Jesus Christ is Lord!

Post Reply New Topic

I can agree with what your saying about the fine-tuned universe. However, to take the huge step from fine tuning to things like 'holy ghost money shots, virgin births, people being god, people coming back from the dead, god requiring blood, young earth creation, people feeding thousands of people with two fish, etc.' is a huge unsubstantiated leap. The fine tuning doesn't prove a single uniquely Christian doctrine. The thread is talking about Christianity, which isn't proven by fine tuning. So fine tuning is really not relevant to the conversation.

Someone did call him a troll. Being accused of being a troll is- well folks certainly react to it as- a personal attack.

Thank you; as a straight "A" student in English, if I made that a habit, my life long acquaintances and friends would likely number close to zero.

I've learned much more from animals and intellectually disabled persons, than anyone I went to college with; simply as they had full use of their emotional intelligence; the oldest and scientifically proven most important intelligence of all.

Thank God science has finally figured this out; it took me longer than it could of to figure this out, if this knowledge is available when I am much younger.

The difference in having emotional intelligence and not having it is night and day, for me at least.

There was a time when I had to drink a six-pack of beer to even go into a dance bar to even think about socializing.

Now I lead the dance and social interaction without any substances to get me through the night.

And yes, dance is the oldest form of communication; far more informative for emotional intelligence than any language developed; science shows that 60 to 93 per cent of all human communication is non-verbal; totally lost in text only communication.

But ha, there is photography and videos now for social interaction, and I for one do not fear to show my face anywhere I go, online or off.

I like myself; so sue me (not you, by the way;) it's what socially adjusted humans do.

And no it certainly wasn't always that way; and yes the real man Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas translated in English, in 1959, actually suggests that folks strip down naked; not unlike the old stories of King David, to get in touch with the spirit of GOD inside, outside, above, so below.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

The stuff of metaphors that unfortunately not all folks can understand, but that was understood then as well as now.

It is just part of the human condition: different minds with different ways of thinking and perceiving the world.

It takes a great deal of cognitive empathy to understand that; and mostly non-verbal communication; not the newer complex abstract language of approximately connecting to other human beings, rather than through the non-verbal mirror neuron process of really getting in touch with another human being's heart.

And then there are folks with non-verbal learning disability who unfortunately have little ability for this human skill; this effects and yes affects everything in life; as well as my form of Autism that was almost completely opposite; a language delay with Hyperlexia per pattern and visual thinker.

If I had not lost effective use of my eye sight and hearing, I would likely never be writing on the Internet, as I do not see writing as an effective means of human communication; I much rather meet folks face to face; but nah, I am not scared of people at all, anymore; I love them, and if a person loves themselves and all the folks around them, a relationship with some type of all encompassing GOD, is much more likely, from both my experience and opinion from interacting with tens of thousand of people, in my career of working with the public.

And after all, the philosopher Yeshua suggests that some folks will see and hear GOD without their eyes and ears, and some folks will not see or hear GOD at all, as reported in the Gospel of Thomas.

That part hasn't changed one bit, as far as I can see; proven every time I visit here too, time and time again; yes to be expected, too.

But as a classical pantheist there is evidence for the GOD I believe in, yes; inside, outside, as above, so below; almost word for word from the Gospel of Thomas linked here; and whether or not the reported words from oral tradition duplicate Yeshua's actual words, it matters not to me.

Truth rings true, regardless of who said what, when, where or how.

That's all I am concerned with, the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but it.

God is ALL IT IS to me.

IT as metaphor for GOD does not get any bigger or more whole than that. :)

Yes, it's as simple as THAT, if one wants to use the metaphor of THAT for GOD too.

That's what I mean about the inefficiency of language; people get caught up in the letters and words and lose the essence of true meanings.

Also known as literal thinking language, per text communication, is still a very inefficient and ineffective means of communication, overall for those proficient in more than that, but not more than THAT, if you will. ;)

And to be clear; my discussion here is about the topic and not directed personally at any person in this discussion.

I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings; but yes, sometimes the Truth ITself CAN AND WILL HURT.

AND NO the GOD I know is far from fair.

But YES, I STILL respect GOD and follow GOD's laws of nature, one and the same for me; WITH absolutely no words, text books, or even human beings necessary to describe GOD for me; without humans here, there is no Jesus, no bible, and no religion; but yes, GOD does still exist with or without human culture; it's just common sense, in my opinion and of course easily proven as a classical panTHEIST per the GOD I know as TRUE.

I can only hope that's not too many Caps to make a point, too.

Standard text is way too boring for me; I'm a real life kind of guy, through and through, now that all my physical disabilities are all healed by the GOD of nature, per the greater and more nuanced laws of nature, I find and enjoy everyday, in activities as simple as dance, song, and martial arts.

IT doesn't need to be that complicated, in my opinion.

Yup, and I was reported as a delusional egoist for paraphrasing Zen philosophy.

Wonders never cease, neither here or there or no where too. ;)

This can be true. On many forums I've seen people jump at shadows, on alert for interlopers.

