Thanks for the response, Bgrad. I'm taking a few days off from thinking so I'll get back to you more in depth soon.
Upvote
0
-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter Buckeyeskickbuttocks
- Start date
muffler dragon
Bien. Bien chiludo.
Quite a fascinating thread and read.
BKB:
Why didn't you let me know you had already started a thread regarding objective/subjective before I made my post today?
BKB:
Why didn't you let me know you had already started a thread regarding objective/subjective before I made my post today?
Upvote
0
muffler dragon;1011395; said:
Yeah, BkB.... your Nostradamus skillz are slacking, mother fucker.
(Of course, he'll be polite, there's no way he's gonna tell the truth which is something like, "Dude, I was stoned to the bejesus when I posted that... no way was I gonna remember that.)
Upvote
0
muffler dragon
Bien. Bien chiludo.
Gatorubet;1011429; said:
It seems like there isn't a week that goes by where I don't have to ask you what one of your posts means. This is one of them.
Upvote
0
I forgot, I guess.muffler dragon;1011395; said:
No fair, it was your weed.AKAKBUCK;1011414; said:
Gatorubet;1011429; said:
Upvote
0
Bleed S & G
Taking Crazy Pills
Please explain :tongue2:muffler dragon;1011451; said:It seems like there isn't a week that goes by where I don't have to ask you what one of your posts means. This is one of them.
Upvote
0
muffler dragon
Bien. Bien chiludo.
Bleed S & G;1011457; said:
Well... the amount of flapjacks that it took to cover my aluminum porch last week was exponentially less than the firepower of the Shrute potato gun.
LOL!
Upvote
0
Looks like I never did make it back to this... so... here goes..
Well, I doubt you believe Jesus is a plant, but I appreciate the metaphor. I would observe this understanding is in line with the way I think about the world - ie chaotically, or as I've said by understanding the behavior of one thing, we can appreciate the behavior of another thing, to the extent that they are similar (The universe is composed of smaller iterations of itself). So, the question becomes are the two things being compared sufficiently similar.
Here, they are not, at least not in terms of resurrection. I would accept this as some argument in favor of "everlasting life" perhaps (In the sense of a soul being different than a body), but here's why I think your idea breaks down in terms of resurrection.
The essential factor which is missing from your description of plants dying and then coming back to life is that the plan did not, in fact, die. Again, I appreciate the metaphor as it describes your concept, but it's not comparable. If it were the case that Jesus still had a heartbeat (that is, his "Core" did not die) when he was buried for 3 days, then your comparison comes to be more on point.
I think we can agree that without a death, resurrection is impossible as a matter of definition. Plants do not resurrect when they are indeed dead. If I kill a hosta in my flowerbed, it does not ever return. If I cut it down to the ground, it does.. but I didn't kill it.. I left it's "heart" beating.. it's root system. Thus, despite a possible outward appearance of death later resurrecting, there is still no offer of proof on the matter upon which to base reason. (Edit: Again, to be clear, I understand the metaphor you're using as it relates to the "soul" being that "root system" but the metaphor breaks down in practice in as much as a man is not like a plant and I've still never seen a dead person, who's soul I agree survives, become re-animated after 3 days. It seems to me that I should expect my Mother to return from the grave if she should so choose, and yet I have no reasonable expectation of that. A more interesting problem, I think, is a discussion of the legitimacy of "near death" expierences. Where the Body dies and yet is later returned to life by use of CPR or electric shocks and the like)
I can certainly understand your suspicion regarding the possibilities of multiple universe as a human construction. However, I think perhaps you're not giving the idea sufficient credit. That is to say, this isnt some construct I've pulled out of the air to explain my beliefs, but instead a scientific theory of reality which MAY indeed be true. Now, objectively, I cannot say if it's true. I can subjectively look at the theory, it's predicted consequences, and compare it with what I observe around me and see if it fits. To simplify, I have no idea if what is acutally holding me to this earth is indeed gravity. I've never seen gravity, I can't hold it in my hand. But, the idea of it is sensible, and gravity being real doesn't seem to violate other "rules." There are possibly other solutions to the question of "Why do we not fall off the earth" which might very well work as well, but the answer of gravity works quite well.
Anyway, again, this isn't some construct I've made up to explain anything that I couldn't explain. It's not a "makeshift" answer to a question I felt was too hard. It's an idea, a theory, with sound support in reason which is offered to explain the nature of reality. It explains how we can have quarks, and it explains how we can have black holes.... It is possible (likely?) and I cannot defeat it with observation (though, I ceartainly leave room for that occuring at someone elses hand). It fits well with my conception of reality as dynamic and not linear.... And, of course, more importantly, it makes G-d that much more intense. Master of infinite universes is to me much more impressive than merely master of one. Even short of that, the real question is - does this theory - M-Theory - establish that G-d cannot be? Answer: No. Even you would have to conceed from your paradigm that it cannot thereby be wrong and should be considered.
Maybe, but you're going a little too far in your example. The water did not behave in "magical" ways... it behaved only in accord with the rules of physics. But, in as much as I'm in a bit of a hurry here, I can conceed that God might act in a way that appears magic to us, but would not be violative of "the rules" As I said above, there may be multiple workable solutions to the "why don't we fall off the earth" problem... We can subjectively choose to believe whatever makes sense to us.
buckeyegrad;835691; said:
Well, I doubt you believe Jesus is a plant, but I appreciate the metaphor. I would observe this understanding is in line with the way I think about the world - ie chaotically, or as I've said by understanding the behavior of one thing, we can appreciate the behavior of another thing, to the extent that they are similar (The universe is composed of smaller iterations of itself). So, the question becomes are the two things being compared sufficiently similar.
Here, they are not, at least not in terms of resurrection. I would accept this as some argument in favor of "everlasting life" perhaps (In the sense of a soul being different than a body), but here's why I think your idea breaks down in terms of resurrection.
The essential factor which is missing from your description of plants dying and then coming back to life is that the plan did not, in fact, die. Again, I appreciate the metaphor as it describes your concept, but it's not comparable. If it were the case that Jesus still had a heartbeat (that is, his "Core" did not die) when he was buried for 3 days, then your comparison comes to be more on point.
I think we can agree that without a death, resurrection is impossible as a matter of definition. Plants do not resurrect when they are indeed dead. If I kill a hosta in my flowerbed, it does not ever return. If I cut it down to the ground, it does.. but I didn't kill it.. I left it's "heart" beating.. it's root system. Thus, despite a possible outward appearance of death later resurrecting, there is still no offer of proof on the matter upon which to base reason. (Edit: Again, to be clear, I understand the metaphor you're using as it relates to the "soul" being that "root system" but the metaphor breaks down in practice in as much as a man is not like a plant and I've still never seen a dead person, who's soul I agree survives, become re-animated after 3 days. It seems to me that I should expect my Mother to return from the grave if she should so choose, and yet I have no reasonable expectation of that. A more interesting problem, I think, is a discussion of the legitimacy of "near death" expierences. Where the Body dies and yet is later returned to life by use of CPR or electric shocks and the like)
bgrad said:
I can certainly understand your suspicion regarding the possibilities of multiple universe as a human construction. However, I think perhaps you're not giving the idea sufficient credit. That is to say, this isnt some construct I've pulled out of the air to explain my beliefs, but instead a scientific theory of reality which MAY indeed be true. Now, objectively, I cannot say if it's true. I can subjectively look at the theory, it's predicted consequences, and compare it with what I observe around me and see if it fits. To simplify, I have no idea if what is acutally holding me to this earth is indeed gravity. I've never seen gravity, I can't hold it in my hand. But, the idea of it is sensible, and gravity being real doesn't seem to violate other "rules." There are possibly other solutions to the question of "Why do we not fall off the earth" which might very well work as well, but the answer of gravity works quite well.
Anyway, again, this isn't some construct I've made up to explain anything that I couldn't explain. It's not a "makeshift" answer to a question I felt was too hard. It's an idea, a theory, with sound support in reason which is offered to explain the nature of reality. It explains how we can have quarks, and it explains how we can have black holes.... It is possible (likely?) and I cannot defeat it with observation (though, I ceartainly leave room for that occuring at someone elses hand). It fits well with my conception of reality as dynamic and not linear.... And, of course, more importantly, it makes G-d that much more intense. Master of infinite universes is to me much more impressive than merely master of one. Even short of that, the real question is - does this theory - M-Theory - establish that G-d cannot be? Answer: No. Even you would have to conceed from your paradigm that it cannot thereby be wrong and should be considered.
I can appreciate, I think, how God's acting at any point in time in an apparently "miraculous" way can all be part of the master plan to begin with. But, I am left with serious concerns as to why miracles used to apparently happen with such frequency and yet, I've never seen one. A sensible explaination for that is that miracles have never occurred, it's just that man didn't understand what happened rationally. The sun used to rise because it was being pulled by an invisible charoit. But, it turns out that the sun rises because the earth is spinning. So much for the magic chariot.
Maybe, but you're going a little too far in your example. The water did not behave in "magical" ways... it behaved only in accord with the rules of physics. But, in as much as I'm in a bit of a hurry here, I can conceed that God might act in a way that appears magic to us, but would not be violative of "the rules" As I said above, there may be multiple workable solutions to the "why don't we fall off the earth" problem... We can subjectively choose to believe whatever makes sense to us.
Objectively, however, did magic occur? We don't know. It depends on if you're a elf or a hobbit, I guess.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
LadyBuckeye
...And They Lived Happily Ever After
I want the same color blotter BKB's eating!!
Upvote
0