Can Anyone in This Bitchy Science NG Define God?

[jonathan]

No fool would debate, say, the better form of
government without knowing what the word
government even means.

All the debates I see here over religion v science
in general have the same logical flaw.

Defining God should be step-one in the debate.

Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
the version taught to children, God is that
wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.

But that definition isn't reflected in
mainstream religious philosophy, only
on the fringes.

I believe the best definition is that God is an...

"irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

However, like a system tendency, good habit or belief
such things aren't all that mysterious, are they?

Yet such higher level or emergent properties such as
gravity, storms or ideas can create or destroy entire
worlds.



EMERGENCE
FROM wIKI



Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of a
high-level system upon its components; qualities produced
this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts
(Laughlin 2005). The whole is greater than the sum of
its parts. It follows that no simulation of the system
can exist, for such a simulation would itself constitute
a reduction of the system to its constituent parts
(Bedau 1997).

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is
uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but
supervenient downward causal power arise, since by
definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the
micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would
be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken.
This not only indicates how they will discomfort
reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness
will only heighten the traditional worry that
emergence entails illegitimately getting something
from nothing.[9]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[broger...@gmail.com]

I think it is up to people who say that God exists to explain what they mean by God. As an atheist, I can list a few sorts of God that I don't believe in, but it's almost certainly true that someone could stretch the definition of God so much that I'd have no trouble saying that I could accept such a God. Even Bill's "generic designer" having no other attributes than being whatever it is that's responsible for the universe is fine by me.

I don't think it's very efficient for atheists to be tasked with defining all the different sorts of God's they don't believe in. Much more parsimonious for those who are asserting the existence of God to be specific about what they mean.

And for what it's worth, I agree with the quote you posted that "strong emergence is uncomfortably like magic."

[leo]

broger...@gmail.com presented the following explanation :

> I think it is up to people who say that God exists to explain what they mean
> by God.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

[leo]

broger...@gmail.com wrote on 10.05.2015 :
> I think it is up to people who say that God exists to explain what they mean
> by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

[jonathan]

It should certainly be uncomfortable for those
brought up with all things objective science.
As it turns their numbers-based world
upside-down.

But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
of belief in anything greater then themselves.

From a purely scientific standpoint that position
can't be defended. We know an idea or a storm can
change the world, yet have few clues how to model
or quantify such a thing from the ground up.


Q: Did you hear about the the evangelical atheist?
A: She went door-to-door with a book full of blank pages.


The only way to deal with real world complexity
like ideas or god is to turn the tables around.
Where the effects are studied first and foremost
NOT the causes. That's all that really matters
anyways, the future or the effects of events.

And the science of effects, complexity science, shows
there are only two general or universal forms that
effects take.

A boom-and-bust (birth)
And the snowball effect (death)


For instance...
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=cala&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=8

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=cala&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=4


A complex or self organizing pattern
should display both, transitioning
from one to the other. At that point
outward behavior becomes detached from
the inner variables, and non-linear
or exaggerated effects are easily
created.

All (higher level) complex adaptive systems
reside around the transition point between
those two attractors.

I know how this is going to sound, but I
literally see God, or how nature works
in that chart pattern.




s

[walksalone]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLInZ2dnUU7-
LWd...@giganews.com:

Apologies to the group.

> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> government without knowing what the word
> government even means.
>
> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> in general have the same logical flaw.
>
> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.

<SEAG> It should? Why should anyone but the believers define their
pretend fiend? After all, they claim/pretend to be in the know.

Still, gods are claimed by humanity, & share some common traits.

Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities of
the human species. [Incomplete]

Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these types of
gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are, lessor
gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful than
others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the European
ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything from
Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red Hat, are
not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world,
they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most understand
the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans
or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to
go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies


Which is further complicated if one pretends to be able to show any of
the revealed gods of the desert exiats.
According to their analogy.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image.
Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one
of us, to know good and evil.
Genesis 11:7 Let us go down, and there confound their language.
Exodus 12:12 And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute
judgment.
Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?
Exodus 18:11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.
Exodus 20:3, 5 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt
not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
Exodus 22:20-28 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD
only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (v.20)
Thou shalt not revile the gods. (v.28)

Exodus 23:13-32 Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let
it be heard out of thy mouth. (v.13)
Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after
their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break
down their images. (v.24)

Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. (v.32)

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose
name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Numbers 33:4Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.
Deuteronomy 3:24 What God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do
according to thy works?
Deuteronomy 5:7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Deuteronomy 6:14-15 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of
the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a
jealous God among you)
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of
lords.
Deuteronomy 28:14 Thou shalt not ... go after other gods to serve
them.

Historically, using ordinary common sense, the priesthood recognised no
less than three gods.
El, ba'al, & then
Along comes yahweh, possibly by way of the clan of Caleb.

So the question you should have asked, is for a definition of the last
god of Judea. BTW, the Jesus the christ claimed by the Greek testaments,
historically a no show. All references come from believers or
apologetics. it didn't help the anthology is all pseudographic. & no,
there is no concrete evidence for Saul, just an assumption.

So really, other than being antagonistic & pretensions, is there any
reason I should not introduce you to Thanatos & have him escort you to
the abyss? Not hades, Pluto doesn't need you, the abyss.

> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> the version taught to children, God is that
> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.

Nah, I accept there is more evidence & moral requirement for Tinkerbell.
Who has an added advantage. To my knowledge she has never killed anyone,
nor lied.

> But that definition isn't reflected in
> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> on the fringes.

You do realize, or do you, xianity is not the only myth cherished by
those that don't think for themselves. Oh. & the occasional one that
does.


My apologies to the group.

Angel of death Bile Da Derga Daena Dagda
Dahaka Dahut Dames Vertes Parooa
Dakini Dama Huli Daramulun Deert
Deidre of Sorrows Demeter Dervonnae
Devi Dewi Shri Dhonn Dis Pate
Djehuti Djhowtey Don Donn
Druantia

A very small group of gods known to humanity. Unlike your all in one set
up, these share the same job. Now if you can show the audience why these
gods should be ignored, you will have just told the world why so many
ignore your gods, the four major & millions of minor. & yes, the
majority of the world does not accept the bleaters god as being worthy,
or worth the time. Now, Aphrodite in a nitie, that could be interesting.

> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>
> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

Sorry, that particular god, not Jesus ben joseph but god, the one who
follows the archaic Egyptian custom of never naming the gods publicly,
had to bribe a follower. Doesn't say much for the god or it's followers.

<flush>

walksalone who has often wondered why so many bleaters demand the
privilege of being heard & believed when even their Hebrew Bible says
their full of it for no one can know the mind of their god. But then
again, some people need the pacifier, & some find comfort. & when kept
to themselves under normal conditions, like a thirteen old, keep it in
their pants. Do others a courtesy & certainly are to be preferred to
those that can't help but act like that thirteen year old boy who just
found out what a penis can do, & wants to show everyone else how lucky he
is.

7 ID'er giveaways.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for
centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
observation.

[raven1]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 08:36:01 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>government without knowing what the word
>government even means.
>
>All the debates I see here over religion v science
>in general have the same logical flaw.
>
>Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>
>Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>the version taught to children, God is that
>wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.

It isn't my experience that most theists move past that understanding
as they become adults, but go on.

>But that definition isn't reflected in
>mainstream religious philosophy, only
>on the fringes.
>
>I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>
>"irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

What does that even mean? And does it comport with the definition(s)
from "mainstream religious philosophy" (which one(s)?), or is it your
own personal definition?

>However, like a system tendency, good habit or belief
>such things aren't all that mysterious, are they?

It's a mystery to me what your definition above is supposed to mean.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[raven1]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 09:59:06 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
>of belief in anything greater then themselves.

I believe in plenty of things "greater than myself". But they have to
be demonstrated to have a likelihood of existence before I'll grant
provisional assent to the notion.

> From a purely scientific standpoint that position
>can't be defended. We know an idea or a storm can
>change the world, yet have few clues how to model
>or quantify such a thing from the ground up.

So what?

[jonathan]

On 5/10/2015 10:14 AM, walksalone wrote:
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLInZ2dnUU7-
> LWd...@giganews.com:
>
> Apologies to the group.
>
>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>> government without knowing what the word
>> government even means.
>>
>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>
>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.

>
> <SEAG> It should? Why should anyone but the believers define their
> pretend fiend? After all, they claim/pretend to be in the know.
>

What if their definition of God is flawed?

A successful debate would create a definition
acceptable to both sides.

That's why!

> Still, gods are claimed by humanity, & share some common traits.
>
> Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities of
> the human species. [Incomplete]
>
> Anthropomorphic
> A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]

Or universal laws, as in applying to everything in the universe.

> B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
> pantheon as an example]

A system tendency, or an idea, doesn't have any physical
existence do they?

Yet they certainly can have defining effects on the future.
Our human reality is more dependent on our hopes, dreams
and fears than anything else.

> C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.

Are you claiming everything that 'interferes' with human
activity is knowable in a scientific or objective way?

If so, then show me the equation of state or scientific law
that explains, say, why the death of Christ still reverberates
around the world to this day, maybe even stronger today?

> So the question you should have asked, is for a definition of the last
> god of Judea.

Would you define science by the state of the art
that existed 4000 years ago?

And what if you found out the modern 'solution'
turned out to be the same one they came up with
4000 years ago?

> So really, other than being antagonistic & pretensions, is there any
> reason I should not introduce you to Thanatos & have him escort you to
> the abyss? Not hades, Pluto doesn't need you, the abyss.
>

But heaven and hell are states of minds, not places.
We can place ourselves in either today, if we so
choose.

Being alive and aware is the absolute pinnacle
of the known universe. Good, bad or indifferent
this is what Heaven is like.

Which means Atheist you are /already/ in Heaven, you
just don't realize it yet. And once you do, once
you've become 'born again', you'll want for nothing
other than sharing that realization with as many
people as you can.

>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>> the version taught to children, God is that
>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>
> Nah, I accept there is more evidence & moral requirement for Tinkerbell.
> Who has an added advantage. To my knowledge she has never killed anyone,
> nor lied.
>

Every ecosystem or niche has their own Utopia
or idealized natural state, say, an old growth
forest or good idea.

So every system or person has their own vision
of God. If tinkerbell suits you, that's fine
with me.

What's important is that one has a vision of
Utopia/God for them to love and chase.

The ideal future! Not the faded past.



s

[Burkhard]

I'd say as the offspring of Gaia and born from the blood that fell when
Cronus castrated Uranus, they qualify - and in the Gigantomachy, they
almost came out equal to the Olympian gods.

[walksalone]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:C9ednS5xM76R7dLI...@giganews.com:

> On 5/10/2015 10:14 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLInZ2dnUU7- LWd...@giganews.com:
>>
>> Apologies to the group.
>>
>>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>>> government without knowing what the word
>>> government even means.
>>>
>>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>>
>>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>
>>
>> <SEAG> It should? Why should anyone but the believers define their
>> pretend fiend? After all, they claim/pretend to be in the know.

> What if their definition of God is flawed?

No doubt, according to you they are. Whereas according to them, you are.
BYTW, nice try at side stepping. You wanted a definition of god, & that is
what you got.

> A successful debate would create a definition
> acceptable to both sides.

I don't do debates, 20 years in the Army took care of that. Now
discussions, that I do. BTW, you are not addressing the definition of god
[s].

> That's why!

Works for you then?

>> Still, gods are claimed by humanity, & share some common traits.
>>
>> Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities
>> of the human species. [Incomplete]
>>
>> Anthropomorphic
>> A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]

> Or universal laws, as in applying to everything in the universe.

Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

>> B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the
>> Greek
>> pantheon as an example]

Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

> A system tendency, or an idea, doesn't have any physical
> existence do they?

Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

> Yet they certainly can have defining effects on the future.
> Our human reality is more dependent on our hopes, dreams
> and fears than anything else.

Which has noting to do with defining the most ambiguous word I've
encountered.

Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

>> C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.

> Are you claiming everything that 'interferes' with human
> activity is knowable in a scientific or objective way?

Your score for mindreading is F-.
Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

> If so, then show me the equation of state or scientific law
> that explains, say, why the death of Christ still reverberates
> around the world to this day, maybe even stronger today?

Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

>> So the question you should have asked, is for a definition of the
>> last god of Judea.

> Would you define science by the state of the art
> that existed 4000 years ago?

Science is not god.
Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

> And what if you found out the modern 'solution'
> turned out to be the same one they came up with
> 4000 years ago?

Double check, if so, bit odd. Unless it's something like Na+CL=NaCl.
Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

>> So really, other than being antagonistic & pretensions, is there any
>> reason I should not introduce you to Thanatos & have him escort you
>> to the abyss? Not hades, Pluto doesn't need you, the abyss.

> But heaven and hell are states of minds, not places.
> We can place ourselves in either today, if we so
> choose.
>
> Being alive and aware is the absolute pinnacle
> of the known universe. Good, bad or indifferent
> this is what Heaven is like.

Bullshit, not to be to flowery about it. That's philosophy, not mythology.

Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

> Which means Atheist you are /already/ in Heaven, you
> just don't realize it yet. And once you do, once
> you've become 'born again', you'll want for nothing
> other than sharing that realization with as many
> people as you can.

Not to put a fine point on it, but steaming bullshit. I've been in
paradise, & have a reasonable chance of being there again. I've been in
heaven, & I've been in hell. She died at the age of 16 1/2 years of age in
1960. Keep you bullshit to yourself. & preferably, in the correct group.
TO is not it.

Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.
& Atheist, so what? I learned to read from an early age. & a librarian
taught me to read for context & information. A luxury you seem to hold in
disdain.

>>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>>> the version taught to children, God is that
>>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>>
>> Nah, I accept there is more evidence & moral requirement for
>> Tinkerbell. Who has an added advantage. To my knowledge she has
>> never killed anyone, nor lied.

> Every ecosystem or niche has their own Utopia
> or idealized natural state, say, an old growth
> forest or good idea.

Which has nothing to do with your demand for a definition of god. You got
one, address it or do the group a favor & do an exit stage left.

Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

> So every system or person has their own vision
> of God. If tinkerbell suits you, that's fine
> with me.

It's not up to you.
Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

> What's important is that one has a vision of
> Utopia/God for them to love and chase.

So, are you going to share that stuff?
Maybe brother Jim has you pegged,
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0FE72EA4910EC00B
Or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N0IjBgyFoE

Both would explain your inability to stick to the subject. Well that, or
you can't because you know the smell of bullshit as well
as most of the group.
Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.

> The ideal future! Not the faded past.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your ideal future appeals
to everyone else, it doesn't.

walksalone who is never startled by the evasion tap dance bleaters [the
mentality of preferred conduct] perform when they get more than they
expect. It means others have already thought about their bleat & declined
it at high speed.

Fine clothes may disguise, but
silly words will disclose a fool.
Author unkown to me.

[walksalone]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:minrak$atm$1...@dont-email.me:

> walksalone wrote:

snip

>> Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities
>> of the human species. [Incomplete]

snip

>> Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world,
>> they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
>> understand the term.
>
>
> I'd say as the offspring of Gaia and born from the blood that fell
> when Cronus castrated Uranus, they qualify - and in the Gigantomachy,
> they almost came out equal to the Olympian gods.

Am I correct in assuming you are referring to the Cyclops? Or did you
have the Titans in mind? Some of which I would call a giant if I ever saw
one.
BTW, thanks for the reminder.

snip, thank all the gods that never were.

walksalone who still fascinated by mythology. Though to be honest about
it, the mythology's off the revealed gods of the desert leave a lot to be
desired.


Of course you will insist on modesty in the children, and respect to their
teachers, but if the boy stops you in your speech, cries out that you are
wrong and sets you right, hug him!
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)

[Burkhard]

walksalone wrote:
> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:minrak$atm$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> walksalone wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities
>>> of the human species. [Incomplete]
>
> snip
>
>>> Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world,
>>> they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
>>> understand the term.
>>
>>
>> I'd say as the offspring of Gaia and born from the blood that fell
>> when Cronus castrated Uranus, they qualify - and in the Gigantomachy,
>> they almost came out equal to the Olympian gods.
>
> Am I correct in assuming you are referring to the Cyclops? Or did you
> have the Titans in mind? Some of which I would call a giant if I ever saw
> one.
> BTW, thanks for the reminder.

The titans and the giants were often confused in the later mythology,
but originally they were different, if related.

Titans, Cyclops and Hekatonkheires (who were also gigantic) are all
children of Gaia with Uranus. Uranus is hostile to his children and
imprisons them in Gaia. But one of the Titans, Cronus, escapes and
castrates Uranus. The Giants come from the blood of Uranus that was
gushing from the wound on that day, as did the Furies and the Ash tree
nymphs (Meliai). Aphrodite too was born on that day, but not from the
blood. The severed penis of Uranus fell into the sea and created the
foam from which she sprang.

Apart from Greek giants, there are of course also the Frost Giants - and
they too seem to be the equal of the other gods. Their ancestor Ymir was
formed in the primeval chaos when the heat from Muspellsheimr mixed
with the cold from Niflheimr:


"Of old was the age when Ymir lived;
Sea nor cool waves nor sand there were;
Earth had not been, nor heaven above,
But a yawning gap, and grass nowhere"

He then fathered, all by himself the Frost Giants or Joetnar. (From his
armpits). They are in competition with the better known deities, the
aesir like Odin, but also intermarry, so no speciation took place.

When Ymir is slain by Odin, the earth is created: "From Ymir's flesh the
earth was formed, and the rocks from out of his bones; the sky from the
skull of the ice-cold giant, and the sea from his blood."

Makes him prtty much a bona fide deity I'd say.

[walksalone]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:mio0m5$15b$1...@dont-email.me:

> walksalone wrote:


snip

Ya know, I'm starting to enjoy this. & I may well modify my daffynitions.
[No typo[|||)))

> He then fathered, all by himself the Frost Giants or Joetnar. (From
> his armpits). They are in competition with the better known deities,
> the aesir like Odin, but also intermarry, so no speciation took place.

From what I've read of the frost giants, they weren't that much larger than
the gods, if at all. Still, I've not read everything.
Here's one article I had not read, & it from a reputable site.
Ymir of course.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/ymir.html

> When Ymir is slain by Odin, the earth is created: "From Ymir's flesh
> the earth was formed, and the rocks from out of his bones; the sky
> from the skull of the ice-cold giant, and the sea from his blood."
>
> Makes him prtty much a bona fide deity I'd say.

After reading the article, I may well agree.

walksalone who is happy to say, in my case, education is a never ending
journey. Hell, sometimes I'm even able to contribute.


Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to
be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 08:36:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>government without knowing what the word
>government even means.
>
>All the debates I see here over religion v science
>in general have the same logical flaw.
>
>Defining God should be step-one in the debate.

Sure. There are many dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of
definitions, as many as there are religions, some of which
don't even have such a concept (Buddhism is an example);
which one would you like to use?

>Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>the version taught to children, God is that
>wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.

That's one (and not even universal in Christianity). Is that
the one you wish to discuss?

>But that definition isn't reflected in
>mainstream religious philosophy, only
>on the fringes.

Which fringes? Of which religion? (The 3 [4?] main religions
have internal variants.) And why do you consider them to be
fringes? Is there a numerical cutoff (number of adherents)?
Or are you using some other definition? Is it objective? If
so, what is it?

>I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>
>"irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

And yet that definition is far from universal. Is Coyote
such a power? How about Sedna? Tyr? (There are still
adherents of the Aesir, y'know...)

You don't seem to be clarifying anything; care to try again?

<snip irrelevant quotes not directly connected to religious
beliefs>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[A.Carlson]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 10:49:48 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/10/2015 10:14 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLInZ2dnUU7-
>> LWd...@giganews.com:
>>
>> Apologies to the group.
>>
>>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>>> government without knowing what the word
>>> government even means.
>>>
>>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>>
>>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>>
>> <SEAG> It should? Why should anyone but the believers define their
>> pretend fiend? After all, they claim/pretend to be in the know.
>
>What if their definition of God is flawed?
>
>A successful debate would create a definition
>acceptable to both sides.
>
>That's why!

Dream on. The very fact that you have an ill-defined god allows you
to constantly shift the goal post.

Your god-of-the-gaps has become quite small and insignificant over the
century to the point where it is of no proven relevance to our
understanding of the universe and how it at least appears to work.

>> Still, gods are claimed by humanity, & share some common traits.
>>
>> Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities of
>> the human species. [Incomplete]
>>
>> Anthropomorphic
>> A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
>
>Or universal laws, as in applying to everything in the universe.

None of which appear to support the existence of an omniscient,
omnipotent, and omnipresent being at least as it is usually depicted
so now you have the audacity to suggest that it is up to the opponents
of such a concept to define what is not evident after centuries of
abject failures of religion to successfully do the same, at least when
it comes to the question of an evidence based concept.

>> B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
>> pantheon as an example]
>
>A system tendency, or an idea, doesn't have any physical
>existence do they?

An idea, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything. As for what
exactly you mean by "system tendency", it is up to you to provide
convincing evidence as to its merit regarding the question of the
existence of a deity.

>Yet they certainly can have defining effects on the future.
>Our human reality is more dependent on our hopes, dreams
>and fears than anything else.
>

Yes, as we put our beliefs into action it may very well indeed have an
effect on the future. However that has no bearing whatsoever on the
validity on any particular belief.

The fact that people may react to fairy tales in and of itself has no
relevance to the validity of any particular fairy tale. That said,
people may very well react more strongly to fairy tales that favor
their own personal interests or bolster their own personal prejudices
but the effects of such beliefs on the future, I would argue, are far
more likely to be negative overall.

Simply put, beliefs that have the power to effect the future are not
necessarily all good ones.

>
>> C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
>
>Are you claiming everything that 'interferes' with human
>activity is knowable in a scientific or objective way?

Of course not. That is precisely why there is plenty of room for your
own personal god of the gaps.

>If so, then show me the equation of state or scientific law
>that explains, say, why the death of Christ still reverberates
>around the world to this day, maybe even stronger today?

Perhaps people just like the idea that the death and resurrection of
your zombie god mean that they now have a chance to get into heaven as
well and live a life of eternity.

Before Christianity many of the predominant religions of the day only
offered the opportunity of eternal life to a chosen few great heroes.
Judaism also just happened to be a tribal religion which ended up
being modified in such a way to make it much easier to get a pass
through the pearly gates.

Perhaps one particular strength of Christianity (BTW, hardly the only
major religion in existence) is that it is both extremely flexible in
what one must believe and follow, as is reflected in the multitude of
denominations it has spawned, coupled with the fact that it gives a
pretty easy to obtain (but completely un provable) passport to the
afterlife.

>> So the question you should have asked, is for a definition of the last
>> god of Judea.
>
>Would you define science by the state of the art
>that existed 4000 years ago?

Science is, among other things, the body of knowledge that has
developed over the millennia utilizing, to one extent or another, the
scientific method. Since the scientific method is actually relatively
modern as well as the vast wealth of knowledge that it has spawned,
the simple answer is not only no but HELL NO!

Judging by what we now know we can selectively filter "historic
knowledge" to include things such as the fact that heliocentrism was
proposed at least as early as the third century BCE by Aristarchus of
Samos (albeit, apparently just as an alternate hypothesis the
geocentrism) but it wasn't the predominant belief at least in part
because they lacked the same scientific underpinnings as we now have.

>And what if you found out the modern 'solution'
>turned out to be the same one they came up with
>4000 years ago?

It's funny how some religious people can get so down on science for
what it teaches that goes against their own beliefs and yet then claim
that their own religion has been claiming a lot of the same all along.
Of course this tends to have more to do with the flexibility of the
religion itself.

