Dropping a dime on W.L. Craig

[Greylorn Ell]

...
I wrote two books on the subject, the best one (but most difficult) being Digital Universe -- Analog Soul. There is no way to present my thesis in a post that would make sense to anyone. I've tried, on three different forums, to present ideas piecemeal, in a series of threads focused upon a single theme. This proved to be a fruitless effort. Trolls and nits descended upon each thread like flies on a picnic lunch. On two forums the moderators (atheists) simply made it impossible to produce content. ...

It's different here, the mods are fairly relaxed about content. What they would appreciate is if the original poster did some of their work for them, i.e. report posts that they think are inappropriate to the thread and if their reasons are valid the mods will remove them. this way you could keep the trolls away, although nit-pickers are part and parcel of philosophy.

To be honest, if you have a thesis then you should at least be able to have an introduction that explains it or, if science-minded, at least an abstract.

Took a goggle and at base you appear to claim to have a definition of a possible 'God' or 'Gods' based upon considerations from Physics and Logic. Are you claiming actual existence?

Yes.

[Greylorn Ell]

... quantum mechanics is probably the most successful scientific theory every discovered. ...

Not a physicist or anything but I'd have thought Quantum Electrodynamics(QED) might have this title.

Surprising insight from an alleged non-physicist.

[James Markham]

Greylorn, I've read through your posts, but haven't found anything regarding your new theory of everything. Can we get to the point, and start hearing what these new ideas are?

Can you firstly explain what you believe reality is in terms of form? I noticed you stated that the universe is not just energy, so can you begin by giving a definition of energy, and what ever else it is you believe is fabricated into what we experience?

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn, I've read through your posts, but haven't found anything regarding your new theory of everything. Can we get to the point, and start hearing what these new ideas are?

Can you firstly explain what you believe reality is in terms of form? I noticed you stated that the universe is not just energy, so can you begin by giving a definition of energy, and what ever else it is you believe is fabricated into what we experience?

It took me four years of formal study and another forty of informal and intermittent study, plus the recent dark energy discovery, to get any useful insights into the nature of energy. And you want this condensed into what, 25 words or less?

Okay. Simply apply the Hamiltonian transformation to the observed property of dark energy and the time-independent laws of physics, and you will understand energy.

Your question about reality is not pertinent to the nature of it.

No one who proposes a new idea on a forum or a blog is ever taken seriously, so I won't try to explain mine here. I wrote a book. It is not a great book, but it expresses ideas that I think are worth examination by thoughtful individuals. A small number of such individuals have examined the ideas, and after two or three reads (because the ideas diverge from current belief systems, not because they are difficult) have found them life-changing. I will be happy to discuss my book's ideas with anyone who has actually studied it (and I do mean study--- like one would study a serious textbook). However, to attempt to satisfy the queries of individuals who demand brief answers to serious questions without first obtaining the background knowledge needed to comprehend the answers is a complete waste of time.

If you want to know my ideas, access to them is available. If you don't think that there is anything you can learn from me, don't read my book-- and don't ask me simplistic questions about my ideas. If you feel that this is an unreasonable request, go whine to someone else about your feelings.

Kindly be forewarned that my book is imperfect. There are a few errors in some analogies I used to help explain things, none of them damaging to my thesis. "Digital Universe..." was written during a 9-year period of personal difficulties, while I watched the nation I once loved descend into terminal stupidity under the control of an ignorant electorate, duplicitous politicians, and an evil President. Too many of my feelings appeared in the book, unnecessarily. Nonetheless, the ideas are intact.

I strongly recommend that communists, socialists, deeply religious people (including dogmatic atheists), and Democrats not read the book. My unnecessary politics will interact negatively with their brain's programming, and the fact that their brains are programmed with such garbage indicates that they are insufficiently intelligent to comprehend my ideas in any case.

[Ginkgo]

I strongly recommend that communists, socialists, deeply religious people (including dogmatic atheists), and Democrats not read the book. My unnecessary politics will interact negatively with their brain's programming, and the fact that their brains are programmed with such garbage indicates that they are insufficiently intelligent to comprehend my ideas in any case.

Hi Greylorn,


That just leaves the Repubics.

[Felasco]

No one who proposes a new idea on a forum or a blog is ever taken seriously, so I won't try to explain mine here.

Ok, this is the problem. Your real goal is to be taken seriously. Let that go, and then you're free to use the forum to work on improving your presentation, which you seem to honestly admit it requires.

If your ideas are indeed important, they are more important than you, and whether you are taken seriously or not. If your ideas are indeed important, they deserve a presentation that is continually perfected, and a forum can be a place to work on that.

As you yourself honestly disclaim...

Too many of my feelings appeared in the book, unnecessarily.

