Finding God

[Mr. Perfect]

Some people just like to talk about this stuff because they enjoy it.

[Simple Minded]

Pedantic correction

May God defend me from altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.

~ Typhoon, after Maréchal Villars

I think that petitioning would make you a part time atheist.....

how about this atheist's prayer:

Dear God,

I don't believe in you..... yet, but if you could sit your kids down and make them re-read the part of your book that says "Judge not, lest ye be judged!" a few hundred times, it would be a good start to my conversion. Thanks in advance.

your...... friend,

Typhoon

[Typhoon]

Literary license on my part.

[Parodite]

God is necessary like a muffler on your lawn mower. It's so that you can stand to be near the thing which is life.......

Me likes the thought. At the same time it makes me wonder.

There is:

1) physical suffering like serious discomfort and pain as with any injury or disease,
2) emotional pain as with the break up of a relationship or death of a loved one,
3) mental pain by the knowledge that you will one day die, the fear of any or all painful things that might happen to you.

I think for most non-human sentient animals reality consists of only instances of 1) and sometimes 2). But for the largest part life is rather painless (although not without struggle) and suffering short lived.

This is also true for us as humans. In fact, most of us don't really suffer much most of the time! Yet even during good times, with usual struggle and sometimes mild discomfort, we can suffer a lot of mental pain. The fear of things that might happen, even the fear of fear itself can turn a sunny day into a dark one. It appears that God is especially an anti-dote, a muffler to ease our fears for what might. A re-assuring voice saying that things will be all right.

Down side seems to me that such a voice also keeps you reminding of the very things you fear most. Especially when the sun is shining.

[Nonc Hilaire]

God is necessary like a muffler on your lawn mower. It's so that you can stand to be near the thing which is life.......

Me likes the thought. At the same time it makes me wonder.

There is:

1) physical suffering like serious discomfort and pain as with any injury or disease,
2) emotional pain as with the break up of a relationship or death of a loved one,
3) mental pain by the knowledge that you will one day die, the fear of any or all painful things that might happen to you.

I think for most non-human sentient animals reality consists of only instances of 1) and sometimes 2). But for the largest part life is rather painless (although not without struggle) and suffering short lived.

This is also true for us as humans. In fact, most of us don't really suffer much most of the time! Yet even during good times, with usual struggle and sometimes mild discomfort, we can suffer a lot of mental pain. The fear of things that might happen, even the fear of fear itself can turn a sunny day into a dark one. It appears that God is especially an anti-dote, a muffler to ease our fears for what might. A re-assuring voice saying that things will be all right.

Down side seems to me that such a voice also keeps you reminding of the very things you fear most. Especially when the sun is shining.

Good in general, but pain is physiological and suffering is psychologcal/spiritual. Not to quibble, but but the reversal will cause theological problems. Cure is relief of physiological pain or disease; heal is cure of psyvhological/spiritual suffering.

[Parodite]

I'm fine with that, but to continue quibbling I would prefer categorize this way:

We can suffer pain in three ways:

1. physically
2. emotionally
3. mentally

Of course we can suffer all three types of pain at once too, or as a flavored mix. And with the caveat that there is nothing you experience that does not have physical correlates. So the distinctions are just a tool to locate and identify what it is you are suffering from and what the cure could be. Psychology deals with the emotional and the mental, with a strong social component.

Not sure if we need a 4th category:

4. Existentially

This could represent "the agony of the soul". This would need clarification and examples, but I have to mow the grass now.

[Mr. Perfect]

The Lawn Mowing song.

CubzEiY42zk

[Simple Minded]

Literary license on my part.

A pedantic poet?

I thought you might be making a minute version of Pascal's wager.

Potential gain with no chance of loss.

[Mr. Perfect]

Some people just like to talk about this stuff because they enjoy it.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Mr. Perfect]

This is quite good. I have grown to like this guy.

yto4jXOOen8

This is a great dovetail. Fine tuning is just another problem the secular creation myth can't overcome.

