The baby you referred to was Yahweh. No?

Or did you mean his homophobic and misogynous genocidal god loving religion? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No, the baby who suffers from interminable angst.

No wait, you stand corrected, maybe we should throw the angry baby out!! That might end your suffering!!
LOL

28. 2/20/20. A federal judge sentenced President Donald Trump’s friend, the longtime Republican operative Roger Stone, to more than 3 years in prison on Thursday for lying to Congress and tampering with a witness in an effort to protect Trump.

“He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president, he was prosecuted for covering up for the president,” said Judge Amy Berman Jackson about Stone, who showed no visible emotion when he was sentenced in U.S District Court in Washington, D.C.

“The truth still exists, the truth still matters. Roger Stone’s insistence that it doesn’t ... are a threat to our most fundamental institutions,” Jackson said in a blistering denunciation of Stone, who he lied about his efforts to obtain damaging emails related to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign that were stolen by Russian agents.

what metaphysical feature of consciousness are you talking about? — StarsFromMemory

Abstract's such as music, art, mathematics. Then, the cognitive sciences that deal with the Will, wonderment, love, hate, and other emotive phenomena that are important to human's yet confer no fundamental survival or biological advantages ( i.e., you can procreate without love). And kind of like what we are doing now, discussing philosophy, which has no survival value.

Accordingly, this may help:

Ok, I see you can't answer those basic existential features of our consciousness.

Let's turn then to metaphysics. Does that exist?

Then I said that the development of maths naturally followed even when it gave no advantage. All that was needed was intelligence and basic math concept and the rest developed on its own, fuelled by lets just say curiosity? — StarsFromMemory

I'm just a bit confused. How did abstract's (math) evolve?

True, I don't know why I have a sense of wonderment. However, that only indicates the limit of my intelligence and knowledge. — StarsFromMemory

Then you really can't explain the nature of that metaphysical feature of conscious existence, correct?

The need to express reality in precise and predictable terms led humans to derive the entireity of maths — StarsFromMemory

Ok, but if I am trying to survive by dodging falling objects, should I use space relationships of perception, or hurry up and run calculations?

If your answer is the former, then there is no need, as you are suggesting, no?

Regarding your inability to answer the other one's, of course you had no intention of exploring those questions because they are questions about Being. And so you are telling me that you don't know why you have a sense of wonderment, correct?

Ok great. If you're thinking it is true, why does mathematical abstracts exist when they are not needed to survive in the jungle?

Or in making it perhaps more lucid, what event caused mathematical truths to come into existence through consciousness?

They are straight forward questions, no? I mean, what is perplexing you about them?

Is a genocidal son murdering baby worth saving? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not sure I'm following that one. Are you suggesting there is no forgiveness in life?

Thank for your reply Stars! Before we get too far along, I want to make sure you didn't overlook my questions to you from the previous post. Do you think you can speak to the following, where I asked you:

Ultimately, maybe then, this simple judgement rears its ugly head again here: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? Is that statement an axiom for scientific discovery? Why should you care to explore its tenants? Why are we even discussing it? Why are you wondering about it?

Good! But are you now suggesting one should throw the baby out with the bathwater ?

Christianity is misogynous and homophobic. How should you resolve that problem?

Better hurry and answer that, Satan's coming!!!!

...Stop lying".

Life is full of lies, get over it! Hahaha

Seriously, you say you've studied the bible: see Ecclesiastes!

Otherwise, you better hide, Satan's coming to get you!!!!!

Just a little tough-love brother. Like Frank said, you're too easy :joke:

Asking why is again implying that evolution must have a purpose or a direction Why not have two ways of doing so? — StarsFromMemory

You would have to support your argument with the exclusive virtues of survival, purposelessness, randomness and chance, to say the least.

Accordingly, mathematics then becomes redundant since it is not needed for anything, as it specifically relates to that Darwinian criteria. We don't need it to survive.

Then, of course, add art, music, philosophy, wonderment, love, the will, and all other related features of self-awareness from consciousness, that are also beyond logical existence as it were(subconsciousness/un-consciousness) or unexplained phenomena. The evidence points to something beyond said criteria.

Ultimately, maybe then, this simple judgement rears its ugly head again here: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? Is that statement an axiom for scientific discovery? Why should you care to explore its tenants? Why are we even discussing it? Why are you wondering about it?

Thoughts?

And again you assume that art, music, math and philosophy provide no survival advantage and even if they dont, it doesnt mean they can't have evolved gradually. — StarsFromMemory

Thanks Stars, what is your proposed theory there?