This is an obvious place to begin on the refinement of your message, both in your books and your posts. Dump the personal disappointments that shout out from every other paragraph. What James Markham and myself are requesting is that you get over yourself, and get on with it. You came here to share your message, so share it already.

I will be happy to discuss my book's ideas with anyone who has actually studied it (and I do mean study--- like one would study a serious textbook).

There is almost no chance of this happening on the typical public philosophy forum, especially with you as the lead salesman. There's no point in you continually mentioning your book and then refusing to talk about it. If you're serious about discussing your book with those who have read it, open a forum of your own which is limited to the book buyers.

However, to attempt to satisfy the queries of individuals who demand brief answers to serious questions without first obtaining the background knowledge needed to comprehend the answers is a complete waste of time.

Yes, we realize that everyone is an idiot and a nitwit, especially authority figures etc, you've made this point again and again. This is the stalest possible pose for a philosophy forum user, all you're doing is waving your ego underwear in our faces.

What I see happening is that a key assumption crucial to your book was defeated almost immediately upon your arrival here, by someone with no science background, and now you're afraid to continue.

If you want to know my ideas, access to them is available. If you don't think that there is anything you can learn from me, don't read my book-- and don't ask me simplistic questions about my ideas. If you feel that this is an unreasonable request, go whine to someone else about your feelings.

How about this for a constructive solution? You agree to stop mentioning your book, and we agree to stop asking about it. Deal?

[Greylorn Ell]

I strongly recommend that communists, socialists, deeply religious people (including dogmatic atheists), and Democrats not read the book. My unnecessary politics will interact negatively with their brain's programming, and the fact that their brains are programmed with such garbage indicates that they are insufficiently intelligent to comprehend my ideas in any case.

Hi Greylorn,


That just leaves the Repubics.

Ginkgo,

Perhaps you meant Republicans.

I'm not one of them, and the gaggle of pinheads who control the party are, IMO, unprincipled shmoos, the best congressmen and senators that money can buy. I live in Arizona, and have not voted for the anti-American Republican Senator John McCain for either senator or president. IMO he is a traitor to his nation and his party, and I wouldn't give that incompetent my vote for County Dogcatcher.

That said, I tend to check the political affiliations of those with whom I converse. The only individuals from whom I've been able to learn anything have been Republicans or independent thinkers. The religionists among the Republicans do not count, being as smart as Democrats. And noting that only a tiny percentage of individuals are capable of independent thought, I propose that none of them are Democrats, either people who are inherently stupid, or those with good brains capable of amassing information, but unable to recognize cognitive dissonance within their programmed brains. The few interesting people I encounter are of the correct opinion that all major political parties suck.

But there are differences, and anyone who pays attention can draw the lines. For example, Democrats want government control of education, under control of unionized teachers. That means, teachers who cannot be fired for incompetence or inappropriate behavior. Republicans are generally in favor of free education, vouchers that allow parents to send their kids to the best available school instead of the government-mandated school, thereby creating an open market in the education business.

Educational standards determine the quality of minds that will be running our planet in the future. I like open, free-market standards. For me, that makes favoring Republicans over Democrats an inevitable choice. Freely-educated people may even be able to clean up the political system, improving all parties.

My comments were intended to make it clear that not many individuals are mentally qualified to read my book. This is not so much a function of measured intelligence (e.g. I.Q.) as of competently directed intelligence. That is a function of the relationship between the two components that comprise the human mind, described in the very book that those whose "soul"-brain relationship permits cognitive dissonance will be be unable to comprehend.

[Ginkgo]

I strongly recommend that communists, socialists, deeply religious people (including dogmatic atheists), and Democrats not read the book. My unnecessary politics will interact negatively with their brain's programming, and the fact that their brains are programmed with such garbage indicates that they are insufficiently intelligent to comprehend my ideas in any case.

Hi Greylorn,


That just leaves the Repubics.

Ginkgo,

Perhaps you meant Republicans.

I'm not one of them, and the gaggle of pinheads who control the party are, IMO, unprincipled shmoos, the best congressmen and senators that money can buy. I live in Arizona, and have not voted for the anti-American Republican Senator John McCain for either senator or president. IMO he is a traitor to his nation and his party, and I wouldn't give that incompetent my vote for County Dogcatcher.

That said, I tend to check the political affiliations of those with whom I converse. The only individuals from whom I've been able to learn anything have been Republicans or independent thinkers. The religionists among the Republicans do not count, being as smart as Democrats. And noting that only a tiny percentage of individuals are capable of independent thought, I propose that none of them are Democrats, either people who are inherently stupid, or those with good brains capable of amassing information, but unable to recognize cognitive dissonance within their programmed brains. The few interesting people I encounter are of the correct opinion that all major political parties suck.

