Friday, January 15, 2016

Collective Consciousness, Fact, and Objective Truth (with Adam Fletcher and Jim Ashby)

Adam's Answer

Adam Fletcher, Interested human.

19 Views

I think there could be an objective answer to this question that could depend on two things:
1. If it could be proven a collective conscious exists i.e. if all thought and vibrational information in the universe was somehow connected via a single source, then a truth would be objective and undeniable as it would be true to everything via the single source.
2. If a collective conscious does not exist and everything is not connected then an individual truth would be true to only the individual, as its personal truth could only come through its own experiences and no individual experience could be shared. Hence an individual truth is only how it is seen by the individual. Therefore no objectivity due to individual understanding of any given object or event. Makes sense?

Jonathan Doolin

Whether there is a collective consciousness or not, I think it should be argued that we do share a common space-time, and some of the events within that space-time are a matter of objective truth.

I just posted a comment under my own answer regarding this very point, I think. There should be a distinction made between "objective truth" and "observer-dependent-coordinates of events"

Just because I do not see an event happen, and you do see the event happen doesn't mean that the event didn't happen for me. It just means that it happened at a different location, relative to me.

Adam Fletcher

Yes I agree as humans we share a common belief that we exist in a certain space and time. On the grand universal scale you could also call it an individual species common truth. 1+1=2 is an objective truth to us as humans because we have taught ourselves to identify with this set of symbols as a truth by which all else can be measured against.
Would an alien specie born of completey different circumstances agree?. I don't know because we have nothing to compare our human truths with. Hence the dilemma of a truely definate answer.

Jonathan Doolin

Here... Watch this video, if you have time, describing a truly amazing number called Wau.

The question is, do the descriptions of that number, affect its quantity? You may have a symbol for that number, but regardless of your symbol for the number wau, it's meaning will always be the same. You cannot change a truth by giving it a different name.

Adam Fletcher

Thanxs will do.

Jonathan Doolin

The first notion I had of what Vi Hart was getting at came with the sight of [math]e^{2 i \pi}[/math] because I know how to calculate this using Euler's formula ,

Adam Fletcher

Just watched it and all I can say is WOW! Or should that be WAU! I'm struggling to comprehend what was said but I sort of get it. However, the question still remains, what if an advanced alien had calculated life according to a different set of rules? What if there was another dimension where everything was opposite? Would wau still be objectively true? I was reading on science alert that matter can escape from a black hole. Einstiens theory states nothing can escape a black hole and this was supposed to be an objective truth.

Jonathan Doolin

There are two dictionary definitions of the word "truth"

**Defintion 1. Truth: **that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

**Definition 2. Truth: **a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

The first definition here is objective truth. The second definition is what I am calling "ironic truth" or "the liar's truth"

The scientific method seeks the truth, but not by making use of Definition 2 of the truth. Scientists should make a distinction between "Physical model" and "Physical Law"...

The physical model is our impression of the objective truth. It is not the "objective truth" itself.

The scientific method SHOULD be a striving to improve the quality of our impressions of objective truth... not in redefining objective truth to conform to our accepted beliefs.

If Einstein accepted that nothing could escape from a black hole, it was his impression that nothing can escape a black hole*. If Hawking showed that something can get out of a black hole**, it was his impression that energy could escape a black hole.

But whether their impression was correct is based on the validity of all of their underlying assumptions, and their use of proper logic in deducing their conclusion.

*I think his reasoning had something to do with the Pauli Exclusion Principle was defeated by gravity... or that time stops at the event horizon of a black hole.

**I think his reasoning had something to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

Jim Ashby 1 vote

by James Hollomon

It seems to me that your concept of truth, in dependency #2, is subjective. If truth is subjective, it is whatever you want it to be. I think the word for that is 'opinion' not truth.

All else being equal, if something is true, it's always true. Sure, you can use the word in a subjective way (your truth, his truth, etc.), but these 'personal truths' are distinct from truths that can be discovered and confirmed as true.

