Discussion in 'Alternative' started by DynoMight, Nov 25, 2006.
If that's what you believe, then so be it.
Meanwhile, my posting of the article was about, "The Matrix."
Ah. Did you write Dr Kaku to enquire his shirt size?
Operative words...could, may... Not.is...
I'm not a believer in your theories, no.
I am a believer in Christ, in Scripture and a two-thousand year Tradition. Despite all its faults, I am, for the most part, comfortable with that. Having said that, there are flaws and faults I am not comfortable with ... nevertheless ...
But on the point in question, nor is Professor Kaku 'a believer' as you suppose.
As a Christian, when I read this, my first thought is: "Then not my God."
As a Christian, when I read this, I think: "Oh dear, Intelligent Design is rearing its head again."
Speak to a believer with something of an interest in the history of his/her tradition – not that such is a requirement of faith or belief, it's not, it's a hobby – and the mention of 'Intelligent Design' will at some point bring Aquinas to mind.
Thomas Aquinas (13th century theologian, saint and Doctor of the Church) famously came up with his "Five Ways" – five logical arguments for the existence of God:
The argument for a 'first mover';
The argument from causation;
The argument from contingency;
The argument from degree'
The argument from 'final cause' (more commonly "the Teleological Argument" – an argument from its end, rather than its cause)
A believer will tell you that contemporary Intelligent Design is like the Teleological Argument, but unlike the Angelic Doctor's, it is profoundly flawed. It falls under the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. The "Cosmic Watchmaker" (or "Cosmic Programmer", if you like) was an analogy most famously put forward by the English clergyman William Paley in his 1802 book "Natural Theology". Just as a watch is "framed and put together for a purpose," he reasoned, so too is nature. As the watch is the design of a watchmaker, nature is the product of a designing intelligence, or God.
Professor Michael Behe, a proponent of the modern intelligent design movement wrote "Darwin’s Black Box" in 1996, embracing Paley's analogy, as scientific, not religious.
The first thing to note is that this Intelligent Design theory is the product of Right Wing Christian 'think tanks' like the Discovery institute; yet there is no Christian nor even Biblical foundation. Its supporters argue not that objects in the world have an end, but rather their focus is on complexity as an effect needing a cause. Because we cannot see a cause, the cause must be God, it's the 'God of the Gaps' argument – it's a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance.
Aquinas' Teleological Argument takes a different point – it utilises Aristotle, who argued that a complete explanation of an object will involve knowledge of how it came to be (efficient cause), what material it consists of (material cause), how that material is structured (formal cause), and the specific behaviours associated with the type of thing it is – what it tends towards (final cause). For the Christian, the Final Cause, the End of all things, is the same as the First Cause, the origin of all things: God – "I am the alpha and the Omega" (Revelation 21:6, 22:13).
Looking at the article, and @RJM Corbet's informative post, I would say Prof. Kaku's argument is not one of Intelligent Design, but rather it's closer to the Fourth Way:
The Angelic Doctor begins: "We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc." to which I would add 'beauty' and without stretching the point actually quote Prof Kaku as saying "Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant" and other such superlatives, such as 'simple'.
"Therefore," Aquinas goes on, "there is something which is best and most true, and most a being, etc. ... and this everyone understands to be God."
To which Prof Kaku would probably agree, knowing Aquinas's proviso that his 'Five Ways' is not a proof of God the Father, the God of the Bible, but of 'the God of the philosophers' ...
I mention Aquinas as 'the Angelic Doctor' because he has written extensively on the nature of angels. You'd profit by a study of it, I think.
The scriptures are, your suppositions, sadly, are not. We can discuss in more detail if you so choose.
No, I've said they're not original. Nor are they all 'true' in the sense of a presentation of Christian revelation, insight and inspiration. There's quite a profound gnosticism in there, a quite fundamental dualism, which you seem encompassed by.
Sadly, I think the one thing lacking most noticeable from your presentations is objectivity.
Contemplate the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, that One is Three and Three is One, and then talk to me of 'Our Mathematical Universe'.
Hi @Geo —
As a starting point, we could discuss the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall?
It seems to me you hold that Eden was a place outside of time and space, that Adam and Eve were angelic creatures, and that time, space and organic matter is a result of the Fall.
I contend that the account of Scripture, of creation and the fall as detailed in Genesis 1-3, says otherwise.
We could discuss that? Or Aquinas on angels?
There are those who hold a two-layer interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1 – the work of days 1-3 being in the spiritual domain, and then the work of the days 4-6 being in the physical.
There are those who hold that Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall, were near-disembodied beings, creatures of light, but this is again not supported directly, it's a question of interpretation, and there are many degrees of interpretation from that, with regard to how physical/material they were prior to the fall and after.
My main point is what you appear to believe is indisputable evidence is no such thing. You simply haven't considered, or refuse to allow, the alternatives. I'm trying to open a dialogue, rather than shut it down with a superior dismissal.
As for the Wachowski's 'revelation', despite everything you've said, I'm still at a loss to see what you think they have revealed.
With respect to, "Time"...
With the consequence of, "the Fall of the first man".
Penrose does say the big bang was the end of the previous universe BUT it was ALSO the beginning of our present universe. Do you see the difference between that and your untruthful meme? Why do you keep repeating the same untruth? The first time it is ignorance, the second time it is deliberately untruthful, imo. That's not the way we do things here. We're not a social media platform. This is our website.
Here we try to be honest in sharing our faith beliefs and learning from one another via grown-up discussion.
The only reason I am responding to you is to alert others reading this thread to your disingenuous repetition of the same untruths. It is becoming tiresome, and obviously futile cleaning up after you
You're the people who chose to host the "Religion of the Matrix" thread. Here.
Which? You've stated now is, "untruthful".
I've explained why it is not... and you've penalized me for doing so.
So be it.
Surprising? Not really.
No. Your repetitive memes are untruthful about what scientists and scriptures say: a half-truth is a whole lie. This isn't Facebook and why should we allow our website to be used as a platform to spread misinformation on the internet?
We have standards here
This is neither a discussion, nor a cogent answer (and if I want to know what Penrose thinks, I go to Penrose.)
Yes we did, for dialogue and discussion. You offer neither ... in that sense you are an 'empty vessel'.
No, I think we've raised a number of points – it's unoriginal, 'matrixism' is an example of the very thing that the movie, and the Wachowski sisters, are warning against. I refer you once again to Jean Baudrillard, the big clue that you and matricists seem to have missed.
So patently nonsense.
1: Your explanations have been shown to be subjective, if not actually flawed. Here, as we continually tell you, we discuss. We are under no obligation to heap praises on anyone who rocks up here.
There are other, recent members here, who have been questioned, who have answered and dialogued, and who have responded in good grace, and are now members of this community, even though some, or perhaps all of us, do not hold with their viewpoint and beliefs. So don't try to play the victim card, it won't work.
You're being penalised for continually breaking the very few and flexible rules of this place, for showing us with chaff.
Personally I think you've abusing the tolerance of IO and you've been abusive towards those who dare to question you.
Your own actions have brought you to this pass.
The next step is up to you.
You can dialogue, or not. You can go forward from here with a clean sheet – we've all asked for a clean sheet at some point and I've never seen anyone refused – we do not hold grudges, we'd rather make friends than lose them.
It's not so much we've asked you to go, it's rather that you've opted to reject and rebuff our welcome.
Well expressed, imo. I apologise for sometimes sounding abrasive.
Hi RJM, will get to that later today.
"Flaws and faults"... "Like a splinter in your mind"?
You're speaking particularly of religious belief. Good for you, and you should Thomas.
Matrix subscribers go beyond just the religious.
Once again, with respect to prophesies, (which situation is established), the Wachowski's illustrated the Truth.
Do you want to state that they borrowed from others? That's fine.
But at the outset of the 21st century, they illustrated the Truth in cinematic illustration to the public.
And all of this at the instigation of, "the god of this world", or "ruler" as Jesus stated.
Perhaps, when things really start breaking down, you'll begin to start understanding the situation involving The Matrix.
The Catholic teachings regarding "The sin of the world" perhaps will have more relevance.
The program has a conclusion.
You post "no one can be told"
Yet how many posts do you post trying to tell us...
What you believe no one can be told.
I have another question ... (that you will ignore) how many people do you physically know (have shaken hands with) that are matrixist?
RJM, So looking at the video, I see similarities with Julian Barbour's examples and illustrations concering slices of now, and he also refers to the "flip book" example.
I would view my perception is one of eternalism, vs. say, wil's perception,
The LP record illustration is a good example, I think.
It is all there, past, present and future.
Which? Is indicative again, of a program.
PBS Spacetime is a good channel, imo
Can't argue with that.
My wife and I like Nature and Nova on Wednesdays, and we watch the News on it daily. It disturbed me to hear that one side of politics wanted to remove govt. support of PBS.
Really? I don't think it's the same. PBS Spacetime is a private You Tube science channel by Matt O'Dowd. Anyway, I've learned a lot from him.
Oh sure. Well he mentioned other videos related to the same subject. I'll look them over.
Separate names with a comma.