God 's power and the "heavy stone"

Posted by: socratus

God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 06/25/15 01:08 PM


God 's power and the "heavy stone"
==..
The old paradox:
Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?
My opinion.
a)
Why does God need to create such stone?
Is He a stupid One? No, He isn't stupid.
He took another solution.
Instead such "heavy stone" He decided to create billions and billions
"small" Galaxies with many – many planets with reasonable people
( even if some of them would ask the question above).
b)
God can create the Universe only using physical-math laws.
And as a wise One He limited all physical-math parameters
in the Universe. These limitations show the God's power.
But a foolish doesn't know the God's laws of limitations and
ask the question above.
c)
The concrete physical-math answer to the question about
the "heavy stone" God gave as " the Chandrasekhar limit":
" Chandrasekhar calculated that a cold star of more than about
one and a half times the mass of the sun, would not be able
to support itself against its own gravity. This mass is now
known as the Chandrasekhar limit."
/ page 38/
"However, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983,
it was, at least in part, for his early work on the limiting mass
of cold stars." /page39/
Book:
/ The theory of everything. Third lecture. By Stephen W. Hawking./
=.
Once again: the limits of all physical laws and parameters show
the God's wisdom and Human's stupidity.
==..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==,
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 06/28/15 02:33 PM

ORAC, IN WRITING THIS POST FROM WHICH I QUOTE, ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT GOD IS A PERSON? IF SO, LET'S THINK ABOUT IT, OK!
Quote:
He decided to create billions and billions
"small" Galaxies with many – many planets with reasonable people
( even if some of them would ask the question above).
b)
God can create the Universe only using physical-math laws.
And as a wise One He limited all physical-math parameters
in the Universe. These limitations show the God's power.
But a foolish doesn't know the God's laws of limitations and
ask the question above.
c)
The concrete physical-math answer to the question about
the "heavy stone" God gave as " the Chandrasekhar limit":
" Chandrasekhar calculated that a cold star of more than about
one and a half times the mass of the sun, would not be able
to support itself against its own gravity. This mass is now
known as the Chandrasekhar limit."
/ page 38/
"However, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983,
it was, at least in part, for his early work on the limiting mass
of cold stars." /page39/
Book:
/ The theory of everything. Third lecture. By Stephen W. Hawking./
=.
Once again: the limits of all physical laws and parameters show God's wisdom and Human's stupidity.
==..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==,
The following is simply about thinking things through.

IN MY OPINION, [b]G~0~D
is in, through, around and at-ONE-ment with us. To govern our political, economic and social system, there are three parties from which to choose:

1. THE GOLDEN RULE PARTY--TGRP (with a tendency to be left-winged) advocates treating others as you would like others to treat you. TRGP is a strong advocate of democracy, the Four Freedoms, including life, liberty and the economic right to have regular employment and an annual income.

2. THE BRASS KNUCKLES PARTY--TBNP (with a tendency to be right-winged) advocates having the right to scrutinize all economic transactions of TGRP so as to make sure that there is honesty and transparency; that TGRP delivers to one and all what it claims to deliver and within a balanced budget.

3. THE TAIL-FEATHERS PARTY--TTFP with a tendency to want the wings of the bird to always be in balance) Without healthy tail-feathers no migrating bird is able to take off, fly there and back to get food and water it needs to survive its annual trips. No wonder--in
Matt 23:27-38 and Luke 13:34-35) Jesus lamented over Jerusalem: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you kill the prophets and stoned the messengers God sent you. How many times I wanted to put my arms around all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me. And so your Temple will be abandoned and empty." ...
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 06/28/15 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
ORAC, IN WRITING THIS POST FROM WHICH I QUOTE, ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT GOD IS A PERSON?

Uh.. Orac didn't write this post. It's signed by and posted under the name:
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Must be having another senior moment.. wink
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

IN MY OPINION, G~0~D IS US. WE ARE GOVERNED BY TWO RULES:
1. THE GOLDEN RULE--BY WHICH WE DO FOR AND SERVE OTHERS. OR

2. THE BRASS KNUCKLES RULE: BY WHICH WE DO OTHERS, BEFORE THEY DO US.
The most obvious argument against your theory that God is an US, rather than a person, Is that US is at odds with its selves in that US has no recollection of creating much of anything as a collective, being that US feels it is thrown into the world that has already been created and is desperately trying to fix its problems as it is self absorbed in personal glory and badges of suffering. US measures its selves thru principals that become obsolete as US evolves.

