A world with a loving God.

Write4U said:
Jan believes he is a product of immaculate conception.
Click to expand...

Fingers in arch formation with fore fingers tapping

Interesting

I wonder what the DNA of JC would reveal

Any chance any church would allow a scientific DNA test on the supposed holy relic vials of JC blood

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Fingers in arch formation with fore fingers tapping
Click to expand...
Interesting
I wonder what the DNA of JC would reveal
Any chance any church would allow a scientific DNA test on the supposed holy relic vials of JC blood:)[/QUOTE]
Match it up with the shroud of Turin.
 
Write4U said:
Interesting
I wonder what the DNA of JC would reveal
Any chance any church would allow a scientific DNA test on the supposed holy relic vials of JC blood:)
Click to expand...
Match it up with the shroud of Turin.[/QUOTE]
Good one. Which cheek is your tongue planted in?

:)
 
I'd like to make the point that believing in a god or gods does not mean you have to be a science denier like Jan Ardena.

There are plenty of scientists who believe in a god or gods. Their religious beliefs are not incompatible with science like Jan's are. They accept evolution by natural selection, for instance. Indeed, even the Roman Catholic Church accepts scientific evolution, officially. It also officially accepts that the Earth goes around the Sun, although admittedly that has only been the official position for the last 30 years or so, following a little argument the Church had with Galileo four centuries ago.

It is impossible to be a religious fundamentalist without denying at least some modern science. Fundamentalists usually assert that their preferred holy book is the literal Truth - often the literal Word of God. Conflict then naturally arises when it is discovered that the Holy Text is in error when it comes to established scientific facts.

If your holy text claims that pi is exactly 3 (e.g. see the bible) or that the Noah's Ark story is a historical account, then there are number of ways a religious person might go about reconciling those claims with the findings of science. They include (and these aren't all mutually exclusive):
  1. Denying the science and asserting the literal truth of the holy writings, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
  2. Accepting that the holy writings are flawed because they were written by imperfect human beings trying to make sense of communications from God.
  3. Accepting that the holy book is not meant to be taken as literally true; it is a guide to living, not a science textbook.
  4. Accepting that the holy writings are, at least in part, instructive stories or allegories, rather than historically accurate reports of actual events or circumstances.
  5. Denying that the holy writings mean what they appear to mean; assert instead that, when read "correctly", they really say something different.
Only one of the approaches on this list requires denial of science and it is almost the definition of fundamentalism to adopt that approach to religion. Another of the approaches on the list is an exercise in continuous self-delusion, but some religious people choose to adopt it in an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. Meanwhile, more reasonable theists tend to adopt one or more of the other approaches.
 
James R said:
Only one of the approaches on this list requires denial of science and it is almost the definition of fundamentalism to adopt that approach to religion. Another of the approaches on the list is an exercise in continuous self-delusion, but some religious people choose to adopt it in an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. Meanwhile, more reasonable theists tend to adopt one or more of the other approaches.
Click to expand...
Strangely, theism can make a minor concession and become much more aligned with science.
The obstacle in the entire God argument is "motive", which raises an irreconcilable problem of a "purposeful" intelligent sentience which has only spiritual properties and is somehow spread throughout the entire universe.

IMO, this is a self-contradictory statement which actually can be resolved by modifying the concept to a quasi-intelligent mathematical "essence" to the universe, from which all physical patterns emerge. More or less in the mold of Tegmark's mathematical Universe.

This might be received by the scientific community with skepticism, but not by outright rejection (?). But of course it would negate any concept of a benign sentience who can be influenced by prayer and the scrapping of this grandiose idea that man is a special creation to fulfill some hidden purpose in a universe so vast that man is not even comparable to an insect.

Science cannot make any compromises in this respect so it's up to theists to make the concessions (such as recognizing evolution, which is a mathematical function).
I remain optimistic.....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
which actually can be resolved by modifying the concept to a quasi-intelligent mathematical "essence" to the universe, from which all physical patterns emerge. More or less in the mold of Tegmark's mathematical Universe.
Click to expand...