Math could also be a consequence of increased reasoning capabilites (which certainly confer an organism biological advantage). Simply because a trait doesnt give an advantage doesnt mean the trait didnt evolve through other mechanisms. — StarsFromMemory

Thank you Stars for your thoughts. Of course my initial reaction is relative to the argument over the existence of mathematics itself and the laws of gravity. Meaning, survival in the jungle does not require knowledge of mathematics and the laws of gravity in order to avoid falling objects.

Mathematics are essentially metaphysical abstracts. Why should we have two ways to avoid falling objects when one confers no biological survival advantage? In other words, mathematics is a pure intellectual abstract exercise, a priori. How did that evolve? (While some lower life-forms exhibit rudimentary mathematical abilities, that's as far as it goes.)

I finally got a chance to read your paper a bit more thoroughly. One thought I came away with is the common notion of the paradox of time and eternity. Meaning, how do we reconcile a timeless eternal force with our temporal time-dependent existence.

In other words does your theory account for 4th dimension space-time? Should the timeless existence of space-time, be regarded as an atemporal form of creation?

The reason why I asked is because some have argued that the idea of God bringing the universe into existence from nothing cannot be regarded as a temporal act since it involves the creation of time. Hawking even stated that so long as the universe had a beginning we could suppose it had a Creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. That in turn would suggest if no origin in time is required then there is no appeal to a supernatural act of creation ex nihilo.

Does your theory then consider an eternal Creator existing outside of time (eternity), be one in the same energy source as a self contained universe that has neither beginning nor end, similar to Spinoza's pantheism? That at least in theory would combine the two problems associated with time, I think.

Satan is going to get you, watch out!!!!!!!

Run and hide, quickly!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

You're going to hell. — frank

LOL, now that's a novel idea Frank! Perhaps he will get that reasoning; at least it seems consistent with same!!



I'm praying for your soul, you are condemned to hell brother! Is that what you want to hear?

Hahaha

Yes, I think it would be an oxymoron. For instance, I've been following Daniel Dennett's (positive Atheist) youtube debate's lately, and he is starting to use that exact term 'design' now, in his narratives. Yet he doesn't, can't, or denies any explanation of it. Go figure.

Even further, in my opinion, I think he's confused with his bottom-up theories, particularly as it relates to consciousness, self-awareness and phenomena. His books generally don't get good reviews for that reason. The reviews commonly refer to his theories as being random and rambling incoherent explanations as to the nature of things-that's not coming from me either. IMO, I think he's trying to make atheistic political statements rather than objective scientific one's.

If the atheist can actually make a human and create consciousness, case closed. In the meantime, the phenomenon of 'self aware beings' certainly not only suggests a metaphysical existence or will of sorts, but continues to provide for a sense of wonderment that causes us to think about things like art, music, math, philosophy, cosmology, love et al. all of which confer little to no biological survival value.

(I'm open to new ideas such as Dennett's, but he can't seem to get past the Kantian nature of the thing-in-itself, and is silent on the obvious clues that suggest ID is more likely than not.)

As a Christian Existentialist myself, I don't try to justify existence other than to search for both cognitive science/physical science clues to the extra ordinary or super natural. I embrace the mystery.

Likewise, we are back to Kant's mysterious/innate sense of self-awareness and human wonderment/judgement: all events must have a cause. And why should we care about that statement? What advantages and/or purpose does that have in the world of pursuing science and conscious existence?

You not understanding, and trying to discourage the seeking of a better view for gays and women, and just let those continue, you are not much of a man. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

"Therefore, as you've claimed above, if it (these things) are indeed a myth, then I urge you to listen to yourself and those who are trying to guide you. Those who are making distinctions between, say; dogma, fundamentalism, literalism, allegory, metaphor, interpretation, human translation error, lost Gospels, early church politics, etc., I would strongly recommend you study same."

Yes, that being the answer to why Christians are so conflicted on Eden and cannot seem to decide if we fell or were elevated, yet the myth has been used by Christians to accentuate their homophobia and misogyny and refusal to grant all women and gays full legal status that they deserve. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Ahh, there it is. The hidden agenda/ axe to grind. Well, not sure where to begin other than you seem stuck on misinterpretation. Regarding homophobia, the Christian Bible is not a modern day medical science book. The notion that someone like Jesus would condemn Gay's is indeed an old paradigm/interpretation/translation error. For the most part, people are born that way.

Therefore, as you've claimed above, if it (these things) are indeed a myth, then I urge you to listen to yourself and those who are trying to guide you. Those who are making distinctions between, say; dogma, fundamentalism, literalism, allegory, metaphor, interpretation, human translation error, lost Gospels, early church politics, etc., I would strongly recommend you study same.

I sincerely hope you can get over this angst. After all, in the 21st Century information age, shouldn't you be more sophisticated in your perspective on these things?

