Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: "God" Is Not What You Think

Your Message

Click here to log in

 

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

HTML
Rate Thread

You may rate this thread from 1-star (Terrible) to 5-stars (Excellent) if you wish to do so.

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 07-14-2012, 10:30 AM
    lexx

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Of course I love you, Lexx, you were part of me, that little turd I dropped in the toilet.

    Of course I'm in lo ve with my own shit. Now, as to the truth or falsehood of my statements, it stands to reasion that if there is a God, and if there are over 38,000 versions and growing regarding the christian God, then God wuld operate by a process not subject to human co ntrol or u nderstanding, pre cisely because each of us is in love with his/her own shit.

    In more modern terms, you would have to conclude that "God" is not algorithmically compressible, that any attempt to reduce God to "information" would necessarily result in apparent randomness precisely because such a concept cannot be reduced(see Chaitin's Algorithm information theory). Anything which is not reducible must be considered random, though in some instances there are patterns that confirm an identity, even though it's infinite, such as "pi" in mathematics. There are no such recognizable patterns in the concept of "God", so there can be no clear authoritative human ideas of God. That means, as Paul said, all "algorithms", all decision procedures and choices regarding truth and righteousness must come from God and not us, which means we are totally free of all human authorities.

    Keep trying Lexx, you might reach my level of thought.
    thanks for the INFO!? maybe someday i TO will attain the STATUS of ...........................GREAT TURD DROPPER!? (from the sky!?) : :madgo: :judges: :king22:
  • 07-09-2012, 07:27 AM
    doojie

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    sorry, i was thinkin it was a TERM of ENDEARMENT!? like everyone's SHIT stinks!? but you like everyone, are IN LOVE with your OWN!? :bah: : :yelcutelaughA:
    Of course I love you, Lexx, you were part of me, that little turd I dropped in the toilet.

    Of course I'm in lo ve with my own shit. Now, as to the truth or falsehood of my statements, it stands to reasion that if there is a God, and if there are over 38,000 versions and growing regarding the christian God, then God wuld operate by a process not subject to human co ntrol or u nderstanding, pre cisely because each of us is in love with his/her own shit.

    In more modern terms, you would have to conclude that "God" is not algorithmically compressible, that any attempt to reduce God to "information" would necessarily result in apparent randomness precisely because such a concept cannot be reduced(see Chaitin's Algorithm information theory). Anything which is not reducible must be considered random, though in some instances there are patterns that confirm an identity, even though it's infinite, such as "pi" in mathematics. There are no such recognizable patterns in the concept of "God", so there can be no clear authoritative human ideas of God. That means, as Paul said, all "algorithms", all decision procedures and choices regarding truth and righteousness must come from God and not us, which means we are totally free of all human authorities.

    Keep trying Lexx, you might reach my level of thought.
  • 07-04-2012, 01:47 AM
    lexx

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    DOOKIE, huh? You should know. You must have been that little shithead I dropped in the toilet last night.
    sorry, i was thinkin it was a TERM of ENDEARMENT!? like everyone's SHIT stinks!? but you like everyone, are IN LOVE with your OWN!? :bah: : :yelcutelaughA:
  • 07-03-2012, 04:57 PM
    Cnance

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Not at all, since Paul cealry states that the natural mnd is enmity against god and cannot be suject to God. If he had a "spiritual" mind, he would have to define "spiritual" which he did. The o nly disti nction in this regard is that od must somehow be revealed to th ehuman min d, and there is logical proces to demonstrate it, as Paul also says in Romans 9:16-22. You gotta do better than that.
    No, you gotta do better than that. Obviously Paul is inconsistent. Here are a few verses where Paul explicitly states his faith in God, not only faith, but his strong belief in salvation.

    "but if by the spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the spirit are sons of God . . . Now if we are children , then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ," Romans 8:14-17.

    "The hour has come for you to wake from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than we first believed." Romans 13:11.

    These are just a few of many verses from Paul about salvation. Yes, Paul's states we have a sinful nature, but his message is about salvation. Why do you think Paul wrote so much about Jesus as our savior?

    Scholars have raised serious doubts that Paul wrote all of those letters. See, Forged: Writing in the name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are by Bart D. Ehrman. So, depending on the epistle, we may not be discussing Paul.
  • 07-03-2012, 11:45 AM
    doojie

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    All of what you have said assumes humans are alone without any evidence of God, and without any means for understanding God. So, what humans know is what they learn from instincts and learning about their environment.