I would forget all about the

quasi-intelligent mathematical "essence"

and

from which all physical patterns emerge

I would credit physics, no intelligence required

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
I would forget all about the
quasi-intelligent mathematical "essence"
and
from which all physical patterns emerge
I would credit physics, no intelligence required:)
Click to expand...
I understand the objection. I won't go any deeper than this observation for now. It's the wrong forum.
But I have by no means given up on the concept of a physical universe that functions in accordance with relative quantitative and qualitative values and mathematical functions by which these values interact to produce results and give the appearance of a form of quasi-sentience.

Understand the definition of "quasi". From Latin quasi (“almost, as it were”), from quam (interrogative adverb) + sī (conditional particle)

Usage notes
“Quasi-” may be prefixed to nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.

Synonyms
partial / partially
semi-
somewhat
sort of

Hence, a "quasi-intelligent" mathematical function is a perfectly acceptable concept.

We already have quasi-intelligent artificially organized physical patterns (robots). These are not just some collection of physical parts. The parts function in concert in accordance with mathematical equations.
The fact that they are artificial does not negate the principle of mathematical values and functions being able to produce a functional object (assembled physical pattern).

In nature these patterns are self-assembled from organic parts, but function in accordance with the same mathematical principles as robots. They all have to deal with gravity, resistance, motion, homeostasis.

There is no remarkable difference in function between a roomba vacuum and a single celled paramecium, except the first is artificial and the latter is an organic physical pattern.....:rolleyes:

Is there a mathematical difference in a naturally generated wave and an artificially generated wave?
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
But I have by no means given up on the concept of a physical universe that functions in accordance with relative quantitative and qualitative values and mathematical functions by which these values interact to produce results
Click to expand...

Sure, a few points
  1. the Universe had no say in the physics of itself
  2. us Minions invented maths to describe and impart knowledge about physics to other's
  3. no matter under which physics system came into play if any sentinel being came to happen I'm sure they would invent a suitable math system to match
  4. My personal preference for quasi-intelligent would be programmed operations
  5. a ATM I would not call quasi-intelligent, or the chip on the bank card used in such a machine
Use of the word intelligent I think is a step to close to anthropomorphism

May as well say Shakespeare's quill was quasi-intelligent when he was writing plays and sonnets

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Use of the word intelligent I think is a step to close to anthropomorphism
Click to expand...
Why? The word quasi-intelligent is a perfect substitute for the artistry we see all around us, wherever we look.
An ATM machine is an Artificial Intelligence. We're not afraid to use that term are we?
May as well say Shakespeare's quill was quasi-intelligent when he was writing plays and sonnets
Click to expand...
No, your missing the point. Shakespeare was intelligent, the quill was a tool.
The universe acts in a quasi-intelligent mathematical process and evolution and natural selection are the tools it has used for all that you see today. Nature is not motivated, it just functions with selective mathematical precision. It took Nature 14.6 billion years to create what we see. Just by non-motivated functional trial and error. None of it with intention or purpose.

The evolution from a single cell to a human does not warrant a recognition of a self-referential quasi-intelligent mathematical function? "Natura Artis Magistra" (Nature is the teacher of art), is a very old philosophical recognition of nature's inherent mathematical creative potentials, which humans have learned to imitate.

This is the very foundation for the mistaken theist concept of an intelligent causal god (anthropomorphism), instead of a quasi-intelligent natural (mathematical) causal function. Atoms and molecules and mathematical interactions are nature's quills with which it writes its physical sonnets. Can you think of a greater non-intelligent functional artist than Nature? Does a fractal function think? Can you imagine a more artistic creation than a fractal with multiple iterations? Self-similarity is abundantly present in the universe.

Quasi-intelligent is not Intelligent, it just appears that way. I am not afraid to draw that comparison.
But that appearance is the cause for some 100,000 years of human belief and worship in an unseen creative force, a motivated God.
But is only what nature does, inexorably, without motive. Where does this logic fail?

