Have you looked at such as this, as an indication of the range of science/philosophy interaction?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14660/new-approach-to-quantum-mechanics-the-prescribed-measurement-problem

Connecting the trinity with quantum entanglement completely fails when you try to sneak in teleology and intent as part of the posit. — universeness

I know that speculation about possible ontological similarities of the Trinity and entanglement must be regulated by study of the pertinent science. I don't want to sneak teleology into any type of disguise or homunculus arguments. Doing that won't get me anywhere. I'm confident about not intentionally playing word games because false narratives don't interest me. Things real and important can sometimes be a lot of fun.

I hope you decide to pursue your decision to study some of the youtube stuff on QM, and come back to us on this thread, regarding it's connection with entropy and your musings on teleology, intent and theism. — universeness

We two, fully accept 180 Proof's reminder that none of the three of us are physicists and we can only at best, skirt around the edges of the subject, but, I regularly make 'improvements' in my understanding of physics, by reading some books and watching some youtube stuff on the wide range of physics topics that exist. — universeness

The above statements are a good description of my future course. I will return here as my database of science knowledge continues to build.

I will take a look at the link you've provided. Thank-you.

You might find the following interesting. Victor T Toth, is a very respected part time physicist on Quora.
Even maths professors such as @jgill here on TPF rate him well.

Question posed to Victor: Most comments on quantum entanglement on Quora repeat that sending information faster than light is impossible. But how about entanglement seeming to violate locality? Isn't this something that needs to be investigated and theorized about?

Victor's response on Quora:

Of course entanglement violates the concept of locality. That is the whole point of Bell’s famous theorem.

The intriguing thing about quantum physics is that despite this violation of nonlocality, it is not possible to cause an influence to propagate from one location to another faster than light.

Think of nonlocality as variables that govern the behavior of the system as a whole, but not attached to any particular space, time, or object. The conserved energy, momentum, or angular momentum of a quantum system are good examples. If a pair of particles are entangled (or to be precise, if a pair of particles is isolated from the environment so that they are ONLY entangled with each other and not everything else) and you measure, say, the angular momentum of one of them, this allows you to predict the outcome of a similar measurement of the other and vice versa. But it is wrong to think that you caused the other measurement to have a certain value. Rather, these two measurements are governed by the same quantity (the conserved angular momentum of the system as a whole) that has been there all along, everywhere, all at once, to borrow part of the title of that popular film.

And this is how we can have both nonlocality and causality at the same time. Actually for causality we need a bit more: ordinary quantum mechanics does allow faster-than-light or backwards-in-time signaling with a small but nonvanishing probability, but quantum field theory explicitly rules such things out, so the theory is strictly causal, despite being nonlocal.

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.
— Arthur C. Clarke
At my most speculative, I'm attracted to pandeism because it is more consistent with my philosophical (& methodological) naturalism – all we rigorously know and observe – than any other deity / divinity concept. — 180 Proof

I struggle to understand how you fail to see that The Trinity, centuries before QM, claimed the superposition of three entities, one of them flesh and blood.
— ucarr
:yikes: wtf ... — 180 Proof

Click on the link below and watch the short YouTube video.

Trinity Logic

Near the end of the video, with four seconds remaining, pause the video so you can study the graphic displayed there.

Here's what I wrote (expanded version):

A_ ¬ A_B ∧ B_ ¬ B_A

A = A is an identity; If A = A → A = ¬ A, then paradox

A = Father; B = Son; C = Spirit; D = Triune Unity

A = D ⋀ B = D ⋀ Transitive Property → A = B ∧ A ≠ B: Paradox

B = D ∧ C = D ∧ Transitive Property → B = C ∧ B≠ C: Paradox

C = D ∧ A = D ∧ Transitive Property → C = A ∧ C ≠ A: Paradox

Trace along each of the three interlocking triangles. In so doing, you will see it says the same thing I wrote before seeing the video so, independent corroboration!

Here's some additional clarifying information:

Diagram = Super-Nature, a higher order of Nature.

Humans on earth inhabit nature.

A = Father; B = Son; C = Spirit; D = Triune Unity; the Triune Unity inhabits Super-Nature in Heaven.