The X-Files catchphrase: "The truth is out there." is an invitation to discover what it is. In other words, we don't know what the truth is until we discover (verify as fact) what it is. The only objective truths we know of are facts. We may suspect or theorize what the truth is but we never know until we confirm it. This is true in science, philosophy, jurisprudence, child-rearing . . . everything.

An unverified truth is a subjective opinion.

Jonathan Doolin 1 vote

by Jim Ashby

Jim, what do you think about the existence of events in the future?

Is an event which has not yet happened always true, or does it become true at the time that it happens?

Can our beliefs and opinions affect whether or not that event becomes true?

Jim Ashby 1 vote

by Adam Fletcher

What about these future events relate to truth? Their occurrence? You can use the word truth in place of better words but doing so conflates meanings unnecessarily. I can say that it's a truth the sun will rise tomorrow but that's a trivialization of the word, 'truth'.

Jonathan Doolin 1 vote

by Jim Ashby

Can you give me the two meanings of truth you think I am conflating?

The fact of an event's occurence makes it true. If an event never happened, then it is not true to say it happened.

If you say it is truth that the sun will rise tomorrow, we don't know that... There could be a distant hypernova whose neutrino blast could disintegrate our system sometime in the night. It's unlikely, but we can't know for sure until the event actually happens.

If you say the sun rose this morning, you are giving an "observer-dependent truth"

According to observer dependent coordinates, yes, the sun rose this morning relative to the observer's earth-bound-coordinates. But according to sidereal (star-bound) coordinates, the sun did not rise, but rather the earth rotated the observer's position toward the sun.

"The sun rose this morning, with respect to my horizon" would be true because it specifies the experience of the observer.

A more universal truth that "The earth orbits the sun as it rotates on its axis" but it is true because it specifies a relationship between the earth and the sun, using the most relevant objects in the description (rather than an observer located on the surface of the earth, it uses the whole body of the earth.)

"The sun rose this morning" would be ambiguious, because it implies a universal truth but actually conveys an observer dependent truth.

"The sun will rise tomorrow" would be an observer-dependent prediction of future truth.

Jim Ashby

I didn't say you're conflating two meanings of the word, 'truth', I said you're conflating the meaning of truth by substituting the word for better words.

In your case, you're addressing temporal differences between past, present, and future. So I said that: "I can say that it's a truth the sun will rise tomorrow but that's a trivialization of the word, 'truth'." . . . because the phrase, "it's a truth", has been substituted for 'I'm confident', or "I'm virtually certain", or any other terminology that might confuse the matter with extraneous concepts.

Okay . . . how about this . . .?

Words often have multiple definitions/meanings. A common informal fallacy is to conflate multiple meanings of the same word. The OP question deals with philosophical truth. If you want to relate a future event to philosophical truth, it's not good enough to simply cite a potential event: you need to cite how that event relates to philosophical truth.

Jonathan Doolin 1 vote

by Jim Ashby

>>I didn't say you're conflating two meanings of the word, 'truth',

But I was (though not intentionally)

>>I said you're conflating the meaning of truth by substituting the word for better words.

But I wasn't. (Edit: Or maybe I was... I had no idea that the meaning of the word "truth" was so corrupted, In any case, I cannot now make the distinction between "conflating two meanings of the word, 'truth' and 'conflating the meaning of truth'. So to acknowledge one, and to deny the other doesn't make any sense. )

There are two dictionary definitions of the word "truth"

**Defintion 1. Truth: **that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

**Definition 2. Truth: **a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

When I said "truth" I meant definition 1: That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Definition 2 could be ironic, because "accepting" could mean "giving credit on a test. even though it was actually an incorrect answer" or "believed by one individual, even though it is false" or "accepted by scientists to be true, even though they are mistaken." Definition 2 permits false things to be labeled "true"

I would call the first definition "Objective Truth" and the second definition deserves another name, such as "Our impression of the truth".

In my opinion, to define "truth" as "our impression of the truth" is not just a trivialization of the word "truth" but a travesty of language.

