Posted on 03/12/2011 2:58:25 PM PST by betty boop
Thank you so much for this insight, ModelBreaker! I was unaware of this aspect....
You're welcome! I agree!
“Thank you so much for this insight, ModelBreaker! I was unaware of this aspect....”
If you haven’t dug into Daniel, do it. What a treat. Beth More does a CD series on Daniel that is both brilliant and inspiring on many different levels. You can get it at a lot of libraries. It’s kind of expensive to buy.
I believe God's Creation was not a "one-shot" deal, but permeates every instant of space and time, from Alpha to Omega.
Quantum theory holds it is impossible to see both the position and momentum of a particle at one and the same time. So the observer has to choose, in any experimental set-up, which aspect of the particle (i.e., position or momentum) he wishes to view. If he chooses to see "position," he cannot see "momentum," and vice versa; but this does not mean that momentum goes away. Though not observed, it is still "there".... Plus QT also says that any experimental set-up — the act of observation itself — will "disturb" the particle regardless of which aspect we wish to view it under; so our experimental results will reflect this disturbance, introducing "uncertainty" in our results that can only be resolved for practical purposes by statistical methods that, virtually by definition, do not "map" Reality 100%.
Thus we humans really do see "as if through a glass, darkly."
Of course, these observations pertain to the quantum world, or what has been called the microworld, of which we have no direct consciousness. Notwithstanding, it is the "physical" or "material" basis of everything that exists in the Universe, including ourselves.
But we humans more or less consciously live in — exist in, experience, and think about — what has been called the mesoworld. In short, born-again experiences can happen only in this mesoworld. [Note: the "mesoworld" is roughly described by Newtonian physics; the "macroworld" would roughly be the world described by Einsteinian physics.]
The conscious recognition of "being born again from above" only occurs in the mesoworld of God's Creation. It would certainly affect what the "observer" chooses to see. The analogy to QT would be: To "see God" and keep faith with Him eclipses or suspends for a time its opposite (I won't call it its "complementary," for Satan and God are ineluctibly not on equal footing as, say, a particle's position and momentum are.)
A person who sees God and keeps faith with Him in love and action becomes an instrument in God's creative hands. Some passages from St. Francis Assisi's wondrous prayer:
Lord, make me an instrument of Thy Peace:People who live in such Spirit bring great blessings to mankind and the world. God is working through such.
Where there is Hatred, let me sow Love;
Where there is Injury, Pardon;
Where there is Doubt, Faith;
Where there is Despair, Hope;
Where there is Sadness, Joy;
Where there is Darkness, Light....
Just some thoughts FWTW....
Thank you, dear MHGinTN, brother in Christ, for your marvelous insights!
“Of course, these observations pertain to the quantum world, or what has been called the microworld, of which we have no direct consciousness.”
A friend of mine who is a math PhD tells me there is an extant proof (still somewhat contested) that the observations apply to the big world too. The implication of the proof is that free-will is built into the universe.
Was your math PhD friend referring to the work of Kurt Gödel by any chance?
Just wondering, dear ModelBreaker! If so, I'd love to know....
Waal, ah 'spect he's gonna come a-ridin' into town on a big white horse come one of these days. And he's not a-comin' empty-handed, like last time: He's got himself a great big sword. And he's a-comin' jus' to set the record straight....
“Was your math PhD friend referring to the work of Kurt Gödel by any chance?”
No. The proof was published circa 2003. Godel’s theorem would not prove that quantum uncertainty applies to the macro world. It proves that for the real number system, no matter how many axioms you assume to be true without proof, there will always be properties of real numbers that cannot be proved from the axioms. The implication is that you would need an infinite number of axioms to describe the real number system (or a more complex system) completely.
Yup, good and evil is to be found in all societies.
Besides, that didn't answer the question, unless you are saying that morality is based on consensus.
It most certainly is.
So, just WHO gets to decide then, what moral system people use and which one is better than another? On what basis do you decide what is *good* or not?
The community, of course. History, tradition, beliefs, etc.
Well, there's a crock. Yeah, an infant knows what feels good and what doesn't.
He does. And he let you know.
and let them use that as the basis of morality and in two years you have an out of control little tyrant.
If it were left up to them they would. But morality is a communal issue, not and individual one. We all have to learn that we live in a community and that this involves some compromises for the good of all, for practical reasons.
You don't have children, do you?
I do.
Here's a clue. You don't have to teach children to be bad.
Animals are not naturally domesticated. That includes humans as well. We have to learn to be "human." Pecking order is common to biological communities; even ants have it.
That's situational ethics again. The Golden Rule goes against human nature.
Not really. It is only one aspect of it. Every human knows not to do what hurts. We learn that it's better not to hurt others lest they hurt us. It's approach-avoidance behavior.
Where did it come from and who gets to decide that it's good and we should live by it?
That which favors our individual, as well as communal well being.
Axioms are mathematical objects that are not composed of, nor analyzable into lesser constituent parts. Bertrand Russell detested them in principle as what he called "impredicativities," closed self-referential loops which cannot easily be reduced to what we today call "machine language." That's a clue right there....
Here's what I was trying to get at with my Gödel question:
In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system[s] of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.Seems to be a lot of room for "free will" right there. :^) First, the axioms of a system in toto cannot fully account for "unprovable statements" regarding certain of its elements. I read this: What cannot be accounted for is something that cannot be "determined" by the system of axioms. Second, to remedy this situation, we can continue to add new syntactical rules and as many new axioms as necessary to "explain" the anomoly. But this is tacit recognition of the freedom it takes to expand/enlarge the system of axioms.Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself. — Jones and Wilson, An Incomplete Education
To me, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, while it does not "prove" free will, leaves plenty of room for it.
“To me, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, while it does not “prove” free will, leaves plenty of room for it.”
