psychic virus. People spreading the idea are the carriers and those who are 'born again' are the receivers. Some of us are immune to certain god viruses.

Edited January 7, 2016 by XenoFish

[Silent Trinity]

I think freedom of religion is a cornerstone of any civilized society, it is when those religious beliefs impact on others in a negative or violent way that their belief in their chosen deity becomes a problem. No this isn't a lambasting aimed towards the muslim religion, violence in the name of a religion is not isolated to that secular group. I have nothing but respect for those who chose to dedicate their lives to a religion, in a peaceful manner, yes including muslims, I know many who are wonderful, kind and caring people, totally removed from the extremist ideology.

I personally do not subscribe to any religion, and I am a proponent of science, I do not believe that 'he who increases knowledge increases sorrow', I believe it equips us to make our own decision, and mine is rather agnostic in it's make-up I suppose. But that is my decision and I would expect the same equality and respect as I give to those who are religious.

After all it is down to the individual, and as I said, as long as it does not affect the lives of those around them negatively, then long may they continue! Of course I spend time on these forums, and get involved sometimes with religious discussions where of course my opinion is voiced, it isn't about hypocrisy with what I wrote above, it is about debate from a certain point of view, where we often see many of the secular members engage in debate equally from their point of view too.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Silent Trinity

[Stubbly_Dooright]

100% Correct, Bush H.W.

The full quote is:

No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.… I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Those dollar bills spell it out I reckon. I cannot see that his son would be of a different opinion. Religion seems to have a heck of a lot of sway with Politics in the US.

What I consider as an unfortunate state of things, is that you're right. The one nation under God thing, and sayings on our money, not just the paper money, but on the coins too, and this is something that maybe actually a recent thing. If I remember correctly, it's something that occurred during the fifties in the height of the cold war to disassociate ourselves from a threatening regimes like the U.S.S.R. and it's Atheist aura. It didn't found this country like some like to believe.

And because of this, there is a constant crossing of the lines from the extreme religious and the line that I do believe that separates church and state.

But, I have to remember, because of certain freedoms of my country, that even though ever so often we come across the billboards of some religious saying, or the wondering prosetylizer, you can ignore the billboard or come across an anti-religious one rebutting the first billboard, or tell the prosetylizer you are not interested and get them arrested if they persist to the point of in threatening your life.

But it's still rampant, and yes, it's the ones in office and in laws, that are crossing the lines that might hurt. I think that Bush junior has cause certain law changes and such, that has hurt those freedoms, ( I'm thinking of the jump back on women's rights ) that is the big danger, I feel.

But fortunately, there are those who then make changes that atleast is giving women the jump forward to, I feel. ( or reversing the damage done before ) If I remember correctly.

Going back to where I remember Bush Sr. saying that, I think it was during his run for a second term. ( Of course, that didn't work out for him, did it? ) I also remember him before a group of people ( at an airport, if I remember that correctly ) and I remember one individual in the group asking him to explain of all of the things he promised the first round of his term of office, and all he answered back, was that he and his people had plans of what they want to do if he gets re-elected.

Thankfully, this is still a country that still can get together and make those decisions that show how we feel about that!

Anyhow, and I'm considering the group think of this country ( teamwork, and I see this in every free country, (( and possibly non-free ones too )) and it's positive results ) and we still have ways to counter attack certain negative harmful laws, some bring up to enforce.

Unfortunately, it might take a while.

But again, ................................. I feel you're still right, Psyche. *shrugs*

Even though I don't know of this challenge with MW, and I don't need to, I will say this I believe you implicitly not knowing a thing.

I cracked up on your don't try and talk your way out of trouble MW.

I don't know if you have ever heard of the Trailer Park Boys it's a comedy series out of Canada anyways you will appreciate this clip of Ricky (the dumb guy )trying to talk his way out of getting arrested. Ha ha ha ha ha!

Disclaimer:

It has grown up language so be warned if anyone is offended by the F word do not watch this.

https://www.youtube....h?v=K4Kay-Ykdzw

How the hell this show escaped my radar?!?!?!?

That was hilarious and brilliant in the response!

I think freedom of religion is a cornerstone of any civilized society, it is when those religious beliefs impact on others in a negative or violent way that their belief in their chosen deity becomes a problem. No this isn't a lambasting aimed towards the muslim religion, violence in the name of a religion is not isolated to that secular group. I have nothing but respect for those who chose to dedicate their lives to a religion, in a peaceful manner, yes including muslims, I know many who are wonderful, kind and caring people, totally removed from the extremist ideology.

I personally do not subscribe to any religion, and I am a proponent of science, I do not believe that 'he who increases knowledge increases sorrow', I believe it equips us to make our own decision, and mine is rather agnostic in it's make-up I suppose. But that is my decision and I would expect the same equality and respect as I give to those who are religious.

After all it is down to the individual, and as I said, as long as it does not affect the lives of those around them negatively, then long may they continue! Of course I spend time on these forums, and get involved sometimes with religious discussions where of course my opinion is voiced, it isn't about hypocrisy with what I wrote above, it is about debate from a certain point of view, where we often see many of the secular members engage in debate equally from their point of view too.

