Moving on
After much thought I’ve decided to move on even though TP and I have not come to an understanding as to my last post. I will only ask that comments about the necessity of a consistent cosmos as we’ve defined it or on the objectivity of definitions be appended to my last post so as not to distract from the argument in this one.
Keep in mind at this point we are still assuming that the moral law is real.
Premise two part two
One of the chief goals of science is the explaining of apparent violations of natural law
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin and diversity of species with out a violation of natural laws Darwin saw them. The discipline of quantum mechanics came about because of certain anomalies observed in the behavior of electrons. Recently scientists have postulated dark energy to explain the fact that distant stars seem to violate natural law by appearing younger than would be predicted by the expansion of the universe would predict.
Explaining apparent violations of natural law is nothing new for science. It’s what science does. And the consistency problem stands out like sore thumb in this regard. We see apparent violations of moral law everywhere it appears that the innocent are constantly being prosecuted and the guilty prosper.
No one can deny this especially TP who has been know to call God petty and bemoaned the hypocrisy of the United States. Not to mention calling folks like Behe snake oil salesmen. If the moral law is real (something I will address in my next post) then these apparent violators should not exist. Yet not only is evil (as we have defined it) allowed, it flourishes in our universe.
This apparent inconsistency is equivalent of the Double Slit Experiment except it does not require special equipment to observe. The evidence for inconsistency is everywhere that is why the so called problem of evil is such a popular argument against theism.
TP suggested that the only way the cosmos maintained consistency is by being inconstant in much the same way that refrigerators generate heat when keeping things cool.
If this argument is true its reverse is necessarily true namely the only way the Cosmos can allow inconsistency is to compensate with the death (nonexistence) of equal corresponding consistency.
This is what happened in the Christ event. A consistent entity was killed (subjected to nonexistence) to compensate for inconsistency and thus inconsistent entities are allowed to continue exist in our universe.
This a constant theme in the Bible here are a few examples
From 2nd Corinthians
For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
And from Hebrews
But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
I could go on but I hope these will suffise.
It’s important to note that just as when a refrigerator generates cold by producing heat an inconsistency canceling Christ event must have certain characteristics. I will share a few to give you an idea what I’m talking about.
1) It must have consistency equal to or greater than the inconsistency to be cancelled. (A small increase in heat will not produce a large amount of cold)
2) It must have a real connection with the phenomena to be canceled. A increase in heat will not cool any thing off unless it is connected in some way
3) The Christ event must be part of the same observable reality as the inconsistency it cancels out. A temperature increase in one location can not be known to cool another are unless we can observe it.
I anticipate much discussion resulting from this post and I’m not sure exactly what direction that discussion will take so I believe I will leave it here and wait TP’s reply. I realize this is a very incomplete picture so feel free to ask for clarifications of my position as needed.
I would only request that if you can think of another way besides a Christ event to cancel out apparent inconsistency you present it here so that we can evaluate it as well.
Peace
After much thought I’ve decided to move on even though TP and I have not come to an understanding as to my last post. I will only ask that comments about the necessity of a consistent cosmos as we’ve defined it or on the objectivity of definitions be appended to my last post so as not to distract from the argument in this one.
Keep in mind at this point we are still assuming that the moral law is real.
Premise two part two
One of the chief goals of science is the explaining of apparent violations of natural law
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin and diversity of species with out a violation of natural laws Darwin saw them. The discipline of quantum mechanics came about because of certain anomalies observed in the behavior of electrons. Recently scientists have postulated dark energy to explain the fact that distant stars seem to violate natural law by appearing younger than would be predicted by the expansion of the universe would predict.
Explaining apparent violations of natural law is nothing new for science. It’s what science does. And the consistency problem stands out like sore thumb in this regard. We see apparent violations of moral law everywhere it appears that the innocent are constantly being prosecuted and the guilty prosper.
