Quantum Consciousness

[pixelero]

At a recent conference, "Brakke Grond" in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January 16-18, 2014, there was a Brainstorm Session on "Microtubules and the Big Consciousness Debate". It seems there have been some new research results that apparently confirm a controversial theory of consciousness published by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff in Physics of Life Reviews some 20 years ago.

A report at elsevier.com says:

The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates [Penrose and Hameroff's] theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

The topic I'd like to suggest for debate is: Do these new findings support the mystical view that non-living matter/energy can be conscious?

I suspect that consciousness will continue to be recognized only in biological organisms, despite the apparent quantum effects in the brain. These effects, as far as I can tell, have only been observed by brains, not crystals or trees... so far.

[Divine Insight]

If we don't have the Spirit of Christ as our main Wi-Fi connection, all we'll get is advertisements and viruses which distort our minds.

Having a Wi-Fi connection with Christ didn't seem to work very well for Mother Teresa.

That poor woman's Wi-Fi connection was tuned to a divining spirit called "The Mother of God". She had to undergo numerous exorcisms throughout her devoted life to keep her half-way sane. Those demonic spirits don't care how much work and devotion she put in her work in their name (In the name of Mother Mary), they still wanted to destroy her.

There are many spirit beings, but we are warned:

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
NKJV

With all due respect arian your views here are extremely insulting to Mother Teresa and any God that might exist.

You are suggesting that Mother Teresa wasn't truly and sincerely interested in worshiping God through Jesus as is the Christian tradition. That in itself is an obvious false accusation.

But then you go even further to suggest that this God is so extremely stupid that he can't even figure that one out.

These kinds of apologetic excuses are, IMHO, utterly pathetic. They only serve to insult the intelligence of their own God.

All you are saying is that your God is so utterly stupid that he can't even figure out who is trying to sincerely worship him and who isn't. That wouldn't be a God that anyone could trust.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 75 by Divine Insight]

There is no fundamental difference between a palace and a pile of bricks.

A difference is a difference. Why does a difference need to be "fundamental"?

A palace is not doing anything that a pile of bricks isn't doing other than impressing you.

A palace might also be housing a monarch, functioning as an administration center, and covering a dungeon. Why isn't impressing me a "fundamental" difference?

In other words, in terms of the physical properties of the universe, there is nothing new in a place that isn't in a pile of bricks.

Why evoke "the physical properties of the universe?"

Now new laws of physics need to be introduce.

What new laws of physics need to be "introduce" now? Why?

Not "new properties" have emerged.

Why isn't the housing of a monarch, or the power to impress me for that matter, a "new property". When a new palace is build, I would say that it is certainly a "new property."

This is the fallacy that you have bought into. ...
This is a fallacy being taught by science.

Which syllogisms are you claiming to be fallacious? Exactly what fallacies are involved?

I'm saying that if sheets of aluminum can be made into airplanes that can fly, then everything required for "flight" is innate to the universe.

And the same thing is true for conscious awareness. If atoms can be made into configurations than can become aware, then "awareness" is innate to the universe

Oh, now you are saying that awareness (why the quotation marks? Do you mean to suggest that it's not really awareness, just something you are calling awareness?) is "innate" in the universe. What does that mean? Are you now backing off your claim that matter and energy are aware? Isn't impressiveness innate in the universe since unimpressive piles of bricks can be arranged into impressive palaces?

I'm as far from "reductionism" as it gets. I'm looking at things holistically, which is the polar opposite of reductionism.

That's an assertion for which you offer no evidence. I've already presented evidence of your reductionist claims:

"Reductionism is a philosophical position which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts..." [Wikipedia]

You seem to believe that nothing can be more than the sum of its parts.

I absolutely do hold to this as being a truth of physics. At least in terms of the laws of physics.

I suggest that the performance of an automobile is more than the sum of its parts, and so is the performance of a complex interconnected network.

And I disagree. That's exactly what it is. It is the performance of the sum of it's parts. And nothing more than that.

how something can become "aware" cannot be described by ANY laws of physics

Why should the laws of physics be required to explain a state of mind? "Awareness" isn't physical, it just depends on a physical brain for its existence, like "love" and "impressiveness".

So to even pretend that an "emergent behavior" like flight can serve as an explanation for an "emerge experience" of awareness is utter silly.

Very well then, I shan't pretend that it's "utter silly". Who mentioned "emergent behavior" and "emerge experience?" You appear to be attempting to muddy the semantic waters again.

The idea that conscious awareness is "just an emergent property" and we have tons of examples of "emergent properties" in the universe is already a misguided notion, and a false proclamation.

You are truly waxing incoherent here; an idea is not a proclamation.

But then to JUMP to the conclusion that awareness is just atoms obeying the mechanical laws of physics too, is an absurd jump that has no merit.

...as opposed to an absurd jump that does have merit? Who claimed that "awareness is just atoms obeying the mechanical laws of physics?" I certainly didn't.

you bought into that baloney

Please consider the truth of your claims before you make them.

You have not shown me a single solitary "emergent property" prior to awareness that cannot be explained by the same laws of physics that apply to atoms.

Why should I? I haven't been discussing emergent properties. I have been exposing your faulty logic in claiming that matter and energy are aware and that the universe is having an experience as the dream of a superior being.

But there is NO WAY that those laws of physics suggest that anything should become AWARE of its own existence.

Why should they? They don't predict love either. So what? How does this support your claims?

you bought into atheistic mumbo-jumbo without truly taking to the time to stop and think about just how faulty that idea truly is.

What exactly is "atheist mumbo-jumbo" and what does it have to do with anything I've said? We have been debating consciousness, not the existence of deities.

I'm totally aware of the "emergent property" hypothesis

Good for you. So what? That doesn't make your fallacies less fallacious.

If you stop and think about it, it's baloney.

I have no need to stop and think about your obfuscating tactics. This is a debate about consciousness, not a guerrilla skirmish.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 77 by arian]

If you think Google has all the answers, .. you should try asking these questions from God through your spirit?

Why do you put a question mark after a suggestion? Is it an uncertain suggestion?

Anyway, I personally think that Google ruined web search and turned it into a popularity contest. So, since I'm quite sure that Google doesn't have all the answers, I don't need to bother God with any questions.

The trick is connecting your spirit with Gods Spirit.

How many "Gods" share this spirit?

It is imperative though, that you connect with the right Spirit, because there are many other deceptive connections available out there

How can one tell that one has connected with the right Spirit?

Connect to the wrong spirit and you'll have all kinds of conflicting answers

Are you connected to the right spirit? If so, how do you know? Is the right spirit one that might ask you, for example, to offer your child in sacrifice?

.. much like you are experiencing now.

How do you know what I'm experiencing now?

[Divine Insight]

A difference is a difference. Why does a difference need to be "fundamental"?

If you are going to use it as an example of an "emergent property" of the universe, then you need to show how it is fundamentally different from what the universe does naturally.

A palace might also be housing a monarch, functioning as an administration center, and covering a dungeon. Why isn't impressing me a "fundamental" difference?

Now, hopefully, you can see why your example is a "cheat".

A palace doesn't arise naturally. A palace is the result of the conscious efforts of humans. So now, the very existence of your palace requires the existence of consciousness first.

So which is the emergent property? A palace or consciousness?

If it's consciousness then you haven't shown an example of an "emergent property" other than consciousness itself.

Therefore you cannot claim that examples of emergent properties are common outside of the emergence of consciousness itself.

In other words, in terms of the physical properties of the universe, there is nothing new in a place that isn't in a pile of bricks.

Why evoke "the physical properties of the universe?"

Because this is what the laws of physics describe.

Now new laws of physics need to be introduce.

What new laws of physics need to be "introduce" now? Why?

Because of brains are just doing what the laws of physics describe, there is nothing to support why they should be able to have an experience or be aware of anything.

Where is there any law in all of physics that suggests that matter or energy, or things made of matter or energy can become aware of anything?

In fact, if that's the scientific hypothesis, then the goal of science should be to show how this new "Law of Physics" emerges with a brain.

Not "new properties" have emerged.

Why isn't the housing of a monarch, or the power to impress me for that matter, a "new property". When a new palace is build, I would say that it is certainly a "new property."

But again, you're back to assuming that consciousness is already an innate part of the physical material world.

Where in all of physics is there any laws that suggest that any material things should even be able to become aware of anything:

It's not in Newton's F=ma.

It's not in Maxwell's equations for light

It's not in Einstein's E=mc²

It's not in Einstein's equations for General Relativity and gravity.

It's not in Heisenberg's Uncertainty relationship.

It's not in Schrodinger's Wave Equations.

It's not in Heisenberg's Probability Matrices

It's not in Thermodynamics or Entropy.

It's not in Dirac's Bra-Ket representation of Quantum Physics.

It's not even in Boolean Algebra. There is no physical laws that suggests that even complex logic circuits should ever actually become aware of what logic gates are actually doing.

Where is it?

Show me where there is anything in the laws of physics that even remotely suggests that anything should be able to become aware of something.

This is the fallacy that you have bought into. ...
This is a fallacy being taught by science.

Which syllogisms are you claiming to be fallacious? Exactly what fallacies are involved?

It's a fallacy to suggest that the "Laws of Physics" can explain conscious awareness.

The laws of physics can explain how a computer can process information logically as a machine. But that is a far cry from being able to explain why the computer should actually be aware of what it is doing.

So it's a fallacy to teach that "science can explain conscious awareness".

It cannot do this. Period.

In fact, if it could he debates would be over and we'd have the answer.

But we don't have the answer. So why teach people that we do?

And IMHO, it's extremely wrong and even arrogant for the sciences to teach that the discovery is "just around the corner". That is extreme optimism that may or may not come to pass.

It's wrong to teach it as though it's a sure thing, because it's not.

I'm saying that if sheets of aluminum can be made into airplanes that can fly, then everything required for "flight" is innate to the universe.

And the same thing is true for conscious awareness. If atoms can be made into configurations than can become aware, then "awareness" is innate to the universe

Oh, now you are saying that awareness (why the quotation marks? Do you mean to suggest that it's not really awareness, just something you are calling awareness?) is "innate" in the universe. What does that mean? Are you now backing off your claim that matter and energy are aware? Isn't impressiveness innate in the universe since unimpressive piles of bricks can be arranged into impressive palaces?

You are still just taking conscious awareness for granted.

Of course we know that conscious awareness exists. That's not the question. The question has to do with it's innate essence. Does it arise from complexity as the scientific community claim? Or is it an innate property of the substance of reality?

You say, "Are you now backing off your claim that matter and energy are aware?"

No, I'm not. But I also need to point out something extremely important here.

We don't even know what matter/energy is!

Einstein was kind enough to show us that E=mc². In other words, matter and energy are interchangeable from one to the other.

Or another way of saying this is that they are basically a "Single Thing".

There is no such thing as matter. Matter is just energy taking on a specific vibrational state. In fact, thanks to people like Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, and others, we can even say much about how energy takes on vibrations to create various forms of matter.

But in the end, it's pretty safe to conclude that all that it truly needed is energy. Energy can become manifest as matter.

But what is energy? Physics has NO CLUE. All physics does it treat energy as a quantifiable number and show how it mathematically relates to "matter" which is nothing other than standing waves of vibrating energy.

So really I don't even need to speak about energy/matter. All I need is pure energy. Period. Matter can then become manifest from this pure energy.

But from whence does pure energy come?

I don't know, but I think it's a good guess that when energy isn't posing as manifest matter it most likely exists in the quantum state as quantum fields of potentiality.

So that's my hypothesis from a purely scientific point of view.

1. Energy is all that exists.
2. It most likely exists in some pure quantum form as potentiality.
3. That quantum form (according to QM) has organizational structure (i.e. it follows rules)

So my question is?

Could this pure primordial energy have the ability to be aware?

My conclusion is, yes.

Why? Well because we are nothing more than a manifestation of this pure energy and we are aware. Therefore the energy that has become manifest as us must be innately capable of becoming aware.

And this is the foundational essence of what we are.

And this is the mystical picture. "Tat T'vam Asi", meaning "You are That".

You are this energy that is aware of its own manifestation.

I'm as far from "reductionism" as it gets. I'm looking at things holistically, which is the polar opposite of reductionism.

That's an assertion for which you offer no evidence. I've already presented evidence of your reductionist claims:

If you did, then that was a misguided notion on your part.

1. I'm saying that energy is all that exist.
2. It exist in some primordial organizational state (as shown by QM)
3. We are a manifestation of this primal energy manifest as vibrational waves.
4. We are having an experience.
5. Thus since we are this energy and we are having an experience, then this energy must innately be capable of having an experience.

There is no "reductionism" going on here.

There may be a line of reasoning here, but reasoning itself is not reductionism.

This picture is a picture of holism. Energy is all that exists. We are energy.

It can hardly get any more holistic than this.

And we tend to call this energy "God" for lack of a better understanding.

how something can become "aware" cannot be described by ANY laws of physics

Why should the laws of physics be required to explain a state of mind? "Awareness" isn't physical, it just depends on a physical brain for its existence, like "love" and "impressiveness".

But something is experiencing the feelings of "love" and "impressiveness", etc.

There is nothing in the "Laws of Physics" that suggests that anything made of matter or energy should be able to experience anything.

So my point is that if you are going to proclaim to have a purely materialistic explanation of the world that is based entirely upon "science" (i.e. Laws of Physics), then you had darn well be able to explain via those scientific laws how it is that something can actually have and experience.

If you can't do that, then you "Have No Explanation".

And this is what I am saying. To just sweep all of this under the carpet by proclaiming that awareness of experience is just an "emergent property" is NOT and explanation. On the contrary it's a total COP OUT for a lack of an explanation.

So to even pretend that an "emergent behavior" like flight can serve as an explanation for an "emerge experience" of awareness is utter silly.

Very well then, I shan't pretend that it's "utter silly". Who mentioned "emergent behavior" and "emerge experience?" You appear to be attempting to muddy the semantic waters again.

When you can explain to me scientifically, in no uncertain terms, how anything can have an experience then I'll be impressed.

But thus far I have not seen anyone who is able to do this.

Like Goat posted, there are many hypotheses floating around, but clearly none of those have even been focused on as being particularly convincing.

When I see someone win the Nobel Prize for having discovered how to explain this clearly, I will be impressed and look forward to reading the books on that explanation.

But no such explanation exists to date that I am aware.

Science is "Jumping the Gun" by proclaiming that they can explain something that they haven't yet explained.

The idea that conscious awareness is "just an emergent property" and we have tons of examples of "emergent properties" in the universe is already a misguided notion, and a false proclamation.

You are truly waxing incoherent here; an idea is not a proclamation.

Are you then conceding that science had no clue yet just as I have been holding to be true all along?

All I'm saying is that the purely secular material world model is not a "working" model yet. It may be a working model at some future time if the materialists get their prayers answered. But their desire for a working model does not yet exist.

And that's all I'm saying.

But then to JUMP to the conclusion that awareness is just atoms obeying the mechanical laws of physics too, is an absurd jump that has no merit.

...as opposed to an absurd jump that does have merit? Who claimed that "awareness is just atoms obeying the mechanical laws of physics?" I certainly didn't.

Well, if you want to claim that you have a "Working Model" of a purely secular materialist worldview, then you had darn well better be able to explain awareness as just atoms obeying the mechanical laws of physics. Because that it the worldview that you are attempting to advocate.

That would be the debate that you would need to offer.

you bought into that baloney

Please consider the truth of your claims before you make them.

Well, like I say, if you are not advocating a pure materialistic worldview, then my we are arguing over nothing, because that is the worldview that I have claimed it not a "Working Model"

If you have a different worldview from that, then let's hear it.

You have not shown me a single solitary "emergent property" prior to awareness that cannot be explained by the same laws of physics that apply to atoms.

Why should I? I haven't been discussing emergent properties. I have been exposing your faulty logic in claiming that matter and energy are aware and that the universe is having an experience as the dream of a superior being.

Well, if you want to support a purely materialistic world view this is what you need to show.

I'm just saying that if we back up a step and simply allow that the primal energy from which everything is made is a conscious being that is aware, then we have a "Working Model", not necessarily a model that explains all the details since we can't know why the primal energy is a living mind. But at least it's a "Working Model" and that was all I had ever claimed from the get-go.

But there is NO WAY that those laws of physics suggest that anything should become AWARE of its own existence.

Why should they? They don't predict love either. So what? How does this support your claims?

Love is nothing but a label for an experience of emotion.

Bringing things like "love" into the picture only serves to confuse the issue. The real question is "What is it that is experiencing these emotions to need to label them in the first place?"

you bought into atheistic mumbo-jumbo without truly taking to the time to stop and think about just how faulty that idea truly is.

What exactly is "atheist mumbo-jumbo" and what does it have to do with anything I've said? We have been debating consciousness, not the existence of deities.

Well, remember how we got into this conversation to begin with. I said that a purely materialistic worldview that postulates that the energy from which everything is made cannot have an experience, must then also explain how it came to be that things made of this energy can now have an experience.

It's not a "working model" until that explanation is in hand.

All I'm saying is that if we simply postulate that this fundamental energy is itself a being that is aware, then we have a "working model" (even if only by postulate) It's still a working model.

I'm totally aware of the "emergent property" hypothesis

Good for you. So what? That doesn't make your fallacies less fallacious.

I have offered no fallacies at all. Everything I have offered is true.

If we postulate that primal energy is an aware being we have a "Working Model"

If we postulate that primal energy is not aware, then we don't have a "Working Model".

And that's all I'm saying. There is no "fallacies" in that.

If you stop and think about it, it's baloney.

I have no need to stop and think about your obfuscating tactics. This is a debate about consciousness, not a guerrilla skirmish.

Well, now you are just in denial of the points I've been making and are attempting to wield ad hominems instead.

I'm not trying to obscure anything. On the contrary I've tried to address the important issues head-on.

[arian]

If we don't have the Spirit of Christ as our main Wi-Fi connection, all we'll get is advertisements and viruses which distort our minds.

Having a Wi-Fi connection with Christ didn't seem to work very well for Mother Teresa.

That poor woman's Wi-Fi connection was tuned to a divining spirit called "The Mother of God". She had to undergo numerous exorcisms throughout her devoted life to keep her half-way sane. Those demonic spirits don't care how much work and devotion she put in her work in their name (In the name of Mother Mary), they still wanted to destroy her.

There are many spirit beings, but we are warned:

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
NKJV

With all due respect arian your views here are extremely insulting to Mother Teresa and any God that might exist.

You are suggesting that Mother Teresa wasn't truly and sincerely interested in worshiping God through Jesus as is the Christian tradition. That in itself is an obvious false accusation.

Does the Pope worship Jesus Christ? Does our local used-car salesman worship Jesus Christ when he swore on a stack of Bibles that the car he was selling me was in excellent condition?
How about this, .. does anyone say they do NOT worship Jesus Christ? Billy Graham and many other Christian TV Evangelicals say that even Satan worshipers actually worship Jesus Christ, they just don't know it yet. So I guess I offended more than just dead Mother Teresa, but every atheist and devil Worshipper too, .. right?

We cannot earn our way into heaven. Also, .. before she bowed down daily to a pagan female idol to intercede for her, she should have at least opened and read the Bible and see if Jesus approved such actions or not, I don't care what the Pope said.

But then you go even further to suggest that this God is so extremely stupid that he can't even figure that one out.

* Hey, I can sacrifice my wife and even all my children to God, if He didn't ask me to do it, instead of a reward, .. God will punish me for murder. He will not say: "Well arian I did not ask you to sacrifice your children, but hey, .. it's the thought that counts. Come, sit at my right side!"

* There is only one door into Heaven, and that is through Christ, no other mediator can get you in there.

* Can't expect to get paid from your boss if you've been plowing the wrong Masters field all day, and this is exactly because our Master is not stupid.

These kinds of apologetic excuses are, IMHO, utterly pathetic. They only serve to insult the intelligence of their own God.

I don't have 'my own God' as is customary in todays pagan multi-god society, because I know that there is but One God. He is my God and your God, I don't keep a personal god for myself.

1 Cor 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
NKJV

Now if I insulted the intelligence of some wood, stone or plastic gods, .. hey, what can I say? Only that "they are not real, they can neither bless or curse nor answer you back".

All you are saying is that your God is so utterly stupid that he can't even figure out who is trying to sincerely worship him and who isn't. That wouldn't be a God that anyone could trust.

So who is insulting God now?

Well if you raised your children in a loving home, put them through school, then College, bought them a car, .. did everything you could possibly do for them, but they keep going to a tree, or a rock in the back yard, .. or a neighbor whose your worst enemy and thanking him for all you've done for your children, and towards you they would act as if you didn't even exist, .. you would understand.

[Divine Insight]

Billy Graham and many other Christian TV Evangelicals say that even Satan worshipers actually worship Jesus Christ, they just don't know it yet.

Well, IMHO Billy Graham and many other Christian TV Evangelicals are dumber than rocks.

The very idea that someone actually believes that they are worshiping Jesus but they aren't and they just don't know it is the absolute stupidity evangelical claim that can possibly be made. All this does it expose the utter stupidity of the evangelist who takes this position.

No sincere decent person could be trying to worship Jesus Christ and not know that they are accidentally worshiping Satan instead. That is just plain stupid to even suggest such a thing.

What might be possible is that such people are actually quite insincere and only "pretending" to worship Jesus. But such people would KNOW it, they wouldn't be ignorant of what they are doing as you claim that Billy Graham suggests.

We cannot earn our way into heaven. Also, .. before she bowed down daily to a pagan female idol to intercede for her, she should have at least opened and read the Bible and see if Jesus approved such actions or not, I don't care what the Pope said.

IMHO this is nothing more than an extremely hateful accusation made toward Mother Teresa. It is extremely judgmental of her and even suggests that she never even opened the Bible.

To make such an accusation against her beyond arrogance, IMHO, and crosses the boundary into hate speech directed specifically against her.

I can't believe that you would even pass such a judgement on another person whilst you are claiming to be a "Christian". It makes me seriously wonder if you have ever opened a Bible.

I understand that Christianity does create many bigoted and hateful people, but I'm not sure how it manages to do that. Where in the Bible does Jesus ever teach anyone to judge other people in such a hateful way that you have judged Mother Teresa?

I personally don't see your views as being representative of Jesus or anything even remotely close to Jesus.

* Hey, I can sacrifice my wife and even all my children to God, if He didn't ask me to do it, instead of a reward, .. God will punish me for murder. He will not say: "Well arian I did not ask you to sacrifice your children, but hey, .. it's the thought that counts. Come, sit at my right side!"

But it's ok for you to murder the character of Mother Teresa in Jesus' name?

You aren't getting anywhere with me. If you represent Christianity I renounce it all the more.

* There is only one door into Heaven, and that is through Christ, no other mediator can get you in there.

Yeah right. And according to Islam there is only one door to Heaven and that is to follow the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur'an.

All you are doing is preaching a different version of the same hate cult.

Using Jesus as fodder to condemn others.

This is precisely why so many non-Christians would love to see Christianity wiped off the face of the planet. It's nothing but a hate cult that uses Jesus as fodder for hatred.

* Can't expect to get paid from your boss if you've been plowing the wrong Masters field all day, and this is exactly because our Master is not stupid.

If my boss wasn't bright enough to be sure that I was sent to the correct field in the first place then it would be entirely his fault.

Such a "boss" would not be my "boss" because I wouldn't work for anyone that utterly stupid.

So once again, you're need to use Jesus as fodder for the degradation of people who don't believe like you fails miserably because it requires that your God be an absolute idiot.

I don't have 'my own God' as is customary in todays pagan multi-god society, because I know that there is but One God. He is my God and your God, I don't keep a personal god for myself.

If there is only One God, then all religions worship the same God. So for you to try to use Jesus as fodder to pass judgments on others who don't believe like you fails once again.

Your Christianity is not better than Islam.

1 Cor 8:5-6

Why quote from Hebrew mythology? What does that have to do with anything?

The Muslims will just quote from the Qur'an, etc,.

All you are doing is trying to sell your version of Hebrew mythology using Jesus as fodder for hatred against anyone who doesn't believe like you.

You are only demonstrating to everyone precisely how disgusting Christianity can truly be.

Now if I insulted the intelligence of some wood, stone or plastic gods, .. hey, what can I say? Only that "they are not real, they can neither bless or curse nor answer you back".

Well you better be careful not to insult your plastic Jesus then.

Using Jesus as a rubber doll to condemn people like Mother Teresa is truly disgusting IMHO.

All you are doing is demonstrating to me just how ugly Christianity can be in the hands of some of it's followers.

I would never associate your view with those of the Jesus dipicted in the Bible.

And stupid as the New Testament is in many places, it still doesn't portray a Jesus as disgusting as the image you are holding up in front of everyone.

So who is insulting God now?

Well if you raised your children in a loving home, put them through school, then College, bought them a car, .. did everything you could possibly do for them, but they keep going to a tree, or a rock in the back yard, .. or a neighbor whose your worst enemy and thanking him for all you've done for your children, and towards you they would act as if you didn't even exist, .. you would understand.

That would never happen to me because I wouldn't play hide-and-seek with my children and they would know who I am.

But if I was stupid enough to go hide and not let them know who I was or that I was the one responsible for all the great things I did for them, then YES, of course I would understand. I would understand perfectly that they can't possibly know who their real father is because I would be too busy playing Hide and Seek.

You're scenario here doesn't work, because I wouldn't be as stupid as the God your are portraying here in the first place.

I would need to be as stupid as the God that you portray before this scenario could even be made to work.

I would BE THERE for my children. There would be no question in their mind who their father is.

Moreover, even after that, if my children were still unhappy with me, I would want to know why. I would be concerned with what I am doing wrong. I wouldn't just automatically be so arrogant as to blame them for not loving me. If they aren't loving me I'd be intelligent enough to realize that it's probably something I'm doing wrong.

Christianity is a failed hate cult. It tries to demand that anyone who doesn't buy into the scam must "hate God", which is utterly stupid.

If people read the Bible and do not fall in LOVE with God, then clearly there's something wrong with the God depicted in the Bible, and not with the people who can't see the good qualities in this hateful God.

You're position on all of this only confirms to me that Christianity is nothing other than an empty hate cult, devoid of anything divine.

Of course, I'm quite certain that you are not the spokesperson for Christianity or Jesus. So I won't necessarily hold your views against the religion.

But the Bible already contains enough of it's own hate speech that it doesn't need any help from you.

[arian]

Billy Graham and many other Christian TV Evangelicals say that even Satan worshipers actually worship Jesus Christ, they just don't know it yet.

Well, IMHO Billy Graham and many other Christian TV Evangelicals are dumber than rocks.

Now is that a way to speak about someone as great as Dr. Billy Graham? He has been praised by about a dozen of our ex-presidents and over the past 60 years followed by billions of people, and this is your summery of such a GREAT man as he, .. that he is dumber than rock?

I just pointed out that even as great a man as Dr. Billy Graham is, he can be deceived by Divine Insight, which if he would have only listened to that 'still small voice' of Gods Holy Spirit would have woken him from his slumber, and he would have realized that divinations are from Satan, .. not God.

This tragedy is no different than Christ's parable of the 10 Virgins, 5 wise and 5 foolish. Dr. Grahams oil ran out, and now he is running to see if he could by some oil with this last Revival. He is hoping that by preaching a "Wide Gate" where not only many, but EVERYONE could get through and into heaven, that he may show the 'world' that he has more compassion than even God Himself.

The very idea that someone actually believes that they are worshiping Jesus but they aren't and they just don't know it is the absolute stupidity evangelical claim that can possibly be made. All this does it expose the utter stupidity of the evangelist who takes this position.

I don't know if it's stupidity, or just stubbornness, I think it is just pride. I have written letters and shown multitude of Bible quotes to show my Filipino wife's friends and relatives that spending all their money (the little that they have) and time worshiping an idol of this "Mother of all gods Mary" is an abomination in the sight of the Lord, .. but they would not make that step to open their Bibles and read it for themselves. Instead, they were deeply offended that I would quote such Scripture against their dearest mediator, and the source of my quotes 'the Bible' remains adorned on an alter in their homes. So you tell me?

No sincere decent person could be trying to worship Jesus Christ and not know that they are accidentally worshiping Satan instead. That is just plain stupid to even suggest such a thing.

You make it seem As-If this might be news to you, but have you heard of the anti-Christ? Yep, .. he has the world fooled preaching from the Bible, yet having them giving him; "the Devine-god-of-this-world" all the credit. Not only that, but they go and get their doctorates in Divinity, and become proud "Diviners" for this imposter. So I don't know whether to call it stupidity or what?
Also, I don't quite understand why you would call my hard work in revealing this paradox "stupid to even suggest"?

Hey, .. wait a minute, .. you're not one of those mediums that divine also, now are you "Divine Insight"?

What might be possible is that such people are actually quite insincere and only "pretending" to worship Jesus. But such people would KNOW it, they wouldn't be ignorant of what they are doing as you claim that Billy Graham suggests.

Well, .. instead of Dr. Graham repenting and admitting to the whole world that he has been identifying and giving credit to the wrong god all this time (who by the way rewarded him and his family with great wealth, .. earthly riches), and that he has been encouraging and influencing billions likewise, he tries to get the peoples approval by widening the road and the gate into Heaven. If you remember King Saul did that same thing, and you know how disappointed God became with him, right?

We cannot earn our way into heaven. Also, .. before she bowed down daily to a pagan female idol to intercede for her, she should have at least opened and read the Bible and see if Jesus approved such actions or not, I don't care what the Pope said.

IMHO this is nothing more than an extremely hateful accusation made toward Mother Teresa. It is extremely judgmental of her and even suggests that she never even opened the Bible.

To make such an accusation against her beyond arrogance, IMHO, and crosses the boundary into hate speech directed specifically against her.

Your dedication to Mother Teresa and the Catholic Church is well noted, and so is your Divine Insight. I said: "she should have at least opened and read the Bible and see if Jesus approved such actions or not" .. correct? I never said she NEVER opened the Bible, but that she should have opened it to search whether God approved idol-worship or not?

Please my friend, don't confuse my 'confidence' with arrogance. You are far more brilliant than me who am an unschooled, abused, hurting man working hard to stand on the Word of God, the "Rock" my Lord Jesus Christ.

I can't believe that you would even pass such a judgement on another person whilst you are claiming to be a "Christian". It makes me seriously wonder if you have ever opened a Bible.

If I didn't open the Bible and quote it often, you wouldn't have to cut-it-out of our debates, .. right? There is POWER in them Words, .. it is like a two-edged-sword that cuts through bone and marrow, .. does it not DI?

I understand that Christianity does create many bigoted and hateful people, but I'm not sure how it manages to do that. Where in the Bible does Jesus ever teach anyone to judge other people in such a hateful way that you have judged Mother Teresa?

I personally don't see your views as being representative of Jesus or anything even remotely close to Jesus.

Yes, and I have written many debates and made many notes on the history of the Christian religion, and the many Devine-gods they worship, and all the anti-Christ doctrine they teach and preach which created "many bigoted and hateful people" in the world, just as you said.

Also, which Jesus should my views be a representative of? Your Divine-god Jesus? Or is it the Muslim prophet with a patch on one eye Jesus? Or is it the Mormo Jesus? There are so many anti-Jesus's out there, which one am I not a representative of? I hope none of those, but only One, the Son of the Living God Jesus.

* Hey, I can sacrifice my wife and even all my children to God, if He didn't ask me to do it, instead of a reward, .. God will punish me for murder. He will not say: "Well arian I did not ask you to sacrifice your children, but hey, .. it's the thought that counts. Come, sit at my right side!"

But it's ok for you to murder the character of Mother Teresa in Jesus' name?

You aren't getting anywhere with me. If you represent Christianity I renounce it all the more.

Yes, you renounce my words because they reflect the true Christ, that 'Truth' that burns the worldly-mans conscience. I know you don't hate me my friend, you resent what is IN me, you resent what I stand for. But again here is my consolation:

Luke 6:22
22 Blessed are you when men hate you,
And when they exclude you,
And revile you, and cast out your name as evil,
For the Son of Man's sake.
NKJV

* There is only one door into Heaven, and that is through Christ, no other mediator can get you in there.

Yeah right. And according to Islam there is only one door to Heaven and that is to follow the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur'an.

Yes, but that's just one, .. there are literally tens of thousands of doors, roads, stairways and doctrines to heaven besides the ONE revealed through Jesus Christ in the Bible.

All you are doing is preaching a different version of the same hate cult.

Using Jesus as fodder to condemn others.

I try to follow in His footsteps, to reveal Him the True Light of the world, and not to condemn. As my Lord said:

John 12:46-50
46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him — the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."
NKJV

Neither do I speak on my own authority, but quote His Words, and reflect as though through a mirror Jesus;

1 Cor 13:12
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
NKJV

This is precisely why so many non-Christians would love to see Christianity wiped off the face of the planet. It's nothing but a hate cult that uses Jesus as fodder for hatred.

You seem to only speak of hate, yet I keep quoting love and the truth.

1 Cor 13:13
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
NKJV

You see my friend, it is this pure love of Christ that non-Believers want to wipe off the face of the planet, not the Christian religion. I mean who do you think is going to do most of the 'wiping out'? Christianity have become the most powerful religion in the world, and it is because they are the most dedicated to their religion and their gods, and the greatest of those is Mammon.

Jesus preached love, to love your enemy, and to do good to them that hate us, to turn the other cheek, .. not kill, torture and rape those that wouldn't accept Jesus the Lamb!

2 Cor 4:2-6
2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake.
NKJV

* Can't expect to get paid from your boss if you've been plowing the wrong Masters field all day, and this is exactly because our Master is not stupid.

If my boss wasn't bright enough to be sure that I was sent to the correct field in the first place then it would be entirely his fault.

Such a "boss" would not be my "boss" because I wouldn't work for anyone that utterly stupid.

I see, so if you go out of your way and start plowing and seeding your bosses enemies field, it is not you who are stupid, but your boss??
Now if he paid you, then of course he would be stupid.

And don't worry, He is a thoughtful Boss, he gives each worker a Book of instructions that He expects them to read a little of each day, .. so they would not do something stupid like work in His enemies field all day, not alone the rest of their life! And if anyone cannot read, He gave teachers, counselors, instructors, everything anyone could ever need to make SURE no one wasted even a minute in the enemies field. So no one will have an excuse on Pay-Day. If you dedicated your life working for the Enemy, the wage will reflect your labor. The wage for those who worked for the Lord in His field, Eternal Life in His Kingdom, but those who chose despite of all the instruction and management to work in the enemies field, on Pay-day:

Luke 13:27-28
27 But He will say, 'I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.' 28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,
NKJV

So once again, you're need to use Jesus as fodder for the degradation of people who don't believe like you fails miserably because it requires that your God be an absolute idiot.

I agree with you my friend, if anyone uses Jesus as fodder for the degradation of people as we see religions do today, .. their god or gods must be absolute idiots. I certainly agree with you there. And yet, .. there you have it.

I don't have 'my own God' as is customary in todays pagan multi-god society, because I know that there is but One God. He is my God and your God, I don't keep a personal god for myself.

If there is only One God, then all religions worship the same God. So for you to try to use Jesus as fodder to pass judgments on others who don't believe like you fails once again.

I said it a hundred times, .. and I'll say it again: "You will never find the God of the Bible, the Great 'I Am Who I Am' in any man made religion and their man made gods. Why would I serve some man-made hypothetical god when I have the real Creator to worship? I don't judge all these religions, the very Word of God will judge them, Jesus will judge them.

Matt 7:22-23
22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
NKJV

Your Christianity is not better than Islam.

It's understandable that you would think so Divine Insight, because my message is veiled from you;

2 Cor 4:3-5
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
NKJV

This is why I pray for you my friend, that you would humble yourself enough and repent so God would remove that veil from your heart/soul and mind.

1 Cor 8:5-6

Why quote from Hebrew mythology? What does that have to do with anything?

The Muslims will just quote from the Qur'an, etc,.

All you are doing is trying to sell your version of Hebrew mythology using Jesus as fodder for hatred against anyone who doesn't believe like you.

You are only demonstrating to everyone precisely how disgusting Christianity can truly be.

See, that is true freedom of choice from a Loving Creator, where tens of thousands of different mythologies can be created in. My God would never put a gun to your head to come back to Him, or a sword to your neck. He says "Here I am, I'm not far from anyone of you, you wondered off, now come and find me!"

"Nope, .. not that way son, .. aaah.. stop, Stop, .. STOP not that way either, now that was close, and very dangerous! .. I'm right here my boy, stop being so stubborn and turn around, make a few steps towards me and I will run to you with open arms. AAaahh.. there you go again, pretending that there tree is me, .. or that rock over there, or some crazy philosophy with your friends, or you listen to the divinations of my enemy! Why are you being so stubborn? You know you cannot live without me, so why are you avoiding me son?"

Luke 15:20-24
20 "And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

22 "But the father said to his servants, 'Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. 23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' And they began to be merry.
NKJV

Now if I insulted the intelligence of some wood, stone or plastic gods, .. hey, what can I say? Only that "they are not real, they can neither bless or curse nor answer you back".

Well you better be careful not to insult your plastic Jesus then.

Using Jesus as a rubber doll to condemn people like Mother Teresa is truly disgusting IMHO.

All you are doing is demonstrating to me just how ugly Christianity can be in the hands of some of it's followers.

I would never associate your view with those of the Jesus dipicted in the Bible.

I know my friend, .. I can only dream of being and walking like them. There are just too many things wrong with me, if only I had the full power of Jesus Spirit in me I would not offend so much. I would walk in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control .. and I lack awfully in every one of those traits. This is why I keep pointing to Jesus, NOT me.

And stupid as the New Testament is in many places, it still doesn't portray a Jesus as disgusting as the image you are holding up in front of everyone.

I will pray harder that I may present to you a better image of Christ in me.

But, .. no, .. I dare not even think of such, but could it be that I do kind of speak the Words of the Lord and that is why you hate what I say? Like I said, I dare not even think so, should I become proud and boastful. I'll take the full blame for anything I did or said wrong, please don't blame the New Testament for it. If I said something wrong, it's possibly my fault.

So who is insulting God now?

Well if you raised your children in a loving home, put them through school, then College, bought them a car, .. did everything you could possibly do for them, but they keep going to a tree, or a rock in the back yard, .. or a neighbor whose your worst enemy and thanking him for all you've done for your children, and towards you they would act as if you didn't even exist, .. you would understand.

That would never happen to me because I wouldn't play hide-and-seek with my children and they would know who I am.

Just remember it was your kids who started this hide-and-seek, to a point they ignored all your calls and wondered off. You know where they're at, you keep whispering in their ear: "hey.. daddy is right here .. " but they keep ignoring you and being really rude. They run to a tree or a rock and say "Daddy, we found you and love you daddy!" when they know well that you are not far from them, that you are right there, .. and it breaks your heart!

But if I was stupid enough to go hide and not let them know who I was or that I was the one responsible for all the great things I did for them, then YES, of course I would understand. I would understand perfectly that they can't possibly know who their real father is because I would be too busy playing Hide and Seek.

No, we did something really bad, and it was that that started this hide-and-seek.
"Oh, you punished us ey? Now we can't see you, we won't see you, matter of fact we hate you! We don't need you anymore!" .. something like that.

You're scenario here doesn't work, because I wouldn't be as stupid as the God your are portraying here in the first place.

I would need to be as stupid as the God that you portray before this scenario could even be made to work.

I would BE THERE for my children. There would be no question in their mind who their father is.

Moreover, even after that, if my children were still unhappy with me, I would want to know why. I would be concerned with what I am doing wrong. I wouldn't just automatically be so arrogant as to blame them for not loving me. If they aren't loving me I'd be intelligent enough to realize that it's probably something I'm doing wrong.

What?? Do you even read what you write in all your posts? Don't you see your rebellious responses on 'good and evil' about laws, about rules, about absolutes? You portray the perfect rebellious child, BECAUSE you know so much of the Bible, and because God made you so smart.
Don't be so modest my friend, you know you are doing/saying/divining things wrong, I just feel it. I mean you can see it in our debates and your debates with other Believers. What is it you want from God, .. He is Spirit, and will only communicate with you in the spirit, in your mind. But noo.. you are too busy getting Insights from those divining spirits of yours.

No my friend, this is all you will get, and you better take it before it is too late;

Luke 16:22-31
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man (or wise man) also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'

27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29 Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'"
NKJV

Christianity is a failed hate cult. It tries to demand that anyone who doesn't buy into the scam must "hate God", which is utterly stupid.

If people read the Bible and do not fall in LOVE with God, then clearly there's something wrong with the God depicted in the Bible, and not with the people who can't see the good qualities in this hateful God.

Hateful God, .. God who gave His only begotten Son for you and me D.I.! God is Spirit and cannot die, it would be an impossibility for all things would have to come to an end. But the day, the hour that His bellowed Son died, our Gods heart broke as if He died with him.

Matt 27:46
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
NKJV

Rom 8:32
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
NKJV

So be careful what you divine D.I.

2 Peter 2:12-13
12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness,
NKJV

You're position on all of this only confirms to me that Christianity is nothing other than an empty hate cult, devoid of anything divine.

Again you are wrong because as I have pointed it out many times, todays Christianity, or the Christian religion IS divined and they admit it. It makes Jesus one of the divining spirit-gods instead of the Son of God, thus denying both the Son and the Father, .. who is his God, and our God.

Of course, I'm quite certain that you are not the spokesperson for Christianity or Jesus. So I won't necessarily hold your views against the religion.

Thank you, .. finally. No I do not represent todays Christianity or their Jesus-god, or their doctrines. My God is NOT their god, and I am reminded of it often.

But the Bible already contains enough of it's own hate speech that it doesn't need any help from you.

Nothing that your good-ol' Agenda 21 won't fix .. right? Uniting all evil rules and principalities that enslaved and burdened man from the beginning of time from the Garden of Eden till now, that Final Solution combining every evil plan to rule man that hasn't worked, into ONE great plan that just might work!?! Now what fool came up with that, to try to combine everything that hasn't worked before like Communism, Nazism, and all those other isms into ONE Agenda for the 21st Century, .. all because they say the Bible is hate speech??

Of course they have to kill 6.5 billion people who want to stay alive and multiply first, because they know that they would never drink the cool-aid like the last 500 million is willing and ready to do to be one-with-the-universe and take a ride on the comet. Hmm.. total human inhalation, .. who would want men to believe in such ludicrous idea? Hmm... now who could that be who hates man so much to make them all commit suicide? Anyone, .. anyone, .. Marshall Applewhite anyone, .. the earth must be recycled anyone, ..??

[Divine Insight]

but they would not make that step to open their Bibles and read it for themselves.

Reading the Bible is what convinced me that it can't possible be true.

In fact, have you not been paying attention? Studies have been made repeatedly that show that atheists know more about what's in the Bible than most Christians do.

The reason there are so many Christians in the world is precisely because they don't read the Bible and they have no clue how utterly stupid it truly is.

You make it seem As-If this might be news to you, but have you heard of the anti-Christ?

The idea of an anti-Christ is every bit as much of a superstitious fable as the fables about the Christ in the first place.

What you don't seem to understand is that once a mythology is uncovered to be false, then everything about that mythology has been exposed to be nothing more than a superstitious myth.

Yet you continue to use the superstitions in an effort to try to revive them.

That's futile. And just a waste of everyone's time.

Well, .. instead of Dr. Graham repenting and admitting to the whole world that he has been identifying and giving credit to the wrong god all this time (who by the way rewarded him and his family with great wealth, .. earthly riches)

What? Dr. Graham became rich by collecting tithes from the people he tells superstitions to and you're going to give a God credit for that?

Your dedication to Mother Teresa and the Catholic Church is well noted, and so is your Divine Insight. I said: "she should have at least opened and read the Bible and see if Jesus approved such actions or not" .. correct? I never said she NEVER opened the Bible, but that she should have opened it to search whether God approved idol-worship or not?

So are you saying that worshiping God through Jesus is idol worship?

Because that is precisely what Mother Teresa was doing. Exactly what the Bible and Christianity teach people to do.

I can't believe that you would say such hateful things about Mother Teresa.

But then again, I can't say that I'm surprised considering the religion you are attempting to proselytize.

What faction of Christianity do you represent?

If I didn't open the Bible and quote it often, you wouldn't have to cut-it-out of our debates, .. right? There is POWER in them Words, .. it is like a two-edged-sword that cuts through bone and marrow, .. does it not DI?

Quoting from absurdly stupid myths is a waste of everyone's time. Christianity is clearly a bigoted religion that is filled with religiously bigoted quotes that renounce non-belief and non-acceptance of the religion.

Islam and the Qur'an pull that exact same stunt.

There is nothing unique about Christianity, it's the same type of religious bigotry as Islam.

Would quoting from the Qur'an impress you?

No of course it wouldn't because you prefer the bigotry of Christianity over the bigotry of Islam.

Also, which Jesus should my views be a representative of? Your Divine-god Jesus? Or is it the Muslim prophet with a patch on one eye Jesus? Or is it the Mormo Jesus? There are so many anti-Jesus's out there, which one am I not a representative of? I hope none of those, but only One, the Son of the Living God Jesus.

You don't represent anyone other than yourself.

If you think otherwise, that's your problem, not mine.

In fact, I just came from another thread where someone pointed out that many Christian fundamentalists are attracted to Christianity precisely because it gives them an excuse to wear arrogance on their sleeve in Jesus name.

This is one of the big dangerous of these types of religions.

You are talking "down" to me in this thread, and no doubt to everyone who disagrees with you (including Mother Teresa) because you imagine in your mind that you are the spokesperson for Jesus.

But even in those fables Jesus is said to have taught people that they will know the true prophets by the fruit of their works. And trust me, the fruit that you are spewing reeks of rot.

But again here is my consolation:

Luke 6:22
22 Blessed are you when men hate you,
And when they exclude you,
And revile you, and cast out your name as evil,
For the Son of Man's sake.
NKJV

I don't hate you, nor would I exclude you or cast you out.

If anything I feel sorry for you.

From my perspective you are just making yourself look bad by acting like as if Jesus would support you over the people you are attempting to debate with.

That doesn't work in debates. You need to keep that kind of imaginary pride under wraps.

If you want to win a debate you need to say something meaningful, not just proclaim that everyone hates you in Jesus name and you are wallowing in the hate for his sake.

I try to follow in His footsteps, to reveal Him the True Light of the world, and not to condemn. As my Lord said:

John 12:46-50
46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him — the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."
NKJV

Neither do I speak on my own authority, but quote His Words, and reflect as though through a mirror Jesus;

1 Cor 13:12
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
NKJV

I've read those passages myself many times. As far as I'm concerned, if those words came from any God then I am in harmony with the spirit of those words.

You don't need to worship "Christianity" or proselytize religion to be in harmony with the words you've just posted.

You don't need to belittle Mother Teresa to be in harmony with the words you've just posted it. You don't even need to acknowledge Jesus at all. Period. And that too is in the words that you have just posted:

"And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I
did not come to judge the world but to save the world."

So there you go.

Even if there was any truth to the words you've just posted they wouldn't support your religious extremism and fundamentalism anyway.

You seem to only speak of hate, yet I keep quoting love and the truth.

I don't what you quote, you pass hateful judgements on other people like Mother Teresa.

So any scriptures you quote that might contain statements of love are moot.

Your actions speak louder than the verses you quote.

You see my friend, it is this pure love of Christ that non-Believers want to wipe off the face of the planet, not the Christian religion.

But Christianity does not represent the pure love of Christ. On the contrary, Christianity represents bigotry, condemnation of non-believers, and all manner of judgements against others like you have judged against Mother Teresa.

Apparently you worship Christianity, not Christ. If you worshiped Christ you would never dare to accuse Mother Teresa of worshiping false Gods or being involved in idol worship.

Jesus preached love, to love your enemy, and to do good to them that hate us, to turn the other cheek, .. not kill, torture and rape those that wouldn't accept Jesus the Lamb!

Why do you then insist on raping Mother Teresa of her dignity?

Is she your enemy?

I agree with you my friend, if anyone uses Jesus as fodder for the degradation of people as we see religions do today, .. their god or gods must be absolute idiots. I certainly agree with you there. And yet, .. there you have it.

Well duh?

Have you done any serious self-introspection lately?

You have already degraded Mother Teresa as being a worshiper of Idols who never bothered to open her Bible.

I said it a hundred times, .. and I'll say it again: "You will never find the God of the Bible, the Great 'I Am Who I Am' in any man made religion and their man made gods. Why would I serve some man-made hypothetical god when I have the real Creator to worship? I don't judge all these religions, the very Word of God will judge them, Jesus will judge them.

In that case why don't you climb down off your high horse and give God and Jesus a little breathing room to do their own judging?

I have absolutely no problem with God or Jesus.

The only person I appear to be having problems with is YOU!

This is why I pray for you my friend, that you would humble yourself enough and repent so God would remove that veil from your heart/soul and mind.

Didn't you just say a moment ago that God and Jesus are the ones who should be doing the judging?

So why have you just insinuated to me that I need to "repent" of anything? Or that God needs to remove some veil from my heart/soul and mind?

That certainly sounds like you are passing some sort of judgement on me personally.

Like I say Arian, I have absolutely no problem with Jesus or God. None whatsoever. I am absolutely certain that if either Jesus or God exist they are totally pleased with me and I am in good standing with them.

YOU are the only one who is passing judgments on my Arian.

When do you plan on getting over yourself as the ultimate judge of other people?

My God would never put a gun to your head to come back to Him, or a sword to your neck. He says "Here I am, I'm not far from anyone of you, you wondered off, now come and find me!"

Your God?

Do you have the patent rights on God?

Do you own the copyright on God?

As long as you keep acting like you own God you're never going to convince anyone that you are even remotely in harmony with God.

I would never associate your view with those of the Jesus depicted in the Bible.

I know my friend, .. I can only dream of being and walking like them. There are just too many things wrong with me, if only I had the full power of Jesus Spirit in me I would not offend so much. I would walk in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control .. and I lack awfully in every one of those traits. This is why I keep pointing to Jesus, NOT me.

Well, like Jesus himself was said to have taught, you need to remove the log from your own eye before you can remove the speck from the eyes of your brothers.

Also, if you have accepted Jesus into your heart then why do you lack these characteristics?

Isn't the Holy Spirit of Jesus powerful enough to transform you into a perfect man.

You keep quoting scriptures from these myths, well here's one to consider:

Matt.5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Evidently Jesus expected that you could do this on your own or he wouldn't have commanded it.

But surely if you can't do it on your own you could ask him to come into your heart and transform you himself.

After all didn't he also supposedly say:

John.14 13-14 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

So there you go Arian. All you need to do is ask Jesus to fix you up and he'll do it. He promised.

I will pray harder that I may present to you a better image of Christ in me.

Pray harder?

Why should you need to pray "harder"?

Anything you ask in Jesus' name he will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

You shouldn't need to exert any extra energy. Just ask politely and with a sincere heart and that should be more than sufficient.

Jesus didn't say that you need to grovel or beg. He simply said that anything you "ask" for in his name he will do. Just ask. It shouldn't require any work on your part at all. Just a sincere heart.

That would never happen to me because I wouldn't play hide-and-seek with my children and they would know who I am.

Just remember it was your kids who started this hide-and-seek, to a point they ignored all your calls and wondered off. You know where they're at, you keep whispering in their ear: "hey.. daddy is right here .. " but they keep ignoring you and being really rude. They run to a tree or a rock and say "Daddy, we found you and love you daddy!" when they know well that you are not far from them, that you are right there, .. and it breaks your heart!

And this is the greatest lie of Christianity. It's just a religious scam that underhandedly tries to make out like anyone who doesn't join the cult and support the cult is at fault.

This is actually the most dishonest and underhanded brainwashing cult on the planet, and precisely why it should be outlawed as emotional terrorism and bullying of non-members of the cult.

In fact, this actually is against the law for cults to do this sort of thing. Christianity is exempt only because it isn't officially recognized to be a cult.


~~~~

So anyway, I've responded enough to your post.

If you're trying to represent Jesus you aren't doing a very good job of it, that's all I can say.

You are far more likely to drive people away from your brand of Christianity than to attract anyone to it.

Have a good day.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 84 by Divine Insight]

If you are going to use it [a difference between a thing and its components] as an example of an "emergent property" of the universe, then you need to show how it is fundamentally different from what the universe does naturally.

You put the term "emergent property" in quotation marks, but I never used the term. You were the one to bring it up. You also now claim that I am attempting to give an example of a property "of the universe!" Where does that come from? I simply pointed out that there are things that are more than the sum of their parts. There is no need to show that anything is "fundamentally different from what the universe does naturally," whatever that is supposed to mean. Again, you attempt to shift the terminological ground, along with the burden of proof. I made no claims about the nature of the universe. All I've said is that your claim that "the stuff of the universe" (the definition of which, incidentally, you change with every post!) is conscious has no logical basis.

So which is the emergent property? A palace or consciousness?

According to Wikipedia, Aristotle concludes that "that emergent structures are more than the sum of their parts" and that Strong Emergent properties "are irreducible to the system's constituent parts... The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Therefore, palaces and airplanes, as well as life and consciousness are emergent structures, assuming we need examples of emergent properties to point out your fallacies of division and composition, and the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever that would suggest that any non living stuff is conscious.

brains are just doing what the laws of physics describe, there is nothing to support why they should be able to have an experience or be aware of anything.

Where is there any law in all of physics that suggests that matter or energy, or things made of matter or energy can become aware of anything?

Here's another bit from the Wikipedia article on Emergence:

"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts." (Anderson 1972)

We don't need to show how the laws of physics construct consciousness. Consciousness simply does appear to exist, and it certainly doesn't violate the laws of physics. Your attempt to imply that conscious can not arise from unconscious matter and energy, just as life can arise from non-living chemicals, is just a constructionist red herring.

It's a fallacy to suggest that the "Laws of Physics" can explain conscious awareness.
...
So it's a fallacy to teach that "science can explain conscious awareness".

In the first place, no one has claimed that the laws of physics, or science, can explain consciousness. Scientists are hypothesising and experimenting, but no one claims to have a complete explanation, so your claim that anyone does is a straw man.

Secondly, even if it were true that scientists have claimed to explain consciousness, that would not be a fallacy. That would be a false statement. A fallacy is not a false statement; a fallacy is a case of faulty logic. To say that black is white is not a fallacy; to reason: minds are conscious, minds exist in the universe, therefore the universe is a conscious mind is a fallacy, a fallacy of construction to be exact.

There is no such thing as matter. Matter is just energy taking on a specific vibrational state.

"The stuff of the universe" becomes "leptons and bosons" which becomes "matter and energy" which now becomes "just energy". Why the arbitrary assertion that energy is primary and matter secondary to the point of non-existence? One might as well claim that energy is nothing but matter moving very fast. Actually, for the concept of speed to exist, (as in C ,the speed of light, in "E=MC2") space needs to exist for the matter to move through. But space only emerged with the big bang. The singularity that gave rise to the big bang would seem to be better described as infinitely dense matter, since in the singularity there was no space through which to accelerate. Therefore, matter would seem to be the more primary of the two forms of the stuff.

1. Energy is all that exists.

That's obviously nonsense. Space exists. Time exists, possibly even as a fundamental rather than emergent property of the universe; (Lee Smolin is working on this idea, which was suggested by Richard Feynman.) Organization, how things are arranged, exists.

2. It most likely exists in some pure quantum form as potentiality.

"Most likely"...? "Some pure quantum form"... This you claim is "scientific"? It sounds highly speculative to me.

3. That quantum form (according to QM) has organizational structure (i.e. it follows rules)

Your recognition of organizational structure and rules contradicts your first assertion that energy is "all that exists."

Could this pure primordial energy have the ability to be aware?
My conclusion is, yes.
Why? Well because we are nothing more than a manifestation of this pure energy and we are aware.

Here is your reductionist fallacy of division again. Despite your claims to be thinking holistically, your reasoning here is entirely reductionist. You fail to see how anything can be more than the sum of its parts. This is simply faulty logic, and no amount of equivocation, shifting ground, and changing terminology mid-argument can hide that fact.

Are you then conceding that science had no clue yet just as I have been holding to be true all along?

I've already told you that science does not claim to have all the answers. But that is no reason to assume that fallacious arguments and propositions entirely lacking evidence provide a "better explanation" let alone a "working model." To claim that the lack of a full scientific explanation of consciousness is justification for a "mystic" explanation is absurd, and the claim, that if a proposition can not be proven false it is reasonable to assume that it's true, is an argument from ignorance, another logical fallacy.

I have offered no fallacies at all. Everything I have offered is true.

As I've explained above, you don't know the difference between a fallacy and a falsehood. I am not accusing you of falsehood. You may very well be quite sincere, but your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies at every turn.

now you are just in denial of the points I've been making and are attempting to wield ad hominems instead.

To point out your shifting terminology, shifting levels of conception, shifting burdens of proof, and irrational reasoning does not constitute an ad hominem attack. I'm am discussing your debate style, the vagueness of your ideas, not your person.

What is becoming much clearer to me however, in the course of this debate, is that your understanding of mysticism is as muddled as your understanding of logic, but that is material for another thread in another sub-forum.

[Divine Insight]

I made no claims about the nature of the universe.

Neither did I.

Clearly you aren't understanding what you are even attempting to argue against.

I simply stated that a pure materialistic view of the world that postulates that the material the world is fundamentally made of is not able to have an experience or be aware, is a "Non-working Model" of reality.

I simply suggest that if we merely postulate that the stuff the universe is made of does have this innate capability then we have a "Working Model".

Therefore, if you are arguing with me over this point, then it's your burden to show how this stuff that is not capable of having an experience or be aware of anything magically obtains this characteristic.

The burden of proof for that is on you.

All I've said is that your claim that "the stuff of the universe" (the definition of which, incidentally, you change with every post!) is conscious has no logical basis.

And that is your error. I'm not making that claim at all.

I'm simply stating that if we allow that as a postulate we can have a "working model". Just because we have a working model doesn't mean that the model is necessarily true. It simply means that it's a working model.

So you simply aren't understanding my position on things.

Also, you keep making up false accusations that my definition of the "stuff" of the universe keep changing with every post. It hasn't changed one iota from the beginning.

In fact, I don't even have any need to define what the "stuff" of the universe even is in any detail.

I originally referred to it as "energy/matter" because that's how physics treats it. Then later I pointed out that Einstein's famous equation E=mc² shows us that all that truly exists is energy that can take form as matter.

So all that is required for the universe is energy. I can I openly confess that I cannot offer a detailed description of what energy might be. But then again, neither can physics. They define it purely in terms of quantitative properties in terms of the ability to do "work", and they define "work" as simply the dynamic rearrangement of matter. So even physics has no clue what constitutes the stuff of the universe. So I certainly have no need to do that.

So your accusations that I keep changing my definitions is simply false.

I'm happy with just referring to it as the "stuff" the universe is made of. I have no need to define it in terms of reductionism.

So which is the emergent property? A palace or consciousness?

According to Wikipedia, Aristotle concludes that "that emergent structures are more than the sum of their parts" and that Strong Emergent properties "are irreducible to the system's constituent parts... The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Therefore, palaces and airplanes, as well as life and consciousness are emergent structures, assuming we need examples of emergent properties to point out your fallacies of division and composition, and the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever that would suggest that any non living stuff is conscious.

Conscious awareness is far more than just a structure. To just lump it in with "structures" is your fallacy of logic, not mine.

Awareness is not simply a structure. That's absurd.

And there is absolutely no comparison at all between conscious awareness and palaces or airplanes, so why you insist on continuing to use that analogy is beyond me because that analogy clearly fails.

Palaces and airplanes can indeed be totally described entirely as structures that are merely obeying the fundamental laws of physics.

Conscious awareness cannot.

Therefore it is your error and fallacy to continue to treat these totally separate things as though they are equivalent examples.

brains are just doing what the laws of physics describe, there is nothing to support why they should be able to have an experience or be aware of anything.

Where is there any law in all of physics that suggests that matter or energy, or things made of matter or energy can become aware of anything?

Here's another bit from the Wikipedia article on Emergence:

"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts." (Anderson 1972)

We don't need to show how the laws of physics construct consciousness. Consciousness simply does appear to exist, and it certainly doesn't violate the laws of physics. Your attempt to imply that conscious can not arise from unconscious matter and energy, just as life can arise from non-living chemicals, is just a constructionist red herring.

You can't say that life arises from non-living chemicals. Where are you going to draw the line on what constitutes life and what does not?

That is the error and fallacy of reductionism right there.

You are attempting to reduce things to living versus non-living. But any definition that you come up with to draw that line is nothing more than a man-made boundary that nature herself may hysterically laugh at.

You can't truly draw that line anywhere specific.

So that's the reductionists red herring right there.

It's a fallacy to suggest that the "Laws of Physics" can explain conscious awareness.
...
So it's a fallacy to teach that "science can explain conscious awareness".

In the first place, no one has claimed that the laws of physics, or science, can explain consciousness. Scientists are hypothesising and experimenting, but no one claims to have a complete explanation, so your claim that anyone does is a straw man.

Well, the material fundamentalists are attempting to act like science supports their pure materialistic world view.

So yes, I would agree that the actual scientists don't support these views, and neither do I. But the atheistic materialists try to claim that science supports their materialistic conclusions. But it doesn't.

So apparently you are actually in agreement with me on that point and aren't even aware of it. Science does not conclude a pure materialistic worldview. It may assume this world view as it creates new hypotheses, but it does not conclude this worldview.

I think this is where many materialistic atheists fail to understand. There is a huge difference between what science assumes and what science actually concludes.

Secondly, even if it were true that scientists have claimed to explain consciousness, that would not be a fallacy. That would be a false statement. A fallacy is not a false statement; a fallacy is a case of faulty logic. To say that black is white is not a fallacy; to reason: minds are conscious, minds exist in the universe, therefore the universe is a conscious mind is a fallacy, a fallacy of construction to be exact.

But I haven't done that at all.

All I've said is that if we postulate that the universe is a manifestation of a conscious entity then we have a "working model".

And that without that postulate, we don't have a working model.

This is not a "construction" at all. It's just a recognition of which models are workable and which ones are not.

There is no such thing as matter. Matter is just energy taking on a specific vibrational state.

"The stuff of the universe" becomes "leptons and bosons" which becomes "matter and energy" which now becomes "just energy". Why the arbitrary assertion that energy is primary and matter secondary to the point of non-existence?

Why? Because that's the direction Quantum Mechanics point to. In other words, that's the direction being pointed to by modern science. Unless you want to consider "String Theory", but String Theory is really just a guess at this point and is not science at all, even though scientists may be studying it. It's really nothing more than hypothetical guesswork right now based entirely on abstract mathematics that may turn out to be totally wrong.

One might as well claim that energy is nothing but matter moving very fast. Actually, for the concept of speed to exist, (as in C ,the speed of light, in "E=MC2") space needs to exist for the matter to move through. But space only emerged with the big bang.

It's the same difference. You can thing of energy as matter moving very fast, or you can think of matter as energy frozen in place.

I prefer to think of matter as "standing waves of energy" since this fits in best with our current scientific understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

The singularity that gave rise to the big bang would seem to be better described as infinitely dense matter, since in the singularity there was no space through which to accelerate. Therefore, matter would seem to be the more primary of the two forms of the stuff.

Actually that's not the modern theory.

The modern theory is called "Inflation" and does not require that all the matter in the universe existed at a single point called a "singularity".

Matter may very well have come into existence precisely due to the inflationary process.

1. Energy is all that exists.

That's obviously nonsense. Space exists. Time exists, possibly even as a fundamental rather than emergent property of the universe; (Lee Smolin is working on this idea, which was suggested by Richard Feynman.) Organization, how things are arranged, exists.

Space and time exist as a single fabric which arose during Inflation.

The very fabric of spacetime is a manifestation of energy.

And yes I am very familiar with the work of Lee Smolin, he's one of my favorite modern day physicists in terms of ideas. I also totally agree with him that Loop Quantum Gravity is actually more plausible than String Theory.

I think the ideas in Loop Quantum Gravity are right on target.

2. It most likely exists in some pure quantum form as potentiality.

"Most likely"...? "Some pure quantum form"... This you claim is "scientific"? It sounds highly speculative to me.

Yes this is scientific. It's also required for QM to be true. And people who are working with quantum information and quantum computing are also realizing that there is something going on there that cannot be ignored.

3. That quantum form (according to QM) has organizational structure (i.e. it follows rules)

Your recognition of organizational structure and rules contradicts your first assertion that energy is "all that exists."

No it doesn't. Because I didn't define what energy is. Nor do I need to.

I allow that all energy comes from the quantum substrate that has given rise to our spacetime universe.

And this is in harmony with both QM and Inflation theory. It's also in harmony with Loop Quantum Gravity.

To claim that the lack of a full scientific explanation of consciousness is justification for a "mystic" explanation is absurd.

I agree. But that is not my position.

and the claim, that if a proposition can not be proven false it is reasonable to assume that it's true, is an argument from ignorance, another logical fallacy.

Again, I agree. That's not my position either. So clearly you are jumping to assumptions about my position that I have never claimed.

I have offered no fallacies at all. Everything I have offered is true.

As I've explained above, you don't know the difference between a fallacy and a falsehood. I am not accusing you of falsehood. You may very well be quite sincere, but your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies at every turn.

The only "argument" I have made is that if we allow for a postulate that physical reality is made of stuff that is already able to be aware, then we have a working model.

And if we don't allow for that postulate then we don't have a working model.

I'm not making any claims about what might actually be the truth of reality.

now you are just in denial of the points I've been making and are attempting to wield ad hominems instead.

To point out your shifting terminology, shifting levels of conception, shifting burdens of proof, and irrational reasoning does not constitute an ad hominem attack. I'm am discussing your debate style, the vagueness of your ideas, not your person.

What is becoming much clearer to me however, in the course of this debate, is that your understanding of mysticism is as muddled as your understanding of logic, but that is material for another thread in another sub-forum.

All you have described here is your own inability to understand my position.

All I'm saying is that if we embrace a postulate that the material world is a manifestation of of a higher being that is capable of being aware of things, then we have a working model.

And if we reject that postulate they we don't have a working model of reality.

Therefore, from a pure philosophical point of view embracing the postulate that we are a manifestation of a higher being is actually more plausible than the idea that we are creatures who accidentally evolved in a pure materialistic world that came from who knows where?

Even that is yet a second problem. Even in the pure materialistic view one still needs to embrace the postulate that something exists as opposed to nothing, and if you stop and think about it, that is already a mystical idea.

So even pure materialistic reductionism reduces to mysticism in the end.

There is no avoiding it.