Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by Aunty Kreist, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. Aunty Kreist

    learner Guest

    I grow my own vegetables. It saves me having to argue with neighbors as to
    whether they exist or not :)

    The statement that 4+4=8 is only true under certain conditions and
    definitions. A statement that the concept of God is illogical can only be
    true under predefined conditions.

    I am still awaiting the answer to my question about what kind of God is
    this we are discussing anyway. If it is a being that created us, perhaps
    he doesn't want to be known, and created us to be incapable of discovering
    him? If he is capable creating all things, he is certainly capable of
    restricting our intelligence, wisdom, and logic such that we could not
    account for his existence.

    If he is the God as generally accepted from the Bible, then we have to
    find him in the manner in which he describes, and that ain't in a science
    classroom, its on our knees, in prayer. Just as you have to use base10
    numbers because that is the rule, if you want to find the God of the
    Bible, you have to use his rules.

    If it is just a God in the sense that it is the superior being who created
    the universe, then we do not know if that God is all knowing, and above
    everything, or just a God who created the universe, but who answers to
    beings even more superior that he is?

    For engineers, claiming to be intellectually a cut above the average joe,
    I am stunned to see arguments for and against something that has not even
    been defined.

    John
     
    learner, Jan 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Jan 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. I read in sci.electronics.design that Noah Roberts
    He (CB) probably went though a concordance looking for the juicy bits.
    It's a great temptation. (;-)
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 30, 2005
  4. I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
    What about them? Are they not 'true' in this Universe? 'True' is in
    quotes, because they are not laws like the laws of physics; they are not
    even laws as in 'lawyer'. They are safety requirements, probably to be
    published as IEC/EN 69999/UL 9999. (;-)
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 30, 2005
  5. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    I didn't miss it, I glossed over it because none of the folks I've
    been acquainted with who do acid are concerned with stealing 10% of
    people's earnings by fraudulent methods, so if you're claiming that's
    what the Mormons do _and_ that they use LSD as part of their religion
    _and_ that that's what causes them to be extortionists, then I suggest
    that unless you've got some proof you're just a liar.
     
    John Fields, Jan 30, 2005
  6. I read in sci.electronics.design that wrote (in
    No, obviously not, if you think about. It's FAR to trivial for the sort
    of god-concept we are discussing. Don't you buy vegetables in base 16
    units?
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 30, 2005
  7. That's nothing. My Mom thought I was a large turd. I was within seconds of
    literally being born in a toilet.

    This probably explains a lot. ;-)

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
    Rich The Newsgropup Wacko, Jan 30, 2005
  8. One thing I'm impelled to point out here - "consciousness" and "sentience"
    are opposite ends of a continuum. Consciousness is thought, and sentience
    is feeling. An ameba is sentient - it can tell what's food and what's a
    threat. Trees are a lot more sentient than people know.

    "All of reality on every level is included in at least one of these two
    fundamental kinds of awareness. Spirit's conscious awareness hosts images
    and thoughts, and the Mother's sentient awareness is of feelings and
    sensations. In any moment when the two are in alignment, Heart becomes
    present... and remains until conscious awareness turns away, usually in
    judgment.

    - http://www.godchannel.com/awareness.html

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
    Rich The Philosophizer, Jan 30, 2005
  9. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    In another frame, possibly. In ours, no.
    ---
    ---
    We are considering contadictions which are contradictions in _our_
    frame, but not necessarily in others, such as the simulataneity of
    omnipotence and non-omnipotence. In a frame such as ours, where we
    are bound by time, such a situation can't logically occur. However,
    in a frame free from that constraint, simultaneity might have widely
    different ramifications than those allowed here, with a result being
    that omnipotence and non-omnipotence could exist "at the same time"
    from our point of view, if we were there.
    ---
    ---
    Yes, of course. We build everything based on what works here, not
    what we think doesn't work somewhere else.
    ---
    ---
    It works so well because it's not fundamentally flawed when applied in
    _our_ frame. However, making the assumption that works here will work
    everywhere else and what doesn't work here won't is where the
    fundamental flaw lies, in my view.
    ---
    ---
    As long as it's true in principle, I'm happy to struggle with the
    crack in the door and try to open it wider.

    Besides, it's not that we're thick Kevin, it's that we can't. Kind of
    like porpoises aren't thick, but they don't have opposable thumbs, so
    they can't go where we can.
     
    John Fields, Jan 30, 2005
  10. I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Philosophizer
    AIUI, sentience is the power of abstract thought, while consciousness is
    just awareness of environment. However, Chambers has 'sentience' as a
    synonym of 'conscious'.
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 30, 2005
  11. I differ with you here. There is, in fact, a distinct boundary between
    "life" and "not-life", which is pretty easy to observe - one's alive, the
    other isn't.

    Consciousness isn't necessarily like that. It's not necessary to life, at
    least not in the sense of IQ. What's more important is Sentience. They're
    at opposite poles of a contimuum, just like every other duality. But
    Sentience has been getting dissed for far too long, and it is time for
    Consciousness to clue up, that Sentience has the secret to eternal life!

