Proof god doesn't exist

[Swedishguy]

Well the obvious answer would be that I understand it to be truth, and that you made a choice not to. I don't have to accept your perception just because you've come to understand it not to be true, nor do you have to believe Christianity is truth.

What if you were the only one to believe in God, and everyone else in Knubb? Look, there is A LOT of people that believes their favored religion is the 'Truth' with great capital T. Your beliefs are just an act of reassurance that most people have, but I'm lucky enough to lack that one.

But as they say: A drunk man is more happier than a sober one. You can keep believing something that has direct flaws. The Bible is just a code of morals and inholds no 'Truth' whatsoever.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The truthfulness of the Bible is not binary. It is not either "perfect" or "completely false". There is truth in the Bible, even if it is no more than the writings of men.

 

[warpus]

Everyone's world view is based on some unsupported assumption(s) that is unproven and if incorrect brings down their entire view of things.

The theories that make up the basis for my worldview are supported with tons of evidence, predictive power, and peer review. They are falsifiable and have never been disproven.

Some of the theories that make up the basis for your worldview have no backing at all.

I would suggest that quantum physics is pointing in the direction of less complexity to matter and not more. And a reasonable deduction would be that the trend will continue. Getting to a single uniformity is not out of the question at all. It is certainly as plausible as brane theory and multiple universes.

That is a very sensible suggestion and goes very well with what string theory has been telling us. However, it does not imply the supernatural at all.

You are correct that the one I have chosen is nothing special, but it does explain, to my satisfaction, everything important about people and existence without discarding things arbitrarily. And BTW, my adoption of this model was not arbitrary. It was based on experience, an experience that has no basis in reason.

So it is based on your senses, which we know can easily fool you. This is why the scientific method requires that a result be duplicated before it is accepted in any sort of way. IMO this is a very important requirement. I have seen things in the past that I can not explain - but if I jumped to conclusions I would likely jump to a conclusion that is not true. It's possible that I could jump to the right conclusion, but without evidence or peer review, this is unlikely.

Good - if you keep seeking, you will find.

IMO it is this need for people to understand, and this belief that they are 'meant' to understand, that drives them to accept unreasonable and supernatural explanations for the world.

We don't know some things.

Some things we will never know.

If you keep seeking, you might find. If you don't find, that's ok, you wouldn't be the first one.

 

[puglover]

The truthfulness of the Bible is not binary. It is not either "perfect" or "completely false". There is truth in the Bible, even if it is no more than the writings of men.

If the Bible is not perfectly correct, then the Word of God is faulty, and therefore not the Word of God at all.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Unless the Bible is not entirely the Word of God, but only partially. The Bible is, after all, not one book but 66 separate ones.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I would suggest that quantum physics is pointing in the direction of less complexity to matter and not more. And a reasonable deduction would be that the trend will continue. Getting to a single uniformity is not out of the question at all. It is certainly as plausible as brane theory and multiple universes.

That is a very sensible suggestion and goes very well with what string theory has been telling us. However, it does not imply the supernatural at all.

I don’t use the word supernatural. What do you mean by it, anything outside of your knowledge base?

You are correct that the one I have chosen is nothing special, but it does explain, to my satisfaction, everything important about people and existence without discarding things arbitrarily. And BTW, my adoption of this model was not arbitrary. It was based on experience, an experience that has no basis in reason.

So it is based on your senses, which we know can easily fool you. This is why the scientific method requires that a result be duplicated before it is accepted in any sort of way. IMO this is a very important requirement. I have seen things in the past that I can not explain - but if I jumped to conclusions I would likely jump to a conclusion that is not true. It's possible that I could jump to the right conclusion, but without evidence or peer review, this is unlikely.

You keep trying to make my world view fit into yours and make sense in the context of your view. We each hold very different constructs for how the universe fits into existence. They begin with different foundations and build different views of life and the universe. You seem to insist that that all world views must be measured through yours and that yours is the only standard that has any meaning. You assume that the only correct way to look at the world is through the lens of rational inquiry and if something cannot be seen through those lenses, it does not exist.