But there are differences, and anyone who pays attention can draw the lines. For example, Democrats want government control of education, under control of unionized teachers. That means, teachers who cannot be fired for incompetence or inappropriate behavior. Republicans are generally in favor of free education, vouchers that allow parents to send their kids to the best available school instead of the government-mandated school, thereby creating an open market in the education business.

Educational standards determine the quality of minds that will be running our planet in the future. I like open, free-market standards. For me, that makes favoring Republicans over Democrats an inevitable choice. Freely-educated people may even be able to clean up the political system, improving all parties.

My comments were intended to make it clear that not many individuals are mentally qualified to read my book. This is not so much a function of measured intelligence (e.g. I.Q.) as of competently directed intelligence. That is a function of the relationship between the two components that comprise the human mind, described in the very book that those whose "soul"-brain relationship permits cognitive dissonance will be be unable to comprehend.

Hi Greylorn


I thought Repubics were middle of the road Republicans?

Is the word "Republic" just a localized expression? A bit like, "Beltway Republicans?"


As you can gather I am not from the US

[Greylorn Ell]

Hi Greylorn

I thought Repubics were middle of the road Republicans?

Is the word "Republic" just a localized expression? A bit like, "Beltway Republicans?"

As you can gather I am not from the US

Thank you for asking. I don't know of any "Repubic." The word implies, "the result of transgender surgery." Perhaps your problem is a simple failure to pay attention to the spell-checker. You used "repubic" and "republic," which I understand to mean, a system of government in which citizens who contribute value to their country vote for representatives in the government. The U.S. government was originally conceived of as a Republic, with one of our statesmen's comments as an adjunct: "...if you can keep it." We have not kept it, and have since degenerated into an ordinary democracy, in which idiots and assholes pandered to by Democrats rule.

It is interesting to note that the first U.S. Republican, Abraham Lincoln, was the man who destroyed the original U.S. Republic. He is revered as a great man, savior of "the union" between northern and southern states, for murdering hundreds of thousands of people in an unnecessary civil war that he created and exploited. Lincoln transformed the Republic of United States into the screwed-up United States of America. IMO he was really the first Democrat, a sheep in wolf's garb, a cunning and evil man who set the stage for his follow-ons, Theodore Roosevelt and Barack Obama.

There is always the possibility that your misspelling was a deliberate ploy. If that is the case, you should be ashamed of your exploitative cunning, are a member of the Brit socialist-whatever party, and should not reply to me again, ever.

Greylorn

[Felasco]

My comments were intended to make it clear that not many individuals are mentally qualified to read my book.

It's beginning to appear that the only point you're ever going to make is that you are brilliant while almost everyone else is an idiot. What an original thesis on a philosophy forum!

[attofishpi]

IMO a "personal" God is an entity who has specifically, deliberately created the "soul" of each human being, and cares about the composite being (soul plus body) throughout its sojourn through life. This personal God is essentially the Catholic God, an entity who is always watching, always judging. He listens to your every lie, grades every exam or quiz you ever take. He watches you shit, piss, and masturbate, and knows exactly how many sulfur-based stinky molecules you emit with every fart. And he keeps a permanent list.

Yes. Nailed it.

I take it neither of you believe that this quoted God is the 'one'...that exists?

Or am i wrong. Do you believe that the specs above relate to a God that you have conceptualised and now believe in?

[James Markham]

Greylorn, I've had a look at your website, and to be honest I'm yet to experience the right type of meltdown to enable me to read the bible, so trying to work my way through a pile of shit that simply proposes multiple gods instead of one, would be like taking my brain out on a walk around willy wonkas chocolate factory. It says on your site that you head a church? Now I may not know about hamaltonian equations, or how they change the fact that you know nothing about energy, but I do know a bit about crazed tramps with messiah complexes, there's one who somehow got himself a police megaphone, he lives under a bridge off regent st, and he's also a high priest of some loopy shit kingdom, I wouldn't bother reading his book either.

What I suggest you actually do with your book, is use it to line the cage of that rodent you've recently bought to talk to, I doubt the mess will make it any less palatable to the intellect. I think you got it right in your introduction, who does care? Have you many parishioners in your flock? Do you need a minivan to round them up from their various care centres? Or does he just jump on the back of your bike lol.

I suppose your now going to accuse me of being a troll, and a stupido ignoramus, but I object, I think you'll find that although I can be rude, I rarely start without the kind of provocation you seem willing to provide, and as for stupid, I'd say spending forty years writing a book that nobody reads is far in excess of anything I've done to display my stupidity.

You seem pretty cut up over humanities refusal to pronounce you as the high priest of whatever shit it is you preach (I don't know cos you won't tell), but don't be so hard on us, it's simply the nature of your malady, and the fact we all get a little scared by the completely insane when they open churches is our problem, right?