Animals don't worship, it's not necessary. Only humans feel that need for some obscure reason. Maybe to give our own lives "meaning"?.......:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
My personal preference for quasi-intelligent would be programmed operations
Click to expand...
No, that's "artificial intelligence" which requires a programmer. "Quasi" merely means that it has similarities, without any reference to a programmer. The prefix is used in a host of other identifications, none of them having anything to do with a programmer or artificiality.
I think I gave you an acceptable definition in context of my argument, no?.......:?
 
Write4U said:
It must have been a truly unforgettable experience......:rolleyes:

Looking down from way up and see your cities as a collection of ant-farms....:)
Click to expand...

You're quoting and rolling your eyes at a comment I directed at billvon. Not sure what this reply means in relation to that.
 
James R said:
I'd like to make the point that believing in a god or gods does not mean you have to be a science denier like Jan Ardena.

There are plenty of scientists who believe in a god or gods. Their religious beliefs are not incompatible with science like Jan's are. They accept evolution by natural selection, for instance. Indeed, even the Roman Catholic Church accepts scientific evolution, officially. It also officially accepts that the Earth goes around the Sun, although admittedly that has only been the official position for the last 30 years or so, following a little argument the Church had with Galileo four centuries ago.

It is impossible to be a religious fundamentalist without denying at least some modern science. Fundamentalists usually assert that their preferred holy book is the literal Truth - often the literal Word of God. Conflict then naturally arises when it is discovered that the Holy Text is in error when it comes to established scientific facts.

If your holy text claims that pi is exactly 3 (e.g. see the bible) or that the Noah's Ark story is a historical account, then there are number of ways a religious person might go about reconciling those claims with the findings of science. They include (and these aren't all mutually exclusive):
  1. Denying the science and asserting the literal truth of the holy writings, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
  2. Accepting that the holy writings are flawed because they were written by imperfect human beings trying to make sense of communications from God.
  3. Accepting that the holy book is not meant to be taken as literally true; it is a guide to living, not a science textbook.
  4. Accepting that the holy writings are, at least in part, instructive stories or allegories, rather than historically accurate reports of actual events or circumstances.
  5. Denying that the holy writings mean what they appear to mean; assert instead that, when read "correctly", they really say something different.
Only one of the approaches on this list requires denial of science and it is almost the definition of fundamentalism to adopt that approach to religion. Another of the approaches on the list is an exercise in continuous self-delusion, but some religious people choose to adopt it in an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. Meanwhile, more reasonable theists tend to adopt one or more of the other approaches.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church may accept it, but probably more along the lines of ''theistic evolution.'' Christians believe in the existence of souls, and evolution doesn't have a spot for that. The Catholic Church leaves the views of Genesis up to the reader - one can take it literally or one can view it as mere allegory. But, there was a time when the Catholic Church (likely before Darwin came on the scene) taught Genesis, as a literal story of the origin of man and the universe.
 
wegs said:
You're quoting and rolling your eyes at a comment I directed at billvon. Not sure what this reply means in relation to that.
Click to expand...
Aww...., I'm sorry wegs, I (mis)used that emoji as expressing awe and wonder (looking up into the heavens), not as an expression of disdain (rolling eyes in disgust).

But if you have ever seen a picture of a bustling city as seen from the sky, it looks remarkable like an ant-farm, traffic coming and going in an endless stream, just like ants. It was a light hearted comment, no ridicule intended!

 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
the Universe had no say in the physics of itself
Click to expand...
Correct, the physics of the universe has it's own mathematical organizational abilities, dictated by the natural relative physical values and mathematical functions.
us Minions invented maths to describe and impart knowledge about physics to other's
Click to expand...
To describe and impart knowledge of the mathematical nature of the universal physics to others
no matter under which physics system came into play if any sentinel being came to happen I'm sure they would invent a suitable math system to match
Click to expand...
I disagree, only the symbolic language might change, but the functions would remain the same. They are mathematical and immutable.
My personal preference for quasi-intelligent would be programmed operations
Click to expand...
I believe the proper term there is "artificial", i.e. a robot is an AI.
a ATM I would not call quasi-intelligent, or the chip on the bank card used in such a machine
Click to expand...
I would call it an artificial quasi-intelligent machine. A chip is a "processor", an artificial brain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top