By validly I do not at all mean "scientifically verifiable". I simply mean "sensibly". As in, to excerscise good sense, or to be reasonable. Scientifically verificable is implicit to this, but sensibility is much broader. Jenyar, I trust that you're a well-meaning individual, but THIS is why you are a convuluted mess. That is NOT A REASONABLE STATEMENT. You may be an excellent regurgitator, but you obviously don't have a lick of sense because this kind of reasoning (which all of many of your posts is riddled with) is simply pre-kindergarden. You use your book as an excuse to SHUT OFF YOUR BRAIN. For that, there is NO EXCUSE. Do you really need me to point out the flaw there or can you turn your brain on for like a half a second and 'divine' some knowledge? I would respond to the rest of the post but as it seems your brain is on seemingly permanent vacation, I have a hard time mustering the effort.
Wes, It's easier to respond to one objection at a time, anyway. What I mean with that statement is within the context of the rest of my post. That sentence alone makes no sense, that's easy to see. If I say: the fact that I can have knowledge about X, suggests the existence of X - I mean sensible knowledge, as you put it. To quote CS Lewis, it is not the person with the best eyes who knows most about light. It is the person who has made a study of it. If you can study and confirm the properties of a pinprick of light on your floor, you have taken hold of at least some knowledge about the source. Even if it is only what kind of light it produces. I have found a sample of light, studied it, applied the results and confirmed them, and I am convinced the "light" is not self generated, even though what I see is everything that there is for me to know, I am still convinced there is more to it, more of it, of a different nature, but with clear traceable connection to this speck and its properties. Following from above example, if I now said: 'The fact the I can have knowledge about light, suggest that there is "light" to have knowledge about', it would make sense.
True. I don't think it's possible to establish a context in which a sentence like that provides any credible analysis or conveyance of information. I'm sorry Jenyar, but it still doesn't work. Of course you'd like your knowledge to be sensible. Everyone would, but your desire has no leverage on the truth except maybe in its perception. Yes but Jenyar, if what you study is imaginary but you think it real, what knowledge to you gain from this study? It may be pertinent in moral lesson, etc... but it's a very slippery slope my friend and you have apparently fallen long ago. You are being offered a hand but you don't think you need it. So it must be with delusion until it is shattered. That was beautiful Jenyar and I see your meaning, but it fails to really address anything. It is simply distracting from the point. According to Hawking, it is not possible that the universe actually had a beginning. He says "what place then, for a creator?". Well then, what place? The bible says there was a beginning. You think hawking is lying or just misled? Would you rather bend your interpretation to fit his assertion? It doesn't make sense because it's a pointless sentence. It is analagous to saying "the fact that I can breathe air suggest that there is air for me to breathe." Breathing implies that I breath something and I just said it was air. Then concluding that there is air is a non-statement.
Wes You dismiss and prove my point at the same time. The knowledge I gain from this study was that moral implications - the unseen reality - are just as valid in life as the visible reality that you think I have slipped from. Knowledge about God, wisdom, love, and morality are not gained from the kind of scientific enquiry you propose. I do need that offered hand, but I prefer it to be sincere and honest; I value your perspective because it differs from my own. But it is just as much or little "delusion" as my own view. It depends on whether you believe Hawking had taken all the variables into account. There are people who believe the universe is finite. If the universe is timeless, then it is a natural and fitting (at least as it could be described from from a human perspective) domain for God to exist in. Unless Hawking also said somewhere the earth and the life on it existed since eternity, in which case I would differ. If the universe is finite, then it might just mean we are unable to comprehend any existence over and above the temporal, and it doesn't preclude God either. Anyway, it's strange that you and Hawking can comprehend such a theoretical expression as "infinitity" to be just as real as finity - the reality which we are able to comprehend - and not be able to believe that God could also be real: an incomprehensible "theoretical" reality, but a reality nontheless. I think what you (and Hawking) are challenging, is creation ex nihilo, which is not a black and white Biblical doctrine anyway. We have never defined "nothing" (we are hard pressed to even comprehend it). We can only imagine the concept as the opposite of what exists. But if only God existed "before" creation, there was no "nothing" either, and cerainly no "non-existence". That "pre-existent" means "non-existent" is a Platonic notion we have inherited from the Greeks, it was not present in Jewish thought as far as we (and they) know. A statement that the matter of creation was "always knowable" is a projection of current knowledge, which is not an objective observation of history, or even of scientific gathering of knowledge. Creation is the transition between the unknowable into the knowable.
What vacuous blather! Based on what? Your "70 books" of the Septuagint? What makes it "natural and fitting". Is it more "natural and fitting" for your God-construct than others? Again, based on what? Is it a more "natural and fitting ... domain" for your God-construct than it is for, say, Mermaids, Pixies, and Unicorns?
Wow. You're like conscience incarnate! Nothing makes it natural and fitting except that "eternal" goes with "eternal" if you look at it temporally. If Pixies, mermaids, and unicorns are real and eternal, then by all means it is a fitting reality for them to exist in. It certainly isn't an anachronistic reality (excuse the pun). But thanks for the support, Jenyar of the 70 books.