No one can deny this especially TP who has been know to call God petty and bemoaned the hypocrisy of the United States. Not to mention calling folks like Behe snake oil salesmen. If the moral law is real (something I will address in my next post) then these apparent violators should not exist. Yet not only is evil (as we have defined it) allowed, it flourishes in our universe.
This apparent inconsistency is equivalent of the Double Slit Experiment except it does not require special equipment to observe. The evidence for inconsistency is everywhere that is why the so called problem of evil is such a popular argument against theism.
TP suggested that the only way the cosmos maintained consistency is by being inconstant in much the same way that refrigerators generate heat when keeping things cool.
If this argument is true its reverse is necessarily true namely the only way the Cosmos can allow inconsistency is to compensate with the death (nonexistence) of equal corresponding consistency.
This is what happened in the Christ event. A consistent entity was killed (subjected to nonexistence) to compensate for inconsistency and thus inconsistent entities are allowed to continue exist in our universe.
This a constant theme in the Bible here are a few examples
From 2nd Corinthians
For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
And from Hebrews
But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
I could go on but I hope these will suffise.
It’s important to note that just as when a refrigerator generates cold by producing heat an inconsistency canceling Christ event must have certain characteristics. I will share a few to give you an idea what I’m talking about.
1) It must have consistency equal to or greater than the inconsistency to be cancelled. (A small increase in heat will not produce a large amount of cold)
2) It must have a real connection with the phenomena to be canceled. A increase in heat will not cool any thing off unless it is connected in some way
3) The Christ event must be part of the same observable reality as the inconsistency it cancels out. A temperature increase in one location can not be known to cool another are unless we can observe it.
I anticipate much discussion resulting from this post and I’m not sure exactly what direction that discussion will take so I believe I will leave it here and wait TP’s reply. I realize this is a very incomplete picture so feel free to ask for clarifications of my position as needed.
I would only request that if you can think of another way besides a Christ event to cancel out apparent inconsistency you present it here so that we can evaluate it as well.
Peace
posted by Fifth Monarchy Man at
6:50 AM
10 Comments:
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Excuse the delay (been very busy).
First, I will dispense with your mischaracterizations of my positions. You wrote...
No one can deny this especially TP who has been know to call God petty and bemoaned the hypocrisy of the United States.
I did not call God petty. In fact, I often suggest the opposite. A timeless designer of the Universe would have no need for an ability to learn or "petty" human emotions.
Hypocritical acts are something people do, not countries. I consider what some people did as a fallout of the Red Scare to be hypocritical (e.g. officially adding "Under God" to the pledge).
Ironically, your remark could be taken as an unsupported accusation concerning my patriotism, trademark McCarthyism.
You wrote...
Not to mention calling folks like Behe snake oil salesmen.
As I have indicated in the past, I have some admiration for Behe (Darwin's Black Box was bold). It is Dembski's motivations and methods I hold in contempt.
You surprised me somewhat with your inaccurate accusations. I hope this exchange isn't getting too frustrating for you.
I am looking at this as an exercise in furthering my understanding significantly different philosophical outlooks.
I am under no illusions that I could convince you to think as I do. I hope you aren't thinking that changing my philosophical outlook is going to be easy.
But back to the subject as hand. You wrote...
Explaining apparent violations of natural law is nothing new for science. It’s what science does. And the consistency problem stands out like sore thumb in this regard. We see apparent violations of moral law everywhere it appears that the innocent are constantly being prosecuted and the guilty prosper.
...
This apparent inconsistency is equivalent of the Double Slit Experiment except it does not require special equipment to observe. The evidence for inconsistency is everywhere that is why the so called problem of evil is such a popular argument against theism.
The Double Slit Experiment does not take special equipment to observe. It can be observed at home. What makes scientific experiments different from "a popular argument" is that good experiments are definable and repeatable regardless of the philosophies of the observers.
In an attempt to nail down some definitions...
Was the destruction and deaths of the attack of the Twin Towers an apparent violation of Moral Law?
