pianoman1976 Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Per the Final Anthropic Principal, the life that exists (past, present and future) will continue to evolve with the inanimate resources of the universe until it all reaches a state called the "Omega Point." This Omega Point is an Entity that has the properties of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, with the capacity to create in the past. In other words, the Creator-God does not exist yet, but we (all life and all inanimate structures in the universe) are gradually evolving into God. When God is thus finally constructed, His power will be such that He can create the entire universe with all of its characteristics of design billions of years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoman1976 Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Philosopher Alfred Korzybski (pronounced "core-shab'-ski") saw that we humans build an internal model of the world in our minds, models that are wonderfully detailed, but NOT infinitely detailed as is the external reality. He concluded that the world we "live in" is our mental model. The mental model is a "map", if you will, of the external reality ("territory"). Our success at dealing with reality is a matter of how accurately our maps are built, but even so, we must never confuse the map with the territory, else an error in the map could have us "walking off a cliff", in a manner of speaking. Have you ever tried to make a joke with strangers, and by the look on their faces, you knew that you had just gaffed majorly? That's a small example. We also use our maps to understand the Universe. Things like philosophy, science and religion serve as "keys", much like a roadmap has a "key" to explain that a red line is a four-lane freeway, and a blue line is a gravel road. Our understanding of the world is always incomplete. The map is not the territory. And never can be. Sound like Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation. Simulacra and Simulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBrown Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Hard over, in your face athiest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Hard over, in your face athiest. "Now you are just putting words together"(Eureka) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Sound like Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation....It does, after a fashion. But Korzibsky would have disagreed that our "reality" is crumbling because we don't use it anymore, having replaced it with symbols. Korzibsky would say that once you depend upon "senses" for your external information -- senses beyond that of simple chemistry -- then by necessity, you cannot be fully "in touch" with reality. The reality is still out there, as solid and real as ever. But we aren't microbes that can splat our widdle brains in direct chemical/atomic contact with reality. And if we were, we would be as stupid as microbes. Evolution has separated us from direct reality so that we can sense more of it. Some detail is lost, some resolution is lost. But now we can see the mountain, a feat that the microbe will never know. Evolution then jump-started us a second time, by giving us the ability to build our maps out of symbols rather than event-memories. This vastly increases what we can remember, and permits us to manage our memories linguistically rather than temporally. A huge advantage. And so here we are, living in a "map" constructed of vast linguistic structures. As long as we're careful, it is every bit as good as reality. Maybe better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Hard over, in your face athiest. Wow, that sounds like you could be the person we're looking for since it kind of sounds like you have some kind of physical proof that there's no God(s) :hihi: Please, share the evidence.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBrown Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 "Now you are just putting words together"(Eureka)As apposed to - what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Wow, that sounds like you could be the person we're looking for since it kind of sounds like you have some kind of physical proof that there's no God(s) :hihi: Please, share the evidence....It sounds to me like he is saying that he harbors no doubts.Additionally, he may be saying that when he is confronted about his (non-) belief by believers, he refuses to tippy-toe around the issue. That sounds like "hard over" to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 As apposed to - what? As opposed to putting words together in such a way to create and relay comprehensive ideas;) Perhaps I should have said:"Now you are just putting [random] words together" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBrown Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Wow, that sounds like you could be the person we're looking for since it kind of sounds like you have some kind of physical proof that there's no God(s) :phones: Please, share the evidence....Naw – nothing physical. Just common sense. I get tired of people dancing around the ‘I don’t now for sure therefore I’m an agnostic’ maypole. Don’t you? After all you’re not agnostic about the existence of Zeus are you (your not are you???). And before you ask - yes I have read Popper and try to incorporate his ideas into scientific investigations but still the old “I am not sure” seems awfully weak don’t you think? Grow some. Say what is obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougF Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Pyrotex"Now you are just putting [random] words together"[/Quote]:boy_hug: I get it' date=' :boy_hug: :painting:hypography is kind of like Eureka,;) :cup::phones::cup: JamesBrown Hard over, in your face athiest. [/Quote] :piratesword:Alright fresh Blood.OK JB let hear where you stand. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnhuey Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 :boy_hug: I get it, :boy_hug: :painting:hypography is kind of like Eureka,;) :cup::phones::cup: :piratesword:Alright fresh Blood.OK JB let hear where you stand. ;) Except that Eureka doesn't have all these emoticons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 Naw – nothing physical. Just common sense. I get tired of people dancing around the ‘I don’t now for sure therefore I’m an agnostic’ maypole. Don’t you? Actually I'm an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is not a position one can take between theist and atheist, it is about knowledge, whether or not man could even know if there was a God or not. One could be a an agnostic theist just by believing in God and not believing that there could ever be any proof of that God. I don't believe there is any particular evidence to support or deny any God(s) and don't think there ever will be. That makes me agnostic. Like you, in the total absence of any evidence to support any belief in God(s), I have no reason to believe in such which makes me an atheist too. Agnostic atheists are sometimes referred to as weak atheists. There are also atheists that specifically believe there is and could not be any God(s) and that there is no need for any proof because there's no evidence to support a God supposition in the first place. They are sometimes referred to as strong atheists. As time flows I find myself migrating this direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougF Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 I still stand here.post #129 DougF (me) I'm a theist I would like to think that God (or my version thereof) had a hand in this Blue Ball we all live on' date=' if he made this place then why not more? if we are alone, then it's a real waste of SPACE. IMHO[/Quote'] Note: no emoticons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 I'm a theist I would like to think that God (or my version thereof) had a hand in this Blue Ball we all live on, if he made this place then why not more? if we are alone, then it's a real waste of SPACE. Reminds me of the conversation Ellie Arroway had with her dad before he died in the Carl Sagan book "Contact." :) If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits? ~Carl Sagan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 Well, if you have a humongously oversized ego--or a similarly gigantic inferiority complex--thinking that *all that empty space* is just for humans because we're the center of God's attention is quite reassuring, isn't it? Evangelism is a violation of the seventh deadly sin, :)Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougF Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 I believe that the stars hold life, and it would real cool to find some of it before I Die (probably won't happen) and I hope they are intelligent, (really reaching now) but if it turns out that they or Humanoid (I would think very slim chance) I would have to give God a chance, like what would the odds be. (Note: I didn't say that it would make me a believe. but a good look would be in order.) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.