Hi groktruth,
Is that "grok" the 2000AD 'grok'?
Looking for friends
Re: Looking for friends
Surely its Robert A Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land?Arising_uk wrote:Hi groktruth,
Is that "grok" the 2000AD 'grok'?
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Looking for friends
S G R wrote:...Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land...
I'd forgotten that.Re: Looking for friends
Summers in Alaska are not conducive to sitting doen at a computer! But, the movie "Inception" certainly affirms our topic! Duszek's question is a very good one!
I start with Socrates' "The unexamined life is not worth living." Developing the habit of asking, "What was I thinking?" And then, "Now, where did that thought come from?"
As a Bayesian scientist, haunted by Curley Lucas' frown at dogmatic thinking, I have to consider the wide range of hypotheses about where my ideas come from. How likely are these hypotheses to be true? If found plausible, what can I do about it, to encourage the "inception" of useful thoughts, and to discourage the ideas that are not in my best interest. (We all have enemies, do we not?)
As a naturalist, I work from models like the rabies virus, that "inceives" a fear of water into its victims. Water, as we all know, works against the virus and for the host. But I respect the Jungian science, and the efforts to expand on James' scientific theology, both of which increase substantially the plausibility that our thoughts, both subconscious and conscious, including subjective weights, are vulnerable to "inception" by "others."
So Socrates was probably right. If we don't examine the landscape of our thoughts, we're probably being had, fatally had, by our enemies. And missing our friends efforts to spare us grief.
I start with Socrates' "The unexamined life is not worth living." Developing the habit of asking, "What was I thinking?" And then, "Now, where did that thought come from?"
As a Bayesian scientist, haunted by Curley Lucas' frown at dogmatic thinking, I have to consider the wide range of hypotheses about where my ideas come from. How likely are these hypotheses to be true? If found plausible, what can I do about it, to encourage the "inception" of useful thoughts, and to discourage the ideas that are not in my best interest. (We all have enemies, do we not?)
As a naturalist, I work from models like the rabies virus, that "inceives" a fear of water into its victims. Water, as we all know, works against the virus and for the host. But I respect the Jungian science, and the efforts to expand on James' scientific theology, both of which increase substantially the plausibility that our thoughts, both subconscious and conscious, including subjective weights, are vulnerable to "inception" by "others."
So Socrates was probably right. If we don't examine the landscape of our thoughts, we're probably being had, fatally had, by our enemies. And missing our friends efforts to spare us grief.
Re: Looking for friends
Hi Grok, welcome to the forum.
My definition of meditation is to let go of as many points of view as possible. And, I'm here to document what a poor job I'm doing of it.
Can you grok it?
Well, ok, here's another one then..groktruth wrote:My definition of meditation is to get in the middle of as many points of view as possible.
My definition of meditation is to let go of as many points of view as possible. And, I'm here to document what a poor job I'm doing of it.
Can you grok it?
Re: Looking for friends
typist,
Good balancing point. The act of letting go implies a grasping, but I think you meant "shed" as much as "let go." That is, we have lots of thoughts in our minds, some grasped and others clinging on their own. The best meditation must take all "captive" and then let them all go, as we move on to another.
But many are "deep." And then a period of utter quietness and waiting is needed for the thought to float to the surface. Any consideration of any thought swirls the waters of our minds and drives such thoughts deeper into the well. If they are rotten, their stink fouls the water, but whither the foul taste? We don't know, and won't until we quiet down and wait.
Good too to consider the various forms of matter: light, dark, and non-local. We love with our eyes open, in the light matter world. We meditate in the dark matter world, with our eyes closed. Thus we only "see" dark matter, undistracted by light. We meditate deeply by closing the part of our minds that "sees" space-time. Thus we become more conscious of the non-local stuff going on, becoming, as the Zen masters put it, "one with everything." Takes practise. But the effect is a curious mixture of seeing everything while grasping nothing. Or, what is good, having nothing clinging. And what is best. shaping all by our consciousness of it.
So, consider everything, then release it. Gently pick the clinging thoughts off, and release them as well. Wait quietly for deep stuff to come to the surface, dip it out and release it too. Then close your mind to space-time, and consider it all at once, shaping it all as you might hope and choose. Open you eyes and watch the world around you shift closer to your vision.
Good balancing point. The act of letting go implies a grasping, but I think you meant "shed" as much as "let go." That is, we have lots of thoughts in our minds, some grasped and others clinging on their own. The best meditation must take all "captive" and then let them all go, as we move on to another.
But many are "deep." And then a period of utter quietness and waiting is needed for the thought to float to the surface. Any consideration of any thought swirls the waters of our minds and drives such thoughts deeper into the well. If they are rotten, their stink fouls the water, but whither the foul taste? We don't know, and won't until we quiet down and wait.
Good too to consider the various forms of matter: light, dark, and non-local. We love with our eyes open, in the light matter world. We meditate in the dark matter world, with our eyes closed. Thus we only "see" dark matter, undistracted by light. We meditate deeply by closing the part of our minds that "sees" space-time. Thus we become more conscious of the non-local stuff going on, becoming, as the Zen masters put it, "one with everything." Takes practise. But the effect is a curious mixture of seeing everything while grasping nothing. Or, what is good, having nothing clinging. And what is best. shaping all by our consciousness of it.
So, consider everything, then release it. Gently pick the clinging thoughts off, and release them as well. Wait quietly for deep stuff to come to the surface, dip it out and release it too. Then close your mind to space-time, and consider it all at once, shaping it all as you might hope and choose. Open you eyes and watch the world around you shift closer to your vision.
Re: Looking for friends
Hi again Grok,
Thanks for your post, I can see we share an interest here.
I find this subject of exploring beyond thought engages my thoughts like no other, a sort of "the joke's on me" kind of ironic comic experience.
MIND: Phew, this thought business is exhausting, let's give it a rest.
SELF: Yes! That's very interesting, let's think carefully about this, and examine all the angles and implications!
An endless quest for more seems to drive much of thought, and sometimes, often, meditation seems to be a grasping for yet another way to get more, get off, get high, gimme, gimme, gimme.
I've noticed when I'm out in the woods that this grasping for mental quiet is useful up to a point, and then it becomes another burden that must be put down if I wish to go any further.
Which raises the question, why do I want to go further? Why not just allow a mind full of chatterbox nonsense to be enough? I'm already there, it comes naturally, why not just accept the gift, say thanks, and let it be?