If US is GOD, then who created the world in which US creates war and famine, and as individuals can't read and comprehend a post he addresses or who he addresses it to? Perhaps it is the US that exemplifies narcissistic behavior which rules by the third rule : Do unto others as you would believe the world was created so it conforms to ones ideals, and pays homage to ones own idolatry in self glorification? whistle

I suppose if you get the message that you addressed the wrong person either by reading this (being that you repeatedly speak to the fact that you have me on ignore, yet address my posts anyway) or clearing the octogenarian type fog.. you can post the usual example that God edits his or her (US's) statements about as often as he/she/us makes them, because it's always helpful to show God can't get it straight the first time.

Silly GOD('s)... grin
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 06/28/15 08:55 PM

Like Ms Ellis from Australia, I always ignore mind-numbing posts which make no sense to me. Thank GOD for the I button! I find it cool Regardless, I always give GOD-like and good WILL! smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 06/29/15 12:48 AM

That's hilarious smile

OK then..... Let the ignorance continue! crazy
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 06/29/15 09:36 PM

Quote:
God 's power and the "heavy stone"


Why do people keep exhuming this patent absurdity?

I guess it must be because it always elicits a response in keeping with its absurdity.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 06/30/15 02:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
God 's power and the "heavy stone"


Why do people keep exhuming this patent absurdity?

I guess it must be because it always elicits a response in keeping with its absurdity.


You think a philosophical discussion regarding God is absurd?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 06/30/15 09:18 PM

Quote:
You think a philosophical discussion regarding God is absurd?


Now, there's something I didn't say.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/01/15 02:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
You think a philosophical discussion regarding God is absurd?


Now, there's something I didn't say.

The question regarding God creating a stone so heavy he could not lift it, is philosophical.

It extends ones thoughts into the contemplation of God and possibility to see where the limits of human ideas are.
Posted by: Orac

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/01/15 07:07 AM

No it's both absurd and philosophy ..... and that pretty much sums up philosophy smile

There are however even better forms of the question which are fantastic

Does GOD have a GOD?

or perhaps

What GOD(s) came before GOD?

They are equally entertaining philosophical and religious questions. To treat it seriously one has to take definitive positions and on what basis can one do that. One must be at least equal to the lowest GOD to answer with authority laugh

If you are a philosophical drama queen I guess one then asks....How does one prove a question is invalid?

All good janitors know that one must first be sure one has a basis to ask any question, as most questions are invalid or at best flawed smile

BONUS QUESTION: Does GOD ever lie?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/02/15 02:34 AM

Quote:
BONUS QUESTION: Does GOD ever lie?


No, he sits on a throne!
Posted by: Orac

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/02/15 05:44 AM

Haha very good smile

Now can you cite witnesses to that? If it's just a claim attributed to god or a prophet, I fear we are back to square one smile
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/03/15 09:47 PM

Originally Posted By: TT
The question regarding God creating a stone so heavy he could not lift it, is philosophical.

It extends ones thoughts into the contemplation of God and possibility to see where the limits of human ideas are.


The concept of weight is directly related to gravity. Find an example of this absurd pseudo-philosophy that adequately addresses the role of gravity in the scenario.

Having done that, you might then want to find an example that contains a definition of a "stone" in terms of supernatural powers and their possible limitations.

TT, if posts #54066 & #54072 really reflect what you think I meant, then it must, surely be that you were either just looking for an argument for its own sake, or your usual apparent intelligence has, hopefully temporarily, abandoned you.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/03/15 09:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Now can you cite witnesses to that? If it's just a claim attributed to god or a prophet, I fear we are back to square one


On your own admission, this is philosophy, not science. "What [further] need have we of witnesses?" Matthew 26:65.

Can you cite the location co-ordinates for square one?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/04/15 01:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
The question regarding God creating a stone so heavy he could not lift it, is philosophical.

It extends ones thoughts into the contemplation of God and possibility to see where the limits of human ideas are.


The concept of weight is directly related to gravity. Find an example of this absurd pseudo-philosophy that adequately addresses the role of gravity in the scenario.

Gravity is a relative experience. God however is supposedly beyond all relative boundaries and measure, regardless of whether mortal boundaries are inclusive of God.

What part of God by any definition is assumed to be bound by any relative measure, other than one derived by mortal man defining God as limited by imagined constructs?


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Having done that, you might then want to find an example that contains a definition of a "stone" in terms of supernatural powers and their possible limitations.

See answer to first quote...