Was the destruction and deaths of the attack of Fallujah an apparent violation of Moral Law?
You also wrote...
This is what happened in the Christ event. A consistent entity was killed (subjected to nonexistence) to compensate for inconsistency and thus inconsistent entities are allowed to continue exist in our universe.
Once again you are assuming your conclusions (i.e. "Begging the Question"). What about the Socrates Event?
You wrote...
1) It must have consistency equal to or greater than the inconsistency to be cancelled. (A small increase in heat will not produce a large amount of cold)
You are presuming consistency is a MUST.
I am suggesting the apparent consistency in the universe is an observation. Philosophically I presume the universe is consistent, but I don't know the Truth (i.e NOMA).
I suggest your rejection of NOMA has you trying to use a scientific toolset to support a philosophical presumption.
Here, you are even trying to argue some kind of reverse entropy.
Experimental data would help.
I would only request that if you can think of another way besides a Christ event to cancel out apparent inconsistency you present it here so that we can evaluate it as well.
Provide some repeatable experiments for these apparent inconsistencies.
Barring that, how about a mathematical model?
As for an alternative. The most fundamental Truth I know is that I think, therefore I am.
Metaphysically, I control my own reality. I, therefore, have the power to correct any apparent imbalance of my reality.
You are doing it your way, I am doing it mine.
Hey TP I’ve also been very busy that’s one of the benefits of discussing things in his way is we can take our time and we don’t need to be in a hurry to respond. While we are doing some house cleaning I want to apologize for my tone in the other thread I was only trying to make you see the implications of rejecting language but I can see how you might get the idea that I was being hostile and for that I’m sorry
Now back to business you said:
A timeless designer of the Universe would have no need for an ability to learn or "petty" human emotions.
And
I consider what some people did as fallout of the Red Scare to be hypocritical
And
your remark could be taken as an unsupported accusation concerning my patriotism, trademark McCarthyism.
And
It is Dembski's motivations and methods I hold in contempt.
I say:
These statements are all evidence that you believe the moral law to be real I can’t wait till we can discuss this but it will have to wait till my finial post.
You say:
I am under no illusions that I could convince you to think as I do. I hope you aren't thinking that changing my philosophical outlook is going to be easy.
I say:
I did not expect you to change your philosophical outlook but I must admit your logical outlook has taken me aback. I don’t know how to dialogue with some one who believes the medium of that dialogue is not definable.
You say:
Was the destruction and deaths of the attack of the Twin Towers an apparent violation of Moral Law?
Was the destruction and deaths of the attack of Fallujah an apparent violation of Moral Law?
I say:
That is up to you to decide. I will explain further when we get to my last installment. Lets not get ahead of ourselves Ok
You say:
What about the Socrates Event?
I say:
AT last a question relevant to this post the Socrates event does not qualify because Socrates was not total good (consistent) and he did not have a federal relationship with the inconsistent entity to be compensated (either me as a violator of natural law or the cosmos or the cosmos for allowing my existence)
You say:
You are presuming consistency is a MUST.
I say:
It is if we define consistency as we have. It’s this sort of statement that I’m afraid we will have trouble with since you reject definition
You said:
I am suggesting the apparent consistency in the universe is an observation. Philosophically I presume the universe is consistent, but I don't know the Truth (i.e NOMA).
I say:
Again the universe is consistent at least enough for us to exist and the Cosmos is consistent in the way we have defined. I’m sorry if this is difficult for you to understand. You are the one who refuses to define things so you must deal with the constant disconnects between yourself and those you are trying to communicate with.
I’m open to suggestions as to how we can get over this communication hurdle if you have any Ideas.
You said:
I suggest your rejection of NOMA has you trying to use a scientific toolset to support a philosophical presumption.
I say:
This is about language and communication not about science or philosophy I suggest your slavish embrace of absolute relativism has blinded you to this fact.
You said:
Provide some repeatable experiments for these apparent inconsistencies.