You know, every thought we analyze becomes another thought to analyze, ad infinitum.
Dunno, like I said, not sure.
All the stuff running around our mind. It's like carrying a 30 pound pack around all day, every day. It's nice to put the pack down sometimes.
But...
Once we learn how to do that, we then have a basis for comparison, and now start to notice the weight of the pack like never before.
Sigh...
A sense of humor seems required, ey?
Thanks for your post, I can see we share an interest here.
I find this subject of exploring beyond thought engages my thoughts like no other, a sort of "the joke's on me" kind of ironic comic experience.
MIND: Phew, this thought business is exhausting, let's give it a rest.
SELF: Yes! That's very interesting, let's think carefully about this, and examine all the angles and implications!
This phrase of yours jumped out at me. "Uh oh, he's on to me," I muttered to myself.groktruth wrote:The act of letting go implies a grasping...
An endless quest for more seems to drive much of thought, and sometimes, often, meditation seems to be a grasping for yet another way to get more, get off, get high, gimme, gimme, gimme.
I've noticed when I'm out in the woods that this grasping for mental quiet is useful up to a point, and then it becomes another burden that must be put down if I wish to go any further.
Which raises the question, why do I want to go further? Why not just allow a mind full of chatterbox nonsense to be enough? I'm already there, it comes naturally, why not just accept the gift, say thanks, and let it be?
I hear you, yes, I suspect there are plenty of sharks down there swimming around. I'm divided within my self about bringing them to the surface, as they seem like they are perhaps just more melodrama for the mind to chew on.But many are "deep." And then a period of utter quietness and waiting is needed for the thought to float to the surface. Any consideration of any thought swirls the waters of our minds and drives such thoughts deeper into the well. If they are rotten, their stink fouls the water, but whither the foul taste? We don't know, and won't until we quiet down and wait.
You know, every thought we analyze becomes another thought to analyze, ad infinitum.
Dunno, like I said, not sure.
Sort of like the vast emptiness of outer space contains all things, but is itself nothing?But the effect is a curious mixture of seeing everything while grasping nothing.
Nicely said, thanks for that.So, consider everything, then release it. Gently pick the clinging thoughts off, and release them as well. Wait quietly for deep stuff to come to the surface, dip it out and release it too. Then close your mind to space-time, and consider it all at once, shaping it all as you might hope and choose. Open you eyes and watch the world around you shift closer to your vision.
All the stuff running around our mind. It's like carrying a 30 pound pack around all day, every day. It's nice to put the pack down sometimes.
But...
Once we learn how to do that, we then have a basis for comparison, and now start to notice the weight of the pack like never before.
Sigh...
A sense of humor seems required, ey?
Re: Looking for friends
Yes, typist, we clearly are on the same page!
Your first remarks (Why an I bothering with this?) are worth meditating over. In my efforts to do so, I find every trustworthy authority telling me that all my enemies (and I have many) hope that I'll quit, and all my hopes for prosperity depend on my diligence in persevering. Some authorities (eg, the psalmist) warn of the exhaustion, and offer a remedy (the prayer, "Revive me, oh Lord!" Ps 119). The biologists, too, comment on the extensive energy loss through thinking. And the athletes, "No pain, no gain." At present, what else should a member of the species Homo sapiens major in?
I have a list of good stuff that I'm after, and contentment with the status quo is on the list. But, freedom, and the truth that sets one free, are higher. Then come love, security, recognition, and glory. All my meditations on the existence of enemies, who have the goals of my enslavement, shame, isolation, fear-mongering, etc. conclude that such are highly likely. At the very least, my meditating is a red queen race. I have to run as fast as I can just to stay in place. The random jumble in my mind is probably not random at all, but evil inceptions out to destroy my inheritance.
Why are we selfishly ambitious, and is this a good thing? Again trustworthy authorities considering the maximising of effective self sacrifice all conclude that putting your oxygen mask on first is the best you can do. And my experience has borne this out. The "do-gooder" that we know to be phoney and ineffective lessens themselves first, then gives puny gifts to others. What I got in meditation was that because we have the greatest power in improving ourselves, and because the effectiveness of our goodnes to others is proportional to our personal potency, we owe it to them to multiply our talents, not bury them. But I remind myself, as I seek after a heart and mind that runs smoothly and powerfully, that Homo sapiens is also social. Without love of others, it's all worthless. The skill of grasping and releasing allows this to work. I can tell my family to not bother me in one moment, and be totally focused on their needs in the next.
About the sharks. Yes, they are there and the question, "Where did that thought come from?" is highly useful in my meditations. Shark bites are fairly easy to release, though. Stinkier are "forgotten" cruelties. Examining one's life in such a way that ill-spoken words, say, are remembered, regretted, and corrected as possible, is a great motivator for pursuing other painful truths that offer hope for better correction and prevention. Jesus once said to His disciples that there were many things He wanted to share with them, but they could not bear to hear them. (By the way, I am not a Christian, although the Jewish Messiah seems like a desirable hope, and the "proof of the pudding" regarding the life and words of Jesus make Him a respectable historical figure, a trustworthy authority, if you will. But, if including His relevant philosophical input bothers you, I can find other authorites to quote.)
Anyway, the truth is painful, often unbearable. This is actually more true in my experience for objective truths, then for my subjective guilt trips. But both can make me miserable. The one misery, however, drives me through the other. The question: "Is there anything I can do to make this right?" produces inklings. Ominous inklings, and a thought-pathway towards some scary mountain height. Climbing that mountain, in the end, was most satisfying. But what else would Homo sapiens think about it?
My weak efforts to visit non-local matter find that space, empty space, is full of truth. Which can be grasped, and which can be the most empowering experience known to man. The physicists sometimes agree, finding empty space full of "zero-point" energy. Great mystery here, which your sharks hope you never explore.
The key to success with them are the rules for knowing what is true. Take a walk in nature with the question, "What are my operational rules for deciding if there is any truth to an idea? What say others?"
"So, the skeleton walks into the bar and says to the bar-tender, I'll have a beer and a mop."
Cheers!
Your first remarks (Why an I bothering with this?) are worth meditating over. In my efforts to do so, I find every trustworthy authority telling me that all my enemies (and I have many) hope that I'll quit, and all my hopes for prosperity depend on my diligence in persevering. Some authorities (eg, the psalmist) warn of the exhaustion, and offer a remedy (the prayer, "Revive me, oh Lord!" Ps 119). The biologists, too, comment on the extensive energy loss through thinking. And the athletes, "No pain, no gain." At present, what else should a member of the species Homo sapiens major in?
