why should i care what either of them think?

Peterson is always entertaining. I like the idea of God as the archetype of you across time. In a timeless dimension, of which we are part, we do indeed span all of time at once. So there is an aspect of us that is God-like. To worship an external God as a projection of this self, while not technically correct, is close enough to reality that it resonates with us. Why would the part of us that persists across lifetimes quibble about the inside/outside distinction? It’s only semantics.

I don’t think the claim that we collectively are God is too much of a reach. There aren’t many free will planets in the Universe. What if there are so few that being born on one is really special? You really have to be somebody to be here.

Even believing...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/02/in-which-i-recall-embarrassing-myself-with-president-nelson.html

I don't think it's stupid to believe in god if you have your own personal reasons for believing.

I do believe it's stupid to expect other people to take stock in your personal experiences as if they should influence their own beliefs.

I got bored listening to them.

I can't speak for others, but it would be stupid for me to believe in a god with my experience.

I know a lot of Nobel Prize recipients who believed in God, starting with Einstein, who said, "I want to know the mind of God, the rest is just details."
Of course he also said, "God does not play dice with the universe."
I believe just the opposite, god, short for, Nature, plays dice on a quantum level constantly.
Like Hawking said, "God not only plays dice with the universe, God owns the casino and plays dice all the time."
Hawking's God was Einstein's God, only non-deterministic, on a quantum level and at the singularity level, or what he called, "the immutable laws that govern the universe."
I think, when Hawking and Einstein spoke about the "Mind of God" they meant something like, the music of the spheres.
Hawking believed we'd know the Mind of God by the end of this 21st Century, M-theory, the Mother of all Theories, he called our best candidate for a unified string theory of everything, the Mind of God.
The String Theorist who came up with M Theory, has a great description of it, "The Mind of God is cosmic music, resonating on strings through the 11 dimensions of hyperspace."
We need a new kind of math to describe it.
Words and numbers are insufficient.
Which is perhaps why Einstein once told a young virtuoso violinist after a moving performance, "Now I know God lives!"



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2019 09:10PM by schrodingerscat.

Hawking died a declared atheist

http://time.com/5199149/stephen-hawking-death-god-atheist/

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hawking died a declared atheist
>
> http://time.com/5199149/stephen-hawking-death-god-
> atheist/
"I use the word 'God' in an impersonal sense, like Einstein did, for the laws of nature. So knowing the mind of God is knowing the laws of nature." Hawking, Is There A God?
From his last book, Brief Answers to Life's Big Questions.
Like I said, god is short for Nature.

Not to Hawking:

What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

and mo god is not short for nature. look it up if you have to.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to Hawking:
>
> What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of
> God’ is, we would know everything that God would
> know, if there were a God, which there isn’t.
> I’m an atheist.”
>
> and mo god is not short for nature. look it up if
> you have to.

He was an atheist in regards to the God of Judeo/Christianity, but believed in the god of Einstein.
God is short for Nature to Pantheists and Einstein was a Pantheist.

You couldnt find any clear statement of the sort. Only your inferences. there is no basis for saying that Hawkings statement was limited to only judeo-christian God.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You couldnt find any clear statement of the sort.
> Only your inferences. there is no basis for saying
> that Hawkings statement was limited to only
> judeo-christian God.
You'd have to read his last book, Brief Answers To Life's Big Questions.
He makes it crystal clear in the first chapter, Is There A God?

Curious: Why not just call it nature, then? Why all the extra?

honklermaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Curious: Why not just call it nature, then? Why
> all the extra?

For the same reason Einstein did not just call it Nature, when he said. "I want to know the mind of God"
For the same reason Hawking didn't just call it nature when he said, "I predict we will know the mind of God by the end of this century."
For the same reason Kaku didn't just call it nature when he said "We have a good candidate for what Einstein called the mind of God.
Because Christians don't get to own the definition of the word. I much prefer Einstein's definition and other scientists definition, which is similar to Pantheist religion's definition.

they spoke in figurative terms for the weak-minded uneducated folk to think they were also believing.

This thread is all the evidence we need.

Your premise seems to be science = nature = god. Or perhaps science=truth.

And it is none of those things. Science cannot equal truth because science is always provisional pending further data. Nature is not subject to revision in the way that science is. So when a scientist speaks in these figurative terms she is speaking to an ineducated audience where precise terms would leave the audience confused.

Science is a model building enterprise. To the extent that the model yields accurate predictions, then the model is useful to our ends. But the model is not itself reality nor nature. It is only an approximate description of observables. Which could never be the mind of god, or anything worth calling god.

