I guess this swings over to Fidd's thread (very busy but..) on Pascal's Wager.
"If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/fbeaab7677d870b5?hl=en On Mar 10, 8:01 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?" > That is the question Pat.. and I have no intention of trying to prove it. > nor will I attempt to. > Allan > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 9 Mar, 20:21, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pat > > > I have no need to ask for proof of what i know to be true. Nor do I need > > to > > > create strange arguments.. even science knows that a perfectly straight > > > line will end at its starting point. enjoy your physics and geometry I > > will > > > enjoy my God. > > > Allan > > > My arguments aren't strange, they're logical. And, of course, you > > aren't the only reader here. So, when I address your statements, I > > address them (your statements) for a larger audience with you as a > > primary audience. Whilst you may have no need of proof or even > > examples, others might, so I proffer them. In my opinion, God must > > work within a framework of His design and I view my 'job' as being to > > discover and reveal as much of that framework and design as I can. > > The doctor needn't treat the healthy but not all are healthy and some, > > whilst believing thay are healthy, aren't; and some whilst believing > > they are ill, aren't. And I have to address them all or I'm being > > unfair. > > > BTW, your example of a perfectly straight line ending at its starting > > point is only true in the case of a line that extends throughout all > > of space-time (and THAT assumes a curvature TO space-time, which > > contradicts the 'straightness' of the line). And, since you didn't > > specify the length of the line, your example is incorrect, for a > > straight line that is one inch long will prove your example false. > > Yet, if the one inch line is drawn around a sphere that has a > > circumference of one inch, your statement is still false, as the line > > is curved and not straight. I value geometry and there is much to be > > learned from it. > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 9 Mar, 15:32, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Whoa Pat > > > > > > > That One is beyond gender, which is why He > > > > > > can't have children. Although all creatures are, in a metaphorical > > > > > > sense, His children, none are, in reality, because they do not grow > > up > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. If any did, there'd > > be > > > > > > chaos, as how can you have two omnipotent entities? Logic doesn't > > > > > > allow for it. > > > > > > With your statement you just separated God from the rest of the > > > > universe! > > > > > To me that is one of greatest mistakes made by the religions of the > > > > world. > > > > > I do not want to separate God as I understand him from from his > > universe > > > > ,, > > > > > I only want to be part of it although it is only the tinest part.. > > as > > > > long > > > > > as I am part that. That is my dream > > > > > ..... > > > > > > Okay if you read your statement carefully Or better yet as I read it > > you > > > > > are saying God can not have children, there is nothing metaphorical > > > > about > > > > > Gods children. When you have a child Pat both you and the woman that > > is > > > > > involved are nothing more than the tool the Father Creator uses to > > bring > > > > > about the new child's life into the universe. As I watch new life > > being > > > > born > > > > > into the universe whether it is a baby an ant or insect, or even > > an > > > > > entire galaxy I can only sit in awe at the skill and abilities of > > God. > > > > > > His children, none are, in reality, because they do not grow up > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. > > > > > > When you start making statements like this you are in my mind > > separating > > > > God > > > > > from his universe. Though it is suttle like placing God else where l > > (he > > > > is > > > > > in heaven) in reality you are separating yourself from God. or > > placing > > > > > limits like (because they do not grow up to be...) > > > > > Allan > > > > > I have no problems with limiting God. He cannot produce a spherical > > > > cube, for example. Or, more simply put, God cannot NOT be God. There > > > > are other limits as well, and they are all logical. In fact, all of > > > > the negative commandments in the 10 commandments can be derived as > > > > being based on things that God cannot do, therefore we SHOULD not do. > > > > For example, God cannot create, in any single object, a thing which > > > > fairly represents the entirety of God, therefore, we should not create > > > > nor worship idols. My statement that God cannot have children > > > > stands. That is, he cannot beget an entity that can become omnipotent > > > > as there cannot be, logically, two things that are omnipotent, No > > > > separations involved, only logic. One cannot be two. That's not to > > > > say that One cannot 'appear' to be countless. THAT can be done via > > > > extensions of the One and a given geometry. > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 8 Mar, 20:42, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Well pat one of the things I can not explain is what is beyond. > > . . > > > > > > > > > True. I agree. Consciousness, in my physics, doesn't exist, > > per > > > > se, > > > > > > > > in this 4-D universe, rather, the interface to it exists here. > > > > > > > > The concept of a 4--D universeis kind of strange because it fails > > to > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > you to be everywhere at the same time.. > > > > > > > > > > > , that is a very Islamic concept. > > > > > > > > > > It is not just Islamic and they did not originate it.. > > > > > > > > > well .. > > > > > > > > Again, true. And Muslims would be happy to agree with that. > > You > > > > have > > > > > > > > to go back to Abraham and, in truth, Noah and Adam, before all. > > > > It's > > > > > > > > a Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept, because it is described that > > way > > > > in > > > > > > > > those scriptures revealed by "The God of Abraham". > > > > > > > > from what i have read of the koran they will not like my > > assessment > > > > .. > > > > > > > there is to much man in it people trying to be important.. and > > expand > > > > > > what > > > > > > > is said originally > > > > > > > > > > > If string theory is true, it allows for > > > > > > > > > > us, as physical bodies, to exist throughout these other non > > > > > > space-time > > > > > > > > > > dimensions and move through them as we move through those > > we > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > So, you're not far off there, either, although I wouldn't > > say > > > > that > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > are IN heaven, just that you pass through it (and hell) > > while > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > exist here, although at a level which is completely > > > > undetectable. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > bond of which you speak, I refer to as "that we are an > > > > extension of > > > > > > > > > > the energy that is" and that that energy is God's, as there > > is > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > > else. As for your last statement, how can you hide from > > that > > > > which > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > omnipresent and how can you hide your knowledge from God > > when > > > > it > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > > > > your knowledge, but His, that you have? The fact that the > > > > > > space-time > > > > > > > > > > continum contains a permanent record of all that we have > > done > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > > clear enough record to refer to and it will last for all > > > > time...by > > > > > > > > > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > > Pat To me the only important thing is God and my > > relationship > > > > with > > > > > > him > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > how to enhance it.. It is enough for me, my experience is > > that > > > > many > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > try to explain what they can not explain the result is a mess > > of > > > > > > > > confusing > > > > > > > > > beliefs I think that is because they do not know what they > > are > > > > > > talking > > > > > > > > > about. For me I am in love with my God as I understand him > > and > > > > am > > > > > > > > willing > > > > > > > > > to share what I know. > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > Sounds fair enough to me. I do know that I can ramble on about > > the > > > > > > > > finer details, but the general concepts you hold I can back up > > with > > > > my > > > > > > > > physics. > > > > > > > > > True but at least it is interesting reading.. > > > > > > > > > Over the years He (non gender) has show me wonders beyond > > what I > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > imagine. It is hard to express sometimes what has happened.. > > I > > > > know > > > > > > God > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > real,, and I know everyone else has exactly the same > > connection.. > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > a lot to be said.. but I really have few questions,, the > > > > problem > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > is if I ask the answers tend to come.. the next question > > is do > > > > I > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > want the answer. > > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > I can, so easily, relate to that. I, too, get answers, > > although I > > > > ask > > > > > > > > about the finer details. And the answers, as you imply, can be > > > > > > > > heavy. I suspect you do want the questions, as there is no > > other > > > > > > > > reason to ask. > > > > > > > > I follow what you have to say and I know you can relate. > > > > > > > > > I also approve of your clarification that 'He' is a > > > > > > > > non-gender-specific word. > > > > > > > > He is a common expression with out gender it allows for > > > > simplification > > > > > > > > Whoa Pat > > > > > > > > > That One is beyond gender, which is why He > > > > > > > > can't have children. Although all creatures are, in a > > metaphorical > > > > > > > > sense, His children, none are, in reality, because they do not > > grow > > > > up > > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. If any did, > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