I have a list of good stuff that I'm after, and contentment with the status quo is on the list. But, freedom, and the truth that sets one free, are higher. Then come love, security, recognition, and glory. All my meditations on the existence of enemies, who have the goals of my enslavement, shame, isolation, fear-mongering, etc. conclude that such are highly likely. At the very least, my meditating is a red queen race. I have to run as fast as I can just to stay in place. The random jumble in my mind is probably not random at all, but evil inceptions out to destroy my inheritance.
Why are we selfishly ambitious, and is this a good thing? Again trustworthy authorities considering the maximising of effective self sacrifice all conclude that putting your oxygen mask on first is the best you can do. And my experience has borne this out. The "do-gooder" that we know to be phoney and ineffective lessens themselves first, then gives puny gifts to others. What I got in meditation was that because we have the greatest power in improving ourselves, and because the effectiveness of our goodnes to others is proportional to our personal potency, we owe it to them to multiply our talents, not bury them. But I remind myself, as I seek after a heart and mind that runs smoothly and powerfully, that Homo sapiens is also social. Without love of others, it's all worthless. The skill of grasping and releasing allows this to work. I can tell my family to not bother me in one moment, and be totally focused on their needs in the next.
About the sharks. Yes, they are there and the question, "Where did that thought come from?" is highly useful in my meditations. Shark bites are fairly easy to release, though. Stinkier are "forgotten" cruelties. Examining one's life in such a way that ill-spoken words, say, are remembered, regretted, and corrected as possible, is a great motivator for pursuing other painful truths that offer hope for better correction and prevention. Jesus once said to His disciples that there were many things He wanted to share with them, but they could not bear to hear them. (By the way, I am not a Christian, although the Jewish Messiah seems like a desirable hope, and the "proof of the pudding" regarding the life and words of Jesus make Him a respectable historical figure, a trustworthy authority, if you will. But, if including His relevant philosophical input bothers you, I can find other authorites to quote.)
Anyway, the truth is painful, often unbearable. This is actually more true in my experience for objective truths, then for my subjective guilt trips. But both can make me miserable. The one misery, however, drives me through the other. The question: "Is there anything I can do to make this right?" produces inklings. Ominous inklings, and a thought-pathway towards some scary mountain height. Climbing that mountain, in the end, was most satisfying. But what else would Homo sapiens think about it?
My weak efforts to visit non-local matter find that space, empty space, is full of truth. Which can be grasped, and which can be the most empowering experience known to man. The physicists sometimes agree, finding empty space full of "zero-point" energy. Great mystery here, which your sharks hope you never explore.
The key to success with them are the rules for knowing what is true. Take a walk in nature with the question, "What are my operational rules for deciding if there is any truth to an idea? What say others?"
"So, the skeleton walks into the bar and says to the bar-tender, I'll have a beer and a mop."
Cheers!
Re: Looking for friends
Hi again Grok,
So, we are on a quest for the truth, let's climb the mountain together.
Where Is Truth?
As we begin our journey, before we start walking, the first obvious question is, where are we going? Where is the truth located?
We seem to share an understanding that our experience of truth will be located in one very specific place, in between our own ears.
Ah, now we're clear where we're going, and how convenient, it's so close!
How Do We Get There?
Now that we know where we're going, we can rule out paths that lead somewhere else.
We see our truth will be found in between our own ears, so we stop looking for our truth in other people's minds. We see our truth will be found in between our own ears, so we stop looking for our truth in books.
We see our truth will be found in between our own ears, and we are the only one who can travel there, so we set aside authorities, experts, religion, psychology etc, as all these other people can know is their own minds.
Once we are utterly clear where our truth will be found, we see all the teachings we need can be expressed in two words.
Go within.
Everything else, all the rest of everything ever written or said, including this post of course, is for the truth seeker just a big noisy distraction which very quickly becomes the hiding place we use to avoid climbing the mountain, to avoid going within.
We see that authority of any kind, the holy books and experts, traditions, religions, the accumulated wisdoms of 5,000 years etc, are not the path to our truth, they are (especially for we philosopher types) the huge boulder in the middle of the path which must be climbed over.
The serious climber sets down whatever they are carrying, thousands of years worth of accumulated abstract junk we've spent our lives hauling around from place to place, and begins to ascend the mountain light footed and alone.
What Is Truth?
Again it's simple, truth is reality. Not what somebody says about reality, but reality itself.
As example, a photograph of me, however skillfully taken, is not me. It's a photograph.
The word truth is not the truth, it's a word. Seeing the simpleness of this, we realize that nothing that's ever been said, or will be said, is the truth.
More burdens set down along the side of the path, on our way up the mountain.
When Is Truth?
Now that we're clear where the truth is located we can ask, when will we get there?
And again, the answer is simple. Now.
Now is the only time that is real. There has never been, and never will be, any other time. The past and future are thoughts, abstract images of reality, like the photograph, like the word.
And now we come to the very interesting puzzle your statement of goals brings us.
Again, you said...
How are we to experience the reality of here and now, if we are always on a journey traveling to someplace else that we hope to arrive at sometime in the future?
If the truth is found only in the reality of the here and now, isn't our rejection of the here and now, our journey to someplace else at some other time, a bit of a problem?
Is contentment with the status quo, the here and now, an essential step on our journey to the truth?
Somebody probably once said, the first step up the mountain is to stop, and sit down where we already are.
I apologize for the long sermon, but if you insist on being this interesting, you should expect to be punished on a regular basis.
Ok, you have set off many more thoughts in my mind about the end of thought. I'll get you for this, watch your back, you've been warned!I have a list of good stuff that I'm after, and contentment with the status quo is on the list. But, freedom, and the truth that sets one free, are higher.
So, we are on a quest for the truth, let's climb the mountain together.
Where Is Truth?
As we begin our journey, before we start walking, the first obvious question is, where are we going? Where is the truth located?
We seem to share an understanding that our experience of truth will be located in one very specific place, in between our own ears.
Ah, now we're clear where we're going, and how convenient, it's so close!
How Do We Get There?
Now that we know where we're going, we can rule out paths that lead somewhere else.
We see our truth will be found in between our own ears, so we stop looking for our truth in other people's minds. We see our truth will be found in between our own ears, so we stop looking for our truth in books.
