[Guest]

It seems there is a lot of controversy over this topic on Brainden.... Understandable... Well I just mean spiritual as in God but also as in ghosts and things. What is your opinion?

[unreality]

on the meaning of the word "quantum", doesn't it mean a whole number, that is, a quantified amount of something (a quanta of light bursts, etc) since that was the foundation of quantum physics?

(QP has evolved into much more of course, but I've been reading this thread with some curiosity and was just wondering on that point)

Edited April 20, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

The important point I'm making is that humanity has advanced in the area of science and its application while at the same time our spiritual side (the part of our mental processes that perceives and regulates our ethical choices, for example) has failed to keep pace...what I was trying to say when I said that "The intangible phenomena of life are inherently spiritual" is that the intangible phenomena of life inherently contain a significant element that is addressed most efficiently by starting with traditional spiritual guidance.

Sorry, I could see what you meant but a word like "spiritual" carries a definite implication of the existence of the supernatural that obliges me to question it. Some might call it pedantry but I think it worthwhile to challenge assumptions carried in language.

Maybe traditional "spiritual guidance" does give value, but you have to wade through a lot of nonsense to find it. I consider guidance independent of religious belief to be a greatly preferable option, though perhaps not always available.

But what is not beside the point is our inherent inability to know that we are using the proper tools to perceive the "God's eye view." What I'm desperately and repeatedly trying to say is that the "god's-eye-view" can not be taken in isolation. Doing so gives an incomplete picture of the totality of reality. You must simultaneously take the "god's-eye-view" and the "mortal's-eye-view". Where's the assumption, you ask? The assumption is that 'reason works' and that our particular form of reason conceives things that elucidate the "god's-eye-view" and are relevant to the "mortal's-eye-view." You're making huge assumptions regarding the meaning of "definite properties" and about whether the current human skill set has any special qualification to distinguish them.

It could be that the great question of why everything exists is truly beyond our comprehension, I wouldn't like to assume it is or isn't. But the endeavour of understanding such things is one I consider worthwhile, even if we may never have any proof that we got it right. I put forward a possible way of looking at the matter which I feel is simple, reasonable and free of paradox. Of course it could be totally wrong, but I still find it rewarding to try and understand.

"Consider, a clearly defined mathematical structure has certain properties. Those properties don't depend on the structure having been created, or even discovered. They are derived from its structure, and they are what they are even if nobody knows about them. Without a clear definition, no properties can be derived, and there is no structure. Note that this "definition" needn't be known or created either, mathematics is not affected by our knowledge of it. So maybe "having clearly defined properties" is a more useful term, which doesn't really presuppose anything about the nature of logic. That's the important feature of our universe, and in order to explain why our universe has clearly defined properties, I need only point out that we would not be here observing it if it didn't."

I see that statement as a completely unsupported statement of belief. You are pre-supposing (assuming) that humans have some priviliged ability to perceive the nature of some underlying structure that nobody has to observe or conceive of.

No, rather I'm observing that conceptual structures don't require our perception in order to make them what they are. In Plato's Meno he describes Socrates teaching geometry to a boy simply by asking him questions. Nothing in mathematics is ever invented, it is just truth waiting to be discovered. My earlier references to "truth" were meant in that sense, though on consideration I decided there were probably clearer ways of putting it (I like discussing these things, it roots out all the vague bits).

My question about "truth" that you seemed to want to avoid was "Did truth self-organize out of randomness." You haven't avoided the question, however. Did "clearly defined properties" self-organize out of randomness or are they universal? And your last sentence above does not answer that question--it invokes the anthropic principle that says that somehow our "mortal's-eye-view" is priviledged or special.

You're right that I meant much the same thing by "truth" and "clearly defined properties", and to some degree I avoided the question. That's because it's a hard question to which I don't have the answer. But I don't feel that in this instance, I need to know whether all things can be expressed in terms of structure or whether it is a minuscule part of some greater randomness. Not that it isn't an interesting question but one mind boggling thing at a time. All we need to know is that structured systems can occur in a conceptual sense, and clearly they can since we appear to be part of one and can conceive of others. The anthropic principle says that our "mortal's-eye-view" may be privileged or special, if it must be. Non-structured randomness needn't concern us too much because it doesn't work for us. If chaos is the rule, and order the exception, then order still exists (locally at least) and that's all that we need. I guess that's what you meant by paradox underpinning reality, though. And I'll have to have a good long think about that, I'm not sure if it can be known. What I was saying is that "truth", or to put it another way "structure" (in a conceptual sense) is all we need to accept to explain the existence of all we know about, though who knows, maybe there is a philosophical rabbit hole that goes deeper than that.

