John Pinion "God's merely an imaginary figure created by humans"--Treize Khushrenada
You and Larry Wines like this.
Thursday 19 November 2009
Thursday 29 October 2009
For Your Health (1)
Swine flu arose as a normal, non-lethal flu in the spring or 1918, but somehow, over the following months -- no-one knows how or where -- it mutated into something more severe. Then in 1933, the 50s and again in the seventies a strain of the same flu known as the Russian H1N1 broke out - Bill Bryson. The current virus of 2009 is known as: Pandemic H1N1/09 virus. "This new strain appears to be a result of reassortment of human influenza and swine influenza viruses, in all four different strains of subtype H1N1." - Wikipedia
Tuesday 13 October 2009
God
i couldn't get this straight on paper, only in my head, so i had a fellow philosopher help me out...
i had formed these words in my head, but never were they to reach paper successfully. after conversing and questioning my friend, Andy Wooten, it slowly got clearer and clearer in my mind. after a while of not being able to write anything that made sense Andy sent me what was in my head via the internet in typed format.
i did a very small bit of editing, but everything else is thanks to a great friend: Andy Wooten.
It's a pretty simplistic construct. whenever people try to make a logic argument about the existence of god, they define god as the maximally great being.
we can look at god, therefore, as containing all possibilities of existence, i.e. infinity. one commonly put out holds that physics tells us that the possibility for anything that can be conceptualized is equal with the possibility for any other specific thing that can be conceptualized and that both those possibilities therefore exist somewhere within the multiverse. therefore, if we can conceptualize a mgb (maximally great being), then one exists somewhere in the multiverse, and the very nature of an mgb tells us that it would have maximal power everywhere in the multiverse. the problem with this proof is whether or not we can conceptualize god. Returning to the definition, god is infinity, all possibilities, the alpha and omega, the unmoved mover, Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, whatever. Imagine this in a numerical sense - if we were to have one point that contained all numbers, from -infinity to +infinity, then that set is zero, for it contains the negation of the possibility as well as the possibility. in other words, if god contains all possibilities, is "maximally great," then it must contain the possibility of no god at all, thus it's own negation. it's clear how the system is self-contradictory and inherently negates its self - thus making god impossible to conceptualize unless you define it as limited in power - but if god is limited in power then why call it god? even using a very loose definition of what can and cannot be conceptualized that allows for paradoxes, all that a maximally great being would mean is that this being negates itself and brings the metaphorical count back to zero - the condition of there being no god, i.e. if god exists then in effect there is no god.
fin.
thank you Andy Wooten for putting this down for me, i would have never gotten everything straight
another note from Andy:
it's a flawed proof though - firstly, a finite mind cannot conceptualize or begin to understand the universe in totality, secondly, physics tells us that the natural laws only work in our universe, it is possible and probable that other universes within the multiverse have different laws or even no laws at all. to try and apply the construct of ... Read More logic to something as ever-expansive as the multiverse is just plain childish - our vaunted qualities of rationality and reason are simply slightly elevated animal instincts and will never be able to understand the multiverse or even our own planet with our limited capacities. just because a system is self-contradictory doesn't mean it cannot exist. i mean shit, logic is self-contradictory too. the only way logic works is if you make a base assumption - that logic equals truth. the real problem is that you're never going to "prove" or "disprove" god because it's a metaphysical being - it's beyond our existence, thus we're never going to know
Puddle driver
WATCH THE VIDEO THEN GO TO THE SECOND LINK BEFORE READING MY POST
Driver drenches kids at bus stop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On1drhgxGWU
Police investigate puddle driver:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi
amazing, but i don't think he should get fined because he was driving inside the lines, and he didn't have to go out of his way and swerve over or drive off the road to splash the kids. public works should be responsible for making proper street draining infrastructure so drivers don't have to swerve out of the way of a puddle. especially in a rainy place like En gland. i see it like so: public works/the city doesn't make a proper street draining gutter system--so the local government feels it necessary to perfect the imperfections of their infrastructure by giving fines to who does not adapt to the flaws of their own roads. i.e. you're not allowed to cross solid painted lines on the road, but you're supposed to avoid puddles to prevent splashing and hydro-planing, this almost always means crossing solid lines at some point if it's raining and the roads are shitty. it's not a loophole but a flaw. and that is that when there are puddles within solid lines of the road, one must drive through it to follow the law. this Briton should not get any penalty of any sort. as soon as public works and the city/local government gets their shit straight, then they can fine whomever they please as long as they are breaking the law. the driver broke no law as long as he wasn't speeding and was staying within the confines of his road. true it's safe to slow down for puddles, but I'm saying that tax paying citizens should not have to, because puddles should not accumulate on city streets. sure it was a bit rude to shower the bus stop kids in street water, but no other lines were crossed here, as in laws. I've never heard of anyone being fined for inconsiderate driving; he may be the first.
Monday 5 October 2009
My Stay In England
Amersham is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest place in the U.K. It seems a lot harder to get rid of someone around here, especially one's peers. Everyone seems to live very close to each other, but there are fewer people. Things are more spread out here. There are fields, forests and hedgerows everywhere. Though everything is more spread out than in the states, everyone seems to know each other better.
