Home
» Intelligent Design » Interesting PBS Series on Quantum Entanglement
Interesting PBS Series on Quantum Entanglement
| November 23, 2011 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
54 Responses to Interesting PBS Series on Quantum Entanglement
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“There’s no principle built into the laws of nature that says theoretical physicists have to be happy.”
My how far we have come from the Scientific Revolution. It is not ID theorists who threaten the future of science. These people are giving up.
Well, around the 20 minute they seem to be leaning to heavily on the probabilistic/statistical interpretation of the Quantum wave state:
notes:
It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?
Well, LOL, they had to throw Everett’s bogus parallel universes in at the end, where any absurdity would be allowed. Elvis as president anyone??? Overall though, the film wasn’t too far off of what the evidence actually states, Not to mention they had many of the heavy hitters, in quantum physics, in the film. (Zeilinger, Aspect)
On a more serious note, as Groucho Marx once noted:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
notes:
Quantum mechanics falsified local realism (reductive materialism)
This falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
Also of note is exactly how well established, and solid, quantum theory is as to being ‘correct’:
Quantum Mechanics came out on top of general relativity for explaining the Centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe:
Quantum Mechanics falsified neo-Darwinism:
Quantum Mechanics provides a coherent ‘mechanism’ for the ‘soul’:
Quantum Mechanics provides a solution for the phenotype vs. genotype dilemma exactly where neo-Darwinism fails;
But perhaps the most important thing for us to consider is that Quantum Mechanics is thoroughly Theistic in its implications:
etc.. etc..
A few more assorted notes:
Verse and Music:
“How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?”
If it’s a computed entity.
Bornagain, Re. your very last quote in #4, the one by Richard Conn Henry: Don’t you get it? He is agreeing with me–the physical universe doesn’t actually exist. There are only our perceptions. The physical universe is an illusion. That is what he is saying, and that is what you claim when I say it, is totally absurd and irrational! What gives?
I believe that the trouble that Einstein had with quantum physics, and the trouble in fact that all of the people in the program had with “quantum weirdness” arises from their belief that physical reality has an independent existence. If one adopts Bishop Berkeley’s (and a number of other thinkers’) view that all there is is our experience (thoughts, emotions, memories, sense impressions, intentions, etc.) and that physical reality is an illusion, a sort of virtual reality in which the mind of God plays the role of the computer in creating and coordinating the illusion so that we all appear to be inhabiting a common physical reality, then quantum weirdness is just the rules by which the illusion is produced. No big deal. It was Enstein’s need to have the moon exist even when no one was looking at it that reflects this belief in an independent reality for the physical. In Berkeley’s universe, the moon DOESN’T exist when no one is observing it, except as a concept in the mind of God (and in our own minds as well).
On this view, the rules of physics are God’s invention, but presumably He wants them to make sense within the illusion of physical reality, so that they can appear to give rise to it. And if you think about it, quantum physics seems to be necessary for chemistry, and hence biology to exist, because if electrons really were objects with a point location in space and a precisely determinable momentum, then the electro-static attraction between them and the nucleus of the atom would cause them all to fall directly into and become attached to the nucleus, making chemistry impossible. It is only quantum uncertainty that keeps them out of the nucleus. Furthermore, the characteristics of the orbits, or shells, that the electrons occupy and which also are necessary for chemistry to exist, are the result of the quantum nature of subatomic reality as well.
But of course Bruce, your forever mold-able pantheistic philosophy, where you highjack every scrap of evidence you can get your hands, and ignore, or severely ‘adjust’ your philosophy to accord to, every piece of evidence that directly contradicts your pantheistic philosophy.,,, I believe I’ve even seen you go to the extent of actually claiming, to one commenter, that theism is your philosophy, even though you adamantly defend, and have defended, the pantheistic position numerous times, against me, StephenB, and several others, on this very site! ,,, Nothing illusory in your integrity in all that is there??? No Bruce!, the only thing illusory here, besides the transient nature of the space-time material realm, is your philosophy which basically is born purely out of your very own wish-fulfillment!