This definition allows a liar to make a false claim, and if anyone accepts what they are saying, they get to call it the truth, because if a lie is accepted, it is the truth, according to this ironic definition of truth.

Jim Ashby

Yes, I only speak of truth as objective truth. Perhaps you haven't read my answer, which explains my position more fully. If you have read it, I've since updated it to make it more complete. Jim Ashby's answer to Analytic Philosophy: Is the statement, "there is objective truth" objectively true?

Jonathan Doolin 1 vote

by Jim Ashby

>>What about these future events relate to truth? Their occurrence?

We cannot change anything in our past by changing our beliefs, definitions, We may or may not have a "collective consciousness" but we do have a "collective past" and this collective past is the objective truth; or objective reality.

There may be other parts of objective truth as well; for instance Physical Law, such as conservation of energy, and momentum. Newton's Laws of Motion. Kirchhoff's Laws, Maxwell's Laws. Or the lambda-cold-dark-matter model of cosmology***.

Whatever physics we've actually got right are matters of objective truth... Whatever physical laws we've got wrong are not a matter of objective truth, no matter how many people have accepted it.

Our opinions, values, descriptions, and beliefs cannot affect the past, nor can they affect the physical laws.

However, my point is our opinions, values, descriptions, and beliefs, can and will affect the decisions we make in the present, and hence will affect the occurrence of events in the future.

So getting back to Adam's "Dependency #2" we don't really need to worry about it***... His dependency #2 is predicated on "everything is not connected"...

His dependency #1 was "If all thought and vibrational information in the universe was somehow connected via a single source..."

All thought and vibrational information in the universe isconnected via a single source: The past. A shared history.***

The past is an undeniable objective truth through which we are all connected.

Adam described a "collective consciousness"

One could surely say the "current state" of the universe represents a collective state. The grand and mysterious "Now" which lies somewhere between the past and the future. Arguably, given the mystery of quantum mechanics "spooky action at a distance" and "entanglement" one might reasonably hypothesize that "Now" is a collective consciousness.

Jim Ashby

Thanks for the clarifications.

First of all, I'm a novice (if that) with quantum mechanics. So much of what follows might more accurately be described as impressions rather than opinions.

Quantum entanglement ("spooky action at a distance") seems less spooky when you consider that everything in the universe began from a singularity (the Big Bang) at Planck scales. Everything began 'quantum-entangled'. The fact that quantum entanglement still exists after billions of years and the immense expansion of space is mind-bending to me.

The thing about quantum theory is that it's so counter-intuitive because we're not really aware of the subatomic substrate of reality that is the quantum realm. We are aware of only the macro realm of objects (but actually, we do experience the quantum realm: sight, via photons at photoreceptors; smell, via ionic shifts at olfactory receptors; etc.). The macro realm we experience is stable and predictable. The unseen micro realm of quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is chaotic and unpredictable. Although Einstein was the one who, with his proposal of light quanta (photons), laid the groundwork for quantum mechanics, he was never convinced that the future of physics should be built upon it, regardless of its amazing efficacy.

I'm no scientist but I can certainly sympathize with Einstein's reluctance to embrace quantum mechanics: it does seem to lead to wild and nonsensical conclusions. But there's no denying the efficacy of quantum mechanics: we're surrounded by evidence of it in the form of modern communications and computing technologies.

Secondly, I distinguish between truth and fact. I see facts as a subset of truths. They're truths we have verified. Truths, like facts, assert only what's real. But we don't know what's real (true) until we've verified it. In other words, we can't know truths, we can only know facts. We might have a hunch or suspicion or conviction that something is true . . . but we don't know it's true until we've verified it. Until that happens, it's just an opinion, at best. Whatever it is, it either exists or it doesn't. But I'm not sure if this applies to the quantum realm. It seems to have its own rules.

