St. Augustine wrestled with this problem centuries ago..to paraphrase, he said, "If god is good, he's not all powerful; if he's all powerful, then he's not good."

Ah--did he have an answer? That someone reacognized a problem is not grounds for ignoring it.

In Christian theology, Jesus Christ himself met this paradox during his time here on Earth, when he confronted Lucifer, most favored of God's angels and the most beautiful, when the Angel of Light offerd to give Christ all the cities at his command.....note how Lucifer said "give" as they were HIS. Christ called him the "Prince of this Earth" as he knew who was in control here.

You identify "Lucifer" with the tempter in the Gospel. Is this justified? I know this is the Christian tradition, but the "Lucifer" of the Jewish tradition is someone quite different.

Perhaps evil/Lucifer/ a negative force is quite a bit more powerful than we can comprehend..

What you imply is that evil is equal to good--good Zoroastian thinking but a real heresy to Christians.

What you imply is that evil is equal to good--good Zoroastian thinking but a real heresy to Christians.

How so?
Perhaps they are merely equal in power. Yet I get what you're saying--to many Christians, God is all powerful, created Lucifer, and can uncreate him in an instant. Yet, is this so? Perhaps it is NOT so.

************************************************** *
"Ah--did he (St Augustine) have an answer? That someone reacognized a problem is not grounds for ignoring it."

I can't say he ignored it--he wrestled with it and perhaps there IS no answer that we as finite humans can comprehend.

*****************************************

"You identify "Lucifer" with the tempter in the Gospel. Is this justified? I know this is the Christian tradition, but the "Lucifer" of the Jewish tradition is someone quite different."

I believe it's justified but I'm afraid I know little of the Jewish tradition concerning this being.

From the wikipedia entry for "Lucifer"

"Identification with Satan
Many modern Christians have followed tradition and equated Lucifer with Satan, or the Devil. A parallel description of Lucifer's fall is found in Ezekiel chapter 28, which contains a lament over an "anointed cherub" who was in the "holy mountain of God". He is described as "perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." The passage goes on to describe this being's expulsion from the "mount of God", apparently because his "heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness." Afterwards the passage describes the eventual fate of this corrupted cherub: "therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more."

In addition to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Job (in which Satan appears but his origin and purpose are not stated), and various Old Testament scriptures referring to occult powers such as witchcraft, more theological details about fallen angels can be found in the Apocrypha, which are generally not considered canon by those outside Roman Catholicism.


[edit] De-identification with Satan
A growing number of modern Christians no longer accept the tradition, however, assigning the story of Lucifer to Christian mythology. It is noted that the Old Testament itself does not actually contain a literal account of the rebellion and fall of Satan. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are directly concerned with the temporal rulers of Babylon and Tyre, rather than a supernatural being; allegorical readings of these and other passages were typical of medieval scholarship but have little place in modern critical scholarship. Revelation 12, meanwhile, is taken as a reference to Christ's triumph over Satan at his crucifixion rather than a description of a pre-historic event. Christians who reject the Lucifer myth generally believe that the origin of evil (theodicy) is unexplained in Scripture.

Liberal Christian scholarship often denies the existence of a literal personal being called "Satan" altogether, rendering the Lucifer myth irrelevant. It is argued that the name Satan itself (Hebrew: שָׂטָן) merely means "adversary" or "accuser", which may be a personification."

************************************************** ************************************************** *********

(And we are ranging far and afield in this thread, covering much ground--excellent!
I find theology a fascinating subject, wish I'd majored in it in college, and would dearly love to have a poster on these boards with formal training in theology).

************************************************** ************************************************** *********

(And we are ranging far and afield in this thread, covering much ground--excellent!
I find theology a fascinating subject, wish I'd majored in it in college, and would dearly love to have a poster on these boards with formal training in theology).

My apologies to Frogger, who has an extensive background in this subject. Wish he'd post here more.

Anything is possible; do you have any evidence?Nothing tangible; only that where once there was no life, living things now flourish.I would say that while it is clear the human biomass is increasing, there is no evidence of an increase in human consciousness. Ancient wisdom was as wise as is modern wisdom.What you recognize as 'ancient' wisdom is probably more advanced than, say, neanderthal wisdom. But I was thinking more along the lines of consciousness evolving over eons from the first primitive brain through the stages of animal sentience to our current level of relative sophistication.Then, again, the universe is overwhelmingly empty.If an object exists in infinite space, how 'large' is the object? I fail to see the relevance to whether or not life has 'purpose'.Let me elaborate--the Buddha conceived of our existence in the universe as a trap--we are, according to the allegory, lying in the woods struck by a poison arrow. If this is the reality, it does little good to speculate about the purpose of the arrow and of who may have shot it. We need the antidote.Well, if I'm going to die in the woods I may as well think about something. I also listen to the radio when I'm stuck in traffic.This insight is, I think, confirmed by the reality of our existence; it is not a pleasant one except when we work hard to make it pleasant, and there is no permanence. Of course we can (and should) enjoy ourselves up to a point, but all pleasures are self-limiting and all desires return.Sensible.I am not sure that Buddhism provides the antidote, but I am fairly sure that this is a more productive approach than the myths of the ancient Middle East.I would not argue otherwise. My only point of contention is that 'purpose' may exist without our ability to comprehend it.

I've seen the movie "Contact" many times.. but i forgot about this particular dialogue...

Jodie Foster is telling Matt McConney about how what if God is something we created ourselves to make ourselves feel better. She brought up science always excepting the simplest explanation(the law of parsimony), and asked why would an all-powerful God not leave any proof of his existance.... being she was a scientist.

McConney then said "Did you love your dad?" Jodie Foster said "Yes, very much"

McConney said "prove it".....

interesting point.

Nothing tangible; only that where once there was no life, living things now flourish.

--Life in the universe is probably rather common and mundane: it is bags of chemicals with the knack of making copies of themselves. The wonder is where sentience comes from.

What you recognize as 'ancient' wisdom is probably more advanced than, say, Neanderthal wisdom.

--The appearance of homo sapiens seems to have marked a halt in the increase in hominid intelligence--probably having to do with biological restraints on brain blood supply.

If an object exists in infinite space, how 'large' is the object?

--The point is that space is very wasteful of itself--it is really, really empty. That being the case, I see no reason it should not be wasteful with its contents.

My only point of contention is that 'purpose' may exist without our ability to comprehend it.



My point may be that there is no persuasive reason to think the universe has purpose, and some reason to think it does not--in fact, as I think about it, quite a bit of reason to think it does not--physical objects cannot be realistically thought of as having purpose unless we ascribe sentience to it.

Perhaps we are not in the right position to be judging an object's "purpose" in the universe.

The Bible is true, sometimes the translations don't do well. Does satan attack The Bible you bet he does. Do you people know that there is a hebrew Matthew and it corrects translation mistakes. The catholics took one commandment out of the ten commanments and split the 10th commanments. The catholics corrupted two of the 3 versions of the Bible that was found. Only The King James escaped.