I say:
Next post
You say:
Barring that, how about a mathematical model?
I say:
Patience
You say:
Metaphysically, I control my own reality. I, therefore, have the power to correct any apparent imbalance of my reality.
I say:
What is the correction for violations in natural law? I suggest that it is non existence and the only way for you to correct an imbalance is..............Death.
You say:
You are doing it your way, I am doing it mine.
I say
I agree I’m just trying to show you that your way MUST end in Nonexistence Get it?
Peace
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You said...
I did not expect you to change your philosophical outlook but I must admit your logical outlook has taken me aback. I don’t know how to dialogue with some one who believes the medium of that dialogue is not definable.
However, in a response to specific examples (Twin Towers and Fallujah), you wrote...
That is up to you to decide.
I didn't mind allowing unusual, flexible definitions for terms like "Cosmos" or even "Consistent Cosmos", because words don't matter as much as ideas.
I suggest Ideas and Truths are up to individuals to decide.
Your idea of Truth is to believe a square can never be a circle even in a universe with geometry different from ours.
My idea of Truth is that in our universe if it can happen, it does. When I extend that idea to a lawless cosmos where anything can happen, I presume anything can happen.
Defining a "consistent cosmos" as one that can create a consistent universe changes nothing since such a cosmos can also create a different universe where a square can be a circle.
I agree it is illogical, but in a metaphysical cosmos, logic isn't a given requirement.
If you want to insist on consistent logic that can be agreed upon by everyone then I suggest your conversation is constrained to the limits of the observable universe.
In other words, NOMA.
the Socrates event does not qualify because Socrates was not total good (consistent) and he did not have a federal relationship with the inconsistent entity to be compensated
You are assuming the conclusion you wish to make. It was said that Socrates was born to a virgin and that no one was wiser than he.
I think the Socrates event could be a more appropriate candidate considering it came before the Jesus event.
Maybe it was both events.
I don't know the Truth. Why do you think you do?
More to the point, why can't you convince me through the strength of ideas instead of the worship of words?
Hey TP
I apologize for not responding in a timely manner I have been busy and I’m not sure how to continue to dialogue with you I’m doing my best but it is very hard to give you an idea of the difficulties this is causing take a look at this
When I said that Socrates did not meet the standard of a Christ event you said:
You are assuming the conclusion you wish to make. It was said that Socrates was born to a virgin and that no one was wiser than he.
I say
This is a prefect example of your denying definitions and therefore language recall the definition we agreed to for Christ event
The sacrificial death of an innocent individual that is fully God and fully human at the same time and that is qualified to serve as a federal representative of both parties, followed by evidence for the acceptance of this act.
Instead of stating why Socrates would meet the qualifications set down you just put forward your own Ie he was virgin born and wise and ancient.
It obvious that the definition we are using is not important at all you are just deciding for your self what you want in a Christ. This makes communication between us impossible I have no way of knowing what you mean when you say something. Are you using the definition we agreed to or are you using your own private definition. I just can’t know
You say:
Defining a "consistent cosmos" as one that can create a consistent universe changes nothing since such a cosmos can also create a different universe where a square can be a circle.
I say:
A square circle is definitionally impossible like dark lightness or dry wetness. To say that a Consistent cosmos could create a universe where such things are possible is therefore void of content. It is meaningless.
You say:
I agree it is illogical, but in a metaphysical cosmos, logic isn't a given requirement.
I say:
Are there any requirements for a metaphysical cosmos?
If an entity has no requirements at all it is ontologically vacuous and can therefore be assumed not to exist. Can you not see this?
You said:
If you want to insist on consistent logic that can be agreed upon by everyone then I suggest your conversation is constrained to the limits of the observable universe.
I say:
No it is constrained to the conceivable universe
You say:
I suggest Ideas and Truths are up to individuals to decide.