Too bad it took modern science for fundamentalists to 'properly'
interpret their ancient religious tome. In the end though,
fundamentalists are only accepting some aspects of modern science out
of necessity and not real conviction. This doesn't strike me as being
a very honest approach.

>> So really, other than being antagonistic & pretensions, is there any
>> reason I should not introduce you to Thanatos & have him escort you to
>> the abyss? Not hades, Pluto doesn't need you, the abyss.
>
>But heaven and hell are states of minds, not places.
>We can place ourselves in either today, if we so
>choose.

Yes, religions can be quite flexible in their various interpretations.
That hardly makes them reliable though.

>Being alive and aware is the absolute pinnacle
>of the known universe. Good, bad or indifferent
>this is what Heaven is like.

Or not.

>Which means Atheist you are /already/ in Heaven, you
>just don't realize it yet. And once you do, once
>you've become 'born again', you'll want for nothing
>other than sharing that realization with as many
>people as you can.

Tortured logic - The faithful companion of proselytizers everywhere.

>>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>>> the version taught to children, God is that
>>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>>
>> Nah, I accept there is more evidence & moral requirement for Tinkerbell.
>> Who has an added advantage. To my knowledge she has never killed anyone,
>> nor lied.
>
>Every ecosystem or niche has their own Utopia
>or idealized natural state, say, an old growth
>forest or good idea.

Nature reflects balances. Idealized utopias tend to ignore negative
realities that may play an intricate part of said balance so I fail to
see how, in the *real* world (not your own made up one) how such
utopias are likely to actually exist.

>So every system or person has their own vision
>of God. If tinkerbell suits you, that's fine
>with me.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

>What's important is that one has a vision of
>Utopia/God for them to love and chase.
>
>The ideal future! Not the faded past.
>

Yes, let's all be delusional based on our own individual wants and
needs. What could go wrong?

[David Canzi]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>government without knowing what the word
>government even means.
>
>All the debates I see here over religion v science
>in general have the same logical flaw.
>
>Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>
>Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>the version taught to children, God is that
>wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>
>But that definition isn't reflected in
>mainstream religious philosophy, only
>on the fringes.
>
>I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>
>"irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

For the sake of clarification, let's take a specific emergent
property, intelligence, of a specific kind of physical system,
human brains, made of components of a specific kind, cells.
When you talk of "downward causation", what is the cause, and
what is this cause exerting its effects on?

On the matter of definitions, it's a common ploy for people who
want to prove that God exists to pick something that they can
prove the existence of (or that they think they can prove the
existence of) and define the word "God" to mean that. But the
meaning of a word is not inherent in the word. What a word means
is determined by convention. It means what the people using the
word agree to use it to mean. If somebody comes along who wants
the word to mean something else, the people who are already using
the word in their communications with each other have no reason
to drop their old meaning and adopt his.

You have your own personal definition of the word "God", and
your own personal definition of the word "evolution", and I
suspect that you have your own personal definition of the word
"emergence". No matter how long and how loudly and how often you
insist that your personal definition of a word we use routinely
is the One True Meaning of that word, we have no reason to adopt
your definition. It is not a debt or entitlement we owe to you.
It is not our duty. And as far as I can tell we have nothing to
gain by doing it.

--
David Canzi | "No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood."
| http://www.despair.com/irresponsibility.html

[jonathan]

On 5/10/2015 10:44 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2015 08:36:01 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>> government without knowing what the word
>> government even means.
>>
>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>
>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>>
>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>> the version taught to children, God is that
>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>
> It isn't my experience that most theists move past that understanding
> as they become adults, but go on.
>
>> But that definition isn't reflected in
>> mainstream religious philosophy, only
>> on the fringes.
>>
>> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>>

>> "irreducible but supervenient downward causal power".

>
> What does that even mean? And does it comport with the definition(s)
> from "mainstream religious philosophy" (which one(s)?), or is it your
> own personal definition?
>

That's what the link was for, a detailed definition
or discussion of what that statement means.


EMERGENCE
FROM wIKI

"How does an irreducible but supervenient downward

causal power arise....?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[jonathan]

On 5/10/2015 3:38 PM, David Canzi wrote:
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>> government without knowing what the word
>> government even means.
>>
>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>
>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>>
>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>> the version taught to children, God is that
>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>>
>> But that definition isn't reflected in
>> mainstream religious philosophy, only
>> on the fringes.
>>
>> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>>
>> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".


>
> For the sake of clarification, let's take a specific emergent
> property, intelligence, of a specific kind of physical system,
> human brains, made of components of a specific kind, cells.
> When you talk of "downward causation", what is the cause, and
> what is this cause exerting its effects on?
>

Individuals may be entirely different, but connected
their behavior can become tuned. As in a single
bird may move chaotically about in any direction
but a collection may all start moving together.

For instance take these two entirely different
'individuals', a boipharma and an IT technology
company. Although they are different systems
with different sets of objective facts, their
behavior suddenly becomes quite similar.

Does the behavior of the first chart
predict the future of the second?

Put them side by side...

https://www.tradingview.com/x/gp8on1B5/

https://www.tradingview.com/x/u89KgjfF/

> On the matter of definitions, it's a common ploy for people who
> want to prove that God exists to pick something that they can
> prove the existence of (or that they think they can prove the
> existence of) and define the word "God" to mean that. But the
> meaning of a word is not inherent in the word. What a word means
> is determined by convention. It means what the people using the
> word agree to use it to mean. If somebody comes along who wants
> the word to mean something else, the people who are already using
> the word in their communications with each other have no reason
> to drop their old meaning and adopt his.
>

But emergent or universal behavior happens when a
disconnected individual becomes connected to
the greater system. And it's co-evolutionary systems
that evolve and create all the wonders of nature.

> You have your own personal definition of the word "God", and
> your own personal definition of the word "evolution", and I
> suspect that you have your own personal definition of the word
> "emergence". No matter how long and how loudly and how often you
> insist that your personal definition of a word we use routinely
> is the One True Meaning of that word, we have no reason to adopt
> your definition.

Look at the charts I provided, both were suddenly
connected to the wider system or a large increase
in volume (downward causal power), with the
same outward behavior from two different sets
of facts (irreducible).

And the whole takes on a life of it's own
while the storm (increased volatility) is
still spun up.

It's under these conditions where the term
'more than it's sum' applies, providing
evolution it's ultimate impetus, the ability
to self-organize requires far from equilibrium
conditions.

It is not a debt or entitlement we owe to you.
> It is not our duty. And as far as I can tell we have nothing to
> gain by doing it.
>

On the contrary~




s

[ed wolf]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 2:39:11 PM UTC+2, jonathan wrote:
> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> government without knowing what the word
> government even means.
>
> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> in general have the same logical flaw.
>
> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>

By the fact of being goverend I can conlude there is a government.
To start a discussion about govenments sure enough the properties of various governments and the results of their efforts can be observed.
Than I can find a definition that includes these observations. As always in science and common sense, observation is first, definition and explanation are based on observation.
In the case of that god-thingy you mention no repeatable observation has been mentioned so far.
If you can produce any observation that is best explained by the existence of some god, tell us.
Any fact of nature, the universe and everything will do.
Feel free to invent facts to postulate a god explanation, and do give a plethora of properties of gods, like being eternal, benevolent, horny, having a cloven hoof, a hammer,bundles of lightning and so on.
You can have my definition while you wait for observable facts:
A fictional being used to explain natural events that are not understood,
usually humanoid in shape and character. Can be persuaded to benevolent actions by gifts to its human go-betweens.

[jonathan]

I posted a link to a more detailed description
of my definition of God in the original post.
I'll repost it.

I believe the best definition is that God is an...

"irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

EMERGENCE
FROM WIKI

How does an irreducible but supervenient downward

causal power arise...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>
>> And what if you found out the modern 'solution'
>> turned out to be the same one they came up with
>> 4000 years ago?
>
> Double check, if so, bit odd. Unless it's something like Na+CL=NaCl.

I meant that love is the answer.

>>
>> Being alive and aware is the absolute pinnacle
>> of the known universe. Good, bad or indifferent
>> this is what Heaven is like.
>
> Bullshit, not to be to flowery about it.

So /name/ what is more wondrous and capable
that being alive and aware?

Show me the higher ground?

>That's philosophy, not mythology.
>

All you need to do is contradict my assertion above
with a /single/ contradiction. Name what is greater
or more magnificent than being alive and aware.

And I'm giving you the entirety of the known
universe to find that one counter-example.
If you can't then it's not philosophy, but
a /factual truth/.

>> The ideal future! Not the faded past.
>
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your ideal future appeals
> to everyone else, it doesn't.
>

But a rigorous debate or discussion over the
definition of God would produce a common vision
of the ideal [future].

> Fine clothes may disguise, but
> silly words will disclose a fool.
> Author unkown to me.
>

"But meat within is requisite,
To squirrels and to me."


s

[jonathan]

On 5/10/2015 10:52 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2015 09:59:06 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
>> of belief in anything greater then themselves.
>
> I believe in plenty of things "greater than myself". But they have to
> be demonstrated to have a likelihood of existence before I'll grant
> provisional assent to the notion.
>
>> From a purely scientific standpoint that position
>> can't be defended. We know an idea or a storm can
>> change the world, yet have few clues how to model
>> or quantify such a thing from the ground up.
>
> So what?
>

Those are forces greater than us that also
have profound influences on our future.

Or 'god-like' properties that you seem to admit
can't be scientifically described or predicted.

Sounds like you believe in God to me.

[Jimbo]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 18:44:27 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What 'irreducible and supervenient downward causal power' causes the
emergence of hexagonal symettry in snowflakes, the emergence of
hurricanes, the shape and movement of sand-dunes, the polarity of
water, and the emergent order of a termite mound? You seem to be
indiscriminately lumping various causes and effects together under the
same label and implying that we should think of them all as somehow
being a god.

[David Canzi]

And in a flock of birds, what is the cause that is acting "downward",
and what is it exerting its "downward" effects on?

>> On the matter of definitions, it's a common ploy for people who
>> want to prove that God exists to pick something that they can
>> prove the existence of (or that they think they can prove the
>> existence of) and define the word "God" to mean that. But the
>> meaning of a word is not inherent in the word. What a word means
>> is determined by convention. It means what the people using the
>> word agree to use it to mean. If somebody comes along who wants
>> the word to mean something else, the people who are already using
>> the word in their communications with each other have no reason
>> to drop their old meaning and adopt his.
>
>But emergent or universal behavior happens when a
>disconnected individual becomes connected to
>the greater system. And it's co-evolutionary systems
>that evolve and create all the wonders of nature.

By what process of reasoning does this lead to the conclusion
that we should abandon our current meanings for the words we
use and adopt your meanings instead?

>> You have your own personal definition of the word "God", and
>> your own personal definition of the word "evolution", and I
>> suspect that you have your own personal definition of the word
>> "emergence". No matter how long and how loudly and how often you
>> insist that your personal definition of a word we use routinely
>> is the One True Meaning of that word, we have no reason to adopt
>> your definition.
>
>Look at the charts I provided, both were suddenly
>connected to the wider system or a large increase
>in volume (downward causal power), with the
>same outward behavior from two different sets
>of facts (irreducible).

When large numbers of traders are moved to buy a previously quiet
stock, is it some kind of mystical synchronicity or is it something
less spacy, such as a news story or a pump-and-dump spam? What is
the "downward" cause here, and what is it exerting its effects on?

You're still evading the issue of why anybody should adopt your
personal redefinitions of the words they use.

>> It is not a debt or entitlement we owe to you.
>> It is not our duty. And as far as I can tell we have nothing to
>> gain by doing it.
>
>On the contrary~

You finally stopped evading and addressed the issue using that
famous rule of inference, proof by assertion. A, therefore A.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Defining God. One approach is this:

"God" is what we will call whatever it was that caused this universe to exist.