There are more mistakes in the evolution fairy tale, nothing went bang haha

The Bible is true, sometimes the translations don't do well. Does satan attack The Bible you bet he does. Do you people know that there is a hebrew Matthew and it corrects translation mistakes. The catholics took one commandment out of the ten commanments and split the 10th commanments. The catholics corrupted two of the 3 versions of the Bible that was found. Only The King James escaped.

There are more mistakes in the evolution fairy tale, nothing went bang haha
You are a pretty funny guy so far. I hope you don't run out of steam too soon. Your precedents usually quit around post #125 (or are banned for not really participating in debates). Sure you are to persevere. Keep it going! :thumbs:

The Bible is true, sometimes the translations don't do well. Does satan attack The Bible you bet he does. Do you people know that there is a hebrew Matthew and it corrects translation mistakes. The catholics took one commandment out of the ten commanments and split the 10th commanments. The catholics corrupted two of the 3 versions of the Bible that was found. Only The King James escaped.



Please elaborate, and may I ask where you obtained this information ?
Also may I ask what church you are affiliated with (if any?)

The Bible is true,

Anybody who knows the real history of the Bible takes statements like that with a grain of salt. That is the language of the literalist and the fundamentalist.

The Bible is true, sometimes the translations don't do well.

Since you've only read translations, how would you know?


Does satan attack The Bible you bet he does.

In what way?


Do you people know that there is a hebrew Matthew and it corrects translation mistakes.

You read Hebrew, or did you read a translation?


The catholics took one commandment out of the ten commanments and split the 10th commanments.

Can you explain this more fully?


The catholics corrupted two of the 3 versions of the Bible that was found.

Can you explain this as well? Found where? By whom?


Only The King James escaped.

Escaped what?


There are more mistakes in the evolution fairy tale, nothing went bang haha

Ha ha. Can you tell me specifically where the mistakes are in the Theory of Evolution?

My point may be that there is no persuasive reason to think the universe has purpose, and some reason to think it does not--in fact, as I think about it, quite a bit of reason to think it does not--physical objects cannot be realistically thought of as having purpose unless we ascribe sentience to it.I can think of no persuasive reason why anything should exist at all. Similarly, I can find no persuasive reason why sentience should arise from previously non-sentient matter. But the universe does exist and so do sentient beings exist within it. Again, I'm not arguing that the universe must have a purpose. I'm simply saying that it could.

Again, I'm not arguing that the universe must have a purpose. I'm simply saying that it could.

This difference illustartes the thinking of the religious and non-religious quite well. I've seen many religious people scoff at the notion of sentience or emotions evolving and they take the existence of these things as proof of a creator. Where you have a creator and a creation, you must have a "purpose" behind all the creating.

Wouldn't it be a cruel joke if the ultimate purpose of life and the universe was to discover that eventually everything will just collapse and start over again? Kind of like massive epic mindblowing amnesia...with a huge explosion at the end (or beginning).

Wouldn't it be a cruel joke if the ultimate purpose of life and the universe was to discover that eventually everything will just collapse and start over again?

Heh.

"Cruel joke", indeed.

Some of the top theoretical physicists in the world have concluded that that is exactly what WILL happen.

Some of the top theoretical physicists in the world have concluded that that is exactly what WILL happen.

Actually, they used to. I know that is what Stephen Hawkings write in Brief History of Time, but he has since written a paper describing how the hubble has confirmed that the background microwaves have indicated that the universe's expansion is speeding up, not slowing down as they used to think. He now says he does not think that a universal contraction is likely.

That disappointed me because it shot his "arrow of time" theory all to hell.

Actually, they used to. I know that is what Stephen Hawkings write in Brief History of Time, but he has since written a paper describing how the hubble has confirmed that the background microwaves have indicated that the universe's expansion is speeding up, not slowing down as they used to think. He now says he does not think that a universal contraction is likely.

That disappointed me because it shot his "arrow of time" theory all to hell.
but it's still completely plausible that the universe cycles though by Black Holes consuming all matter until reaching critical mass and the whole thing starting over again at another point in space.

I can think of no persuasive reason why anything should exist at all.

This has got to be, I think, the most interesting and important topic I have yet gotten into on this board. Thanks. Now to the subject: We can observe that the universe exists; that is the best possible evidence. We have no such observations that the universe has purpose. I am interested in evidence, not theoretical possibility.

Similarly, I can find no persuasive reason why sentience should arise from previously non-sentient matter.

Is sentience a preserved quality of the universe the way mass-energy, electric charge, momentum and angular momentum are preserved? The sequelae of such a conclusion are profoundly important. (One of the lesser of these being that if sentience is preserved, then it cannot arise from non-sentient matter; if it is not, then it can.)

But the universe does exist and so do sentient beings exist within it. Again, I'm not arguing that the universe must have a purpose. I'm simply saying that it could.

Everything is possible, so saying something is possible says nothing. The question we have is one of probability. Sentience provides purpose; therefore the projection of human sentience onto the universe (as in Spinoza's pantheism or maybe in the most refined forms of Taoist thought), is necessary to impute purpose to the universe. Are you willing to go so far as to say the universe is sentient?

--Martin

This difference illustrates the thinking of the religious and non-religious quite well. I've seen many religious people scoff at the notion of sentience or emotions evolving and they take the existence of these things as proof of a creator. Where you have a creator and a creation, you must have a "purpose" behind all the creating.

The form of thinking you describe is "worship" of the "God of the gaps." (There is something we do not understand so we take our lack of understanding as evidence of God).

That being said, I think sentience (thought, experience, qualia, purpose, compassion, awe, humor, justice, beauty, awareness, love, etc.), while they have to have arisen and been mediated on the earth by natural selection, were not created by it--"karma" (whatever word you want) could just exist and have been tapped by natural selection (in its blind way).

--Martin

The form of thinking you describe is "worship" of the "God of the gaps." (There is something we do not understand so we take our lack of understanding as evidence of God).

That being said, I think sentience (thought, experience, qualia, purpose, compassion, awe, humor, justice, beauty, awareness, love, etc.), while they have to have arisen and been mediated on the earth by natural selection, were not created by it--"karma" (whatever word you want) could just exist and have been tapped by natural selection (in its blind way).--Martin

Ultimately, how can we know when such things arose and how they came to be. How accurately can a sentient being contemplate its own sentience? It seems to me that there is an intellectual equivalent to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Ultimately, how can we know when such things arose and how they came to be. How accurately can a sentient being contemplate its own sentience? It seems to me that there is an intellectual equivalent to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

We can derive the Uncertainty Principle. This is something different. The main use of the concept of the God of the Gaps is in demonstrating the flaws in the various "First Cause" arguments, where ignorance found at the boundaries of scientific knowledge is used to promote theist interpretations.