Heaven contains a fourth, expanded spatial dimension. In the four-space dimensional matrix of heaven, the paradoxicality of the Triune Unity on earth disappears because the fourth spatial dimension is expanded.

A higher dimension can be perceived at a lower dimensional matrix. However, down there the higher dimension will manifest in its collapsed form because its full, expanded version cannot be accommodated there.

Whenever, at a given dimensional matrix, a higher dimension manifests in collapsed form, that collapsed form is configured as a paradox. The literal meaning of paradox is “simultaneously here and not here.” This counter-intuitive configuration tells us that we’ve arrived at the boundary of the current dimensional matrix in terms of its expanded dimensions. “Simultaneously here and not here” points upward to a higher dimensional matrix of the hierarchy of matrices.

Paradox therefore functions as a signpost for a higher-dimensional matrix just across the border separating two hierarchical matrices.

The Trinity-Paradox is an earthly expression of the Christian God in supernatural Heaven.

The logical dimensions of my claim, unlike the ontological dimensions, are falsifiable. Please falsify my logical dimensions; it's your duty to do so.

Near the end of the video, with four seconds remaining, pause the video so you can study the graphic displayed there. — ucarr

I have encountered this diagram before on youtube. It has been used by such con men as Kent Hovind and his son Eric Hovind. This 'trinity' video and it's content are pure hokum. The diagram is useless and meaningless.

Near the end of the video, with four seconds remaining, pause the video so you can study the graphic displayed there.
— ucarr

I have encountered this diagram before on youtube. It has been used by such con men as Kent Hovind and his son Eric Hovind. This 'trinity' video and it's content are pure hokum. The diagram is useless and meaningless. — universeness

Okay, you've made a declaration. Are you unwilling to back it up with a supporting argument? It's easy to trace the three interlocking triangles and follow the logic of what they're saying. Are you unwilling to do that in order to show, with logic, that my reading of the triangles is illogical?

If you're not willing to do this, I must conclude your above statement is something akin to a homunculus argument; your claims (bold letters) are based upon an argument using a mysterious process not explained.

Victor's response on Quora: — universeness

This is useful info, thanks.

Are you familiar with the below book:

Why Are You Atheists So Angry? It's a pro-atheist book.

Are you familiar with this conversation?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14658/why-i-dont-believe-in-god-greta-christina/p1

Click on the link below and watch the short YouTube video.

Trinity Logic — ucarr

I clicked the link but I didn't bother watching. Twelve years of primary & seconary Jesuit education (four years of Latin, one year of Greek) and in particular study of the theological apologetics of Early Church Fathers, etc have left me confident that I understand the 'Doctrine of the Holy Trinity' well enough already. Also, I think I've made it abundantly clear, ucarr, I'm neither a religious believer nor a metapjysical supernaturalist, so why refer me to this video. I prefer not to have to regret losing five minutes which I can never get back again.

As for the rest of your post ... :roll:

:up:

I have watched debates/discussions between theists and atheists online, for many years.
I am very familiar with the nonsense arguments peddled by theists and theosophists.
They are all bogus. I have contributed to many threads on TPF regarding theism and religion.
If you wish to engage me in a direct discussion on an aspect of religious dogma, such as the trinity, then we can do so by PM or on one of the threads already on TPF regarding such.
I have no appetite for ad nauseam repetition and irrational theistic woo woo (which is all that is on offer in the trinity proposal) on this thread, as that would spoil the interesting components of this thread that your style of thinking has offered. Remember the title is does entropy exist, not does the trinity exist.
@180 Proof :100:

I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through,
— universeness
Insofar as atheism means theism is not true and therefore theistic deities are fictions, I am "an atheist through and through", which I've stated already ..
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/789507 — 180 Proof

↪universeness My near-"ignostic" position is that theistic gods are fictions (atheism re: tokens) because the sine non qua claims of theism are not true (antitheism re: type). Thus, as far as I'm concerned, religious scriptures are canonized allegories just as religious practices are applied superstitions, and are only worth discussing or opposing when they are used (by theocratic fundies or ignorant/hypocritical literalists) to "justify" coercing obedience to the prerogatives of religious leaders and their functionaries. — 180 Proof

> this is the link to 180s comment https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/789507

... well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be ...
You quote my post on pandeism out of the context of its salient qualifiers:

A woo-free speculation much more consistent with the observed universe of natural science— 180 Proof
... which paraphrases Epicurus' observation about death: when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not.— 180 Proof

In your own words above, you state your conviction that theistic gods are false, and that this is true because theism’s necessary claims are not true.

