Man-made Logic

Ahnimus

know1 wrote:

But if you assume logic is given by God, you're still not ruling out the possibility that it is also LIMITED by God as well.

After all, individuals all have different levels of logic.

Were we not created in God's image, and does that not mean by the way that we operate, not the way we appear. Or is this another circumstance where religious logic is picky?

know1

Ahnimus wrote:

Were we not created in God's image, and does that not mean by the way that we operate, not the way we appear. Or is this another circumstance where religious logic is picky?

"image" is pretty subjective. Do all people look exactly alike to you? Do people look generally similar?

NMyTree

Deja' vu



I honsetly believe there is a completely undiscovered science (maybe more than one) that encompasses the spiritual world....the after-life......our "soul's" energy force.

I have no doubt there is something before and after human life.

But I don't believe for one minute it has anything to do with any of what is taught, preached, fought-for and shoved down our throats by any of the human-created and human-practiced ........Religions.

Scubascott

NMyTree wrote:

I have no doubt there is something before and after human life.

Why? What basis do you have for that belief?

gossardstradlin

Where does love fit into it all? I remember reading some National Geo on it and describing the brain and it releasing chemicals to make us feel good/positive/infatuation. Certainly we do some illogical things when we feel love.

I don't know. I know from our DNA we are not that separate from certain primates yet we are so different. I apologize for not putting it into more scientific terms. Is our ability to use logic the only thing that separates us?

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

We've had plenty of debates on this forum about the nature of the universe. There are surprisingly a lot of atheists on this board, but still an overwhelming number of theists. The typical debates ends with the theist's argument "We cannot understand God with man-made logic."

Instead of stating again the overstated rebuttle "that's just a cop-out". I intend to prove through theism that logic is not manufactured by men.

Let us first define the terms "Man-made" and "God-given"

Man-made
Made by humans rather than occurring in nature; synthetic: man-made fibers; a manmade lake.

God-given
Though I have found no source online for the definition of this term. I feel it is fairly straight forward. A "God-given" right as it's called is the moral rights to which we as a culture acknowledge en-masse. Whereas a "God-given" ability is typically considered a talent or an innate ability. An ability we are born with.

Logic is an innate ability, for without logic innately instilled in us we would only react based on hardcoded behaviors. The evidence that newborns are logical beings is undeniable. In-fact, newborns experience very little in terms of emotions or feelings. The majority of their time is spent discovering the logical system of reality and recognizing logical patterns. Logic is by no means something we have created, rather an innate ability, and perhaps the only innate mental power we possess to discover our surroundings. It is by definition of theism a God-given ability.

Discuss

What about Time?

Do humans truly understand the everything there is to know about Time? We measure it, we do, we think we do, we have our perceptions of time with the planets and the stars that we've been observing for many, many a moon, yet, is Time something greater than that? Is Time something beyond what we have not perceived? Yet, we're aware enough to give it a name. Time.
Very similar to "God", if you ask me. I think to dismiss those who state to believe in "God" is to dismiss a part of all the colors of the human spectrum. It is to deny a part of yourself.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

What about Time?

Do humans truly understand the everything there is to know about Time? We measure it, we do, we think we do, we have our perceptions of time with the planets and the stars that we've been observing for many, many a moon, yet, is Time something greater than that? Is Time something beyond what we have not perceived? Yet, we're aware enough to give it a name. Time.
Very similar to "God", if you ask me. I think to dismiss those who state to believe in "God" is to dismiss a part of all the colors of the human spectrum. It is to deny a part of yourself.

To put this in another perspective, I realize you're trying very hard at this point in your life to simply like yourself. That's an honorable endevour. We all go through it.

gue_barium

Speaking of endevours, to understand the mysteries of these eons and nothingness before us as humans, and the suggestion that Time could perhaps be at the crux of this situation, like Einstein endevoured....or at least theorized, where are we now? What is Eisntein to us now with this Relative Theory of Time?

