Alan Turing

[conception_native_0123]

Newer religions are for the most part the result of disagreements of the meaning of some obscure passage, compounded by the fact that the original authors cannot be questioned. A few religions added new books to the Bible or in some other way modified it.

there's no question about that. disagreements are a result of the fact that they didn't like the truth that Christ preached. no one likes to hear that. I've said this a million times to you guys. But apparently no one around here gets it. didn't you say that to me once recently, richard? "GET IT?" I remember seeing that phrase more than once...

 

[conception_native_0123]

The laws of physics prevail.

NO, the laws of wordpress prevail.

 

[Isaac]

You are correct in that many major cornerstones of the faith haven't changed - the presence of the Bible, concepts like giving, serving, and various expressions of unselfishness or prioritization of God. However, the emergence of Protestantism after Catholicism, the widespread individual availability of the Bible and encouragement of the everyday man's encounter with it, as well as viewpoints on the Holy Spirit have changed quite a bit over time. So I (and most Christians) would disagree with you on "significantly", however, it's obviously subjective/opinion as to what is relatively a lot or a little, so not worth arguing about.

There is a basic principle that is common to all of the world's major religions though it is stated differently in each one. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That statement PREDATES Christianity. It is an older variation of the modern warning "What goes around comes around."

Unfortunately, that's not nearly good enough, since anyone can go around doing whatever they will, and then claiming they don't mind living under the same rule they are imposing on others - because the rule suits them just fine, even if the rule is harmful or unjust to some.

Society desperately needs - and most societies do depend on - something other than the whims of the majority. Every majority will be quite pleased with their preferred rules - the ones they are content also being subjected to - and therefore, will always claim to be living the golden rule.

I have some thoughts about your comments on sin vs. forgiveness, but will add them later.

 

[conception_native_0123]

I have some thoughts about your comments on sin vs. forgiveness

I will stay out of that one, as I'm sure most people around here would appreciate that one. =/

 

[The_Doc_Man]

disagreements are a result of the fact that they didn't like the truth that Christ preached

Actually, technically that's not true. The schisms occurred because the various churches didn't like what they read in the transcriptions and translations of those words in the four gospels. By the time the content of the Bible was formalized by the Council of Nicea, Jesus had already been dead about 400 years, give or take, and nobody could ask Him what He actually said. We don't have His words. We have someone else's accounts of those words written from memory, because the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't writing things in a daily diary as the events happened. They were transcribed later. NOBODY knows exactly what Jesus said and He is long gone so we can't ask Him directly.

Considering a divinely inspired set of books, it is interesting that there are differences in the wording of the four gospels, so that means that the divine inspiration wasn't that strong. If they were truly divinely inspired, they would have all agreed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Unfortunately, that's not nearly good enough

Did not Jesus say that all of the commandments could be derived from two basic rules? The golden rule and a love of God? What else do you need? Don't forget, I am not unfamiliar with the Bible. I no longer read it the same way as others do, but I know a lot of what it says.

Historically, societies formed BEFORE any of the modern religions. Their morals were simple. If you do things that are disruptive to the peace of the village, you EITHER quit the disruptive behavior or we escort you out of the village (or we bury you.) Morals are simply the rules by which people agree to get along with each other. Morals evolve into laws. The formality of laws becomes independent of religiom when you have a multiplicity of religions and folks object to laws based on a literal reading of someone else's holy book (whatever it is) as a governmental rule. Look at Islam, for which sharia is not only the religious law but the secular law too. In some Islamic countries, if you are atheist or gay, you are dead. If you marry outside of your religion, either your spouse dies or you both do.

In the USA, the moment you impose religious laws on people who don't believe in that religion, or the moment you condemn people who are born with issues contrary to a 2000-year-old book, you run into a more modern view of morality that was stated simply in a more recent document, one less than three hundred years old.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This doesn't say "all men are created equal" except for gays. It doesn't qualify the "pursuit of happiness" to exclude non-standard personal liaisons including same-sex marriage. It says that when government becomes destructive of the goals (of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) that the people can alter or abolish that which is so destructive.

We are in the midst of many changes in the USA but the goal is to keep government from being so destructive to some of our members. As we identify these destructive habits, it becomes important to stomp them out. Where religion tries to interfere with the lives of those raised under a different sect or those who have other issues, that interference needs to stop. Anything less is not good enough.

 

[Isaac]

Considering a divinely inspired set of books, it is interesting that there are differences in the wording of the four gospels, so that means that the divine inspiration wasn't that strong. If they were truly divinely inspired, they would have all agreed.

That is a commonly repeated, but totally inaccurate, myth. They were divinely inspired to be useful for instruction to a follower of Christ. That doesn't mean they don't bear normal hallmarks of human witnesses, whose stories normally differ to some extent.

But the biggest factor is that what people mostly find are differences - not actually contradictions. Different writers of the gospel had different emphasis, called out different aspects, emphasized two events by running them together and skipping the material in between, etc. Translation of the words of Jesus from Aramaic into Greek is another factor.

I see it just the opposite. If someone had just made them all up - then I would expect them to be identical.

As for schisms, my view is pretty simple: They are almost entirely a matter of interpretation.

Consider just one, tiny thing that I often ponder myself: Commands for unity and love. Some people will read a particular verse, or verses, and what they understand is that we should prioritize kindness, love and unity above just about all else. I (personally) find that the vast majority of those verses are talking to the church - and are letters for how to conduct ones self, in a church. Amidst groups of corporate believers and maintaining a unified focus in our pursuit of living the Gospel. (This also applies to most places where the New Testament talks about taking care of the poor, by the way - most, but not all). Two totally different results! Two totally different sides of a debate, where I can see reasonable people on either side.

I'll go ahead and address sin and forgiveness here. This is me talking, and my best interpretation of what God wants. Sinful behavior is essentially disobeying and disbelieving God. When we become Christians, we "put on" the new nature of God. When we choose to do something sinful, it is essentially a forgetfulness of who we really are - in that moment we are mistakenly identifying ourselves and aligning with our old sinful nature. It is freeing to remember (as often as possible), that we no longer have to live as slaves to sin, we can live in newness of life.

The Bible teaches about different kinds of forgiveness. The kind I think you were getting at was personal forgiveness - forgiving someone else for harming or hurting you. This is an important fruit that (hopefully) comes out in our life from experiencing the love of God. However, forgiveness does not mean a license to sin - Paul made this clear. In fact, operating under the identity of a forgiven and redeemed child of God - we no longer have to sin, we are free to live the life we were meant to. There is nothing contradictory about steering believers away from sin (which no longer makes sense for us, and every time we fall into it, it means we forgot who we are) versus forgiving those who hurt you.

Then there is also forgiveness from God. God forgave the sins of the whole world through Jesus. That does not mean the whole world has accepted, or will accept, that adoption as sons. The Bible makes it clear it is our choice.

We renew our minds to the reality of our new identity as sons and daughters of God as much as possible. However, we still have a sinful nature that we can choose to align with any time we want - and the more we do this, we are choosing to live under the demands of the old testament law, rather than accepting the redemption that God provides. The Holy Spirit is a gentlemen, and will not force his way upon us. We can darken our understanding and hearing of God's love and voice with as much sin or disbelief as we choose.

 

[Isaac]

Did not Jesus say that all of the commandments could be derived from two basic rules? The golden rule and a love of God? What else do you need?

Sure, but he also said that he came to fulfill all the law and the prophets. Did he mean we should study nothing whatsoever about his teachings or the Bible other than staring at his picture? No.

He also said, to those thinking he had come to nullify the law, that that was not so. Rather, he came to fulfill the law and redeem humanity from the curse of sin and death.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I respect you, @Isaac, so will not chastise you - but your answers don't work for me since I cannot take on the characteristics of that which I do not believe to exist. And the problem with your definition of sin is hopelessly mired in the dogma of your denomination. Which, in the USA, is about 1200 or so definitions of sin. World-wide, even more.

If schisms are a matter of interpretation, we have well over 1200 interpretations to choose from. What's that old problem with Pascal's Wager? If you believe in God - but pick the wrong interpretation - you are still going to Hell.

How do you know what is right? In answer to that question in an earlier thread, our friend Adam says you have to consider the words, listen to your heart, and follow as you think is right. Given the number of variations available, that is a random walk through morality. It is guidance that, to me, is non-guidance. In each case, you are listening not to God but to the admonitions you learned between about 6 years old and 15 to 18 years old. You are following "learned behavior" with that selection rather than any intellectual selection of which one is right.

 

[Isaac]

I respect you, @Isaac, so will not chastise you - but your answers don't work for me since I cannot take on the characteristics of that which I do not believe to exist.

The feeling is mutual, as you know - and I certainly hope you do not see anything I have said thus far that could be described as chastisement either. Fair enough.

Sin is unfortunate baggage - but I would never dream of subscribing to the notion that we are somehow better in God's sight if we avoid a list of sins, or anything like that. God sees people who accept His grace through the filter of Jesus, whose atonement we are covered in, the way it was meant to be prior to sin entering the world. Which, ironically, was the act of man thinking he could decide that something was "bad" to begin with--rather than everything being good, and everything being given by God for us to thrive, enjoy and benefit from.

To me sin is the obvious stuff - something along the lines of the 7 deadly sins, so to speak. Add to that the lesser sins of just refusing to believe or accept God and His promises - which are sins I commit every time I allow anxiety, shame, fear, pride or lust to replace faith, righteousness, trust, humility and marriage.

I will clarify that most of the dogma I have stated is not necessarily what I think is the bare minimum for salvation. I personally believe that God's mercy is a more powerful force than most religious people/Biblical interpretations give Him credit for, and I think maybe the simple, heart-felt recognition of God (to the best of one's own understanding) and surrender to Him is probably what He is looking for.......The rest are details that help a Christian live their best life and optimally help others to do so. As such, I actually believe many people in many religions have sought God honestly, and will find Him, too.

Some observers feel Christians are hypocrites due to their imperfections. To me it is just the opposite. I go to the hospital not because I am perfectly well yet, but because I am struggling with sickness, yet seeking to be well.

Anyway, it's always great conversing with you Doc - and we agree heartily on one point, whatever it is or isn't, it has to be real in your heart.
I would say "follow your heart", is actually not a bad advice at all..

 

[conception_native_0123]

How do you know what is right? In answer to that question in an earlier thread, our friend Adam says you have to consider the words, listen to your heart, and follow as you think is right. Given the number of variations available, that is a random walk through morality. It is guidance that, to me, is non-guidance. In each case, you are listening not to God but to the admonitions you learned between about 6 years old and 15 to 18 years old. You are following "learned behavior" with that selection rather than any intellectual selection of which one is right.

You will have to point me to where i said such things. There are too many words floating around here. AND...i didn't think i had any friends here?

 

[conception_native_0123]

ALOT of Christians ARE hypocrites, @Isaac and @The_Doc_Man. I will leave it up to you to decide whether that is me or not.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You will have to point me to where i said such things.

I will have to go looking for it, but it was in the context of discussing cults such as the ones from Jim Jones or David Koresh. I asked how to tell if an extremely charismatic speaker is legit - i.e. how to tell the good guys from the really smooth, alluring bad guys. Your answer was (more or less) that you had to decide that from within yourself. It was probably in one of your previous two incarnations.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Your answer was (more or less) that you had to decide that from within yourself. It was probably in one of your previous two incarnations.

It must have been, otherwise I would have remembered it because I haven't been around this time for very long at this point. Although I do have 500 Plus messages racked up already

 

[Saphirah]

OK, @Isaac - I'll back down. Devout MODERN Christians wouldn't have stoned Turing to death. In Biblical times? They might very well have done so. Devout MODERN Muslims? No promises there - they still do stoning for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality, and a few other things. Religion among fundamentalist types can be SO unforgiving, which is odd for a religion that claims to follow the greatest forgiver ever born.

@Jon -



Depends on viewpoint, but the general consensus is "No" on that one, I think. In a Quantum Mechanical universe, randomness and chaos theory are significant factors in our environment and choices. Einstein and Oppenheimer disagreed on this one. Einstein was a "strict causality" person whereas Oppenheimer was all about randomness. Oppenheimer's views have been more strongly supported even though many of Einstein's ideas have been proven as well.

QM is all about probabilities. Radioactive decay is a perfect example; you know in a given sample that half of the radioactive atoms will decay by a certain time - but you can't tell WHICH of them will decay.

Storm pathways are another good case; we know the odds of a storm forming but do not know where or in what direction it will travel (other than within a general area.)

Human reproduction is another case; randomness comes in knowing WHICH sperm will fertilize the egg - if any.

There are proponents of human behavior being at most PARTLY deterministic. Within our brain we have potentials both to do and to not do. [Yoda voice] There is no try! There is only Do or Not Do [/Yoda voice]. Some folks think that chaos theory - more specifically, SDIC or "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" - is operable here. That is the reason why some folks say we have free will. We do things based on what has led us to the moment of decision.

Here, the Bard of Avon was right - "What's past is prologue." (Appropriate that here we have a Tempest brewing.) However, the rest of the quote would show that while the past brings us to the present, the future is still based on our decisions. "Whereof what's past is prologue; what to come, in yours and my discharge."

In fact, if QM is right, then omniscience (in the sense of preordination - of "knowing everything that will happen - before it happens") is totally impossible. Randomness at the quantum level precludes such knowledge. All we can hope for is a statistical knowledge of what is LIKELY to happen, and even that is subject to variation based on the reliability of the information feeding the statistics.

Isaac, I sympathize with your struggle. I went through it at age about 35. Past a certain point, I realized there were too many inconsistencies and too many modern discoveries that made no sense unless I looked at the Bible differently, as a series of cultural myths that had limited factual basis. As a collection of allegories and myths, telling you what people believed at the time, it makes perfect sense. Saying that, though, doesn't mean they were right about all of the mysticism and miracles. Only that they had stories about miracles by mystic beings.

This is certainly an interesting topic but i do believe there is nothing that is truely random. If one could simulate every atom in the universe one could definitely predict the future.
Why? Because the whole Universe is running on predefined rules. And for every rule there is a mathematical equation.
Let us take radioactive decay for example. There is no way for us to know which atom will split when. But Radioactive decay is happening because of an unstable nucleus that looses energy. So what if we could simulate the atom down to it's core? What if we could simulate all the forces that apply to this atom? The forces coming from the outside, pulling the atom apart and the forces between the core and the electrons, that hold it together? And maybe all the forces we don't even know about. These forces are predefined rules and not random, so a simulation would definitely be possible, as long as we have the calculative power.
Then we could definitely predict which electron will split from the atom and thus we know about radioactive decay.

The same goes for sperm. If we know the exact property of all sperms, the environment, the distance to the egg, the friction etc... We could predict which sperm arrives at the egg first. Ofc we need to simulate the whole environment, if not the whole universe down to the atom to make a 100% prediction. But as long as we have the calculative power (which we will never have) it is possible.

Let us go even deeper. Human conciousness. I do believe that every thought you have is predefined. Why? Because your brain runs on predefined rules. Let us say we continue to simulate the sperm, the cell division. We simulate the body that is made out of it. Then we simulate the first stimuli through senses. Because we also simulate the whole world around it.
These stimuli are electric impulses going to the brain. The electric impulses cause the cells in the brain to perform a certain activity, reproduce, reconnect. With this we learn. And we develop a mind.
But what kind of connections we develop is completely dependent on the input we get from outside and the predetermand factors of our body.
The mind you develop is a result of everything that you see, feel and experience. Because you take that and your cells form your brain a certain way.

And because everything in this world is running on predefined rules and is predictable, so is the mind and the way how it is formed.
Please remember, just because we do not have an information it does not mean that something is random. When we shuffle a card deck we do not know which card is on top. But the probability of the top card being the top card is 100%. So if you KNEW which card is on top the probability suddenly does down form 1/52 to 1/1.

That is why i think the future is set and (in theory) 100% predictable.

 

[conception_native_0123]

there is absolutely no surprise whatsoever that @Jon liked the last post. If he wouldn't have, I would've thought hell would've frozen over.

 

[Jon]

Because the whole Universe is running on predefined rules.

This. Even if we can't simulate anything, if a scientist believes that the Universe runs on the laws of physics, the natural consequence of that thought is that everything is preordained.

Why put any effort into societal order, then?

@Isaac Since everything is preordained, we cannot help putting that effort in because we have no control over what we do. We just have an illusion of control.

In a Quantum Mechanical universe, randomness and chaos theory are significant factors in our environment and choices.

@The_Doc_Man Firstly, let me differentiate between randomness and chaos theory. My understanding is that one perhaps is truly random, while the other just gives the appearance of randomness, because the system is so complex we can't do all the calculations, like trying to predict the weather in the UK! Near infinite sensitive initial conditions still operate under the laws of physics.

Secondly, are we sure Quantum Mechanics is truly random, or is it a case that our understanding is not yet there? They say that if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you do not understand Quantum Mechanics.

Lastly, if Quantum Mechanics does introduce genuine randomness, I am not aware of evidence that proves this randomness gives us any control over our actions whatsoever. If everything runs on the laws of physics - which is does, as far as we all know - then everything IS preordained, even if the outcomes are unpredictable. There is an argument to say that if genuine randomness does exist, everything is still preordained yet the outcome could be 100% unpredictable, and 100% random. The word preordained has several flavours.

This is a topic that I find very hard to get my head around. For us to have any choice or control, how do we overcome the laws of physics? Or, how is choice and control compatible with these laws, a better question me thinks? Then God enters the room...

Edit: Could this all mean that in fact we are living in a simulation? Is this the clue that belies the big lie, that we are in a physical Universe, whereas instead we are mere digits operating within an alien Simpsons computer game?

 

[conception_native_0123]

Edit: Could this all mean that in fact we are living in a simulation? Is this the clue that belies the big lie, that we are in a physical Universe, whereas instead we are mere digits operating within an alien Simpsons computer game?

TRON

 

[NauticalGent]

We just have an illusion of control.

Exactly. I cannot put anything as eloquently as you and others have on this subject - I simply do not have the brains and have not found the topic intriguing enough - I find the real world vexing enough to deal in hypotheticals...

That being said, here it is...

Nothing is pre-ordained, although we may not have complete control of everything, we do have the ability to influence change in just about everything.

God, Supreme Being, Grand Architect of the Universe?? No idea. I have a been instilled at a young age a deep-rooted belief that there is a kind old man up in the sky who remembers everyone's birthday, who will also smite me down if I touch myself too affectionally in the wrong place. Some would call it brainwashing, others would call it a conditioned response - whatever you call it, I DO know that it isn't like I was taught as a child. Bad things happen to good people and bad people do get away with doing bad things. The warden has gone home and the inmates are running the asylum: We are on our own.

When I die, my dead flesh is worm food and that is the end of it.

Even so , I DO believe that there is an entity that is responsible for life as we know it.

In the end, does it really matter? I'm here now and I try to make this day as good as it can be. In one hand there is the live we have, in the other is the life we want. We should spend our days trying to clap as often as possible. And in the end (with apologies to the Beatles), if the love we take is equal to the love we make - well then that's about the best we can hope for.

 

[Saphirah]

Edit: Could this all mean that in fact we are living in a simulation? Is this the clue that belies the big lie, that we are in a physical Universe, whereas instead we are mere digits operating within an alien Simpsons computer game?

I don't think so. We built our computers based on our existing laws of physics. So to say that we are living in a simulation, because our world works exactly like a computer does is wrong, because we built our computers to work like the world does.

Damn... what a weird sentence...