The matter of the origin of sentience is a little different. Earlier I asked if sentience is conserved. In other words, is sentience like energy--something that can, at least in the particular space-time we inhabit, be neither created or destroyed. This approach creates a parallel (maybe just analogous, maybe something more) between energy and sentience).

This is all in the area of speculation; I have no idea whether this sort of approach is meaningful or not. It is, however, the sort of approach that is necessary if one wants to assert that the universe has purpose, since this implies that the universe is sentient.

My personal bias (and I would not say it is more than that) is that sentience exists on its own independent of matter or any other aspect of physical existence. Such a conclusion is contrary to the Western mind-set, which seems determined to undermine the idea that anything is absolute (sentience having an independent existence would permit things like beauty and justice and morality to have absolute aspects--independent even of any deities).

--Martin

Ultimately, how can we know when such things arose and how they came to be. How accurately can a sentient being contemplate its own sentience? It seems to me that there is an intellectual equivalent to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

I notice I ended up not responding to your very specific question.

We can tell when sentience comes into existence in an individual--it happens gradually during development and maturation. Most of the reward/desire pathways are in place at birth, although infants (and even adults for that matter) still have a few mechanical (reflex) pathways similar to those of insects and so on.

We can also tell, with some accuracy, when it happens in the history of life. The laying down of neural reward/punishment pathways to enforce instinctive behavior (using sensate experiences of pleasure and desire) seems to be the real threshold of sentient as opposed to mechanical existence.

This is now widely thought to have happened in dinosaurs (since we see it in birds) and of course in mammals (but we don't see it in modern reptiles, so it must have been absent in the mammal-like amphibians (from which both reptiles and mammals derived).

Such a conclusion is contrary to the Western mind-set, which seems determined to undermine the idea that anything is absolute
Hundreds of millions of Western Christians would beg to differ.

Using the "Western mindset" in this way is doomed to failure.

-deleted-

Stupid response, didn't read the thread properly.

Hundreds of millions of Western Christians would beg to differ.

Using the "Western mindset" in this way is doomed to failure.

You know what Western mind-set I am talking about. It seems you prefer to avoid talking about anything seriously. Just the point I was making on another board about how atheists behave.

You know what Western mind-set I am talking about.
No, I don't, but I'm sure you'll come up with yet another set of ridiculous generalizations to bear out your 'logic'.

No, I don't, but I'm sure you'll come up with yet another set of ridiculous generalizations to bear out your 'logic'.

Naw--you aren't worth the trouble if you can't be honest about such a simple point.

You know, if your generalizations were worth anything, you would have just said them and had faith that you could either defend them or other people would go, "Oh, that's right!"

As it is, you're just afraid of arguing with me. I don't blame you.

When I generalize, and I do it often, particularly when I'm talking about gender relations, I'm not afraid to defend them, because I know they have a lot of truth in them, even if maybe not 100% of the people they involve fall into the description.

We can tell when sentience comes into existence in an individual--it happens gradually during development and maturation. Most of the reward/desire pathways are in place at birth, although infants (and even adults for that matter) still have a few mechanical (reflex) pathways similar to those of insects and so on.

We can also tell, with some accuracy, when it happens in the history of life. The laying down of neural reward/punishment pathways to enforce instinctive behavior (using sensate experiences of pleasure and desire) seems to be the real threshold of sentient as opposed to mechanical existence.

This is now widely thought to have happened in dinosaurs (since we see it in birds) and of course in mammals (but we don't see it in modern reptiles, so it must have been absent in the mammal-like amphibians (from which both reptiles and mammals derived).

Forgive me Thislin, but I'm just not getting the gist of what you're saying here.

Perhaps we mean different things when we're talking about sentience. I've always understood, perhaps wrongly, that sentience is the ability to recognize one's self as discrete from the rest of the universe, and the ability to ponder one's origins. Cogito ergo sum as it were. To me that suggests some sense of the passage of time, as well as what we might call higher consciousness. It would seem also that there might be degrees of sentience, but that might be difficult to determine because the qualities that go into making up a sentient being are rather nebulous, and we have few examples to study. It would also follow that determining if another being is sentient would require extensive interspecies communication, and would thus only be possible for species that possessed equal, or nearly equal, amounts of sentience, not to mention similar sensory apparatus.

I've always defined sentience as the ability to recognize one's own insignificance, and to understand one's mortality.

Which makes me wonder: Do animals know that they're eventually going to die?

-deleted-

Stupid response, didn't read the thread properly.
Damn! I love firsts... ;)

Which makes me wonder: Do animals know that they're eventually going to die?

Long term I would say no. I think they are hedonistic and truly live out carpe dieum. Short term when their body begins to quicky deteriorate I would say yes. Solely based upon a cat I had for 17 years, I would say she knew she was dying for the last three days before I put her down.

Edit to add: I think humans have the same awareness for several months before they die even when they are 100% healthy. Some choose to embrace the awareness, others choose to deny the knowledge.

Lots of animals know exactly when they're going to die, and make their way to their final resting place, in many cases hundreds of miles away from their current location. Their journeys have inspired naturalists for centuries.

Forgive me Thislin, but I'm just not getting the gist of what you're saying here.

Perhaps we mean different things when we're talking about sentience. I've always understood, perhaps wrongly, that sentience is the ability to recognize one's self as discrete from the rest of the universe, and the ability to ponder one's origins.

I would not say that sentience is an all-or-nothing proposition. For example, some people are more aware than are others. That understood, I think you are confusing self-awareness with sentience (self-awareness, at least of the mirror-understanding type, seems to be a late state in the evolution of sentient beings).

Sentience is the ability to sense via experience rather than via mechanical means. (Somehow our brain converts signals coming in from our sense organs into qualia that we experience).

A little introspection is enough to be persuasive that the experiences we call sensations and the experiences we call emotions are actually manifestations of the same phenomenon. In the former case (senses) we experience what is going on external to our mind; in the latter (emotions) we experience what is going on within our mind. The important word here is "experience."

Now natural selection is about preservation of genes, including genes that have to do with behavior as much as those that have to do with physical characteristics. Inherited behavior characteristics are of course called instincts.

We can perceive two general ways instincts are "enforced." The first is mechanical--reflexes such as a baby's sucking reflex. These are hard-wired and relatively inflexible and happen without mental involvement. The second is with desire/reward experiences, where the animal experiences desires (and frustration experiences), followed by rewards (pleasure experience) when the behavior is performed.

This latter form of instinct enforcement is more flexible and much more powerful, but requires the presence of sensate existence before it can function. The animal must be able to experience pleasure before the instinct can provide its reward.

Studies of the biochemical pathways in animal brains tends to the conclusion that there are many desire/pleasure pathways, but the most important are the ones involving serotonin. (The association between the presence of a particular chemical and the sensate experience of pleasure is a mystery--just as is the association between the firing of certain visual cortex nerves and the experience of "blue"--this is the mystery of qualia).