No, I don't debate the value of a moral lesson, it's just that morals are superfluous to the applicability of the book and its presumptions. I would however state that moral lessons are well, a dime a dozen. I agree completely that intangibles are of great value. You don't need supernatural bullshit to understand love and morality or to be as wise as is possible. Scientific inquiry is the only fair means to test theories. Otherwise people will believe anything won't they Jenyar? Hehe. Regardless, I never proposed scientific inquiry for moral endeavors, etc. I have no religion and no god Jenyar, yet I'm perfectly capable of understanding the things you think you can only understand through god. It's ridiculous really. I loved it when posed "love" as some great mystery in a prior post. Hehe, it will always be a mystery if you think the only way to gain knowledge of it is divination. If I'm not mistaken, you painted it into a picture than could never be understood. I beg to differ. I think I understand exactly what love is. (but that's a different conversation maybe? at least a different post. I discussed it in detail in a thread called Love and Hate, but am too lazy to look up the link) I am always honest but as a smartass I'm only mostly sincere. I'm sorry to call what you believe in a delusion, but it's an honest call from where I am. In a way, I'm glad for you that you have something that makes you feel good even though it's a crock of shit... IRL, I wouldn't jack with you about it (unless you were open to discussing it objectively and could keep a cool head) because to me happiness is more important, well... and a lot of other things come into play... so well. Maybe you get the point. Do you think you're properly accounting for variables that he isn't? I'm using only using him as an example. I don't take his analysis on authority, I just think he has a very convincing argument. But almost surely Jenyar, the universe is not timeless. Current analysis estimates a universe that is approximately 15 billion years old. I think he'd agree that the earth has not existed for eternity. Pardon my presumption of his opinion. *sigh* sure, Jenyar. Hehe... but uh.. you just said you couldn't comprehend it, then tried to put something (god) in there where you just said you couldn't comprehend it. Hell I can do that to but what good does it do me? Ah, I see, it could be useful as a tool for me to promote my presumption to myself. Excellent. Don't you understand that that is exactly how brainwashing works? That is exactly how a cult gets members. Inifinity is a mathematical tool. Finity is a word you just made up. Jenyar, this may shock you: I believe god could be real. However, I believe that "god" as you refer to it as in the abrahamic god or the god of 'scripture' is about as valid as that space-ship that was hiding behind shoemaker-levy 9. Though I am glad you didn't drink the koolaid or whatever. No, I'm not at all challenging anything the bible says. I'm writing the entire thing off as entirely irrelevant. I couldn't tell you for sure if that's what Hawking was doing. My guess is that he did the same thing I did. I know this may be getting old to you Jenyar, in that I keep disecting your stuff and calling it silly but man... that's kind of silly. Hehe, nothing is easily defined as "the absense of everything". While that might not be your intended context, why do you presume that so many things cannot be comprehended? I think you are right though. I mean, if you think you can't comprehend them, you surely won't be able to because you won't even try. To me that's sad. What if you are able but selling yourself short? What a waste. Oh I see, if it's not in the scripture you can't know of it? Is that it? How do you expect to understand anything if you don't try? Hehe, and you claim to make sense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe you do to someone with similiar assumptions, but to me it sounds like a horrific mess you've gotten yourself into. I'm sure Jesus will guide you out of it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well technically Jenyar "we" don't imagine anything. Individuals imagine particular things when you say "nothing". It generally is used in context such that it's a usefull word. One's imagination will, at the time of using the word, put it in the appropriate context. I think you're really talking about "no one can imagine timelessness" or "the complete lack of time". Is that correct? So you're saying that you have some kind of clue beyond the singularity? That's silly. The nature of the singularity as we know it is that you cannot know what was before it. Sure, maybe it was the abrahamic god. It's as likely as literally everything else. It's as likely as well, the pre-universe universe consisting entirely of my butt. The point is that there is nothing that is any more or less likely than anything else because there is no way to know what is or is not more likely beyond the singularity. So you're theorizing about Cris's gnome on your shoulder. Your insight is delusion. I don't care what the greeks said. We have stacked a world of understanding and information on top of their groundbreaking innovations. No, the projection of current knowledge states that "the start is unknowable", based on the apparent reality (which is ALWAYS up for analysis) that there was no time before that for us to analyze. how is history relevant in this context? Argh, very muddled. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I can tell you it's not making sense. I wish I could get you to stop RIGHT THERE and think about what you JUST said because man, you just tipped your non-existent hand my brother. Therein you've defined your explicit hypocracy. Do you see my meaning? You claim to know what you just defined as unknowable. Substituting "the singularity" for "creation" in your sentence, I agree with it. It's funny that you don't agree with you on this matter.
