Posted on 01/23/2005 12:39:01 PM PST by traviskicks
A metaphysical exploration of Religion, Consciousness, Free Will, Randomness, and, ultimately, the nature of God. Neuroscience, networking (of man, God, and governments), and AI computing are all discussed.
A Theory of God
God has never been defined to the satisfaction of rational man. Indeed, even His very existence has never been universally acknowledged. From Thomas Aquinas's famous '5 proofs of God' (3) and the writings of other great philosophers of the catholic church, to the tautological hierarchical constructions of modern philosophers (1), there has never been a logical argument strong enough to force all the atheists and agnostics of the world to believe.
It has been said that men are only truly passionate about things that are not innately obvious to everyone. (2) The bitter and acrimonious debate over the curvature of the earth that took place in the 15th Century would today be met with laughter and derision because the fact that the earth is a sphere is so obvious to nearly everyone. Although any one religion, or even God Himself, is not universally accepted in the same way, a large majority of people across the world profess a belief in God (over 90% of Americans believe in God (68), (69) ).
However, we must also consider that the vague definitions of God may contribute to His apparent non-universal acknowledgement. If we can't define what something is then how can people communicate their belief in it? It is most interesting is that this lack of definition is present across nearly all the world's religions:
Christianity/Judaism: I am that I am. (Exodus 3, 14) You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live. (Exodus 33:20)
(Excerpt) Read more at neoperspectives.com ...
let me be precise: the "hard problem" should've been better called "a hard problem." While Chalmer's offered up a softball for the Godless self-flagellating academics, "the hard problem" is the discovery of God and personal faith.
Come back when your mathematics proves the existence of God and you act on that faithfully. Because until then, you're just unconscious. You cannot understand until you have faith, i.e. nothing makes sense until it all makes sense.
You really don't put much effort into understanding the Bible.
Try to read it hermeneutically, meaning in context. Also, get a Bible that does not compress 60,000+ foreign words into a mere 16,000 English ones (in the case of the New Testament).
You will never understand the truth in the Bible until you put in decent effort. I have found many things that seem contradictory at first later become entirely synergistic. A ridiculously simple, juvenile example is "peace through war." The immature says, "of course you cannot have peace with war!"
This excerpt is misleading because apparently it is leading people to believe that the author is creating a theory against God - which is not the case. If you read further you will find it is a theory FOR God, not against God.
kosta50, in truth someone can find evidence for just about anything they want to in quoting from the bible. You're right that that's not the main point.
In fact, the point being made is identical to the one you made in your post. Having God as undefinable should not be a negative - it should be a positive. So, I don't see what your main disagreement is.
The fact that we can't know God's nature shouldn't stop us from theorizing what it might be most like and constructing patterns and extrapolations towards it. That is really all this piece appears to do.
I understand what you are saying and you are technically correct.
I still don't need Chomsky to tell me children/humans have an innate capacity for language. To me, that is an axiom.
My point about Chomsky is that he is well-respected for very basic points in his field, but then he reaches, like Kursweil, into fantasy and his credibility in linguistics is not enough to support his other arguments. For Chomsky, it is politics and history; for Kursweil, it is autonomous, intelligent, conscious AI.
I am intriqued...could you briefly state Pinker's thesis on ebonics as gramatically correct. I look at the morals, work ethics, and apparent of those who speak ebonics and behave thuggish and view it as lazy-man's English.
I do find that professors are often circumlocutous and wordy. Thankfully I am a biochemistry major!
there has never been a logical argument strong enough to force all the atheists and agnostics of the world to believe.
Any number of reasons (good and otherwise) for not believing that God exists, and only one for believing....
As for atheists and agnostics, who cares!
God does.
I'm not trying to say it's trying to demean anyone's faith or proselytizing. Maybe I'm too stupid or lazy, I can't even figure out what the heck it's trying to argue! But all the charts and high-falutin pseudo-scientific jargon just make it seem sort of bogus. It's like he's trying to mathematize metaphysics.
The answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.
Excellent points.
All the writer has to do is be in Washington tomorrow among the throngs.
My background in Eastern Orthodoxy is free from "humanizing God" and "deifying man." Eastern Christianity has from the start (the Desert Fathers) asserted apophatic knowledge of God -- i.e. one that actually negates, not affirms; therefore affirmation by negation (of our own selves). God is ineffable, unscirumscribed and indivisible, simple, eternal, omnipresent, transcendental, etc.
This theology gave rise to monasticism and has become the doctrine of the Eastern side of the Church through the works of St. Gregory Palams. This theology is free from the Renaissance tendency to elevate human reason to divine heights. God is a Mystery that is not ours to solve. As the OT says "My thoughts are not your thoughts and My ways and not your ways." Yet through our Lord Jesus Christ, a perfect God and a perfect Man, we can relate to God in a personal manner that no other faith can.
He does, but he will not force them to accept faith. And without faith there is no salvation. It is not God Who condmens us but we who condmen ourselves.
No disagreement here.
| Looks to me like the author failed to mention this verse from the bible: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:20 |
What are you blathering about? There is no faith involved, beyond a reasonable acceptance that mathematics is probably founded on axioms that are essentially correct. I don't require anything. Anybody who understands theoretical mathematics as it pertains to this topic also understands the relationship between intelligence and consciousness. Do you accept that mathematics is correct or not? Be careful how you answer, as the validity of simple arithmetic is dependent upon the same axioms as my assertion that consciousness is a necessary property of certain types of systems. I will gladly adjust my world view the minute you provide evidence that the mathematics is incorrect. I suspect I'll be waiting for a long time.
Feel free to pontificate with your mental flatulence, but when you actually get around to providing a rigorous refutation of my points, let me know. I'm not going to waste my time on bomb-throwing cowards who can't support their own assertions.
"Come back when you prove what this ignorant jackass believes."
Do you think mathematics bends to the will of your beliefs? Do you think God twists mathematics to satisfy your psychosis? Your arrogance is truly astounding. You've built an entire universe inside your head that no one but you can see. You sir are an embarrassment to the faith. Either take your meds or peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
Mathematics is what it is. I would say it has served mankind pretty well.
If we can't define what something is then how can people communicate their belief in it?
There are other ways to communicate.
til later...
Excellent summary.
This post, Kurzweil, along with Anthony Flew's admission in December 2004 (A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature) and many more folks are expressing similar thoughts in specifically different ways. Maybe the human mind and soul are derivatives of a higher deity we don't know and may never know.
I think I'll seek an understanding of people and manage relationships based on Weinberg's "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion" and try to live the life Jesus would live.
You're probably (my skills set is analytical chemistry) right but he plays an important role in the AI community as most can't relate to the complexities of the core research.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.