This is not a very satisfactory definition, because it requires no
worship, no adoration, and no hell-fire and damnation if you don't
believe it.

earle
*

[Earle Jones27]

*
And would you please repeat the question?

earle
*

[walksalone]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:r-ydnZP9e4zWQtLI...@giganews.com:

> On 5/10/2015 11:31 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:C9ednS5xM76R7dLI...@giganews.com:

Snip

>> Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your
>> god.
>>

> I posted a link to a more detailed description
> of my definition of God in the original post.
> I'll repost it.

That's nice, as the Southern Belle said. However, when you posted your
demand for a definition of God[s], this song & dance wasn't waiting for
admiration. You haven't really done anything but mention it, & made no
reference to anything but atheists not defining gods to your
satisfaction. When that was done, the majority of the text, along with
some other gods was provided & snipped by you. Removed without marking.
Bit dishonest that, but expected.

> I believe the best definition is that God is an...

What you believe is immaterial as to how humanity defines their gods.
Sadly, the universe isn't to concerned with what I think either. A
concept I have no problem with. Now if you want to discuss what others
believe are definitions of gods, fine. OTOH, if you only want to discuss
what you think gods are, go to an appropriate group. Come to think of
it, going to an appropriate group would be the mannerly think to do.
Should anyone be so inclined, they could joi9n you there. & even though
mythology is a minor interest of mine, I wouldn't miss you.

> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

Again, your definition is an add on to your original posing.

> EMERGENCE
> FROM WIKI
>
> How does an irreducible but supervenient downward
> causal power arise...?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Singing in the rain again? Ah well.

>>> And what if you found out the modern 'solution'
>>> turned out to be the same one they came up with
>>> 4000 years ago?
>>
>> Double check, if so, bit odd. Unless it's something like Na+CL=NaCl.

> I meant that love is the answer.

What you meant vs. what you wrote seem to be, dare we say, an evasion of
what you pretended was the obvious truth. But that seems to be routine
for some. That same group expects others to play by their rules. I'm
used to making the rules, & when, like here, rules that make sense are in
place, accept them or simply move on to where I am in compliance with the
rules.

>>> Being alive and aware is the absolute pinnacle
>>> of the known universe. Good, bad or indifferent
>>> this is what Heaven is like.
>>
>> Bullshit, not to be to flowery about it.

> So /name/ what is more wondrous and capable
> that being alive and aware?

Your dance, you get to provide the sheet music.

> Show me the higher ground?

If you are referring to conduct on this group, all ready have. I'm not
the one that is posting off topic, or failing to carry through on a
demand made by you. The gods were defined. Those definitions are not an
on ramp for anyone's personal fantasy's. Yours...or mine.

>>That's philosophy, not mythology.


> All you need to do is contradict my assertion above
> with a /single/ contradiction. Name what is greater
> or more magnificent than being alive and aware.

My aren't you full of yourself. No, I don't need to do anything you
pretend to have the right to. But you have an ethical, & discussion
wise, the obligation of showing why you are correct, in a thread devoted
to that subject. This thread caught my attention with a sneering comment
that atheists lack a definition for your god, build A.000007.0146. That
was resolved & you have yet to discuss any of those definitions. Around
here, SE Talabama, we call that pulling a Sir Robin. & the way you are
trying to force others into following your lead, which is not in
compliance with your demands, pulling a Black Knight.

> And I'm giving you the entirety of the known
> universe to find that one counter-example.
> If you can't then it's not philosophy, but
> a /factual truth/.

You are giving me nothing beyond trying to change the subject from a
supposed lack of definitions that flatter you & your gods.

>>> The ideal future! Not the faded past.
>>
>> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your ideal future
>> appeals to everyone else, it doesn't.

> But a rigorous debate or discussion over the
> definition of God would produce a common vision
> of the ideal [future].

Apparently not, or at least you have yet to try a discussion of that
nature. You are trying to bend the rules to where your assumptions
prevail. Nothing wrong with that, providing you supply the evidence
that:
a: You know of what you speak.
b: You follow the general rules for the group.

Neither one is evident.

>> Fine clothes may disguise, but
>> silly words will disclose a fool.
>> Author unkown to me.

> "But meat within is requisite,
> To squirrels and to me."

Never seen a cannibal squirrel. But then, being in the SE, there are
plenty of nuts for them.

walksalone who suspects that the chevrons may have to go back on with
this one. They would be appropriate if for no other reason that the lack
of courtesy to others. Maybe alt.bullshit or alt.lookatmemaw is
available to the OP, seems more like what he is striving for.

Religions are conclusions for which the
facts of nature supply no major premises.
Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works(1912)

[Chris Thompson]

On 5/10/2015 10:14 AM, walksalone wrote:

Hmmm. I don't think "good" and "bad" really apply to Faerie. Everything
I've read about them makes them out to be pretty amoral. That's not to
say that some (like Red Hat, or Kelpies) rarely if ever were benevolent.
But even the bugger that cured your sick cow and got you the hottest
babe in town might swipe your infant the next evening and leave a
Changeling in its place. And none of it seemed particularly bad to them,
because they just don't do good and bad the way we do.

Chris

snip

[walksalone]

Chris Thompson <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:G_OdnTwiC6YJv83I...@earthlink.com:

> On 5/10/2015 10:14 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLInZ2dnUU7- LWd...@giganews.com:
>>
>> Apologies to the group.

snip

>> Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything
>> from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red
>> Hat, are not.
>
> Hmmm. I don't think "good" and "bad" really apply to Faerie.

You may well be right. But we humans tend to anthropomorphize just about
everything. So, I suspect that the terms are appropriate.
Now, as a group, all good or all bad, I agree with you. Still, the list is
a working definition for people like Jonathan. Those that don't realise
just how loose the word god is defined around the world.

> Everything I've read about them makes them out to be pretty amoral.
> That's not to say that some (like Red Hat, or Kelpies) rarely if ever
> were benevolent. But even the bugger that cured your sick cow and got
> you the hottest babe in town might swipe your infant the next evening
> and leave a Changeling in its place. And none of it seemed
> particularly bad to them, because they just don't do good and bad the
> way we do.

walksalone who appreciates the input. After all, it's the only way to
really learn. & surprise, sometimes I'm right.


Tsao Hsueh-chin
When the unreal is taken for the real, the real becomes unreal."

[David Canzi]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/10/2015 11:31 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:C9ednS5xM76R7dLI...@giganews.com:
>>>

>>> Being alive and aware is the absolute pinnacle
>>> of the known universe. Good, bad or indifferent
>>> this is what Heaven is like.
>>
>> Bullshit, not to be to flowery about it.
>
>So /name/ what is more wondrous and capable
>that being alive and aware?
>
>Show me the higher ground?

If nothing is more wondrous and capable than being alive and
aware, and you are alive and aware, it follows that nothing is
more wondrous and capable than you. I am disappointed to learn
that you don't believe in anything greater than yourself.

[solar penguin]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 08:36:01 -0400, jonathan wrote:

>
> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>

> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".
>

That's a step in the right direction, but it would be better to say a god
is a (usually anthropomorphic) personification of such a power that lets
people fool themselves into thinking they can understand and/or deal with
that power.

I believe in lots of inexplicable supernatural causal powers, but I
reject any attempts to personify them, so I'm still an atheist.

[Rodjk #613]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 5:04:10 PM UTC+3, jonathan wrote:
> On 5/10/2015 9:10 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:39:11 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> >> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> >> government without knowing what the word
> >> government even means.
> >>
> >> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> >> in general have the same logical flaw.
> >>
> >> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
> >>

> >> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> >> the version taught to children, God is that
> >> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
> >>
> >> But that definition isn't reflected in
> >> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> >> on the fringes.
> >>

> >> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
> >>
> >> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".
> >>

> >> However, like a system tendency, good habit or belief
> >> such things aren't all that mysterious, are they?
> >>

> >> Yet such higher level or emergent properties such as
> >> gravity, storms or ideas can create or destroy entire
> >> worlds.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> EMERGENCE
> >> FROM wIKI
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of a
> >> high-level system upon its components; qualities produced
> >> this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts
> >> (Laughlin 2005). The whole is greater than the sum of
> >> its parts. It follows that no simulation of the system
> >> can exist, for such a simulation would itself constitute
> >> a reduction of the system to its constituent parts
> >> (Bedau 1997).
> >>
> >> "Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is
> >> uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but
> >> supervenient downward causal power arise, since by
> >> definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the
> >> micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would
> >> be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken.
> >> This not only indicates how they will discomfort
> >> reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness
> >> will only heighten the traditional worry that
> >> emergence entails illegitimately getting something
> >> from nothing.[9]'
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
> >
> > I think it is up to people who say that God exists to explain what they mean by God. As an atheist, I can list a few sorts of God that I don't believe in, but it's almost certainly true that someone could stretch the definition of God so much that I'd have no trouble saying that I could accept such a God. Even Bill's "generic designer" having no other attributes than being whatever it is that's responsible for the universe is fine by me.
> >
> > I don't think it's very efficient for atheists to be tasked with defining all the different sorts of God's they don't believe in. Much more parsimonious for those who are asserting the existence of God to be specific about what they mean.
> >
> > And for what it's worth, I agree with the quote you posted that "strong emergence is uncomfortably like magic."
> >
>
>
>
> It should certainly be uncomfortable for those
> brought up with all things objective science.

No, it doesn't.

> As it turns their numbers-based world
> upside-down.

Nope.

> But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
> of belief in anything greater then themselves.

What? Certainly there are larger people than I. There are those who are smarter and more talented. There are certainly those who are greater than I.
They are not even gods.

So, no; you are mistaken.

> From a purely scientific standpoint that position
> can't be defended. We know an idea or a storm can
> change the world, yet have few clues how to model
> or quantify such a thing from the ground up.

First, since that isn't an accurate view of the position, as I showed above; you are wrong.


>
> Q: Did you hear about the the evangelical atheist?
> A: She went door-to-door with a book full of blank pages.
>
>
> The only way to deal with real world complexity
> like ideas or god is to turn the tables around.
> Where the effects are studied first and foremost
> NOT the causes. That's all that really matters
> anyways, the future or the effects of events.
>
> And the science of effects, complexity science, shows
> there are only two general or universal forms that
> effects take.
>
> A boom-and-bust (birth)
> And the snowball effect (death)
>
>
> For instance...
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=cala&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=8
>
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=cala&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=4
>
>
> A complex or self organizing pattern
> should display both, transitioning
> from one to the other. At that point
> outward behavior becomes detached from
> the inner variables, and non-linear
> or exaggerated effects are easily
> created.
>
> All (higher level) complex adaptive systems
> reside around the transition point between
> those two attractors.
>
> I know how this is going to sound, but I
> literally see God, or how nature works
> in that chart pattern.

Seriously, you must have access to some good drugs.

Rodjk #613

>
>
>
>
> s

[J. J. Lodder]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> government without knowing what the word
> government even means.
>
> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> in general have the same logical flaw.
>
> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.

The idea that you should define your terms before you proceed
may be great in scholasticism, but it is unscientific.
Definitions in science are implicit,
and follow from the way the concept is used.
(Bridgman, Wheeler)

> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> the version taught to children, God is that
> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>
> But that definition isn't reflected in
> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> on the fringes.

Unfortanately the majority is the USA is out on the fringes.
[snip complexity garbage]

Jan

--
"Energy is half m v squared, plus everything else
that is missing from the law of conservation of energy."

[jillery]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:10:53 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>> government without knowing what the word
>> government even means.
>>
>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>
>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>
>The idea that you should define your terms before you proceed
>may be great in scholasticism, but it is unscientific.
>Definitions in science are implicit,
>and follow from the way the concept is used.
>(Bridgman, Wheeler)

The above is too close for comfort to what Martinez, Kalkidas, et. al.
claim. My impression is that science as a discipline is distinctive
in explicitly defining its terms.