All this makes me wonder why you hold these spiritual beliefs, when all that we observe can be explained in much simpler terms. The "coincidences" that make our universe favourable for sentient life are only remarkable if you think that this is the only universe or one of a chosen few selected for existence (which raises the question of why it should be so). Existence concerns us within our universe, but I don't see why it should concern the universe itself. If the whole universe didn't exist and was merely concept, how would we notice the difference? And if there is no difference, then any potential universe is as real as any other.

[Guest]

on the meaning of the word "quantum", doesn't it mean a whole number, that is, a quantified amount of something (a quanta of light bursts, etc) since that was the foundation of quantum physics?

(QP has evolved into much more of course, but I've been reading this thread with some curiosity and was just wondering on that point)

The term "quantum" in physics originated with the discovery of discrete emission spectra of light from the simple hydrogen atom (one electron and one proton). If the electron was free to move in any orbit about the proton, there wouldn't be these discrete emission lines. In 1913 Niels Bohr first stated the hypothesis that the orbits (specifically the angular momentum) of the electrons had to assume discrete values defined only by Planck's constant and an integer n=1,2,3,... So yes, the term quantum refers to a whole number, an integer.

[Guest]

Read up on Loop Quantum Gravity.

It's a Proposed quantum theory. So still no "required," sorry.

[Guest]

on the meaning of the word "quantum", doesn't it mean a whole number, that is, a quantified amount of something (a quanta of light bursts, etc) since that was the foundation of quantum physics?

(QP has evolved into much more of course, but I've been reading this thread with some curiosity and was just wondering on that point)

Actually it comes from the Latin quantus meaning "how much." In physics it refers to the elementary particles, and as a size to an object the size of the units of the Planck constant. The "Whole number "thing (as you rightly point out) is the idea of everything being made up of these particles of a certain discrete numerical value, is therefore made up of a whole number multiplication of that value.

[Guest]

No, rather I'm observing that conceptual structures don't require our perception in order to make them what they are. In Plato's Meno he describes Socrates teaching geometry to a boy simply by asking him questions. Nothing in mathematics is ever invented, it is just truth waiting to be discovered. My earlier references to "truth" were meant in that sense, though on consideration I decided there were probably clearer ways of putting it (I like discussing these things, it roots out all the vague bits).

Socrates was probably a pretty smart guy. So let me try to emulate him in some small way:

Is there any value in conceptual structures that have not been perceived? Is there any value in perceptions that do not have any conceptual structure? Is there any value in random, chaotic, inscrutable "stuff"? Is the latter part of the set of things we perceive (but cannot make sense of)? Is chaotic stuff a conceptual structure or excluded from that set?

I found it instructive, at this point to draw some simple set diagrams for sets P, T, and C. First leave out perceptions (P). Draw a two-set diagram that represents conceptual structures (T, truth, if you will) and chaotic stuff (symbol C)? What does it look like? Two circles that don't intersect? One circle with a surrounding space (implying that one of the two sets is infinite)? Two circles that partially intersect? One circle entirely embedded within the other? Now leave out chaotic stuff and draw a two-set diagram that represents perceptions and conceptual structures. Then leave out conceptual structures and draw a two-set diagram that represents chaotic stuff and perceptions. Looking at the three drawings, can you merge them into a logically consistent drawing representing all three sets? (Example: If perceptions are entirely a subset of truth then P lies entirely within T; if Truth and Chaos are mutually incompatible then C lies entirely outside of T. That requires that we cannot perceive chaotic stuff, P must not intersect C. If you drew P and C as intersecting then your view of this set space is inconsistent).

Which of the three sets can potentially change in size as time progresses? Now color in the parts of the three-set diagram that you feel have value (taking into consideration future time if you wish). Explain your choices.

OK. Is love a conceptual structure, a perception, or both (or neither--if neither, please elaborate)? What about the tooth fairy? What about an infinitely ranging human imagination (or a soul or a dream or a prayer)? For that matter is there anything about our perception that can range to infinity? What, if anything, does that say about where value lies?

Finally, was this line of questioning misleading (or deliberately leading)? What questions should have been asked that were not? Did Socrates ask these last two questions? Should he have?

[Guest]

Is there any value in conceptual structures that have not been perceived? Value depends on the valuer, but in general, yes. Structures we might perceive but have not perceived yet are an absolute goldmine. If you are embedded within a conceptual structure that you cannot fully perceive (like, say, this one) you might value it a lot, since it includes home, family and yourself. Not that it's of any consequence. I don't suppose conceptual structure is any more affected by the value we place on it than by whether we perceive it.

Is there any value in perceptions that do not have any conceptual structure? Do any such perceptions exist? I doubt it, though it depends on what exactly you mean. More later...

Is there any value in random, chaotic, inscrutable "stuff"? There may seem to be, to us as humans. A major part of our brain is subconscious. It's hard to control, and hard to understand, but it's much more powerful than the conscious part. In our barely adequate brains, we need to use all that we have and a lot of inspiration and wisdom comes unbidden from the subconscious and seems to arise from vague and unstructured thought. But that's just us. The stuff we perceive may not be really random, even if it helps to think of it that way. I doubt that we would find much value in things truly without structure, if we did perceive them. What is there to perceive but the lack of structure itself? Nothing more to say.

Is the latter part of the set of things we perceive (but cannot make sense of)? Maybe, in an ontological sense.

Is chaotic stuff a conceptual structure or excluded from that set? If you mean deterministic systems that appear random because of a high sensitivity to initial conditions, then yes, that's structured.

I found it instructive, at this point to draw some simple set diagrams for sets P, T, and C. First leave out perceptions (P). Draw a two-set diagram that represents conceptual structures (T, truth, if you will) and chaotic stuff (symbol C)? I'll take "chaotic" to mean "unstructured" otherwise this is a trivial exercise.

What does it look like? Two circles that don't intersect? One circle with a surrounding space (implying that one of the two sets is infinite)? I'm sure T is infinite. I'm not sure whether C would be infinite or infinitessimally small, it may depend on how you look at it. They don't intersect by definition, though based the earlier post there may be a question of whether T is a subset of C because we've defined T incorrectly.

Now leave out chaotic stuff and draw a two-set diagram that represents perceptions and conceptual structures. Then leave out conceptual structures and draw a two-set diagram that represents chaotic stuff and perceptions. Looking at the three drawings, can you merge them into a logically consistent drawing representing all three sets? (Example: If perceptions are entirely a subset of truth then P lies entirely within T; if Truth and Chaos are mutually incompatible then C lies entirely outside of T. That requires that we cannot perceive chaotic stuff, P must not intersect C. If you drew P and C as intersecting then your view of this set space is inconsistent).P may still be infinite, depends on whether you're talking about one person's perceptions or all that is perceived by anyone who might perceive.

P may still be infinite, depends on whether you're talking about one person's perceptions or all that might be perceived. If C is an infinitessimal dot we might put it inside P as a trivial exercise in perceiving lack of structure for what it is. Some of T probably lies outside P. If T is a subset of a very large C that raises the question of whether P is entirely a subset of T, but I don't know if it is.

Which of the three sets can potentially change in size as time progresses? Now color in the parts of the three-set diagram that you feel have value (taking into consideration future time if you wish). Explain your choices. The whole diagram is equally valuable as far as this exercise is concerned, but because at least one set was infinite my pen ran out of ink.

OK. Is love a conceptual structure, a perception, or both (or neither--if neither, please elaborate)? What about the tooth fairy? What about an infinitely ranging human imagination (or a soul or a dream or a prayer)? All the above lack a clear enough definition to be conceptual structures, but some can be said to be parts of our universe. Our mind uses various short-cuts, generalisations and labels to make perception easier. Sometimes they serve a purpose but are unclear in meaning. They may be perceptions but it is also unclear exactly what that means.

For that matter is there anything about our perception that can range to infinity? What, if anything, does that say about where value lies? Not sure what you're driving at there. We have trouble perceiving infinity but we can shoehorn it in as a concept. Value lies with the valuer.

Finally, was this line of questioning misleading (or deliberately leading)? I'm not sure. It didn't seem to lead anywhere, maybe I missed the point.

What questions should have been asked that were not? You tell me

Did Socrates ask these last two questions? Should he have? Probably. Socrates' questions were a little too leading for my liking, and an assertion can sometimes be disguised as a question. What matters is the idea behind the Socratic method, and what it says about the nature of truth. It's more a thought exercise than a practical tool. Maybe you intended to lead me somewhere with these questions, and I ended up somewhere else. Perhaps that validates the Socratic method in a way.

[Guest]

Is there a spiritual world?

Nowhere in our lives is the spiritual world more entrenched than in the area of Music.

Who would wish to argue that music must be denied or eliminated from our lives?

Yet music is literally the "expression of the gods" - specifically the Nine Muses of Greek theology. That is the origin of the word. Greek 'mousa' is a common noun as well as a type of goddess: it literally means "song" or "poem".

And the application of music is inherently spiritual - non-rational, non-verbal, touching the human spirit more directly than other forms of interaction with our world.

Music has been used in spiritual practice world-wide as far back as records exist. Pre-historic artifacts (bone flutes, etc.) point to even earlier origins.

Science has come along lately (the last 50 years or fewer) and has proven to the satisfaction of government health agencies and insurance companies that music therapy works - music measurably affects brain and motor function. Yet science is merely a tag-along in this area, unable to explain why or how music works its magic.

In fact science itself is rooted in this Greek pantheon. The first Greek book on astronomy, by Thales, was set in dactylic hexameter, as were many works of pre-Socratic philosophy; both Plato and the Pythagoreans explicitly included philosophy as a sub-species of 'mousike' Herodotus, whose primary medium of delivery was public recitation, named each one of the nine books of his Histories after a different Muse, invoked at the outset.

The vast majority of human beings (and arguably other life forms from higher animals to plants) respond to it. Humans understand intrinsically, through deep-seated faith, the inherent power of the "art of the gods."

[Guest]

Maybe you intended to lead me somewhere with these questions, and I ended up somewhere else. Perhaps that validates the Socratic method in a way.

My intent was to try not to lead you, but to explore this thought space. (This is the Brain Teasers Forum, no?)

Your replies were thoughtful, and help me to widen my perspectives. I want to read them again carefully.

[Guest]

Is there a spiritual world?

Nowhere in our lives is the spiritual world more entrenched than in the area of Music...

...the inherent power of the "art of the gods."

But what evidence is there of anything supernatural going on? The terminology you choose suggests it, and the fact that intelligent people have historically made that claim suggests it also. The appeal to authority is a weak one, especially based in ancient Greece where the rigorous pursuit of reason was seen as a spiritual endeavour. But in any society where religion is pervasive it is commonplace for intelligent people to invoke it without considering the truth value of that too carefully.

[Guest]

If you don't mind me asking, what are your religious views?

what do you mean?

[Izzy]

what do you mean?

What are you? Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

[Guest]

But what evidence is there of anything supernatural going on? The terminology you choose suggests it, and the fact that intelligent people have historically made that claim suggests it also. The appeal to authority is a weak one, especially based in ancient Greece where the rigorous pursuit of reason was seen as a spiritual endeavour. But in any society where religion is pervasive it is commonplace for intelligent people to invoke it without considering the truth value of that too carefully.

I see significant matters of definition here. This thread is about a Spiritual world, which doesn't necessarily imply super-natural. Nevertheless:

Dictionary definitions of supernatural include:

1a) transcending nature, beyond the physical universe but experienced by ordinary matter. (not sure if music fits this but dark energy could-until some physical explanation is offered. What happens beyond our ability to observe is transcendent -- such as what came to us from before the big bang)

1b) refers to God explicitly. So I'll pass on this one because God has such a specific definition and I don't personally subscribe to a supreme anthropomorphic supernatural sentient presence (only to an imperfect ancestral spirit as one among many human spirits, my own included)

1c) divine, not human (divine refers to religion and god, see 1b); spiritual not material (see discussion of the definition of spiritual below)

2a) differing from the natural only in degree. bingo for music.

2b) extreme, excessive. Perhaps music's effect on the psyche can reach this level (e.g. shamanistic trance)

3a) miraculous, ascribed to agencies above or beyond nature. See my comments about God in 1b

3b) ghosts, spirits, invisible agents (presumed to have volition) I believe my spirit acts as an invisible agent, but only in ways that cannot be ascribed to volition. I believe prayer wields a power beyond what we can do as physical agents via "action at a distance".

Spiritual--

1)by its first definition just means incorporeal, not material. This is precisely what I mean when I say that Music is part of the spiritual world.

2a) religion related.

2b) sacred, etc.

2c) ecclesiastical

3) reaching and affecting the spirit, related to moral feelings, not external actions. Music works here.

4a) influenced or controlled by divine spirit (see discussion of divine in 1c definition of supernatural

4b) Holy Spirit (in the Christian sense)

there are further minor definitions, but that paints the picture pretty fully.

[Guest]

Oh, and the appeal to authority and the other stuff is in my little essay for completeness and to give a full provenance to our current collective perspective. Society does not largely consist of rational intellectuals. BD is a rather skewed subset of our social framework. The influence of past thinking (history and tradition) on present sensibilities is a significant part of our Weltschauung (World View), and I'd argue that in subtle, subconscious ways, that even effects the most meticulous of rationalists.

[Guest]

Yoinks! You guys have been busy while I was away...

[...] But in the case of the word "faith", my dictionary lists the words "trust, belief, and religion" as synonyms. And it lists the definition of synonym as "a word having the same meaning as another word." So in the case of this particular word, some of its definitions encompass others. Some are subsets of others. I stand by my contention that your definition of faith is artificially limited. I venture to guess that is why you have had those "frazzling, tiresome, pointless" discussions about the term. You seem (IMHO) to be trying to force a definition of faith that you can safely criticize/condemn. It would seem to me to be easier to make progress on the substantive issues if you didn't spend your time championing a radical definition.

Maybe it's time for a new dictionary, or maybe just time to stop pretending to be so naive. Take the sentence: "I have faith in my wife." and replace faith with its "synonym" religion. Does the sentence retain its original meaning? No? Funny that. Now try it with the sentence "Christianity is my faith." Ah! Much better. Just because two words are synonyms, does not mean they are equivalent in every meaning and context.

[Guest]

What are you? Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

Oh im christian.allow me to elaborrate. I am a seventh day adventist,unlike a lot of christians i go to church on saturday, I believe EVERYTHING the Bible says. And I believe Jesus was the son of God. Dont hate me for that lol

[Izzy]

EVERYTHING? Well, let me run upstairs and get my handy bible and I'll be right back.

Because EVERYTHING is true, that must also mean it isn't open to interpretation, because our might lord got it right the first time, right? Anyway:

1. Your disproof for evolution, please?

2. Job 38:12-13 Have you ever in your life commanded the morning or assigned the dawn its place, so it may seize the edges of the earth and shake the wicked out of it? . Try grabbing an (almost) sphere by its edges! Is the world flat?

3. Of course, the Earth is 6000 years old. Even though we have evidence other than fossils, like cutting through glaciers where we can see where the ice froze, melted, and refroze. Among other things which I cba to look up.

4. In Exodus 33:20, says God, "Thou canst not see my face; for there shall be no man see me and live." God must have been mistaken, or changed: For in Genesis 32:30 Jacob sees God "face to face" and lives. The same for Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and 70 elders, who saw God, and ate and drank with him (Exodus 24:9-11). But not so, says John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time."

5. James 1:17 Every generous act and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights; with him there is no variation or shadow cast by turning. Hmm, okay, doubtful. I know a guy helping out in Africa right now. He's being very generous, and is atheist. If all generous things we do are 'from above', ie, God does them, that means we don't have free will. But of course, mighty creator Gawd made sure to give that to us!

Anyway, just five. I have more if you want.

*edit* Not picking on you. Just want you to think for yourself, instead of automatically assuming everything in there is true.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Izzy

[Guest]

I see significant matters of definition here. This thread is about a Spiritual world, which doesn't necessarily imply super-natural.

The word "spiritual" needn't mean anything supernatural, but "spiritual world" usually would. If you consider the spiritual world to be natural rather than supernatural, that would make it part of this world. The phrase suggests otherwise.

I'm using the first of your quoted definitions for "supernatural" in this sense, since this is the primary definition, fits the etymology, and is clearly in context here:

1a) transcending nature, beyond the physical universe but experienced by ordinary matter.

The first part of the definition works anyway, the second part contradicts itself. Not to say that makes it a bad definition, rather it makes supernatural a bad concept. In fact it sums up my main objection to the concept very succinctly so I'll leave it at that.

"Spiritual" is more vague and I agree that it can mean things which are not supernatural, since the "spirit" can be viewed an aspect of the mind (generally considered natural) or the soul (generally considered supernatural). In your comments on the spirituality of music it is unclear which you are referring to, and you seem to be using that ambiguity to suggest that because there are things which we call "spiritual", therefore the "spirit world" exists. I think most people would view the spirit world as being a supernatural realm accessible only to spirits (ghosts, souls, or suchlike, maybe gods get in there too, being supernatural). There is no reason to believe that the spirituality of music is supernatural and indeed you seem to be implying as much in the post I'm answering. But the natural spirituality of music (in other words, the effect it has on the mind) implies nothing about whether the spirit world is real. It's the old equivocation problem again.

[Guest]

I believe EVERYTHING the Bible says.

Do you believe the book of Matthew which says that the male lineage of Jesus from king David was 27 generations? Do you believe the book of Luke which says that same lineage was 42 generations?

[Guest]

In my opinion, unless you have an original copy of the bible (i.e something along the lines of The Dead Sea Scrolls), then it's impossible to believe everything the bible says. Translations, especially translations from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to English allows plenty of room for mistranslations. I can understand believing the gist of it, but believing that the copy you have now is an accurate recording of all of God's work in detail, your kidding yourself. Everything is a very strong word.

[Guest]

EVERYTHING? Well, let me run upstairs and get my handy bible and I'll be right back.

Because EVERYTHING is true, that must also mean it isn't open to interpretation, because our might lord got it right the first time, right? Anyway:

1. Your disproof for evolution, please?

2. Job 38:12-13 Have you ever in your life commanded the morning or assigned the dawn its place, so it may seize the edges of the earth and shake the wicked out of it? . Try grabbing an (almost) sphere by its edges! Is the world flat?

3. Of course, the Earth is 6000 years old. Even though we have evidence other than fossils, like cutting through glaciers where we can see where the ice froze, melted, and refroze. Among other things which I cba to look up.

4. In Exodus 33:20, says God, "Thou canst not see my face; for there shall be no man see me and live." God must have been mistaken, or changed: For in Genesis 32:30 Jacob sees God "face to face" and lives. The same for Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and 70 elders, who saw God, and ate and drank with him (Exodus 24:9-11). But not so, says John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time."

5. James 1:17 Every generous act and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights; with him there is no variation or shadow cast by turning. Hmm, okay, doubtful. I know a guy helping out in Africa right now. He's being very generous, and is atheist. If all generous things we do are 'from above', ie, God does them, that means we don't have free will. But of course, mighty creator Gawd made sure to give that to us!

1. Evolution, seriously, monkey fish people? i dont even want to go into that.A lot of the evolution theory can be counter-acted by the Bible

2. Its an expression, besides if you have huge hands its possible

3. what are you asking?

4. "face to face" is a figure of speech meaning they were in very close communion. God and Moses were speaking to each other "as if" they were two human beings having a close conversation.In Genesis 32:30, Jacob saw God appearing as an angel but he had only seen Him appearing as an angel. Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:1,14) so when people saw Him, they were seeing God. So, yes, God can be "seen" and many people have "seen" God. At the same time, no one has ever seen God revealed in all His glory. In our fallen human condition, if God were to fully reveal Himself to us, we would be consumed. Therefore, God veils Himself and appears in forms in which we can "see" Him. However, this is different than seeing God with all His glory and holiness displayed. People have seen visions of God, images of God, and appearances of God – but no one has ever seen God in all His fullness (Exodus 33:20). So the Bible speaks in code a lot of the time.

5.I believe that means that God gives us the heart to do something good but it doesnt mean HE did it.

Lol i worked hard on this . feel free to ask some more lol. Oh and explain no. 3 plz. oh and i guess everything is a strong word sorry

Edited April 22, 2009 by dath244

[Izzy]

1. That was not a disproof. Whatsoever. That's "I don't understand evolution, which probably contributes to my dismissal of it, meaning I'll just call it silly and leave it at that." "God put us here" is not a counter to evolution, because it isn't fact and it certainly isn't a scientifically accepted theory.

2. No it isn't - the point was, for the earth to have corners, it can't be a sphere. Replace the word 'Earth' with 'ball' and it doesn't make sense.

3. Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Even with all the evidence suggesting it's billions of years old?

4. Fair enough. Honestly cba to check.

5. You believe? But no, the awesome word of god isn't open to interpretation! He really meant that everything we do that's nice is a gift him him! (Of course, all the bad things we brought upon ourselves.)

Shouldn't it be everything or nothing? What are your thoughts on homosexuality? Prosecuting heretics? Why are you online instead of stoning gays and murdering atheists?

[Guest]

Why are you online instead of stoning gays and murdering atheists?

Oh, c'mon, Izzy. Why are you stoning Dath? What gets under your skin so bad that you can't let someone believe something different from what you believe? As far as I'm concerned, believers of intelligent design can believe whatever they want as long as they don't try to make me believe it. You and some of the other holy-roller non-theists here seem to be the true evangelicals, trying to make somebody else believe your personal portfolio of favorite platitudes.

[Guest]

The word "spiritual" needn't mean anything supernatural, but "spiritual world" usually would. If you consider the spiritual world to be natural rather than supernatural, that would make it part of this world. The phrase suggests otherwise.

I'm using the first of your quoted definitions for "supernatural" in this sense, since this is the primary definition, fits the etymology, and is clearly in context here:

1a) transcending nature, beyond the physical universe but experienced by ordinary matter.

The first part of the definition works anyway, the second part contradicts itself. Not to say that makes it a bad definition, rather it makes supernatural a bad concept. In fact it sums up my main objection to the concept very succinctly so I'll leave it at that.

"Spiritual" is more vague and I agree that it can mean things which are not supernatural, since the "spirit" can be viewed an aspect of the mind (generally considered natural) or the soul (generally considered supernatural). In your comments on the spirituality of music it is unclear which you are referring to, and you seem to be using that ambiguity to suggest that because there are things which we call "spiritual", therefore the "spirit world" exists. I think most people would view the spirit world as being a supernatural realm accessible only to spirits (ghosts, souls, or suchlike, maybe gods get in there too, being supernatural). There is no reason to believe that the spirituality of music is supernatural and indeed you seem to be implying as much in the post I'm answering. But the natural spirituality of music (in other words, the effect it has on the mind) implies nothing about whether the spirit world is real. It's the old equivocation problem again.

Regarding equivocation: Define precisely what you mean by "Spirit World." Is it the same as "spiritual world"?

Regarding the definition of "supernatural" in bold: Define precisely what you mean by "transcend". Define precisely what you mean by "nature". In your view, where are the bounds of the physical universe? Does it include the matter that we cannot now observe because it is outside of our world line (our event horizon)? Does it include things like Dark Energy? If so, does Dark Energy include processes that "transcend nature"? How do you justify your answer?

In an earlier post responding to my "Socrates" questions you made a flat statement:

I'm sure truth(organized conceptual structure) is infinite.

(emphasis is mine). Please provide me with the basis of this belief. Does anything in your justification transcend nature?

I'm very interested in exploring the contrast between your apparent view of the biggest, outermost shell of existence and mine. I've stated my opinion that the most fundamental outermost shell contains nothing but disorganized, random, indifferent chaos, which reason and logic can only address as paradox. If I understand you correctly, you claim that some sort of potentially understandable structure (an embedded "design") is at the root of everything. I continue to look at that as an interesting equivalent to what theists say, but without the anthropomorphisms. So far I have been unable to "crack the code" of how you can justify that position without invoking any unsupportable belief systems. After all, we're talking about stuff that nobody has seen, some of which nobody will ever see, and some of which, based on the established laws of physics, it is physically impossible to see. How can you make claims about the nature of something that it is physically impossible to see without invoking good old fashioned unjustifiable and unsupportable "belief" (synonym for "faith")?

[Guest]

Do you believe the book of Matthew which says that the male lineage of Jesus from king David was 27 generations? Do you believe the book of Luke which says that same lineage was 42 generations?

Also for Dath:

Add to that the question of how Jesus' male ancestry fulfills prophesy if his was a virgin birth?