William's Random Ramblings

[William]

I am attempting to save enough credits (5000) in order to then apply for my own thread in the Members Notes section of the Miscellaneous forum. If you feel inclined to donate towards this cause, then much appreciation... ...and thanks in advance...

Meantime I figure it can't hurt to place stuff in here which is inspired by other posts in other parts of the forum to which I think meander away from thread topics of debate, but also so I can keep better organisation of my input on this message board, which is - after-all - primarily for the purpose of debate. I am more inclined to desire discussion and find my lack of interest in (and even my distaste of) debate in the usual sense of the meaning of debating, to be a bias I am happy enough to work around.

So, with that said, I would like to start this by making my first reply to Blastcat re;

[center]The idea of Worship- what does it mean?[/center]

[Replying to post 36 by William]

To begin with, there has to be (as with everything) a common position of agreement in order to then move forward with intelligence.

I agree.

Good. Moving forward with intelligence then...

What do you mean by 'worship' in regard to your comment re 'The Father', Blastcat?

Hows this for starters, it was the very first search result I got from Google :

the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

Okay - that'll do nicely.

So in relation to your statement;

They read a word like "Father" and worship THAT.

You are saying that [they - some people] have a feeling of reverence and adoration when they read a word like "Father", and in relation to the idea that God is a 'Father' (as per Jesus) then the connection in relation to the two concepts, one being GOD and the other being FATHER, is about a sense of reverence and adoration in the believer regarding that combination of ideas...would that be a fair enough assessment of what you are saying Blastcat?

If you care to clarify this, I would like to understand your perspective on the subject, as I have things to say about it myself.

Well, when it comes to the word "Father" when applying it to something supernatural, I don't THINK that most theists mean "biological human male progenitor with a penis".

I agree with this. But I also think that they still have a sense of the idea that the deity is masculine in nature as per human (and other) males.

Would you agree?

I don't think that most theists think that God has sexual organs. I think the term is MEANT metaphorically.

The metaphor being about the role of the male within human society, transferred onto the idea of GOD, in order to invoke the overall authority often equated with families and social order in general...the masculine energy if you will...would you agree?

So, I have to think that people who worship this "Father" god are using the term metaphorically. Perhaps some of them mean that the part of the pantheon they call "Father" is ACTING like a father would act, authoritative, punishing, angry all the time about politics, whatever.

Perhaps this has some merit. Certainly Jesus [what is attributed to him having said] seems to bring that into the idea. But I also see that it isn't all about the fatherly role being ONLY those things.

Would you agree?

Also - would it be fair to say that in individual cases, HOW the individual has experienced (or is experiencing) the Father-Figure in there subjective reality can influence HOW the idea of 'Father' is projected BY said individual?

Would you agree?

A Father to son conversation:

"Son, why don't you go fetch the newspaper.

Oh yeah, and I love you.. now go down to earth in order to get KILLED, like a good boy. We'll see you in about ohhhhh 30 years or so."

___________________


You know, a quite normal kind of Father/son conversation.

Now-now Blastcat. I thought we agreed from the go-get that we would approach this with intelligence? Your remark is more of a sign that you do not understand the dynamics of the relationship between Jesus and his father and that you would perhaps rather remain in a sort of clowning around position than try and understand that?

Or perhaps it is more related to your own personal experience of 'what a father is and how a father behaves' that influences writing what you did?

I am quite happy to give something of my understanding of the relationship as per the story if it genuinely would interest you. If you prefer to make jokes about it, that of course is your prerogative.

For now I will leave the subject at that and wait for your response. If you don't want to 'go there' then fair enough. I will probably use this thread to share my thoughts on the subject anyway...

[William]

[center]Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.
Mother Nature
(as a real, living, singular/individual entity.)

Looking for GOD? Then look no further.[/center]

Consciousness is the platform in which intelligence can and does display itself through.

In relation to biological lifeforms, being things in which intelligence displays itself through, the question for me is "how can I not see clearly that the forms are designed intelligently as a process?"

I cannot. Intelligence forbids it.

The only thing I can trace biological evolution back to, which is singularly evident as being connected to all, otherwise, unconnected lifeforms... is the planet Itself.

Therefore I can conclude philosophically that the Earth itself is the form through which the intelligence derives and which can be seen in the nature and function of all the forms, as well as in how consciousness behaves intelligently through those forms.

This is to say, I can conclude that the planet itself, as a single form, can be seen as biological and seen as being used by a singular conscious entity and that the form (planet) is a perfect device for creating all other biological forms, which are themselves the design of the entity and specific to the entities purpose related to Its position.


• Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward. [Linky]

Our simulation = Planet Earth Specific
Evil intent = Psychotic, individual intent on forcing any and every other conscious self awareness to acclaim the Psychotic individual as better than they could hope to be and from that enslave them to your service, thereby proving it.
Properties necessary = Containment, confinement, jail, barrier, et al.
Properties necessary = Lots of spacetime (lost in space. You are own your own now baby. Enjoy the ride.)

Designed = purpose built for the job
Purpose Built = something an awesomely powerful prisoner can work with to help sort Itself OUT.

OUT = Rehabilitation.

I have written many poems about this GOD. I Love this GOD and I believe that SHE wants to be known as She is, not as we might want Him to be.

Specifically, this poem is not just about the singular entity, but also about all the biological forms It is the consciousness within, coming through with intelligence.

You and Me too.



[center]Ghost In The Machine

You've been a Rock - For so long now
I can't even count the days that you've been rolling
No thing can shock - or bring you down
There ain't nothin' you haven't seen, nothing you haven't known

You can teach me what I needing
You can reach for me when I'm bleeding
Hold me when I need it most - you are the Ghost...of the machine.

You are a thought - worth thinking
You're the water and the wine - You're the cup from which I'm drinking
You're a surprise - worth hoping for
You are a captured moment - You're a space without a time

You can look me in the mirror
Catch my eye and make me shiver
Touch me where I need it most - right into the Ghost...of the machine.

You are a dream - Gone real
You're got exactly what it takes - to make and old wound heal
You tied the knot - Then You let it slip
Now be both know what it feels like - To find the place to fit

Raise the anchor, Reef the sail
Navigate another trial
Lift our glasses in a toast - We are the Ghost - in the machine

We've been an Island on our own
We've been a cosmic Rolling Stone
Now's the time to Spread Our Wings...

...And Fly![/center]

[William]

[center]Timelessness vs infinite regress argument
Finding holes in arguments.

Source: Post 36: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:48 pm + Post 37: Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:38 pm - Head to head debate.[/center]

Authors forum name: "no evidence no belief" (now a banned member)

We know it to be true that intelligence is short lived. The longest amount of time we've ever observed an intelligence being continually existing is for 100 years or so. To the contrary, we're able to directly observe that a state of affairs devoid of intelligence can exist for a looooooooong time. Intelligence clearly seems to be fleeting and unstable. Thus to posit that something which we directly observe to be fleeting, unstable, short lived and very very temporary can be eternal, seems to me a greater deviation from what we know to be true, than to posit that inanimate matter/energy can be eternal/timeless.

[link]

[center]Reply:[/center]
Authors forum name: "otseng"

Biological life is short lived, not necessarily intelligence. A counter to your counter is that artificial intelligence could theoretically "live" a long time inside a computer. So, the issue is not intelligence that has a lifespan, but the lifespan of the entity that has the property of intelligence.

[link]

[center]What I think of intelligence in relation to life on earth, and the probability of being elsewhere in the universe.[/center]

In the same way that the proces of birth, life and death flow like a river (see any World Population Clock for a visual on that concept) intelligence remains within this universe perpetually and has done for a very, very long time - and this is just counting OUR particular system. Other systems evolving have the potential for intelligent life forms to evolve while still other systems can be logically assumed to have highly evolved intelligence within them.

The point being that it can be logically assumed that the universe has for a very,very long time had the presence of intelligence within it as a perpetual property.

Therefore, intelligence is NOT 'short lived' or otherwise fleeting and unstable in a true and logical context and the statement "Intelligence is short lived' can therefore be dismissed as false.

As to the infinite regression problem this is solved by the assumption that consciousness [as in a creator GOD as a whole undivided state,] has always existed (is timeless) and from that assumption, anything which is conscious can be considered to being an aspect of that GOD as per my thoughts in this thread [link] therefore GOD can exist in timelessness (as wholeness/completely undivided) AND within individual forms which have a beginning and an end (timeness) simultaneously.

(Individuate consciousness can only derive from that which is consciousness and as such, must have a Source Consciousness/GOD)

[William]

[Replying to post 174 by William]

[center]Creating Strawmen is not the way to argue intelligently and honestly

Untwisting the twisted[/center]

If science fails to demonstrate something, we can find a way to believe it anyway.

That is your way of saying that this is what I have said? That is twisted, sister. How you got that, from this;

But when it comes to claims which cannot be verified scientifically (read my whole post for more on that) and I am told that if I want the evidence it will be subjective in nature and I will have to experience it for myself, I don't go shouting 'foul' and complaining that all such "grand claims" re God-like Entities must HAVE to be scientifically verifiable and falsifiable before I can believe them.

...shows your propensity to twist what someone has said to suit your bias. You have created a strawman...and you do this this frequently

Well, if subjective evidence is going to be your guide to the universe, you can believe just about anything that you like, I suppose.

Why are you putting words in my mouth here Blastcat? Subjective evidence re personal experience is just part of the 'guiding' process, and in context my argument wasn't claiming that people should ignore the objective.
The two work together quite naturally. What I said was that if any individual wants evidence of the existence of the creative intelligence involved with life on earth, they will have to discover that for themselves rather than think that science will do it for them. Ask and you shall receive sister.

People are going to try to convince you of THEIR wonderful subjective experiences about reality.

Not what I said either. The entity Itself will convince you of its existence. On ITS terms of course.
When it comes to what other people say of their experiences or how they interpret their experiences or how they interpret GOD, that is their journey - THEY do not exist so that their experience becomes proxy replacement for my own.

Not to say that those who choose to share their experiences are ignored/to be ignored by me either.

But of course, you can make up one of those on your own.

How snide and off point.

If you think that's how scientists approach learning about the universe, you are sadly mistaken.

You are sadly mistaken to infer from what I have said to mean that. Indeed, nothing I said is remotely saying that. You sure do like to stuff straw into your arguments when it suits.

I think you're allowing yourself to be overly influenced by religious thinking.

No. I do allow myself to be influenced by my personal subjective experience in relation to the objective whole and I also admit freely that science does not have all the answers and certainly cannot answer the GOD questions so shouldn't be relied upon or otherwise demanded of for that task.

Like I said;
But no, if your expectation is to somehow see this hidden reality through the tools of science so that then you might understand and believe, you are sadly mistaken. The 'burden of proof' rule doesn't apply and for very obvious reasons already sketched out for you here...best stick to the devil you know and accept that for those of us who make the effort, what science does is confirm for us the glory of this entities handiwork.

People who have NO objective kind of evidence will just say that it's all subjective anyway. Yeah, well, some people don't THINK that the universe is "subjective".

I am one of those people. I believe that you and I are having a subjective experience of the same objective universe.
How we interpret the universe is what is different, but whereas I don't try and twist your words, you make an effort to twist mine...so how is that helping your case?

But feel free to invent anything that you like, or to accept some pre-fabricated story.
Fairy tales ( or "God tales" ) are not as convincing to me as cold hard facts.

Well you can stick with your 'cold hard facts' alone and pay no mind to what you regard as 'fairytales' as you wish. As for me, I will continue to enjoy my experiences and understanding the underlying intelligence responsible for the biological evolution on this planet. Seeing purpose and reason in the 'cold hard facts' is awesome, but as I said;

Just as I accept that what I speak of here, isn't for everyone.

So you know...if you find the explanation of biological evolution to be sufficient for your needs without the addition of any conscious self aware intelligent purposeful being responsible for it, and find therein something to be in awe of, and this gives you reason and purpose enough, then good for you...

Subjective experience about the universe ≠ objective facts about the universe

Subjective experience about the universe + objective facts about the universe = what I actually said.

Link
Link
Link
Link

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 33 by William]



[center]
Blastcat's propensity to create "straw man" arguments.
First things first: Define your terms[/center]

...shows your propensity to twist what someone has said to suit your bias. You have created a strawman...and you do this this frequently

Well, we should clear that up.
You say that I often create "straw man arguments".

How about we first have you define the term?
I'm not at all sure we are on the same page.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 33 by William]


Moderator Warning


Many of your comments earlier in this post are personal criticisms against another member. Please avoid making inflammatory accusations and uncivil comments.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

[center]Is The Bible Really The Word Of GOD?
Wrestling with The Good and Evil of Yahweh[/center]

Reading a recent thread [Link] it brought to mind the difficulty atheists have with theists in relation to the idea of GOD as represented in the bible and the apparent contradictions regarding the nature of that GOD.

Because of the authority given the bible that it is 'The Word of God' and the acceptance of that by most Christians, confusion and dispute arise and act as a stumbling block in relation to approaching this God.

It is necessary to 'hold fast to all that is good' and by most expectations GOD is supposed to be good, so when God is said to have been evil, therein the confusion lies.

So...Is the bible really 'The Word of God' or can it be considered more a book of different ideas of God all attributed to one idea of God, and in need of discernment as to what is truth and what is deception?

John 1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...

...14.The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So it can be seen that Jesus himself owns the title, rather than any book, even that of the bible.

Taken from that perspective it can then be said that what Jesus says is to be considered 'The Word of God' - a good starting place right there.

Then when it comes to questions such as the title of the thread mentioned and linked...

"If god was female? " where member JJ50 states in the OP;

In my opinion, god was only given the male gender because in the ancient world men were considered to be superior to the female. If any god does exist it is more likely to be genderless.

...the first port of call would be to see what Jesus says about this, since HE should be considered 'The Word of God'.

Doing so would lessen the needles controversy in argument which effectively always becomes looped - no agreement can be reached due to the biblical contradictions specific to the nature - the true nature of GOD.

[William]

[center]Earth Entity - The Local GOD we are directly connected with.
Myths and Legends - Science and Wonders

[Link]

[Link][/center]

[William]

Deleted.