Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

That's the impression I get, Shakes. However, his enthusiasm for the 'realist' God sounds a bit like cheer-leading, as do his implications about a 'metaphorical' resurrection of Jesus. All the attempts of these critical thinkers are no doubt worthy and sincerely offered, but so much of their thinking seems like 'demolition jobs' that one wonders what viable form of Christianity could survive them.

I think what you'd end up with is something like neo-paganism, in the sense that it would be up to the individual to decide what their experiences mean in terms of belief. 'Christianity' would be an umbrella term; creeds and doctrine would go out of the window.

Never going to happen of course. The tribalism's too appealing.

[newnature]

I think what you'd end up with is something like neo-paganism, in the sense that it would be up to the individual to decide what their experiences mean in terms of belief. 'Christianity' would be an umbrella term; creeds and doctrine would go out of the window.

Never going to happen of course. The tribalism's too appealing.

The creeds of man and doctrines these people follow, mind-bending. Paul was never about starting a new religion. There’s no “Christianity” in Paul’s letters. There are no “Christians” in Paul’s letters. You can’t find the word. You can’t find the concept.

[torridon]

Because it is too simple to explain the complexity of human nature, particularly mine.
 

I beg to differ. 

A human brain has billions of neurons and each neuron makes thousands of variable connections with its neighbours.  That means that at any moment in time the brain models multiple trillion bits of information about the state of its body and its environment.  Each unique synaptic state is a unique state of mind - this allows for the staggering conclusion that the total number of states of mind a human can be in is so vast as to be probably larger than the number of atoms in the universe. Is that not sufficiently complex for you ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

Yes I can
Because (according to you) the laws of physics makes me do so.   

Escaping the rules of logic and breaking them are not the same thing. You do the latter all the time, but you cannot do the former without invalidating your position.

And that's your problem - or rather it's one of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

I beg to differ. 

A human brain has billions of neurons and each neuron makes thousands of variable connections with its neighbours.  That means that at any moment in time the brain models multiple trillion bits of information about the state of its body and its environment.  Each unique synaptic state is a unique state of mind - this allows for the staggering conclusion that the total number of states of mind a human can be in is so vast as to be probably larger than the number of atoms in the universe. Is that not sufficiently complex for you ?

Quite so. This colossal underestimating of numbers, distance, time etc seems to be a feature of the fundie mindset – “it there are aliens out there then why haven’t we found them?” etc betray a woeful failure to grasp the significance of vastness. Similarly with Alan’s miscalculation of the astonishing complexity of the brain – consciousness as an emergent property of that doesn’t seem to be much of a stretch at all when you begin to grasp that complexity.

I wonder whether it’s something to do with the parochialism of their outlook: morals have to be universal to be true; “God” sent his only son to the tiniest speck of nothingness in an obscure backwater of a galaxy rather pick somewhere better designed for his specially created people; life lessons can be obtained by referencing barbaric tribal practices, the driving of pigs over cliffs etc. It’s all just so unambitious I find.

[torridon]

torri,

Quite so. This colossal underestimating of numbers, distance, time etc seems to be a feature of the fundie mindset – “it there are aliens out there then why haven’t we found them?” etc betray a woeful failure to grasp the significance of vastness. Similarly with Alan’s miscalculation of the astonishing complexity of the brain – consciousness as an emergent property of that doesn’t seem to be much of a stretch at all when you begin to grasp that complexity.

I wonder whether it’s something to do with the parochialism of their outlook: morals have to be universal to be true; “God” sent his only son to the tiniest speck of nothingness in an obscure backwater of a galaxy rather pick somewhere better designed for his specially created people; life lessons can be obtained by referencing barbaric tribal practices, the driving of pigs over cliffs etc. It’s all just so unambitious I find.

Well, yes; also I think it betrays an underlying narcissism - in a spectacular inversion of what we discover through science the world's most popular religion is one that emphasises the specialness of humanity in general and grants even individuals the personal ear of God himself; this is it's all about me on steroids, it appeals to some rather disagreeable human traits.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torri,

Quite so. This colossal underestimating of numbers, distance, time etc seems to be a feature of the fundie mindset – “it there are aliens out there then why haven’t we found them?” etc betray a woeful failure to grasp the significance of vastness. Similarly with Alan’s miscalculation of the astonishing complexity of the brain – consciousness as an emergent property of that doesn’t seem to be much of a stretch at all when you begin to grasp that complexity.

I wonder whether it’s something to do with the parochialism of their outlook: morals have to be universal to be true; “God” sent his only son to the tiniest speck of nothingness in an obscure backwater of a galaxy rather pick somewhere better designed for his specially created people; life lessons can be obtained by referencing barbaric tribal practices, the driving of pigs over cliffs etc. It’s all just so unambitious I find.

What a wonderful bouillabaisse of philosophy and weights and measures.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

I think our Blue is spending to much time in your company, just what is he chuntering on about, "obscure backwaters" "tiniest speck of nothingness" "referencing barbaric tribal practices" "pigs over cliffs".