DXROAFSRpJA

[kmich]

I'm fine with that, but to continue quibbling I would prefer categorize this way:

We can suffer pain in three ways:

1. physically
2. emotionally
3. mentally

Of course we can suffer all three types of pain at once too, or as a flavored mix. And with the caveat that there is nothing you experience that does not have physical correlates. So the distinctions are just a tool to locate and identify what it is you are suffering from and what the cure could be. Psychology deals with the emotional and the mental, with a strong social component.

Not sure if we need a 4th category:

4. Existentially

This could represent "the agony of the soul". This would need clarification and examples, but I have to mow the grass now.

When one is in the experience of intense suffering, and I am speaking from some recent first-hand experience, the above categories cannot be differentiated when serious distress is present.

While we can credibly consider a variety of categories for suffering in general or after the fact as listed above, suffering in the moment is a contracted, undifferentiated hard ball that consumes and defines the entire being during that time. There was nothing there, including “God,” or more likely what I had by habit, learning, and inclination believed that to be .

This did not mean that I lost faith in that moment. Faith is not there to magically resolve the cruelty and meaninglessness of life, but to hold it steady in trust. This is not some action, attitude, formulaic belief, or disposition for me to trust in something, but a state of being I had been offered and assented to in that moment. This all probably sounds rather esoteric and obscure to many, but that is due to the inadequacy of my words, and not to the presence and reality of the experience.

If you believe you have “found God,” you will have likely only found your own image or construction. God finds you in His own way only to disappear and to reappear in your life in His own good time and likely not in the form you were familiar with.

[Simple Minded]

When one is in the experience of intense suffering, and I am speaking from some recent first-hand experience, the above categories cannot be differentiated when serious distress is present.

While we can credibly consider a variety of categories for suffering in general or after the fact as listed above, suffering in the moment is a contracted, undifferentiated hard ball that consumes and defines the entire being during that time. There was nothing there, including “God,” or more likely what I had by habit, learning, and inclination believed that to be .

This did not mean that I lost faith in that moment. Faith is not there to magically resolve the cruelty and meaninglessness of life, but to hold it steady in trust. This is not some action, attitude, formulaic belief, or disposition for me to trust in something, but a state of being I had been offered and assented to in that moment. This all probably sounds rather esoteric and obscure to many, but that is due to the inadequacy of my words, and not to the presence and reality of the experience.

If you believe you have “found God,” you will have likely only found your own image or construction. God finds you in His own way only to disappear and to reappear in your life in His own good time and likely not in the form you were familiar with.

Very well said kmich, as usual. Glad to hear you are doing better.

As you note, words fail to describe an experience. Intellectual, philosophical, verbal discussions are fun, but not very helpful. Kinda of like trying to describe a color to someone.

Interestingly enough, some of the most atheist-istic (TM) people I have ever met, have had similar experiences. People are never the same. The experience (mental state?) does not seem to be a skill one acquires thru study. Though I do think the mind (?) can be similar to a garden that gets prepared for planting. Nor personal virtue. More like an unearned gift.

When I hear of people's experiences, I sometime recall the scene from the movie Contact.

Matthew McConaughey: "Did you love your father?"
Jodie Foster: "Yes. Very much."
Matthew McConaughey: "Prove it."

[Parodite]

We cannot experience each other's experiences, only communicate them. It is in fact what we are always doing. Also when we go to the grocery store. Not sure this is a useless activity SM, but I'm willing to consider. I enjoy and share the pleasure you communicate talking about all the "us" "them" versions in the Disney Land of identity politics and the psychology of "self". But there is more! For instance when individuals trade in their own unique self for a mob membership, with real consequences for society that often aren't a benefit to anyone. Especially when that "mob" has no roots in real life (unlike labor unions for instance that represent real interests) and feeds on the blood of others to survive or legitimize their own existence. Mobs feeding on the imaginary are the most violent of all. Which is of course when the fun ends.

On finding God. Kmich, I take your word for it. Maybe He finds us, rather than us finding Him. It just isn't my experience that God comes and goes. I find it kinda sad that for many people God only reveals himself during unbearable distress. And sometimes not even then. Why do I experience the divine/God to exist every second of the day, in the lowest lows and highest highs? To me the idea that God moves in and out of lives, with people on the hunt for him or passively waiting until he reveals himself in known or unknown format.. is just one big misunderstanding. Especially the concept of a "savior" did more bad than good, creating false hopes and delusional expectations.