    Good Luck!
    Rich

    for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com
     
    Rich The Philosophizer, Jan 30, 2005
  12. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    Ah, _but_ if they interact... Miracles, in my view, are
    extra-universal manifestations and, if they exist, point to something
    extraordinary which we _should_ care about. (Well, those of us who
    _do_ care about such interesting things, at any rate)...
     
    John Fields, Jan 30, 2005
  13. Aunty Kreist

    Willem Guest

    Rich wrote:
    ) I differ with you here. There is, in fact, a distinct boundary between
    ) "life" and "not-life", which is pretty easy to observe - one's alive, the
    ) other isn't.

    Yes, but there are things where it's not clear-cut if they are alive or
    not. I'm not saying everyone is somewhere in a spectrum, I'm just saying
    that bewteen 'life' and 'non-life' there is a grey area where some things
    are more alive than others.


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
     
    Willem, Jan 30, 2005
  14. Yes, Kevin does continually demonstrate his use of judgment in place of
    reason.

    He also refuses, on the power of nothing but his own faith in his god of
    perfect intellect, to even _challenge_ the actual, physical exercise
    wherein one can feel the presence of God and Mother right inside
    themselves, any time.

    It's understandable, of course, given the abusive merciless religious
    upbringing he was subjected to during his formative years. He _needs_ to
    reject "god", because if he lets himself believe that _that_ god exists,
    then Kevin is condemned to eternal damnation.

    I keep trying to explain to him that that's the wrong god, and has been
    since the beginning, and the real god is finally waking up from the trauma
    of exploding herself into smithereens.

    One smithereen to another,
    Rich

    for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com
     
    Rich The Philosophizer, Jan 30, 2005
  15. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    Very nice, but I disagree. I hadn't considered the threshold of the
    lowest form of consciousness to be the threshold for _all_
    consciousnesses, but rather a myriad of "places", one for each
    consciousness, where that particular consciousness "popped into"
    being.
     
    John Fields, Jan 30, 2005
  16. Aunty Kreist

    Willem Guest

    John wrote:
    ) Ah, _but_ if they interact... Miracles, in my view, are
    ) extra-universal manifestations and, if they exist, point to something
    ) extraordinary which we _should_ care about. (Well, those of us who
    ) _do_ care about such interesting things, at any rate)...

    If they do interact, then that must either mean that some things *inside*
    our universe (those miracles) are *not* bound by the laws of our universe,
    or that those interactions *are* bound by these laws.

    Origins aside, do you believe that there are things *inside* our universe
    that are _not_ bound by its laws ?

    ) But as John Woodgate so succinctly put it, (and I'm paraphrasing) if
    ) you want to argue about something which is beyond logic, you can't
    ) argue using logic.

    If you can't argue using logic, and arguing by necessity uses logic,
    then you can't argue, period.

    Do you believe it is possible to argue without using logic ?


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
     
    Willem, Jan 30, 2005
  17. I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Philosophizer
    about 'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:

    I don't think there is any such distinct boundary. You might claim that
    tobacco mosaic virus is not alive, but it metabolizes and reproduces,
    even though you can, with some care, crystallize it.

    Then consider Bacillus anthracis. In the cyst form it does not
    metabolize or reproduce and can survive for hundreds of years in soil,
    doing nothing. But dig it up and get it into a small skin abrasion....

    Maybe we can agree than a prion protein is not alive, even though it
    reproduces itself.

    There are other life?-forms which are even more difficult to classify,
    but they are rare.
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 30, 2005
  18. Well, remember that the "theists" are pretty much basing their model of
    "god" on Zeus and that crowd. I like the Santa Claus model: "He sees you
    when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been
    bad or good so be good for goodness' sake! Oh, you'd better watch out!
    You'd better not cry! You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why - ..."

    God is going to get you. You're fucked.

    Yeah, I wouldn't want to believe in that motherfucker either. And I don't.
    At least not as any kind of entity worthy of the monicker, "God".

    Cheers!
    Rich

    for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com
     
    Rich The Philosophizer, Jan 30, 2005
  19. I read in sci.electronics.design that wrote (in
    We have discussed all sorts of gods, but most theists have argued so as
    to lead us to an omniscient, omnipresent entity, not bound by time, the
    laws of physics and the laws of logic.
    Sure. But the non-believers (I don't want to use the word 'atheist',
    because it has its own 'agenda') ask, 'Why do we need a concept of an
    entity which ensures we know nothing about it? What good does it do us?'
    .... which we have been told by priests, who are only men, having their
    own agendas and imaginings. And the Bible has very different concepts of
    god in different books. When you say 'the god of the Bible', I suspect
    you mean 'the god of the New Testament', because some of the earlier
    concepts are of an entity you wouldn't want as a friend.
    Again, what advantage comes from accepting such a concept?
    We HAVE defined various types of 'god'. You haven't seen all the
    articles, it seems. There must be well over 1000 by now.
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 30, 2005
  20. Have you ever spoken to a woman? (;-)
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.