Well, hello there!!

Nice to meet you!

Well said.

That's pretty much how I feel. And I think, on your post of the point about not really knowing more, more sadness, because one can achieve happiness through that too.

In essence of your post, yes, it's a thing of the individual. But it's all individuals, as long as everyone together, and their individual uniqueness, (including their beliefs or lack of) that is teamwork, and not a war among themselves.

Thank you for this.

[Silent Trinity]

Well, hello there!!

Nice to meet you!

Well said.

That's pretty much how I feel. And I think, on your post of the point about not really knowing more, more sadness, because one can achieve happiness through that too.

In essence of your post, yes, it's a thing of the individual. But it's all individuals, as long as everyone together, and their individual uniqueness, (including their beliefs or lack of) that is teamwork, and not a war among themselves.

Thank you for this.

No problem, many thanks for the positive feedback!

[AZDZ]

I've seen intelligent atheists who became theists and I've also seen intelligent theists who turned atheists. I've come to the conclusion that the whole fuss in the debate of God's existence is not so much about evidence or lack of it as we make it look. I believe that the side on which many stand has more to do with how the hearts have been shaped by life's circumstances rather than evidence for or against. The evidence or lack of it therefore, is only used as a justification for what has already been concluded in the heart.

Former Chicago Tribune Editor, Lee Strobel said: "My road to atheism was paved by science... But, ironically, so was my journey back to God"

In his case, was it really about science or his heart. I can't judge.

I don't want to generalize it and assert that this is the case with everyone (it's definitely not), but if we are to search our hearts individually and be sincere with ourselves, is the whole debate at it's heart really about evidence or lack of it? This has been my thought for a while now.

What do y'all think?

No, becoming a believer isn't about Biblical evidence first making me believe then having Faith. The opposite is true. Faith caused belief in the Bible.

For me, I have no idea where my Faith came from, it seems to have come pre-installed. But then, after the fact, I read the Bible and find these:

EZE 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my commandments, and ye shall keep my rights, and do them.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

...now the Bible becomes evidence, it explains where my Faith came from.

[PersonFromPorlock]

The existence of God or Gods tends to get bogged down in religion, where it is already pretty much of a given. What it really ought to be seen as is a purely operational question: do the physical processes of the world require the guidance of a mind?

The machine universe modern physics stipulates does not exactly say "no" to this question, but it leaves no space for a mind to work in*. But we** have minds, and the fact that we talk about them shows that they drive at least the physical process of speech about themselves. All by itself, this proves that the machine universe paradigm is wrong.

On the principle of not multiplying explanations needlessly, it follows that since there's nothing physically special about speech or about us, and since mind drives speech in us, so it must drive process in the world generally. A God or Gods - us, writ large - beavering away at running the world is not just possible, but required (in the absence of our minds being omnipotent) to make us physically 'nothing special'.

Or we could be 'something special', but then the world is no longer a uniform system and becomes incomprehensible.

As to the argument that the Gods are invisible in the world's workings, well, so are you: all I see of you is a physical process entirely explained (at least in principle) by physics: no need for an animating spirit at all. You'll have to decide for yourself if you believe you don't exist; a 'no' may be a bit difficult to logically support.

Concerning religion, I like to point out that the Mormons have gone from Divine Revelation to six different sects in a little under two hundred years. Imagine how far religions ten times older have drifted... and that's not even considering that they may heve started out as snake oil! But the question of whether this or that religion is 'true' is entirely separate from that of whether God exists.

*The standard resolution of quantum indeterminacy needs a mind independent of the physical processes that the machine universe paradigm makes it a part of; this is, to put it mildly, somewhat incoherent.

** Well, I know I have one; I'm being courteous about the rest of you.

[+Sherapy]

What I consider as an unfortunate state of things, is that you're right. The one nation under God thing, and sayings on our money, not just the paper money, but on the coins too, and this is something that maybe actually a recent thing. If I remember correctly, it's something that occurred during the fifties in the height of the cold war to disassociate ourselves from a threatening regimes like the U.S.S.R. and it's Atheist aura. It didn't found this country like some like to believe.

And because of this, there is a constant crossing of the lines from the extreme religious and the line that I do believe that separates church and state.

But, I have to remember, because of certain freedoms of my country, that even though ever so often we come across the billboards of some religious saying, or the wondering prosetylizer, you can ignore the billboard or come across an anti-religious one rebutting the first billboard, or tell the prosetylizer you are not interested and get them arrested if they persist to the point of in threatening your life.

But it's still rampant, and yes, it's the ones in office and in laws, that are crossing the lines that might hurt. I think that Bush junior has cause certain law changes and such, that has hurt those freedoms, ( I'm thinking of the jump back on women's rights ) that is the big danger, I feel.

But fortunately, there are those who then make changes that atleast is giving women the jump forward to, I feel. ( or reversing the damage done before ) If I remember correctly.

