Posts by Terry

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

If we look up into the sky and see a horse while looking at a cloud you wouldn't say that the "horse-ness" of our identification is contained in

the constituency of the cloud itself, would you? I reckon not. It is in the inherent pattern-seeking which the brain has developed.

If we look at twin mountains, like the native Americans did, and name them the Grand Tetons (Big Titties) that would hardly be reducible to

the boulders and soil, would it? Nah.

I am saying we blurt our impressions "as though" they are credible. The deer that blurts a waving plant stalk as a Lion's tail in that waving high grass may be wrong--but--if correct? The actual crouching lion will lose the advantage of camouflage and surprise.

Science is like that. What is an hypothesis but a blurt? The testing of it is the proof of such pudding.

Now...back to GOD.....if you don't mind....:)

We as a species tend to assign causality in the same manner the deer blurts the lion tail out of the waving grass.

Without God the primitive humanoid has no agency to approach for mercy or appeasement--so, how useful if the transaction could be due to invisibility.

After all, Charles Taze Russell thought it solved the 1914 return of Jesus problem. (Psssst....he's invisible!)

God having the FOREKNOWLEDGE to see the end from the beginning is a default of the magnification of human imagination into unnecessary superlatives.

Eternity has no "end" so God cannot possibly see "it".

If God cannot (rather than will not) create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it----well, GAME OVER as far as superlatives is concerned.

The legal precept in latin "Falsus in Unum, Falsus in Omnibus" means "False in one, false in all" and basically means that if an entity (person or government) has lied to you about one thing, it is safe (and legal) to assume that entity has lied to you about everything.

But, you get the picture.

ANY LIMIT on God is as good as pulling back the curtain on the Wizard.

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

I ran out of cream!

_______________________

Now why, I ask you, do people (humanity) insist on reading the Bible to discover WHO/WHAT God is?

Our brain has a one on one relationship with the nature of our earthly reality.

Man's sin is a default of his human nature.

God's goodness is a default of God's nature.

Communication and understanding of Man and God take place with words, writing and thoughts irrevocably tied down to an attempt at rational discourse.

Rational is a ratio between verifiable and non-verifiable data whereby we actually determine a DIFFERENCE!

Otherwise, morality is impossible to judge on the basis of understanding what is moral/immoral.

Reductionism doesn't work for certain things such as the MIND sets before itself. The Gestalt is such that the whole is actually greater (more profound) than the sum of its parts.

What you and I perceive as beauty and truth is irreducible yet connected to "that which IS..."

Mozart and Bobby Fischer anybody?

----------------------

We know that the brain does work electrically and organically to produce a sort of ghost in the machine which enables the brain's owner to interface with

all perceptible stimulation.

Additionally, the human mind can dabble with its own after-echoes. These resonances become recursive and all attempts

to analyze them create meta-entanglements. If we think about thinking, for example...

Now, I understand that we can stimulate the brain and "cause" precitable reaction. But, how is that different from clapping your hands and frightening off

grackles in the tree in your driveway?

My toothache may be universally and empathetically accessible to others--but--that is an inference objectively appraised. It is a far cry from being identical to MY PAIN which is subjectively experienced by ME.

When a gay guy looks at the very same women I'm lusting after I'd have to hypothesize that an essential difference is happening in our respective brains.

Is this because the woman is somehow different to each of us? Doubtful.

Is our filtering/appraisal/conceptual mechanism that much different? Dunno.

Our personally acquired VALUES determine how we FEEL about what we see and hear and think. Ineffable, intangible and irreducible to specs.

However similar me and the gay guy might well be-- our respective identity as a person makes our values considerably at odds.

Our mind is our nature.

Map it as you will--it is irreproducible for what it actually is as a part of the individual human whose nature lies therein.

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

He knows, therefore, He is. If He cannot know, He does not exist.

The interesting question (well, to ME, anyway) is, what is it we are CERTAIN that God knows in advance when there exist person's who have the power and the will to change, disturb, rearrange, nullify, invent or corrupt?

I assert that God possessing and using Foreknowledge cannot occur beyond a vague or general "best guess". And that is NOT the same thing as seeing the future in advance.

Scientific Prediction deals with non-living physics accurately enough to --say---shoot a rocket containing a robot off through space and land it in a specific area at a precise location in time and space EVEN THOUGH earth is spinning and so is Mars WHILE revolving about the Sun! That is NOT foreknowledge of the same nature that is attributed to God, however. The Rocket cannot will itself otherwise nor is either Earth or Mars likely to decide to change orbit.

God speakers(people who speak FOR God) fall back on magic as their explanation. That's why it's a dead end. Using magic as the answer for such huge, important parts of your life stops thought, real searching and is intellectually lazy.

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

If there were nothing (now follow with me on this) the person who asks this question would not exist either.

The fact that the question exists means there must be something so that the QUESTION can exist.

This topic is intended to focus on KNOWLEDGE. There is no "question" without a mind to do the questioning. The existence of a questioner and a question produces the result. Without a questioner, there is no question, and without existence there is no questioner.

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

Minimus: I do.

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

However we cannot know that God is restricted to the boundaries of time as we understand it. There are lots of Bible hints that we do not see the whole picture.So on the basis that my knowledge of eternity , space ,time etc may be only partial I can't agree simply because I may not know all the facts.

____________________________

We solve problems, that's what homo sapiens do.

We never begin solving a problem by declaring ignorance as a GAME OVER.

All science is knowledge because it is provisionally testable and amenable to additional evidence.

The first men who sailed out "too far" in expeditions into the unknown may have seen maps

where the horizon ended and the words: HERE THERE BE DRAGONS boldly emblazoned.

This topic if for the mind mariner who refuses to be kept on shore by fear of the end of the known.