Now we have a physical tag--serotonin pathways--which are seen in birds and mammals--so we can infer that birds and mammals "experience" pleasure and its absence while other organisms' behavior is predominantly reflexive.



--Martin

Yesterday I posted, in a confusing way so I wonder if you found it, a discussion of qualia and sentience, in response to your question.

Since there is no response, I worry if you found it, or if perhaps you still don't understand me and have given it up as hopeless smoke.

All Christians who claim belief in Jesus Christ are hereby challenged to handle a rattlesnake without physical protection, or drink a glass of arsenic (or any positively lethal substance), and seek no medical assistance afterward.

I would expect any true believer to look at you in amazement and ask why they should do anything so stupid.

I would expect any true believer to look at you in amazement and ask why they should do anything so stupid.

Yea--and they call themselves rationalists. LOL

All Christians who claim belief in Jesus Christ are hereby challenged to handle a rattlesnake without physical protection, or drink a glass of arsenic (or any positively lethal substance), and seek no medical assistance afterward.

I would expect any true believer to look at you in amazement and ask why they should do anything so stupid.

Huh?!?!?

I cannot imagine why you'd expect such a response from someone who *believes*.

It is in the Bible. (ergo, it is somewhat difficult to deny or squirm out of the fact that it was written in the Bible)

And, it is specifically refering to those followers who truly ""believe in" Christ.

""And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.""

While there is indeed a very compelling reason for non-believers to view the claim as highly irrational, there is no rationale whatsoever for a *true believer* to view the Biblical admonition as *stupid*. If they truly "believe in" Christ, it would logically follow that they view the Word of God (including the verse in question) as being true.......wouldn't it?!?!?


But then maybe you're saying something entirely different; maybe you are simply asserting that it **is stupid** that the Bible would say that **those who believe** can pick up serpents and drink poison with no ill effect.

You insist on putting an extreme literalist interpretation on things that can be read many ways. This is your straw man, and, since Christians can see well enough what you are doing, you persuade no one. I hope you are having fun with the windmills.

Yesterday I posted, in a confusing way so I wonder if you found it, a discussion of qualia and sentience, in response to your question.

Since there is no response, I worry if you found it, or if perhaps you still don't understand me and have given it up as hopeless smoke.

I'm sorry Thislin, I read your response and am not ignoring it, it's just that I was somewhat off in my definition of sentience. The ability to process sensory input is the definition, but I was referring to a higher state of awareness in my earlier comments, and I'm not sure where to go next. :)

I see the statement about snake handling and drinking poison as a parable...rather like the story of the Prodigal Son.

Perhaps this was merely a , granted, rather crude way, of saying that, by putting one's trust in Christ, no earthly harm will befall you, and it it should, you will be granted your reward in Heaven.

One interpretation.

Grandpa : that is just terrible advice to give to someone.

I've read a couple books that help with questions of authenticity and reliability when it comes to the Bible. A good one to check out that can back up the reliability of the Bible better than any other book of antiquity is "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell! This book is a compilation of his notes throughout the years. I recommend this book to anybody that is willing to keep an open mind and study the Bible objectively. I think he even has another book out called "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict". Another author that started as an Atheist and is now a Christian is Lee Strobel who wrote 3 books. "The Case for Christ", "The Case for Faith", and "The Case for a Creator" All pretty good and entertaining. Filled with loads of history and information for anyone looking for answers. I've learned that faith is not blind, but actually a very reasonable choice that can be based on facts. I don't have a Bible with me present and I can't recall the exact verse, but these books reaffirmed a verse for me that states.... "Only a fool says in his heart that there is no God."

Have you read any books that take the opposite view? Can you name them?

I ask because my experience with Christians who make recommendations the way you are doing is that they talk about "open mindedness," but it usually turns out that their knowledge about the opposite view is entirely from apologetic sources--in short, they preach an open mindedness that only applies to others, not themselves.

I'm sorry Thislin, I read your response and am not ignoring it, it's just that I was somewhat off in my definition of sentience. The ability to process sensory input is the definition, but I was referring to a higher state of awareness in my earlier comments, and I'm not sure where to go next. :)

There is certainly no need to apologize, and I appreciate your response now. I think maybe I'm antsy here because the issue is so interesting to me, and, like everyone, I sometimes project.

OK, some vocabulary--"sentience" is the ability to have an experiential existence, and organisms that are not sentient function through mechanical (or reflex) mechanisms. (All organisms have mechanical, reflex, functions, however--as I said in the earlier message, sentience is not all-or-nothing). At this point I would also point out that computers also function mechanically, not as sentient beings-we can build a machine that "detects" light--that is, can use light as an input and process the detection according to its program--but not one that experiences vision.

Self-awareness is a more subtle idea, and I don't think it is limited to just a few species who pass the "mirror" test. (A mirror is presented to the animal and, through observation, it is seen whether the animal recognizes the image as an image of itself or only as another animal).

I think that particular test does not test self-awareness but only the cognitive ability to make the necessary inferences--that is, whether or not the animal is smart enough to figure it out. Extending from that view, I would say that self-awareness in this sense would be a function of raw intelligence rather than of sentience. (There is a sense in which one presumes all sentient beings are self-aware, since we have sense organs that inform us about the state of our bodies, and, again, this awareness is experiential rather than mechanical).

The big bugaboo here is "experiential." The word almost has to go undefined--if one does not understand intuitively what it is to experience, then it cannot be described (you cannot describe "blue" to the congenitally blind--you cannot even begin to provide a sense of what it might be).

As I have probably mentioned, I spent much of my career dealing with AI (including the effort to build computers that mimic human experiential existence--although most of the time we were involved in more prosaic efforts to build computers that could make what we thought were "rational" decisions regarding insurance issues).

This experience, and the false promise it held out that we could build thinking computers (rather than calculating and sorting and storing machines) led to my eventually concluding that there is a qualitative, not quantitative, difference between sentient beings and any machine we might build. The promise of AI has now faded to mere assertions of, "It might still be possible," with no one having any idea how one might proceed.

I think the religious or philosophical consequences of the conclusion that no machine can be sensate, if it is correct, are immense, and I don't think we can avoid them merely by invoking the false worship of the god of the gaps.

You insist on putting an extreme literalist interpretation on things that can be read many ways.

It is a bullshit cop-out of the religionist, any time they are confronted with some nonsensical proclamation from the Bible that they cannot defend, to constantly retreat to the position --"Aw, that part was a parable, not meant to be taken literally!"


Everything about the following statement; the situation, the context and the phrasing indicates that it was meant to be taken quite literally.


""And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.""

No 'strawman' involved.

...since Christians can see well enough what you are doing, you persuade no one.

They "fail to be persuaded" because deep down they realize the irrationality inherant in their superstitious belief system; they realize the insanity of being told that they can drink poison and not be harmed and that they can "cast out devils".