Going back to where I remember Bush Sr. saying that, I think it was during his run for a second term. ( Of course, that didn't work out for him, did it? ) I also remember him before a group of people ( at an airport, if I remember that correctly ) and I remember one individual in the group asking him to explain of all of the things he promised the first round of his term of office, and all he answered back, was that he and his people had plans of what they want to do if he gets re-elected.

Thankfully, this is still a country that still can get together and make those decisions that show how we feel about that!

Anyhow, and I'm considering the group think of this country ( teamwork, and I see this in every free country, (( and possibly non-free ones too )) and it's positive results ) and we still have ways to counter attack certain negative harmful laws, some bring up to enforce.

Unfortunately, it might take a while.

But again, ................................. I feel you're still right, Psyche. *shrugs*

How the hell this show escaped my radar?!?!?!?

That was hilarious and brilliant in the response!

Well, hello there!!

Nice to meet you!

Well said.

That's pretty much how I feel. And I think, on your post of the point about not really knowing more, more sadness, because one can achieve happiness through that too.

In essence of your post, yes, it's a thing of the individual. But it's all individuals, as long as everyone together, and their individual uniqueness, (including their beliefs or lack of) that is teamwork, and not a war among themselves.

Thank you for this.

Stubbs, do you watch the Trailer Park Boys? It is hysterical!

[Stubbly_Dooright]

The existence of God or Gods tends to get bogged down in religion, where it is already pretty much of a given. What it really ought to be seen as is a purely operational question: do the physical processes of the world require the guidance of a mind?

The machine universe modern physics stipulates does not exactly say "no" to this question, but it leaves no space for a mind to work in*. But we** have minds, and the fact that we talk about them shows that they drive at least the physical process of speech about themselves. All by itself, this proves that the machine universe paradigm is wrong.

On the principle of not multiplying explanations needlessly, it follows that since there's nothing physically special about speech or about us, and since mind drives speech in us, so it must drive process in the world generally. A God or Gods - us, writ large - beavering away at running the world is not just possible, but required (in the absence of our minds being omnipotent) to make us physically 'nothing special'.

Or we could be 'something special', but then the world is no longer a uniform system and becomes incomprehensible.

As to the argument that the Gods are invisible in the world's workings, well, so are you: all I see of you is a physical process entirely explained (at least in principle) by physics: no need for an animating spirit at all. You'll have to decide for yourself if you believe you don't exist; a 'no' may be a bit difficult to logically support.

Concerning religion, I like to point out that the Mormons have gone from Divine Revelation to six different sects in a little under two hundred years. Imagine how far religions ten times older have drifted... and that's not even considering that they may heve started out as snake oil! But the question of whether this or that religion is 'true' is entirely separate from that of whether God exists.

*The standard resolution of quantum indeterminacy needs a mind independent of the physical processes that the machine universe paradigm makes it a part of; this is, to put it mildly, somewhat incoherent.

** Well, I know I have one; I'm being courteous about the rest of you.

I'm liking this because, .............. well................................ I'm still trying to digest this, ................... but fascinating never the less.

I sometimes think like this. Sometimes. I just think, the answers are there.............................. somewhere.

Stubbs, do you watch the Trailer Park Boys? It is hysterical!

Until, your most recent post, I have never heard of them!

Maybe it's because it's a Canadian show, but that doesn't stop me from getting a hold of it. (When living in upstate Rome New York, there were a lot of Canadian produced and placed shows on the cable networks. )

But I have never heard of it, but if I had, I would have been watching it time to time, since then. ( Looked at IMDB and noticed it started in 2001 )

It's almost like the format of "The Office" (Brit and U.S. ) but with a more "Reno 911" feel to it.

[+Sherapy]

I'm liking this because, .............. well................................ I'm still trying to digest this, ................... but fascinating never the less.

I sometimes think like this. Sometimes. I just think, the answers are there.............................. somewhere.

Until, your most recent post, I have never heard of them!

Maybe it's because it's a Canadian show, but that doesn't stop me from getting a hold of it. (When living in upstate Rome New York, there were a lot of Canadian produced and placed shows on the cable networks. )

But I have never heard of it, but if I had, I would have been watching it time to time, since then. ( Looked at IMDB and noticed it started in 2001 )

It's almost like the format of "The Office" (Brit and U.S. ) but with a more "Reno 911" feel to it.

I am sure you will enjoy it, watch the movies too along with the comedy series.

I'd say closer to Reno 911 but not as documentary like.

The characters are so well developed, better then most comedy series, we are huge fans! Make sure to watch Swear net the movie! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

There isn't a better drunk portrayed than Mr. Lahey, or a better dumb person then Ricky, or Bubbles ( the coke bottle glasses) who you expect to be the resident retard is really the voice of reason with a twist. Randy Bo bandy or randers as he is called is my favorite. Triny and Lucy, Barb, and Sam, ( looks smells and acts like Bigfoot) and J- rock portrays the best wanna be white rapper ever. This is on netflixs if you have it.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Sherapy