Your entire premise would seem to be based on false equivalencies based in figurative language being taken literally to further your own agenda. Just like most religions.

We have actual words for things like truth, science, unknown and nature. I don't understand why people need to muddy what they mean it by calling them "God." Adding God has all kinds of implied meanings and clarifies nothing.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have actual words for things like truth,
> science, unknown and nature. I don't understand
> why people need to muddy what they mean it by
> calling them "God." Adding God has all kinds of
> implied meanings and clarifies nothing.

Take it up with Einstein, Hawking, Sagan and Kaku, all of whom used the word God as shorthand for, the immutable laws that govern nature.

"Yes I believe in God, if by the word, God, you mean, the immutable laws that govern nature." Sagan

I'm not one who needs a quote from a famous person to define God.

The words "the immutable laws that govern nature" are clear enough to me without adding woo-words to not offend theists in our lives (or people who might buy their books).

I don't think I can take it up with the three who are dead. If someone wants to use ambiguous phrases, that's fine. However, the result is people arguing if they believe in "God" which seems futile.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not one who needs a quote from a famous person
> to define God.
>
> The words "the immutable laws that govern nature"
> are clear enough to me without adding woo-words to
> not offend theists in our lives (or people who
> might buy their books).
>
> I don't think I can take it up with the three who
> are dead. If someone wants to use ambiguous
> phrases, that's fine. However, the result is
> people arguing if they believe in "God" which
> seems futile.
Your God is too small.

>>>"Your God is too small"


What does that even mean? I can't even define the word because it could mean everything or anything.


It's more important to me that my vocabulary isn't too small. That way I can try to use more precise words for what I mean.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>>"Your God is too small"
>
>
> What does that even mean? I can't even define the
> word because it could mean everything or anything.
>
>
>
> It's more important to me that my vocabulary isn't
> too small. That way I can try to use more precise
> words for what I mean.

I take it you were not a fan of Cosmos?

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2014/3/13/1284382/--Your-God-Is-Too-Small

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>>"Your God is too small"
>
>
> What does that even mean? I can't even define the
> word because it could mean everything or anything.
>
>
>
> It's more important to me that my vocabulary isn't
> too small. That way I can try to use more precise
> words for what I mean.

Which is why I use the word, God, the way Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and Kaku defined it, as in, the mind of God, to mean the laws governing nature.

See? You even had to explain it, just like they did, with words you could have used in the first place.

Sure, I have books by Sagan, et al. I admire a lot of their work. I don't have to add the same layer of fluff-talk, probably because I don't have a TV show or books that I need to include God to mollycoddle everyone. Why bother to re-define the word God all the time? It just doesn't solve anything.

I get your point, I really do. I just don't need smart scientists to tell me how to use a term that is undefined. The bottom line is they don't know any more than you or me about a God. Until evidence shows up, why bother?

nor is their use a definition in any way. it's figurative language koriwhore uses literally for his agenda in confusion.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See? You even had to explain it, just like they
> did, with words you could have used in the first
> place.
>
> Sure, I have books by Sagan, et al. I admire a lot
> of their work. I don't have to add the same layer
> of fluff-talk, probably because I don't have a TV
> show or books that I need to include God to
> mollycoddle everyone. Why bother to re-define the
> word God all the time? It just doesn't solve
> anything.
>
> I get your point, I really do. I just don't need
> smart scientists to tell me how to use a term that
> is undefined. The bottom line is they don't know
> any more than you or me about a God. Until
> evidence shows up, why bother?
It's not undefined. They defined it precisely. I like their definition and find it as useful as they did/do.
Apparently Nobel Winning scientists find the word quite useful when naming things like the God Particle.
If you claim all these geniuses are stupid to believe in God, that says more about you than them.

Misapplied cherry pics of figurative quotations.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Misapplied cherry pics of figurative quotations.

Bullshit.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
>
> Which is why I use the word, God, the way
> Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and Kaku defined it, as
> in, the mind of God, to mean the laws governing
> nature.

One of the other quotes you like from Sagan so much is along the lines of " an atheist would have to know a whole lot more than he did."

Yet you use his alleged quote of God equaling nature to support your stance. The two claims are incompatible on their face. For his quote of God being equal to nature to be valid, he would have to know more than an atheist.