>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>> the version taught to children, God is that
>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>>
>> But that definition isn't reflected in
>> mainstream religious philosophy, only
>> on the fringes.
>
>Unfortanately the majority is the USA is out on the fringes.
>[snip complexity garbage]

Religion is a global phenomenon. Practitioners in the USA are not
distinctive at that scale, and the EU also suffers its share of
nutters:

<http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/12/study-finds-religious-fundamentalism-unexpectedly-common-in-europe>

<http://tinyurl.com/q8a8z35>

"Religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon in Western
Europe, nor is it restricted to Islam."

I can't tell if your account has been hacked, you took too much or too
little medication, or you're just trolling again.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El domingo, 10 de mayo de 2015, 13:39:11 (UTC+1), jonathan escribió:
> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> government without knowing what the word
> government even means.
>
> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> in general have the same logical flaw.
>
> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>

> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> the version taught to children, God is that
> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>
> But that definition isn't reflected in
> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> on the fringes.
>

god is an idea that some people have wired in his brain.
In this sense if you take the set of people that believe in god,
God is a true being according to my definition of true, and truth.

I god has any objective existence is totally another question.

Eri

[J. J. Lodder]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:10:53 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> >> government without knowing what the word
> >> government even means.
> >>
> >> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> >> in general have the same logical flaw.
> >>
> >> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
> >
> >The idea that you should define your terms before you proceed
> >may be great in scholasticism, but it is unscientific.
> >Definitions in science are implicit,
> >and follow from the way the concept is used.
> >(Bridgman, Wheeler)
>
>
> The above is too close for comfort to what Martinez, Kalkidas, et. al.
> claim. My impression is that science as a discipline is distinctive
> in explicitly defining its terms.

Sure, if you are a hundred years behind the times.

> >> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> >> the version taught to children, God is that
> >> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
> >>
> >> But that definition isn't reflected in
> >> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> >> on the fringes.
> >
> >Unfortanately the majority is the USA is out on the fringes.
> >[snip complexity garbage]
>
>
> Religion is a global phenomenon. Practitioners in the USA are not
> distinctive at that scale, and the EU also suffers its share of
> nutters:
>
> <http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/12/study-finds-religious-fundamentalis
m-unexpectedly-common-in-europe>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/q8a8z35>
>
> "Religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon in Western
> Europe, nor is it restricted to Islam."

No doubt. The difference is being in power, in many places in the USA,
instead of being marginalised, like in Western Europe.

> I can't tell if your account has been hacked, you took too much or too
> little medication, or you're just trolling again.

Of course it's been hacked.
Someone does so every morning,

Jan

--
Here and elsewhere in science, as stressed not least by Henri Poincaré,
that view is 1out of date which used to say, "Define your terms before
you proceed". All the laws and theories of physics, including the
Lorentz force law, have this deep and subtle chracter, that they both
define the concepts they use and make statements about these concepts.
Contrariwise, the absence of some body of theory, law and principle
deprives one of the means properly to define or even use concepts. Any
forward step in human knowlege is truly creative in this sense: that
theory concept, law, and measurement -forever inseperable- are born into
the world in union. (Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler)

[Kalkidas]

"jonathan" <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLI...@giganews.com...

>
>
> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> government without knowing what the word
> government even means.
>
> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> in general have the same logical flaw.
>
> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.

You can really only define something that is finite or bounded.

In God's case, all we can do is indicate, not define.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/10/15 6:59 AM, jonathan wrote:
> [...]

> But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
> of belief in anything greater then themselves.

I think you will find more such people among theists. A great many of
them believe that they get to tell God what to do. Atheists, on the
other hand, are more likely to believe that natural laws are more
powerful than themselves *and* putative gods.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[J. J. Lodder]

That's just your definition,

Jan

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/10/15 5:36 AM, jonathan wrote:
>
> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> in general have the same logical flaw.
>
> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.

> [...]

Before you define God, you need to be clear about what context your
definition applies to. There are three general contexts which apply:

Context 1: Personal belief. In this case, the definition of God is
almost trivial. It is whatever the person considers to be God. The
definition is entirely subjective.

Context 2: Social and mythologic patterns. Here again, "god" is defined
purely in terms of people's beliefs, but you are looking for shared
beliefs to describe, so the definition will be descriptive and objective.

Context 3: Imposition. This is where someone else, from a scholastic
theologian to a military despot, tells others what to believe about god.
The definition in this case depends entirely on who is doing the
telling. The definition is subjective, but if you point that out, you
risk getting burned, stoned, or beheaded.

>
> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>
> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

> [...]

In which context?

[Ernest Major]

I propose that we call whatever (if anything) it was caused this
universe to exist an universogene. As you implicitly note below calling
it God causes people to smuggle in all sorts of other properties.

>
> This is not a very satisfactory definition, because it requires no
> worship, no adoration, and no hell-fire and damnation if you don't
> believe it.
>
> earle
> *
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Inez]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 7:04:10 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> On 5/10/2015 9:10 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:39:11 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> >> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> >> government without knowing what the word
> >> government even means.
> >>
> >> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> >> in general have the same logical flaw.
> >>
> >> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
> >>
> >> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> >> the version taught to children, God is that
> >> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
> >>
> >> But that definition isn't reflected in
> >> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> >> on the fringes.
> >>
> >> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
> >>
> >> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".
> >>

> > I think it is up to people who say that God exists to explain what they mean by God. As an atheist, I can list a few sorts of God that I don't believe in, but it's almost certainly true that someone could stretch the definition of God so much that I'd have no trouble saying that I could accept such a God. Even Bill's "generic designer" having no other attributes than being whatever it is that's responsible for the universe is fine by me.
> >
> > I don't think it's very efficient for atheists to be tasked with defining all the different sorts of God's they don't believe in. Much more parsimonious for those who are asserting the existence of God to be specific about what they mean.
> >
> > And for what it's worth, I agree with the quote you posted that "strong emergence is uncomfortably like magic."
> >
>
>
>
> It should certainly be uncomfortable for those
> brought up with all things objective science.

> As it turns their numbers-based world
> upside-down.
>

> But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
> of belief in anything greater then themselves.

I have no problem with things being greater than me. My problem is believing in things based on tradition rather than anything observable in the universe.

> From a purely scientific standpoint that position
> can't be defended. We know an idea or a storm can
> change the world, yet have few clues how to model
> or quantify such a thing from the ground up.

The fact that it's a strawman makes it inherently hard to defend.

[Inez]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 5:39:11 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> government without knowing what the word
> government even means.
>
> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> in general have the same logical flaw.
>
> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>
> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> the version taught to children, God is that
> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.

It's up to the theists to bring their definitions to the table.

>
> But that definition isn't reflected in
> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> on the fringes.
>

I think you are more or less wrong about that. I think a the majority of Christians in this country think that God is an actual guy who does magic.

> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>
> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".

Wouldn't a supervenient power have to be upwardly causal? That's sort of the definition of supervenient. In any case, I'm not aware of any religion outside of Star Wars that doesn't view God as a person with a personality and opinions and so forth, rather than just as a force.

>
> However, like a system tendency, good habit or belief
> such things aren't all that mysterious, are they?
>
> Yet such higher level or emergent properties such as
> gravity, storms or ideas can create or destroy entire
> worlds.
>

You can't just define things like gravity as god. No one means gravity when they say god.

[John Harshman]

On 5/11/15, 10:39 AM, Inez wrote:

> You can't just define things like gravity as god. No one means gravity when they say god.
>

But gravity is such a mystical thing. It surrounds us and penetrates us.
It binds the galaxy together.

[Burkhard]

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

I often wondered about that and once tried to get some of the Lovecraft
prose analysed in a paper - if you have something that "must not be
named", have you named it "the one thing so that it must not be named",
and if you have "indescribable alien geometries" , ahve you described them?

[Burkhard]

Yuck! Are there vaccinations against this, or gene therapy?

[Roger Shrubber]

Reminds me of a time long ago when a young lass accused me of trying
to get her into bed by the trick of not trying to get her into bed.
She may well have been right.

[Burkhard]

Well, the no-one could be too strong. There was e.g. the theologian and
former pastor Paul Schulz, whose book "Is God a mathematical formula"
got him kicked out of the church (the first Lutheran pastor to be
subject of a heresy action since WW1)

He later published mainly atheist books, e.g. Codex Atheos. Die Kraft
des Atheismus, but at the same time took legal action against his
expulsion as pastor and appealed (unsuccessfully) the decision to strip
him of the right to teach from the pulpit.


>

[Kalkidas]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:AKydnWRv0atSm8zI...@giganews.com...

How would you define infinity non-circularly, i.e. without reference to
a synonym or euphemism for infinity? That is analogous to my point.

It is not that undefinable things can't be talked about. They can, but
it is by indication and insinuation, not by rigorous definitions.

[jonathan]

On 5/10/2015 7:44 PM, Jimbo wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2015 18:44:27 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
>> On 5/10/2015 11:31 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in

>>> news:C9ednS5xM76R7dLI...@giganews.com:

>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2015 10:14 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>>>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>> news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLInZ2dnUU7- LWd...@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies to the group.
>>>>>

>>>>>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>>>>>> government without knowing what the word
>>>>>> government even means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>>>>>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> <SEAG> It should? Why should anyone but the believers define their
>>>>> pretend fiend? After all, they claim/pretend to be in the know.
>>>

>>>> What if their definition of God is flawed?
>>>
>>> No doubt, according to you they are. Whereas according to them, you are.
>>> BYTW, nice try at side stepping. You wanted a definition of god, & that is
>>> what you got.
>>>
>>>> A successful debate would create a definition
>>>> acceptable to both sides.
>>>
>>> I don't do debates, 20 years in the Army took care of that. Now
>>> discussions, that I do. BTW, you are not addressing the definition of god
>>> [s].
>>>
>>>> That's why!
>>>
>>> Works for you then?
>>>

>>>>> Still, gods are claimed by humanity, & share some common traits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities
>>>>> of the human species. [Incomplete]
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthropomorphic
>>>>> A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
>>>

>>>> Or universal laws, as in applying to everything in the universe.
>>>

>>> Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I posted a link to a more detailed description
>> of my definition of God in the original post.
>> I'll repost it.
>>
>>

>> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>>
>> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".
>>
>>

>> EMERGENCE
>>FROM WIKI

>>
>> How does an irreducible but supervenient downward

>> causal power arise...?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>
>
> What 'irreducible and supervenient downward causal power' causes the
> emergence of hexagonal symettry in snowflakes, the emergence of
> hurricanes, the shape and movement of sand-dunes, the polarity of
> water, and the emergent order of a termite mound? You seem to be
> indiscriminately lumping various causes and effects together under the
> same label and implying that we should think of them all as somehow
> being a god.
>


All of those things you cite are emergent properties.
If you know how emergence works in general you know
how all of the those things work, at least in the
abstract. The terms emergent and universal can be
freely interchanged, that's the whole point.



September 30 2014, 9.44pm EDT
Emergence: the remarkable simplicity of complexity

"From the fractal patterns of snowflakes to cellular
lifeforms, our universe is full of complex phenomena
– but how does this complexity arise?