"Everything about the following statement; the situation, the context and the phrasing indicates that it was meant to be taken quite literally."--Freethinker

Interesting; I read it and see no necessity to take it literally.

You are right that Christians "pick and choose" what they want to take literally and what they don't. The thing is, except for maybe a few morons, they know this and even cite the parables of Jesus as justification for it. Therefore they are unpersuaded by your complaining about it. It is just the way it is.

Literalism, or at least excessive literalism, seems to be a fault of the extremes of the religious spectrum--the thumper and the cynic.

One can learn a lot from scripture, even scripture that is about barbaric topics, if one approaches it as myth--not as fable but as myth--a vocabulary of stories and images that can be shared within a culture. We use literature and, in modern times, even movies in much the same way, but myth is used in the religious part of the culture, and communicates spiritual ideas.

In this case the spiritual message is not hard to see--if one has appropriate faith the ways the world can harm one become irrelevant and one comes to be without fear.

I doubt there is a major religious tradition that does not incorporate this teaching.

Ok I'm lost here. That Bible verse I believe is true. What about it are you two talking about.
The way you two talk about Christians shows a lack of knowledge about real Christians, the brand name doesn't belong on everyone who uses it.

Ok I'm lost here. That Bible verse I believe is true. What about it are you two talking about.
The way you two talk about Christians shows a lack of knowledge about real Christians, the brand name doesn't belong on everyone who uses it.
So... you believe you could drink poison and handle venomous snakes and survive because you believe in god?

So... you believe you could drink poison and handle venomous snakes and survive because you believe in god?
*groan*

Interesting; I read it and see no necessity to take it literally...

...In this case the spiritual message is not hard to see--if one has appropriate faith the ways the world can harm one become irrelevant and one comes to be without fear.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I can agree that the passage asks people to have faith, and if they have faith then they shall cast out devils, speak new tounges, resist poison and heal others. I don't get how you translate those 4 things into "the ways the world can harm one become irrelevant and one comes to be without fear." Could you elaborate?

So... you believe you could drink poison and handle venomous snakes and survive because you believe in god?
If one has built up the proper tolerances to the poisons, than yes.

Medieval monarchs used to poison themselves daily to protect themselves against regicide attempts. Now, there are so many known poisons that the tactic has become unwieldy, but it still works.

Ok I'm lost here. That Bible verse I believe is true. What about it are you two talking about.
The way you two talk about Christians shows a lack of knowledge about real Christians, the brand name doesn't belong on everyone who uses it.
Okay you say you believe the bible verse to be true. You indicate there is such a person as a "real" Christian as opposed to someone who just calls themself a Christian.

I am interested in what you mean by that janrich.

If one has built up the proper tolerances to the poisons, than yes.

Would you have a problem agreeing that "some" people would be quite capable of trancing themselves up enough to tolerate snake bites or poison without systematically doing it in a logical/medical way?

Originally Posted by DarkFantasy96
So... you believe you could drink poison and handle venomous snakes and survive because you believe in god?

*groan*

Why the groan do you not think it is possible? I myself think it is quite possible for some people to be capable of this. Perhaps janrich is one such person and DF was merely asking.

Do you believe it possible?

People stick swords through their bodies and do not bleed. The human mind, if trained, is capable of amazing feats.

The human mind, if trained, is capable of amazing feats.
If you're not bleeding when a metal shaft is being thrust through your body, you've not trained your mind to do anything incredible---your body is defying the laws of nature in an impossible way. Either that or you're on some hallucinogen.

Or watching too many schlocky cowboy flicks from the 40s.

If you're not bleeding when a metal shaft is being thrust through your body, you've not trained your mind to do anything incredible---your body is defying the laws of nature in an impossible way. Either that or you're on some hallucinogen.

Or watching too many schlocky cowboy flicks from the 40s.
Huh? I am missing your point. There is a sect within the Muslim religion that practice this sharp knife piercing as a matter of concentration, meditation. It has been documented....(well except for one fellow on camera) he bled slightly but not much. It was really quite amazing to behold.

Another off hand example would be the 90lb woman who lifts a car off of her child.

Huh? I am missing your point
My point is that it is physically impossible to not bleed when you are stabbed unless you're dead and have been drained of your bodily fluids.

Notice in your example (purported to be on film), he still bled.

The mind cannot stop blood from rushing out of a severed blood vessel, nor force the blood to stand against the force of gravity and pressure inside its own tubes.

My point is that it is physically impossible to not bleed when you are stabbed unless you're dead and have been drained of your bodily fluids.

Notice in your example (purported to be on film), he still bled.

The mind cannot stop blood from rushing out of a severed blood vessel, nor force the blood to stand against the force of gravity and pressure inside its own tubes.

But Evak I sweeeeeeeear he was the only one... the others did not bleed... damn, now I shall have to go and google my brains out to find the damn thing. Give me a bit and I will find it... (I hope). I know it shouldn't happen... but it did/does...

I hope this isn't some menopausal melt down memory. ::sniff::

Found one link so far

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21042&con=43&sec=33

It has to do with Dirvishes

But Evak I sweeeeeeeear he was the only one... the others did not bleed... damn, now I shall have to go and google my brains out to find the damn thing. Give me a bit and I will find it... (I hope). I know it shouldn't happen... but it did/does...
"I...I don't believe it." -Luke Skywalker

Ok I'm lost here. That Bible verse I believe is true. What about it are you two talking about.
The way you two talk about Christians shows a lack of knowledge about real Christians, the brand name doesn't belong on everyone who uses it.

--I would suggest that it might be that it is you who claim to be a Christain but in reality are not.

*groan*
He said, and I quote, "The Bible verse I believe is true." I thought he was referring to the verse about which we're talking. Perhaps he wasn't.

Would you have a problem agreeing that "some" people would be quite capable of trancing themselves up enough to tolerate snake bites or poison without systematically doing it in a logical/medical way?


--Have you ever heard of "pious fraud?"

Would you have a problem agreeing that "some" people would be quite capable of trancing themselves up enough to tolerate snake bites or poison without systematically doing it in a logical/medical way?
I don't know about trancing to do it, but I've seen videos of a guy eating a poisonous scorpion who must have gotten stung like thirty times.

How the body reacts to chemical invasion is so damn complex that it is damn near impossible to do good science with, as is seen by the utter incompetence of the FDA to properly regulate and classify drugs.

As compelling as FT thinks hes being with his poison bit, well, to me, it's entirely unconvincing.

I'm even more unconvinced, though, of the powers of meditation to effect supernatural effects on people. One could achieve certain neurological effects, like relaxation and psychedelic trance, but seriously altering a person's bodily chemistry and stuff? I think that's much more pseudo-scientific bullshit than pseudo-scientific fact.

--Have you ever heard of "pious fraud?"
No I honestly don't know what that means in relation to my question.

And shit, everybody's seen the Croc hunter handle his snakes, may he rest in peace.

I don't know about trancing to do it, but I've seen videos of a guy eating a poisonous scorpion who must have gotten stung like thirty times.

How the body reacts to chemical invasion is so damn complex that it is damn near impossible to do good science with, as is seen by the utter incompetence of the FDA to properly regulate and classify drugs.

As compelling as FT thinks hes being with his poison bit, well, to me, it's entirely unconvincing.

I'm even more unconvinced, though, of the powers of meditation to effect supernatural effects on people. One could achieve certain neurological effects, like relaxation and psychedelic trance, but seriously altering a person's bodily chemistry and stuff? I think that's much more pseudo-scientific bullshit than pseudo-scientific fact.

I don't know about the supernatural effects stuff either...but even the adrenaline rush that aids people to do things which should be physically impossible totally confound me. I think we are in the infancy of being able to learn how to consciously manipulate such things.

I'm even more unconvinced, though, of the powers of meditation to effect supernatural effects on people. One could achieve certain neurological effects, like relaxation and psychedelic trance, but seriously altering a person's bodily chemistry and stuff? I think that's much more pseudo-scientific bullshit than pseudo-scientific fact.

--I've seen Hindu fakirs do some wondrous things while in a trance, but for the most part I dismiss it as either hypnotism or fraud (not even of the pious sort). One does not go into a trance when meditating.

--I agree with you that meditation does not do anything supernatural; I would suggest that many years of training often enables people to achieve things that the ordinary person might think is not possible.

Perhaps, I find that a lot of the things we teach people as to how to get better at sports and stuff are flat out scientifically wrong, and that it's very, very hard to get good advice on how to do stuff properly. Things like bodybuilding training and running training. No really good studies have been performed and systems created. A high school gym coach has to rely on the same pseudo-scientific athletic training everyone else does.

I wonder what will start happening when everybody learns how to train in the proper manner. As it turns out, proper training is a number of times more effective than natural abilities. We may never reach an upper limit of human ability, because it may well turn out that the genetics of athleticism may well be malleable by training.

No I honestly don't know what that means in relation to my question.

"Pious fraud" is a form of fraud that the perpetrator justifies in the pursuit of the greater good of converting the unbeliever. Another form is done for the greater good of strengthening the faith of followers.

The snake handling that I am aware of has been of this sort. We have to remember the tremendous things a parlor magician can achieve, and then keep in mind that this may be all we are actually seeing. Just because we can't explain the trick does not make it supernatural.

I would suggest that many years of training often enables people to achieve things that the ordinary person might think is not possible.
The problem is what constitutes proper training. It has to be of necessity scientific and very specific. Training for twenty years is of little consequence if you are training improperly. You might dismiss my comparison of religion to marbles, but much of the human quest to surpass their humanity boils down to spending significant portions of time and energy on farces, then using their force of personality to justify it.

Again, my complaint in all this, FT, is that you're challenging people to defend something which you, and just about everyone else accepts as undefendable, then you act as if you've won something when no one defends it by eating a cobra. When people try to give rational midway responses, you call it a cop-out, but you fail to acknowlege that there are degrees of faith. Just because someone believes in Jesus does not mean they have to believe that Jonas stopped the sun, or that they are protected against poison. Even though I don't believe the story myself, I find it perfectly feasable that if Jesus was, in fact, the son of God, he would be capable of performing miracles such as walking on water, healing the sick, and resurrection.

I'll never get why people keep trying to disprove faith with science. Faith in its very nature is not proved and is accepted on no rational basis. Still, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Personally, I don't find it very reasonable that all matter is mostly empty space. My chair certainly doesn't feel like empty space. Still, I accept that fact even though I have no means myself of proving it. Even further, it makes no difference to me whether or not my chair is mostly empty space, so long as I can still sit in it. Similarly, it makes little difference to me as to whether or not the universe was created by an omnipotent being with crazy magic powers, or if all matter and energy condensed into a space the size of a period and blew up somehow. As long as the universe works like it should, it doesn't really matter.

Just my 3 cents.

Just because we can't explain the trick does not make it supernatural.
Yes it is well to remember that many things can be done with trickery. I still do not believe that we are anywhere near our limits physically or mentally.

Napster sites athletic ability as a good example. One can be trained for instance to run although there are definitely certain physical traits that one must have. The difference between a long distance runner or speed runner involves fast twitch or slow twitch muscles. One can not change that. But one can enhance one's natural physical ability and all have different potential. Thus it is likely to be so with every aspect of our body.

Again, my complaint in all this, FT, is that you're challenging people to defend something which you, and just about everyone else accepts as undefendable, then you act as if you've won something when no one defends it by eating a cobra. When people try to give rational midway responses, you call it a cop-out, but you fail to acknowlege that there are degrees of faith. Just because someone believes in Jesus does not mean they have to believe that Jonas stopped the sun, or that they are protected against poison. Even though I don't believe the story myself, I find it perfectly feasable that if Jesus was, in fact, the son of God, he would be capable of performing miracles such as walking on water, healing the sick, and resurrection.

I'll never get why people keep trying to disprove faith with science. Faith in its very nature is not proved and is accepted on no rational basis. Still, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Personally, I don't find it very reasonable that all matter is mostly empty space. My chair certainly doesn't feel like empty space. Still, I accept that fact even though I have no means myself of proving it. Even further, it makes no difference to me whether or not my chair is mostly empty space, so long as I can still sit in it. Similarly, it makes little difference to me as to whether or not the universe was created by an omnipotent being with crazy magic powers, or if all matter and energy condensed into a space the size of a period and blew up somehow. As long as the universe works like it should, it doesn't really matter.

Just my 3 cents.

I like your 3 cents.

Again, my complaint in all this, FT, is that you're challenging people to defend something which you, and just about everyone else accepts as undefendable, then you act as if you've won something when no one defends it by eating a cobra. When people try to give rational midway responses, you call it a cop-out, but you fail to acknowlege that there are degrees of faith. Just because someone believes in Jesus does not mean they have to believe that Jonas stopped the sun, or that they are protected against poison. Even though I don't believe the story myself, I find it perfectly feasable that if Jesus was, in fact, the son of God, he would be capable of performing miracles such as walking on water, healing the sick, and resurrection.

I'll never get why people keep trying to disprove faith with science. Faith in its very nature is not proved and is accepted on no rational basis. Still, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Personally, I don't find it very reasonable that all matter is mostly empty space. My chair certainly doesn't feel like empty space. Still, I accept that fact even though I have no means myself of proving it. Even further, it makes no difference to me whether or not my chair is mostly empty space, so long as I can still sit in it. Similarly, it makes little difference to me as to whether or not the universe was created by an omnipotent being with crazy magic powers, or if all matter and energy condensed into a space the size of a period and blew up somehow. As long as the universe works like it should, it doesn't really matter.

Just my 3 cents.
--I wish I had said that.

Yes it is well to remember that many things can be done with trickery. I still do not believe that we are anywhere near our limits physically or mentally.

Napster sites athletic ability as a good example. One can be trained for instance to run although there are definitely certain physical traits that one must have. The difference between a long distance runner or speed runner involves fast twitch or slow twitch muscles. One can not change that. But one can enhance one's natural physical ability and all have different potential. Thus it is likely to be so with every aspect of our body.

--Napster's point is well taken. There are monks capable of going unbelievably long times without sustenance, others who can endure all sorts of hardship, others who can control their blood pressure and heartbeat and other reflexes.

--I sometimes suspect pious fraud, but one never really knows. I do find such religous shows superficial and almost pointless, since all of that sort of thing has almost nothing to do with why one meditates.

Again, my complaint in all this, FT, is that you're challenging people to defend something which you, and just about everyone else accepts as undefendable, then you act as if you've won something when no one defends it by eating a cobra.

??

I did not challenge any **believer in Jesus** to "defend" the verse in question.

I challenge them to DEMONSTRATE the supposed "faith" they claim to possess in Jesus and in the Bible by DOING what the Bible says they can do; picking up a serpent and drinking poison and casting out devils and healing the sick with the laying on of hands.

When people try to give rational midway responses, you call it a cop-out, ....

Absolutely.

How can they truthfully claim to *believe the Bible*, or to *believe in Jesus* and then be terrified to demonstrate that they can DO what thier perfect Book says they will be able to do?!?!

I do not see how they can claim to be *believers in Jesus*, yet be afraid to do what their "Master Creator" says, in the book of Mark, that they can do.

Why aren't all **believers in Jesus** everywhere around the world ANXIOUS to demonstrate just how complete their "faith" is in these Biblical admonitions?!?

God told them they can......yet they seem incredibly reluctant to try it.....!!

Something is amiss here.

Just because someone believes in Jesus does not mean they have to believe that Jonas stopped the sun, or that they are protected against poison.

But why wouldn't they believe it?!?!? Isn't the object of their adoration an omnipotent and omniscient being, in their view....?!?!?

The believers miss no opportunity to say that the Bible is the book of the one *perfect* being. Why would they not believe all that is written in that book...?!?!??

Are you admitting here that parts of that "holy Book" are unworthy of belief?

Do you think that Christians in America --collectively-- are ready to admit that parts of the bible are not true?!? I don't think so.

Even though I don't believe the story myself, I find it perfectly feasable that if Jesus was, in fact, the son of God, he would be capable of performing miracles such as walking on water, healing the sick, and resurrection.

Okay.

But this SAME Bible that you claim belief in is emphatically telling adherants of the Christian religion --in no uncertain terms-- that ALL ***those who believe*** ---not just Jesus-- will be able to perform miraculous feats, like drinking poison, healing the sick, and casting out devils.

Yet for some odd reason, I see no believers here willing to take the challenge. It makes no sense that they on the one hand claim belief in this *perfect* supernatural being, yet when invited to demonstrate said 'belief' they begin to make all manner of excuses why they won't demonstrate the things this "Creator" being says --in his "perfect" book-- they are capable of doing.

Again, my complaint in all this, FT, is that you're challenging people to defend something which you, and just about everyone else accepts as undefendable, then you act as if you've won something when no one defends it by eating a cobra. When people try to give rational midway responses, you call it a cop-out, but you fail to acknowlege that there are degrees of faith. Just because someone believes in Jesus does not mean they have to believe that Jonas stopped the sun, or that they are protected against poison. Even though I don't believe the story myself, I find it perfectly feasable that if Jesus was, in fact, the son of God, he would be capable of performing miracles such as walking on water, healing the sick, and resurrection.

I'll never get why people keep trying to disprove faith with science. Faith in its very nature is not proved and is accepted on no rational basis. Still, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Personally, I don't find it very reasonable that all matter is mostly empty space. My chair certainly doesn't feel like empty space. Still, I accept that fact even though I have no means myself of proving it. Even further, it makes no difference to me whether or not my chair is mostly empty space, so long as I can still sit in it. Similarly, it makes little difference to me as to whether or not the universe was created by an omnipotent being with crazy magic powers, or if all matter and energy condensed into a space the size of a period and blew up somehow. As long as the universe works like it should, it doesn't really matter.

Just my 3 cents.

Nice post Homer, well said.

FT's terrier-like worrying of his point notwithstanding, there is an underlying truth in his rant. I wouldn't go so far as to demand that "faith" be examined scientifically, but I do cringe when someone who does believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible tells me that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that God did make the planet stop rotating on its axis, simply because it says these things happened in the Bible. IMO, these statements should be challenged, and it's the act of challenging such beliefs that has gotten us to the level of scientific achievement we have today. That being said, I see no reason to be impolite about it. :)

Is sentience a preserved quality of the universe the way mass-energy, electric charge, momentum and angular momentum are preserved? The sequelae of such a conclusion are profoundly important. (One of the lesser of these being that if sentience is preserved, then it cannot arise from non-sentient matter; if it is not, then it can.)There could be an infinite 'quantity' of sentience floating (for lack of a better word) around the universe, of which only a finite portion is made manifest in a physical host. If we limit, for the sake of argument, the manifestation of sentience to biological beings it would seem likely that for several billion years after the Big Bang there would be no sentience present in the physical universe. As the universe ages and biological life flourishes, increasing 'amounts' of sentience would be tapped from the infinite pool. In other words, sentience can be preserved without limit yet require 'vessels' constructed of non-sentient matter to function in the physical realm.The question we have is one of probability. Sentience provides purpose; therefore the projection of human sentience onto the universe (as in Spinoza's pantheism or maybe in the most refined forms of Taoist thought), is necessary to impute purpose to the universe. Are you willing to go so far as to say the universe is sentient?I have long speculated that the purpose of the universe is to gain an awareness of itself. So yes, I think I am willing to say that.

I have long speculated that the purpose of the universe is to gain an awareness of itself. So yes, I think I am willing to say that.

Wow, a concept I have never gone near. A very interesting idea. Nice sedan.

I agree that it's kinda stupid to take every word of the Bible literally, but I'd that population of Christians who take every word of the Bible literally is very small. Very few people claim that the Bible is a perfect book; while it may be the word of God, it was written by the hands of men, and has gone through various translations. Far from flawless. Is it really hard to grasp the fact that there may be people who believe in Jesus without believing in every single word of the Bible?

I have long speculated that the purpose of the universe is to gain an awareness of itself.
Just wait until the day The Universe reaches adolescence and discovers that It's gay.

What will Dad say? Get out of my house?

FT's terrier-like worrying of his point notwithstanding, there is an underlying truth in his rant. I wouldn't go so far as to demand that "faith" be examined scientifically, but I do cringe when someone who does believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible tells me that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that God did make the planet stop rotating on its axis, simply because it says these things happened in the Bible.

