from an interview with Einstein and George Sylvester Viereck from back in the day, as published in Time magazine April 17, 2007:
V: You accept the historical existence of Jesus?
Einstein: Unquestionably! No on can read the gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.
how does hard determinism fly with jesus' message by the way?
if we reduce jesus' message to "try to love your friends as well as your enemy's" what does the term try represent?
how does hard determinism fly with jesus' message by the way?
if we reduce jesus' message to "try to love your friends as well as your enemy's" what does the term try represent?
I think this is Ahnimus' whole point--that the two are in conflict with one another. I think this is why Ahnimus is so desperate to "disprove" the validity of religion and free-will--so that his idea of determinism--that he rightly understands and perceives--can "rule".
What I see is that free-will is a spiritual/philosophical position, not a position of the linear cause and effect physical world and the physical laws that Ahnimus and Einstein predominantly focus on. The way I see it, like my signature says, deep truths like determinism and free-will can and do co-exist simultaneously with one another at the same time. The non-physical world abides by different laws than cause/effect physical ones where two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
It's clear that Ahnimus devalues much that cannot be proven. And that makes perfect sense when one takes his personality preferences into consideration. Also, in some of the brain science videos that have been posted out here, there is the idea that just like some people just don't have the ability to understand and perceive deep math concepts, there are also those who just cannot understand and perceive the deep spiritual concepts. The problem enters in if I think because I don't understand deep math, and if I cannot prove it, that it means it does not exist.
I wonder if you might elaborate on your point about "try to love your friends...", Kann. I'm not sure I understand.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I wonder if you might elaborate on your point about "try to love your friends...", Kann. I'm not sure I understand.
I'm sorry I wrote that quickly, that sentence made sense in my head but not so much after reading it! What I meant is "try to love your enemies as much as you love your friends".
I didn't understand your whole post. I did get the math part, I can relate to that!
I'm sorry I wrote that quickly, that sentence made sense in my head but not so much after reading it! What I meant is "try to love your enemies as much as you love your friends".
I didn't understand your whole post. I did get the math part, I can relate to that!
I'd like to hear Ahnimus respond to the "try to love your enemies as much as you love your friends" part. I'd like to hear him say what he thinks "try" represents.
I guess what I'm saying in my post, is that I don't see a problem between determinism and free will. I've believed in both --to a serious degree-- for a long time. Some people don't naturally "get" or "feel" or understand why people follow religion. And they want to make their own feelings about religion apply to everyone. They want to project their ideas, conflicts and feelings on others, because they have not grounded in themselves, yet.
I fully respect athiesm that is self-contained. I've known many people who perceive the mystery of life differently than I do and their interpretation is just as valuable as my own. Once a power struggle sets in, that's a different story. Athiests who cannot live and let live are like Christians who cannot live and let live.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The same way you do it now Angelica. You get an idea in your head and you do it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm asking about your own interpretation of what "try" symbolizes.
I use the english definition
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
When you are hiding your personal self and the symbolism that happens in your head, it looks like you are defensive.
Could you explain your use of the following words
When
You
Are
Hiding
Your
Personal
Self
And
The
Symbolism
That
Happens
In
Head
It
Looks
Like
Defensive
I use the english language.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I can't believe you don't see how perverse this question is.
Let's make the most ludicrously perverse assertions about indeterminism and determinism.
Indeterminism
There is no time, no cause and effect
Everything happens at the same time, caused by themselves.
Up is not the opposite of Down
It is impossible to explain actions
Billiard balls spontaneously move around without cause
Trial by Jury is immoral because the Jury's verdict is indeterminant
There is no such thing as motive
The brain does not exist
Determinism
Choices are impossible, there are no forks in any roads
People are identical to robots and only perform basic input and output
There is no such thing as morality
There is no 'I' in me
Murder is completely justified
Ok, see, these are perverse interpretations of these concepts. They are utterly ridiculous every last one of them.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I can't believe you don't see how perverse this question is.
I don't see what is so perverse about the question. From what I understood of determinism (and I have to admit you are my main source on the subject) if prior causes cannot allow you to feel forgiving and loving toward what you may view as enemies what exactly does trying mean?
I don't see what is so perverse about the question. From what I understood of determinism (and I have to admit you are my main source on the subject) if prior causes cannot allow you to feel forgiving and loving toward what you may view as enemies what exactly does trying mean?
"if prior causes cannot allow you to feel forgiving and loving toward what you may view as enemies"
My view is exactly the opposite of that.
Perhaps you can explain how free-will enables a person to forgive and love their enemies?
With determinism you know that their intent was not entirely their own and thus it's easy to love and forgive everyone. However, with free-will, the individual is the ultimate source of intent, and 100% morally responsible.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Are you saying you are completely oblivious to the base nature of the thought in your mind before it takes on the symbolism of language?
I'm saying it's a stupid question.
Try, an attempt at something.
The ball tried to go through the wall, but the elasticity of the balls surface interacted with the solidity of the wall and the ball was deflected.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"if prior causes cannot allow you to feel forgiving and loving toward what you may view as enemies"
My view is exactly the opposite of that.
Perhaps you can explain how free-will enables a person to forgive and love their enemies?
With determinism you know that their intent was not entirely their own and thus it's easy to love and forgive everyone. However, with free-will, the individual is the ultimate source of intent, and 100% morally responsible.
And with both free-will and determinism, you have both to complement each other.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And with both free-will and determinism, you have both to complement each other.
They are in conflict with each other Angelica. Your debate tactics are getting really old.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"if prior causes cannot allow you to feel forgiving and loving toward what you may view as enemies"
My view is exactly the opposite of that.
Perhaps you can explain how free-will enables a person to forgive and love their enemies?
With determinism you know that their intent was not entirely their own and thus it's easy to love and forgive everyone. However, with free-will, the individual is the ultimate source of intent, and 100% morally responsible.
That's why the act of forgiveness is (well at least should be) so revered in christianism.
But that doesn't answer my question, should people who are unable to forgive stop trying?
That's why the act of forgiveness is (well at least should be) so revered in christianism.
But that doesn't answer my question, should people who are unable to forgive stop trying?
Who is unable to forgive? And what is stopping them?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
btw, I think I misinterpreted your question Kann. You were saying that if someone is previously determined to be unable to forgive someone, right?
I would suggest that there inability to forgive has a lot to do with how they are attributing cause.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not sure.
And the lack of free will, if you're unable to feel forgiveness surely you can't choose to forgive.
I'm not sure what forgiveness feels like. But many people have done horrible things to me and I don't blame them.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not sure what forgiveness feels like. But many people have done horrible things to me and I don't blame them.
I've heard forgiveness described as to "give" as be"fore". Which the source interepreted to mean that you are clear of the situation, just as if it did not happen. It's not the same as forgetting however, but it's being void of tension/anger/hostility etc. Sometimes forgiveness entails a willingness to forgive and yet still takes many steps before the situation to be forgiven is balanced out.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Check out more vids from TheModernMystic he's pretty smart about this stuff.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
And with both free-will and determinism, you have both to complement each other.
They are in conflict with each other Angelica. Your debate tactics are getting really old.
And here we have two different points of view. In Ahnimus' beliefs or experience, free-will and determinism conflict with each other.
In my experience, determinism and free-will co-exist peacefully.
for example, Ahnimus says this: "With determinism you know that their intent was not entirely their own and thus it's easy to love and forgive everyone. However, with free-will, the individual is the ultimate source of intent, and 100% morally responsible."
In my view, where both determinism and free-will co-exist peacefully, I know that people's determined behaviours are often not conscious, and therefore people are not always aware of their intentions. And I find it's easy to understand most things people do, and to not even blame or accuse or need to forgive to begin with. And with believing in the free-will aspect, I also simultaneiously know that people are morally responsible for their each action. And they are responsible for what they have not yet learned and for the mistakes they make due to lack of awareness that causes them to suffer consequences with universal law. Universal moral law is also interconnected with the subjective background of each individual. So this moral law including judgment based on the law cannot be made externally by humans because we are not privy to the full understanding to entitle judgment. Our human ideas that we are "bad" and "sinners" come from our imperfections and lack of understanding and from our own judgment of our flaws. The universal force loves us unconditionally, and embraces us unconditionally, in each moment, and certainly "before" or "beyond" our human lives. It is our own perception that believes in separation from our base Source, and it is this separation that prevents our union with the Source in this life and beyond.
Within this context, the determined cause and effect blends seamlessly in reality with the moral responsibility. The only conflicts arise in how we think about these concepts, which are based on personal inner conflict in the individual who sees conflict.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh, and to add, the reason we are responsible for even our unconscious choices, is because we also ARE our unconscious choices. We are so caught up in our ego awareness, and our ideas of separation and our humanness, we've essentially lost touch with our truth--our Presence--that resonates in our each cell. And yet that truth--the truth of our full existence--is there in each moment, regardless of our good ego opinions about it's truth. We do everything, whether conscious of it or not, for good reason. We've become so entranced with sensory delights from without, we've lost touch with who we are and our inherent truths. We choose everything in our lives at all times, even when we make these choices from beyond the "veils" of awareness. Our existence as separate ego is said in psychology to be the tip of the iceberg of who we are. This is why who we are as our Higher Self, our Presence or the full self, is SO vibrant and full and real, compared to the seeming illusions of the egotistic, false, and conflicted surface ego-self.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
how does hard determinism fly with jesus' message by the way?
if we reduce jesus' message to "try to love your friends as well as your enemy's" what does the term try represent?
What I see is that free-will is a spiritual/philosophical position, not a position of the linear cause and effect physical world and the physical laws that Ahnimus and Einstein predominantly focus on. The way I see it, like my signature says, deep truths like determinism and free-will can and do co-exist simultaneously with one another at the same time. The non-physical world abides by different laws than cause/effect physical ones where two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
It's clear that Ahnimus devalues much that cannot be proven. And that makes perfect sense when one takes his personality preferences into consideration. Also, in some of the brain science videos that have been posted out here, there is the idea that just like some people just don't have the ability to understand and perceive deep math concepts, there are also those who just cannot understand and perceive the deep spiritual concepts. The problem enters in if I think because I don't understand deep math, and if I cannot prove it, that it means it does not exist.
I wonder if you might elaborate on your point about "try to love your friends...", Kann. I'm not sure I understand.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm sorry I wrote that quickly, that sentence made sense in my head but not so much after reading it! What I meant is "try to love your enemies as much as you love your friends".
I didn't understand your whole post. I did get the math part, I can relate to that!
I guess what I'm saying in my post, is that I don't see a problem between determinism and free will. I've believed in both --to a serious degree-- for a long time. Some people don't naturally "get" or "feel" or understand why people follow religion. And they want to make their own feelings about religion apply to everyone. They want to project their ideas, conflicts and feelings on others, because they have not grounded in themselves, yet.
I fully respect athiesm that is self-contained. I've known many people who perceive the mystery of life differently than I do and their interpretation is just as valuable as my own. Once a power struggle sets in, that's a different story. Athiests who cannot live and let live are like Christians who cannot live and let live.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/try
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I use the english definition
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Could you explain your use of the following words
When
You
Are
Hiding
Your
Personal
Self
And
The
Symbolism
That
Happens
In
Head
It
Looks
Like
Defensive
I use the english language.
Let's make the most ludicrously perverse assertions about indeterminism and determinism.
Indeterminism
There is no time, no cause and effect
Everything happens at the same time, caused by themselves.
Up is not the opposite of Down
It is impossible to explain actions
Billiard balls spontaneously move around without cause
Trial by Jury is immoral because the Jury's verdict is indeterminant
There is no such thing as motive
The brain does not exist
Determinism
Choices are impossible, there are no forks in any roads
People are identical to robots and only perform basic input and output
There is no such thing as morality
There is no 'I' in me
Murder is completely justified
Ok, see, these are perverse interpretations of these concepts. They are utterly ridiculous every last one of them.
I don't see what is so perverse about the question. From what I understood of determinism (and I have to admit you are my main source on the subject) if prior causes cannot allow you to feel forgiving and loving toward what you may view as enemies what exactly does trying mean?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"if prior causes cannot allow you to feel forgiving and loving toward what you may view as enemies"
My view is exactly the opposite of that.
Perhaps you can explain how free-will enables a person to forgive and love their enemies?
With determinism you know that their intent was not entirely their own and thus it's easy to love and forgive everyone. However, with free-will, the individual is the ultimate source of intent, and 100% morally responsible.
I'm saying it's a stupid question.
Try, an attempt at something.
The ball tried to go through the wall, but the elasticity of the balls surface interacted with the solidity of the wall and the ball was deflected.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
They are in conflict with each other Angelica. Your debate tactics are getting really old.
That's why the act of forgiveness is (well at least should be) so revered in christianism.
But that doesn't answer my question, should people who are unable to forgive stop trying?
Who is unable to forgive? And what is stopping them?
I would suggest that there inability to forgive has a lot to do with how they are attributing cause.
And the lack of free will, if you're unable to feel forgiveness surely you can't choose to forgive.
I'm not sure what forgiveness feels like. But many people have done horrible things to me and I don't blame them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CbZ8yWSDv0
Check out more vids from TheModernMystic he's pretty smart about this stuff.
In my experience, determinism and free-will co-exist peacefully.
for example, Ahnimus says this: "With determinism you know that their intent was not entirely their own and thus it's easy to love and forgive everyone. However, with free-will, the individual is the ultimate source of intent, and 100% morally responsible."
In my view, where both determinism and free-will co-exist peacefully, I know that people's determined behaviours are often not conscious, and therefore people are not always aware of their intentions. And I find it's easy to understand most things people do, and to not even blame or accuse or need to forgive to begin with. And with believing in the free-will aspect, I also simultaneiously know that people are morally responsible for their each action. And they are responsible for what they have not yet learned and for the mistakes they make due to lack of awareness that causes them to suffer consequences with universal law. Universal moral law is also interconnected with the subjective background of each individual. So this moral law including judgment based on the law cannot be made externally by humans because we are not privy to the full understanding to entitle judgment. Our human ideas that we are "bad" and "sinners" come from our imperfections and lack of understanding and from our own judgment of our flaws. The universal force loves us unconditionally, and embraces us unconditionally, in each moment, and certainly "before" or "beyond" our human lives. It is our own perception that believes in separation from our base Source, and it is this separation that prevents our union with the Source in this life and beyond.
Within this context, the determined cause and effect blends seamlessly in reality with the moral responsibility. The only conflicts arise in how we think about these concepts, which are based on personal inner conflict in the individual who sees conflict.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!