I say:
I know that is your position and I have a unique take on the natural law that takes this into account. I would love to present it but I don’t know if we will ever get there at this rate :-)
You say:
More to the point, why can't you convince me through the strength of ideas instead of the worship of words?
I say:
Because words are how we communicate ideas. If we don’t share a common language there is no way I will ever convince you of anything.
Peace
My compliments on your restrained reaction. I was concerned I might have been too strong with mine.
You wrote...
I apologize for not responding in a timely manner I have been busy and I’m not sure how to continue to dialogue with you...
No apologies are necessary. I will be intermittent myself.
I agree this conversation doesn't appear to be easy, but I am willing to continue to try.
You wrote...
This is a prefect example of your denying definitions and therefore language recall the definition we agreed to for Christ event
If by "Christ event" you aren't talking about a specific event but any event that involved a ”…sacrificial death of an innocent individual that is fully God and fully human at the same time and that is qualified to serve as a federal representative of both parties".
Then that could be Jesus, Socrates or both. Obviously you believe it is Jesus. I'm not certain that a "Christ Event" has occurred once, twice or ever.
Please note, that even if and when I accept your definitions, that doesn't mean I accept their existence, any more than you accept the existence of a square circle as we have defined it.
You wrote...
A square circle is definitionally impossible like dark lightness or dry wetness. To say that a Consistent cosmos could create a universe where such things are possible is therefore void of content. It is meaningless.
A square circle is not DEFINITIONALLY impossible since we have defined it.
A square circle is a figure that has four equal sides, four right angles and has all of its points equidistant from the center point.
I suggest that there are metaphysical geometries where that can be true and, therefore, is possible in a metaphysical cosmos.
You appear to disagree with my position.
You ask...
Are there any requirements for a metaphysical cosmos?
I say "no", but I don't know the Truth about a metaphysical cosmos.
You ask...
If an entity has no requirements at all it is ontologically vacuous and can therefore be assumed not to exist. Can you not see this?
Yes and no. I can "see" this, but I don't know the Truth.
You state...
No it is constrained to the conceivable universe
How about a compromise? Our universe is constrained to be a "conceivable universe" that is consistent with observations.
Note, I consider a "conceivable cosmos" to be an oxymoron with the way we have defined “cosmos” to be metaphysical.
You state...
Because words are how we communicate ideas. If we don’t share a common language there is no way I will ever convince you of anything.
That is a problem. Maybe if we drew pictures or, better yet, provide experimental data that we can look at in our own terms.
I have lots of Quantum Mechanical experimental data I could point you to.
Hey TP
There is something about you that just when I’m ready to give it up you give me a glimmer of hope that all is not lost. I hope this is not just a tactic to wear me down. You seem to be a nice guy I hope you are not just playing.
You said:
A square circle is not DEFINITIONALLY impossible since we have defined it.
I say:
I’m thinking that the existence of non-Euclidean geometry might be throwing us off here. Suppose I forget square circles for a moment and say…...
A cosmos can not contain a radically inconsistent universe with observers anymore than it can contain a universe with dry wetness or nonexistent existence.
Would you agree with this statement? If not why not specifically
You say:
Then that could be Jesus, Socrates or both. Obviously you believe it is Jesus. I'm not certain that a "Christ Event" has occurred once, twice or ever.
I say:
As far as our discussion goes the compensating sacrifice might be Socrates or Jesus if they meet the qualifications of the definition. However it could not be both you can’t have two federal heads at the same time.
I believe that Jesus was the Christ but that is a historic question not a scientific or philosophical one.
My point is that in order for our universe to be consistent morally assuming the moral law is real there must be a Christ event.
If you believe that Socrates qualifies as the innocent God Man and a sufficient Federal head you can make your case.
But before we have that discussion we need to agree that such an event is necessary in order for our universe to be consistent morally assuming the moral law is real
Are you willing to do that? If not why not specifically.
You say:
That is a problem. Maybe if we drew pictures or, better yet, provide experimental data that we can look at in our own terms.
