Christianity

[seeds]

...nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects. This means, in particular, "that human beings, their volitions and their choices" are not "causal agents, capable of initiating particular effects and actuating alternative outcomes."

BigMike, you had a similar argument with Harry Baird back in August (in this same thread) where you stated the following...

You just don't get it, do you? Consciousness can not push atoms around. End of discussion.

...of which I countered with this...

Nonsense!

Every time you raise an arm to scratch an itch on your head, it represents a situation where consciousness (your own consciousness) is pushing a vast number of atoms around.

Indeed, this,...



...for example, represents a situation where the consciousness of the signer is using atoms to convey that which resides within her own mind, to the minds of other consciousnesses.

Indeed, even hardcore materialism itself refutes your claim...

As I have stated to my (hopefully) good Internet friend, uwot,...


_______

Now I make no secret of the fact that I (like Berkeley) believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness.

In which case, just as we cannot reach into each other's minds and willfully grasp and control each other's mental imaging energy in the same way that we control our own mental imaging energy,...

...likewise, neither can our wills reach out and "directly" grasp and control the material fabric of the universe (i.e., the mental imaging energy of the higher Being to whom the energy [and universe] belongs).

So, you are absolutely correct to claim that our wills have no "direct" influence over the material fabric of the universe.*

In other words, no, we cannot change water into wine, or cause the flab around our guts to disappear just by thinking it.
-------
*(However, according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of our consciousness may be required to initiate the collapse of the wavefunction. So, in that sense, we do indeed have direct influence over whether or not the features of the universe will appear in their positionally-fixed, three-dimensional forms, or simply remain as superpositioned fields of quantum information, or what Heisenberg called "potentia" or potential reality.)
_______

I'm not going to bother restating what I've already said numerous times both here and elsewhere, so let's move on. Science-deniers like you just don't grasp it.

Me, a "science denier"?

In the immortal words often uttered by John McEnroe to a hapless line umpire:

"...you cannot be serious!!!..."

What in the world makes you think that I'm a science denier?
_______

[seeds]

Now I make no secret of the fact that I (like Berkeley) believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness.

While it might not be unreasonable to believe that the universe could be the mind of a "higher" consciousness, it is very unlikely that you possess any knowledge or information that would justify a belief that it actually is. If you did have such knowledge, then, as far as I am aware, you would be the only person in existence to have it. While that is possible, I think it highly improbable.

which would be more improbable?

• 1. That I might possibly possess such knowledge?

...or...

• 2. That you would believe me if I said I did?

_______

[Harbal]

which would be more improbable?

• 1. That I might possibly possess such knowledge?

...or...

• 2. That you would believe me if I said I did?

_______

I think it incredibly unlikely that you do possess such knowledge, and no, I probably wouldn't believe you if you said you did.

[Sculptor]

Now I make no secret of the fact that I (like Berkeley) believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness.

While it might not be unreasonable to believe that the universe could be the mind of a "higher" consciousness, it is very unlikely that you possess any knowledge or information that would justify a belief that it actually is. If you did have such knowledge, then, as far as I am aware, you would be the only person in existence to have it. While that is possible, I think it highly improbable.

which would be more improbable?

• 1. That I might possibly possess such knowledge?

...or...

• 2. That you would believe me if I said I did?

_______

It is improbable that you could have such knowledge - even if it were true.
It is also highly improbable that anyone would believe you if you said you did.
It's worth adding that there is a very high improbability that such a thing could be true since the only examples of consciousness we have flowered very late in the history of the universe.

The level of improbability that you knew a thing which is improbable and that anyone would believe you concerning this improbable thing, or that such a thing were true are so high as to not be possible to compare them would be absurd any beyond quantification.

[Sculptor]

Nonsense!

Every time you raise an arm to scratch an itch on your head, it represents a situation where consciousness (your own consciousness) is pushing a vast number of atoms around.

Actually no.
You think there is a ghost inside the body operating it like a manikin.
Although it is a common way to think about such things; it is more likely that you conceive if these things backwards.
Experimentally a CAT scanner can predict the decision of a brain before the subject is conscious of making that decision.
This would imply that we are acting deterministically all the time but our consciousness of our decisions and movements come AFTER such actions.
In fact it has to be this way or we would never be able to drive a car or play a piano. Were we to have to make conscious choices about every piano key we hit and with what pressure we could neve keep time.
And you should be aware that as you think things through as you read and type you are unaware of the necessary and obviously complex computations that have to happen (as it were) behind the scenes.