The rumors are true about the tea here; everybody who’s anybody drinks it, and it’s pretty good stuff. There wasn’t a single day that went by that I didn’t have somebody ask if I wanted a cup of tea. The most prominent local culture is a tea drinking, job working, and Hollywood obsessed people. The music tastes among the people I got to meet all had too many artists in common to call the population “musically diverse”. Top forty pop music seems to be in the heads of everyone aged 6 to 35. Eminem is also oddly popular among my peers.
I have really gotten a good feel for what it is like to live here in England, in Amersham where most of my younger childhood was spent.
Everybody is so close to each other it is hard to get away. So, naturally, one is forced to deal with not being able to get away. I’d say one becomes more acquainted. I have often found myself cruising along the small, windy, dark roads in the passenger seat of a newly met friend’s car always listening to FM radio that only plays current top of the chart pop music, unless you prefer classical.
I used to hate listening to the pop music. Now it’s not so bad. I’ve realized that it’s just music to pass the time and sometimes entertain, but rarely fill any deep holes within your mind. Usually the tune has a steady beat with simple words that don’t matter or can’t be easily understood. Either way it’s unimportant. I’ve gotten used to it because the pop music leaves me alone. I feel no emotions from it. It’s just hyper-produced emptiness to me. It leaves me empty and doesn’t get in my way.
Everyone I met just wanted to be friends. I never got the bitterness and the “leave me alone, I’m breathing” attitude like I do in the states.
Only the Sith Deal in Absolutes.
had to post this because i put a lot of effort into it just to be a comment, i thought it worthy of note status.
and sorry if it pisses you off that i've tagged you, sct, but you are in this note, just so you know. ; )
Only the Sith Deal in Absolutes. ------------good and bad (morals and ethics as well) comes from man and it's creation of religion. believing in absolutes is ok, but admitting to absolutes is not ok? i suppose killing is bad. but that would be an absolute if i thought it was completely bad. there is no scientific room for God, but he could be science itself. sure. but i don't believe in him existing. i'd be astounded if there were such a higher power than protons neutrons electrons and quarks. i guess i leave a little room for the possibility of the existence of higher powers, but i doubt it being true. so i believe in not believing, but i'm not absolute about anything. so you can ask me my religion and i'll say atheist, but more accurately nihilist, but im not 100% about anything. how can anyone be? it's ignorance in it's simplest. there are always unknowns (i think). the question one should ask when inquiring about religion should be, "what is your religion" and "how sure are you out of 100%". i think then you can truly tell some that they're complete buffoons. i mean how is anyone supposed to know if someone is 67% Buddhist unless they ask or just come up with it right after you ask about religion. im not so quick to call someone 'bad' if i ask about religion, atheism and Christianity are absolutes, but the people don't have to buy all the way into it. this is obvious. you can't really pick and choose which part of a religion you like and don't like though. i don't want to go around telling people "oh, well im partial to Nihilism, but Buddhism strikes my fancy on Thursdays when im feeling unproductive and wearing dresses. usually around Sunday afternoon i think about taking up Agnosticism again but it's really been pissing me off so Shintoism is my cup of tea on Monday. the rest of the time i'm just partial to Nihilism".......ok so we all cant wear signs on our heads saying "JEW", "88% absolute". so we pick one and get on with our lives. some of us, though, say we're all silly to pick one and go about our day willy nilly. a title or religion or label to give someone who's not absolute on anything i would say have to be agnostic or non-committal; we can always find a label, even for nothing. Scott, to put you under a label i pick relativist. To be a relativist, one must believe that (a) There is no truth, (b) Nothing is knowable, and (c) Nothing is meaningful. im sure you already know this but do you see why i put you under this label?
here's the link to the full convo if you have facebook: http://www.facebook.com/no
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
God is anything but imaginary.
Neal: No.
Charlie: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The Santa Clause... Read More
(Insert touch where all seens are)
The great thing about God is that...He is more than just something in the head and cannot be seen. The God I believe in and know is very present in life, and more directly in my own. He has shown me very clearly things that no other person would know about other people, and ... Read Moreinsights in situations. I have felt his unimaginable peace when faced with death, financial despair, and family hardships. I have seen unexplained and impossible healings that only God can do, and as He leads and directs me in my life and helped me to find my way when I was lost and confused in what to do as vocation, he helped me see my purpose...and I am now living a life where I feel more fulfilled than I ever have in anything I tried myself just to try. He is more than in my head...he is by my side, in my heart, and guiding me, giving me strength and boldness to do things I never dreamed I could ever do. My relationship with Jesus is personal and very real.