    That is sound logic if humans have never experiences God. In this context, you have excluded the possibility of God's intervention in human history. Therefore, you must disavow Paul, for he claimed to have intimate knowledge of God.
    Not at all, since Paul cealry states that the natural mnd is enmity against god and cannot be suject to God. If he had a "spiritual" mind, he would have to define "spiritual" which he did. The o nly disti nction in this regard is that od must somehow be revealed to th ehuman min d, and there is logical proces to demonstrate it, as Paul also says in Romans 9:16-22. You gotta do better than that.
  • 07-02-2012, 11:45 PM
    Cnance

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    The problem is , humans, in intentionally seeking God, splinter and speciate into thousands of versions. The reason being that "God" is in no way computable by any finite process. Therefore, as my article states, people tend to organize around what they cannot prove, and accept that as proof. All intentionality, decision procedures, algorithms then organize themselves around "what works" collectively, and generally what works in terms of social success is going to very similar in many regards. The conclusion that something is true because a lot of people believe it is laregely an adaptation from biological survial needs, and social cohesion, which have, in most cases, nothing to do with truth.

    Since there is first no proof of God, and since there is no discoverable algorithm or decision procedure by which we can get to God, all beliefs about God from a human viewpoint will merely boil down to a statistical accumulation of what people generally assume is true about God. The so-called axiom, then, is merely derived from general statistical categories, not proof. You cannot by any logical means get from "Here' to "God", which means that the need to organize is basically an extension of biological survival needs, not truth.
    All of what you have said assumes humans are alone without any evidence of God, and without any means for understanding God. So, what humans know is what they learn from instincts and learning about their environment.

    That is sound logic if humans have never experiences God. In this context, you have excluded the possibility of God's intervention in human history. Therefore, you must disavow Paul, for he claimed to have intimate knowledge of God.
  • 07-02-2012, 07:12 AM
    doojie

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Are we in a quandary somewhere between knowing (intentional) and being (accidental)? It is no accident that intention supersedes accident. Without intentionality, there would be chaos.

    If we're replicating, we're intentional. In psychology, it's called cognitive dissonance, which is human tendency to resolve discrepant ideas. In biology, it's called gene theory, whereas species tend to replicate according to preconceive patterns. In religion, it's called theology, whereas humans tend to organize discrepant ideas about God into a coherent whole. It depends therefore on what subject or topic we're discussing. Overall, intentionality is the most dominant.

    Science accepts intentionality every time it formulates an explanation based on math and/or physical laws. Even replication infers intentionality. Our linguistic grid (language) is used to understand the world, communicate and resolve cognitive dissonance.

    Assuming God created order, and thus intentionality, why should we avoid opportunities to discover Him? Learning how God did it (science) is tantamount to knowing Him. Without intentionality, we're simple robots. Humans are creative creatures. Out of nature's jungle, humans created (intentionality) civilization.
    The problem is , humans, in intentionally seeking God, splinter and speciate into thousands of versions. The reason being that "God" is in no way computable by any finite process. Therefore, as my article states, people tend to organize around what they cannot prove, and accept that as proof. All intentionality, decision procedures, algorithms then organize themselves around "what works" collectively, and generally what works in terms of social success is going to very similar in many regards. The conclusion that something is true because a lot of people believe it is laregely an adaptation from biological survial needs, and social cohesion, which have, in most cases, nothing to do with truth.

    Since there is first no proof of God, and since there is no discoverable algorithm or decision procedure by which we can get to God, all beliefs about God from a human viewpoint will merely boil down to a statistical accumulation of what people generally assume is true about God. The so-called axiom, then, is merely derived from general statistical categories, not proof. You cannot by any logical means get from "Here' to "God", which means that the need to organize is basically an extension of biological survival needs, not truth.
  • 07-02-2012, 07:04 AM
    doojie

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    well all i know is that god is MAGIC!? what i mean is man is HOSTED!?(HE, IS NOT THE DOER, EVERYTHING HAPPENS BY HOST PROVIDER) as to what you think, that's part of the hosting software!? (soft tissue needs software, DUH)....... ok...i maybe i shoulda read what DOOKIE had to say instead of skimming!? he dont dont post often but when he does.......it's a BOOK READ!?
    ok.. i read it more thoroughly looking for the GIST of it and came up with.....ONLY the INDIVIDUAL can FIND god!? and that, only by by accident!? i mean if chaos rules then any intentional acts are outlawed!? of course intentional acts do exist so somehow they must have been accidentally discovered!? the definition of accidental vs intentional IS the basis for the god did it!? i mean the accidental cannot create the intentional only discover it accidentally!? ok.....pick it apart DOOKIE!? :rryumy: :freak3: :spin2: :smurf:
    DOOKIE, huh? You should know. You must have been that little shithead I dropped in the toilet last night.
  • 06-29-2012, 10:37 PM
    lexx

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    well we know emotion and intention are obvious partners!? but what is thought but a description, a SPELLing out of that intention!? a vocal resonance of a world internally perceived!? words and objects just a LEARNED association!? how can 1 speak of the NON-objective!? is there another word association for intention/emotional states!? are emotions telepathic!? what path do they tell by themselves either as an adventure from/with bliss or a admitted denial of the knowledge of bliss!?
    iamwil was talking about modern communication devices networks and i thouht they are trying to make all information instantly available!? which is like electronic EXTERNAL telepathy!? :freak3: : :spin2: :smurf:
  • 06-29-2012, 07:21 PM
    Cnance

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    well all i know is that god is MAGIC!? what i mean is man is HOSTED!?(HE, IS NOT THE DOER, EVERYTHING HAPPENS BY HOST PROVIDER) as to what you think, that's part of the hosting software!? (soft tissue needs software, DUH)....... ok...i maybe i shoulda read what DOOKIE had to say instead of skimming!? he dont dont post often but when he does.......it's a BOOK READ!?
    ok.. i read it more thoroughly looking for the GIST of it and came up with.....ONLY the INDIVIDUAL can FIND god!? and that, only by by accident!? i mean if chaos rules then any intentional acts are outlawed!? of course intentional acts do exist so somehow they must have been accidentally discovered!? the definition of accidental vs intentional IS the basis for the god did it!? i mean the accidental cannot create the intentional only discover it accidentally!? ok.....pick it apart DOOKIE!? :rryumy: :freak3: :spin2: :smurf:
    Are we in a quandary somewhere between knowing (intentional) and being (accidental)? It is no accident that intention supersedes accident. Without intentionality, there would be chaos.

    If we're replicating, we're intentional. In psychology, it's called cognitive dissonance, which is human tendency to resolve discrepant ideas. In biology, it's called gene theory, whereas species tend to replicate according to preconceive patterns. In religion, it's called theology, whereas humans tend to organize discrepant ideas about God into a coherent whole. It depends therefore on what subject or topic we're discussing. Overall, intentionality is the most dominant.

    Science accepts intentionality every time it formulates an explanation based on math and/or physical laws. Even replication infers intentionality. Our linguistic grid (language) is used to understand the world, communicate and resolve cognitive dissonance.

    Assuming God created order, and thus intentionality, why should we avoid opportunities to discover Him? Learning how God did it (science) is tantamount to knowing Him. Without intentionality, we're simple robots. Humans are creative creatures. Out of nature's jungle, humans created (intentionality) civilization.
  • 06-28-2012, 01:30 AM
    lexx

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    well all i know is that god is MAGIC!? what i mean is man is HOSTED!?(HE, IS NOT THE DOER, EVERYTHING HAPPENS BY HOST PROVIDER) as to what you think, that's part of the hosting software!? (soft tissue needs software, DUH)....... ok...i maybe i shoulda read what DOOKIE had to say instead of skimming!? he dont dont post often but when he does.......it's a BOOK READ!?
    ok.. i read it more thoroughly looking for the GIST of it and came up with.....ONLY the INDIVIDUAL can FIND god!? and that, only by by accident!? i mean if chaos rules then any intentional acts are outlawed!? of course intentional acts do exist so somehow they must have been accidentally discovered!? the definition of accidental vs intentional IS the basis for the god did it!? i mean the accidental cannot create the intentional only discover it accidentally!? ok.....pick it apart DOOKIE!? :rryumy: :freak3: :spin2: :smurf:
  • 06-22-2012, 07:29 PM
    Qi123

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOST DOG View Post
    Extremely good post, doojie!

    I thoroughly enjoyed the entire piece, but this paragraph is most reminiscent of my studies of the Dot, Line, and Circle, way, way back in the days when I studied Hebrew Kabbalah, and the ancient Hermetic version of it called "Qabalah."

    Thank you again for the memories! GD
    Flower of life?
  • 06-22-2012, 03:49 PM
    GHOST DOG

    Re: "God" Is Not What You Think

    Extremely good post, doojie!

    The fundamental unit, the prime mover of all life, is the replicator. A replicator is anything in the universe of which copies are made….Once a replicator has come into existence it is capable of generating an indefinitely large set of copies of itself”–Richard Dawkins,
    I thoroughly enjoyed the entire piece, but this paragraph is most reminiscent of my studies of the Dot, Line, and Circle, way, way back in the days when I studied Hebrew Kabbalah, and the ancient Hermetic version of it called "Qabalah."