What you are saying is that the only acceptable view of the universe is through your glasses and all other glasses distort things from the “true” vision of things. What you fail to recognize is that your glasses might be filtering or distorting valuable and useful information. Let me continue the glasses analogy a bit. If the scientific method were glasses that did not permit seeing blue, then while wearing them nothing blue would appear to exist. The ocean and sky would appear differently. Now if someone wearing glasses that permit blue images (and maybe not yellow ones) and you are at the beach and you talk about the ocean and sky, you will disagree. You will claim that there is no blue ocean or blue sky.

Which is true? Replication of the non blue ocean and sky by other wearing the same glasses as you only speaks to the consistency of the glasses you all wear and not to the greater truth of what you see (or cannot see). My position is that one should recognize that we all wear glasses of one sort or another and the secrets of Truth are only revealed when we find a way to remove our glasses altogether.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

If the Bible is not perfectly correct, then the Word of God is faulty, and therefore not the Word of God at all.

Ahem. Leviticus 11, rabbits, cud.

Spoiler Prediction of answer - not to be opened until after reply :

Standard defense is to follow AiG and CARM in including autocoprophagia under ruminancy.

However, pigs happily eat not only their own droppings, but everyone's droppings, and would therefore be considered to chew the cud.

 

[warpus]

I don’t use the word supernatural. What do you mean by it, anything outside of your knowledge base?

Supernatural - of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

You keep trying to make my world view fit into yours and make sense in the context of your view. We each hold very different constructs for how the universe fits into existence. They begin with different foundations and build different views of life and the universe. You seem to insist that that all world views must be measured through yours and that yours is the only standard that has any meaning. You assume that the only correct way to look at the world is through the lens of rational inquiry and if something cannot be seen through those lenses, it does not exist.

I don't. I just insist that the assumptions you make are based on something concerete - so that we could verify that they're correct.

Your initial assumptions are not falsifiable (ie. not testable), so we have no way of determining whether they are correct or not. Therefore, chances are that they are wrong.

What you are saying is that the only acceptable view of the universe is through your glasses and all other glasses distort things from the “true” vision of things.

No, I'm just saying that a view of the Universe is acceptable if the assumptions you make about it can be verified, studied, and confirmed. Otherwise you could pretty much claim anything.

What you fail to recognize is that your glasses might be filtering or distorting valuable and useful information.

Of course, that's why all the theories my worldview is based on have been peer reviewed over and over and over.

Whereas your glasses are arbitrary and cannot be tested for correctness.

Let me continue the glasses analogy a bit. If the scientific method were glasses that did not permit seeing blue, then while wearing them nothing blue would appear to exist. The ocean and sky would appear differently. Now if someone wearing glasses that permit blue images (and maybe not yellow ones) and you are at the beach and you talk about the ocean and sky, you will disagree. You will claim that there is no blue ocean or blue sky.

Your analogy is flawed. The scientific method allows you to see the world without any glasses on at all. If you see something, and want to claim that it is this and that, your claims have to be verified by others.

What you are doing is putting on glasses and making claims that can't be verified by others.

My position is that one should recognize that we all wear glasses of one sort or another and the secrets of Truth are only revealed when we find a way to remove our glasses altogether.

And I think that the only way to remove all the 'glasses' is to stop making assumptions that cannot be tested in any way. They are completely arbitrary and thus cannot be accepted as 'the truth'.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Beingofone, here are a few of your posts that I have trouble with. All taken from your post #629.

If God is truly God - he cannot possibly exist. The only way to experience God`s totality, is to know of certainty he does not exist. This does not mean I am not a Christian, I just know where God is. God does not know all of what will be known - he knows all that can be known, understand?

The Zen koan approach that you appear to be using just doesn’t work. This sounds profound, but I cannot actually make any sense of it.

If you were in a state of velocity beyond the speed of light, you would be everywhere and everywhen. That does not mean that light does not bend, refract, or reflect. It just means you would be in the state of constant expansion beyond what is limited to cause and affect.

God does move through time - and yet - expands it. *POP* goes time.

This does not make sense to me at all, however, the quote below which followed, it is clear.