[Parodite]

DXROAFSRpJA

I can't escape the impression that this guy truly has no idea what he is talking about. Before jumping to his gigantic conclusions the least he could do have done is refer to the Bohr-Einstein 30 year long discussions about the meaning of quantum mechanics where Einstein famously claimed that "God doesn't play dice", followed by Bohr's glorious rebuttal "Don't tell God what to do." This discussion, in my view, has not been settled at all.

There is a minor problem already however, which doesn't go to the level of an Bohr-Einstein debate.

He talks about the chance that something happens. Say you want to predict the configuration of all molecules, particles in your room 5 minutes from now. There exists a domain of possible outcomes when you are able (which you are not, but put that aside for the moment) to take an accurate snap shot of the initial conditions of all these molecules and particles exactly 5 minutes prior to the moment that you want to predict. You will find that the amount of possible outcomes, possible configurations 5 minutes later is truly staggering. Remember how staggering the amount of possible chess games is; it is peanuts compared to the amount of possible configurations of all molecules and particles that comprise your room 5 minutes from now. I'm not sure anyone tried calculating such a thing for instance using q-bits as the unit of information, but it will mega-normous.

Let's say the amount of possible configurations/outcomes is 10^1200. And assume that the actual configuration that you will measure 5 minutes later is really one among the 10^1200 possible outcomes. Also assume that these 10^1200 possible outcomes have equal chance becoming actualized, using the standard quantum mechanical equations + plus a filter to flatten the probability distribution creating an even playing field so to speak. You want to create equal chances, just like the six sides of a dice being rolled. Just to be fair.

You are now 5 minutes later in your room and take your snap shot. Lo and behold, one of the 10^1200 possible outcomes came true! Who would have thought that something sooooo unlikely did actually happen? Hmmm.. must have been God.

It just means that everything that happens in open many-particle systems is totally "unlikely" to happen, i.e. impossible to predict . Also remember.. the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. That Dark Vader killing certainty and accuracy when you need them most.

[Simple Minded]

DXROAFSRpJA

I can't escape the impression that this guy truly has no idea what he is talking about. Before jumping to his gigantic conclusions the least he could do have done is refer to the Bohr-Einstein 30 year long discussions about the meaning of quantum mechanics where Einstein famously claimed that "God doesn't play dice", followed by Bohr's glorious rebuttal "Don't tell God what to do."

Brings to mind the old quote:

"Most people are willing to serve God..... but only in an advisory capacity."

[Parodite]

DXROAFSRpJA

I can't escape the impression that this guy truly has no idea what he is talking about. Before jumping to his gigantic conclusions the least he could do have done is refer to the Bohr-Einstein 30 year long discussions about the meaning of quantum mechanics where Einstein famously claimed that "God doesn't play dice", followed by Bohr's glorious rebuttal "Don't tell God what to do."

Brings to mind the old quote:

"Most people are willing to serve God..... but only in an advisory capacity."

Very true. In an advisory capacity, or even in combat with God.

Jacob and our wrestling match with God

It is a bitova dirty secret, but the founders of the Judeo-Christian tradition loved combat with God. To struggle with His Highness. Throw punches and questions at him. And take the punches and answers thrown back at you. And never settle, or take no for an answer. The image of a Moses passively sitting there like a Buddha waiting to receive the 10 commandments with a blank mind... till the doorbell rings and the Divine Pizza Man brings him the Stuff; probably not. They probably consider it an honor to help God make up his mind. Some argue that the old testament God had anger management problems, but since he had a son in the new testament he became a more loving and reasonable father.

[Mr. Perfect]

That's not the takeaway, the original video isn't very straightforward, I just tried to find one that was more simple.

The fine tuning argument is simply The Secular Church recognizes that in their creation myth that if the universe was expanding any faster or slower by any measurable amount then all matter would have remained hydrogen gas. This is their admission, not mine.

Those of us that reject the secular myths merely point out the preposterousness of the odds. You need more faith to believe in the secular myths than almost any other. I would take a Hopi Indian legend over big bang.

I can keep trying to find videos that explain it more palatably but the point will remain the same. The odds of big bang happening to this tuning are impossible.

[Parodite]

That's not the takeaway, the original video isn't very straightforward, I just tried to find one that was more simple.

The fine tuning argument is simply The Secular Church recognizes that in their creation myth that if the universe was expanding any faster or slower by any measurable amount then all matter would have remained hydrogen gas. This is their admission, not mine.

Those of us that reject the secular myths merely point out the preposterousness of the odds. You need more faith to believe in the secular myths than almost any other. I would take a Hopi Indian legend over big bang.

I can keep trying to find videos that explain it more palatably but the point will remain the same. The odds of big bang happening to this tuning are impossible.

I don't know how many scientists who believe in evolution in general also believe that "the laws of nature" in this universe could have been slightly different "when the odds were different". Or whatever it was, like maybe the "initial conditions" (red alart!) at t=0 of the big bang, that decided things to be the way they are now. I've seen people speculate and toy with the idea.. but it rings as speculative and fraught with non-sense to me as the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. I recommend not to take that type of speculation too seriously.

Equally nonsensical thought-play comes from the intelligent design corners. How is it possible that things are exactly the way they are and not even slightly different? Hmmmm. I've heard hard-core creationists claim it can only be a divine miracle that it is exactly 60 seconds that fit into a minute. Only and intelligent God can be so accurate. But then again, not all people who prefer intelligent design over a-moral natural evolution think the same. That is because the unknowns are pretty big here; enough free space to speculate and dream.

[Mr. Perfect]

I'm not sure. The fine tuning issue is pretty cut and dried, from seculars, not me. If the universe expanded any slower or faster there would be no universe as we know it, just gas, and they are the ones that put the numbers on it.

As you see in the first video, the numbers are preposterous. If you can believe in big bang you can believe in anything.

Big Bang didn't happen.

[Parodite]

I'm not sure. The fine tuning issue is pretty cut and dried, from seculars, not me. If the universe expanded any slower or faster there would be no universe as we know it, just gas, and they are the ones that put the numbers on it.

Then we agree that toy-thinking about "fine tuning and the odds" is just what it is: speculation and changing some numbers in equations on paper and see what output you get on that same paper. It doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it may produce new questions that may or may not inspire to new empirical science that test new hypotheses. To play with questions, possibilities is part and parcel of the scientific method.

As you see in the first video, the numbers are preposterous. If you can believe in big bang you can believe in anything.

Big Bang didn't happen.

One can believe in the Big Bang while at the same time accepting that toy-thinking about "fine-tuning" and "odds" is just toy-thinking and as such no proof or disproof of anything. If something like the BB really occurred 13,7 billion years ago, my toy-thinking guesstimate is that there were no fine-tuning nor any "odds" at work.

What seems to me necessary is letting go, or go beyond concepts like probability and causality. A good start would be to always investigate, parallel to the natural sciences, how our brains model reality because everything you experience is a model constructed by the brain. Included the model the brain creates of itself that we are used to and call the physical brain.

My suspicion is that the reason we see both causality and probability in the world and are able to create models accordingly, more so lies in the modelling by the brain than as features of objective reality as it exists independently of our brainy models / conscious experience. This is the main reason why I take claims about objective, experience-independent reality that use causality and/or probability with a big chunk of salt. It doesn't matter if it concerns something that happens right this moment, yesterday or 13,7 billion years ago. But that chunk of salt does not mean I'm suggesting science is not really science, or that there is a better way of doing science.

The brain somehow is a modeler of things, hence the experiential interface in- and through which we function, interact with in the world. Construction of models are like maps that enable us to navigate. Science is just an extension of that same function. Empirical science is like updating and extending those maps.

[Typhoon]

DXROAFSRpJA

I can't escape the impression that this guy truly has no idea what he is talking about.

. . .

You're a master of understatement.

"Some people say that human existence is a role of the cosmic dice" is a strawman argument.

How many water molecules in a gram of water?

~ 3.35 x 10^22

By comparison, the estimated number of stars in the observable universe is only ~ 1 x 10^12

What is the probability that 3.35 x 10^22 molecules will spontaneously organize themselves into a crystalline hexagonal solid below a critical temperature, Tc = 273.15K?

If one follows the argument of the above risible video, this is impossible.

Yet this crystalline hexagonal solid, a.k.a. ice, is commonly observed below 0C.

The key point is that the water molecules unlike sequential roles of fair dice are not independent, they interact with each other.

Nature is a bit more complex than sequential roles of dice.

The internet, in general, and youtube, in particular, is full of individuals and organizations who have no clue that they have no clue;
opining about topics about which they have no clue that they have no clue.

[Mr. Perfect]

Lol not understanding the subject matter doesn't make the subject matter change.

Secular priests of the big bang are the ones who defined and quantified the fine tuning argument.

Reasonable people have just pointed out that it makes the big bang impossible.

This is an idea created by scientists, they just didn't understand the ramifications.

[Mr. Perfect]

I'm not sure. The fine tuning issue is pretty cut and dried, from seculars, not me. If the universe expanded any slower or faster there would be no universe as we know it, just gas, and they are the ones that put the numbers on it.

Then we agree that toy-thinking about "fine tuning and the odds" is just what it is: speculation and changing some numbers in equations on paper and see what output you get on that same paper. It doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it may produce new questions that may or may not inspire to new empirical science that test new hypotheses. To play with questions, possibilities is part and parcel of the scientific method.

As you see in the first video, the numbers are preposterous. If you can believe in big bang you can believe in anything.

Big Bang didn't happen.

One can believe in the Big Bang while at the same time accepting that toy-thinking about "fine-tuning" and "odds" is just toy-thinking and as such no proof or disproof of anything. If something like the BB really occurred 13,7 billion years ago, my toy-thinking guesstimate is that there were no fine-tuning nor any "odds" at work.

What seems to me necessary is letting go, or go beyond concepts like probability and causality. A good start would be to always investigate, parallel to the natural sciences, how our brains model reality because everything you experience is a model constructed by the brain. Included the model the brain creates of itself that we are used to and call the physical brain.

My suspicion is that the reason we see both causality and probability in the world and are able to create models accordingly, more so lies in the modelling by the brain than as features of objective reality as it exists independently of our brainy models / conscious experience. This is the main reason why I take claims about objective, experience-independent reality that use causality and/or probability with a big chunk of salt. It doesn't matter if it concerns something that happens right this moment, yesterday or 13,7 billion years ago. But that chunk of salt does not mean I'm suggesting science is not really science, or that there is a better way of doing science.

The brain somehow is a modeler of things, hence the experiential interface in- and through which we function, interact with in the world. Construction of models are like maps that enable us to navigate. Science is just an extension of that same function. Empirical science is like updating and extending those maps.

Again, fine tuning is not a creationist idea. It was developed and quantified by the Church of the big bang. The odds calculated are secular calculations.

It just took people not bought into those myths to point out the impossibility. Fine tuning cannot be overcome.

[Parodite]

Lol not understanding the subject matter doesn't make the subject matter change.

Secular priests of the big bang are the ones who defined and quantified the fine tuning argument.

Reasonable people have just pointed out that it makes the big bang impossible.

This is an idea created by scientists, they just didn't understand the ramifications.

I got the impression that creationists use the argument of extreme odds to "prove" that God exists. Like one durian claiming that eating ice creams kills you, and the other durian saying that since eating ice cream doesn't kill you the Great Ice cream God must have saved your life.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yes, important distinction.

I for one do not believe that evolution and big bang being false "proves" God. I don't think you will find me making that argument. In terms of science, it just makes creation an open question.

However the secular Church of Scientism uses evolution and big bang as evidence against God, so in the interest of truth if there are problems with those arguments then indeed they should see the light of day.

In this case fine tuning is but one problem the Church of Scientism cannot overcome.