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

TT, if posts #54066 & #54072 really reflect what you think I meant, then it must, surely be that you were either just looking for an argument for its own sake, or your usual apparent intelligence has, hopefully temporarily, abandoned you.

I was looking to have you expand upon the ideas you presented within the context of philosophy, rather than literal idealism's devoid of philosophical content,so the philosophical question could be explored beyond the usual waking state paradigms.

Still waiting.. frown
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/04/15 10:00 PM

Originally Posted By: TT
Gravity is a relative experience. God however is supposedly beyond all relative boundaries and measure, regardless of whether mortal boundaries are inclusive of God.

What part of God by any definition is assumed to be bound by any relative measure, other than one derived by mortal man defining God as limited by imagined constructs?


You make such a persuasive argument for the utter absurdity of the heavy stone "paradox" that little, if anything, more needs to be said.

Quote:
Still waiting.. frown


Perhaps try up-grading your starting point, or you could have a long wait.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/05/15 02:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.


Perhaps try up-grading your starting point, or you could have a long wait.

I'm not invested in any outcomes. The point has already been made.

Some just can't climb out of the relative box.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/05/15 05:45 PM

Originally Posted By: TT
I'm not invested in any outcomes.


Quote:
Still waiting..


Waiting for something in which you have no investment?

I hope you're not disappointed. smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/06/15 01:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.


Waiting for something in which you have no investment?

I hope you're not disappointed. smile



The best example is of one who stands ready, capable and always willing.

What else is there in life, but to stand in Selfless service, ready to move forward with the challenges that are, life itself.

When there is no investment in outcomes, true joy is experienced in every moment. No worries about the future or regrets for the past. Only the ever extending presence of the eternal potential moment. Everything connected, all moving as One consciousness.

The opposite of course is when you tend to glamorize your self, take credit for everything and make up acronyms for your personal idols, then stand in front of the mirror while smiling and winking at your self. wink
That kind of stone, weighs you down and forever keeps you from being lifted beyond mortal thoughts, or the identification with mortality, age and death.
Posted by: Bill

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/06/15 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

The opposite of course is when you tend to glamorize your self, take credit for everything and make up acronyms for your personal idols, then stand in front of the mirror while smiling and winking at your self.

Yes Tutor, don't take yourself too seriously. Relax and realize that what you believe doesn't mean a hill of beans when it comes to the real world. What you can actually count on is what really matters. Pseudo-philosophical mumbling doesn't do much good if you don't wink at it occasionally. It can be fun, but one shouldn't get too carried away with it.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/06/15 02:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill
What you can actually count on is what really matters.
Bill Gill

Death and taxes? Anything else is really up for the potential of any belief system and its possible outcomes.

The way the Muslims are populating the planet, they will become the majority in a few years.

The real world is only sold as a story and subscribed to. Then it (the subscription) changes, and changes again according to belief in the authority (authors) who dictate reality.

Do you consider yourself an authoritative person who sets the rules, or one who simply follows the rules within the real world as it is prescribed by the authority and assumed by the majority? smile
Posted by: Orac

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/06/15 02:45 PM

With my background I love comments like this TT and so lets see how far you go into the pandora's box.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
The real world is only sold as a story and subscribed to. Then it (the subscription) changes, and changes again according to belief in the authority (authors) who dictate reality.

1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?
2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?
3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?
4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

In my interest area of science I get asked those 4 questions in very different ways. The askers don't realize what they are asking but they boil down to the same things smile

Don't be hard on Bill G he kicks and screams but he gets there in the end if you can get him to really think. Take solace in the fact you were not the one trying to explain that there are infinite numbers 1 unit away from any coordinate on a 2D axis system that uses real numbers, and hence infinite ways to count +1 on that system, when he had it set in his head it's not so ... what a mission.

I was going to give him the second version we usually give to kids as a bit of fun and make a point about infinities but didn't have the strength at the end .... for humour as you will get it instantly (and probably the why) it goes like this

Quote:
There are an infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 1. There are also infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 2. Since two is greater than one, then the infinity between 0 and 2 must be greater than the infinity between 0 and 1 is that correct?

It's actually the mathematical equivalent of the question above and something you hope with intelligence they can figure out smile
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/06/15 09:28 PM

Quote:
There are an infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 1. There are also infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 2. Since two is greater than one, then the infinity between 0 and 2 must be greater than the infinity between 0 and 1 is that correct?


Obviously it is correct because 2 is greater than one.

On the other hand they both have the cardinality "Aleph null", so they are the same size.