You have no choice in choosing, you exercise predictive power to conclude your decision. You use this logic of deduction to make a cogent choice - so does God. God chooses when you do. You are thinking God does not have the same decision to make that you do - I beg to differ. God makes up his mind by being you. He learns through your experience and expands his agape/compassion by limiting his perspective to time and space. God has hid himself from himself and in this unique experiment does not constrain his essential nature to just being infinite (hard concept, I know). In reality his state of being is not limited, it is self imposed to become what he was not.

For the post below, I do not understand what the bolded passages mean.

The choice you make is a refraction of thought slowed down. You had already made up your mind before you made up your mind, so to speak. When the choice unfolds itself in our awareness it was evident that we had no choice to begin with by the decision making process that unveils itself to what is self evident.

God simply sees what is self evident with crystal clarity. In other words, when the conscious field is understood it becomes necessary to dispense with all limits as - according to Occams Razor - there is only one choice.

My point in all this is not to dismiss your ideas or dispute what you are trying to say, it is merely to point out that you often post things in such a way that I cannot understand what you mean.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't. I just insist that the assumptions you make are based on something concerete - so that we could verify that they're correct.

Your initial assumptions are not falsifiable (ie. not testable), so we have no way of determining whether they are correct or not. Therefore, chances are that they are wrong.

No, I'm just saying that a view of the Universe is acceptable if the assumptions you make about it can be verified, studied, and confirmed. Otherwise you could pretty much claim anything.

Of course, that's why all the theories my worldview is based on have been peer reviewed over and over and over.

Whereas your glasses are arbitrary and cannot be tested for correctness.

Your analogy is flawed. The scientific method allows you to see the world without any glasses on at all. If you see something, and want to claim that it is this and that, your claims have to be verified by others.

What you are doing is putting on glasses and making claims that can't be verified by others.

And I think that the only way to remove all the 'glasses' is to stop making assumptions that cannot be tested in any way. They are completely arbitrary and thus cannot be accepted as 'the truth'.

If you read all of your replies, it is very clear that you are insisting that your view be the only acceptable view. Without testing and verification something cannot be true. You do not allow for any truth (knowledge), but that which is processed through your own system. This is no different than someone saying "If it is in the bible it is true, otherwise it may not be true." You just use a different system to process the inputs.

Your analogy is flawed. The scientific method allows you to see the world without any glasses on at all.

No it doesn't. As you have so eloquently stated many times, it only allows you to see the world through a scientific lens. If I claim a mystical experience, you insist on replication and peer review to determine its validity. How is that an unbiased (no glasses) approach? Once you move the experience into the laboratory, the review may be unbiased in the scientific approach, but the bias comes earlier when you insist upon using your method as the only way to evaluate the experience.

 

[beingofone]

Birdjaguar,

Thank you sir for your examples.

I will answer those in a sec, first I have something to say.

I do not have to read the threads to know that some will be proclaiming "if you are truly wise, you would say, I do not know anything at all for sure." Programming is very effective as society loves to herd together in its cloud of self sympathy.

Proclaiming (in noble tones of course) - "anyone who claims they know, are deluded." No - this is the delusion. The answer is so simple it is like a A Ha experience, it was there the whole time.

Rather than ask questions ( the courage is lacking; for fear, fear of how one appears and what others might think, it is a mockery of true humility), denigrate the messenger by implication, am I right?

The ego loves to hide in mediocrity, that way, it is not challenged and remains on the throne.

'No one can possibly know' - IS A LIE. Like Hitler said, "tell a big lie and the heard gobbles it up." He was right. Disgusting and groveling for crumbs when a fountain of wisdom is so easy to drink from.

Its right inside you, where the answers to all questions are. You already have the answer and the teacher of teachers, he is inside of you. All it takes is humilty and honesty but that is just to much to ask from any ego because it fears the light.

Cowards

Freedom is so easy and simple and yet, the ego attacks the demonstration of Truth all the while pretending to be wise itself. This is how it hides - judgment from a position of superiority.

One who is free is fearless in self approval and has total self respect. The reason I can say I am the Truth, ask me if I love my neighbor as myself ?