So, when I speak of truth and facts, I'm speaking only about the classical, macro, realm. I don't know how order emerges from chaos: how the macro realm can be fixed, yet the quantum substrate can be random. I am virtually certain there's an objective reality out there that can be known and understood -- but not absolutely -- and that the inanimate universe unfolds in predictable ways.

But we are not inanimate. We are animate beings in an inanimate universe. Until the advent of life, the universe was 100% inanimate. As intelligent human beings who can (within limits) understand, anticipate, and prepare for causality, the future of things within our purview is not as predictable as the inanimate realm outside our purview.

To my thinking, the unidirectional arrow of time means the the past is not a source but is, rather, a history. You used the two words 'source' and 'history' interchangeably but I believe they are distinct, albeit related. And since we're dealing with dependency #2 here (no collective consciousness), the past is a legacy (history), not a wellspring (source).

Yes, human actions in the now will influence events in the future but they won't determine those events. The human contribution is but a small part of our reality. Sure, in some ways, we can determine the future: city planning, for instance, can determine the general layout of the city (if all goes well) . . . but not which companies will move to town or where they'll erect buildings or what products they'll make or which services they'll offer and how these will require changes to the city plan.

Yes, the past is an undeniable objective truth and the future is built upon it. But that doesn't mean the potential of the future is fixed (not that you said it is). The potential future is constantly changing because of new discoveries. When the unknown becomes known, the natural response is to adapt.

Besides, how can the past represent a collective consciousness when most folk are barely aware of it? I can accept the idea of collective consciousness in the form of trends in popular music, fashion, fads, etc. But as some kind of unifying force or phenomenon based on the past? I don't know . . . why can't it be that the 'now' we're born into is more advanced than was the now of those born before us . . . and less advanced than will be the now of those born after us?

How does collective consciousness enter the picture? How does it change anything? Won't any truth discovered and verified as a fact turn out to have always been true? The only difference being that it's been shifted from the list of truths to the list of facts?

Jonathan Doolin

(1) My impression of spooky action at a distance of quantum mechanics is when you have two particles traveling in different, or even opposite directions, which are in an undetermined state until the time that a measurement is taken. At the time that the measurement is taken at one end, the state variables become known at the far end. Whether those variables are actually measured at the far end are still unknown, but you know what they will be if they are measured.

(2) You said "I distinguish between truth and fact. I see facts as a subset of truths. They're truths we have verified." Your definition of "fact" is dependent on who you include in "we" and how they define "verified." A jury of 12 may agree that some testimony is a fact, but does that make it a subset of truth?

Only if you use the second definition of truth is it necessarily a subset of truth. Otherwise truth and fact are overlapping. Also, "fact" varies depending on who you include in "we"

(3) Is the past a source, or a legacy? Of course, the past is legacy and history. But it is *part* of the source, as well. It leads up to the current state... I plan, soon on writing a paper about this topic about the nature of the present, past, and future. You can see the general idea here:

You say "unidirectional arrow of time" but we each have a temporal facing, based on our velocity through space. The arrow of time is shared, because everyone on earth is moving very close to the same velocity

(4) You say "human actions in the now will influence events in the future but they won't determine those events." Yes, that is what I am saying... But this "fact", okay we are both witnesses...

... When Jesus said 2000 years ago "with faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains" he did not state precisely how faith should be implemented, If one desired to interpret Jesus words as true, it would not be hard to do so; but only by giving "faith" a definition of "confidence in what one hopes for" because when the railroads were built, people said "Okay, we're just going to need to move these mountains out of the way," and they had confidence, and they did it...

(5) Collective consciousness is your description of fact. When a narrative about history becomes accepted by "we" it becomes, by your definition, "fact." But what about when two "we"'s disagree?

My idea is that we should seek such a common narrative--A compromise (lose-lose), or transcendant (win-win) narrative of history... where the interpretation of history is analyzed with a rubric of both the scientific method, and by faith.

For example, this is a sample of what I have come up with in regards to Christianity:

If a law said "if a woman commits adultery, she must be stoned to death" and a woman comes before a jury and says, "Yes, I am with child, but this child was not born of adultery, but of immaculate conception" your choices are to accept her testimony as fact, or to have her stoned to death... Which do you do?