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

Speaking of endevours, to understand the mysteries of these eons and nothingness before us as humans, and the suggestion that Time could perhaps be at the crux of this situation, like Einstein endevoured....or at least theorized, where are we now? What is Eisntein to us now with this Relative Theory of Time?

Ahnimus, when he reads this, would have wanted to reply to this with , "He's [Einstein is] dead."
Of course, that would be avoiding the spirit of the debate. You know, the "spirit", a chemical reaction in the brain.

sponger

gossardstradlin wrote:

Is our ability to use logic the only thing that separates us?

According to Dr. Laura, the only thing that separates primates from humans is our ability to use foresight. I think she was being facetious, while at the same time, actually making somewhat of a valid point. But, feel free to take it with a grain of salt. I'm just posting for the sake of posting.

gue_barium

sponger wrote:

According to Dr. Laura, the only thing that separates primates from humans is our ability to use foresight. I think she was being facetious, while at the same time, actually making somewhat of a valid point. But, feel free to take it with a grain of salt. I'm just posting for the sake of posting.

Determinism, although other mammals may not say it, is the belief in a genetic foregone conclusion. In a way, Ahnimus is anti-evolution, yet still an athiest. He's discovered his mammaliamism and doesn't want us to forget it.

sponger

gue_barium wrote:

Determinism, although other mammals may not say it, is the belief in a genetic foregone conclusion. In a way, Ahnimus is anti-evolution, yet still an athiest. He's discovered his mammaliamism and doesn't want us to forget it.

That's not the kind of foresight Dr. Laura was talking about, though. She was talking about impulse control. Primates act on impulses. People have the ability to control impulses by weighing out consequences and benefits.

Determinism is basically the matrix, IMO. At present, determinism is the only logical explanation for clairvoyance, which is something I believe exists. Neo, being ultra savvy with the matrix programming language, had the matrix equivalent of clairvoyance.

If determinism is real, then every event that takes place can be mathematically explained and predicted. Chaos math is a precursor to the kinds of analysis we'll have to do in order to make sense of determinism.

And, so it's my opinion that people who are clairvoyant are really autistic chaos mathematicians.

Autists like the Rainman type have no idea how they are able to do those massive calculations in their head. They just aren't conscious of it. All they know is that they put a couple of variables into the equation, and their brains spit back results. I watched an interview of a Rainman type autist one night and I'm paraphrasing what he described as what it's like to have a computer for a brain.

I think clairvoyant people are the same way, except their autism grants them ability to do chaos theory type shit. To me, it sorta makes sense considering that recent statistic which said that a shitload of people in our society are freakin autistic in some form or another.

Clairvoyant people don't know how they are able to do what they do. Their brains just spit back some shit for them to trip out on.

angelica

sponger wrote:

Determinism is basically the matrix, IMO. At present, determinism is the only logical explanation for clairvoyance, which is something I believe exists. Neo, being ultra savvy with the matrix programming language, had the matrix equivalent of clairvoyance.

You might be interested in the holographic model of the Universe, by physicist David Bohm:

"But the most staggering thing about the holographic model was that it suddenly made sense of a wide range of phenomena so elusive they generally have been categorized outside the province of scientific understanding. These include telepathy, precognition, mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis, or the ability of the mind to move physical objects without anyone touching them."
http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html

searchlightsoul

angelica wrote:

mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis, or the ability of the mind to move physical objects without anyone touching them."

= Bullshit. Sorry it had to be said.

angelica

searchlightsoul wrote:

= Bullshit. Sorry it had to be said.

Could you be more specific?

Ahnimus

I like the idea that the subconscious mind provides for clarevoyance.

My issue with the holographic universe theory is that it makes a giant leap to a God-like entity. Whereas determinism just uses what we already know.

angelica

At the same time, "what we already know" theories ask us to ignore, delete and minimize phenomena that do not fit conveniently in our theories. Ignoring/ignorance is poor science, in my opinion.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

At the same time, "what we already know" theories ask us to ignore, delete and minimize phenomena that do not fit conveniently in our theories. Ignoring/ignorance is poor science, in my opinion.