I sense an interminable axe to grind here. Be well my friend.

Thank you kindly Gnomon! Quite unveiling. I did a cursory read and am curious. I will study it and report back.

Is there any import associated with regurgitating the ancient paradigms?

In other words, what are you trying to argue for or against? It seems as though you're struggling to reconcile something... , no?

Did sin enter the world through Adam, Satan or Yahweh? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

In a word no. That theory is an old ancient paradigm/Judeo Christian translation issue. Think of sin or evil as intrinsic finitude. Imperfection in the ability to do things correctly; ignorance.

Existentially, imperfection or finitude is another name for temporal-ness, mortality, limits of all knowledge about consciousness, and the universe, so on and so forth. Adam and Even is just a metaphor in Christianity and not meant to be taken literally.

Evil=Ignorance.

Next question. LOL

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument. — Qwex

Indeed. Take for example art, music and math, all of which, confer no Darwinian biological advantages.

Or take consciousness and self-awareness. It goes beyond bottom-up emergence or emergent properties of existence, in that, there are metaphysical constructs such as love, sense of wonderment, the will, colors, and so forth that confer little if any biological advantages for higher life forms (and other emotive phenomena). And if it does, one would have to argue for example, why lower life forms don't commit suicide or drive themselves out of extinction through environmental conditions. :gasp:

And so, in other words, top-down intellect seems more likely than bottom-up Darwinism.

That's correct, God did it!

Ok, my work is done here; next question.

(Sorry Banno, you asked a simple question, you got a simple answer. I think it's called the law of attraction. LOL)

Seriously, I think you should ask a more intriguing question, like, if God is all knowing, what does the [his] eternity of time mean(?).

Maybe Dr. Spock knows:

Great question! I have a few more (just a few regarding emotion). Did the jury acquit using emotion rather than logic? And is Trump's emotion of revenge getting the better of him? Or was his fear of losing an election based on emotion? LOL

You know, kinda like the OJ trial (and/or the Clinton Impeachment). :wink:

Emotions are a strange phenomena indeed...any clues here?

Post Impeachment truth and lies:

27. 2/13/20: President Trump told Fox News friend Geraldo Rivera on Thursday that he did send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to procure damaging information on his political rivals. "Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer?" Rivera asked Trump on his podcast. "Are you sorry you did that?" "No, not at all," Trump responded. "When you tell me, why did I use Rudy, and one of the things about Rudy, No. 1, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor."

"That is literally the exact opposite of what he told Bill O'Reilly in an interview in November," CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale told Don Lemon on Thursday night, playing the clip where Trump said, "No, I didn't direct him," meaning Giuliani. "So what has changed now? Well, perhaps Trump just thinks impeachment's over with, I've been acquitted, I can say whatever I want. Perhaps he forgot that he ever denied this. Regardless, though, what he's saying now is the truth. He did direct Rudy to go there. We heard that not only from Rudy himself, but from testimony from others in the impeachment inquiry."

Commentary:

Sound Familiar? He did that with the Stormy Daniels/Michael Cohen, lied about hush money before the 2016 election. (This is starting to remind me of the OJ Simpson trial. Afterward, OJ wrote a book called 'If I did it'.) Rest assured, sooner or later the truth will reveal itself. Lies are like cockroaches, for every one you discover there are many more that are hidden.

" I’m not upset that you lied to me; I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you."
—Friedrich Nietzsche

His credibility is highly suspect. I have found that he can't be honest with himself or other's. After reading responses to mine and other poster's.., there is no consistency in his arguments except to say that he complains that it's too dark while stubbornly refusing to take his head out 'the sand.

LOL

Would you like me to repost it? If you're scared say you're scared!

LOL

Your credibility is in the shitcan, you didn't answer my question would you like me to repost it?

Yo Dumpertrumper,

Can you go through a lawyer to interpret your nonsense? You might be better served!!

Yep. It's seems like NOS4A2 is loosing more credibility by the hour. Although that would imply that he even has some!

He's like a little ostrich who puts his head in the sand and then complains it's too dark!

LOL

Okay I think you're right. Let's wait and see how Dumpertrumper reacts, he'll probably stick his foot in his mouth again...

In the big scheme of things I'm confident the truth will all come out about the fraudulent Dumpertrumper.

Yep, Bloomberg is his nemesis; he's the only one who will be able to get under his thin skin. Wait a minute I stand corrected everybody gets under his thin skin!

Bloomberg is fighting fire with fire on the tweet circuit!!!

Yo Dumpertrumper,

I didn't see where you answered the question?

Using your bosses Trump-speak, be a man and grab those questions by the balls, or by the pussy if that works better for you!

LOL