The trinity is a necessary claim of Christianity, so it is, according to your words, false.
I have one simple question to ask you that, I think, will prove that you do not truly believe your above words. I’m confident, up to the level of ninety per cent, that you will not answer my simple question because it would mean immersing yourself within a commitment I do not expect you make.

Knowing you were educated by nuns and Jesuits in Catholic schools, I postulate your deep down belief in your possession of an immortal soul and, moreover, I postulate that, given this, you will not knowingly place it in jeopardy of eternal damnation.

Here’s the simple question: Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your above words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction?

Two Important Clarifications: a) this is not a religious witch-hunt because the logic of your above words makes it clear you regard the Holy Spirit as non-factual. If this is true, as you claim to believe, then permanently rejecting it will not harm you, and thus, logically, you have no reason to refuse to make the commitment; b) I want you to refuse to make such a written commitment for the obvious reason I do believe in the Holy Spirit and never want to see any living soul reject it.

No living soul knows what lies beyond the veil of death. Whether or not, after you die, salvation will be beyond reach of non-believers, as contemplated on the living side, stands undecidable. You don’t know the ontological status of the purported afterlife because, by your own standard of reality: nature, you know you don’t know empirically what death entails; death as qualia lies beyond natural life.

My ninety per cent confidence you will not commit to such a written statement is bolstered by your speculation about pan deism. You allow hedge room for a deity within your metaphysical commitments because, as I’ve been speculating, deep down you know you have an immortal soul:

…when we are, "God" is not; when "God" is, we are not. — 180 Proof

In the above quote you connect yourself to God as a derivative thereof. This is code for your acknowledgement of your possession of an immortal soul. You situate yourself within a binary metaphysics that accommodates human freedom on a switchable bifurcation of human ascendent/God ascendent. God is the metaphysical ground of your being as the axiomatics of existence. You allow God ascendency in comfortable separation from your boundless human ambition in order to exist. After God funds human existence, the switch is thrown, as per Arthur C. Clarke, and then human- ascendent takes flight with logic_science_tech… until cosmic heat death, or the like. Thereafter, the oscillation reverses. And so on… and so on…

Trinity Logic
— ucarr
I clicked the link but I didn't bother watching. — 180 Proof

I thank you both for your time and also for the extent to which you've tracked my facts, evidence and reasoning.

One big dividend I've been receiving from you is the chance to observe some effects of the excellent work done by your educators. I admire those who guided your Catholic school education. Some of your education has become some of mine. I sense in you an adamantine grounding in correct principles of observing, learning, thinking and concluding.

Twelve years of primary & seconary Jesuit education (four years of Latin, one year of Greek) and in particular study of the theological apologetics of Early Church Fathers, etc have left me confident that I understand the 'Doctrine of the Holy Trinity' well enough already. — 180 Proof

My purpose with the video herein was examination of an ancient claim of superposition at the scale of classical physics. Is my focus something that was frequently repeated in your classrooms?

As for the rest of your post ... :roll: — 180 Proof

Since you didn't go to the graphic in the video and trace the logic of the three interlocking triangles, I'm not surprised by your wholesale dismissal of my response to your previous WTF dismissal.

It's hard to advance an argument with someone paying only selective attention. You attack one of my claims with a WTF bomb, and then, when I defend it, instead of countering my defense, you ignore it. That makes you a sniper, doesn't it? You fire upon the opponent, but when they return fire, you duck out.

If you wish to engage me in a direct discussion on an aspect of religious dogma, such as the trinity, then we can do so by PM... — universeness

Let's do it. Shall I start?

Let's do it. Shall I start? — ucarr

Yes.