And thus again we see that he was using figurative language in both cases. Neither were statements of literal fact.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> > Which is why I use the word, God, the way
> > Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and Kaku defined it,
> as
> > in, the mind of God, to mean the laws
> governing
> > nature.
>
> One of the other quotes you like from Sagan so
> much is along the lines of " an atheist would have
> to know a whole lot more than he did."
>
> Yet you use his alleged quote of God equaling
> nature to support your stance. The two claims are
> incompatible on their face. For his quote of God
> being equal to nature to be valid, he would have
> to know more than an atheist.
>
> And thus again we see that he was using figurative
> language in both cases. Neither were statements of
> literal fact.

Nothing about God is literal fact.
Dark Matter isn't literal fact, despite the fact it accounts for 96% of the universe, yet scientists believe in it because they don't have any other explanation for the 96% of the universe that went missing.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nothing about God is literal fact.
> Dark Matter isn't literal fact, despite the fact
> it accounts for 96% of the universe, yet
> scientists believe in it because they don't have
> any other explanation for the 96% of the universe
> that went missing.

then none of what you uave written about for so many years has any point. I look forward to quoting this every time you post on it again.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Nothing about God is literal fact.
> > Dark Matter isn't literal fact, despite the
> fact
> > it accounts for 96% of the universe, yet
> > scientists believe in it because they don't
> have
> > any other explanation for the 96% of the
> universe
> > that went missing.
>
> then none of what you uave written about for so
> many years has any point. I look forward to
> quoting this every time you post on it again.

Where's the error in this statement?

> > Nothing about God is literal fact.
> > Dark Matter isn't literal fact, despite the
> fact
> > it accounts for 96% of the universe, yet
> > scientists believe in it because they don't
> have
> > any other explanation for the 96% of the
> universe
> > that went missing.

NASA scientists admit Dark Matter is a complete mystery and it's basically just a 95% fudge factor to make their math work out. Otherwise, there would be no explaining how the universe could be both expanding and contracting at the same time, unless black holes are really just like doughnut holes with vortexes going through them and radiating out of them (Hawking Radiation) and we are in the middle of the doughnut that is getting bigger on the outside, but star systems are getting flushed down the dougnut hole, while Hawking Radiation is coming out of the black hole in the form of plasma, the sun, earth, moon, sea, you and me.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/what-is-dark-matter.html

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-did_einstein_predict.php



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2019 08:26AM by koriwhore.

It wouldn't be until you get to the Throne of God where your knees knocketh before the dread Judge of the Living and of the Dead (hint: not Joseph Smith), and you say, "I disbelieve" or "I am faithless" before you can have this question answered to a certainty.

As for me, believing in the One Faithful and True who has the hairs on my head numbered, is the only way to go. Call me stupid alls you want.

I’m bald

... they make the job of being God so much easier.

; )

I hate that ghawd's plan eventually included counting the hairs in my ears.

If ghawd exists, he has an IQ lower than 2/3s of the human race.

Why would I want to worship a god who is concerned about the hairs on a head while he watches silently as people and animals starve, fight and suffer?


He creates diseases and keeps count of hairs? Great priorities, God! What a great "lesson" there!

God says:

"Yeah, I knew how many hairs you had on your head as I watched you get abused."

"Satan, go ahead and do your thing to these creations of mine. I'll make sure I know what you do to every hair on their head."

Hitting the nail on the head.

Nap time.

HH =)

I'm an apatheist. I don't care if there is a gawd.

For those of you who fail to understand metaphor let be strip the mystery for you.


I believe in god, if by god you mean a really delicious meal, a nice smoky scotch, and a the sensuous touch of someone I love.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those of you who fail to understand metaphor
> let be strip the mystery for you.
>
>
> I believe in god, if by god you mean a really
> delicious meal, a nice smoky scotch, and a the
> sensuous touch of someone I love.

I'll stick with Sagan's definition, which is the same as Einstein's, Hawkings and Kaku's.
You define it however you want.

You're sticking with pointless misapplied figurative language that doesn't mean what you assert?


How very Judeo-Christo-Mus of you.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're sticking with pointless misapplied
> figurative language that doesn't mean what you
> assert?
>
>
> How very Judeo-Christo-Mus of you.

Quite the contrary.
Like Hawking said,"When I use the word, God, I use it in the impersonal sense, the way Einstein used the word, as in I want to know the mind of God, the laws of nature."
I use it in the same sense as two of the world's greatest geniuses and that makes me stupid?

figurative.

Impersonal god would have no mind. Again. on its face, the sentence is contradictory.

which goes back to the other quote from Hawking where it was "to know the mind of god if there were a god which there isn't. " Hawking was well aware of the contradiction in the figurative form.