I have lots of Quantum Mechanical experimental data I could point you to.
I say:
Pictures and numeric symbols are just substitutes for words.
I can say two
I can type (2)
I can draw **
The meaning remains the same no mater how the word is represented that is the beauty of language.
What I can’t do is represent a two that when added to itself truly yields five. This is what I mean by definitionally impossible.
no matter how I try to communicate it I am left with the equivalent of BLAH BLAH BLAH. Do you understand this?
Peace
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote...
I hope this is not just a tactic to wear me down. You seem to be a nice guy I hope you are not just playing.
No, I am not playing sadistic games. At least I don't think I am. I honestly am interested in exploring thought processes that are different from mine.
For example, you are showing a tendency for attaching quite a bit of significance to words. I have noticed the same of Dembski and even Mike Gene.
To me, words are like tools. A hammer can drive in a nail, but so can a rock. The only thing special about a hammer is that it is more efficient.
Maybe there is something telling about our respect for words (or lack thereof) in how our two sides approach thinking about reality.
You wrote...
I’m thinking that the existence of non-Euclidean geometry might be throwing us off here.
Finally! I have been trying to get you to understand this. Obviously, I didn't present it well enough previously.
I couldn't just let it go, because I think the fact that it looks like our observable universe is, in fact, non-Euclidean is significant to me. Our common sense, our very language, is at odds with the geometry of our own universe. That causes problems when you want to assume something MUST be such and such because the alternative doesn't make sense to us. IOW, I don't trust our common sense and I don't consider an inability to explain something as a license to presume it is impossible.
It is bad enough to do this for our observable universe, but you're trying to use our limited perceptions to make claims on a metaphysical cosmos.
Chances are the only paradoxes I will agree to as being prohibitive are those in our observable universe. And, even then, I will be skeptical that the claimed paradox is truly a paradox.
You wrote...
A cosmos can not contain a radically inconsistent universe with observers anymore than it can contain a universe with dry wetness or nonexistent existence.
Would you agree with this statement? If not why not specifically
I don't even agree that our universe CAN not be inconsistent. While it is my philosophical tendency to believe thusly, I don't know the Truth.
Scientific observations argue that our universe is consistent. However, how would are we to know? As I wrote in my thread, The Magic of ID, we might be seeing inconsistent magic everyday and not recognize it as such.
Is randomness magic?
Is randomness proof of inconsistency in our universe?
Sorry, but I have enough questions about our own universe to even begin to agree that metaphysically an inconsistent universe is impossible.
At best, you can start a scientific argument with "presuming our universe is consistent....", which is the unspoken presumption practically all scientists make.
You wrote...
you can’t have two federal heads at the same time.
Excuse my potential indelicacy, but it seems that some people who believe there are three in a holy trinity.
...we need to agree that such an event is necessary in order for our universe to be consistent morally assuming the moral law is real
Are you willing to do that? If not why not specifically.
You are assuming a lot...
1. IF moral law is real
2. IF moral law is directly tied to the physics of our universe.
3. IF moral law requires a balance to be maintained.
4. IF said morality balance can only be obtained by punishing a willing innocent?
5. IF only law giver(s) can qualify as a willing innocent.
6. IF there is only one law giver (not a plurality or even a democracy).
Then, maybe, a Christ event had to have happen or needs to happen in the future.
Hopefully, you understand that I have questions for each of these assumptions, especially the first one.
For example, we have scientific evidence that humans and animals have genes that express themselves as driving ethical behavior.
Common sense may suggest the existence of some kind of absolute moral law when, in reality, it is attributable to common descent of a gene expression.
You wrote...
Pictures and numeric symbols are just substitutes for words.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I think of it the other way around.
Words are substitutes for pictures and numeric symbols which are substitutes for ideas and concepts.
Are you familiar with the famous painting "this is not a pipe"?
http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Rene_Magritte/pipe.jpeg
It isn't a pipe; it is a painting of a pipe. Words are not ideas, they are just expressions of ideas.