[Harry Baird]

So, I go on vacation for a few days, and this is what I return to. How am I supposed to trust you guys when you let Immanuel Can raid the liquor cabinet every time I'm away. I mean, seriously.

OK, so, let's address this:

[Recently] I was engaged in a discussion in which my interlocutor was bluntly accusing God Himself of injustice and of unsuitability to judge.

No, fool, you're again begging the question: that question being whether the Biblical presentation of God is consistent. I have pointed out to you that there are two options in this regard for the God of a Biblically-inspired Christianity: either (1) that the argument that I presented to you succeeds, in which case, Christianity is contradictory given its view of God, and thus cannot be true as a whole, or, (2) that Christianity's key texts are so perversely deceptive - a form of doublespeak - as to invalidate a basic tenet of the religion - that the Bible is the true and reliable Word of God - and thus that, again, Christianity cannot be true as a whole.

Your sophistical response, which I briefly called you out on, was actually a non-response: essentially, you embraced the doublespeak of #2: that whatever the Bible says is justice is justice, even though it is the exact opposite of justice - the meaning of words be damned!

Good luck with that when you confront God and explain that you've accused Deity of the most horrific of injustices in the name of justice. Meditate on that a little, fool.

By the way, there's nothing to worry about with respect to God, because, despite your freakish beliefs, God is genuinely loving and just, and forgives you for your delusional misunderstanding. The Devil, though, will take full advantage of them.

So he needed to understand that the Bible was very clear on the point. And I'm sure I put that beyond all doubt

It was never in doubt, fool. That's the very point.

God must vindicate His righteousness, and prove that Harry's accusation is entirely false, by dealing with evil thoroughly and according to the manner that a truly righteous judge would.

Here, folks, we have an otherwise intelligent man claiming more or less explicitly that to burn a person in unimaginable torment in hell for ever and ever and ever and ever, for finite, potentially very minor, transgressions, is a "righteous" judgement that will be made by a wholly loving, omnipotent God.

We continue, then, to wait for the scales to fall from Immanuel Can's eyes.

[Walker]

We continue, then, to wait for the scales to fall from Immanuel Can's eyes.

Hell is the result of the inevitability of causation set up by natural laws. Forever is the eternal now, and hell can only exist now. Ergo, you do certain things and you will be in hell now, and you won’t be able to leave it unless you do other things. IC probably agrees, because I have not see that contradicted in his writings.

[Harry Baird]

Now, as for determinism, Immanuel Can has demonstrated his prodigious capacity for cogent argument... when the topic is right. He has spoken not a false word on this topic. Oddly, it has been a case of one fool schooling another - but then, we're all fools in our own ways.

[Walker]

Now, as for determinism, Immanuel Can has demonstrated his prodigious capacity for cogent argument... when the topic is right. He has spoken not a false word on this topic. Oddly, it has been a case of one fool schooling another - but then, we're all fools in our own ways.

If all are perceived as fools, why single out one, or in the case of schooling, why single out two?

[Harry Baird]

If all are perceived as fools, why single out one, or in the case of schooling, why single out two?

Context.

[Harry Baird]

Could you [Nick_A --Harry] define the object of religiosity of the sort you see as integral to Christianity without reference to Christianity, to the advent of Jesus, outside of the Bible, and outside of the Hebrew revelation? Does the essence of Christianity depend on the incarnated, and then disincarnated, figure of Jesus?

My question is a leading one and somewhat rhetorical. But I think it is an important one to bring up. I'd rather do that now, at page 550, than later at, say 891. I'm sure you understand!

AJ, this is almost exactly the question that several of us have tried at various points to ask of you! Can you take it upon yourself to offer your own answer?!

[Walker]

If all are perceived as fools, why single out one, or in the case of schooling, why single out two?

Context.

Care to flesh that out with the intent of changing, or at least edifying for any interested, what you think needs to be changed in regards to form and/or content?

[Harry Baird]

Care to flesh that out with the intent of changing, or at least edifying for any interested, what you think needs to be changed in regards to form and/or content?

Not being a fool. The foolishness I've already elucidated.

[Walker]

No need to be stingy.

[Harry Baird]

No need to be stingy.

Quite right.