Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
70 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK (3 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist theory
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 76 of 151 (329522)
07-07-2006 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Sandor Szabados
06-28-2006 12:41 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
Well I have to say that on balance what you present of Urantia still looks like a materialist philosophy.

The spirit is a thought-adjuster, which seems like a machine. Then there is the mind which can make decisions, but which has a predetermined goal of becoming like a thought-adjuster.

The "first decision" seems to have been racist (fleeing from the inferior), further indicating that this is more a materialist philosphy, where the value is inherent to the material, in stead of the value being spiritual.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Sandor Szabados, posted 06-28-2006 12:41 PM Sandor Szabados has taken no action

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 77 of 151 (329531)
07-07-2006 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Syamsu
06-28-2006 11:36 AM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
following on from before...

Detection and observation in context of the double-slit experiment, basicly means to introduce another point of decision. That is to say, we could replace a human being observing, with a randomizer observing, and we would get the same results, since observing in this context only means deciding.

So when there is an observer there is another point of decision in the "future", as viewed from the point where the photon came from. Obviously it would be difficult to decide a future, when there's another point of decision in that future.

So I should predict that when observation starts that the decision on where the photon ends up is broken of, and only the future of a single wavelength is decided in stead. This explains how we can observe the photon. So there are 2 testable predictions made here:

- a human being observing will give the same results as a randomizer observing, because observing in this sense means deciding

- when we start observing we will never immediately see a photon being detected

As before, one should only look at above theory as a straightforward explanation based on a strong assumption that there are several possible outcomes by same startingconditions. That is to say, if we assume it as true that there are alternative possible results, then reasonably the rest as above follows from that. It would not be interesting in my opinion to discuss alternative cause and effect explanations for the same phenomena, it would be more interesting to discuss alternative explanations which are also based on the assumption of alternative possible results.

What I mean is, don't respond if you are going to give an alternative explanation that is completely in terms of predetermination / cause and effect.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Syamsu, posted 06-28-2006 11:36 AM Syamsu has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 07-07-2006 6:27 AM Syamsu has taken no action

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3327 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 78 of 151 (329537)
07-07-2006 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Syamsu
07-07-2006 6:07 AM


In terms of decoherence I think it might be more accurate to locate the 'decision' as being owned by all the interacting elements of the system as a whole rather than simply the element most recently added to it. It isn't as if a human observer makes a conscious decision which path will be followed.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2006 6:07 AM Syamsu has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-07-2006 10:43 AM Wounded King has taken no action

Sandor Szabados
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 151 (329586)
07-07-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wounded King
07-07-2006 6:27 AM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
The URANTIA Papers are anything but materialistic. Part IV, over 750 pages, present a complete narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus. Was he a materialist? Here are some excerpts:

"In religion, Jesus advocated and followed the method of experience, even as modern science pursues the technique of experiment. We find God through the leadings of spiritual insight, but we approach this insight of the soul through the love of the beautiful, the pursuit of truth, loyalty to duty, and the worship of divine goodness. But of all these values, love is the true guide to real insight."
(p. 2076)

The leadings of spiritual insight are provided by the Thought Adjuster which is not a machine but a prepersonal fragment of God. We have free will; we follow its leadings or we don't, as we obey the laws of Nature or we don't. The choice is ours and so is the responsibility for the consequences.

"Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him; at least that was the earlier attitude. More recently, secularism has assumed a more militant attitude, assuming to take the place of the religion whose totalitarian bondage it onetime resisted. Twentieth-century secularism tends to affirm that man does not need God. But beware! this godless philosophy of human society will lead only to unrest, animosity, unhappiness, war, and world-wide disaster." (p. 2081)

"Secularism can never bring peace to mankind. Nothing can take the place of God in human society. But mark you well! do not be quick to surrender the beneficent gains of the secular revolt from ecclesiastical totalitarianism. Western civilization today enjoys many liberties and satisfactions as a result of the secular revolt. The great mistake of secularism was this: In revolting against the almost total control of life by religious authority, and after attaining the liberation from such ecclesiastical tyranny, the secularists went on to institute a revolt against God himself, sometimes tacitly and sometimes openly."

To the secularistic revolt you owe the amazing creativity of American industrialism and the unprecedented material progress of Western civilization. And because the secularistic revolt went too far and lost sight of God and true religion, there also followed the unlooked-for harvest of world wars and international unsettledness."
(p. 2081)

"Without God, without religion, scientific secularism can never co-ordinate its forces, harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms. This secularistic human society, notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, is slowly disintegrating. The chief cohesive force resisting this disintegration of antagonism is nationalism. And nationalism is the chief barrier to world peace.

The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power. You simply cannot establish the brotherhood of men while ignoring or denying the fatherhood of God.

Secular social and political optimism is an illusion. Without God, neither freedom and liberty, nor property and wealth will lead to peace.