    Thank you again for the memories! GD
  • 06-22-2012, 08:57 AM
    doojie

    "God" Is Not What You Think

    The fundamental unit, the prime mover of all life, is the replicator. A replicator is anything in the universe of which copies are made….Once a replicator has come into existence it is capable of generating an indefinitely large set of copies of itself”–Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
    The replicator involved in making copies of life here on earth is referred to as the gene. Its job is to make copies of itself, and to control its immediate environment as much as possible in order for perfect replication. The study of the “selfish gene” in Dawkins’ book is to show what environmental factors encourage certain developments that ensure successful replication.
    If the gene is directed by a “purpose”, therefore, its purpose is to replicate and maintain equilibrium with its surrounding environment in order to keep replicating. In order to replicate, as Dawkins has already shown us, the “purpose machine” we call the gene “Measures the discrepancy between the current state of things and the ‘desired state’, and it is built in such a way that the larger the discrepancy, the harder the machine works“.
    Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, pointed out this same parallel, whether he realized it or not, when he asked, “Whence comes the impulse to proselytize?” What Hoffer described as an “insufficiency at the center” could also describe the “discrepancy between current state of things, and the ‘desired’ state”.
    This is also the principle of “negative feedback” described by Norbert Weiner in 1943 on the study of Cybernetics. He wrote a paper titled “Behavior, Purpose, And Teleology“. Robert Wright describes this process in a book titled Three Scientists And Their Gods:
    “One point of the paper was that, with the aid of the concept of feedback, purposeful behavior could be explained in a concrete, scientific manner, without attributing present events to future events, and without reference to states of mind. Thus, a working toilet is a perfectly mechanical thing, and it complies entirely with the laws of physics. We presume that it has no sensation of ‘wanting’ to be filled and that there is no sense in which the future state of fullness is ‘causing’ the alteration of its present emptiness. Rather, the information is set up to flow in such a way that the toilet will behave as if these things were the case. So too with the bacterium: the causes and effects lying behind its relocation have nothing mystical about them; perfectly concrete , abiding by the laws of physics, just flows in a way that fosters the illusion of guidance. And, really, it’s not an illusion; these flows of information amount to guidance.”
    Now we can look again at the statement of Dawkins. “The larger the discrepancy(between current state and “desired” state) the harder the machine works“. Now, we can return to a parallel presented by Hoffer:
    “The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse”.
    Think about it in terms of Weiner’s Cybernetics. Why would his proselytizing zeal become stronger the more easily his creed is challenged? Because the larger the discrepancy between the present state and the ‘desired’ state, the harder the machine works.
    If the proselytizing fanatic feels driven by a compelling power greater than himself, it is most likely that he is! His “feelings” will be driven by the desperate need to create equilibrium between himself and his environment! In truth, however, he is merely operating according to the laws of physics, and serving the needs of the “replicator” within himself.
    Hoffer continues:
    “It is doubtful whether a movement which does not profess some preposterously and patently irrational dogma can be possessed of that zealous drive which ‘must either win men or destroy the world.’ It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice–that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt–are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others.”
    Hoffer has merely described purely mechanical conditions that follow the laws of physics according to Cybernetics and Information Theory! An individual who senses a strong inner contradiction between current state and desired state will work with the greatest zeal to achieve equilibrium between the two! This is not something mystical. it is not something that requires a “higher power” other than the “higher power” of the replicating gene seeking to gain equilibrium for successful replication. It is a simple and basic description of a mechanical process defined in Cybernetics.
    We may begin to define “religion” as a perceived disequilibrium between the current state and the desired state. Instead of adapting the replicating process to the current state, religion increasingly seeks to make the current state adapt to the desired state, an actual reversal of biological processes of nature. The greater the perceived discrepancy, the harder the religion works to establish equilibrium between the two. We use words to describe this, such as “narcissism” and “anthropomorphism”, making “man” the center of all purpose, and extending it in a linear fashion into our environment.
    This takes us back to the earlier essay on the Tower of Babel and the “Gray Goo”. The people, aware of their ability to organize and and define goals, focused on one goal, the building of the tower, not realizing that their goal would create an even greater discrepancy between their desire and the current state of their environment. By focusing on the building of the tower to the exclusion of more direct needs of survival, they were destroying the very environment on which they depended. This is the fundamental principle we recognize as entropy. The more you organize in one area, the greater “chaos” results in related areas, because energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It must be ” borrowed” from another system to “organize” the system on which we focus. In their attempts to focus on a singular goal to “reach unto God”, the people created a humanly devised religion, and they were creating a discrepancy between the existing state of the environment on which they depended, and the desired goal of getting to God.
    According to genesis 11 therefore, “God” did exactly what religions do NOT do: he confused their languages so they had to respond more as individuals to their environment. The harder we seek “God” by following “internal circuitry” the greater the discrepancy between existing state and desired state!
    In seeking “God”, human nature actually works ass backwards!

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •