1 edit
@KellyJay saidSeeking truth in reality has fewer degrees of freedom because reality is constrained. Our definitions are ever mutable; they are always in flux. The greater our understanding, the more we lose sight of what is wrong as we get closer to the truth. As our grasp of truth becomes clearer, all of the logical paths collapse, the edges disappear, and the anomalies become obvious, as truth simplifies things by doing away with all of the extra things we add to what we think, where we try to make what we think is true that doesn’t fit in our worldviews. If we miss the truth, we invent false flags, exceptions, heuristics, and excuses to cover up contradictions rather than eliminate them.
A well-formed system aligns all variables so that anything outside an acceptable result fails loudly, so noticeably that it becomes painfully obvious something unexpected occurred outside the tolerances of the designed system. There is gravity in a well-formed system that keeps everything operating in a well-tuned manner; so much so that if something resists that gravity, i ...[text shortened]... involvement at all, or something so well designed that we can spot something anomalous at a glance?
By defining truth our way by our definitions, we can tweak it whenever we want; it is not a solid scale for truth, as it can shift to making our biases seem reasonable until we learn enough to know what we added to our calculations should never have been there.
The problem with threads like these is that it gets far too abstract. To many nebulous, opinionated terms like "well-designed".
None of this is scientific, just vague philosophic meandering. No facts are ever discussed on which to build ideas on when Kelly posts. Just a cloud of jumbled words.
Keep this in Spirituality.
@vivify saidThoughts:
The problem with threads like these is that it gets far too abstract. To many nebulous, opinionated terms like "well-designed".
None of this is scientific, just vague philosophic meandering. No facts are ever discussed on which to build ideas on when Kelly posts. Just a cloud of jumbled words.
Keep this in Spirituality.
Is it easy to miss evidence for God if our search is more about rejecting Him than finding Him. An honest search for truth requires standards and methods that do not bend to our preferences.
If we are seeking truth, which has fewer degrees of freedom than errors, because truth is constrained by reality. We need to be aware that if we create or follow our own or someone else’s definitions, what we create is mutable; it will always be in flux. The greater our understanding of what is real, the more we reject error as we get closer to the truth.
As our grasp of truth becomes clearer, all the logical paths collapse and point to reality as it is, the edges disappear, and the anomalies become obvious, because truth simplifies things. What will disappear is all the extra things we add to what we see, our invented false flags, exceptions, heuristics, and excuses to cover up contradictions rather than eliminate them.
By defining truth to fit our bias, we can tweak it however we want; nothing will be eliminated because it doesn’t belong, and we risk denying true things because they are inconvenient and oppose our worldviews. Instead, we create more excuses. Without a solid scale for truth, we build a universe in our minds that can shift to making our biases seem reasonable. The only hope for change, then, is if we are forced to admit that something we trusted to be true isn’t, and to acknowledge what we added to our calculations should never have been there.
It can also be about a reluctance to acknowledge what is there. Many people look at the universe and see a created world marked by order rather than chaos, yet they favor the idea that it emerged from chaos because it eliminates the need for God. The fact that the universe is predictable and understandable, and that many conditions are finely tuned and balanced, with extremely tight tolerances for success, suggests that something is sustaining and organizing reality.
Searching for truth has fewer “degrees of freedom” than chasing opinions, because reality does not change to fit our preferences. Our personal definitions and theories can shift from day to day, but truth stays put. As we learn more, the range of plausible explanations narrows, and the more accurate path becomes clearer. Errors tend to show up at the edges as contradictions and anomalies. Truth often simplifies what we see, but only when we remove false assumptions. If we keep bad assumptions in the mix, we end up patching over problems with ad hoc exceptions, rules of thumb, and excuses instead of correcting the underlying mistake.
If we define “truth” as whatever matches our existing beliefs, we can always redefine it until we feel justified. Anything that does not fit can be dismissed with endless rationalizations. In that mode, the goal quietly shifts from finding what is true to proving that we are right. But a standard that moves with our preferences cannot reliably test our beliefs. Over time, if we do get a deeper understanding of what is true, we can see that some “inputs” that we added, such as some assumptions, definitions, or priorities, never belonged in the calculation in the first place.
A fair test, then, is not whether an idea can be made to fit what we already want to believe, but whether it best explains the world as it is. That kind of search asks for humility: a willingness to let evidence correct us, to name our assumptions, and to follow the conclusion even when it is inconvenient. Without that, we can be endlessly “reasonable” on the surface while never truly being open to what is true.
@KellyJay saidOur predictions are based on applying what we think while considering variables and their responses. That has nothing to do with the Theory’s name we are giving credit to, but only with the consistency of variable reactions, given which variables are in play under which condition. Rather than focusing on what we call the theory, because that is meaningless to observation and our ability to test.
Thoughts:
Is it easy to miss evidence for God if our search is more about rejecting Him than finding Him. An honest search for truth requires standards and methods that do not bend to our preferences.
If we are seeking truth, which has fewer degrees of freedom than errors, because truth is constrained by reality. We need to be aware that if we create or follow our o ...[text shortened]... that, we can be endlessly “reasonable” on the surface while never truly being open to what is true.
Why we look at what we test doesn’t alter its results; that has nothing to do with the outcomes we find. We can look at something for one reason and get an output, because, and “only because” what we are doing will always give the results reality will give us. Do you believe that if we are seeking evolutionary answers, a test result would be different if we were looking for design answers while performing the same test under the same conditions?
The same variable under the same conditions for a Theist does not alter the reactions if an Atheist did it, so the output would be no different. The only thing going on is people put parts of the material world under tests, looking for results, and when they get them, they make predictions that may or may not come true. Why they do it, what the fundamental state of their worldviews is, does not matter one way or the other; reality doesn’t change because of what we believe or disbelieve.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidBut OF COURSE you can read the mind of god so you KNOW YOUR god and ONLY your god is the one who made the entire universe but still has time to fk with the Human race, like a Man is worth 50 sheckels but a woman only 35. And I bet you think that came from a god 100%. And a thousand other TOTALLY MAN MADE rules and making the excuse NO, it wasn't ME who wrote those verses, it was GOD who told me, well, after I ate those shrums and that was the time I saw that burning bush too.
Yes, you are told the criteria you are applying to God do not apply, and you refuse to acknowledge it, instead keeping the question as if it has relevance.
And feeding 5000 people with one fish. SURE, it could happen, like in a SCI FI tale but not the REAL world and you believe the whole screed.
ALL you have is your belief, which is just a ruse by the UPPERS in religion, JUST BELIEVE me, you will go to HELL if you DON'T believe me.
I did EIGHT years of Lutheran propaganda and the First Lutheran School and church in El Monte California where I was born and it was obvious to me even at age 8 there was something seriously wrong with all this "faith'' crap, TRUST me, the LORD said he NEEDED that little 2 yo girl who got vaginal cancer, and if it survived, GOD SAVED THIS LITTLE ONE.
It takes fearful gullibility, afraid of every clap of thunder, or an Earthquake or flood, ALL of that stuff the result of the fury of your god. It is FEAR that produces the generation of such religions to explain why those floods happen, that earthquake, like Vesuvius in year 79, GOD WAS PISSED AT US HUMANS so 'HE' destroyed a huge territory around the area, when in fact it is a VOLCANO which doesn't give a DAMN whether people live there or not, but the ancients had to come up with SOMETHING that calmed down the population AND to make sure the LEADERS are the ones with the mansions or big boats, 3000, 4000 years ago.
@sonhouse saidWhen you are asking about who created God, and I tell you God was not created, so it did not apply, stick to that conversation. The other stuff are not part of that conversation, and we have covered those before.
But OF COURSE you can read the mind of god so you KNOW YOUR god and ONLY your god is the one who made the entire universe but still has time to fk with the Human race, like a Man is worth 50 sheckels but a woman only 35. And I bet you think that came from a god 100%. And a thousand other TOTALLY MAN MADE rules and making the excuse NO, it wasn't ME who wrote those verses, it ...[text shortened]... tion AND to make sure the LEADERS are the ones with the mansions or big boats, 3000, 4000 years ago.
@KellyJay saidWhat arrogance to say GOD was not created as if you actually know. You have OPINIONS and that is ALL you have.
When you are asking about who created God, and I tell you God was not created, so it did not apply, stick to that conversation. The other stuff are not part of that conversation, and we have covered those before.
@sonhouse saidAre you any different? We both speak what we believe. I believe that what I believe is much more logical going forward than what someone who cannot even describe what they believe about origins believes.
What arrogance to say GOD was not created as if you actually know. You have OPINIONS and that is ALL you have.
1 edit
@vivify saidSo, if we look at evolution, it is a process; it speaks to change. No one disagrees with that, but the conflict arises over how much change for how long, and what from what, to produce what we see in the here and now. We can use science, but science always changes; it has to, because it does not produce ‘truth’, it suggests probabilities. Even Darwin looked at activities and suggested that, going backward, what we see today, like our breeding, could cause changes that would produce what he thought his theory needed. He had no clue about the complex nature of living cells, let alone how much is required to do the very basics of life.
The problem with threads like these is that it gets far too abstract. To many nebulous, opinionated terms like "well-designed".
None of this is scientific, just vague philosophic meandering. No facts are ever discussed on which to build ideas on when Kelly posts. Just a cloud of jumbled words.
Keep this in Spirituality.
Some claim 4 billion years, roughly speaking, take more if you like, the human body alone has 30 to 40 trillion cells in it, and when you look at how many parts an individual living cell has in it, billions to trillions of molecules in each one, does 4 billion years sound like enough time to you for an unguided, uncontrolled process to direct all of the chemical reactions to make a cell, let alone a human body?
@KellyJay saidBut for you, this kind of unsupervised 'evolution' you allude to, you cannot imagine that happening in the real universe we live in, you also cannot imagine a god so powerful it can create our entire universe with instructions on how some planets can make life hidden in DNA and maybe other forms of life using an entirely different storage technique like a square matrix as opposed to our spiral staircase. That would put you in the position of trying to accept a god that has no contact at all with us and we would in that case be yet another experiment that is 100% up to us not to FK up so badly we cause our own extinction, you depend on this magical psycho medicine you run to when you have problems, how would God deal with this, can I ask him for help? I can see where that mind set would lead to internal irrefutable dichotomies pillow fighting in your head.
So, if we look at evolution, it is a process; it speaks to change. No one disagrees with that, but the conflict arises over how much change for how long, and what from what, to produce what we see in the here and now. We can use science, but science always changes; it has to, because it does not produce ‘truth’, it suggests probabilities. Even Darwin looked at activities and ...[text shortened]... uncontrolled process to direct all of the chemical reactions to make a cell, let alone a human body?
@sonhouse saidGod has contact with us, but only those who want it.
But for you, this kind of unsupervised 'evolution' you allude to, you cannot imagine that happening in the real universe we live in, you also cannot imagine a god so powerful it can create our entire universe with instructions on how some planets can make life hidden in DNA and maybe other forms of life using an entirely different storage technique like a square matrix as op ...[text shortened]... see where that mind set would lead to internal irrefutable dichotomies pillow fighting in your head.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidUTTER BS. My sister is as religious as you can get but she has major medical problems, she prays every day and exactly what good did that do? She has had most of her bones replace, shoulder most recently.
God has contact with us, but only those who want it.
I guess she somehow pissed off your god.
So I guess you also believe we are BORN in sin. What piece of hogwash. A baby one minute old out of mom's body is already sinful? WHAT FKING GARBAGE.
That is a POLITICAL ploy to suck more people into that religion of yours.
1 edit
@sonhouse saidThere is nothing that happens to us that is not common to all men. You are looking at the temporary life we are living and making judgment calls purely on what you approve of and what you don’t. I’ve had death and illness in my life; everyone will. If there are five kids born into a family, one will not see any of the others die because they will die first, and one will watch all of them die because they will die last if they all die one at a time. When this life is over for us, what is next is eternal, and nothing in this life will matter depending on where we end up and why. The author of life has promised eternal life to those who put their faith in Him, Jesus Christ. You do the math. This is a temporary life, and eternity is next. What happens here will be swallowed up by eternal life. With you, there is no hope, there is nothing to hang on to, there is nothing.
UTTER BS. My sister is as religious as you can get but she has major medical problems, she prays every day and exactly what good did that do? She has had most of her bones replace, shoulder most recently.
I guess she somehow pissed off your god.
So I guess you also believe we are BORN in sin. What piece of hogwash. A baby one minute old out of mom's body is already sinful? WHAT FKING GARBAGE.
That is a POLITICAL ploy to suck more people into that religion of yours.
@KellyJay saidAnd you are looking at extreme obsession with invisible friends who ONLY want humans to go extinct so the planet can be saved. We are doing a PISS POOR job of sheparding Earth.
There is nothing that happens to us that is not common to all men. You are looking at the temporary life we are living and making judgment calls purely on what you approve of and what you don’t. I’ve had death and illness in my life; everyone will. If there are five kids born into a family, one will not see any of the others die because they will die first, and one will w ...[text shortened]... ed up by eternal life. With you, there is no hope, there is nothing to hang on to, there is nothing.
@sonhouse saidStaying on topic about life’s beginning:
And you are looking at extreme obsession with invisible friends who ONLY want humans to go extinct so the planet can be saved. We are doing a PISS POOR job of sheparding Earth.
There are no givens here. If any required piece of the puzzle is missing, the process breaks down and fails. These requirements do not work in isolation; they must converge. If even one is missing or corrupted, the system fails.
Timing is everything; the length of time will not help if everything that must be true at the same time is not. What is supposed to be there either is or is not. The necessary connections are either made correctly, at the right time and in the right way, or the whole thing falls apart or never connects as it must for life to begin.
For evolution to even get off the ground, many factual realities have to converge at the same time: the placement of our galaxy in the universe, our solar system within that galaxy, the right kind of star, Earth’s position in relation to that star and to the moon, and the makeup of the Earth itself, from its core to the materials found on it. You cannot do anything at all if the necessary parts are not in the same place at the same time, and nothing is present that would hinder or damage the process.
And all that comes before we even begin addressing the necessity of the information contained in the genetic code. Information is, without question, the most important piece of the process. You can have rocks lying on the ground, but if their arrangement spells out “Welcome to Hoopeston,” the information conveyed by that arrangement rises far above the mere makeup of the rocks themselves.