“Emergence” describes the ability of individual components
of a large system to work together to give rise to dramatic
and diverse behaviour.


http://theconversation.com/emergence-the-remarkable-simplicity-of-complexity-30973



s

>
>>>> And what if you found out the modern 'solution'
>>>> turned out to be the same one they came up with
>>>> 4000 years ago?
>>>
>>> Double check, if so, bit odd. Unless it's something like Na+CL=NaCl.
>>
>>
>>
>> I meant that love is the answer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>

>>>> Being alive and aware is the absolute pinnacle
>>>> of the known universe. Good, bad or indifferent
>>>> this is what Heaven is like.
>>>
>>> Bullshit, not to be to flowery about it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So /name/ what is more wondrous and capable
>> that being alive and aware?
>>
>> Show me the higher ground?
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> That's philosophy, not mythology.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> All you need to do is contradict my assertion above
>> with a /single/ contradiction. Name what is greater
>> or more magnificent than being alive and aware.
>>

>> And I'm giving you the entirety of the known
>> universe to find that one counter-example.
>> If you can't then it's not philosophy, but
>> a /factual truth/.
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>>> The ideal future! Not the faded past.
>>>
>>> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your ideal future appeals
>>> to everyone else, it doesn't.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But a rigorous debate or discussion over the
>> definition of God would produce a common vision
>> of the ideal [future].
>>
>>
>>

>>> Fine clothes may disguise, but
>>> silly words will disclose a fool.
>>> Author unkown to me.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "But meat within is requisite,
>> To squirrels and to me."
>>
>>

>> s
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[jonathan]

What is the theory of everything?




s

[chris thompson]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 10:14:10 AM UTC-4, walksalone wrote:
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLInZ2dnUU7-
> LWd...@giganews.com:
>
> Apologies to the group.
>
> > No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> > government without knowing what the word
> > government even means.
> >
> > All the debates I see here over religion v science
> > in general have the same logical flaw.
> >
> > Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>
> <SEAG> It should? Why should anyone but the believers define their
> pretend fiend? After all, they claim/pretend to be in the know.
>

A fine typo, if such it was. Fine, I say.

Chris

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/10/2015 09:59 AM, jonathan wrote:
> On 5/10/2015 9:10 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:39:11 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:

>>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>>> government without knowing what the word
>>> government even means.
>>>
>>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>>
>>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>>>

>>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>>> the version taught to children, God is that
>>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>>>

>>> But that definition isn't reflected in
>>> mainstream religious philosophy, only
>>> on the fringes.
>>>

>>> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>>>
>>> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".
>>>

>>> However, like a system tendency, good habit or belief
>>> such things aren't all that mysterious, are they?
>>>
>>> Yet such higher level or emergent properties such as
>>> gravity, storms or ideas can create or destroy entire
>>> worlds.
>>>
>>>
>>>

Not quite. Subjectivity has limited importance. It explains biased
perceptions, but doesn't explain the actual world we perceive.

> But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
> of belief in anything greater then themselves.

Atheists aren't hermits. Many of us believe in society and the ideal of
government of the people, by the people, for the people. Society is
greater than ourselves and living in a society involves transcending
oneself oftentimes for the greater good. Morality involves doing no harm
and acting upon the universal golden rule of reciprocity that stems from
something deep inside, not absolute commands from some creepy invisible
sky stalker. That's how I define God...creepy sky stalker in a wife
beater shirt chasing people across the lands of the Earth telling them
to slaughter people for being Other and take their land. Manifest destiny.

> From a purely scientific standpoint that position
> can't be defended. We know an idea or a storm can
> change the world, yet have few clues how to model
> or quantify such a thing from the ground up.
>
>

> Q: Did you hear about the the evangelical atheist?
> A: She went door-to-door with a book full of blank pages.

Or a headful of cogent arguments against the incarnations of religions
now extant.

> The only way to deal with real world complexity
> like ideas or god is to turn the tables around.
> Where the effects are studied first and foremost
> NOT the causes. That's all that really matters
> anyways, the future or the effects of events.

Lower level explanations are helpful. When you are confronted with
disease do you assume top-down demonic possession or maybe a bacteria,
viral, or protozoal cause? You are coughing up blood. Why?

In some cases disease can be prevented or cured given the proper
reductive assessment of the situation. Epidemiology might be a more
collectively oriented approach that takes sociological data into
account, but the active agents are lower level entities.

> And the science of effects, complexity science, shows
> there are only two general or universal forms that
> effects take.
>
> A boom-and-bust (birth)
> And the snowball effect (death)

Bust can kill as much as a snowball or avalanche. An avalanche comes
from snow which is a form of water which forms hydrogen bonds and
lattice networks. It falls from the sky and is part of a hydrological
cycle. It occurs in areas father from the equator and/or from sea level.

Sand also collapses on people. It's made of silicon dioxide and/or
calcium carbonate.

> For instance...
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=cala&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=8
>
>
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=cala&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=4
>
>
>
> A complex or self organizing pattern
> should display both, transitioning
> from one to the other. At that point
> outward behavior becomes detached from
> the inner variables, and non-linear
> or exaggerated effects are easily
> created.
>
> All (higher level) complex adaptive systems
> reside around the transition point between
> those two attractors.
>
> I know how this is going to sound, but I
> literally see God, or how nature works
> in that chart pattern.

Miami rope? I think one can see patterns in clouds, inkblots or Jackson
Pollock too.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/10/2015 06:55 PM, jonathan wrote:
> On 5/10/2015 10:52 AM, raven1 wrote:

>> On Sun, 10 May 2015 09:59:06 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
>>> of belief in anything greater then themselves.
>>

>> I believe in plenty of things "greater than myself". But they have to
>> be demonstrated to have a likelihood of existence before I'll grant
>> provisional assent to the notion.

>>
>>> From a purely scientific standpoint that position
>>> can't be defended. We know an idea or a storm can
>>> change the world, yet have few clues how to model
>>> or quantify such a thing from the ground up.
>>

>> So what?
>>
>
>
>
> Those are forces greater than us that also
> have profound influences on our future.

The place where you work is "greater than you" and has profound
influences upon your future. For one thing it's where you get your money
to pay bills. Money is an idea sure as is division of labor. You have a
skill set you get paid for. And you put this money back into the economy
whether as metallic dimes, paper dollars, or byte based bitcoin.
Bitcoins don't work without electricity, which requires fossil fuels,
hydroelectric power, nuclear power, or maybe solar panels. It's all
material at some point. Yet it is ideological at another point and less
tangible.

> Or 'god-like' properties that you seem to admit
> can't be scientifically described or predicted.
>
> Sounds like you believe in God to me.

Sounds like you want to be a modern day prophet.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/11/2015 11:13 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/10/15 6:59 AM, jonathan wrote:
>> [...]
>> But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
>> of belief in anything greater then themselves.
>
> I think you will find more such people among theists. A great many of
> them believe that they get to tell God what to do. Atheists, on the
> other hand, are more likely to believe that natural laws are more
> powerful than themselves *and* putative gods.

The universe as revealed via the Hubble telescope is greater than me and
I am awestruck I live on a joke of a planet orbiting an insignificant
star. The fact that my species is but an overly arrogant yet tiny twig
("You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you.") on the
bush of life means the pageant of evolution is greater than me or you.
The bacteria in my gut are greater than me as they are but a fraction of
what Gould called modal bacter. Any microbe that can kill me through
pneumonia or systemic sepsis is greater than me. The trees that live
much longer than me or grow larger than me are greater than me. The
people who wrote all the books on my shelves are both individually and
especially collectively greater than me. Talk.origins as a whole is
greater than me. I am but a minor, inconsequential part.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/11/2015 05:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>> government without knowing what the word
>> government even means.
>>
>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>
>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>
> The idea that you should define your terms before you proceed
> may be great in scholasticism, but it is unscientific.
> Definitions in science are implicit,
> and follow from the way the concept is used.
> (Bridgman, Wheeler)
>
>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>> the version taught to children, God is that
>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>>
>> But that definition isn't reflected in
>> mainstream religious philosophy, only
>> on the fringes.
>
> Unfortanately the majority is the USA is out on the fringes.
> [snip complexity garbage]

Is there anything positive you can say about the US?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/10/2015 08:36 AM, jonathan wrote:
>
>
> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> government without knowing what the word
> government even means.
>
> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> in general have the same logical flaw.
>
> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>

> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> the version taught to children, God is that
> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>
> But that definition isn't reflected in
> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> on the fringes.
>

You have single-handedly and much to Richard Norman's chagrin placed
emergence way out on the fringes of respectable discussion. You must be
proud of yourself. Well that much is given. Hubris.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/10/2015 10:53 AM, Burkhard wrote:

[snip]

> I'd say as the offspring of Gaia and born from the blood that fell when
> Cronus castrated Uranus, they qualify - and in the Gigantomachy, they
> almost came out equal to the Olympian gods.

How can Uranus be castrated. I view all available anatomical diagrams
and ruminate upon all known definitions and find this act impossible.
And what inhumane slaughter to the resident Klingons if such were
attempted!!!!

[Jimbo]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 18:35:08 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

I was commenting on the fact that you're applying the phrase
'irreducible and supervenient downward causal power' to both causes
and effects of various kinds. Snowflake symettry, frost patterns,
surface tension on water and water's properties as a solvent are all
related to the properties of water molecules which are, in turn,
related to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The 'causal
power' would seem to be at least as much 'bottom up' as 'top down.'

Can you point out what the 'supervenient downward causal power is in
each of the examples from the Wikipedia article you linked? I see a
mixture of causes and effects. Why should effects such as snowflake
symettry and termite mounds be regarded as an expression of
'supervenient downward causal power?' And what's god-like about
effects emerging out of the structured or patterned interaction of
subunits?

If you really want to have a discusson about defining God, you need,
as others have noted, to 'define your definition.' At the moment it
looks like little more than a vaguely worded assertion.

>September 30 2014, 9.44pm EDT
>Emergence: the remarkable simplicity of complexity
>
>"From the fractal patterns of snowflakes to cellular
>lifeforms, our universe is full of complex phenomena
> – but how does this complexity arise?
>
>“Emergence” describes the ability of individual components
>of a large system to work together to give rise to dramatic
>and diverse behaviour.
>
>
>http://theconversation.com/emergence-the-remarkable-simplicity-of-complexity-30973
>

<snip>

[Earle Jones27]

*
You know that recently they took away our planet Pluto.
Next, they're coming after Uranus.

earle
*

[RSNorman]

Jonathan is simply so besotted with the notion of complex systems that
he thinks it is the be-all of everything that exists. There is no
need to explain why things happen -- cause and effect are meaningless.
Reductionistic explanation is meaningless. All of science is
completely wrongheaded. Once you understand that everything is
compossed of opposites living on the edge of chaos then all becomes
clear.

Jonathan's "god" is simply pantheism, all of nature is "'irreducible
and supervenient downward causal power" and nothing else need be
explained. It is not "cause and effect of different kinds" because
there is no cause and effect once a complex system takes over and
chaos rules. And there are no different kinds because complex system
theory explains everything.

[Inez]

Sounds like a clingy boyfriend, except the galaxy part.

[RSNorman]

I have, until now, studiously avoided this entire thread. However it
was John Wilkins who, long ago, placed emergence out on those fringes.
Well, actually on a rather different fringe but still way out.

I will repeat my litany: there is a lot of excellent science being
done under the rubric "complexity theory" once you look at the real
science. And even the mathematical and computational aspects of
complexity theory includes a lot of excellent work. There is also an
awful lot of nonsense described under the same rubric. There is an
especially unfortunate tendency for social scientists to get involved
because you can take the superficial words used in real systems theory
and work them in great generalities so it looks like you are doing
"real mathematical studies." Institutes of Complex System Studies are
really treasured at many academic institutions because such
interdisciplinary gatherings are the pride and joy of administrators.
And good workers see the opportunity to go along for the ride.
Mediocre workers also get carried along. Someday the bandwagon will
collapse and then people will carry on doing exactly the same work
under the old departmental structures.

I could add that "emergence" is a phrase comparable to "entropy" in
how they are used in common parlance, a usage which has virtually no
relationship to the mathematical reality behind the notions.

[John Harshman]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[William Morse]

That description appears to fit the god of the Old Testament.

[walksalone]

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a7125139-f208-42b6...@googlegroups.com:

Rassafraaasssan. Can't get away with anything around here. Good catch, &
it is the usual sobriquet I use for the revealed gods of the desert.

walksalone who does indeed make many a typo, but I plead ignorance. All I
have is a GED from the US Army, dated 1961. Not exactly a formal
education, but I have learned no one passes the final exam.


Blessed be the spell checker for it will help everyone to make some comical
typos.

Me, just now.

[Jimbo]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:49:10 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

Jonathan might disagree with it, but that's an admirably clear and
concise analysis of his position. Personally I hope he can present a
logical argument supporting his claims, or at least flesh them out a
little. If he wants to be the new prophet of a pantheistic religion
based on complex systems theory, he needs something more than the
fluff he's presented so far.

[Tim Norfolk]

In the 1970's and 1980's, the social scientists embraced catastrophe theory. As far as I know, that never went anywhere either.

[David Canzi]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/10/2015 7:44 PM, Jimbo wrote:
>> What 'irreducible and supervenient downward causal power' causes the
>> emergence of hexagonal symettry in snowflakes, the emergence of
>> hurricanes, the shape and movement of sand-dunes, the polarity of
>> water, and the emergent order of a termite mound? You seem to be
>> indiscriminately lumping various causes and effects together under the
>> same label and implying that we should think of them all as somehow
>> being a god.
>
>All of those things you cite are emergent properties.
>If you know how emergence works in general you know
>how all of the those things work, at least in the
>abstract. The terms emergent and universal can be
>freely interchanged, that's the whole point.

Without any kind of coordination among themselves and without any
apparent external direction, randomly moving molecules of water
vapor accumulate onto different parts of a snowflake's surface
and somehow the snowflake grows symmetrically. What causes this?

You don't know.

You don't understand.

You give what you don't understand a name, "emergence", and then
you *feel* like you understand. But you still don't understand,
really, because you can't explain why emergence makes the arms of
one snowflake the same shape as each other, and makes the arms
of a second snowflake the same shape as each other, but doesn't
make the arms of the second snowflake the same shape as the arms
of the first snowflake.

--
David Canzi | "No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood."
| http://www.despair.com/irresponsibility.html

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

you are learning a lot, Kalki

[J. J. Lodder]

Thanks, had never heard about him.
Seems to be an almost exclusively German phenomenon.
No one has bothered to translate his wikipedia page for example.

The Dutch are more tolerant.
There is a practicing openly atheist 'dominee'.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaas_Hendrikse>

His best known book is 'Geloven in een god die niet bestaat'
(Believing in a god that doesn't exist)
He is not thought of as en extremist.

Less openly, about one in six of the Dutch clergy
is agnost or atheist,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Good news is no news,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

The milky way comes later in the story,

Jan

[RSNorman]

That is an excellent parallel. Rene Thom's Catastrophe theory is
simply the fact that many systems described by differential equations
have singular points. Bifurcating systems are now just part of
Complexity Theory. Then anything that showed choices between discrete
alternatives became an example of catastrophe theory.

There is a long string of these things: General Systems Theory
(Bertalanffy), Information Theory, and Cybernetics, too. All had a
solid mathematical foundation and all have important uses in their
place. Of course you can include holographic memory, computer models
of the brain (which superceded telephone switchboard models).

Generally the misapplication goes on the general principle: "The
theory says that pretty much anything can happen. Pretty much
everything does happen. Therefore the theory must be correct."

[Burkhard]

There is some schoolboy pun in this for sure. Probably involving
assteroids.

[Burkhard]

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

Interesting chap, but actually not that far away from a more mainstream
theology. Process theology as formulated by Popper's sometimes
collaborator Alfred North Whitehead is based on the same idea of god not
being an individual thing separate from the world, but an activity that
happens in it.

Some forms of pantheism and pannetheism too.

[passer...@gmail.com]

God makes the Universe work. It's a math proof that science never can.

[J. J. Lodder]

But he got away with it without heresy trial,
or being thrown out of his job.

There is a saying ascribed to Heinrich Heine:
(falsely of course)
"When the world ends I will go to Holland,
for everything happens 50 years later there."

It seems this not-Heine had it the wrong way round.

Jan

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mir06r$ipj$1...@dont-email.me>

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> > Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >
> >> "jonathan" <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLI...@giganews.com...

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> >>> government without knowing what the word
> >>> government even means.
> >>>
> >>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> >>> in general have the same logical flaw.
> >>>
> >>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
> >>

> >> You can really only define something that is finite or bounded.

> >>
> >> In God's case, all we can do is indicate, not define.
> >
> > That's just your definition,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> I often wondered about that and once tried to get some of the
> Lovecraft prose analysed in a paper - if you have something that
> "must not be named", have you named it "the one thing so that it
> must not be named",

Actually, no. "Him who is not to be named" has a perfectly good name.

It's just that the normal response to someone actually speaking his
name out loud is that he appears, rips the offender into little shreds
and devours the remains.

> and if you have "indescribable alien geometries" , ahve you described
> them?

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Inez]

Cha! I'm a Mariners fan, I have blind and useless faith out the wazoo.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:01:48 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Probably not; unsupported assertions is more his forte.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 19:01:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
<savagem...@hotmail.com>:

Nah, it's midichlorians all the way down...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 10:42:40 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sun, 10 May 2015 08:36:01 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
><WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>
>>No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>>government without knowing what the word
>>government even means.
>>
>>All the debates I see here over religion v science
>>in general have the same logical flaw.
>>
>>Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>

>Sure. There are many dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of
>definitions, as many as there are religions, some of which
>don't even have such a concept (Buddhism is an example);
>which one would you like to use?

[Crickets...]

>>Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>>the version taught to children, God is that
>>wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>

>That's one (and not even universal in Christianity). Is that
>the one you wish to discuss?

[Crickets...]

>>But that definition isn't reflected in
>>mainstream religious philosophy, only
>>on the fringes.
>

>Which fringes? Of which religion? (The 3 [4?] main religions
>have internal variants.) And why do you consider them to be
>fringes? Is there a numerical cutoff (number of adherents)?
>Or are you using some other definition? Is it objective? If
>so, what is it?

[Crickets...]

>>I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>>
>>"irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".
>

>And yet that definition is far from universal. Is Coyote
>such a power? How about Sedna? Tyr? (There are still
>adherents of the Aesir, y'know...)

[Crickets...]

>You don't seem to be clarifying anything; care to try again?
>
><snip irrelevant quotes not directly connected to religious
>beliefs>

So many questions; so few answers...

[James Beck]

Those are not the roids you're looking for?

[jonathan]

On 5/11/2015 1:08 AM, David Canzi wrote:
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On 5/10/2015 11:31 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in

>>> news:C9ednS5xM76R7dLI...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>> Being alive and aware is the absolute pinnacle
>>>> of the known universe. Good, bad or indifferent
>>>> this is what Heaven is like.
>>>
>>> Bullshit, not to be to flowery about it.
>>
>> So /name/ what is more wondrous and capable
>> that being alive and aware?
>>
>> Show me the higher ground?
>
> If nothing is more wondrous and capable than being alive and
> aware, and you are alive and aware, it follows that nothing is
> more wondrous and capable than you. I am disappointed to learn
> that you don't believe in anything greater than yourself.
>


The 'known' universe!

And I said this is Heaven, not that we are Gods.
What emerges from the combined interactions of
humanity, such as collective intelligence (wisdom)
would be our God and exist at a higher or emergent
level of existence.

But just as a dog will never fathom intelligence
we can never fully comprehend or know God.
Just as any part can't fully comprehend the
emergent whole.

And it's important to remember the inherent
duality that exists in all self-organized
systems.

From the perspective of the parts, the emergent
whole will always be irreducible and largely
mysterious.

From the perspective of the whole, the parts
will always be largely chaotic and unquantifiable.

Are you a whole, or just a part to a greater system
say society? We are /both at the same time/.
But which way we are treated at any given time
depends on the observer. Not the object in question.

Parts and wholes have two different sets of
behaviors, and require different methods.
For instance classical or quantum methods.

We are the gods to that from which we emerged.
But at the same time we're just a single person
to our god.




s

[Burkhard]

Hem! You are just pileing it on now

[walksalone]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in news:stmdnY1JlY5q6s_InZ2dnUU7-
XGd...@giganews.com:

> On 5/11/2015 1:08 AM, David Canzi wrote:
>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

SNIP

>> If nothing is more wondrous and capable than being alive and
>> aware, and you are alive and aware, it follows that nothing is
>> more wondrous and capable than you. I am disappointed to learn
>> that you don't believe in anything greater than yourself.

> The 'known' universe!

Unless you have walked, or are an astronomer with access to all the
collected data, the Milky Way is stretching it. & Grandmother is very
picky about who she lets on the bridge.

> And I said this is Heaven, not that we are Gods.

If this is heaven, where is the god you adore? Certainly not around my
fridge with the beer.

> What emerges from the combined interactions of
> humanity, such as collective intelligence (wisdom)
> would be our God and exist at a higher or emergent
> level of existence.

Other than that being your assumption, you wouldn't have any, say,
evidence of your fantasy being real? No? Thought not. & yet, even
though this is not heaven, I have been in paradise. & Depending on
circumstances, may well be again.

> But just as a dog will never fathom intelligence
> we can never fully comprehend or know God.

Why not? The ancient priesthood pretended to do just that. It wasn't
until writing showed up that they had to have a god that could play the
bashful bladder lead.

> Just as any part can't fully comprehend the
> emergent whole.

How do you know? Were you there when these ramblings first occurred to
various authors? From priests, to kings justifying their dominance, to
blathering idiots making noise to impress themselves. Were you there, or
are you anticipating that due to you lack of evidence & less than
coherent thought process, everyone should applaud your ignorance? &
accept it on your say so.

> And it's important to remember the inherent
> duality that exists in all self-organized
> systems.

What, alive or dead? Sorry, you don't get to tell others what's
important. Your pretensions aside, life isn't broke & humans are not
subservient to figments of the imagination without their consent. Old
Ordnance Corp. saying.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A fairly common saying I'm sure.

> From the perspective of the parts, the emergent
> whole will always be irreducible and largely
> mysterious.

So, a NaCL molecule can only be awestruck at everything around it.
Unlike your gods, we know NaCl exists.

> From the perspective of the whole, the parts
> will always be largely chaotic and unquantifiable.



> Are you a whole, or just a part to a greater system
> say society? We are /both at the same time/.
> But which way we are treated at any given time
> depends on the observer. Not the object in question.

So, other than arguing for fallicys of logic & conversation, do you have
anything to offer. It might help if you quite trying to anthrmorphize
everyting to fit your misconcepts.

> Parts and wholes have two different sets of
> behaviors, and require different methods.
> For instance classical or quantum methods.

For you. Fortunately for humanity, there is only one known case
displaying your oddity's. There are many who may have similar fantasies,
but none are likely to be identical.

> We are the gods to that from which we emerged.
> But at the same time we're just a single person
> to our god.

Really, even my kids didn't call me god, nor should they. yet, compared
to when they were first presented to me, I was a god & without me, & the
help of their mothers, they would not be here. Nor would my
grandchildren. So, no, we are not gods as you pretend. Just ask your
parents.

As to this god you keep pretending top know about, yet can't provided a
working acceptable definition for, well, as we used to say, AWOL, or
it's been so long, Deserter would be more like it.
& no, you speak only for yourself, no one else.

Walksalone who is of a mind it is time for Jonathan to be escorted to the
Abyss. I wonder how much Maalox this is going to take?