The answer must be a clear "yes and no"
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/07/15 01:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac

1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?

I think that would depend on who you ask. What's it mean to you? Do you make a determination via your own thoughts, or do you take the position of someone you give authority to?

Originally Posted By: Orac

2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?
Is there a difference between God and process? Did you have a definition of God that you wanted specifically driven into the boundaries of the question?

Originally Posted By: Orac

3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?

Yes wink Oh.. did we define God yet?

Originally Posted By: Orac

4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

Again it would depend on who you ask. For one thing, everyone sees the world and defines reality thru their own unique nervous system regardless of any similarities and democratic determinations. So the question could be generally asked of any group of people in any social atmosphere or specifically to any one individual within their experience of life and their belief system, whether it be philosophically derived, or thru experience and study.


Originally Posted By: Orac

In my interest area of science I get asked those 4 questions in very different ways. The askers don't realize what they are asking but they boil down to the same things smile

Don't be hard on Bill G he kicks and screams but he gets there in the end if you can get him to really think. Take solace in the fact you were not the one trying to explain that there are infinite numbers 1 unit away from any coordinate on a 2D axis system that uses real numbers, and hence infinite ways to count +1 on that system, when he had it set in his head it's not so ... what a mission.

I was going to give him the second version we usually give to kids as a bit of fun and make a point about infinities but didn't have the strength at the end .... for humour as you will get it instantly (and probably the why) it goes like this

Quote:
There are an infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 1. There are also infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 2. Since two is greater than one, then the infinity between 0 and 2 must be greater than the infinity between 0 and 1 is that correct? It's actually the mathematical equivalent of the question above and something you hope with intelligence they can figure out smile
I'm not a mathematician but, the idea of infinity should be considered prior to the question. I would see it as a an abstract potential, without boundaries..
Unless you decide it isn't, once you've put your own ideas in place another would actually have to meet you where you are at, to answer the question to your satisfaction.

If I were to determine infinity to be infinity regardless of any circumstances then there is no difference between the idea of 0 and 1 or 0 and 2. An infinite number is an infinite number without any limits to their possibilities. The only difference is in the question when suggesting the theoretical reference points of 0,1&2 as a known.
I would also suggest that if there is an infinite number of whatever between these reference points that neither is greater than another, but simply different. Only when thinking in an ascending thought pattern thru numbers would 2 be further up the ladder but when descending and having 0 as the end result or goal does 0 become the future and the number two become the past.
I realize this wouldn't probably float a mathematicians boat. When adding numbers and determining value by amount it probably won't work. whistle Ah well....
Posted by: Orac

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/07/15 05:13 AM

You do like to avoid answering anything don't you TT is there some fear you have?

Not an issue to me as always I will answer any questions, so I guess I will answer my own.

Originally Posted By: Orac
1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?

To me I take a very different definition to what many in biological sciences would take that is the ability to excercise choice or free will so I exclude many simple thing that biology would consider alive. Someone like Bill G would see this as heresy because that isn't what standard science says. My response is we know classical physics is wrong so why do we cling to these classical science notions of what life is, no science is damaged by simply refining.

When we look at say NASA and how it tries to define life
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

We get a messy definition where you are trying to split hairs over crystals, virus, proteins, RNA etc.

To me none of that is important the question to me is can the item to be classified make a choice which it self controls.

Originally Posted By: Orac
2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?

Defined as I do above the process of choice defines alive and the question of GOD existing or not is mute.

Originally Posted By: Orac
3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?

Making choices defines reality which is in exact alignment with what QM as a science says and belief in GOD is one of those choices.

Originally Posted By: Orac
4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

Probably the most difficult question but I pretty much reject all the standard religion answers like good vs evil as trash. I can't see the logic of how torturing people thru some sort of trial somehow selects the good ones and it doesn't fit with a god who knows all and is merciful. I think the Romans tried all that stuff in there colosseum and we view them as barbaric.

So if I exclude GOD as a choice I must look to the more mundane science answers. The most likely driver will be the usual suspect "Energy" and it's partner in crime will be QM. The difficult part taking this approach is ultimately deciding if we simply have an initiated start point and then choice and chance takes over or does the drive persist. To me it is entirely possible and likely it is a mixture of the two. Again it's not a very standard biological science version but nor is it in direct conflict with the standard ideas.

Originally Posted By: TT
I'm not a mathematician but, the idea of infinity should be considered prior to the question. I would see it as a an abstract potential, without boundaries..
Unless you decide it isn't, once you've put your own ideas in place another would actually have to meet you where you are at, to answer the question to your satisfaction.

That is actually the point of asking the question because it forces the issue on what definition.

Originally Posted By: TT
I realize this wouldn't probably float a mathematicians boat. When adding numbers and determining value by amount it probably won't work. whistle Ah well....

To me it's all perfectly reasonable and it wouldn't be a problem with true mathematician because you got actually very very close to a complete answer ... Bill G would probably have kittens along with some school grade maths teachers. I think it is funny you thought it might be judged wrong. It all works correctly in all situations by the way.

You actually got the point the numbers 1 & 2 are different yes and you realized that "greater than" requires a number of subjective decisions not least on direction.

In maths/physics terms like "greater than" is called a "relational operator".

You sort of half got that the other part of the problem with relational operators don't necessarily work with all numbers which includes infinity because they are subjective constructions.

Most average people get the question as a focus on the problem with defining infinity. The really switched on ones and what you did was realize it actually brings into focus what does bigger/smaller/greater/lesser actually mean and that the problem may not actually be the infinity.

Most finally get the problem if I turn the problem to a race or a list and they find they have to put 1 as bigger/better/greater than 2 smile

You certainly did a lot better than most do with the question and that sets you as a constructive thinker and short of giving the "standard term names" you thought your way thru it really well by not assuming anything.

Given your thought processes I will give you a bonus question which you may be able to work thru.

Bonus Question: Identify reasons a relational operator might not work with specific number choices.
Start point hint: Mathematical operators +,-,*,/ result in different sorts of answers than relational operators. Extend the thought to input and outputs.

Where were you when I was trying to do complex number counting with Bill G you would have got it in seconds smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/07/15 05:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
You do like to avoid answering anything don't you TT is there some fear you have?

I always answer every question. Some just don't like waiting for it or get frustrated with the answer I give to derive more information regarding the question. wink

Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?

To me I take a very different definition to what many in biological sciences would take that is the ability to excercise choice or free will so I exclude many simple thing that biology would consider alive. Someone like Bill G would see this as heresy because that isn't what standard science says. My response is we know classical physics is wrong so why do we cling to these classical science notions of what life is, no science is damaged by simply refining.

When we look at say NASA and how it tries to define life
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

We get a messy definition where you are trying to split hairs over crystals, virus, proteins, RNA etc.

To me none of that is important the question to me is can the item to be classified make a choice which it self controls.

I think control is something the ego loves to attach itself to. One can make choices within the context of awareness and comprehensive understanding of ones relationship with the reality in which one exists. Within the constructs of relative boundaries there are possible outcomes and probable outcomes.
Life to me is the activity generated by consciousness. From the dream world to the relative, all activity is projection of mind (not speaking of the physical brain).
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?

Defined as I do above the process of choice defines alive and the question of GOD existing or not is mute.
Don't you mean moot? God as a subjective reality is simply included within the process of choice. To give the activity of choice and how it exists or how it is created is inclusive of a force that has such a name as "God" attached. Philosophically it is much more than an idea held within the relative boundaries of the ego as it creates a definition within the boundaries of personal belief, the choices derived from belief and the boundaries projected upon such a name as they are assimilated thru the limited ideas of personal identity.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?

Making choices defines reality which is in exact alignment with what QM as a science says and belief in GOD is one of those choices.

Yet it seems the idea of God and personal choice as science explains it, are separate and mutually exclusive. Mostly the argument is rallied around the superstition that is religion, which has no hard evidence but is simply evident as "belief", which science doesn't take very seriously.
Ironically spiritual science doesn't give belief much weight either, since it isn't stable (being that it is easily influenced by fear and other emotions) and constantly evolves or changes.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

Probably the most difficult question but I pretty much reject all the standard religion answers like good vs evil as trash. I can't see the logic of how torturing people thru some sort of trial somehow selects the good ones and it doesn't fit with a god who knows all and is merciful. I think the Romans tried all that stuff in there colosseum and we view them as barbaric.

So if I exclude GOD as a choice I must look to the more mundane science answers. The most likely driver will be the usual suspect "Energy" and it's partner in crime will be QM. The difficult part taking this approach is ultimately deciding if we simply have an initiated start point and then choice and chance takes over or does the drive persist. To me it is entirely possible and likely it is a mixture of the two. Again it's not a very standard biological science version but nor is it in direct conflict with the standard ideas.

Purpose is relative. The simple mechanics of energy is that if it is a source or has a source, whatever manufactures it or whatever it is, it has an effect upon whatever it touches. So one may ask why does an apple fall to the ground when detached from the tree, then someone like Newton can come up with an idea regarding gravity.
Within the relative there are natural laws. Outside relative laws there are other laws of nature to govern the mechanics of other types of realities.
Why is simply a question. Answers are derived from the approach, and what kind of baggage the mind making the inquiry carries to create or derive reason.

In the approach spiritual sciences takes, one simply empties the baggage to allow communion at a different level than the physical approach using only the eyes which sometimes are inefficient, or the sense of smell, which is often linked to subconscious memory and stress, or any of the other senses which can be unreliable due to conditioning.
Then the process is one of expansion upon first impression, to spend enough time with whatever subjective point of interest is focused upon to gather information to stabilize the probable understanding. Being that the philosophical approach can extend itself thru lifetimes, there is no one idea that is pasted upon any object of study, being that (like the infinite possible fractions of understanding between 0 and 1) any approach in any moment can carry a different outcome. There is no such thing as a single moment in time or one single approach to anything that is the same approach. There is a saying: "you can never step into a river at the same place at any time", being that the river is constantly moving and changing.

Originally Posted By: Orac

Given your thought processes I will give you a bonus question which you may be able to work thru.

Bonus Question: Identify reasons a relational operator might not work with specific number choices.
Start point hint: Mathematical operators +,-,*,/ result in different sorts of answers than relational operators. Extend the thought to input and outputs.

I think I might have already explained that in the description of the river.
If one expects that their start and stop points are exactly the same, there is no room to see any variance or to expand upon a single idea. You would be locked within the confines of belief, which is actually the idea around the analogy of the "Heavy Stone". Consciousness is infinite in potential, yet the ego would define itself within the parameters of its personal reality and the senses as they have been conditioned or trained to operate.
Science as you defined it being a blunt instrument is fixed within the boundaries of what can be studied and measured by instruments derived from a particular understanding of reality and the relationship of mind to the beliefs of that reality. Like putting blinders on a horse it can only see where it is pointed or designed to be pointed. It (science) will ignore what it cannot see, or that which does not fit within the field of vision.

When discussing relationship (as in the relational operator) any individual having a personal relationship that can't be squeezed into the boundaries of specific choices and probable outcomes (especially those not experienced or understood) will not be able to function as expected. Such a person would be a wild card when producing expected outcomes.

That would be one way I would answer the question by my way of understanding of it. Give me a day or so and I might give you a completely different answer. blush
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/07/15 06:46 PM

SAGG's Law.

The scientific value of a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.

Just a thought. smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/08/15 01:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
SAGG's Law.

The scientific value of a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.

Just a thought. smile

I usually find that the "keep it short" law only exists where there is a need for instant gratification, a short attention span, or as an excuse to justify a dislike for someone and or their points of view.
The reverend uses that same law when judging me, then proceeds to write a book about himself and whatever interests him.
Some things just aren't very valuable to some, when they are short and incomplete. Like a penis when it comes to most women. cry And somethings are just too big to swallow for others.. shocked I guess it just depends on the person giving, and the one receiving.

Like Lincoln said: "You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but ya can't please all of the people all of the time." grin

Isn't this in the not quite science section of the forum?
I would guess then (since it has in your mind little scientific value) that it means whatever value it has, is proportionately valuable to ones interest in anything not defined within the scientific subheadings. wink

So what did you want to get out of this not quite science thread that you seem to frequent? Something scientific or something less valuable?

If'n you were looking for scientific value then you'd be "Lookin fer love in all the wrong places..." (American country western song don'tcha know) laugh

Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/08/15 02:06 AM

Quote:
I usually find that the keep it short law only exists where there is a need for instant gratification, a short attention span, or as an excuse to justify a dislike for someone and or their points of view.


This suggests a paucity of experience that belies your flamboyant verbosity. My own feeling is that there is scope for both the brief and the expanded. Any belief that I belittled either is in the mind of the interpreter.

Quote:
So what did you want to get out of this not quite science thread that you seem to frequent? Something scientific or something less valuable?


Interesting that you seem to have interpreted what I said as indicating that I value other things less than science. Look again, you will find I didn’t say that.

Quote:
Some things just aren't very valuable to some, when they are short and incomplete.


Suggesting that I might have been advocating anything incomplete is entirely your invention. I wonder why you needed to do that.

Quote:
I would guess then (since it has in your mind little scientific value) that it means whatever value it has, is proportionately valuable to ones interest in anything not defined within the scientific subheadings.


Perhaps guesswork is not your forte. smile I would certainly not have imagined that the significance of “Just a thought” would be outside the range of your understanding. I shall charitably infer that your various misinterpretations were deliberate.

I trust this post is long enough to evade your disapprobation. smile
Posted by: Orac

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/08/15 05:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Life to me is the activity generated by consciousness.

We are actually very close on definition because I would say without consciousness one can not make choice.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Mostly the argument is rallied around the superstition that is religion, which has no hard evidence but is simply evident as "belief", which science doesn't take very seriously.

Unfortunately it can't take it seriously because it would require a personal judgement rather than an analytical judgement.
No-one claims the process is perfect but it is objective in it's operation which is the intent.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Purpose is relative.

...snip

Why is simply a question. Answers are derived from the approach, and what kind of baggage the mind making the inquiry carries to create or derive reason.

Correct and sciences purpose is to make knowledge useful it isn't to provide the answer to the meaning of life etc.
Some in science and many outside it forget that at times or go for over reach.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Science as you defined it being a blunt instrument is fixed within the boundaries of what can be studied and measured by instruments derived from a particular understanding of reality and the relationship of mind to the beliefs of that reality. Like putting blinders on a horse it can only see where it is pointed or designed to be pointed. It (science) will ignore what it cannot see, or that which does not fit within the field of vision.

And I like it like that because it fits the purpose I use it for smile

If you want the "meaning of life" type stuff you need a different discipline .... so ... make one.

That is the bit I am hard on Rev K and you over, why harp on about converting science it is working just fine as is.
If you want to see what science looks like if you start allowing "interpretation" take a look at state of climate science.

What I see is science has gained a certain place and recognition in society.
So when people come along and want to convert it then really it comes down to 3 reasons

a) They want that recognition
b) They can't get enough interest in there ideas as a stand alone discipline
c) Findings conflict with beliefs and it is causing problems in the wider general audience.

So I guess my question to you if you reject your reasons are in the 3 above, why do you want science to change?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/08/15 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac


So I guess my question to you if you reject your reasons are in the 3 above, why do you want science to change?

Who said I wanted it to change? Aren't we just having a discussion based on the questions set forward in the discussion?

Any change (if necessary) will come with greater awareness of how vision is narrowed because of prejudice and ignorance. That is true whether it be science or any other system.

I can only play my part in the activities of life, I have no interest in being the spokesperson for mankind or God. Tho if someone wants to give me the job or accuse me of that, it's not my fault! wink Free will and all... people get to believe what they wanna believe.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/08/15 02:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.


This suggests a paucity of experience that belies your flamboyant verbosity.
Or its just a hunch that you had some judgment about me and my responses (ref. the flamboyant verbosity thing).

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
My own feeling is that there is scope for both the brief and the expanded.
Then, obviously the note:
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
SAGG's Law.

The scientific value of a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.

Just a thought. smile
was just a jab that had risen from the irritation you felt (due to the paucity of my flamboyance and verbose nature) and you weren't serious about the scientific value thing.
OK then "whew".. I'm relieved! whistle


Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Any belief that I belittled either is in the mind of the interpreter.

True. I did say that my familiarity with such a rule for brevity included judgment, a short attention span, and the need for instant gratification.
So in your defense, I accept that you weren't trying to belittle me, regardless of whether you were irritated by my flamboyance and verbose nature. smile


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
So what did you want to get out of this not quite science thread that you seem to frequent? Something scientific or something less valuable?


Interesting that you seem to have interpreted what I said as indicating that I value other things less than science. Look again, you will find I didn’t say that.

Not in so many words no. You just intimated that scientific value is in brevity and that it was a law of this forum. I just took liberties with your judgment regarding flamboyance and verbosity, even tho it was a meaningless statement, as you have eluded to that fact and are now putting any interpretation entirely in my lap. wink


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Some things just aren't very valuable to some, when they are short and incomplete.


Suggesting that I might have been advocating anything incomplete is entirely your invention. I wonder why you needed to do that.

I didn't that would be entirely your idea. smile


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
I would guess then (since it has in your mind little scientific value) that it means whatever value it has, is proportionately valuable to ones interest in anything not defined within the scientific subheadings.


Perhaps guesswork is not your forte. smile I would certainly not have imagined that the significance of “Just a thought” would be outside the range of your understanding. I shall charitably infer that your various misinterpretations were deliberate.