The jury chooses to accept her testimony as fact, but not necessarily as truth

"The Torah" established fact by whether the testimony of two witnesses agree.

Between Job's testimony about God,(Job 42:5-6) and John's testimony about Jesus (John 2:23-25) we can see two witnesses that say seeing God makes a man despise himself, and that Jesus does not entrust himself with those who believe in him, because he knows what is in their hearts.

But the book of Job has God betting against Satan that Job will never curse God. He gives Satan complete power over everything Job owns... The fact that Job comes to own a whole lot after he says "I see God, therefore I despise myself" What, then was the denouement of God's bet with Satan? Did Job honor Lord God, or did Job honor lord Satan?

In the book of John, "many people saw the signs Jesus was performing and believed in his name." John says Jesus did not entrust himself to them. Did Jesus entrust himself to those who believed in his name, or to the people who believed in histeaching?

We have this in our collective consciousness, because these two witnesses, Job and John, seem to have given testimony that God despises us. But through careful analysis of what our collective consciousness admits as "fact"

"We" are divided then, into two groups. Those who accept as fact that God despises us, and those who reject as fact that God exists.

Yet if God were defined as "The currently unknown phenomena that created the universe" it seems difficult to deny that at least this concept exists. To ask whether that phenomena "loves us" may be meaningless, but to believe that that phenomena that created the universe "despises us" is surely worse than meaningless.

"We" do not share a collective consciousness, because "we" do not agree about what are facts. If "we" shared a common narrative about what the facts are... then we could also claim to have a collective consciousness.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Is jesus God or is God the father of Jesus? (John 10)

Is jesus God or is God the father of Jesus?

https://www.quora.com/Is-jesus-God-or-is-God-the-father-of-Jesus

The nature of "The Father" described in John 10 is different than that described in Matthew.

John 10:17-18 describes The Father's love for his Son thusly:

17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

I feel that there are two passages to which this ought to be compared in Matthew.

Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

This suggests to me that "sonship" and "daughtership" to God is not unique to Jesus.

Matthew 4:5-7

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.

6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’

This suggests to me that there is some disagreement between the gospel of John, vs the gospel of Matthew. In Matthew, God's love is unconditional: Even if Jesus were to put God's love to the test by throwing himself down, the angels would lift him up in their hands. In John's gospel, "The Father's" love for Jesus is conditional. "The Father" loves Jesus because of his invincibility. But it does not say "The Father" grants Jesus his invincibility.

I would call into question whether we really know whether "The Father" described in John 10, and "Heavenly Father" described in the other gospels are really the same entity.

The wording in John 10 seems very careful so that while the Jewish leaders presume the connection that "The Father" and "God" are the same, John-Gospel-Jesus does not ever confirm that connection, so when he says "I and the Father are one," I don't think he literally meant "I am God" but rather, what he literally meant was "Nobody's ever going to notice that I didn't say Heavenly."

Friday, December 18, 2015

How is it possible you don't know this? (Jesus and Nicodemus)

In an argument with Nicodemus, JGJ (John-Gospel-Jesus) says "You are Israel's teacher, yet you do not know these things?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203%3A1-21

I had this mentioned to me the other day as evidence of Jesus' divinity in John's gospel. To which I said in return, that the ability to point out someone's positional status, and that they don't know what you mean is "snarky". No, I didn't say it was snarky. Someone else pointed out that it was snarky, to me.

What does it mean here when JGJ says "Born Again"? This is very nonspecific what he's saying. Rather open to interpretation. However, instead of providing a solid answer to explain his meaning, JGJ impugns the integrity of the questioner. "Born of water and the spirit" does not add any particular clarity. "The spirit gives birth to spirit" doesn't add any particular clarity. "The wind blows wherever it pleases" isn't clearly shown to be an analogy for the other terms here. The words "we" and "our" are not clearly labeled as to what group is meant.

