The Illusion of Self

[SusanDoris]

You obviously do not know God.  If you did, you would see things in a totally different light.

Oh dear, that is such a bland, meaningless reply.

[torridon]

Give me one example of anywhere in the world I can go to observe something being caused by nothing. Then I'll lose my incredulity. Fair enough?

Until then, I'll stick to my understanding of Newton's laws and observations from the natural world...

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  Newton's world was much more straightforward than a modern understanding of base physical processes. Apparently if we remove all matter from a region of space and reduce the temperature to absolute zero, we achieve a quantum vacuum state but even in this null state matter is constantly being created ex-nihilo in the form of 'virtual particles' which start existing briefly before being almost immediately annihilated.  Understanding this is perhaps a work in progress, but I think it safe to say 'something from nothing is impossible' is ultimately rather simplistic.  It might be the case that 'nothing' is not really a meaningful concept in any discussion on ultimate reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

[Shaker]

Apparently if we remove all matter from a region of space and reduce the temperature to absolute zero, we achieve a quantum vacuum state but even in this null state matter is constantly being created ex-nihilo in the form of 'virtual particles' which start existing briefly before being almost immediately annihilated [...] It might be the case that 'nothing' is not really a meaningful concept in any discussion on ultimate reality.

A very good example. There's little to no traction in physics for the concept of nothingness as in the total absence of anything and everything whatever, for the reasons given - virtual particles are created by 'borrowing' quantum vacuum energy for minuscule periods of time.

Saying that you'll "stick with Newton", in the light of modern physics, is like saying you'll stick with Hippocrates in medical matters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You obviously do not know God.  If you did, you would see things in a totally different light.

And nor almost certainly do you, and nor indeed does anyone else either. The point though was that, however strong your opinion on the matter, you have no method of any kind to eliminate the various non-divine explanations for your experience.

You can duck and dive the problem as much as you wish, but your problem it remains nonetheless.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And nor almost certainly do you, and nor indeed does anyone else either. The point though was that, however strong your opinion on the matter, you have no method of any kind to eliminate the various non-divine explanations for your experience.

You can duck and dive the problem as much as you wish, but your problem it remains nonetheless.

But it is not a problem.  I have discovered God's love, that is all that matters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it is not a problem.  I have discovered God's love, that is all that matters.

Absolutely and I think the various ''non-divine explanations'' are pretty thin stuff and generally based on some kind of specific psychological incompetence on the part of theists (basically a play ground name calling argument) and a polished argumentum ad populum possibly with a misplaced Occams razor chucked in.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is not a problem.  I have discovered God's love, that is all that matters.

No, you've discovered an opinion that you've "discovered God's love". Your problem remains that you have no way to validate that opinion, either to yourself or to anyone else. That you attempt very bad arguments in the effort doesn't mean necessarily that your opinion is wrong, but it does suggest that it's all you have.

[Shaker]

Good to see you again, bluey! Hope yours was a superb Christmas - a happy and healthy new year to you and yours.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Absolutely and I think the various ''non-divine explanations'' are pretty thin stuff and generally based on some kind of specific psychological incompetence on the part of theists (basically a play ground name calling argument) and a polished argumentum ad populum possibly with a misplaced Occams razor chucked in.

Wow, the random word generator is properly fired up today I see.

Odd isn't it that way people with a faith belief in one particular god decide that they're right on the money whereas those who believe in all the others must be mistaken.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Shakes,

Good to see you again, bluey! Hope yours was a superb Christmas - a happy and healthy new year to you and yours.

And to you old friend, and to you - and don't be a stranger in future ; - )

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

No, you've discovered an opinion that you've "discovered God's love". Your problem remains that you have no way to validate that opinion, either to yourself or to anyone else. That you attempt very bad arguments in the effort doesn't mean necessarily that your opinion is wrong, but it does suggest that it's all you have.

I think there is a tendency amongst some forum atheists who view life as some kind of debating chamber/shoot em up mash up where the winner doesn't even have to have a knock down argument but merely has to be the one seen to be needed to be satisfied. I'm afraid the tendency is, if you have a reputation for not missing a trick and there's one that you not only miss it but fail to get, to polish it away hence the constant of reductionism.

CS Lewis's sums it up in his essay on ''man or rabbit'' where he challenges us to be men or self identify with something with not much depth caught  in the headlights of a determinism/fatalism to which one could add reductionism.

 

[Shaker]

CS Lewis's sums it up in his essay on ''man or rabbit''

Was he confused by the two, bless him?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good to see you again, bluey!

There goes the neighbourhood........

[Alan Burns]

No, you've discovered an opinion that you've "discovered God's love".

You could not be more wrong.  God's love is real.

[Nearly Sane]

You could not be more wrong.  God's love is real.

Oh no, it's not!

[Walter]

You could not be more wrong.  God's love is real.

my pencil case loves me, its love is real , it also loves you whether you want it to or not

what joy!

[Shaker]

Oh no, it's not!

He's behind you!

[Walter]

He's behind you!

ten miles to London and still no Dick!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think there is a tendency amongst some forum atheists who view life as some kind of debating chamber/shoot em up mash up where the winner doesn't even have to have a knock down argument but merely has to be the one seen to be needed to be satisfied.

Actually, the arguments are “knock down” – why is why rather than even attempt to rebut them some will instead resort to assertion, abuse, irrelevance, bizarre claims like “psychological competence” "god dodging" etc.

I'm afraid the tendency is,…

…not true.

… if you have a reputation for not missing a trick and there's one that you not only miss it but fail to get, to polish it away hence the constant of reductionism.

Except of course you’ve never yet managed to demonstrate that there’s something from which to reduce. Apart from that though…

CS Lewis's sums it up in his essay on ''man or rabbit'' where he challenges us to be men or self identify with something with not much depth caught  in the headlights of a determinism/fatalism to which one could add reductionism.

What would you suggest we self-identify with – your choice of the gods? Zeus? Thor? Ra maybe? How about Poseidon instead?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You could not be more wrong.  God's love is real.

Yes, we know that that's your personal opinion on the matter. Why would anyone think you're right about that though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually, the arguments are “knock down”

I think the section critiquing your take on morality sums up your so called knock down arguments......i.e. ''Philosophical poverty.''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think the section critiquing your take on morality sums up your so called knock down arguments......i.e. ''Philosophical poverty.''

Oh dear. You really do seem to think that not liking reality means it's not reality at all don't you.

"No universal morality? Oh no, but that's too scary for me therefore...

....universal morality!

Da-naaaa!!!!!"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"No universal morality? Oh no, but that's too scary for me therefore...

Your take on morality suffers from philosophical poverty.
And also it's the transgressor of universal morality who has a huge vested interest in explaining morality away...as a mere matter of taste.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Yes, we know that that's your personal opinion on the matter. Why would anyone think you're right about that though?

And they would think he was wrong because.........?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually, the arguments are “knock down” – why is why rather than even attempt to rebut them some will instead resort to assertion, abuse, irrelevance, bizarre claims like “psychological competence” "god dodging" etc.

…not true.

Except of course you’ve never yet managed to demonstrate that there’s something from which to reduce. Apart from that though…

What would you suggest we self-identify with – your choice of the gods? Zeus? Thor? Ra maybe? How about Poseidon instead?

Monotheism since all the derived power/potential around points to something identifiable with the classic view of God.