If you don't believe in God, that is your own choice, but God does not need your permission to exist and be present on this earth. Even more importantly, even if you reject him and want nothing to do with him, even then he still loves you and in fact grieves over your separated relationship. He has made a way through Jesus for anyone who wants to have a personal relationship with him can and will be given his peace, guidance, and more than we ever asked for (maybe not in material possession, but things like self-control, joy, and what we need). But those who don't will be faced with the day that he does physically show himself to them, and they will forever be separated from him, loved ones, and anything good and right. They will live in eternal abandonment with no relationships with people or other beings, loneliness, and unimaginable pain and suffering, with no hope of escape, rescue, or relief. That is the destiny of all of us, but even at our worst Jesus took that sentence for us by dieing and coming back to life, giving all of us who believe and follow him a chance to not only not go to that Hell, but to enjoy everything that is good, pleasurable, and right, and gain a perfect relationship we have never experienced before through God.
we can look at god, therefore, as containing all possibilities of existence, i.e. infinity. one commonly put out holds that physics tells us that the possibility for anything that can be conceptualized is equal with the possibility for any other specific thing that can be conceptualized and that both those possibilities therefore exist somewhere within the multiverse. therefore, if we can conceptualize a mgb (maximally great being), then one exists somewhere in the multiverse, and the very nature of an mgb tells us that it would have maximal power everywhere in the multiverse. the problem with this proof is whether or not we can conceptualize god. Returning to the definition, god is infinity, all possibilities, the alpha and omega, the unmoved mover, Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, whatever. Imagine this in a numerical sense - if we were to have one point that contained all numbers, from -infinity to +infinity, then that set is zero, for it contains the negation of the possibility as well as the possibility. in other words, if god contains all possibilities, is "maximally great," then it must contain the possibility of no god at all, thus it's own negation. it's clear how the system is self-contradictory and inherently negates its self - thus making god impossible to conceptualize unless you define it as limited in power - but if god is limited in power then why call it god? even using a very loose definition of what can and cannot be conceptualized that allows for paradoxes, all that a maximally great being would mean is that this being negates itself and brings the metaphorical count back to zero - the condition of there being no god, i.e. if god exists then in effect there is no god.
fin.
it's a flawed proof though - firstly, a finite mind cannot conceptualize or begin to understand the universe in totality, secondly, physics tells us that the natural laws only work in our universe, it is possible and probable that other universes within the multiverse have different laws or even no laws at all. to try and apply the construct of ... Read More logic to something as ever-expansive as the multiverse is just plain childish - our vaunted qualities of rationality and reason are simply slightly elevated animal instincts and will never be able to understand the multiverse or even our own planet with our limited capacities. just because a system is self-contradictory doesn't mean it cannot exist. i mean shit, logic is self-contradictory too. the only way logic works is if you make a base assumption - that logic equals truth. the real problem is that you're never going to "prove" or "disprove" god because it's a metaphysical being - it's beyond our existence, thus we're never going to know ... Read More
What is love? It is nothing we can see, but we feel deeply in our beings and experience. We know it exists through our relationships with others, through marriage, friendships, and the love of parents to their children that is so great they would give their lives to save their child's.
We can't see it, or touch it...but we know it exists. We can't scientifically prove it, or gauge it by universal laws, and still it's there. There is no rationale behind it, and it doesn't always make sense. But there it is. ... Read More
I am not here to give you scientific proof that God exists or argue over what he is and the laws of the universe. I will admit I don't know all the scientific systems in how the universe moves, but just as I cannot prove love, I know God exists. Love is a thing that requires us to become vulnerable to others and be selfless. In this world that is something ridiculous...to relinquish a prize, notoriety, and your own self benefit and risk great pain on many levels, and even physical harm all for love. Love exists because God exists. He embodies perfect love, and we are able to love each other because God loved us first. God doesn't always makes sense...and often doesn't, he is something you feel in your heart, and something you experience. He cannot be proved through scientific measure, but just as love still exists in spite of that...so does God.
As I said before it's your decision to not believe in God and I am not out to argue you to do so. But you are trying to explain something you have never experienced for yourself and don't understand (not saying I fully understand God, because I don't). But the ways he has shown himself to me, the things I have been through in my life, impossible things happening, the change in myself from an angry bitter person to a woman full of peace and love for people that are unlovable...that's all the proof I need. Mind you I was not a bad person. I was a "goody two shoes", but God helped me see things I held inside I didn't know existed, and has healed very deep pains in my heart.
For you God is in the imagination that can not be explained rationally. For me he is the embodiment of mercy and love that cannot be rationally explained. I feel him in my whole being, and experience his existence everyday. For you to acknowledge God is absurd. To me, not to acknowledge him is impossible. I can no more say "there is no god" than I could tell my dad that I hate him and never want to see him again. (Which I love my dad with all my heart and could never say that).
This is my thought...if you refuse to believe and need scientific proof...fine. It saddens me, but you can decide to not believe in God if you don't want to. It's a free country and I am not going to berate you into believing. That is ridiculous. But in the same manner...I am free to choose to believe in God. Don't make fun of us and say things about us. You can talk about why you don't believe, but to say we are "childish" for what we believe is not necessary. I guess my question is what does it matter to you if people believe anyway. At the end of the day life is over and there is nothing left for you, but I believe there is something greater beyond this life, so what is wrong in believing in that? I'm not criticizing you or anything, but just trying to give some things to think about.
p.s. I do enjoy these types of conversations, so as I write these things I'm not doing it in anger or defense or anything. I just want you to know that.
And man is Christian condescension hilarious. I love this nonsense.