You wrote...
no matter how I try to communicate it I am left with the equivalent of BLAH BLAH BLAH. Do you understand this?
I would not expect this to be easy since I am not inclined to believe in an interventionist supreme deity concerned with my well being.
I understand all we can do is our best. Therefore, I think we are destined to think for ourselves and should avoid the temptation of letting books or other people do our thinking for us.
Do you understand this?
Hey TP
You said:
you are showing a tendency for attaching quite a bit of significance to words. I have noticed the same of Dembski and even Mike Gene.
I say:
Perhaps it is because those folks have been the victim of language twisting of the worst kind. You see it all the time folks Mike Gene and Dembski are called Creationists and this is supposed to marginalize them so that their ideas don’t have to be dealt with or it is maintained that the only valid incites must come from Science and Science must be materialistic and atelic.
Gould did it as well when he unilaterally insisted that NOMA must be matained in science. This forever confines folks like me who believe in a God who is active and empirically discoverable to anyone who will look with am open mind to an intellectual ghetto.
Have you read George Orwell’s 1984 I think that it is probably one of the most important works of the twentieth century. It does a wonderful job of illustrating what happens when we lose language.
The way that words can be used and abused and twisted is frightening to me.
Objective language is as important to me as autonomy is to you.
Here is a great quote from Hobbes that hits the nail on the head.
Quote:
The most noble and profitable invention of all other was that of speech, consisting of names or appellations, and their connexion; whereby men register their thoughts, recall them when they are past, and also declare them one to another for mutual utility and conversation; without which there had been amongst men neither Commonwealth, nor society, nor contract, nor peace, no more than amongst lions, bears and wolves.
Or this from John Stuart Mill
Quote
Hardly any original thoughts on mental or social subjects ever make their way among mankind or assume their proper importance in the minds even of their inventors, until aptly selected words or phrases have as it were nailed them down and held them fast.
You said:
Chances are the only paradoxes I will agree to as being prohibitive are those in our observable universe. And, even then, I will be skeptical that the claimed paradox is truly a paradox.
I say:
Do you understand the difference between paradox and contradiction I have no problem accepting paradoxes as paradoxes. Paradoxes are simply placeholders for our ignorance.
A contradiction on the other hand holds even if we have complete omniscience. Do you believe that true contradictions can happen? If so then Jesus could both the Christ and not the Christ at the same time and in the same way. Do you believe this is possible? QM could be true and bunk at the same time in the same way. If this kind of thing is possible possible why even have a discussion. All propositions are equally valid in such a world.
You said:
It isn't a pipe; it is a painting of a pipe. Words are not ideas, they are just expressions of ideas.
I say:
I agree but you must understand that with out words or their equivalent Ideas are nontransferable and uncommunicatable. With out words we are trapped in our own heads
me
you can’t have two federal heads at the same time.
You
Excuse my potential indelicacy, but it seems that some people who believe there are three in a holy trinity.
I say:
I’m sorry I assumed you would have learned about federal headship in elementary school. I forgot I was talking to a blue stater perhaps that was the you learned about the evil theocratic plot to change the motto ;-)
Federal headship refers to the representation of a group united under a federation or covenant. For example, a country's president may be seen as the federal head of his nation, representing and speaking on its behalf before the rest of the world
For the same reason we can have only one president represent us at the UN we can have only one representative in the Christ event.
A Federal head must be a part of the group represented. A Tory in England can’t serve as my representative in parliament therefore the Revolution happend.
The Holy Sprit can’t represent man because he is not a man the same goes for the Father. Any of the three could represent God if they were chosen by the God head (Cosmos) however only the Son was. So only the Son is qualified to represent both me and God.
You say:
I understand all we can do is our best. Therefore, I think we are destined to think for ourselves and should avoid the temptation of letting books or other people do our thinking for us.
Do you understand this?