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry


To exist is to be something, somewhere. For there to be a somewhere it must be measurable! Science (which is knowledge) measures before it does anything else. By locating and describing and measuring we pin down what IS and differentiate. What is the biggest difference between something REAL and something UNreal? Answer: you can measure it. I asked a question a long while back in another topic. At first it sounds wacky. But, I asked it to make an important point. The question was: HOW BIG IS A DEMON? I asked it because of the NT story of the fellow possessed by a Legion of demons who were literally driven into swine and drowned. My thought process was this: If a demon is real and the man was real then we start with what we know about man. Man is of a certain size and shape. In order for a LEGION (5,120 soldiers) to occupy the same space as a man---what size would they be? You see what I mean? By reducing the problem to the point of absurdity, it becomes clear (at least to me) what baloney demons really are. At least in THAT story:)
	But are thoughts PHYSICAL? Can the mind be explained merely in physical terms related to the body? What is thought? What makes me self-aware? We can try to explain it in terms of biological function, but we really don't know where or even what the MIND is. Our thoughts are that BY MEANS OF WHICH we place objects before our mind which aren't actually there. Here is a painting in the middle of a sidewalk which is a good analogy of how a thought works to represent something NOT REALLY THERE. The only problem with "knowing what the mind is" comes from the illogic of self-reference. You cannot use the mind to define itself!

To exist is to be something, somewhere. For there to be a somewhere it must be measurable!

Science (which is knowledge) measures before it does anything else.

By locating and describing and measuring we pin down what IS and differentiate.

What is the biggest difference between something REAL and something UNreal?

Answer: you can measure it.

I asked a question a long while back in another topic. At first it sounds wacky. But, I asked it to make an important point.

The question was: HOW BIG IS A DEMON?

I asked it because of the NT story of the fellow possessed by a Legion of demons who were literally driven into swine and drowned.

My thought process was this:

If a demon is real and the man was real then we start with what we know about man. Man is of a certain size and shape.

In order for a LEGION (5,120 soldiers) to occupy the same space as a man---what size would they be?

You see what I mean? By reducing the problem to the point of absurdity, it becomes clear (at least to me) what baloney demons really are. At least in THAT story:)

But are thoughts PHYSICAL? Can the mind be explained merely in physical terms related to the body? What is thought? What makes me self-aware? We can try to explain it in terms of biological function, but we really don't know where or even what the MIND is.

Our thoughts are that BY MEANS OF WHICH we place objects before our mind which aren't actually there.

Here is a painting in the middle of a sidewalk which is a good analogy of how a thought works to represent something NOT REALLY THERE.

The only problem with "knowing what the mind is" comes from the illogic of self-reference. You cannot use the mind to define itself!

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

AND FINALLY . . .

To exist is to be something, somewhere. For there to be a somewhere it must be measurable!

Science (which is knowledge) measures before it does anything else.

By locating and describing and measuring we pin down what IS and differentiate.

What is the biggest difference between something REAL and something UNreal?

Answer: you can measure it.

I asked a question a long while back in another topic. At first it sounds wacky. But, I asked it to make an important point.

The question was: HOW BIG IS A DEMON?

I asked it because of the NT story of the fellow possessed by a Legion of demons who were literally driven into swine and drowned.

My thought process was this:

If a demon is real and the man were real then we start with what we know about man. Man is of a certain size and shape.

In order for a LEGION (5,120 soldiers) to occupy the same space as a man---what size would they be?

You see what I mean? By reducing the problem to the point of absurdity it becomes clear (at least to me) what baloney demons really are. At least in THAT story:)

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

For God to be a Creator He must, first, create. Right?

What about the eternity BEFORE He first created? Creation took place at a point--BEFORE WHICH---there was no creation.

God, at that preceding point, could NOT be a Creator.

For God to be All-Knowing there would have to be "something" to know.

Before creation----there wasn't any....THING. Therefore, logically....God could not KNOW because there was nothing TO KNOW.

See the problem with clear contexts and definitions? They amplify absurdity by forcing them out into the open.

61

THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)

by Terry in

i suggest taking this slowly .

.. consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.. the information gathered about what the vote will be is provisional.

the vote on the day of the election is actual and official.. it is the one that counts.. now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of.

Terry

I suggest taking this slowly . . .

Consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.

The information gathered about what the vote WILL BE is provisional. The vote on the day of the election is ACTUAL and official.

It is the one that counts.

Now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of

as an identical knowledge of fact?

The pollster--it can be said--has information IN ADVANCE (foreknowledge) of the election day vote.

Yet--it DOESN'T. Even though the tally may match the poll number exactly---it isn't the same information.

Why?

The poll measures provisional INTENTION and not actual occurrence. Actual occurrence can only exist at the time it happens and not before!

______________________________________________________

Let's explore this in the form of a thought experiment.

You are a prisoner in Guantanamo being tortured for information about an imminent planned terrorist explosion of a nuclear device.

Your interrogators want specific information in Advance of the actual occurrence in order to PREVENT the actual occurrence.

You might well say the torturers want to keep the terrorist explosion "provisional" only and not "actual", could we not?

IF you divulge the day and hour and location of the event IN ADVANCE you ensure the event will NOT occur.

This means, logically speaking, you have a kind of special opportunity to possess knowledge of something that will (IF you succeed)

not take place while simultaneous to possessing its very opposite!!

(Ponder that carefully before continuing.)

____________________

This is self-reference.

This is the inherent problem with Foreknowledge as a rational discussion. It cannot both BE and NOT be without violating the Law of the Excluded Middle.

i.e. Something either IS or IS NOT. It cannot be BOTH at the same time.

God's "foreknowledge" falls into this category. He cannot foreknow. Not as an actual knowledge.

At best, God could only provisionally know that He can't actually know.