My ninety per cent confidence you will not commit to such a written statement is bolstered by your speculation about pan deism. You allow hedge room for a deity within your metaphysical commitments because, as I’ve been speculating, deep down you know you have an immortal soul: — ucarr

:lol: Oh please extend this challenge to me. May my (non-existent) eternal soul be dammed to the worst hell any theistic mind or ucarr mind or Christian god can invent or imagineer. I say that if the Christian Yahweh exists, it is an evil monster, the equivalent of any notion of Satan, who is also a non-existent, incapable of giving me as much as a hang nail.

Here is an old challenge I have been making to devoted theists, since I was around 20 (I am now 59).
Let's see if the Christian god can stop me from finishing this sentence ...... looks like it can't.
Stop living in fear ucarr of non-existent gods. I will sign over my immortal soul right here right now, for free! It does not exist. Shall I give Yahweh some more time? How about you request that it affect me before you respond to this post and then I will tell you if it worked.
As with all theist threats, the best that lot can do, is hope some unfortunate happenstance happens to me or some religious nut job kills me and then claims god was acting through them. :lol:
It would be fascinating to find out what creature a human would become after a hundred years of suffering in any of the hell's described in theism. Its just fairy stories to try to scare children. This god can't even save an innocent child from starving to death!

Here is an old challenge I have been making to devoted theists, since I was around 20 (I am now 59).
Let's see if the Christian god can stop me from finishing this sentence ...... looks like it can't. — universeness

God won't stop you from doing what you are empowered to do. The gates of Hell are locked from the inside. Those dwelling therein are there by personal choice firmly established.

If you are willing to commit to writing your permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, I want it understood you choose to do so for reasons quite beyond the issues of a debate. If you do this thing, it should be borne of a deep and abiding belief that the God of Christianity is one you wish permanent and insuperable separation from. This state of ultimate separation from God is the proper definition of Hell.

Please do not act under my influence. My job, as a believer, is to nudge you in the opposite direction. I acknowledge I can't persuade you in any significant way. Your final outcome is based upon your nature, your will and your personal choices.

Your mocking tone signals to me an attitude lacking in seriousness. Good! Mock me forever. Never mock God! You say if Yahweh exists, it is an evil monster. This is exactly what the infernal one wishes you to believe. Satan, who proceeds by deception, reaches his apex of power when he hoodwinks a living soul into believing things are exactly opposite to reality. When a living soul believes Good is Evil and Evil (in this instance: "proof" of God's non-existence via your supposed harmless commitment to disdain God in writing) is Good, damnation triumphs over innocence. Even so, if you willfully cross the line into mockery and permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven this transgression.

I don't expect 180 Proof to react in a manner similar to yours. If I'm right about him likely dodging any definitive statement about him commiting to permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, take note of it. He is your ally in atheism. If you see him deviate from the atheist party line, perhaps with subtlety and guile, let him influence you. He's not naive about the Holy Trinity.

I lost my religion (i.e. ritualized magical thinking) @15 and became godless. I'm even more godless now @60 after decades of readings in e.g. cultural anthropology, comparative religion, comparative philosophy, post-secondary engineering, natural sciences & cognitive science studies as well as surviving/thriving from many limit-experiences (epiphanies). I'm an everyday absurdist bluesman who has done his homework and paid his dues, ucarr, and have made my commitments to antitheism, irreligion, freethought & naturalism abundantly clear over thousands of posts on TPF and on my member profile. :death: :flower:

Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your above words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction?

I don't understand this question in light of the above.

:clap: :up:

My job, as a believer ... — ucarr

... does not trump your responsibilities as a thinker (especially here on TPF), at minimum, not to degenerate 'philosophical discussions' into proselytizing cant rationalized by vapid, dogmatic, apologia (or woo woo). :brow:

Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your above words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction?
I don't understand this question in light of the above. — 180 Proof

Twelve years of primary & seconary Jesuit education (four years of Latin, one year of Greek)... have left me confident that I understand the 'Doctrine of the Holy Trinity' well enough already. — 180 Proof

I admire your devotion to scholarship.