I do more than *cringe*.

I am enraged and terrified at once by the thought of these mentally imbalanced superstitionist twits being the ones who decide who will weild political power over the entire nation.

IMO, these statements should be challenged, and it's the act of challenging such beliefs that has gotten us to the level of scientific achievement we have today.

Absolutely!! Well said.

Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.----- Mike Huben

That being said, I see no reason to be impolite about it. :)

Pardon me if I gag at the thought of being "polite" to a religion/religionists whose supposedly omnipotent and "loving" deity has ordered thousands of infants to be hacked to death with swords.

Just wait until the day The Universe reaches adolescence and discovers that It's gay.gold

Nice post Homer, well said.

FT's terrier-like worrying of his point notwithstanding, there is an underlying truth in his rant. I wouldn't go so far as to demand that "faith" be examined scientifically, but I do cringe when someone who does believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible tells me that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that God did make the planet stop rotating on its axis, simply because it says these things happened in the Bible. IMO, these statements should be challenged, and it's the act of challenging such beliefs that has gotten us to the level of scientific achievement we have today. That being said, I see no reason to be impolite about it. :)

I don't think it is accurate to say that there is "underlying truth" in what FT is doing. The fact is he distorts Christianity--he is refuting straw men.

Even though there are Christians (not very many, even among fundamentalists) who take all of those things literally (they all pick and choose), this is beside the point. The point is that Christianity is not about all that stuff--ask any Christian and they will tell you Christianity is about God's love and his commandment of love. The rest is detail.

What FT does has further bad effects (besides the distortion). He is divisive and hateful and what he does only tends to make Christians the same. It is possible to engage in an intellectual discussion of unfortunate aspects of Christianity without engaging in hateful propaganda.

There could be an infinite 'quantity' of sentience floating (for lack of a better word) around the universe, of which only a finite portion is made manifest in a physical host. If we limit, for the sake of argument, the manifestation of sentience to biological beings it would seem likely that for several billion years after the Big Bang there would be no sentience present in the physical universe. As the universe ages and biological life flourishes, increasing 'amounts' of sentience would be tapped from the infinite pool. In other words, sentience can be preserved without limit yet require 'vessels' constructed of non-sentient matter to function in the physical realm.I have long speculated that the purpose of the universe is to gain an awareness of itself. So yes, I think I am willing to say that.

The Indian (Hindu and Buddhist) concept is that the universe is not just permeated but composed of such a sentient "stuff" (called karma) that gives morality and justice and beauty and even humor its foundation. (I suppose one might say, using modern vocabulary, that space-time is karmic stuff).

This has problems. I think the biggest one is that we just do not see justice or beauty or morality or compassion or any of the other karmic attributes in nature, let alone purpose or thought. They only begin to manifest in sentient animals, more so (but still in a limited way) in ourselves. Hence we have to take an arbitrary leap without evidence to find mind in the universe other than in ourselves.

What you say also has a similarity to the transcendentalism of Emerson (himself influenced by Buddhist thought). His metaphor for our existence was that we are puddles left behind by the ebbing and flowing tide of the oceanic universal mind.

I think it seems most likely that what is needed for sentience is a combination of "mind" (wherever that comes from--the image of it "floating about" seems incongruous) and "body," exposing a new thing--a living sentient being.

I don't know that it is possible to speculate with any assurance on what this "karma" might be or how it otherwise manifests itself (the traditional Asian view is that it is the fundamental essence of everything--it is in everything around us because it is everything around us).

I think there is also a serious problem involved in thinking of mind as a "thing." One of the core ideas of the Buddhist tradition that has remained unchanged from culture to culture and is core in all the Buddhist sects is the "no-self teaching." Our mind is not a thing--a "soul," but only a process taking place in the physical template of brain and body--much as we perceive a flame as a process of candle and wick and air.

If this is so (and it takes only a little introspection to realize how true it is), then the idea of karmic "energy" as "thing" becomes highly problematic.

Another problem with the idea of an evolving universe (evolving, I guess, into some sort of god--be careful here to avoid Christian thinking, since anything like the omnipotent, eternal Christian God is out of the question--infinity does not "evolve)) is that this envisions a finite universe--one with a beginning and an end--since otherwise this god would long ago have evolved. That the universe in some form has always existed (in the Hindu cosmology, "worlds" constantly arise and decline in an infinite cycle) seems to me a rational necessity.

(I must qualify that--I am aware of Aristotle's argument that time had to have a beginning--and it does not seem refutable--so I guess there is a basic flaw somewhere in my thinking).

I do more than *cringe*.

I am enraged and terrified at once by the thought of these mentally imbalanced superstitionist twits being the ones who decide who will wield political power over the entire nation.


Ah--the usual suspect rears its head--first, link political conservatives to superstition and religious bigotry, then, once the link is established, push a left-wing agenda.

What do you do with people like me who are politically centrist and who represent a majority? That is simple--you scare them into voting your way with propaganda and distortion.

I'm sorry, but this tactic doesn't work on most people and is counterproductive with many.

I will be honest--people like you coming to political power frightens me much more.

but it's still completely plausible that the universe cycles though by Black Holes consuming all matter until reaching critical mass and the whole thing starting over again at another point in space.

That is a new one for me. Never heard that theory before. Seems it would require some evidence that black holes move toward each other because eventually you would require a singularity.

That is a new one for me. Never heard that theory before. Seems it would require some evidence that black holes move toward each other because eventually you would require a singularity.
all it would take is gravity. if you had all the matter in the Universe occupying two points in space, those two points would drift toward each other.

If you took all of the momentum out of the equation, then yes, they would. But the far more likely scenario is that they would orbit each other.

all it would take is gravity. if you had all the matter in the Universe occupying two points in space, those two points would drift toward each other.

Sounds more like Sci-Fi than astrophysics.

Interesting idea though.

If you took all of the momentum out of the equation, then yes, they would. But the far more likely scenario is that they would orbit each other.
gravity is the weakest force, but it's also the most persistent. they would collide eventually.

Sounds more like Sci-Fi than astrophysics.

Interesting idea though.
it's not a theory, it's just a thought.

it's not a theory, it's just a thought.

Thats why I said it was an interesting "idea".

gravity is the weakest force, but it's also the most persistent. they would collide eventually.
Orbits don't decay on their own. Only an outside force could cause a loss of orbital momentum. And if everything in the universe were focused in those two points, there would be no such forces. They would orbit each other forever.

Orbits don't decay on their own. Only an outside force could cause a loss of orbital momentum. And if everything in the universe were focused in those two points, there would be no such forces. They would orbit each other forever.
when one orbits another, not when they orbit each other....and not at a rate we can detect. keep in mind the our moon's orbit is growing due to the momentum from the impact that formed it, and the Earth's spin pulling it forward. it stays in the sky not because it's orbit is stable, but because it's unstable.