I submit that morals (and their value) are not superfluous to the applicability of a book that emphasize morality above all else. Especially if those morals are closely if not inextricably connected with another "intangible", vis a vis God. I do not suggest that you need God to understand or practise morality (in fact I think I made that explicit in one of my posts). I am saying that if you live in a house that is evidently not yours, you should pay homage to the owner. So love is not a mystery to you? I'll make a point of looking for your post. In the meantime, I'll assume you are capable of making anybody fall in love with you once you've explained and proven it to them. Must be useful. To use my light example again: you might know all the mechanics and qualities of light, even all its manifestations, but can you create it or control it by knowledge alone? Morality is likewise a tool. A tool for exploiting (if that's the word) love. On this side of "valid", you have the inner working, the science - on the other side of its validity, you have its reality, its metaphysics, its "soul". Let's just say I know enough about love to know that no definition you could give it would stop your wife from having an affair, for instance. The "but you said He lives in the realm of incomprehensibility" trick doesn't work on me, wes. Everything you said, and everything I said points to a frontier where what we know (and can know) ends, and where I what I will call "mystery" begins. When undiscovered truth lies in the realm of the unknown, it doesn't mean the truth (or parts of it) we do have are not valid or does not exist. You say the universe has a boundary (currently at 15 billion years). If God was temporal, your objection that I put Him where knowledge end, would be valid. But I don't. I don't propose that God is an extention of any scientific knowledge we have or could ever have. He does not fill any "gaps", and certainly not mine. I try to understand things at least as much as you do, I'm sure. Remember it is your belief that God is unknowable, not mine. Hence your lack of knowledge about the Abrahamic God, is my guess. Even if you did read it, you're obviously prejudiced about it. The Bible is a history of a people's experiences with one God, ever since experience could be coherently recorded. It is not complete knowledge, it is not politically correct knowledge, but if you throw sand over clear glass, you can discern some kind of shape. Science does the same thing. What I meant with "scientific gathering of knowledge" is this: Science is also a history - a meticulously recorded and tested history, but history nontheless. Some "facts" have been replaced by others, some were only refined - but they still pointed to the same reality. It is measured, weighed and classified grains of sand thrown on our physical world. But if intelligence and imagination were not necessary, there would be no brilliant scientists or even conflicting theories - only dedicated scientists and incomplete theories. There is a strong human factor involved. Science measures our progress on a path that is very real and confirmed beneath our feet, but we cannot see beyond the horizon with the same certainty. At one stage, that path travels into the unknown. You will agree with me: it does not make the path we are standing on any less credible or certain, even if it is a little rough and uneven. The history recorded in the Bible is no different. It is the history of relationships, decisions, events, warnings, emotions, moralities, religions, beliefs, art... with one important consideration: God. There is still the human factor, but the reality uncovered is no less real for it. In fact, because people and relationships are inegral to the study, it is made that much more relevant. The Bible presents an eternal present, with only a vaguely projected future. But we can see the path for what it is with very little uncertainty, based on the ground that has been covered. Which is where we come to you mind-boggling statements: How can you know where you are going if you do not learn from the past? You might question it or not, accept it or not. But that you reject the history of Jewish thought and accept the history of the Greeks without any apparent reason other than preference is disturbing. You might prefer logic above record because of your experiene with it, but that denies that humanity had other ways of recording experience before logic was invented. I share your bias against anything that does not adhere to the logical structures of rational thought or scientific analysis, but I do not let it extend to the integrity of people. If I take the morality taught and even enforced throughout scripture, and superimpose it on the authors (whoever they might are might not have been), I get a certain picture. It is a picture I have seen in miniature - like a fractal - experienced and corroborated within my own life and have compared with the experiences and conclusions of others (along with information and understanding "stacked upon" our predescessors). Where they were wrong we can see it now, and where they made sense we have used it in our thought. So it has been since the time of Jesus. The Jews have gone through a similar process. Islam only started fairly recently, and although for entirely different reasons they do the same as you: they question or reject the foundations from which their way of life developed. It's a bit like skipping the proof and jumping to the conclusion. Just to make sure you understand me clearly. I do think God is His entirety and in His mystery is unknowable. But even some mysteries become clear. Parts become known. We search and explore and expand our thought. But I don't reject the reality of that knowledge, because the origin and future is blurred by the mists of time and the veil of obscurity. You don't question that the Greeks were onto something, or the historicity of Plato, because you can attest to the validity and effects of their thought. And we have much less record for Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle, Caesar, Aristophanus, Socrates (who was among other things a Christian historian), Philo or Plato (through whom we get most of Socrates' ideas), than we have for Jesus. (Manuscript reliability)
You are simply hopeless Jenyar. As I've said, it is as it must be with delusion or it would be called something else.
Addressed: "You say the universe has a boundary (currently at 15 billion years). If God was temporal, your objection that I put Him where knowledge ends, would be valid. But I don't. I don't propose that God is an extention of any scientific knowledge we have or could ever have. He does not fill any "gaps", and certainly not mine. I try to understand things at least as much as you do, I'm sure. Remember it is your belief that God is unknowable, not mine." I do have hope, it just doesn't lie on your side of certainty.