Finally, the only moment of clarity that seems to come from this passage "The Son of Man must be lifted up... like the snake in the wilderness." Which is what I'm doing here... Showing this nonsense for what it is.

Finally the end of the passage is not in quotations at all. Jesus did not say them. JGJ did not say them. Rather, John himself, the author of John's gospel put these words, unattributed, into the text. The most quoted verse in the Bible: John 3:16, was apparently invented by John.

While many people, I'm sure, have found positive interpretation of these ideas of being born again, and having their spirit born of the spirit, I do not feel that the essence of the argument lies in this passage. The process of being born again through baptism by water certainly was practiced by John the Baptist, but it is not at all clear that this is the process to which JGJ is referring.

3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to (JGJ) at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 (JGJ) replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 (JGJ) answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said (JGJ), “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Fact vs. Opinion; Truth vs Goodnes

Does our truth change with time? Or is that what's called hypocrisy?

I have recently had a conversation with my friend about relations and love and the kind of opinions we have about them. Then it suddenly struck me, I did not hold this belief or did not think that is the truth few years back and may not hold the same belief few years later. Is this being an hypocrite? or growing up? Dont we change the truth as we grow?

Jonathan's Answer

View 15 Other Answers

Jonathan Doolin, generator of hypotheses

277 Views

I think we tend to make a false equivalency between the true vs. false spectrum and the good vs. evil spectrum.

It's a fairly well established that there are true and false statements. When you say something happened, it either did or it didn't. When you say something will happen, it either will or it won't. Insofar as truth changes regarding matters of fact, anything in the past is an unchangeable truth. Anything we say about the future is a changeable truth.

On the other hand, regarding what is good and evil, this is generally agreeed to be a matter of opinion, and societal values. There are a few who believe in some kind of "absolute" good. Actually, I would say MOST people believe in an "absolute" good and "absolute" evil. For instance, it is generally regarded that slavery, child molestation, and murder are all criminal activities, and would be wrong even if the laws allowed them. That is, it isn't a matter of societal conformity that we don't murder each other, but because it is a matter of universal human rights.

So do these universal human rights exist as fundamental self-evident principles, or are they simply arbitrary, and continually changing constructions, adapting to the societies by which they are affirmed?

I think as science improves, we are continually moving toward greater knowledge and truth, even with greater and greater complexity of our understanding. Using the scientific method, we are able to move forward in a clear direction truthward.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if such a clear methodology to approach moral righteousness has been established. We still have major disagreement, for instance, on whether it is right and just for a CEO to make hundreds of times as much money as his employees do, or whether pre-emptive strikes are appropriate in warfare, or sanctions, or whether torture should be used in dire circumstances, or whether assisted suicide is okay, or abortion is okay, or killing and eating animals, or looking at pornography, or divorce, or public nudity, or wearing a shirt with pictures of pretty women, or many thousands of other issues where there is a moral disagreement. Despite the strong opinions that people have on both sides of the issue, there does not seem to be a way to make a true/false call on any of these things.

All we can do is ask ourselves what kind of world we want to live in? And then try to make guidelines to bring about the positive changes we desire.

Friday, November 6, 2015

What does God Hope For?

Paradoxes: Am I right in saying that god can not change his own mind?

Assuming as the bible says that God is all knowing then, he knows that he will change his mind. If that is so he can never change this mind because he knows he will change it in the first place.

Jonathan Doolin, Christian Atheist

The mechanism for changing possibility into fact is called "the present"

If God exists, and can be said to have set the universe in motion, and make decisions as to its principles and workings (A very big IF, but not completely implausible... Only 99.9999% implausible... Okay, I haven't really done the math on this one.)

But where was I? It seems to me, simply from my own observations that God(either because he cannot, or has simply chooses not to) doesn't change the past. If something has already happened, God won't change His/Her/Its mind.

But if something has not happened yet, it lies in the future... God has made some decisions about the way things will happen... We cannot suddenly grow wings, or make become invisible, or begin seeing light in the infrared, ultraviolet, radio, and X-ray spectrums. I don't have perfect free will to do whatever I want, but I do have free will within a certain scope.

But within the realm of the actually possible--God has made no decisions on what we will do. Each of us is capable, at any time, of acting in an entirely unexpected way. It is not God, but other humans who will react and punish behavior that is too far out-of-line... (Some think that God will also send down asteroids or make volcanoes explode, or send whales after people if they make the wrong choices... But I think that asteroids, volcanoes, and whales would happen whether people made good choices or not.)

If God has not made any decisions about what we will do, he is not changing his mind when we do something unexpected. But here's what I think is a more important question than "Can God change his mind..."

"What does God Hope For?"

If I don't believe that God really exists, is it nonsensical to wonder about what God hopes for? I don't think so... It provides an opening for a discussion about what is ABSOLUTE good. What is humanity's role in the universe? Do we have a purpose, other than what we make for ourselves? If we have an ABSOLUTE purpose, then it might be possible to succeed or fail in that purpose. If our purpose is simply what we make for ourselves, then God never made made up his mind in the first place about our future.

Even so... What does God hope for? Does God hope that humankind will somehow overcome some kind of adversity? Does God hope for humankind to be a short-lived blip in the history of the universe, or a transitional stage in the evolution of creatures from flesh to robotic? Or does God hope that humankind remains on the face of the earth until the sun goes red-giant, 5 billion years hence?

Sunday, November 1, 2015

One True Church of the Bible? (Evading the Question?)

Kevin Lawson
Sounds like you know enough to start your own "one true church of the Bible." :)

What is your source for your comments about the Holy Spirit?

Jonathan Doolin

Can you find a definition for "Holy Spirit" in the Bible? I haven't found one. But I think for what it says in Luke to be true, then Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit must be a truly awful thing.

If I am to accept this idea that "to blaspheme the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" I must find in it, some kind of tautology. What is an unforgivable action?

Doing evil for the sake of doing evil.

Making a decision never to love, and to always hate. It may be to some extent a state of being, rather than an action. If you are always going around the world seeing nothing but evil, nobody else can forgive you for that. Not even God. If you despise beauty, and despise goodness, and despise life, and you believe everyone around you is hypocrite and despicable, you are a victim of your own perceptions...

But there is a definition of Holy Spirit, in John 3. It says "The Holy Spirit Does what it wants to."

Nicodemus couldn't figure out what Jesus was talking about. But look at the alternative. What sort of Spirit does what it does NOT want to. That is what we call "pragmatism." That is the spirit that would like to do what it wants, but acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there, and you have to sometimes do bad things to get by.

Am I citing John to find the truth? Perhaps... But I don't look to John for anything except riddles. If the Holy Spirit does whatever it wants to, you have to hold that up to the light and see what it means. Because it certainly does not mean taking advantage of the poor and the meek. If that is what people truly "want" to do, then I have no part in this world.

Kevin Lawson

So what if you have no part in this world? Not to be rude, but this sounds a lot like truth can be determined on the basis of what you want to be true.

Jonathan Doolin

I have no part of this world... You seem to have caught me there in a moment of pointless gloom, and even logical error.

For instance, in a world of intellectual property, when I was young, I worried that people might steal my ideas. Now that I am older, I worry more that no one will notice my ideas. I also worry that I'll only be remembered for my worst ideas.

If there is such a thing as a "meek" which is defined as "quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive." then it is quite possible that such people would rather like to be "taken advantage of" than to be ignored entirely.

I don't know where I rate in the meekness scale, but I believe that I am a beneficiary of ideas and work and effort that has come from "the meek" and I don't know how many of them have been "taken advantage of."

So yes, I do have a part in this world, regardless of who has taken advantage of who, of course. But here's my point... I don't think that I "wanted" to take advantage of anybody... despite the fact that my low-cost-purchases might seem otherwise. I don't think that the store that sold me low-cost-items "wanted" to take advantage of anybody. I don't think that the shipping company "wants" to take advantage of anybody. There are very few in the system that "want" to take advantage of anybody, yet the system still has winners and losers; some that get awarded unfairly. Some that are abused unfairly. Do people really "want" the kinds of injustices that arise?