We see our truth will be found in between our own ears, and we are the only one who can travel there, so we set aside authorities, experts, religion, psychology etc, as all these other people can know is their own minds.
Once we are utterly clear where our truth will be found, we see all the teachings we need can be expressed in two words.
Go within.
Everything else, all the rest of everything ever written or said, including this post of course, is for the truth seeker just a big noisy distraction which very quickly becomes the hiding place we use to avoid climbing the mountain, to avoid going within.
We see that authority of any kind, the holy books and experts, traditions, religions, the accumulated wisdoms of 5,000 years etc, are not the path to our truth, they are (especially for we philosopher types) the huge boulder in the middle of the path which must be climbed over.
The serious climber sets down whatever they are carrying, thousands of years worth of accumulated abstract junk we've spent our lives hauling around from place to place, and begins to ascend the mountain light footed and alone.
What Is Truth?
Again it's simple, truth is reality. Not what somebody says about reality, but reality itself.
As example, a photograph of me, however skillfully taken, is not me. It's a photograph.
The word truth is not the truth, it's a word. Seeing the simpleness of this, we realize that nothing that's ever been said, or will be said, is the truth.
More burdens set down along the side of the path, on our way up the mountain.
When Is Truth?
Now that we're clear where the truth is located we can ask, when will we get there?
And again, the answer is simple. Now.
Now is the only time that is real. There has never been, and never will be, any other time. The past and future are thoughts, abstract images of reality, like the photograph, like the word.
And now we come to the very interesting puzzle your statement of goals brings us.
Again, you said...
If truth is the living reality which can only be experienced here and now within our own minds, what is the function of our journey, our search for truth?I have a list of good stuff that I'm after, and contentment with the status quo is on the list. But, freedom, and the truth that sets one free, are higher.
How are we to experience the reality of here and now, if we are always on a journey traveling to someplace else that we hope to arrive at sometime in the future?
If the truth is found only in the reality of the here and now, isn't our rejection of the here and now, our journey to someplace else at some other time, a bit of a problem?
Is contentment with the status quo, the here and now, an essential step on our journey to the truth?
Somebody probably once said, the first step up the mountain is to stop, and sit down where we already are.
So, I've had way too many wordy nerdy beers here, and it will take much more than a mop to clean up the mess."So, the skeleton walks into the bar and says to the bar-tender, I'll have a beer and a mop."
I apologize for the long sermon, but if you insist on being this interesting, you should expect to be punished on a regular basis.
Re: Looking for friends
typist! Shouldn't have that handle, unless you're quick to write down many things!
Yes, we are agreed that truth must be "grokked", meaning found within (But also outside of!) our minds.
But a very fundamental rule for knowing whether or not something is true, or has some measure of truth, involves being non-dogmatic, or conclusive, in the search. "ruling out paths" does not have a good sound, especially because the paths "lead somewhere else." True enough, but how are we to know for sure where a path leads? Remember my foundational definition of meditation---being in the middle of many possibly relevant ideas, considering everything, holding on to what is good, or seems to have the truth part. Then each input is released. Even the true part. And then we move on to the next item. Eventually, we put the good parts together.
Now philosophers are four-square in this process, having at the four corners of their meditation trustworthy authority, inspiring art, honest science, and successful application, ("I have it on good authority...;" "truth is beauty...;" "evidently...;" "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." for the everyday expressions of what we philosophers dig into.) As they meditate on how each of these impinges on the thought they are considering, its truth becomes clearer in their mind.
I say this only to temper your point, that none of these "paths" must have the last word. However, the path of "I'm on my own path." has a very poor track record, evidently because of disinformation from enemies. The largest boulders are thoughts found in the very place we are hoping to find the truth, our minds. What the old guys called "original din." (Think I got that right....)
Now. truth is probably not reality. Distinguishing these two is a great final exam question in philosohy 499. Reality is the basis of the inductive method, "What was is what will be." But truth is deductive and predictive. It's logical future consequences are what will be. And given the almost certain existence of free will, and of information shortfalls, truth often trumps reality.
But you point out that truth, while approachable, is never attained. We get closer, and make better choices the closer we get. Asymptoticcall closer.
I agree that truth is now, or more precisely, a part (or the whole) of the physicists' "non-local" matter. Remember, we are dealing with light matter, dark matter that responds to the space-time world, but not light. And non-local, or (true) matter not bound by either light or space-time.
Check out math teacher, Scott Flansburg. He apparently reads math answers from non-local matter. Like, now!
For me, the journey is all about more good stuff at all levels, light, dark, and non-local, because all three levels influence each other. Peace ( needs to be distinguished from contentment) is essential to successful meditation, but peace is often the outcome of some choice of attitude, which is freedom. Searching out anxiety, to get free from it, and peacful, still recognizes the primacy of freedom. But, no peace, no progress.
Contentment, though, letting the status quo just be, while often needed for rest, is effective preparation for the next effort to make things/self better.
Meditative philosophers love wading through long trains of thought.
Yes, we are agreed that truth must be "grokked", meaning found within (But also outside of!) our minds.
But a very fundamental rule for knowing whether or not something is true, or has some measure of truth, involves being non-dogmatic, or conclusive, in the search. "ruling out paths" does not have a good sound, especially because the paths "lead somewhere else." True enough, but how are we to know for sure where a path leads? Remember my foundational definition of meditation---being in the middle of many possibly relevant ideas, considering everything, holding on to what is good, or seems to have the truth part. Then each input is released. Even the true part. And then we move on to the next item. Eventually, we put the good parts together.
Now philosophers are four-square in this process, having at the four corners of their meditation trustworthy authority, inspiring art, honest science, and successful application, ("I have it on good authority...;" "truth is beauty...;" "evidently...;" "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." for the everyday expressions of what we philosophers dig into.) As they meditate on how each of these impinges on the thought they are considering, its truth becomes clearer in their mind.
I say this only to temper your point, that none of these "paths" must have the last word. However, the path of "I'm on my own path." has a very poor track record, evidently because of disinformation from enemies. The largest boulders are thoughts found in the very place we are hoping to find the truth, our minds. What the old guys called "original din." (Think I got that right....)
Now. truth is probably not reality. Distinguishing these two is a great final exam question in philosohy 499. Reality is the basis of the inductive method, "What was is what will be." But truth is deductive and predictive. It's logical future consequences are what will be. And given the almost certain existence of free will, and of information shortfalls, truth often trumps reality.
But you point out that truth, while approachable, is never attained. We get closer, and make better choices the closer we get. Asymptoticcall closer.
I agree that truth is now, or more precisely, a part (or the whole) of the physicists' "non-local" matter. Remember, we are dealing with light matter, dark matter that responds to the space-time world, but not light. And non-local, or (true) matter not bound by either light or space-time.
Check out math teacher, Scott Flansburg. He apparently reads math answers from non-local matter. Like, now!
For me, the journey is all about more good stuff at all levels, light, dark, and non-local, because all three levels influence each other. Peace ( needs to be distinguished from contentment) is essential to successful meditation, but peace is often the outcome of some choice of attitude, which is freedom. Searching out anxiety, to get free from it, and peacful, still recognizes the primacy of freedom. But, no peace, no progress.
Contentment, though, letting the status quo just be, while often needed for rest, is effective preparation for the next effort to make things/self better.
Meditative philosophers love wading through long trains of thought.
Re: Looking for friends
A path leads to somewhere else over time, that much we know.True enough, but how are we to know for sure where a path leads?
If truth, that is reality, exists only in the here and now, paths may be leading us away from truth, not closer.
Yes, I understand. That is your definition.Remember my foundational definition of meditation---being in the middle of many possibly relevant ideas, considering everything, holding on to what is good, or seems to have the truth part.
My definition is that truth is outside of ideas. An idea is an abstraction, a sort of a photograph, a mental image that represents something in reality, ok? A photograph of a dog is not a dog. An idea is not the truth.
Ok, I hear you, hopefully. You seem to be using meditation as part of your philosophical process. To me, meditation is a journey outside of the philosophical process.Then each input is released. Even the true part. And then we move on to the next item. Eventually, we put the good parts together.
Ok, now we agree.The largest boulders are thoughts found in the very place we are hoping to find the truth, our minds.
Yes, reality is a living thing, change is constant.But you point out that truth, while approachable, is never attained.
Make things better. Now we are back on the path again, going somewhere else some time else. We have left here, left now, left reality, left truth.Contentment, though, letting the status quo just be, while often needed for rest, is effective preparation for the next effort to make things/self better.
Sad but true.Meditative philosophers love wading through long trains of thought.
Re: Looking for friends
First, a response to ashantycapre, whose post i just noticed. My apologies for taking so long.
C.S. Lewis distinquished friendship from other relationships by describing the two parties atanding together. If one stood behind the other and watched over them, there was a sort of parental love. When they faced one another, seeing mostly each other, the love was erotic. Those standing side by side, looking together at the same thing were friends. Those who "prayed together were brothers or sisters.
The topic I spend most time looking at is truth. Now, Jesus, so-called, said that He was truth. And, that anyone attending carefully, as disciples, to His teaching, would "know the truth" and that the truth would then set them free. So, any "truthologist" is interested.
But, as I and typist are discovering, the first rule of getting the truth is to get the words right. We are thinking about the relationship between truth and reality, what is happening in the here and now, and what confirmation means, in the sense of a true statement successfully predicting the future. (Hey, typist, did I get that right?)
The word, Jesus, He said would be problematic. The philosophically best name for the person, is Godsaves, Jehushua in Hebrew, His most native tongue. He refered to Jehovah as His Father, and Jehovah was clear that He prefered names that meaningfully described a person's destiny. Meanwhile, "Jesus" said that many fakes would come in His name.
Now, the Godsaves of scripture is my source for seeking friends by seeking others to look at truth with me. He told His disciples that they had to have absorbed His teaching before He would call them friends.
Lewis thought that true friendship was the basis for effectively "making things better" which I still have not abandoned as a reward of truth seeking, despite it distracting us from the here and now.
Cheers to all
C.S. Lewis distinquished friendship from other relationships by describing the two parties atanding together. If one stood behind the other and watched over them, there was a sort of parental love. When they faced one another, seeing mostly each other, the love was erotic. Those standing side by side, looking together at the same thing were friends. Those who "prayed together were brothers or sisters.
The topic I spend most time looking at is truth. Now, Jesus, so-called, said that He was truth. And, that anyone attending carefully, as disciples, to His teaching, would "know the truth" and that the truth would then set them free. So, any "truthologist" is interested.
But, as I and typist are discovering, the first rule of getting the truth is to get the words right. We are thinking about the relationship between truth and reality, what is happening in the here and now, and what confirmation means, in the sense of a true statement successfully predicting the future. (Hey, typist, did I get that right?)
The word, Jesus, He said would be problematic. The philosophically best name for the person, is Godsaves, Jehushua in Hebrew, His most native tongue. He refered to Jehovah as His Father, and Jehovah was clear that He prefered names that meaningfully described a person's destiny. Meanwhile, "Jesus" said that many fakes would come in His name.
Now, the Godsaves of scripture is my source for seeking friends by seeking others to look at truth with me. He told His disciples that they had to have absorbed His teaching before He would call them friends.
Lewis thought that true friendship was the basis for effectively "making things better" which I still have not abandoned as a reward of truth seeking, despite it distracting us from the here and now.
Cheers to all
Re: Looking for friends
Hi grok , your not winning many friends on Atheists vrs Skeptics,,
quite the opposite.
Let me give you some advice,,,,and going by the number of posts vrs the amount of time this thread has been going and the ratio of reads vrs replies , you could do with some.
The title is important , I started another thread about is the universe rotating , and it just doesn't get peoples interest.
So maybe you need a title about your passion , god or the scriptures.
And make the first post provocative and challenging.
I would rather you didn't fill my thread with your nonsense,,
you are of course entitled to your opinion,
but your posts don't fit within the theme of the thread.
quite the opposite.
Let me give you some advice,,,,and going by the number of posts vrs the amount of time this thread has been going and the ratio of reads vrs replies , you could do with some.
The title is important , I started another thread about is the universe rotating , and it just doesn't get peoples interest.
So maybe you need a title about your passion , god or the scriptures.
And make the first post provocative and challenging.
I would rather you didn't fill my thread with your nonsense,,
you are of course entitled to your opinion,
but your posts don't fit within the theme of the thread.
Re: Looking for friends
Top
i blame blame Post subject: Re: Atheists vrs SkepticsPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:02 am
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:26 am
Posts: 763
Location: One hour into the future groktruth wrote:
i blame blame,
Good handle!
As to getting the scientific evidence that makes the idea of God very plausible, I recommend that one get a mentor, and explore the rules for knowing what is true with that person.
What sort of mentor would that be?
The wisest person you know personally
groktruth wrote:
Do the following mind experiment with me. A professor looking for good students devises the following test. He wants a particular stone weighed. But the stone is suspected of having a peculiar radioactivity that immediately confuses and befuddles anyone exposed to it. A lead shield prevents this. The prespective student is given this information, then asked to weigh the stone. Students who try to weigh the stone without a lead shield are rejected, as being unteachable.
The orthodox theological hypothesis contains many epistemological predictions, so that if it is true, that truth can only be discovered by taking these predictions into account. The precautions will not confuse the research if the hypothesis is untrue, but predict that ambiguous results will be obtained if they are not taken and the hypothesis is true. (Weighing the stone with tools from behind a lead shield will not bias the weight measurement, but is a hassle.)
What does the hypothesis predict?
One example: If precautions, such as the faith-filled prayer, Deliver us from the evil one. are not taken, invisible demonic beings will confuse, deceive, seduce, or otherwise interfere with your experiments, observations, interpretations, and conclusions.
Why can the truth only be discovered by taking these predictions into account? Many scientific discoveries were made without the new phenoma having been predicted. Of course knowing the predictions might help us falsify or support the hypothesis more effectively. What precautions must one take for testing the orthodox theological hypothesis?
Many scientific discoveries are spiritually neutral. of no interest to Satan. Others he positively encourages as they open the way for more mayhem. Learning how to pray effectively against these beings is quite analogous to Semmelweis' researches into chlorite solutions as a form of antisepsis.
groktruth wrote:
I gave a list of studies that can be searched out that are encourageing. But I suspect that you may not be all that up on orthodox scientific methodology, and should study that first. Bayesian methods are important. R.A.R. Tricker's little book on The Assessment of Scientific Speculation is good.
Thanks but it would save me a great deal of time if you could answer my questions.
theomatics, bible code studies, especially those presented by the Isaac Newton Bible Codes Review, Frank Loehr's little book, are good examples.
groktruth wrote:
A good example of naive science is in the notion of "discrediting" a piece of research. In orthodox science, the only proper response to a published experiment is to replicate it.
This is routinely done in modern science.
groktruth wrote:
The whole point of there being a "scientific method" is the historical problem of the subjective "explaining away" of data people don't want to believe. How many people died because Semmelweis' data on antisepsis was "discredited" and not replicated! We have this problem today with MacDougal's study weighing souls.
Errors do of course occur in science, and after Semmelweis' death, the method was accepted.
Actually, the soul weighing experiment was replicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Nahum
Also, MacDougall was being somewhat sloppy when performing his experiments:
"The research did not follow the scientific method, showed wide variance in results (21 grams is an arbitrary figure; MacDougall's actual results showed no reliable mean), and were widely dismissed by the scientific community, even at the time. No attempts to duplicate MacDougall's findings have been successful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams#Title
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
I read these posts and found no report of any replication, except confirming studies with mice, confirming that these animals either have no souls, of very small ones. We wish Nahum well, but he hasn't gotten the funding yet.
groktruth wrote:
The theological hypothesis says that if you invest in the search for evidence confirming theological truth "with all your might," that is, as hard as anything you have ever done, you will find the evidence.
What is this theological truth?
Like dark matter, we know something is out there but we do not know what. Indeed, the theological hypothesis, that there is some higher being, like us only more so, of very complex nature, but a person with all of our positive personal traits greatly magnified, indicates that our search ought to be quite open-ended. But in my experience the most successful follow-ups to James call for a "scientific theology" have sought to confirm that there is a Person as self-described in the authorized scriptures, known as the bible.
"with all your might" gives me no information on how to set up an experiment to falsify or support it.
The details of the experiments are in the scriptures. It is recommended there that one begin with the experiment of titheing to "God's Storehouse." Or maybe, "Seeking the Lord with all one's heart." This last requires one to seek out methods of seeking (waiting on the Lord, prayer, fasting, etc.) We all have in our minds and experience a protocol for effective "seeking" involving reading, talking to authorities, going around visiting places where you hope to find what you are looking for. "With all your might" implies that you do your best with whatever protocols you normally use. I was a bird watcher and scientist when I began searching, so I looked for God the same way I looked for a rare bird that I heard was to be found somewhere.
I'd like to see Gallup survey people for their reports of conducting the titheing experiment. Anecdotally, I have heard many reports confirming that experiment, and, well, none where it failed. But I can't claim a good sampling scheme.
groktruth wrote:
Again, naive science whines that if you have a subjective intent to find confirming evidence, you will find such evidence even when none is really there.
"Naive science", or real science, as I'd like to call it, does not say this. There is however the risk that data that can be explained by other hypotheses is claimed to be confirmation of the "pet hypothesis" while data that contradicts it is swept aside.
groktruth wrote:
This idea has a little scientific basis, but the whole point of maturing the scientific method is to prevent this effect. Usually, replication with failed confirmation, followed by a joint effort at confirmation by scientists who got differing results solves the problem.
Indeed.
groktruth wrote:
Orthodox usually means "by the book." Now orthodox theology is based on a critical reading of the Bible, often incorrectly called "the word of God." Being under-critical, called hypocrisy, is, according to the scriptures, a fatal flaw. But diligently applying the rules of scholarship to this book leads to a clear understanding of what it claims. Then those claims can be tested; together, they constitute orthodox theology. Note that it is unorthodox to capitalize (make a name of, institutionalize) orthodox.
So what do these scholars claim what the Bible claims?
Most agree that the Bible is "inspired" by God, which means actually dictated by Him to human writers. That the book contains wisdom, a plan or recipe or pathway that always works, if everything is done decently and in order. Such plans must have an identifiable, even measurable objective, and must include something called faith, as defined in the scriptures, and recognition or acknowledgment of the role Jesus as Messiah or Christ is playing, and has played. Then they are guarenteed to work. For example, Pascal noted that the biblical wisdom for knowing "for sure" about the truth of God's nature required pursuing an actual encounter with God. It was a good bet, in any case, but but to be really sure, you had to get race to face with the Person themselves. He did the "seeking," had the experience, and was transformed by it."
groktruth wrote:
The diligent scholar begins by finding and reading the preface of any book, to see what sort of book they are reading. The scriptures basically assert that they are a coded manual for establishing contact with certain "higher" beings, called Gods. Reading Carl Sagan's Contact will give a pretty good mental image of this notion.
So we can contact the gods by putting a person into a capsule at the center of a spinning gimbal? (I've not read the book, but have seen the movie).
To you, I suggest Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
If there were a preface to Sagan's Covtact, it would say that the work is science fiction. A model for an idea, not the real thing. Naturally, since I am persuaded that science is the faith that is an essential ingredient to all scriptural wisdom, I would find other Sagan writings useful, and will seek them out.What I have read suggests that he threw the theological baby out with the bathwater, was deceived by the religious misrepresentation of the bible.
groktruth wrote:
Only the key to the code for deciphering most of what is written can be taken literally. This includes the warning that to ignore this key guarentees delusion and confusion. Well, we see plenty of that, and all by people who read the book as if it can be taken literally as written.
Where/what is this key?
The key is the set of scriptural verses that refer to the scriptures themselves, coupled with verses that are stated to be "beginning" points, sin qua non's of wisdom pathways. Faith, for example, rightly dividing words of truth, humilty, avoiding hypocrisy. The first "key" verse is "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter." I can only usefully say so much about these keys. Others will only find glory if they themselves search the keys out out.
groktruth wrote:
So, find the preface, work out the key, and then apply the key to the rest of the book. This produces orthodox theology. One of the most important parts of the key is the simple assertion about "true" and false religion (Book of James). Any group with a name is false, and the theology they present unorthodox.
How do you know this assertion is correct?
I attribute a high plausibiliy to this assertion because there are scriptural indicators that they are true, and my application of the keys to these verses confirms and amplifies these conclusions. Meanwhile, I have made as effort over four decades to teat the reliability of the claims of scripture, and found them most reliable. In my experience, if you do what scripture "says," the way it "says" to do it, you get what it promises. So, I trust my application of the keys.
Note, by the way, that the prophetic, or actually "hearing" God's voice is an essential key, and origin of faith, which "comes from hearing" God speak. So, I could say, truly, that I have confidence in the truth of this assertion, because I "heard" God tell me it was true. But most people have a bad or discourteous reaction to such remarks, able to wierdly think that an all-powerful, loving God, who refers to Himself as a father, would not speak to His children so that they knew He was the one talking. That any believer who claims to "hear" God speak, has crossed some line of kookiness, instead of actually dealing with theology as common sense would dictate. Of course, given the insane reaction from most others, truly wise believers who hear God speak exercise much discretion, and are careful who they tell.
groktruth wrote:
This is probably enough for a sensible cost benefit analysis of any decision you may have before you.
Not yet.
Your questions constitute persistence in the search for truth, a sign that you love it. This is a sin qua non of you getting there, by biblical wisdom.
i blame blame Post subject: Re: Atheists vrs SkepticsPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:02 am
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:26 am
Posts: 763
Location: One hour into the future groktruth wrote:
i blame blame,
Good handle!
As to getting the scientific evidence that makes the idea of God very plausible, I recommend that one get a mentor, and explore the rules for knowing what is true with that person.
What sort of mentor would that be?
The wisest person you know personally
groktruth wrote:
Do the following mind experiment with me. A professor looking for good students devises the following test. He wants a particular stone weighed. But the stone is suspected of having a peculiar radioactivity that immediately confuses and befuddles anyone exposed to it. A lead shield prevents this. The prespective student is given this information, then asked to weigh the stone. Students who try to weigh the stone without a lead shield are rejected, as being unteachable.
The orthodox theological hypothesis contains many epistemological predictions, so that if it is true, that truth can only be discovered by taking these predictions into account. The precautions will not confuse the research if the hypothesis is untrue, but predict that ambiguous results will be obtained if they are not taken and the hypothesis is true. (Weighing the stone with tools from behind a lead shield will not bias the weight measurement, but is a hassle.)
What does the hypothesis predict?
One example: If precautions, such as the faith-filled prayer, Deliver us from the evil one. are not taken, invisible demonic beings will confuse, deceive, seduce, or otherwise interfere with your experiments, observations, interpretations, and conclusions.
Why can the truth only be discovered by taking these predictions into account? Many scientific discoveries were made without the new phenoma having been predicted. Of course knowing the predictions might help us falsify or support the hypothesis more effectively. What precautions must one take for testing the orthodox theological hypothesis?
Many scientific discoveries are spiritually neutral. of no interest to Satan. Others he positively encourages as they open the way for more mayhem. Learning how to pray effectively against these beings is quite analogous to Semmelweis' researches into chlorite solutions as a form of antisepsis.
groktruth wrote:
I gave a list of studies that can be searched out that are encourageing. But I suspect that you may not be all that up on orthodox scientific methodology, and should study that first. Bayesian methods are important. R.A.R. Tricker's little book on The Assessment of Scientific Speculation is good.
Thanks but it would save me a great deal of time if you could answer my questions.
theomatics, bible code studies, especially those presented by the Isaac Newton Bible Codes Review, Frank Loehr's little book, are good examples.
groktruth wrote:
A good example of naive science is in the notion of "discrediting" a piece of research. In orthodox science, the only proper response to a published experiment is to replicate it.
This is routinely done in modern science.
groktruth wrote:
The whole point of there being a "scientific method" is the historical problem of the subjective "explaining away" of data people don't want to believe. How many people died because Semmelweis' data on antisepsis was "discredited" and not replicated! We have this problem today with MacDougal's study weighing souls.
Errors do of course occur in science, and after Semmelweis' death, the method was accepted.
Actually, the soul weighing experiment was replicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Nahum
Also, MacDougall was being somewhat sloppy when performing his experiments:
"The research did not follow the scientific method, showed wide variance in results (21 grams is an arbitrary figure; MacDougall's actual results showed no reliable mean), and were widely dismissed by the scientific community, even at the time. No attempts to duplicate MacDougall's findings have been successful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams#Title
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
I read these posts and found no report of any replication, except confirming studies with mice, confirming that these animals either have no souls, of very small ones. We wish Nahum well, but he hasn't gotten the funding yet.
groktruth wrote:
The theological hypothesis says that if you invest in the search for evidence confirming theological truth "with all your might," that is, as hard as anything you have ever done, you will find the evidence.
What is this theological truth?