The complete secularization of science, education, industry, and society can lead only to disaster. During the first third of the twentieth century Urantians killed more human beings than were killed during the whole of the Christian dispensation up to that time. And this is only the beginning of the dire harvest of materialism and secularism; still more terrible destruction is yet to come." (p. 2082)

Consider how prophetic the above statements have been as the Papers were written between the 1920s and mid'30s.

Sandor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 07-07-2006 6:27 AM Wounded King has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2006 1:18 PM Sandor Szabados has replied
 Message 82 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2006 10:42 AM Sandor Szabados has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 80 of 151 (329621)
07-07-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Sandor Szabados
07-07-2006 10:43 AM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
Well is the toughtadjuster the same in everyone, or do some people have a better thoughtadjuster as others? And is this thoughtadjuster heritable?

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-07-2006 10:43 AM Sandor Szabados has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-07-2006 2:28 PM Syamsu has replied

Sandor Szabados
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 151 (329640)
07-07-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Syamsu
07-07-2006 1:18 PM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
There are different types of Thought Adjusters and the differences are based on experience and condition, and they are not inheritable.

"1. Virgin Adjusters, those serving on their initial assignment in the minds of evolutionary candidates for eternal survival.

2. Advanced Adjusters, those that have served one or more seasons
with will creatures..."

3. Supreme Adjusters, those that have served in the adventure of time on the evolutionary worlds, but whose human partners for some reason declined eternal survival, and those that have been subsequently assigned to other adventures in other mortals on other evolving worlds.

4. Fused Adjusters--finaliters--those who have become one with the ascending creatures of the superuniverses, the eternity partners of the time ascenders of the Paradise Corps of the Finality.

5. Personalized Adjusters, those who have served with the incarnated Paradise Sons..." (p. 1178-79)

Jesus was an incarnated Paradise Son and had a Personalized Thought Adjuster.

The type of Thought Adjuster indwelling individual mortals is based on the following:

"1. Intellectual capacity. Is the mind normal? What is the intellectual potential, the intelligence capacity? Can the individual develop into a bona fide will creature? Will wisdom have an opportunity to function?

2. Spiritual perception. The prospects of reverential development, the birth and growth of the religious nature. What is the potential of soul, the probable spiritual capacity of receptivity?

3. Combined intellectual and spiritual powers. The degree to which these two endowments may possibly be associated, combined, so as to produce strength of human character and contribute to the certain evolution of an immortal soul of survival value." (p. 1186)

Sandor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2006 1:18 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Syamsu, posted 07-12-2006 6:59 AM Sandor Szabados has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 82 of 151 (329832)
07-08-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Sandor Szabados
07-07-2006 10:43 AM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
There is not a shred of evidence that a God now exists but there is absolutely no doubt that one or more Gods existed in the distant past. That is the whole thrust of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and it cannot be denied by any objective observer.


"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-07-2006 10:43 AM Sandor Szabados has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-08-2006 12:02 PM John A. Davison has replied

Sandor Szabados
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 151 (329854)
07-08-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by John A. Davison
07-08-2006 10:42 AM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
John,

You have a copy of The URANTIA Book which I sent you. On several occasions, both privately and on Brainstorms, you acknowledged that the science I quoted is in accordance with the PEH. As a reminder here it is again:

"The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications. The provision for such far-reaching projects of life metamorphosis may require the appearance of many apparently useless forms of animal and vegetable life. Such by-products of planetary evolution, foreseen or unforeseen, appear upon the stage of action only to disappear, but in and through all this long process there runs the thread of the wise and intelligent formulations of the original designers of the planetary life plan and species scheme." (p. 398)

From the same source, here is evidence for the existence of God which I also quoted in our private conversations:

"The Universal Father is the God of all creation, the First Source and Center of all things and beings. First think of God as a creator, then as a controller, and lastly as an infinite upholder.

The myriads of planetary systems were all made to be eventually inhabited by many different types of intelligent creatures, beings who could know God, receive the divine affection, and love him in return. The universe of universes is the work of God and the dwelling place of his diverse creatures." (p. 21)

Modern science validates the science in The URANTIA Book, the Fifth Epochal Revelation to mankind. In order for you to disprove the evidence in the book for the existence of God you first have to disprove its scientific content, which includes the PEH.

You have the book. Study it and disprove its science.

Sandor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2006 10:42 AM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2006 4:00 PM Sandor Szabados has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 84 of 151 (329895)
07-08-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Sandor Szabados
07-08-2006 12:02 PM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
Sandor

I thanked you for the book as you recall. I would be delighted to see evidence for a living God but it is not there for me to recognize. That is all I have to say about God. I am a scientist, neither a philosopher nor a theologian. I hope you understand.

Best regards.


"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-08-2006 12:02 PM Sandor Szabados has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-08-2006 5:51 PM John A. Davison has replied

Sandor Szabados
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 151 (329915)
07-08-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by John A. Davison
07-08-2006 4:00 PM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
John,

I have not said a single word about your not thanking me. Of course you did but this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You say that you are only a scientist yet you make theological statements. Just because you, or Einstein, do not see evidence of a living God does not mean there isn't one. Wasn't in fact Einstein who said that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence? On several occasions you also stated that a God must have existed at one time because, of course, the PEH implies a Prescriber, a God. However, you state that you don't see evidence of one now.

Do you see evidence that a Prescriber who, as you acknowledged, once existed no longer exists, that he is dead? If so, would you present such evidence?

My evidence is in the science - physics, cosmology, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, etc. - of the URANTIA Papers which were written between the 1920's and mid-'30s, science which has been validated by discoveries made after this time, and that includes yours. The God who created the realities discovered by scientists, including your PEH, is also there. It stands to reason that if the science is correct, so must be everything else.

The burden of proof in on you to prove it wrong.

You are entitled to your own personal opinions and beliefs but, as you well know, personal beliefs have no scientific validity whatsoever.

Sandor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2006 4:00 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2006 9:23 PM Sandor Szabados has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 86 of 151 (329963)
07-08-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Sandor Szabados
07-08-2006 5:51 PM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
Nonsense

The burden of proof is always on the one who claims there is something. It is only reasonable when something cannot be demonstrated to assume that it does not exist. What kind of a world would we live in if we always insisted on that which cannot be detected? That incidentally is exactly what the Darwinian world is. Evolution cannot be seen, yet it is going on all around us isn't it? Of course it is! If you don't believe me ask Richard Dawkins. He will tell you all about it in excruciating detail. So will every other Darwinian zealot.

I would love to believe in a loving caring personal God but it is quite impossible for me. Such an entity has no place in my science. I am not alone.

"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
Albert Einstein

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
ibid

He was equally adamant about professed atheists like Richard Dawkins. Incidentally, Dawkins has now decided that Einstein is his hero, apparently oblivious to what Einstein thought of the likes of himself.

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
ibid

Long before Einstein, Thomas Henry Huxley offered a similar appraisal.

"Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God."

Amen.


"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-08-2006 5:51 PM Sandor Szabados has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-08-2006 10:06 PM John A. Davison has replied

Sandor Szabados
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 151 (329972)
07-08-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by John A. Davison
07-08-2006 9:23 PM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
Claptrap. Just as your published works exist and you challenge people on every possible forum to prove you wrong, The URANTIA Book with its scientific content validated by modern science also exists. You have a copy and I challenge you to prove it wrong.

Post your findings on EvC when you have done it.

The End.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2006 9:23 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2006 10:15 PM Sandor Szabados has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 88 of 151 (329975)
07-08-2006 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Sandor Szabados
07-08-2006 10:06 PM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
I beg your pardon. I never found it necessary to even ask to have my work proved wrong as it is in perfect accord with everything we really know. What I have done is show beyond a shadow of a doubt that both the Darwinian and the Fundamentalist views of the living world are without foundation. If you are going to get all exercised about our differences, it will only indicate your own insecurity. This does not require a reply.


"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-08-2006 10:06 PM Sandor Szabados has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-09-2006 11:16 AM John A. Davison has replied

Sandor Szabados
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 151 (330067)
07-09-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by John A. Davison
07-08-2006 10:15 PM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
Bunk.

You are insecure and maybe even scared because you now have a 2,097-page tome that proves totally wrong your personal, subjective, unsubstantiated, and unproven life-long belief that neither a personal God nor free-will or life after death exist.

Prove The URANTIA Book wrong, then reply.

Edited by Sandor Szabados, : Capitalized the word Urantia as in the title of the book.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2006 10:15 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by John A. Davison, posted 07-09-2006 1:23 PM Sandor Szabados has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 90 of 151 (330085)
07-09-2006 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Sandor Szabados
07-09-2006 11:16 AM


Re: General Philosophy vs. Science
Sandor

The author of Urantia is unknown just as are the authors of the Bible. Just because you sent me a copy of Urantia does not make me a believer. What you are demonstrating is characteristic of all ideologues. You are perfectly intolerant of any departure from your own blind beliefs. In short you are a bigot and a religious fanatic. Now please don't vainly attempt to insult me any further because you have managed through your own unbridled behavior to alienate me forever.

Just as I and my references are not allowed to exist by the so-called "establishments," Fundamentalist and Darwinian, so now I have unilaterally decided that you no longer exist in my world, the world of science.

Incidentally, I am the least insecure person you ever knew. That is why I publish my convictions. Where may I find yours except on meaningless ephemeral internet forums like this one? You bore me. Got that? You may write that down.

It is hard to believe isn't it?


"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-09-2006 11:16 AM Sandor Szabados has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Sandor Szabados, posted 07-09-2006 3:47 PM John A. Davison has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022