On a well known forum, dedicated to science, I once was accused of making a religious comment because I used the word 'spirit.' I made a comment about something being "in the spirit of debate," but the moderator leaped to a the wrong conclusion and threatened suspension from the forum. And with me being a science nerd, it made me a little jaded of some of the reactionaries within science.

If they legitimately think the OP is starting a thread just to cause trouble, I don't see how it's a personal attack.

Well, it's not an uncommon belief, considering over 70% of the country believes this way.

The Op was paraphrased right out of John 3:16.

This is a philosophy, religion, and politics forum.

John 3:16, most definitely fits in there.

There is absolutely no reason to believe it is emotional hyperbole, considering that simple statistic.

Other than strong disagreement and or abuse of so called authority.

I call it as I see it; hopefully that doesn't upset anyone.

Sorry I've missed these conversations and am possibly just reiterating criticisms you've already encountered.

Many physicists and cosmologists are non-theists - it's far more common in their community than in the general population. The "broad agreement about fine-tuning" probably doesn't amount to broad agreement that science renders theism rationally more compelling than non-theism, or even that the evidence for "fine-tuning" lends plausibility to belief in a conscious, deliberate fine-tuner.

Instead what it probably amounts to is broad agreement that the physical constants and other facts about our universe, had they been very slightly different, would not have permitted our universe to exist and/or to yield conditions favorable for human life on Earth.

But this claim alone does not constitute an argument for theism. In order to constitute an argument for theism, it needs to be supplemented by some combination(s) of the following premises, or premises very similar:

(a) It is not the case that the physical constants etc. were, by yet-unknown factors, determined in law-like fashion to be what they are; i.e., it was physically possible for them to have been very slightly different.

(b) It is not the case that there were so many opportunities for the physical constants etc. to obtain, that the emergence of human life (or something sufficiently comparable) by unguided natural processes was more probable than not. (So, e.g., any relevant "multiverse" hypothesis is false.)

(c) It is not the case that something different from but sufficiently comparable to human life could have emerged by unguided natural processes that didn't require our universe's physical constants etc. to obtain.

And if there is scientific consensus in favor of (a) through (c) or appropriately similar premises, I'd be interested to know; I haven't looked into the matter deeply, but as far as I'm aware, that's not the case. (That doesn't mean there's consensus in opposition to any of them.)

Some further (brief) reading on the fine-tuning argument, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/#SH2c

Correct.



Correct.



Thesists present the Teleological argument ("Fine tuning" argument) as a mathematical argument that random creation of the life permitting physical constraints of the universe are sooooooo improbable that it cannot be seriously believed, therefore, a theist explanation is necessary. The "mathematical improbability" is based on physical constraints of the universe such as the strong nuclear force, low entropy, relative force of gravity to electromagnetism ... all having such an infinitesimal range to permit life.

When the physical constants of the universe are looked at independently, the math is .....

(odds of constraint A) * (odds of constraint B) * (odds of constraint C) .... = random creation of a life-permitting universe is nearly impossible

However, the math is not so easy because, as stated in wikipedia, "The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned ... se#Premise

In probability theory , the probability of non-independent events is determined differently than dependent events. So, the odds could be even more improbable or less improbable.

I don't know if I addressed your (a)-(c).

That depends on where you live. There are people from all over the world on this forum. In many countries the amount of religious people is much lower. In the Netherlands only 28% of people "believe in God" (how the question was phrased), in some European countries it's even lower.
But I agree with you that it's fine to post religious threads in PPR, it's the right subforum for it.

Definitely. How the inhabitants of PPR respond to a religious thread very much depends on the nature of the thread. If it is to debate a particular religion or philosophy it will generally be a lively and interesting thread to a number of members. However, if someone posts a thread preaching at the members (Jesus Christ is Lord, Allah is your salvation, Fall to your knees and pray to Shiva etc) then it will typically be very poorly received. If that member makes a habit of dumping and running i.e. posting such threads then abandoning them without responding to members' comments or questions, then such threads will be even less welcome. We recently banned one member whose sole purpose for being on this site was to dump and run; trying to convert the sinful heathens here to YEC; a religion that has been repeatedly debunked as being based upon (wilful) ignorance of reality and scientific knowledge on this forum and elsewhere.

Please don't ban them, those threads are hilarious, and the risk of them converting anyone is pretty low

omg... lol

You have a cruel streak! He wouldn't have been banned if he'd participated in the threads he created and responded to people's posts; after a few weeks of doing dump and runs he just fell under the category of spammer, consequently he was shown the door.

What I'm figuring is that the virgin mary is actually a depiction of the Egyptian zodiac sign of virgo. Which gives birth to the next sign in the zodiac. Depicted as Jesus? Inorganic beings do not pregnate people. It doesn't happen. God or not. As far as king lord dude dying for our sins, I'm pritty sure he died because of them. He did not follow rules very well, and the real king lord dude did not like it.

Yes, I am aware of that, and I believe it is part of the Issue here. As countries provide greater social welfare there is a correlated drop off in organized religions as indicated in research into this area of interest.

When people do cooperate in relatively homogenous societies where subsistence is provided there is natural love shared and no need for anything else but love.

God is love in my opinion and this is how GOD naturally works per my classical pantheist beliefs.

The three letters GOD is meaningless to me, without that natural cooperation and sharing in unconditional love.

But now poorer folks from Muslim nations are immigrating there, and things are changing.

They are becoming pariahs not unlike the African Americans imported into the USA for slavery.

And yes, they believe in reproducing with no bars held so things will likely eventually change in the percentage category in the Netherlands; simple math there, as the reproduction rates among the indigenous population of the Netherlands is relatively much lower, as a cultural way of beliefs.

There's a good reason for fundamentalist folks to be afraid of health care who make their lively hood off of religion in the US, but no; not likely that they get into niche information like this in a country of specialization rather than renaissance like knowledge.

The role religion plays in America, is one of gluing the heterogeneous subcultures together. One sees this in African American churches. One sees this in Catholic churches with Filipinos and Hispanic individuals as well.

The key issue is knowledge.

And in this case knowledge and scientific research indicates folks participate in these fundamentalist literal beliefs with extremely irrational literally believed myths for social acceptance and social support.

Science also indicates that people who have autistic leaning minds, including the broader autism phenotype can be very literal systemizing thinkers lacking cognitive empathy.

These challenges make it that much more difficult to gain social acceptance; the major factor of causal relationship in human happiness as researched by science.

Where autistic folks are people who perhaps are not diagnosed but think they may have this challenge are socially accepted in some very fundamentalist structured and organized churches where nerds are the norm instead of deviation; long dresses; thick glasses; etc. and robotic looking moves from a life spent not dancing as metaphor if you will; the environment is ripe for autistic leaning folks to be relatively happy there; who are not science oriented.

And yes; while there is a myth that folks who are diagnosed with higher functioning Autism are all the Science Technology and Mathematic leaning major types; this is far from the truth in science as science indicates actually only 33% are; many of the other folks are in the church pews on Sunday morning.

And yes, they inhabit many other areas of this forum; but obviously not here as they are not accepted and treated and referred to as 'morons', 'idiots', trolls, etc.

Well the truth is they are just naive autistic folks who need social acceptance more than most folks and are here to get that.

They have no idea what the environment is here against so-called GOD.

And actually that is a myth here too, in this PPR forum per science too.

Boston University did a peer reviewed study on atheism and higher functioning autism using data from this forum; which I will link here, and found only 26% of the individuals in this forum were atheist as compared to 17% in a so called neurotypical similar forum online.

http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/procee ... er0782.pdf

The beliefs here are diverse; but the common element is still that most people even in this sub-forum of PPR, believe in or the possibility of some type of higher interconnecting force aka GOD in some circles, including me.

I believe the issue here is; most of the moderators are atheist as far as I know; and the commonly understood top ones are both atheist and from countries in Europe with better social welfare programs.

There is a catch 22 here; obviously I think, as relatively speaking there is an issue with cognitive empathy among many autistic folks as well as literal thinking non STEM major minds that are fundamentalist Christians.

Taken all these factors into account that I have taken some time and effort to both understand per my own lifelong struggles with understanding why folks don't think as 'smart' as I do and the reality I live in, in the US, as well as presenting it here, in a way, that the STEM major, if you will, might understand to gain a greater cognitive empathy of what the whole picture is.

It's very simple; many autistic folks are fragile; as they live a life of difficulty in gaining social acceptance; this includes both the folks who have been rejected in Christian churches as well the non-STEM major folks who retain a seat in Christian churches.

They deserve a little more respect and understanding in the human being kind of way, in my opinion, on an Internet site designed as a support site.

Science is a bridge to that, as well.

I was always a scientist.

But I am a philosopher too.

I'm in good company with folks like Einstein and Steve Jobs too. But the apple does not fall very far from the tree.

My grandfather was a relatively noted philosopher and speaker in his time; and yes he was actually acquainted with Einstein and had dinner with him as both men were in a relatively socially unaccepted field of political belief per socialism at that time in the New York, New York area, per the common welfare of the common man.

I try to bridge understanding. And yes, that definitely takes thinking and being different; and presenting the information in NOVEL ways.

I started writing poetically to get my readability statistics down. I've moved from around a 19-grade level per Microsoft word indicated readability levels statistics to around 9 now.

I'm finally learning how to communicate with the so-called common man.

It's taken over 50 years to get there. It hasn't been easy. But that is part of cognitive empathy and I do what I have to adapt as yes, I like being social accepted in the real off-line world and never expect to be accepted here as we generally do our monologues and real connection is very rare in this sub-forum, but abundant in some of the others were the non-STEM major types play in chit chat of small talk. Something I still have some difficulty doing in real life.

I like to talk about deep things, huh. :)

Obviously; and somewhat surprising to me; way too deep for some folks here, even in this sub-forum where one might hope there would be some plasticity toward different ways of thinking. But there's not very much of that; and that is part of the beast of narrow literal type thinking, that is a challenge here to overcome.

But I'm used to challenges. I am no longer ever scared. I am scarred enough to no longer ever be scared, for now at least. :)