Perhaps some of them do. But why? Is it because they have some kind of wish for "evil?" No. They will all justify their actions with "Mr. X is even worse than I am. I take care of my people. I take care of my family... I'm stealing from people that don't need it. I'm so desperate I don't have any choice." etc. They don't do evil for evil's sake, but because their perceptions are that what they are doing is justified. In every one of these cases though, if they ever changed their perceptions, and realized what harm they were doing, they would stop doing harm. Those people can hypothetically be forgiven because they aren't doing evil for evil's-sake.

On the other hand, if a person fully understands what harm they are doing, and goes on and does it without any rationale or justification whatsoever. except the thrill of evil-doing... probably isn't going to be stopped without being locked up and tied down. That person really can't be forgiven--just restrained.

Kevin Lawson

Does it matter if your ideas are noticed? Does it matter if evil people are forgiven?

Jonathan Doolin 1 vote

by Kevin Lawson

Well, on the first question, there are two parts. (1) Does it matter whether the idea is acknowledged.
(2) Does it matter whether the idea is credited to me.

Well, I think it is important to make the distinction between what John's gospel requires (belief in the name of the only begotten son of god), and what the synoptic gospels require (forgiveness and kindness).

Once people see that distinction made clearly, I'm not really quite sure where it goes. My personal feeling is that John somehow betrayed Jesus... misrepresenting his teaching and purpose.

On the second question, does it matter if evil people are forgiven? Well, your question is based on the hypothesis that "evil people" exist. I would contend that "evil" is an adverb, describing actions... Not an adjective, describing persons. A person is capable of evil-doing, but is also capable of doing good.

Your hypothesis may also be based on the premise that "forgiving" is an action. Is it? Forgiveness could simply be a decision not to punish, or take vengeance, or dwell on the insult or injury.

But forgiveness could also be an alleviation of the misery and misperceptions that sometimes cause people to do evil. Sometimes, information can be shared, and procedures, rules, communication, and technology can be improved so as to make it so no one is tempted to repeat the evils of generations before.

Evil should not be forgiven... It should be prevented or stopped. But when people do evil, what is important is trying to "understand with the heart" so-to-speak, of what caused them to do evil, and if at all possible, provide them with the opportunity to turn, and be healed.

There's a thin line, I suppose, between "prevention of crime" and "vengeance", People who are interested in punishing evil people seek vengeance. People who are interested in forgiveness would seek the prevention of crime.

Kevin Lawson

Could it be that John was correct and Luke, Matthew etc. tried to fix up the story and make it more marketable?

Jonathan Doolin

Which side told the truth, and which side is just doing marketing?

To me--Matthew, Mark, and Luke give us a product... the teachings of Jesus; clear guidelines on what is right, and what is wrong. John gives us a brand-name: (John 3:16-18) you need to "believe in the Name of the Only Begotten Son"

John doesn't provide the teaching:(Typical -- See John 4:40-41) John does not giving us anything of substance. He is giving us a brand name, or a package in which any teaching or any philosophy can be put.

Furthermore, he's not telling us what the correct brand-name is. Some say it is "Emmanuel." Some say the name is "Jesus" Some say "Christ" etc. Some say "any of the above."

Finally, what does it mean to believe in a brand-name? Does it mean understanding the underlying meaning of the word? Does it mean pronouncing it correctly, or spelling it correctly? Does it mean believing in the person that held that name? And if so, does it mean following his teaching, or just believing he existed, or believing that he performed some specific action or fulfilled some specific purpose. Or does "believing in the name" just mean that whatever you put in that package, people will buy it?

Matthew 7:22-23 is a strongly worded disagreement with John 3:16-18. What matters to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is not whether people are preaching and doing miracles in his name... But whether they are following the Law of God.