It's not ignoring anything. I've already explained Psychosis. Take Richard Dawkins. Says he climbed a mountain and had a "spiritual" experience, but he thinks of it like Einsteinian spirituality. Whereas myself, I just experience the beauty of the planet, and I think that's what he means. Perhaps beauty can be mistaken for a "spiritual" experience, but it's so damn subjective. It's just not good science to say that those experiences must be included in some theory about reality.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not ignoring anything. I've already explained Psychosis. Take Richard Dawkins. Says he climbed a mountain and had a "spiritual" experience, but he thinks of it like Einsteinian spirituality. Whereas myself, I just experience the beauty of the planet, and I think that's what he means. Perhaps beauty can be mistaken for a "spiritual" experience, but it's so damn subjective. It's just not good science to say that those experiences must be included in some theory about reality.

I completely agree that it's the beauty--the aesthetic/subjective aspect of life--that is the spiritual. That's exactly it--the personal subjective experiential realm. And I agree you might conceptualize that differently than I do. What I mean about ignoring stuff is that there is a ton of paranormal stuff that has been scientifically shown to exist--for example remote viewing. The holographic universe theory is a theory that encompasses such facts. Other theories like determinism say they don't make sense and therefore minimize such existing facts.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I completely agree that it's the beauty--the aesthetic/subjective aspect of life--that is the spiritual. That's exactly it--the personal subjective experiential realm. And I agree you might conceptualize that differently than I do. What I mean about ignoring stuff is that there is a ton of paranormal stuff that has been scientifically shown to exist--for example remote viewing. The holographic universe theory is a theory that encompasses such facts. Other theories like determinism say they don't make sense and therefore minimize such existing facts.

Remote viewing is scientifically proven? Nope.

History
The Stargate Project was one of a number of code names used to cover "remote viewing programs". Others included Sun Streak, Grill Flame, Center Lane by DIA and INSCOM, and SCANATE by CIA, from the 1970s, through to 1995. It was an offshoot of research done at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). [4] Most of the SRI team, including project director Puthoff, and the CIA's star "psychic spies", Price and Swann, were Scientologists, a fact that skeptic Martin Gardner noted disparagingly. Puthoff and Swann were Operating Thetan (OT) level seven, and credited Scientology with their success in the CIA remote viewing program.[1][2] The Stargate Project created a set of protocols designed to make clairvoyance a more scientific process, and minimize as much as possible session noise and inaccuracy. The term "remote viewing" emerged as a generalised short hand to describe this more structured approach to clairvoyance.

The project was eventually terminated, according to the official report at the time, because there was insufficient evidence of the utility of the intelligence data produced.

In 1995 the project was transferred to the CIA and a retrospective evaluation of the results was done. The CIA contracted the American Institutes for Research for this evaluation. An analysis conducted by Professor Jessica Utts showed a statistically significant effect, with gifted subjects scoring 5%-15% above chance, though subject reports included a large amount of irrelevant information, and when reports did seem on target they were vague and general in nature. [5] Professor Ray Hyman concluded a null result. Based upon both of their collected findings, the CIA followed the recommendation to terminate the 20 million dollar project.Time magazine stated in 1995 three full-time psychics were still working on a $500,000-a-year budget out of Fort Meade, Maryland, which would soon close up shop. [5]


[edit] Criticism
In experiments conducted in 1973 at the Stanford Research Institute, the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. These clues, it is asserted, are the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.[6]

Additionally, the information from remote viewing sessions can be vague and include a lot of erroneous data. The 1995 report for the American Institute for Research "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications" by Mumford, Rose and Goslin, contains a section of anonymous reports describing how remote viewing was tentatively used in a number of operational situations. The three reports conclude that the data was too vague to be of any use, and in the report that offers the most positive results the writer notes that the viewers "had some knowledge of the target organizations and their operations but not the background of the particular tasking at hand."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

Yea, I watched soemthing about this before, the results were null. There is no evidence of clairvoyance, but if you still want to insist it's true to support your view of reality. Then consider this is also possible in terms of determinism.