I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _Nightlion »

honorentheos wrote:Hi Nightlion,

To clarify, what do you mean by authorship?


What? You know what I mean. God spoke, he sang the stars into existence by the word of his power. He maintains all things by the power of his will. He continues to hold off the natural entropy of physics as a continual act of creation. All glory to him.

I suspect that the unknown parts of quantum mechanics are spiritual threads of the commanding love of God, his authorship, that weave through the whole fabric of all things demanding a perfect balance. As exquisite a control for all physics as DNA is for cellular life. Bravo, Author, Author.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _honorentheos »

So you don't think I'm just being obtuse, let me explain a bit more why I think your response requires more refinement.

Let's simplify your statement to this: will=authorship

I think you would agree that we would be justified taking this expression and saying: will=authorship=X, which means any X that shows authorship also = will.

Your professor already granted a condition at the beginning of his video where a non-god "no-thing", in his case the laws of nature, can author an outcome. His comment, as I recall it, was that quantum mechanics allowed for something to come from nothing provided there was a potential present. In this case, this potential=authorship=will. Or, potential=will.

Since potential does not require God and is the state of the universe whenever there is some form of instability present I don't think you would agree with this. So I am asking you to clarify your thoughts for my benefit in understanding your definition of "will".

Thanks.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _Nightlion »

bcspace wrote:Haven't watched more than a couple of mins but I noticed an "As seen on marijuana.com". Just wondering how many hits will I need before will be able to harmonize this.


As a true Mormon, BC, it is forever impossible for you to learn anything that you do not already know having had it ground down upon your dullness of soul year after ponderous year. All the same, all the same. To "harmonize" with anything knew counts the same as 'apostasy' or at least it would short-circuit your reality.

I am certain you had to bale out as soon as you considered that you had never heard such things before. That made you hit the exit. I think that it is only slightly odd that you have the same reaction as defenders of the cult of atheism.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _Nightlion »

honorentheos wrote:So you don't think I'm just being obtuse, let me explain a bit more why I think your response requires more refinement.

Let's simplify your statement to this: will=authorship

I think you would agree that we would be justified taking this expression and saying: will=authorship=X, which means any X that shows authorship also = will.

Your professor already granted a condition at the beginning of his video where a non-god "no-thing", in his case the laws of nature, can author an outcome. His comment, as I recall it, was that quantum mechanics allowed for something to come from nothing provided there was a potential present. In this case, this potential=authorship=will. Or, potential=will.

Since potential does not require God and is the state of the universe whenever there is some form of instability present I don't think you would agree with this. So I am asking you to clarify your thoughts for my benefit in understanding your definition of "will".

Thanks.


We would have to move to goal posts to potentiality if will cannot suffice. If the laws of nature exist before creation and yet those same laws are the cause of creation then there could not be a time when creation did not exist. For the potentiality must also be a constant if the laws of nature are a constant reality. If that is how it had to occur which could not occur except that it had no beginning. Hence, God is the source of potentiality. His existence is the potential for all things. I like that. All glory be ascribed unto him.
So, whatcha got?
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _Nightlion »

Repost so you wont miss this: A beautiful theory of everything QM.
Here is another great thing to consider: (no religion) so relax it's math.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315#docid=7864411138274330819
Last edited by Guest on Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _honorentheos »

We could go in a couple of different directions here. For example, what we mean by "the laws of nature" aren't constant but have undergone some form of change. At a very fine point just on our side of the event horizon that was the big bang, discussed in broad strokes by your professor by the way, the four fundemental forces were all one. What the laws of nature were on the other side of the big bang are not known.

The one thing I did admire in your professor was his repeated admission that we, none of us, could answer the question "why existance?" or what was before it without venturing into speculation. So the premise of your statement above is unfounded as we can not say anything with certainty about what was "before".

This ties into the other direction we could go with this, that being the odd sense you express of "constancy" and balance while the professor in the video cited example after example of how this is simply not the case. His contention, not explictly stated but implied, that it is God's willfulness in creation that guided this change does not help your cause. We can't have God being both constant and guiding change and defending the argument that it reflects God's will by referencing his constancy as well as his creation of potential for change. You're not saying anything by that. It's self-referential or circular.

The third option we have is pretty basic but would probably offend you more than the other two above - nothing in your defintion of God in the post above differentiates God from the other "no-thing", meaning that God = the laws of nature. Which is cool by me. I don't think that's what you intended to say, though.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _honorentheos »

Actually, there is another point to be made based on a poorly phrased concept I am responsible for. That being that the term "potential" isn't meaningful until it becomes kenetic. Constant unchanging potential is suspension. It's the movement from one state to another that shows authorship. Potential is the author, in that it describes the conditions underwhich change is possible. But it doesn't really equate to will in a meaningful way. The enactment of what was potentiated is what would be equal to "will". Not substantially different, but it gets closer to what I see as the root confusion expressed by your professor and perpetuated in your own ideas. God isn't required to create potential. Potential for change exists in a universe where instability exists. The apparent intentionality of this change is the result of being fish in water, as it were. His age-old argument against the evolution of the eye being one example of the poor understanding he seems to bring to the argument.

If this video blew your mind, I think you'd really be blown away by the book, "Your Inner Fish".
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _Nightlion »

honorentheos wrote:We could go in a couple of different directions here. For example, what we mean by "the laws of nature" aren't constant but have undergone some form of change. At a very fine point just on our side of the event horizon that was the big bang, discussed in broad strokes by your professor by the way, the four major forces were all one. What the laws of nature were just prior to the big bang are not known.

The one thing I did admire in your professor was his repeated admission that we, none of us, could answer the question "why existance?" or what was before it without venturing into speculation. So the premise of your statement above is unfounded as we can not say anything with certainty about what was "before".

This ties into the other direction we could go with this, that being the odd sense you express of "constancy" and balance when the professor in the video cited example after example of how this is simply not the case. His contention, not explictly stated but implied, that it is God's willfulness in creation that guided this change does not help your cause. We can't have God being both constant and guiding change and defending the argument that it reflects God's will by referencing his constancy as well as his creation of potential for change. You're not saying anything by that. It's self-referential or circular.

The third option we have is pretty basic but would probably offend you more than the other two above - nothing in your defintion of God in the post above differentiates God from the other "no-thing", meaning that God = the laws of nature. Which is cool by me. I don't think that's what you intended to say, though.


What do you mean nothing differentiates God from the other no-things? You infer the opposite of what I said. I said that the other no-things (laws) could not resist but to cause perpetual creation and could have no beginning. Were as God can initiate a beginning and an end. He may chose to roll from one eternity to another. At will. What is not different there.?

I thought it was cool that the professor stated that we were all there in the beginning. Certainly a beginner has to precede the beginning. From at least another dimension or a previous cycle of a beginning and an end. Maybe it serves as great purpose to suspend everything in an alternate dimension while he collapses and expands a new generation heavens and earth(s) (without number).

Would it take 15 billion years to collapse all things? I am guessing no.

My beloved teacher here is not apprise of anything not found in his Bible with regard to what could precede a beginning. I am. I am aware of an entire cycle of the organization of intelligence in its own dimension before the worlds as we might know them came to be. And that organization could well have gone on for what we count as billions of years as well. Not only was God present he caused all that occurred in that existence too. Making him the Very Eternal Father, of that which is truly eternal, intelligence, or the light of truth, fathered into organized separate spheres of existence.

We cannot get our objective hands on that so it must be false I suppose.....hmm?
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _honorentheos »

What do you mean nothing differentiates God from the other no-things? You infer the opposite of what I said. I said that the other no-things (laws) could not resist but to cause perpetual creation and could have no beginning. Were as God can initiate a beginning and an end. He may chose to roll from one eternity to another. At will. What is not different there.?

The point, my friend, is that you haven't answered any questions by reverting back to this statement. We are now just saying "God" however we wish to define him/her/it is an author and wills change. Your statement about the laws of nature is basically meaningless. The fact is, the laws of nature DO cause perpetual creation in that everything is always changing. It's just a fact. So we have change. Granted. As the Germans say, "Ja, und?"

If you say "God can..." I say, "And your evidence for this is?" You are basically suggesting that God can do things differently than what we are observing. I'm asking you on what ground can you jutify this statement?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: I love this guy Finally a learned thinker watch this please

Post by _Nightlion »

honorentheos wrote: God isn't required to create potential. Potential for change exists in a universe where instability exists.


LOL. instability? where in all the laws of nature is instability allowed? See what I mean? If LON=creation there never was a time when instability could exist and everything must have always existed since the laws and the things governed are both gnalum or eternal. That would be more static than what we observe. That movement and great movement abounds a greater will than natural laws is afoot.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
Post Reply