I can say, without hesitating for a second, I love you as much if not more than myself. I even love my enemies. That is how I know of certainty I am free. I don`t just flap my gums - I am this, get it? I have put my life on the line for Truth, can someone else say that?

Anyone doubt this? Step up, or do you just hide behind your snide remarks and talk gobbledy goop when confronted with light? Its like one of the previous posters I talked to, could not answer a single question without going a trillion light years of the topic - gobbledy goop and games.

I put it all on the line and I hold nothing back in reserve in case something goes wrong. I care with everything in me, my whole soul is compassion and extended to others. Can someone else say that or am I the only one that lives the truth?

Or is all you do is, try to run to the next stimulating addiction to forget your pain and all the while; resent those that have hurt you and secretly hope others will fail?

I dare ya, anyone here, ask me a question with sincerity and honesty. If you have heart, wholeness, and deep desire, you would know what I say is the truth.


Birdjaguar,

I hope this clears up what I said.

If God is truly God - he cannot possibly exist. The only way to experience God`s totality, is to know of certainty he does not exist. This does not mean I am not a Christian, I just know where God is. God does not know all of what will be known - he knows all that can be known, understand?

1) If the idea that God exists is held in the mind, you will miss where he truly is. Another way of saying it is - when there is no thought, the infinite field manifests.

2) God knows all that can be possibly known or The infinite seeks out all impossibilities in a constant state. Infinity is not limited to what it can only be, it is boundless and therefore; expands into impossibilities as potential possibility.

If you were in a state of velocity beyond the speed of light, you would be everywhere and everywhen. That does not mean that light does not bend, refract, or reflect. It just means you would be in the state of constant expansion beyond what is limited to cause and affect.

God does move through time - and yet - expands it. *POP* goes time.

It is like being outside, looking at a forest from a distance. You look at a tree and focus your attention on a single tree you pick out from the others.

Then you look at all the trees, did the forest change? The same can be said of perception of the infinite, you already experience the infinite and perceive it. It just cannot be wrapped up into a concept or construct.

You have never repeated an experience and you never will, you are experiencing infinite momentum of the Totality.

It is truly a matter of focus.

What do you see when looking at a white wall?

The choice you make is a refraction of thought slowed down.

Thought can bend or change direction because of velocity reduction. Thought travels at the speed of light as electricity does. When you make a decision, it slows thought down. Like your computer slows the current of electricity because of resistance to process data.

You had already made up your mind before you made up your mind, so to speak. When the choice unfolds itself in our awareness it was evident that we had no choice to begin with by the decision making process that unveils itself to what is self evident.

The mind responds to the accessing of a choice. It accesses memory and conceptual predictive power based on stimuli.

An example would be if you had your hand on a red hot stove, your mind already knew what you would do before the thought is cognized and evaluated. It is called reaction but this is true of every event.

God simply sees what is self evident with crystal clarity. In other words, when the conscious field is understood it becomes necessary to dispense with all limits as - according to Occams Razor - there is only one choice.

The conscious field is apparent when there is no thought.

Can you go between the words and images in your mind? Empty your mind of all words and images, even for a second or two. That is the source of all thought.

When there is a void of thought, this takes meditation or prayer, the infinite field is manifest. It is nonlocal and nonlinear.

The freedom is when you are liberated from servitude to the words and images in your mind. You watch them - like a movie on a screen.

My point in all this is not to dismiss your ideas or dispute what you are trying to say, it is merely to point out that you often post things in such a way that I cannot understand what you mean.

No worries bro, if respect is given it is returned.

I just have as much patience with dishonesty as Jesus did. I don`t play nice when that is around.

 

[Perfection]

If you lost all five senses, sight, smell, feeling, hearing, and taste; would you still be conscious?

What 'model' of reality would work?

If I lost all external stimuli, I may still think but I would not be concious of outside stuff. I'd most likely go batty making any model of reality pointless. Really, the key is not to dismiss all sense data as erroneous but to reinterpret some sense data as occasional false artifacts.

Look close at your statement - "you can uncover truths about the world around you."