Like dark matter, we know something is out there but we do not know what. Indeed, the theological hypothesis, that there is some higher being, like us only more so, of very complex nature, but a person with all of our positive personal traits greatly magnified, indicates that our search ought to be quite open-ended. But in my experience the most successful follow-ups to James call for a "scientific theology" have sought to confirm that there is a Person as self-described in the authorized scriptures, known as the bible.
"with all your might" gives me no information on how to set up an experiment to falsify or support it.
The details of the experiments are in the scriptures. It is recommended there that one begin with the experiment of titheing to "God's Storehouse." Or maybe, "Seeking the Lord with all one's heart." This last requires one to seek out methods of seeking (waiting on the Lord, prayer, fasting, etc.) We all have in our minds and experience a protocol for effective "seeking" involving reading, talking to authorities, going around visiting places where you hope to find what you are looking for. "With all your might" implies that you do your best with whatever protocols you normally use. I was a bird watcher and scientist when I began searching, so I looked for God the same way I looked for a rare bird that I heard was to be found somewhere.
I'd like to see Gallup survey people for their reports of conducting the titheing experiment. Anecdotally, I have heard many reports confirming that experiment, and, well, none where it failed. But I can't claim a good sampling scheme.
groktruth wrote:
Again, naive science whines that if you have a subjective intent to find confirming evidence, you will find such evidence even when none is really there.
"Naive science", or real science, as I'd like to call it, does not say this. There is however the risk that data that can be explained by other hypotheses is claimed to be confirmation of the "pet hypothesis" while data that contradicts it is swept aside.
groktruth wrote:
This idea has a little scientific basis, but the whole point of maturing the scientific method is to prevent this effect. Usually, replication with failed confirmation, followed by a joint effort at confirmation by scientists who got differing results solves the problem.
Indeed.
groktruth wrote:
Orthodox usually means "by the book." Now orthodox theology is based on a critical reading of the Bible, often incorrectly called "the word of God." Being under-critical, called hypocrisy, is, according to the scriptures, a fatal flaw. But diligently applying the rules of scholarship to this book leads to a clear understanding of what it claims. Then those claims can be tested; together, they constitute orthodox theology. Note that it is unorthodox to capitalize (make a name of, institutionalize) orthodox.
So what do these scholars claim what the Bible claims?
Most agree that the Bible is "inspired" by God, which means actually dictated by Him to human writers. That the book contains wisdom, a plan or recipe or pathway that always works, if everything is done decently and in order. Such plans must have an identifiable, even measurable objective, and must include something called faith, as defined in the scriptures, and recognition or acknowledgment of the role Jesus as Messiah or Christ is playing, and has played. Then they are guarenteed to work. For example, Pascal noted that the biblical wisdom for knowing "for sure" about the truth of God's nature required pursuing an actual encounter with God. It was a good bet, in any case, but but to be really sure, you had to get race to face with the Person themselves. He did the "seeking," had the experience, and was transformed by it."
groktruth wrote:
The diligent scholar begins by finding and reading the preface of any book, to see what sort of book they are reading. The scriptures basically assert that they are a coded manual for establishing contact with certain "higher" beings, called Gods. Reading Carl Sagan's Contact will give a pretty good mental image of this notion.
So we can contact the gods by putting a person into a capsule at the center of a spinning gimbal? (I've not read the book, but have seen the movie).
To you, I suggest Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
If there were a preface to Sagan's Covtact, it would say that the work is science fiction. A model for an idea, not the real thing. Naturally, since I am persuaded that science is the faith that is an essential ingredient to all scriptural wisdom, I would find other Sagan writings useful, and will seek them out.What I have read suggests that he threw the theological baby out with the bathwater, was deceived by the religious misrepresentation of the bible.
groktruth wrote:
Only the key to the code for deciphering most of what is written can be taken literally. This includes the warning that to ignore this key guarentees delusion and confusion. Well, we see plenty of that, and all by people who read the book as if it can be taken literally as written.
Where/what is this key?
The key is the set of scriptural verses that refer to the scriptures themselves, coupled with verses that are stated to be "beginning" points, sin qua non's of wisdom pathways. Faith, for example, rightly dividing words of truth, humilty, avoiding hypocrisy. The first "key" verse is "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter." I can only usefully say so much about these keys. Others will only find glory if they themselves search the keys out out.
groktruth wrote:
So, find the preface, work out the key, and then apply the key to the rest of the book. This produces orthodox theology. One of the most important parts of the key is the simple assertion about "true" and false religion (Book of James). Any group with a name is false, and the theology they present unorthodox.
How do you know this assertion is correct?
I attribute a high plausibiliy to this assertion because there are scriptural indicators that they are true, and my application of the keys to these verses confirms and amplifies these conclusions. Meanwhile, I have made as effort over four decades to teat the reliability of the claims of scripture, and found them most reliable. In my experience, if you do what scripture "says," the way it "says" to do it, you get what it promises. So, I trust my application of the keys.
Note, by the way, that the prophetic, or actually "hearing" God's voice is an essential key, and origin of faith, which "comes from hearing" God speak. So, I could say, truly, that I have confidence in the truth of this assertion, because I "heard" God tell me it was true. But most people have a bad or discourteous reaction to such remarks, able to wierdly think that an all-powerful, loving God, who refers to Himself as a father, would not speak to His children so that they knew He was the one talking. That any believer who claims to "hear" God speak, has crossed some line of kookiness, instead of actually dealing with theology as common sense would dictate. Of course, given the insane reaction from most others, truly wise believers who hear God speak exercise much discretion, and are careful who they tell.
groktruth wrote:
This is probably enough for a sensible cost benefit analysis of any decision you may have before you.
Not yet.
Your questions constitute persistence in the search for truth, a sign that you love it. This is a sin qua non of you getting there, by biblical wisdom.
Last edited by groktruth on Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Metadigital
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:10 pm
- Location: Dallas, Tx
Re: Looking for friends
???Godfree wrote:Hi grok , your not winning many friends on Atheists vrs Skeptics,,
quite the opposite.
Just because people disagree on certain things doesn't mean they can't be friends (or at least friendly).
You're being a little harsh on groktruth here. Just because it might have been a deviation doesn't make it nonsense. Also, there are pages of actual nonsense proceeding groktruth's posts. Let's be civil, k?Godfree wrote:I would rather you didn't fill my thread with your nonsense,,
you are of course entitled to your opinion,
but your posts don't fit within the theme of the thread.