I say:
I do and it does not change my argument at all. Your desperate attempt at autonomy is not my problem. You are free to reject implications the Christ event and rely on your best if you choose no skin of my nose
You say:
You are assuming a lot...
1. IF moral law is real
2. IF moral law is directly tied to the physics of our universe.
3. IF moral law requires a balance to be maintained.
4. IF said morality balance can only be obtained by punishing a willing innocent?
5. IF only law giver(s) can qualify as a willing innocent.
6. IF there is only one law giver (not a plurality or even a democracy).
Then, maybe, a Christ event had to have happen or needs to happen in the future.
Hopefully, you understand that I have questions for each of these assumptions, especially the first one.
I say:
Cool I think I should start another thread and address each question one at a time so we can give them the time and space they deserve.
Give me a sign and I’ll do just that
Peace
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
My observation about your view of words and vocabulary was just that, an observation. I wasn't trying to make an argument.
However, I have read 1984 and I think you missed something there. Not only was the state changing the meanings of the words, it was also restricting definitions in order to restrict freedom of thought.
Double ungood.
Why is your definition of "Federal Headship" the correct one?
Because the state says so?
Why does a "Federal Headship" means absolutely, without question, a single person?
I have two senators who represent me in the Senate. There have been 43 presidents.
Where do you get off insisting that MY definition of "Federal Headship" must refer to one, and only one person, otherwise I am wrong?
That being said, I thank you for helping me better understand the thought processes of people who have religious training similar to yours. "Federal Headship" = "Jesus speaks for us"
...
I just made a very uncomfortable connection. Is this why some people treat the other "Federal Headship", President Bush, with such blind devotion?!?!?
I will have to think about that one. [shutters]
...
You wrote...
The way that words can be used and abused and twisted is frightening to me.
Objective language is as important to me as autonomy is to you.
Words are just words. They are only dangerous when masses of people don't think for themselves and believe language is absolute.
A tyrant can call his enemies the "axis of evil", that doesn't make it so. He can say that by starting a protracted war he is "removing the danger", but that doesn't make it so either.
Thinking independently allows one to see this. Maintaining independent thinking requires taking spoken and written words with large grains of salt.
I try to look for the true meaning and ideas BEHIND the words instead of trusting the words themselves.
Again I thank you for trying to explain why objective language is so important to you. Hopefully, you understand why I approach things differently.
You wrote...
I have no problem accepting paradoxes as paradoxes. Paradoxes are simply placeholders for our ignorance. A contradiction on the other hand holds even if we have complete omniscience. Do you believe that true contradictions can happen?
Metaphysically, contradictions can and do happen (e.g. emotions like love and hate, pronouncements like "This is a false statement").
Quantum Mechanics also exhibit contradictions in things like GHZ states.
Putting the qualifier "true" is a lead in to the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
If so then Jesus could both the Christ and not the Christ at the same time and in the same way. Do you believe this is possible? QM could be true and bunk at the same time in the same way. If this kind of thing is possible why even have a discussion. All propositions are equally valid in such a world.
Welcome to my view of NOMA.
I don't know the Truth because there are multiple, contradictory Truths.
Science, on the other hand, has rules. Using science, we can increase our knowledge even if we can never know the Truth.
Of course, one of science's rules is that we are limited to the observable universe.
This leaves the metaphysical Cosmos to the philosophers.
If you want to explore this further, please feel free to do so, otherwise let's move on.
You say:
Science, on the other hand, has rules. Using science, we can increase our knowledge even if we can never know the Truth.
I say
In a world with true contradictions Science can have rules and not have rules at the same time in the same way. A universe can be observable and unobservable at the same time and in the same way. It’s not that we can’t know the in such a world there is no truth in such a world.
you say:
This leaves the metaphysical Cosmos to the philosophers.
I say:
the Cosmos has always been the domain of philosophers why must this mean that we can know nothing about it.
I'll get to work on my next post right now
Peace
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home