Umm, so?

And who processes the data from these "millions"?

I and they do.

And you are discarding logic at your own peril.

I To be quite frank you arguments seem to consist of vague new agey concepts with little actual rigor not significantly logical.

Look at your statement again - you are missing the obvious.

And that would be?

You cannot know reality by discarding what does not fit into the model.

If we discard useful models because it doesn't immediately explain a small aspect of something (say a trancendent experience with a mechanistic view of conciousness or a newtonian gravity because it doesn't explain why a magnet can hover) we are left without useful models and struck stupid. Trying to explain everything you see at all times is impossible, you simply don't have the capabilities to do so. Scientists settle for understanding a small portion in depth so that they can exploit the secrets rather then making useless claims about larger stuff.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thank you beingofone for those explanations. They mostly did improve my understanding. My actual point though was to illustrate places where I felt your language and use of words was opaque and difficult so that as this thread moves along, there will be more rather than less understanding. When you spend a few more words and less undefined jargon, your point is more easily grasped by those of us who are a bit slow on the uptake.

 

[beingofone]

Perfection:

beingofone
No; he is saying the exact opposite. He states categorically that we can 'only' trust science and must discard our very own perception to the monad of their interpretation.

Perfection:
No, I don't. I'm saying one must be skeptical of one's own perception, because it is not always right. You perceive things that aren't interpreted properly. Certain still images seem like they are moving. You can't just open your eyes and see truth. You need to analyze sense data to see truth. Science is the collective analysis of millions of people, it's useful to use thier techniques to see truth.

beingofone:
That is what I said - you do not trust yourself, but you trust science. That is insanity.

beingofone
If you lost all five senses, sight, smell, feeling, hearing, and taste; would you still be conscious?

What 'model' of reality would work?

Perfection:
If I lost all external stimuli, I may still think but I would not be concious of outside stuff. I'd most likely go batty making any model of reality pointless. Really, the key is not to dismiss all sense data as erroneous but to reinterpret some sense data as occasional false artifacts.

Then we go right back to what I said:
"That is what I said - you do not trust yourself, but you trust science. That is insanity."

Yup; you would go batty if you had no one else to tell you what you experience - I agree and I already said that.

I also said this:
"He states categorically that we can 'only' trust science and must discard our very own perception to the monad of their interpretation."

And its still true, you need someone else to interpret your reality. The problem with this is, you are relying on their sense data.

Why do you allow others to dictate to you your experience and rely on their sense data? You think theirs is more relaible? That doesn`t make any sense no matter you cannot see it right now.

beingofone:
What I am saying - if you pay attention - is that the only reality you can possibly know is yours.

Perfection:
I disagree, through the scientific method you can uncover truths about the world around you.

beingofone:
Look close at your statement - "you can uncover truths about the world around you."

Perfection:
Umm, so?

You are not being honest and everyone reading the above quotes, with a lick of sense knows it. You gonna talk? Are you going to continue to dance like you have no clue as to whats going on?

I assume, since you are studying science, your comprehension skills are fairly sharp, am I wrong?

Who can uncover truths about the world? We already discussed sense deprivation so you must, at the least, have a clue as to what was said, or are you just not capable of simple comprehension skills?

beingofone:
So how many 'others' define your reality for you?

Perfection:
Millions, and it's not a bad thing! People working together to come up with models of physical reality (the scientific community) end up producing far superior models then I could. I have little qualms using thier data.

beingofone:
And who processes the data from these "millions"?

Perfection:
I and they do.

How do you 'know' they do?

beingofone:
Will you let me define your reality?

Perfection:
No, because you do not follow the scientific methodology.

beingofone:
And you are discarding logic at your own peril.

Perfection:
I To be quite frank you arguments seem to consist of vague new agey concepts with little actual rigor not significantly logical.

I am not the one claiming to know what millions of other peoples sense data is, you are.

Let me think; I say I can only know what my experience is and you claim you can know what millions of other peoples experience is.

Not only do you know what they think, you allow them to think for you all at the same time.

And I am new agey? How do you accomplish the biggest miracle I have ever heard of?

Beingofone:
There is only a single reality that you can possibly have - it is yours, it is called consciousness, life-force, or being.

You cannot, under any circumstances, escape yourself. It is all that never ceases. It is all that is aware. It is all that could possibly be.

Perfection:
I can think about things other than myself by using models of physical reality.

beingofone:
Look at your statement again - you are missing the obvious.

Perfection:
And that would be?

I believe the term is - sticks out like a sore thumb.

beingofone:
This is a contradiction, can`t you see it?

If you allow others, even science, to define your reality, you are using your sense perception.

Perfection:
It's not that you can't use sense data, it's that you have to be skeptical of false perception.

beingofone:
You cannot know reality by discarding what does not fit into the model.

Reality does not answer to the behest of what we think it should be or what it is supposed to be like.

You must approach reality with your eyes wide open.

Perfection:
If we discard useful models because it doesn't immediately explain a small aspect of something (say a trancendent experience with a mechanistic view of conciousness or a newtonian gravity because it doesn't explain why a magnet can hover) we are left without useful models and struck stupid. Trying to explain everything you see at all times is impossible, you simply don't have the capabilities to do so. Scientists settle for understanding a small portion in depth so that they can exploit the secrets rather then making useless claims about larger stuff.

The problem is your reality model does not make any sense.

You say others must define your sense peception and know what they think all at the same time.



Now that you snipped and had to edit the conversation, allow me to say; no more skipping what you do not like and answer questions to the best of your ability rather than playing the dunce role like you cannot keep up with what is said.

You skip one question or role over and say "What do you mean by meaning?" and I am done.

Quid pro quo

I don`t skip your questions and I do not play dumb - I ask what I myself am willing to do, that is reasonable. I don`t play drooling idiot games.

 

[warpus]

If you read all of your replies, it is very clear that you are insisting that your view be the only acceptable view. Without testing and verification something cannot be true.

I'm saying that without testing and verification something can be true, but that we would never know if it is true.

I accept your view as a view and I accept your choice in accepting that view, but I'm just saying that it is made up of arbitrary assumptions, therefore it can't be as close to the truth as my view.

You might very well be right about the existence of an omnipotent creator, but it's the details that you are probably wrong about. I don't even worry about these details and lump them all in the 'maybe' category. These things cannot be studied at the moment, therefore there is no sort of definite claim we can make about them, therefore any claim we make will be arbitrary, therefore the best assumption we can make is 'maybe'.

You assume things that could possibly be false to be true and a part of the basis for your worldview. I do no such thing. This is why my worldview makes more sense than yours.

You just use a different system to process the inputs.

I'm glad you bring up the idea of inputs because that's a good way to think about this.

We receive inputs from the world, right? We get these as sight, smell, touch, etc. The scientific method only works with something that can be studied.. namely something that 'outputs' and that we receive as an 'input'. So if something is an input, it can be studied with the scientific method.

But you yourself admit that some of the things which you believe to be true can't be studied scientifically. There are no 'inputs' for the processes and ideas you describe. They lie completely outside any sort of sensory range that would be possible in the natural world.

But wait a second.. you also say that you experience certain things.. but that they can't be studied? That doesn't make sense. If you're experiencing something, then one of your 'inputs' is receiving some data. If there's data, it could be studied. If there is no input because it originates from within you, then you could study the result (instead of an input).

So either the things you say you experience can be studied, or they don't exist.

No it doesn't. As you have so eloquently stated many times, it only allows you to see the world through a scientific lens. If I claim a mystical experience, you insist on replication and peer review to determine its validity. How is that an unbiased (no glasses) approach? Once you move the experience into the laboratory, the review may be unbiased in the scientific approach, but the bias comes earlier when you insist upon using your method as the only way to evaluate the experience.

You can either make arbitrary assumptions about the mystical experience, or you can study it.

I personally don't think that arbitrary assumptions can get you any closer to the truth, so I insist on studying the phenomenon and attempting to understand what's behind it and how it works. If we don't arrive at a conclusive explanation for the event, then there is nothing we can say about it. Making arbitrary claims about it does not help, as it is likely wrong.

 

[Veritass]

BirdOfJaguar and Warpus, I have very much enjoyed the conversation that has gone on here. I mainly agree with the scientific viewpoint of Warpus, but I think his arguments are all valid and all fall short of what BirdOfJaguar is talking about.

BirdOfJaguar, the scientific method instructs us in how to think (using falsifiability), and how to share our experience with one another to come to mutual understanding (using peer review and reproducibility). Though you are not doing this so much as others, many that take the scientific view reject the bulk of modern religions that teach people what to think, but not how to think and explore the universe.

Your sharing is coming from a place of seeing the divine, and you are having the same problem that mystics have always had: how to express that in a way that other people understand. Having had my own mystical experiences, I can relate that this is a difficult thing to express and that it cannot be expressed in scientific terms.

Warpus, while I am a big supporter of scientific theory to explain and refine our understanding of how the world around us works, I think there are gaps where science just doesn't quite measure up. (No, I am going for a "God of the gaps".)

One such area of gaps would be: music. Western music is mathematically very beautiful, how the twelve-tone system based on the twelfth root of two gives intervals that combine into certain overtones and sounds. We can understand scientifically how longer strings and thicker strings have more mass and thus a lower frequency and a lower pitch. We can analyze psychologically how what we are exposed to affects what we find pleasing to listen to. From a sociological standpoint, we can trace back how cultures all over the globe and in all areas of time that we know about have made some form of music.

None of this information, though, can truly relate the experience of listening to music, or (since I am a musician) the transcendental experience of making music. You can put together, for example, a drummer, a bass player, a guitar player, and a keyboard player, and the whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts. Where does that "extra" something come from?

There is no way that I can describe to you why a song is good, and indeed, we probably will not agree on which songs are good or bad, but we both will have an experience of the joy of music. Have you ever read an article in a newspaper or magazine trying to tell you about a new band? It's laughable that they even try.

There is also no way that I can fully explain to a non-musician the experience of playing in a band and getting into the groove to the point where you just "go away": where your ego and conscious mind just dissolve into something greater. Is that God? I don't know. It may be just a shared delusion, but it is something that musicians share that non-musicians don't, and it is a beautiful and magical experience. I could teach or explain to you a lot about music theory, and the art of musicianship, but I can't teach or explain that; it just happens.

 

[beingofone]

Thank you beingofone for those explanations. They mostly did improve my understanding. My actual point though was to illustrate places where I felt your language and use of words was opaque and difficult so that as this thread moves along, there will be more rather than less understanding. When you spend a few more words and less undefined jargon, your point is more easily grasped by those of us who are a bit slow on the uptake.

Birdjaguar,
Your heart is honest(which I admire BTW) and so you assume most others are dealing in the same realm of open dialog. I wish this were true as this world would be a much better place.

Unfortunately; my experience says the opposite in that we are fast approaching a technology threshold and everything is at stake. The fact is, it is not so much lack of comprehension but a secular religious fundamentalism is sweeping through the West right now.

Those that know how to be disengenuis use these tactics to cloud the thruth.

For example:
Not ten thousand of the finest engineers in the world right now could not replicate DNA - yet it was 'designed' by pure chance.


If they cannot construct the blueprint, how can they determine it is random? That is absurdity, and the ludicrous is the tactic used by the agenda that desires to cloud its unveiling.

Truth is the light that is not just strongly disliked, it is hated and despised because it requires us to submit and humble oureselves to the creator. This is mindless madness to the ego and resents anyone or anything that represents truth.

My posts may be misleading in that I do not get angry or upset by these conversations. I just refuse to give in to absurdity and stand for agape/compassion that can only cure the ills of humanity.

Enlightenment and only enlightenment will cure the sickness that mankind is spiraling into. Iran now has a trigger and enriched uranium, alot is at stake and the time for being 'nice' is over.

 

[Swedishguy]

We now have enough to proof that God doesn't exist. End of thread.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No we don't. There is no proof that God doesn't exist, remember?

 

[Turner]

No, but I'm guessing he subscribes to the theory that saying it's so makes it so....