How, given your education, you could fail to understand my question is a mystery. However, I seem to be getting to know you better as, per my prediction, you are NOT answering the question.

My job, as a believer ...
— ucarr
... does not trump your responsibilities as a thinker (especially here on TPF), at minimum, not to degenerate 'philosophical discussions' into proselytizing cant rationalized by vapid, dogmatic, apologia (or woo woo). :brow: — 180 Proof

How is daring someone to reject the Holy Spirit proselytizing? Your free-thinking has suffered no assaults from me. The dare was a simple strategy aimed at exposing some doubt on your parts; since it has instead stimulated affirmations of lives undeceived by falsehoods, I must admit it has backfired. Since you and universeness have no doubts, your devotion to antitheism is highlighted.

It's true that some of my arguments devolve into flimsy rationalizations, but my articulations are always reasoned and strategic. In this instance my failed strategy was aimed at demonstrating how no thinker sees beyond the veil of death. Of course you've seized upon this opportunity to impugn my intentions as cant. If there's an afterlife, its quality is beyond rational examination by the living. That's why I speculate about you having a bid on axiomatic deism. This insight, even if it doesn't apply to you, wouldn't have come to me if I hadn't organized a strategy supporting my question.

I'm always thinking here, even if I don't always think well.

God won't stop you from doing what you are empowered to do. The gates of Hell are locked from the inside. Those dwelling therein are there by personal choice firmly established. — ucarr

The hell you speak of is a product of your own primal fear. It only exists in your mind, put there by liars.
You as a human, are far more able to affect your environment and everything in it than any god or devil, as you actually exist.

If you are willing to commit to writing your permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, I want it understood you choose to do so for reasons quite beyond the issues of a debate. If you do this thing, it should be borne of a deep and abiding belief that the God of Christianity is one you wish permanent and insuperable separation from. This state of ultimate separation from God is the proper definition of Hell. — ucarr

So let it be written, so let it be done ...... with bells on. Now, what was that about your 90% confidence? :lol: Gods have no power, they never have and they never will, because they have no intent or teleology, because they have no existence. Your first quote above is a pure cop out. Even though I easily met your challenge, your irrational fear makes you cling to the hope that your god is biding its time and will deal with me later. Not very 'all mighty' of it. Perhaps it's too busy being entertained, by all the human suffering going on on Earth.

Please do not act under my influence. My job, as a believer, is to nudge you in the opposite direction. I acknowledge I can't persuade you in any significant way. Your final outcome is based upon your nature, your will and your personal choices. — ucarr

I release you from any responsibility or influence ucarr regarding the non-existence of my or any esoteric soul. You are not responsible for the hiddenness/impotence/non-existence of a supernatural mind with an ability to demonstrate its existence.

Your mocking tone signals to me an attitude lacking in seriousness. Good! Mock me forever. Never mock God! You say if Yahweh exists, it is an evil monster. This is exactly what the infernal one wishes you to believe. Satan, who proceeds by deception, reaches his apex of power when he hoodwinks a living soul into believing things are exactly opposite to reality. When a living soul believes Good is Evil and Evil (in this instance: "proof" of God's non-existence via your supposed harmless commitment to disdain God in writing) is Good, damnation triumphs over innocence. Even so, if you willfully cross the line into mockery and permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven this transgression. — ucarr

I don't think you have understood me fully ucarr. I am not being tough or brave here. I do not experience your fear and dread, as I assign 0 credence to the proposals, that for you, power them. Let's say your god and it's friend/enforcer Satan exists, and I go to hell, then I would scream and ask for forgiveness, within seconds of being tortured. But your god does nothing, whilst innocent humans suffer terrible events, here on Earth, every day. So, it would not listen to my pleas, as you have stated, because 'you will not be forgiven this transgression.' If your god exists then it had better not forgive me, no matter how much I beg, under torture, as that would make it a liar and a fake. I am happy to be tortured by the supernatural for eternity, as I have lived my life, standing against all human tyranny. Your god, if it existed would be the biggest tyrant ever. So It would have to face my judgement, not me face it's judgement. Your god, if it exists is a fool, if it does not fear the judgement of all those humans/animals etc who have suffered, due to its incompetent creation.

It's long past time for the human race to stop scapegoating non-existents and take full communal responsibility for all of the inhumanity some humans demonstrate towards other humans and our bad stewardship of this planet. Time to let go of the fairy stories and grow up.

I don't expect 180 Proof to react in a manner similar to yours. If I'm right about him likely dodging any definitive statement about him committing to permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, take note of it. He is your ally in atheism. If you see him deviate from the atheist party line, perhaps with subtlety and guile, let him influence you. He's not niave about the Holy Trinity. — ucarr

There is no atheist party and there are many shades of atheism and atheists. @180 Proof is very capable of stating his own position, in his own way.
You either have the ability to overcome your primal fears or you don't ucarr. If you can't then stick with your Pascals wager. I will still respect your skills to think in interesting ways. Be content that bad atheists like me will suffer for eternity, for my unforgivable crime of rejecting primal fear and irrationality, whilst you will be in heaven, constantly telling a god how wonderful you think it is. Christian heaven has always sounded like hell to me. A place where there are no more questions, has no meaning or purpose to me. Sounds like a new big bang is needed.

The hell you speak of is a product of your own primal fear. It only exists in your mind, put there by liars. — universeness

:fire:

At best your post is disingenuous since "the question" is merely rhetorical given my previously stated philosophical commitments. Again, ucarr, for 45 years now I haven't had any religious or supernatural beliefs whatsoever as I reject all species of magical thinking (such as yours :sparkle:).

Even though I easily met your challenge, your irrational fear makes you cling to the hope that your god is biding its time and will deal with me later. — universeness

You think I want God to banish you to hell in reaction to our exchange of ideas within a debate? I'm a sinner, but I certainly hope I'm not guilty of what you charge me with.

Yes, I harbor primal fears; you don't? Some of them are irrational. Are none of your thoughts irrational?

If you are willing to commit to writing your permanent rejection of the Holy Spirit, I want it understood you choose to do so for reasons quite beyond the issues of a debate. If you do this thing, it should be borne of a deep and abiding belief that the God of Christianity is one you wish permanent and insuperable separation from. This state of ultimate separation from God is the proper definition of Hell.
— ucarr
So let it be written, so let it be done ...... — universeness

I hope you're protected from negative consequences because you reject your own conception of the Holy Spirit as fiction. That's not the same as rejecting something you know to be real.

I release you from any responsibility or influence ucarr regarding the non-existence of my... soul — universeness

Thankfully, the ontic status of your immortal soul has not been entrusted to someone as flawed and fragile as another benighted human groping through life's changing fortunes e.g. ucarr.

Let's say your god and it's friend/enforcer Satan exists, and I go to hell, then I would scream and ask for forgiveness, within seconds of being tortured. — universeness

Firstly, you are indeed a blithe spirit if you believe Satan is God's friend and partner.

God and Satan do not work in tandem guiding souls into hell. God does not want you going there. Satan does.

If you, like 180 Proof, believe nature encompasses the totality of what you can experience, then perhaps your consignment here, as seen in the eyes of a believer, means only living a natural life. You both have given me ample reason to believe such a consignment shall elicit your amens and hallelujahs.

Under this construction, heaven is an absence, not something extra. For you, God, likewise is an absence, not something extra. The challenge of belief, then, is believing in something absential as measureless abundance. Aha! Absence as presence. Superposition! A_¬A_B ∧ B_¬B_A.

...your god does nothing, whilst innocent humans suffer terrible events, here on Earth, every day. — universeness

Again, the challenge of belief is believing in something absential as measureless abundance.

So, it would not listen to my pleas, as you have stated, because 'you will not be forgiven this transgression.' — universeness

The Holy Spirit listens to your pleas; that's why willful rejection of said is so fearful. If you banish the comforter all the way through to the end of your life, you enclose your life within itself. As already implied, outreach to other mortal humans is no escape from self-enclosure. Your immortal soul adheres to the existential ground of the axiomatics. This is your transcendental metaphysics supporting your life.

You, on the basis of your own mind and it’s understanding, are not enough to support your own life. Belief equals meeting the challenge of embracing absence as presence.

You will notice 180 Proof has not written any words that explicitly reject the Holy Spirit. He makes provision for his immortal soul through his inclination toward pandeism. I hope you will imitate him. He is trustworthy.

If your god exists then it had better not forgive me, no matter how much I beg, under torture, as that would make it a liar and a fake. I am happy to be tortured by the supernatural for eternity, as I have lived my life, standing against all human tyranny. Your god, if it existed would be the biggest tyrant ever. So It would have to face my judgement, not me face it's judgement. Your god, if it exists is a fool, if it does not fear the judgement of all those humans/animals etc who have suffered, due to its incompetent creation. — universeness

In your above statements, you show your likeness to God. I'm honored by your willingness to share with me your sacred devotion to other humans. I do not believe the testament is a completed work. The as above so below project, or the great Turing Simulation, continues. You play an active part in it. More power to you.

I will still respect your skills to think in interesting ways. — universeness

For that I'm grateful. I need a listener.

Be content that bad atheists like me will suffer for eternity, for my unforgivable crime of rejecting primal fear and irrationality, whilst you will be in heaven, constantly telling a god how wonderful you think it is. — universeness

We don't know what tomorrow brings. Never forget the Heisenberg_Haldane quote.

At best your post is disingenuous since "the question" is merely rhetorical given my previously stated philosophical commitments. Again, ucarr, for 45 years now I haven't had any religious or supernatural beliefs whatsoever as I reject all species of magical thinking (such as yours :sparkle:). — 180 Proof

Is belief in the Trinity magical thinking?

Is belief in the Trinity magical thinking? — ucarr

No doubt.

Science does not have all the answers as it’s limited by the tools it’s able to detect or dissect natural phenomena.

But just because this is so does not necessarily mean that it’s cause is supernatural or god but it could well be a possibility. Life in the universe and the emergence of consciousness is shrouded in mystery which science itself does not fully have all the answers but it’s made good progress in certain areas such as quantum mechanics which still baffles even the best physicists which continue to propose different models or frameworks of understanding and explaining these phenomena.

Yet there is hope for god because even science is limited and though it may progress it is limited to the point of big bang prior to which we are not able to probe and not privy to what occurred before so @ucarr you raise a very valid point by bringing god into the equation, a being which has always been could be existence itself in a way, eternal without beginning or end would mean science does not necessarily have to give up its methods of establishing theories but that it would come to a standstill in this enterprise of explaining everything.

At best your post is disingenuous since "the question" is merely rhetorical given my previously stated philosophical commitments. Again, ucarr, for 45 years now I haven't had any religious or supernatural beliefs whatsoever as I reject all species of magical thinking (such as yours :sparkle:). — 180 Proof

Is belief in the Trinity magical thinking?
— ucarr
No doubt. — 180 Proof

Okay, universeness and 180 Proof have both proven me wrong in my speculations about them being unwilling to specifically reject the Holy Spirit in writing.

:up: :grin:

And you have proven me (us) wrong, sir, that you can reason cogently and honestly.

You think I want God to banish you to hell in reaction to our exchange of ideas within a debate? I'm a sinner, but I certainly hope I'm not guilty of what you charge me with. — ucarr

No, you keep missing my main message to you. I am as disappointed with your dalliances with theism as you are with my total rejection of theism. All of your uses of theistic terminology such as god, satan, christian, heaven, hell etc have a high cringe factor for me, as they dilute your status as a critical thinker and a skeptic in my eyes. I experience more concern from that, than I do about any threat that I will suffer for eternity is a non-existent christian hell.

Yes, I harbor primal fears; you don't? Some of them are irrational. Are none of your thoughts irrational? — ucarr

Of course I harbour primal fears and of course I experience irrational thought and they have had more power over me in the past than they do now. I have defeated both in the sense that they do not dictate to my critical faculty. My reason overwhelms them.

In your above statements, you show your likeness to God. I'm honored by your willingness to share with me your sacred devotion to other humans. — ucarr

I could never be as evil as the christian notion of a god, as a quartet (imo) of vile (multiple/schizophrenic) personalities, as absent father, magical son, 'silly' and ridiculous holy ghost and enforcer satan.

I remain interested in your treatment of a youtube video on any aspect of QM.
My final expression of my opinion of your dalliances with theism is: :roll:

And you have proven me (us) wrong, sir, that you can reason cogently and honestly. — 180 Proof

Firstly, that's why you guys are due a lot of credit for persisting in this dialog. Most folks quickly avoid the incompetence_corruption you ascribe to me.

Secondly, Do you deny the Heisenberg_Haldane quote gives me wiggle room WRT rational cogency?

If I'm not mistaken, your assessment of my renounce-the-Holy-Spirit stratagem is your first application of "disingenuous" to one of my claims. However, if your use of disingenuous applies to me knowing what your answers would be, then I'm guilty in a complicated way. Yes, I thought I knew you both would exhibit a natural aversion to explicitly rejecting the Holy Spirit:

I have one simple question to ask you that, I think, will prove that you do not truly believe your... words. I’m confident, up to the level of ninety per cent, that you will not answer my simple question because it would mean immersing yourself within a commitment I do not expect you make. — ucarr

Are you willing to commit yourself, in the emphatic mode of your ...words, to a written statement declaring that you permanently reject the personal presence of the Holy Spirit as a worthless and meaningless fiction? — ucarr

Herein lies my disingenuousness: You two would not specifically reject the Holy Spirit... (or so I thought). The question, as you imply, was a setup for you guys to give an answer I expected, and thus it wasn't a genuine question. However, I was up front about my expectation you would exhibit an intuitive aversion to specifically rejecting the Holy Spirit; you especially, 180 Proof because the Jesuits empowered you towards the wisdom with which you now reject their schooling.

I was disingenuous on purpose, and I told you so up front, therefore, I was strategically disingenuous with fair warning in advance. What's important is that I was wrong. You guys have full monty courage and integrity of your conviction WRT atheism.

No, you keep missing my main message to you. I am as disappointed with your dalliances with theism as you are with my total rejection of theism. All of your uses of theistic terminology such as god, satan, christian, heaven, hell etc have a high cringe factor for me, as they dilute your status as a critical thinker and a skeptic in my eyes. I experience more concern from that, than I do about any threat that I will suffer for eternity is a non-existent christian hell. — universeness

You get a lot of credit for persisting in a dialog full of concepts that make you cringe. Your persistence here is deeply ironical because in your endeavors to establish the authenticity of your atheism - which you've done - you at the same time show your strong resemblance to God and the values of God. Patient and persistent counsel with someone afflicted by immersion within profound error is a good example of what Christianity teaches. I know, such a lesson has long been taught without any reference to God.

Of course I harbour primal fears and of course I experience irrational thought and they have had more power over me in the past than they do now. I have defeated both in the sense that they do not dictate to my critical faculty. My reason overwhelms them. — universeness

Christianity has no objection to this.

I could never be as evil as the christian notion of a god, as a quartet (imo) of vile (multiple/schizophrenic) personalities, as absent father, magical son, 'silly' and ridiculous holy ghost and enforcer satan. — universeness

Since you disbelieve God and Satan are enemies, do you also disbelieve there's spiritual warfare permeating human experience?

I remain interested in your treatment of a youtube video on any aspect of QM.
My final expression of my opinion of your dalliances with theism is: :roll: — universeness

I'm willing to eliminate further discussion of God in my dialogs with you and 180 Proof.

Since you disbelieve God and Satan are enemies, do you also disbelieve there's spiritual warfare permeating human experience? — ucarr

I use the term spiritual, as referring to human breathing and movement and nothing of the transcendent or esoteric.

I'm willing to eliminate further discussion of God in my dialogs with you and 180 Proof. — ucarr

I would never attempt to restrict your freedom to express yourself, no matter how much I might disagree with the focus of your expression. I might be frustrated that I cannot change your mind, but I will defend your freedom of expression as long as you do not incite violence.

I use the term spiritual, as referring to human breathing and movement and nothing of the transcendent or esoteric. — universeness

:up: :up: