Theist1's "definition" of God
Offline Copied from "RRS Defeats the Way of the Master" -
Theist1 said:
The universe is a concrete reality, God is an Abstract reality, therefore, to understand and define God we must "link" the abstract reality to the concrete reality, I was actually trying to give you the definition of "my God", as you can see I should have used the word produced in the first part of the theorum, not designed, i was at work and wasnt paying alot of attention. here is the proper definitional theorum for the definition of my God.
Abstract entities are not real. They exist only in our minds.
The artificial heart is designed, it is produced through the proccess of manufacturing.
who is the designer?
The human heart is designed,
Support this ridiculous assertion.
it is produced through the process of evolution.
I don't like the word "produced" here, but I won't quibble since it is true that the human heart got the way it is through evolution.
who is the designer?
All things designed require a desiger.
Support this ridiculous assertion.
Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of design, Therefore they can not be the designer.
The designer of the artificial heart is man.
The designer of the human heart is "My God"
Nothing that comes before supports your last line. It is a complete non sequiteur. Even if I accepted all your crazy assertions as true, you still haven't shown evidence for anything more than possibly a visit by aliens in the earth's early days.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
I beg to differ with that Tilberian.
"If a quantity Q is measured in system S at time t then Q has a particular value in S at t " Niels Bohr.
Measurement is abstraction, and it is as real as you accept Bohr's proposition.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I really have no idea how you came to believe that such an idea supports your position. Abstraction has many meanings but none of them qualify as defining measurement.
The better idea as most theist use to describe god is he is immaterial and eternal and such. This makes him truly not able to exist. Abstract is just a poor term
Biochemist & Law Student
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson
Whatever he's smoking I want some...
Ok if an abstract god = q, and a multiverse of infinite possibilities = 1/q^2, and jesus = q^1/q^2 then...
We can say, that none of this is possible and your full of shit!
OMG, how do these people that are not supposed to lie, wake up in the morning spewing this crap.
Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.
Measurement is real, huh? Then how come I can't make a bird house with square corners?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Way to use a random quote from a person smarter than you to not prove a damn thing....do you have a dictionary? I suggest you use it occassionally....
No Gods, Know Peace.
Well I better defend that position
This is how I see it:
Basically stated the accepted stance on measurement might be - To quantify something you measure it. Quantifying is expressing, illustrating observed property in terms of an abstract principle, namely numerical logic.
However inversely the very act of measurement necessitates the pre-existence of just such abstract principles as a numerical set. So in essence that is all the wrong way round. Can you measure a line with a blank ruler ?
Moreover, Take a one inch line, the line is also approximately 25mm, it's also on a four by four inch square piece of 2d paper, sitting on a 3 * 3 * 3 feet of table space, in 6*6*6 feet of room space..... do you quantify all these things to measure the line? No. You abstract the line from that context. A measuring tape will give you all the dimensions of that system if you want them, but to measure anything in that system you must first ignore everything else. The line is not a line until you abstract it. and you do this twice. You abstract it from the system, and then you abstract it into an illustration of quantity (inches over millimetres).
The measurement problem is like the dragon swallowing it's tail. It got back to where it started and didn't recognise it was facing the back end of itself.
Measurement is both immaterial and omnipresent, everything has velocity, everything has spatial dimensions, everything has angles, everything has an energy state. And it is always an abstraction. Does saying I am sitting still equate to having measured the velocity of the earth around it's pole argued in coherence with its orbit around the sun within the velocity of the orbit of the galaxy around it's centre... ? No. It is merely an arbitrary zero point in the abstract of the true velocity. The two cannot be equated, to measure anything you must abstract:
ab·strac·tion[Origin: 1540–50; < LL abstractiōn- (s. of abstractiō) separation. See abstract, -ion
abstraction. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstraction (accessed: May 31, 2007).
Edited 1/06/07: my onversion of inches to mm was way off
embarrasment.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Do you mean Accuracy and precision, Tilberian? They're just More measurements.
Edit: By the way Tilberian, I am in full agreement with all your other replies to theist1's argument I didn't actually mean to cherry pick this point out with intentions of supporting the increasingly tedious case for ID and I'm sorry that it might have come across that way. Measurement as abstraction is actually just a topic of curiosity for me and I will be happy to move it out of this thread where it probably best belongs.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
No worries, it doesn't look like Theist1 is going to come over here anyway. He prefers to keep cluttering up the "RRS Defeats the Way of th Master" thread.
My point is that if the length of something has a real existence outside our minds then it should be impossible for us to measure it inaccurately. I should be able to measure the length itself and not just the board. However I can't. Why? Because there is no length until I measure it. There's only a board and only my feeble attempts to align my perceptions with its reality creates a length. The fact that I can never get it right on tells me that there IS no Absolute Length to the board. It's only an abstraction that we've created so that the board makes sense in relation to ourselves.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
I would say that abstractions exist as processes in minds of people who think about them.
I would not say that those abstractions refer to anything else in reality outside of the processes in minds that think them.
I would also not deny that god exists in the mind of believers, I just don't see any good reason to say that gods exist outside of the minds of believers (or the minds of non-believers when they consider a concept of 'god'--whatever definition is conceived).
Thus, when a believer feels something and associates it with their concept of god, the idea is real. The difference is that someone like myself does not project that idea onto the actual world. I don't believe that because I have an idea therefore the thing necessarily exists.
And since there is no evidence to suggest that it does actually exist in reality outside of my mind, any concept, feeling, or other brain-process that I might call 'god' doesn't seem to be any more than a figment of imagination.
Thus, personal experience is never evidence or support for external reality. The scientific method, no matter how flawed anyone thinks it is (**cough, cough** problem of induction **cough, cough**), it is massively better than rationalized ideas from thoughts, feelings, and subjective states purely.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Is that the debate I saw on youtube? I didn't know there was a thread here about that.
Yeah I see what you're saying, but we haven't really come to the point where there's an agreed good answer to how Quantum effects translate on such a classical scale. What you're saying, kind of, is the measurement problem in a nutshell. Bohr's proposition seems meaningless because we can measure something classically and it doesn't appear in any way to conclusively define the state of what we have measured at all.
I have ideas that abstraction is the key to understanding why. But in many ways thats about all I have to share on it in the immediate discussion.
My thoughts are, here,that we arbitrate more than length when we measure something but because we apply no formality to certain abstractions we make a priori we are missing a part of our measurement in the conclusion. If I say that the classical effect of that is inaccuracy, then I am also proposing that inaccuracy is a Quantum uncertainty, resulting from unknowns in the initial state.
Directly, and this may seem trivial, but my working tends to suggest it is not, the missing measurement is the initialisation of a distinct orientation. In the case of a bird house you can better initialise the orientation using a angles and a planer. You would get near perfect accuracy by placing your initial block on a perfect flat circle and defining orientation exactly before carrying out length measurements.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Oh I know the reason I can't measure anything accurately is because I don't do it right. I'm just saying that there really is no absolute correct length for the board. Just as, IMO, there is no Absolute Truth or Real Universe lurking below the margins of error of our senses.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
I only partially agree here Tilberian, I will agree in not calling it an absolute truth because in any case I hope that it isn't absolute, that would take away most of the wonder of being human it would be a tragic anticlimax. OTOH I will disagree in reagrds to there being no Quantum level truth lurking beneath the error of our senses, well actually it's not there either, it's more an underlying gap in the formalisations of our empirical logic to me, but however you want to phrase it, yes I do think there is a truth there, and as a Theist you can probably guess I believe it's the path an eternal loving God would want for us.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
And as you might guess, I'm going to want to see evidence for that Truth before I allow that it might exist. As well as an explanation for how an omnipotent God can want anything.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Why the ridicule, Tilberian? Just because I see God in the betterment of our knowledge it doesn't make the knowledge untrue.
Well that's actually easy. Being Omnipotent doesn't automatically preclude the will to refrain from imposing it on others. A reasonable example might be a Mother whose power over her infant child is so enormous she could assert any whimsy she liked without a challenge but generally mums don't do that, they hope and they watch over from the sidelines of the kids young life with their heart in their throats wanting the child to get better and better all on his own. Having power over something doesn't automatically mean that your first choice is to get everything done by power, especially where love is involved.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com