Any ho, it's been nice, and thanks for reading, it's more attention than I'll be paying to your next post, or your book on multiple gods that turn up when your shitfaced on whiskey.

[Greylorn Ell]

IMO a "personal" God is an entity who has specifically, deliberately created the "soul" of each human being, and cares about the composite being (soul plus body) throughout its sojourn through life. This personal God is essentially the Catholic God, an entity who is always watching, always judging. He listens to your every lie, grades every exam or quiz you ever take. He watches you shit, piss, and masturbate, and knows exactly how many sulfur-based stinky molecules you emit with every fart. And he keeps a permanent list.

Yes. Nailed it.

I take it neither of you believe that this quoted God is the 'one'...that exists?

Or am i wrong. Do you believe that the specs above relate to a God that you have conceptualised and now believe in?

I believe that our universe has been created by intelligent beings, for entirely selfish, non-altruistic reasons. I do not believe that they created the entity that confused religionists refer to as "the human soul."

I have a physics-based definition of the properties that these beings must have, which are related to the properties of the entities known to religionists as "souls."

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn, I've had a look at your website, and to be honest I'm yet to experience the right type of meltdown to enable me to read the bible, so trying to work my way through a pile of shit that simply proposes multiple gods instead of one, would be like taking my brain out on a walk around willy wonkas chocolate factory. It says on your site that you head a church? Now I may not know about hamaltonian equations, or how they change the fact that you know nothing about energy, but I do know a bit about crazed tramps with messiah complexes, there's one who somehow got himself a police megaphone, he lives under a bridge off regent st, and he's also a high priest of some loopy shit kingdom, I wouldn't bother reading his book either.

What I suggest you actually do with your book, is use it to line the cage of that rodent you've recently bought to talk to, I doubt the mess will make it any less palatable to the intellect. I think you got it right in your introduction, who does care? Have you many parishioners in your flock? Do you need a minivan to round them up from their various care centres? Or does he just jump on the back of your bike lol.

I suppose your now going to accuse me of being a troll, and a stupido ignoramus, but I object, I think you'll find that although I can be rude, I rarely start without the kind of provocation you seem willing to provide, and as for stupid, I'd say spending forty years writing a book that nobody reads is far in excess of anything I've done to display my stupidity.

You seem pretty cut up over humanities refusal to pronounce you as the high priest of whatever shit it is you preach (I don't know cos you won't tell), but don't be so hard on us, it's simply the nature of your malady, and the fact we all get a little scared by the completely insane when they open churches is our problem, right?

Any ho, it's been nice, and thanks for reading, it's more attention than I'll be paying to your next post, or your book on multiple gods that turn up when your shitfaced on whiskey.

Thank you for your thoughtful, considerate, and well-researched post. I drink wine, beer, and vodka, rarely whiskey. The Church of Physical Theology, Ltd. has no members and does not want any. It obtains no contributions from the members that it does not have. It has no resources, and does not support me. (How could it?) The CPT is a formal organization intended to protect and sustain ideas that I hope will outlive me.

I would never call you a "stupido ignoramus," because that would be a linguistically incorrect phrase in the English language. Besides, there is no need to label you. You are self-defined.

I agree with you that dedicating my life to the development and presentation of ideas that few people are intelligent enough to comprehend is, by your standards, stupid. I've often thought about the money I might have made, the big houses I could have bought, had I chosen a conventional life. But would they have provided me with the same mental adventures? I know people with whom I worked in the early days of technology. They have bigger houses and faster cars than I do. They also have family problems, wives who won't fuck them and don't want them to fuck anyone else, children who need their money, and businesses that require their attention well past the age of retirement.

I'm old and beat up and have to cook my own food, but I still get to go dancing every Saturday night, get lucky when I can, drive an old truck with a stick shift, watch Packer games, and never have to watch chick flicks to get laid. I do the household chores on my own time and schedule, and never get nagged when they remain undone. If I choose to stay up past my bedtime to reply to dimwitted nits, no one complains.

Perhaps my problems arise because I am an antisocial person who does not travel in the same intellectual circles that you do. I do not know anyone who lives under bridges. Alas.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand what I wrote, but not surprised. I wrote it for intelligent people who would treat it like a textbook, and reread it until they understood it before commenting. Perhaps you could print a copy and offer it to your enlightened mentor beneath the bridge, who might be able to explain it to you?

If there was a cure for your problem I would be the first to offer it, so that you could be the first to refuse it. Good luck in your linguistically impaired life.

[uwot]

I believe that our universe has been created by intelligent beings, for entirely selfish, non-altruistic reasons. I do not believe that they created the entity that confused religionists refer to as "the human soul."

I have a physics-based definition of the properties that these beings must have, which are related to the properties of the entities known to religionists as "souls."

What can you tell us about the laws of physics that apply in the 'universe', that the intelligent beings, who created our universe, call home?