Fair enough. I see you didn’t need me to repeat what you already knew about the theorem. The proof I am referring to so vaguely is much more specific than that. I’ll try to get the reference and post it.
‘Axioms are mathematical objects that are not composed of, nor analyzable into lesser constituent parts. Bertrand Russell detested them in principle as what he called “impredicativities,” closed self-referential loops which cannot easily be reduced to what we today call “machine language.”’
Two quibbles. To be an axiom, a proposition needs to be assumed true without proof. I’m not sure what Russell is talking about. Take, for example, one of Euclid’s axioms (or postulates): “It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point.” I would have no trouble reducing that to machine language. So I’m not sure that self-referential loops are an inherent property of axioms. But Russell was a pretty smart guy. So maybe he proved that anything assumed true created such a self referential loop??
They don't tell them they are wrong, they tell them they don't believe them there is supernatural or God. That's not knowing; that's believing. There is a difference. Likewise, believers believe (they don't call themsleves "knowers", except Gnostics) in the supernatural and in their god(s).
Scientists have been going around with a God complex for decades, ever since they ejected Him from consideration in the scientific process.
Nonsense. There is no recognized academic science department that deals with God.
They had to replace Him with something, so they made it themselves.
No they didn't. Most scientists don't believe in God. That's not a replacement. That's disbelief. There is a difference.
Science is a data gathering methodology, nothing more.
Science and technology go hand in hand. Science provides the theoretical, and technology the practical application of scientific knowledge. Together they produce things you use and depend on and have apparently no gratitude for. Which is why I say: toss out your blood pressure or diabetes pills and just let God regulate your endocrine and circulatory health. Toss science out the window if you don't believe in it.
Philosophy of some kind is essential to the interpretation and application of the data.
Don't be silly. What's the philosophical angle of an optical engineer designing your camera lens?
The whole concept that one can objectively test and observe experiments is philosophical in nature.
But we can read the Bible and interpret it objectively?
the problem is that most scientists don't recognize or acknowledge the philosophical base of science.
What is the "philosophical" basis for optics?
[There is nothing "Judeo-Christian" in any of it] Sure there is. The Judeo-Christian drives the application of the knowledge gained. Otherwise, you get Mengele's.
So, ancient Greeks developed math with Mengele's mindset? That's rich.
You claim that some things are *better* than others. What constitutes *better*?
It doesn't take a rocket science to know that for some things (money, food, warmth, etc.) to have is better than not to have, and to have more is better than to have less. There is no need to pretend to not know this. It also doesn't take a rocket science to know that for other things the opposite is true.
What standard do you use to justify your preference?
At the bottom of it, at the core, is always what feels good, what's personally agreeable.
What criteria do you use to decide what is *good*, and *bad* and *better* and *worse*? Reduce it to science.
Science does not deal with good and evil.
How does science form a basis for making value judgments on issues?
Science does not deal with value judgments. People add value judgments depending how things suit them personally or as a community.
kosta50: "Not "mere" matter. Dead matter. Dead matter is not conscious of itself. It is dead."
Matchett-PI: I see you BELIEVE that is TRUE.
So, rocks are conscious. Skeletons are conscious?
Matter and Mind - The Childlike Faith of the Scientific Fundamentalist
Not even close to talking snakes and donkeys...
Very well done, as usual.
BTW, I think this is one of the most important threads you have done
and
one of the most important to ever appear on FR.
The things that make life worth living are not provided by science or even outside Christianity.
Why do you champion the Golden Rule and yet reject the basis for it? Jesus is the one who taught that and yet you claim that you don’t know if God exists and deny Jesus’ divinity.
You claim that you don’t know if God exists when someone confronts you with your clear atheistic stance, but nobody is believing that.
Why do you come on RF threads and argue in favor of atheism and actively try to dissuade others from their faith in God?
Do you want us to give up our faith in God? Is that why you argue so strongly against belief in Him? How would you feel if you knew that by your line of reasoning, you convinced someone to abandon their faith in God?
The same can be said of attempts to prove God. Any "proof" of God would make Him finite and, therefore, no longer God by definition. As in your example, God is more than the system.
EXTREMELY WELL PUT.
THX.
Ever read lord of the flies
Sorry to bust their bubble - there are many scientists who believe in God, I am one. In fact I seriously doubt the source of your 'most' claim.
|
The things that make life worth living are not provided by science or even outside Christianity. Which Christianity? And I don't see Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. despairing over their lives being useless because they are not Christians. Why do you champion the Golden Rule and yet reject the basis for it? Jesus is the one who taught that and yet you claim that you don’t know if God exists and deny Jesus’ divinity. Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule. Your revisionism is a straw man. You claim that you don’t know if God exists when someone confronts you with your clear atheistic stance, but nobody is believing that. I never, ever, said God doesn't exist. I simply don't know if he does or doesn't. Is that a crime? Why do you come on RF threads and argue in favor of atheism and actively try to dissuade others from their faith in God? I came to this thread because betty boop pinged me. I told her I was not interested in her topic but mentioned as an aside that the very man who is responsible for bringing the Big bang into the scientific community is now saying the Big Bang never happened. I know she and A-G often talk about cosmology and I thought it would be of interest. Then I got a flood of silly comments to which I responded with my comments. I am simply telling you what I believe. What do you want me to do, lie? So, I did not invite myself to dissuade anyone from their faith in God. You can believe whatever you want. I don't necessarily have to agree with you. Do you want us to give up our faith in God? Is that why you argue so strongly against belief in Him? How would you feel if you knew that by your line of reasoning, you convinced someone to abandon their faith in God? The subject was science, not God. You and others brought God into his. You are free to backtrack to my response to betty boop and establish who started what. You are also free to ignore my opinions if you think they are are worthless. |
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.