How to convert a skeptic - written for the faithful by a skeptic

March 17th, 2008, 11:26 AM

MHz
I enjoyed your explanation and mood of the delivery of it, thanks.

Dexter

You are correct in stating that the last days have been predicted for many of time when things in the world seem to want to indicate that.

But as I have discovered in my searchings, the end will not be as thought, because the end speaks of Jesus ending the first spiritual world and beginning of a new one.

The first spiritual world, meaning the original spirit given mankind led to death, and that is what needed a change.

Jesus came to change that so He ended the first at the cross and begun a new one with life for all mankind, and of this one there is no end.

The physical world may go into chaos but will never totally become none existent, because there will always be a remnant left to continue or start all over again, such was the case in the story of Noah.

And the bible alludes to that concept or theory.

As far as being in the dark, yes, that is a general term which applies to even the believers.

Being in the dark is a natural thing and knowledge is what brings us out of it.

A baby is born into the darkness of this abyss, and the light shines on it by way of knowledge, and for the believer, well, many see through the glass darkly, not seeing clearly yet, but somewhat cloudy, until revelations are received in the forum of spiritual understanding; that glass made clear for understanding, or which would be considered maturity in the word of God.

So my saying darkness was not in any way to demean anybody but only to indicate from what point one starts and to what point one can achieve based on knowledge received and understood.

If enough light shines and blinders are shut, then light can not reach the heart of the matter to be received, understood and therefore remains in the dark, as far as spiritual matters are concerned as pertaining to God.

Interpretation of that light is where the struggle is, and the world is the playing field.

How goes the experience of the struggle, directly proportional to knowledge received and understood, determines the outcome as in everybody's else's' case and mine.

Therefore, I am compassionate to wards understanding the plight of many as they struggle through this world to find understanding, though they be of all different views.

I can help my fellow, by leading, not by force or threat, but by love in action to whomever would have need of.

There is no respect to beliefs with me, for I consider all to be my brothers and sisters first, for I can work with anyone willing to lend their hearts as I mine.

Peace>>>AJ

March 17th, 2008, 01:42 PM

Are you advocating Christians contribute to what could be called chaos by anybody, in this case anybody who willingly admits to not being a Christian? You seem to be promoting a near extinction man-made event so the remnant (Christians) can start a brave new world.
So usually in a case like this it actually calls for a chapter and verse that backs that up, you didn't find the one about pants because it wasn't there and you certainly won't find one that can be twisted to say Christians should be causing chaos for anybody.

March 17th, 2008, 02:13 PM

The reason I am not a full blown atheist is thus:

The probability that anything exists is very low and in point of fact as far as human understanding is concerned can't at all. It is all very well and good to say the universe began with a singularity that blew up and made everything we see today. In my opinion this isn't much different than saying Enlil carved the universe away from heaven. As science advances theories fall to the side like so many myths of bygone eras. All we really have to prove our existence is that we see that we exist. How do we know, that as Plato supposes, we aren't only watching shadows on the wall of a cave or as Dostoevsky supposes we are like the sunlight reflected off the tin of a roof? A singularity is a mathematical anomaly that can no more be explained than can the existence Enlil or An (Sumerian gods that created the universe). In fact there is much evidence to suggest the "big bang" is just a myth but for now it is still the best explanation we have but isn't that what saying Enlil carved the earth from heaven really was too: the best explanation for the time?

We can examine the human brain and ascribe mechanical models to it, try and emulate its function, and in doing so claim we have figured something out. This is all well and good until you examine anomalies, which scientists rightly don't focus on because they don't apply to the majority of us but for the argument I'm making such things are crucial; in that when in the 1960s doctors put shunts in children's brains to alleviate pressure by draining excess fluid into the lymphatic system, it was assumed they might live less horrific lives. What in fact happened when they followed up on these children is they found their brains were completely dead except for their cerebral cortex which hummed away at a furious rate. They did IQ tests and found they all average about 120. Theses children single handedly disprove completely all our theories on human intelligence and brain function except in normal brains - but only possibly since obviously no one knows what is really going on. I had the fortune of working with one of these people (not from the above example but had a shunt from childhood) and in all respects he was a normal functioning person.

So why I remain skeptical is that we can not rely on our "current knowledge" too completely nor can we rely on our senses. Currently we only have empirical evidence that we exist, no real explanation of why, no peer review of our observation, but we do have many reasons why we shouldn't - couldn't possibly! The probability in my mind is very high that we really don't but there is also a very high probability that a reality does indeed exist.

Let me explain: Humans are composed of atomic structure. Any small piece of us (a molecule) does not point to our existence. In order to exist we need the cumulative cooperation of billions of atoms. No single atom is us nor are any of the billions of atoms aware they compose a creature such as us. Also between those atoms is a tremendous amount of space. From the atoms perspective they could never compose something such as us. Yet here we are and we are "us." The same example works on a galaxy. You can't look at a single star and say "that is a galaxy" even though from a different vantage point that is true. From that narrow a perspective the galaxy is invisible, undetectable and does not exist, even though, in reality it does. So herein we see a broad range of possibility and realities. Some where things can exist and some where they can't even though they do. The only way to know we really exist is through our senses, reason and empirical evidence all of which is derived from the cooperation of billions of atoms. Without their cooperation there would be no "us," and there would be no evidence of "us." So we are in a sense a product of cooperation, that is to say, the natural laws which govern the universe, and we are only perceptible from a very narrow view point. If the observer is too large or too small not only couldn't the observer see us but also we couldn't exist - it would just be too improbable. So we only really exist because we see ourselves existing and little if anything else does or is capable of seeing it.

So in this way, where it is improbable that we exist, that is to say, we have no explanation of how something can come from nothing; we only have our experience and senses to tell us that despite all logic here we are, and our observations come from a fraction of a hairs perspective in the possible greater reality of things; that we perceive ourselves from the only possible perspective; any other perspective and we would not exist, means to me we probably really don't. So what does? Well it is equally probable that a real reality exists outside of our perspective and in fact we have found such perspectives through science. We can't observe from those perspectives but we can speculate. So if we can exist it pretty much means anything can and if we don't really exist it means anything probably does exist but we aren't properly equipped to see it. Yet any real reality should be able to look at a sun and say "ah yes, that is a galaxy" or look at an atom in a human and say "ah yes, that is a human."

So IMO there is a very real possibility of there being some different reality than what we know and see. Is this god? Possibly, there certainly is room for that explanation, but my inquiry has taken me further than just philosophical arguments to the real nuts and bolts of this inquiry. I am to the point now where I can make some real scientific arguments, testable arguments, that demonstrate we don't exist; oddly this is the only way to prove (in my opinion) how we can exist and it does just that. I'm not ready to go into detail yet, however, the possibility of god is there. Interestingly and to my surprise if he does exist he really does warrant all the praise he receives in past religions. Just how the authors would have known that is a bit of a mystery to me. That being said I still view religion as a mental disorder, a paedomorphosis, and man made.

March 17th, 2008, 02:42 PM

Scott. I've been mulling over the issue I raised with you about perception. And that is where the scientific endeavor, which has managed to convince me of many a thing (including color perception theory believe it or not... lol), has failed to convince me that something more doesn't exist.

I guess you could lump me into the category of 'going to church for the ceremony and fellowship, because I believe religion is a human construct which serves an important function for groups of spiritual people.' Simple right? lol.

But back to what I was saying about science. There's this niggling in the back of my brain that says that science is missing, well, the niggling in the back of my brain. It's a sense that there's something deeper, some power, energy, force, something that they can't see. And why do they refuse to look at it? "Excuse me, but, could you please explain to me this sense I have?" "What sense?" "Well, this niggly little feeling in the depths of my brain that tells me there's something more?" "What niggly feeling?" "Can't you feel it? It's right there, right where I can't quite put my finger on it."

And I don't blame science for falling down on the job in this particular instance. How do you explain a niggle? Yet, there it is, all the time.

March 17th, 2008, 02:44 PM

You might want to rethink that according to what physics actually has to say about it.

March 17th, 2008, 02:48 PM

Just scanned the thread but it would appear that Karrie has come the closest to accurately characterizing the dynamic...

Ain't no money/power available from folk who don't "believe".....

You can believe in the Holy Roman Church and all they'll do is hide their criminals from you...you can send in your dollars to Evangelicals who'll hire prostitutes and squander millions on pleasures for themselves...you can believe in any old kind of "god" you like, but where the rubber meets the road, it's about money and power.....

Always has been.

March 17th, 2008, 03:28 PM

Thanks for making my task a whole lot easier, first I get to provide evidence and then I get to provide proof, at least now I get to talk longer because I was kind of afraid the once there was evidence (15 pages)I wouldn't be able to say anything about proof (another 15 pages).

Daniel is one writer that references previous works, it wasn't until ch:9 that he says he got the info that a day can mean a year. I would assume everybody was familiar with all the laws, etc. There was even quite a bit written about when God removes Satan. Did Daniel thinks were moving along a little too quickly, that is the reason he put a 500 year plug in there where nothing could 'move forward'? Daniel stops at the end of the last kingdom before Christ, the next 12 books are almost exclusively about His arrival as KING of KINGS. In all the OT there are only a very few verses that says His appearance is also a time that Gentiles are to be made equal to the Jews. Had that been well known they wouldn't have been expecting somebody who was going to deliver them from foreign rule. By rights they should have changed from seeing Rome as an oppressor to being a protector.

Well you would have to actually assemble all the verses that speak of the last days before you could determine if there are any errors. If you have a portion there are going to be errors, do you actually know of any Church that bases their end-times on all those? It would seem that (from the ones I've actually talked to that have some specific verses as references) they pick and choose just a very few. I'm sure more than a few leave some out intentionally because if taken in plain language they don't support 'their version', or they do their best to change that meaning to mean something else, changing something that is meant to be literal into a spiritual only message. That isn't ignorance, that is willful manipulation for their own purpose, has absolutely nothing to do with educating the masses.

Sure they have, I doubt it was even an honest mistake in most cases, some arrived at their conclusions by playing with numbers, or just to install fear, at the same time promoting safety is only with those that have unwaivering faith (don't ask questions) in (whatever Church happened to be spewing that thought in the first place) You have heard the term "Let the buyer beware", when it comes to listening to what others are telling you about what the 'big picture' is about what Revelation covers that attitude "Let the reader beware." is discouraged. The most common thing taught about the Bible is, don't read it yourself, it's way to complicated for a 'normal person', leave this to the 'experts' to understand and let them explain it to you. (in their own words, rather than just give you the reference verse so you can read it. Then they can't be questioned on what they promote). When you were learning about what the Bible says, be it from friends and family or from the 'experts' did you ever come up with any independent questions that you had the guts to ask somebody about. If you did was that question ever answered fully or did (some) get brushed aside? I would think the latter would have happened at least once. Ever ask an 'expert' a question where he freely admitted he didn't have a ready answer for, if he promised to 'look it up' or ask other 'experts' was it ever followed up on? Did you ever get an answer that basically said don't question God? (a direct violation of what the Bible actually says BTW)

Is that in the Bible in general or some specifically promoted end-time doctrine? If they believed in the Bible, NT Laws specifically, I doubt politics would be a choice of what kind of jobs they would be applying for. I doubt any even believed in their original constitution just as it was written, I think ever one of them were looking for loop-holes that would allow them to further their (own or their friends) personal ambitions. Really I mean every single one, that would also include ever advisor any of them ever had also. (okay 99% of the ones they listened to)

If you go back to Prescott then you know they are about as far away from doing what Christ laid out as a person can actually get. Banksters and the CIA (let alone secret societies) are not at the top of the list of what (true Christians who see themselves as being under the Law that says 'do no harm') careers they would be interested in.

And I agree that the mega churches in the US more or less support him. Those churches can only exist if they have followers, any follower who had a tiny bit of knowledge about what Jesus taught should be able to spot the bullchips they are being fed and simple walk away. They either don't or deep inside they want those prizes (like Iraqi oil) that is being sought by Bush & Co. (he isn't writing everything he signs now is he). Even without taking Scripture into account the constitution they have sworn to uphold isn't a roadblock to the personal ambitions of a few (at the expense of the many) Canada doesn't have the balls to tell them where to shove their policies and I assume most MP's and such have some sort of affiliation with the Church.

Money being no object, why wouldn't the ones who think that way, build a city somewhere, call it Babylon, and then toast it. Hey people look at this, a prophecy fulfilled, you have to listen to us now. But then they don't bother with digging a 12 mile wide ditch between the Med. Sea and the Dead Sea, why not, that is also a prophecy, simple, it is beyond their means to do so, it is now and it will be forever. Israel can claim they are back on the land because they have God's approval to do so, compare that to what the actual verses say (without any twisting) and it comes back as bullchips. Show me one single physically resurrected person, can't be done. Oh well that must mean it's a spiritual message then, that is being promoted to no end.

Prophecy is misunderstood, no ifs about it. Maybe it is just a quiet reminder not to swallow everything presented to you as truth as being the truth, verify that it is not a lie first, nobody takes that last step to heart.
Prophecy certainly points to some very nasty things coming down the pipe. The only things put in the hands of Christians is to comfort who they can comfort. The chaos minded 'Christians' are bullchip artists, they are in fact liars about who they are 'working for'.

March 17th, 2008, 03:32 PM

I am quite aware of that argument but thank you for the link. I'm going to read his book.

My argument encompasses his argument in that he is postulating something must exist and I do too, however his argument is that something began with the big bang, which supposes that is when everything began. This is not entirely logical except in human perception which is lineal. There is also the possibility something existed prior to the big bang, there have even been other universes proposed. If he is correct, and I believe he is mostly, then that means what has existed has always existed; thus the void before the big bang hypotheses which does contradict space-time, if there is a void there is space-time and therefore a universe and a big bang. I do think this is explainable though. Where his argument and mine depart is in the linear model which to me supports my hypothesis that we exist only because we are within the narrow window which allows us to perceive of our existence.

Remember I am only arguing for a greater reality not woo-woo and should it be woo-woo it must be demonstrably shown which would mean it isn't woo-woo. What I aim eventually to do, however, is demonstrate another possibility.

I really can't go into more detail but suffice it to say that what I am proposing is very much a complete reworking of our perception of the universe where nothing can be proved to create something but not quite in the way Bede Rundle is proposing. Nor am I proposing that we are capable of making something from nothing but what I mean is that something is nothing.

He is arguing that there really isn't something called nothing whereas I don't make that argument since saying nothing is something is actually denying the antecedent and thereby has changed the meaning of the word and in doing so has made a false step in logic, which may seem logical from our current understanding, but that I propose isn't, just the same, true. In my hypothesis something is actually nothing which means a greater reality is plausible which is still something not woo-woo.

March 17th, 2008, 04:23 PM

Yeah, I was pretty sure you would be, but if you're up to a little mathematics, try this more detailed version of it:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...ess/Origin.pdf

I don't see any justification for your initial statement: "The probability that anything exists is very low and in point of fact as far as human understanding is concerned can't at all." Why would the probability of there being something rather than nothing necessarily be low? Neither can I agree that according to human understanding nothing can exist at all. I don't have any idea what that means, really, and the paragraphs that follow it don't make it any clearer to me.

March 17th, 2008, 04:42 PM

As I said in another post I have had to make a non linear system of mathematics which even in Bede Rundle's argument is hinted at since he postulates a place and time with no whole numbers.

He is taking the step that because B (something) exists then A (nothing) must equal B in that A is really B and C is thus a natural state. My argument is that A and C is what makes B and that B is a matter of perception not reality. In order to validate this I have demonstrated (for myself) that A and C are indeed forces and that B is the result.

Bede Rundle is relegating zero to a place holder and giving it value. This is a mistake IMO.

Also I am not suggesting for one moment that the universe didn't come into existence naturally.

March 17th, 2008, 04:43 PM

For there to be a big-bang there would seem to have to be something before that in that the bang itself needed 'time' for all that stuff to be gathered. Our definition of time is based on what we can observe and theorize on based on what we can see. The material started out as the size of a pin-head and got larger after that, until we are at our current size, a soccer ball and still expanding, I have even heard our rate of expansion is increasing.
The model we have for what we can see is that a certain amount of material in one place will result in a new star, that star has a finite life, at the end of that time it explodes and that material is sent off in all directions. Over time the material sent in any given direction is attracted to material that is also from a different exploded star, get enough material from many exploded stars and you get a brand new one. I don't think anybody suggests that once a star explodes it has enough gravity for it to reform itself. If that same model is applied to our universe then it is the result of coming into existence via the process of material being gathered than can only come from many other big-bang events, same as a new star is formed in our universe. If all our galaxies in our universe were plotted onto a soccer-ball we should be about where the seams are. Our greatest acceleration away from another galaxy should be one that is on the opposite side of the ball. The rate we are traveling away from that galaxy should be half the speed we are traveling in a certain direction (a certain % of the speed of light), our current existence would be better described as the remains of an exploded star rather than one before it was headed in every direction.
All that to get to this question. Our speed and direction should affect what we can observe when we look just in the direction we are traveling (into the void as it is the greater emptiness than what is in any other direction we could look). with the multi-verse theory we could be headed straight for another universe (either before it blew up or towards a remnant after it blew. If it was the latter then it is also moving in our direction at a certain speed (% of light speed again) Can those two speeds be combined to be greater than the speed of light (more than 100%) and/or if less would we have time to see it coming. Every body in this universe is headed away from each other, so something that is 100 light years away is going to take longer than 100 years of travel to get there, you have to add in the distance that it moves away in that 100 years of travel (at light speed).

If we could spot something in our current path at, say that same 100 light years, but that time would be shortened because we are traveling towards each other. If our rate of closing was at 98% light speed we should be meeting in 2 years, not 100.
If that ever did happen I would thing getting a big bag of popcorn would be about the only thing we could do about it.

March 17th, 2008, 05:03 PM

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...ess/Origin.pdf
LOL Can you translate that into something like if train "A" left station "B" traveling at "X" in direction "Y" and ........

March 17th, 2008, 06:19 PM

No need, Stenger's provided his own translation at the original link, http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

March 17th, 2008, 06:48 PM

You keep skipping the first step. First you have to show reasonable and probable grounds for believing the Bible to be true and correct on these matters. Once that proposition's established, it's reasonable to discuss the meaning and significance of its contents for our reality, but not before.

March 17th, 2008, 06:52 PM

How to convert a skeptic, eh?

Well, the best way is to start by brainwashing children at a young age; fill their heads with magical nonsense, a dear Jesus who is their best friend and certain threats about eternal hellfire if you don't belive..if the subject is older , ignorance and promises of everlasting life with all the goodies MIGHT work...if the subject is educated and not out of touch with reality, you've got virtually no chance at all.

March 17th, 2008, 07:14 PM

Well that seems to be a catch-22 thingy so I guess that is far as we go down that road.

March 17th, 2008, 07:20 PM

It seems that your first one on the list would be how to create a skeptic, wasn't that your path?
The second choice would seem to include keeping the actual texts out of his hands.
The third choice is going to require a seeing is believing kind of event, like resurrection from the grave.

March 17th, 2008, 07:34 PM

Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

Voltaire