So we both have this problem of being misinterpreted... interesting don'tcha think? shocked


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

I trust this post is long enough to evade your disapprobation. smile

I think your trust levels are a bit shielded. cool
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/08/15 08:53 PM

Originally Posted By: TT
Or its just a hunch that you had some judgment about me and my responses


You apparently assume my post was directed personally towards you. A touch of conceit there, perhaps.

Quote:
just a jab that had risen from the irritation you felt


Interesting, and perhaps enlightening, that you select “irritation”, rather than, say, humour, in your quest for the provenance of my comment. This in spite of my addition of an emoticon for the guidance of any who might lack sufficient perspicacity.

Quote:
Not in so many words no.


So, just in the imagination of the interpreter.

Quote:
I just took liberties with your judgment….


Thank you for the admission.

Quote:
…. and are now putting any interpretation entirely in my lap


I do my best to allocate appropriately.

Quote:
I didn't that would be entirely your idea.


I’m not being drawn into that sort of “schoolyard” exchange. In fact. I’m a little surprised that you find the need to go there.

Quote:
So we both have this problem of being misinterpreted...


It causes me no particular problem, misinterpretations often confer insights.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/09/15 01:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
Or its just a hunch that you had some judgment about me and my responses


You apparently assume my post was directed personally towards you. A touch of conceit there, perhaps.

Well, since you made a personal reference towards me using the words "flamboyant verbosity", I figured I was at least included in your judgment of scientific worthiness. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Interesting, and perhaps enlightening, that you select “irritation”, rather than, say, humour, in your quest for the provenance of my comment. This in spite of my addition of an emoticon for the guidance of any who might lack sufficient perspicacity.

You have heard of sarcasm, plus after witnessing your frustration with Orac, and after the warning you gave regarding any battles with words, I'd say it's a safe determination. And as you said, its all in the interpretation. Care to persuade me in a more convincing manner that I'm wrong?

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Not in so many words no.


So, just in the imagination of the interpreter.

I guess your just transparent, or you lack an ability to convey your message clearly, without leaving your comments open to loose interpretation. smile

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
I just took liberties with your judgment….


Thank you for the admission.

No problem, thanks for not denying the judgment.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
…. and are now putting any interpretation entirely in my lap


I do my best to allocate appropriately.

As in the reference to flamboyant verbosity as it was directed towards me and the reference to scientific worth as well? shocked

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
I didn't that would be entirely your idea.


I’m not being drawn into that sort of “schoolyard” exchange. In fact. I’m a little surprised that you find the need to go there.

Whattya mean. You started it! shocked


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
So we both have this problem of being misinterpreted...

misinterpretations often confer insights.
So does a fib. grin
Posted by: socratus

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/09/15 06:04 AM

God is not a metaphorical construction of human minds.
To create the Universe God was needed Physical laws and formulas.
In my opinion God created the Universe by this plan:
The God's Code of Nature.
=.
§1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D= pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1.
§ 3. Photon: h=E/t, h=kb, h=1, c=1.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : He II -- > He I -- > H-- > . . .
§ 6. Proton: (p).
§ 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon / Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
§ 8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
§ 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
§ 10. Test and Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.
God is a Great code–maker.
But, as every code, God's code also can be cracked with the right key.
In my opinion the right key has two formulas.
The one is - T = - 273, 15. . . .
The second is – c/d= 3,14 . . . .
Using this key somebody, after strict analysis, can discover
who God is,
where God is,
how the God create the Existence.
=========….
The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden in
"The theory of Vacuum and Quantum of Light".
=========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
====…
Posted by: socratus

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/09/15 06:08 AM

God must begin his creation in some reference frame and must use
some quantum particles which have some geometrical form.
a) For the basis of RF I took the zero vacuum T=0K.
b) According to the laws of thermodynamics the particles in T=0K
must have geometrical form of circle: c/d = 3,14 . . . . (pi)
c) According to QT the circle-particles have two (2) kind of own,
inner impulses: h and h*=h/2pi.
These impulses changed the pure zero vacuum continuum.
=..
Today scientists ignore T=0K as a RF of the Universe as a whole.
Today scientists don't know the geometrical form of quantum particles.
Tomorrow the situation will be another.
===…
Posted by: Orac

Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" - 07/09/15 06:19 AM

Originally Posted By: socratus
God must begin his creation in some reference frame and must use
some quantum particles which have some geometrical form.

So did GOD have another GOD that made it then socratus as GOD needs a reference frame, some particles and a form?

Originally Posted By: socratus
Tomorrow the situation will be another.

By design .... as will religion smile

Probably need to find something more profound than that to say laugh