I do not believe in God, because I believe in man. Whatever
his mistakes, man has for thousands of years past
been working to undo the botched job your God has
made.
Emma Goldman

[J. J. Lodder]

It's your cognitive dissonance.
You think anti-Americanism is the rule,
therefore it is what you see,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Earle Jones27 <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 2015-05-11 01:04:24 +0000, David Canzi said:
>
> > jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On 5/10/2015 3:38 PM, David Canzi wrote:
> >>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
> >>>> government without knowing what the word
> >>>> government even means.
> >>>>
> >>>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
> >>>> in general have the same logical flaw.
> >>>>
> >>>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
> >>>>

> >>>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
> >>>> the version taught to children, God is that
> >>>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that definition isn't reflected in
> >>>> mainstream religious philosophy, only
> >>>> on the fringes.
> >>>>

> >>>> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
> >>>>
> >>>> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".
> >>>

> >>> For the sake of clarification, let's take a specific emergent
> >>> property, intelligence, of a specific kind of physical system,
> >>> human brains, made of components of a specific kind, cells.
> >>> When you talk of "downward causation", what is the cause, and
> >>> what is this cause exerting its effects on?
> >>
> >> Individuals may be entirely different, but connected
> >> their behavior can become tuned. As in a single
> >> bird may move chaotically about in any direction
> >> but a collection may all start moving together.
> >
> > And in a flock of birds, what is the cause that is acting "downward",
> > and what is it exerting its "downward" effects on?
> >
> >>> On the matter of definitions, it's a common ploy for people who
> >>> want to prove that God exists to pick something that they can
> >>> prove the existence of (or that they think they can prove the
> >>> existence of) and define the word "God" to mean that. But the
> >>> meaning of a word is not inherent in the word. What a word means
> >>> is determined by convention. It means what the people using the
> >>> word agree to use it to mean. If somebody comes along who wants
> >>> the word to mean something else, the people who are already using
> >>> the word in their communications with each other have no reason
> >>> to drop their old meaning and adopt his.
> >>
> >> But emergent or universal behavior happens when a
> >> disconnected individual becomes connected to
> >> the greater system. And it's co-evolutionary systems
> >> that evolve and create all the wonders of nature.
> >
> > By what process of reasoning does this lead to the conclusion
> > that we should abandon our current meanings for the words we
> > use and adopt your meanings instead?
> >
> >>> You have your own personal definition of the word "God", and
> >>> your own personal definition of the word "evolution", and I
> >>> suspect that you have your own personal definition of the word
> >>> "emergence". No matter how long and how loudly and how often you
> >>> insist that your personal definition of a word we use routinely
> >>> is the One True Meaning of that word, we have no reason to adopt
> >>> your definition.
> >>
> >> Look at the charts I provided, both were suddenly
> >> connected to the wider system or a large increase
> >> in volume (downward causal power), with the
> >> same outward behavior from two different sets
> >> of facts (irreducible).
> >
> > When large numbers of traders are moved to buy a previously quiet
> > stock, is it some kind of mystical synchronicity or is it something
> > less spacy, such as a news story or a pump-and-dump spam? What is
> > the "downward" cause here, and what is it exerting its effects on?
> >
> > You're still evading the issue of why anybody should adopt your
> > personal redefinitions of the words they use.
> >
> >>> It is not a debt or entitlement we owe to you.
> >>> It is not our duty. And as far as I can tell we have nothing to
> >>> gain by doing it.
> >>
> >> On the contrary~
> >
> > You finally stopped evading and addressed the issue using that
> > famous rule of inference, proof by assertion. A, therefore A.
>
> *
> Defining God. One approach is this:
>
> "God" is what we will call whatever it was that caused this universe to exist.
>
> This is not a very satisfactory definition, because it requires no
> worship, no adoration, and no hell-fire and damnation if you don't
> believe it.

And worse, it add nothing, beyond a word,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I propose that we call whatever (if anything) it was caused this
> universe to exist an universogene. As you implicitly note below calling
> it God causes people to smuggle in all sorts of other properties.

With universogene as with god:
what more does it add than a word?

Jan

[Rodjk #613]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:04:06 AM UTC+3, Inez wrote:
> On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 11:34:06 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 5/11/15, 10:39 AM, Inez wrote:
> >
> > > You can't just define things like gravity as god. No one means gravity when they say god.
> > >
> > But gravity is such a mystical thing. It surrounds us and penetrates us.
> > It binds the galaxy together.
>
> Sounds like a clingy boyfriend, except the galaxy part.

"Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together."
--Obi-Wan Kenobi --

Rodjk #613

[RSNorman]

Sounds like dark energy. Oh, wait -- that's what drives us apart.

[raven1]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 18:55:04 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/10/2015 10:52 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2015 09:59:06 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But what bugs me about atheists is their lack
>>> of belief in anything greater then themselves.
>>
>> I believe in plenty of things "greater than myself". But they have to
>> be demonstrated to have a likelihood of existence before I'll grant
>> provisional assent to the notion.
>>
>>> From a purely scientific standpoint that position
>>> can't be defended. We know an idea or a storm can
>>> change the world, yet have few clues how to model
>>> or quantify such a thing from the ground up.
>>
>> So what?

>Those are forces greater than us that also
>have profound influences on our future.

Of course. Weather, the economy, the 2016 elections... what's your
point?

>Or 'god-like' properties that you seem to admit
>can't be scientifically described or predicted.

Whoa there, Nellie! How does "god-like" creep in there?

>Sounds like you believe in God to me.

What an utterly bizarre conclusion to reach.

[raven1]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 16:01:24 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/10/2015 10:44 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2015 08:36:01 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>>> government without knowing what the word
>>> government even means.
>>>
>>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>>
>>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>>>
>>> Most atheists use the dishonest tactic of taking
>>> the version taught to children, God is that
>>> wise old-man out there waving a magic-wand.
>>

>> It isn't my experience that most theists move past that understanding
>> as they become adults, but go on.

>>
>>> But that definition isn't reflected in
>>> mainstream religious philosophy, only
>>> on the fringes.
>>>
>>> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>>>

>>> "irreducible but supervenient downward causal power".
>>
>> What does that even mean? And does it comport with the definition(s)
>> from "mainstream religious philosophy" (which one(s)?), or is it your
>> own personal definition?
>
>That's what the link was for, a detailed definition
>or discussion of what that statement means.
>
>
>EMERGENCE
>FROM wIKI

>
>
>"How does an irreducible but supervenient downward

>causal power arise....?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

That answered precisely none of my questions.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 11:01:08 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

No, Jan, what I see is an incorrect statement, typical of
your posts, that "the majority is (sic) the USA is out on
the fringes".

I don't see anti-Americanism as the rule; I *do* see that
Hemidactylus' question is a valid one, considering your
posting history. Or do you somehow imagine that I think you
embody "the rule"? I don't; I see you (not "the Dutch";
*you*) as being "out on the fringes". And both bitter and
irrational on the subject of the US, for whatever reason you
imagine justifies that bitterness. Your problem, not mine.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 09:49:23 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

Get used to that; at least he didn't quote Emily Dickinson.

[James Beck]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 23:00:06 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

That's no moon ...

[jonathan]

It's glaringly obvious a group of people working
together can and usually do come up with the
better solution than an individual.

You need evidence for the idea of collective intelligence?
Have you ever looked outside your window?

>> But just as a dog will never fathom intelligence
>> we can never fully comprehend or know God.
>
> Why not? The ancient priesthood pretended to do just that. It wasn't
> until writing showed up that they had to have a god that could play the
> bashful bladder lead.
>
>> Just as any part can't fully comprehend the
>> emergent whole.
>
> How do you know?

It's a property of emergence. I've done my
homework, let's see if you can do any.

Emergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence


s

[jonathan]

We know they exist and are powerful, yet can't
quite exactly define or predict, and never will.
Guiding or god-like forces.

>> Sounds like you believe in God to me.
>
> What an utterly bizarre conclusion to reach.
>

Only if you haven't an abstract bone in
your body~


s

[jonathan]

On 5/11/2015 9:32 PM, Jimbo wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 18:35:08 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/2015 7:44 PM, Jimbo wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2015 18:44:27 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2015 11:31 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>>>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>> news:C9ednS5xM76R7dLI...@giganews.com:

>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/10/2015 10:14 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>>>>>> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>> news:FNqdnTalSeAszdLInZ2dnUU7- LWd...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apologies to the group.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No fool would debate, say, the better form of
>>>>>>>> government without knowing what the word
>>>>>>>> government even means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All the debates I see here over religion v science
>>>>>>>> in general have the same logical flaw.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Defining God should be step-one in the debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> <SEAG> It should? Why should anyone but the believers define their
>>>>>>> pretend fiend? After all, they claim/pretend to be in the know.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What if their definition of God is flawed?
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt, according to you they are. Whereas according to them, you are.
>>>>> BYTW, nice try at side stepping. You wanted a definition of god, & that is
>>>>> what you got.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A successful debate would create a definition
>>>>>> acceptable to both sides.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't do debates, 20 years in the Army took care of that. Now
>>>>> discussions, that I do. BTW, you are not addressing the definition of god
>>>>> [s].
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why!
>>>>>
>>>>> Works for you then?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still, gods are claimed by humanity, & share some common traits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities
>>>>>>> of the human species. [Incomplete]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anthropomorphic
>>>>>>> A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or universal laws, as in applying to everything in the universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, quit trying to sidestep your demand for a definition for your god.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I posted a link to a more detailed description
>>>> of my definition of God in the original post.
>>>> I'll repost it.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe the best definition is that God is an...
>>>>

>>>> "irreducible and supervenient downward causal power".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> EMERGENCE
>>> >FROM WIKI

>>>>
>>>> How does an irreducible but supervenient downward

>>>> causal power arise...?
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>>>
>>>
>>> What 'irreducible and supervenient downward causal power' causes the
>>> emergence of hexagonal symettry in snowflakes, the emergence of
>>> hurricanes, the shape and movement of sand-dunes, the polarity of
>>> water, and the emergent order of a termite mound? You seem to be
>>> indiscriminately lumping various causes and effects together under the
>>> same label and implying that we should think of them all as somehow
>>> being a god.
>>>
>>
>>
>> All of those things you cite are emergent properties.
>> If you know how emergence works in general you know
>> how all of the those things work, at least in the
>> abstract. The terms emergent and universal can be
>> freely interchanged, that's the whole point.
>
> I was commenting on the fact that you're applying the phrase
> 'irreducible and supervenient downward causal power' to both causes
> and effects of various kinds.


Are you a cause or an effect?



> Snowflake symettry, frost patterns,
> surface tension on water and water's properties as a solvent are all
> related to the properties of water molecules which are, in turn,
> related to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The 'causal
> power' would seem to be at least as much 'bottom up' as 'top down.'
>


Of course it takes both. But a ground up approach is
like trying to list all the variables involved in
the creation of an idea.

It's the top down or emergent properties such
as bird-flocking or intelligence that provides
the overall direction of the system, and thus
it's future.

If science is about predicting, with naturally evolving
systems a ground up approach is intractably far too
complicated while emergent properties show the
direction the system is attracted to.

And emergent properties can't be predicted from
the components, only from how the components are
interacting.




> Can you point out what the 'supervenient downward causal power is in
> each of the examples from the Wikipedia article you linked? I see a
> mixture of causes and effects. Why should effects such as snowflake
> symettry and termite mounds be regarded as an expression of
> 'supervenient downward causal power?'



Those are properties which are only produced when
many individuals are interacting, to be more
specific, when the components are critically
interacting.

See....

Self Organized Faq

Critically interacting components self-organize to form
potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy
of emergent system properties.

The elements of this definition relate to the following:


Critically Interacting - System is information rich,
neither static nor chaotic

Components - Modularity and autonomy of part behaviour
implied

Self-Organize - Attractor structure is generated by
local contextual interactions

Potentially Evolving - Environmental variation selects
and mutates attractors

Hierarchy - Multiple levels of structure and responses
appear (hyperstructure)

Emergent System Properties - New features are evident
which require a new vocabulary


http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm#1.3




And what's god-like about
> effects emerging out of the structured or patterned interaction of
> subunits?
>
> If you really want to have a discusson about defining God, you need,
> as others have noted, to 'define your definition.' At the moment it
> looks like little more than a vaguely worded assertion.
>
>> September 30 2014, 9.44pm EDT
>> Emergence: the remarkable simplicity of complexity
>>
>> "From the fractal patterns of snowflakes to cellular
>> lifeforms, our universe is full of complex phenomena
>> – but how does this complexity arise?
>>
>> “Emergence” describes the ability of individual components
>> of a large system to work together to give rise to dramatic
>> and diverse behaviour.
>>
>>
>> http://theconversation.com/emergence-the-remarkable-simplicity-of-complexity-30973
>>
> <snip>
>