I think it is rant against fundies but it kind of got out of hand.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite so. This colossal underestimating of numbers, distance, time etc seems to be a feature of the fundie mindset – “it there are aliens out there then why haven’t we found them?” etc betray a woeful failure to grasp the significance of vastness.

What is the significance of vastness and how does the apparent universal law of mediocrity impact on it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

I think our Blue is spending to much time in your company, just what is he chuntering on about, "obscure backwaters" "tiniest speck of nothingness" "referencing barbaric tribal practices" "pigs over cliffs".

I think it is rant against fundies but it kind of got out of hand.

Gonnagle.

I suspect we are each other's Bond villain in our own peculiar mental landscapes.*

*facing each other off at either end of a long dinner table* while secretly handling our weapons under the table........

* so long that each adversary disappears into the 'tiniest speck of nothingness''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

I think our Blue is spending to much time in your company, just what is he chuntering on about, "obscure backwaters" "tiniest speck of nothingness" "referencing barbaric tribal practices" "pigs over cliffs".

I think it is rant against fundies but it kind of got out of hand.

What I'm chuntering on about is the solipsistic tendency of some to ascribe universal significance to human affairs from the vantage point of the unimaginably tiny speck of near nothingness we call home. And what sparked the thought was Alan's dismissal of the materialistic explanation for self because consciousness is, like, really hard to grasp maaan whereas some basic understanding of how phenomenally complex the brain is would tell him that consciousness as an emergent property of that complexity needn't stretch his personal incredulity at all.

Something like that anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gonners,

What I'm chuntering on about is the solipsistic tendency of some to ascribe universal significance to human affairs from the vantage point of the unimaginably tiny speck of near nothingness we call home. And what sparked the thought was Alan's dismissal of the materialistic explanation for self because consciousness is, like, really hard to grasp maaan whereas some basic understanding of how phenomenally complex the brain is would tell him that consciousness as an emergent property of that complexity needn't stretch his personal incredulity at all.

Something like that anyway.

What is the significance of vastness and how does the apparent universal law of mediocrity impact on it?

[Leonard James]

Gonners,

What I'm chuntering on about is the solipsistic tendency of some to ascribe universal significance to human affairs from the vantage point of the unimaginably tiny speck of near nothingness we call home. And what sparked the thought was Alan's dismissal of the materialistic explanation for self because consciousness is, like, really hard to grasp maaan whereas some basic understanding of how phenomenally complex the brain is would tell him that consciousness as an emergent property of that complexity needn't stretch his personal incredulity at all.

Something like that anyway.

The real problem being, of course, that Alan is blinded to any fact that excludes the certainty of his god's existence. I suspect that Gonners is not far behind him on the same road.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The real problem being, of course, that Alan is blinded to any fact that excludes the certainty of his god's existence. I suspect that Gonners is not far behind him on the same road.

What is the significance of vastness and how does the apparent universal law of mediocrity impact on it?

[Leonard James]

What is the significance of vastness and how does the apparent universal law of mediocrity impact on it?

You will have to ask somebody who understands the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You will have to ask somebody who understands the question.

OK Len what I am asking is why people on this forum are using the hugeness of the universe as an argument against the significance of anything found on this planet particularly when there is also an apparent law that the universe is basically the same wherever you are in it. Which suggests that you might never say find something more self aware or more potentially intelligent than what is on earth.

[Leonard James]

OK Len what I am asking is why people on this forum are using the hugeness of the universe as an argument against the significance of anything found on this planet particularly when there is also an apparent law that the universe is basically the same wherever you are in it. Which suggests that you might never say find something more self aware or more potentially intelligent than what is on earth.

Well there may be an intelligence superior to ours on some other planet somewhere, but its insignificance (like ours) with respect to the whole of the universe remains a fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well there may be an intelligence superior to ours on some other planet somewhere, but its insignificance (like ours) with respect to the whole of the universe remains a fact.

A classic antitheist category error equating intelligence with spatial dimension.

[Leonard James]

A classic antitheist category error equating intelligence with spatial dimension.

Until you can show me evidence for the existence of gods, it is not an error.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Until you can show me evidence for the existence of gods, it is not an error.

Non sequitur. I didn't know you were so foolish.

[Leonard James]

Non sequitur. I didn't know you were so foolish.

I may not be as erudite as many, but I sure ain't foolish. Sorry to contradict your lordship.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I may not be as erudite as many, but I sure ain't foolish. Sorry to contradict your lordship.

My lordship? When we were discussing the error of categorically confusing spatial size with intelligence you pulled the 'prove God' card as if calling atheism trumps everything.

[floo]

Non sequitur. I didn't know you were so foolish.

Talking to yourself again!

[Leonard James]

My lordship? When we were discussing the error of categorically confusing spatial size with intelligence you pulled the 'prove God' card as if calling atheism trumps everything.

Well, it does really, doesn't it? (rhetorical question)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, it does really, doesn't it? (rhetorical question)

Thanks Len you've just to confessed to atheism being a licence for ignorance.