In fact you have brought this subject up before (in your desire to live in a purely illusory world where evil, pain, death, and hell, does not really exist) and I think Brent did an excellent job in response to you :
Music:
And even though the space-time material realm, of General Relativity, has suffered the ‘indignation’ of being called ‘illusory’, when directly compared to the steamroller in science of quantum mechanics, I would like to point out that the 4-D space-time of General Relativity, (i.e. material realm), even though it has suffered this ‘indignation’, has been verified to something like 14 decimal places of accuracy for accurately describing the space-time we currently live in. Moreover General, and special relativity, reveal some very interesting things to us when examined more closely:
notes:
In science, before Einstein, time was held to be a independent entity that was constant in flow and infinite in duration i.e. it was held that time had no beginning or end and that its ‘flow’ has always been the same in all places in the universe at all times. In fact I believe that that particular view of a infinite, and a constant, time was/is axiomatic to Newton’s equations of gravity and motion. The same can be said for space. Space, before Einstein, was held to be infinite, in regards to width, length, and height, and it also was held to be without beginning or end. And as well, I believe that that view of a infinite, without beginning or end, space also was/is axiomatic to Newton’s equations on gravity and motion. And thus Einstein came along and with his insight,,,
,,,and showed that space and time were two sides of the same coin; i.e. space-time were united into one entity. And space-time is now seen to be a ‘physical’ entity, (a fabric), that has real effects on material objects:
Even light is bent by this ‘fabric’ of space-time;
And even though Einstein did not realize it at the time, his General Relativity equation even indicated a beginning for space-time:
The common view, now held by the general public, is that gravity is created as mass warps the fabric of space-time, but there is now reason to believe that gravity is more properly thought of as being created as a emergent property of space-time that is of ‘preceding importance’ to mass:
Corroborating evidence is found, that gravity does indeed arise as a entropic force once space-time itself has emerged, since black holes, the largest generators of gravity in the universe, are now also found to be the largest contributors of entropy (as defined by randomness) in the universe:,,,
And this ‘entropic force of gravity’, generated by black holes, is found to be so even though space-time in black holes is warped to the point of ‘infinite curvature’. A infinite curvature of space-time where mass has effectively disappeared from the ‘normal’ space-time of this universe.
As well, it is found that the space-time equation of General Relativity breaks down in black holes:
Moreover, the view of space-time as merely a static ‘fabric’, that is passively curved when mass is present, is also found to be a bit too simplistic in its view of space-time from another angle of thought. This is because now, for it to even be possible for time to ‘travel and/or flow into the future’, being inextricably wed as it currently is to space in General Relativity, we find that space, to remain logically coherent in a space-time view of reality, must also ‘expand’ with the ‘flowing of time’ into the future. And indeed this common sense conclusion, for the uniform expansion of space, for the entire universe, with the flowing of time into the future, is what we find. In fact we find the uniform expansion of space with the passing of time, (referred to as Dark Energy), to be the most finely tuned of all the universal constants in the universe, save for the initial entropic setting of the universe (1 in 10^120 and 1 in 10^10^123 respectfully):
But perhaps the most important insight to be gained, from Einstein’s special theory of relativity, was the finding that the current temporal space-time we live in, in this ‘material’ universe, is of a ‘lower dimensional’ value of space-time. First, to illustrate this, we find that time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as we moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock, at the speed of light, happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2 (As was clearly illustrated in the first video listed on this page). In other words, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light get us to the place where time, as we understand it, would come to complete stop for light. As well, it is found that the weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.
Yet, and this is a big yet, light is not frozen within time! Thus for us to make sense of this seeming paradox, a paradox of time as we understand it not passing for light, and yet light not being ‘frozen within time’, we must necessarily assume a ‘higher dimensionality’ for time at the speed of light. In other words, we must assume a higher dimensional eternal, ‘past and future folding into now’, framework of time. This higher dimensionality, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is strictly warranted because, as said before, light is not ‘frozen within time’ and yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.
Experimental confirmation for time dilation is fairly abundant;
Moreover, to make this much more personal to the ‘human experience’, we have ‘eye witness’ testimony for the higher dimensional, eternal, framework of time, which was strictly warranted earlier, from Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience testimonies. Here are a few testimonies of which many could be presented:
It is also very interesting to note that we have two very, very, different qualities of higher dimensional ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;
In other words, as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particularly disturbing interest, to the higher dimensional eternal framework of time found at black holes, it is interesting to note that entropic decay, which is the primary reason why all things grow old in this universe, and even why, ultimately, all living organisms eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of destruction’.
Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang?
“But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
Needless to say the implications of this ‘eternality of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually’ minded persuasion!
But to continue on, we find that along with time ‘folding in on itself’, to become a higher dimensional ‘eternal now’ framework of time, we find that space also, dramatically, folds in on itself as a observer approaches the speed of light. The 3:22 minute mark of the following video shows the 3-Dimensional world ‘folding and collapsing’ into a tunnel shape, (much like a sheet of paper folding and collapsing into a tunnel shape), around the direction of travel, as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the higher dimension of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
And again, as with the ‘eternality of time’, this folding a collapsing of 3-Dimensional space, as the higher dimension of the speed of light is approached, is corroborated by Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience testimonies:
As well, besides having eye-witness testimony testifying to ‘accelerating up a tunnel to ‘a light”, in near death experiences, we also have ‘eye witness’ testimony of ‘falling down a tunnel’ to hell;
A man, near the beginning of this video, gives testimony of falling down a ‘tunnel’ in the transition stage from this world to hell:
The man, in this following video, also speaks of ‘tumbling down’ a tunnel in his transition stage to hell:
Now I am fairly certain that none of these people, who had Near Death Experiences, know the physics of General, and Special, relativity all that well, so this is stunning confirmation that their testimonies are trustworthy.
The following video is very useful for explaining exactly why a higher dimension of space is invisible to us;
Moreover, quantum biology has now strongly implicated a higher dimensional ‘quantum soul’ within each of us, which makes such a transition to a higher dimension of space and time for each of our ‘souls’, completely in accordance with how physical reality is actually found to be structured:
The Permanence (conservation) of quantum information is found here:
Moreover, a very high level of information processing in life is found to be suddenly ‘missing’ upon the death of a organism here:
Moreover, quantum information is found to be of a ‘higher quality of higher dimensionality’ than space-time itself is;
Music and verses;
1. There is no evidence that contradicts my philosophy. You have never given any piece of contradictory evidence, as reflected by your reliance on Brent’s quote, which is pure opinion based on a very weak analogy, and not contradictory evidence.
2. Pantheism IS theism, at least as I understand and use the terms. I believe in the existence of God. That is theism, is it not?
3. You never answered my question: Why do you quote a passage that agrees with a view of mine that you have called absurd and irrational, namely that the physical universe doesn’t exist as an independent entity, that all there is is our perceptions of it?
4. A very interesting aspect of your accusations against my views is that they are “wish fulfillment”, which 1) you do not know to be true, since you aren’t me and don’t know how I arrived at my views other than what I tell you (but of course this is no surprise, since you spout all sorts of opinions as truth which you in fact do not know to be true), and 2) this is exactly the charge that atheists lay on theists such as yourself, namely that your belief in God and an afterlife is just wish fulfillment born out of lack of the courage to face your own mortality. What goes around comes around.
5. It is generally a mark of desperation when a person in an argument feels the need to resort to insult and ad hominem attack, which you invariably resort to when you respond to my posts, as you have in this one. This sort of boorishness only marks you as unable to actually address my views with intelligence.
But Bruce you don’t believe evil actually exists in reality so how can my post possibly be boorish, i.e. ‘evil’??? It’s all the same in your book. Pantheism i.e. Everything is God, God created God in the Big Bang! All is God, All is Good! Yada Yada Yada! Your philosophy is absolutely useless as a heuristic to derive a objective morality, much less as a coherent guide in science. Yet you are completely blind and deaf to these devastating facts about your completely subjective philosophy, just as the dogmatic materialists/atheists is completely blind and deaf about the devastating facts about his philosophy! Just because you refuse to admit that your philosophy is, in reality, completely subjective, really matters not one iota to me! Just as it really matters not one iota to me that the atheists refuses to see the futility of his philosophy!
To illustrate the subjective nature of your philosophy. In Christianity it is often asked WWJD?, i.e. What Would Jesus Do??? Thus clearly illustrating people reaching outside the subjectivity of their own personal opinions to the highest objective standard of moral truth known to man, in order to derive a code of conduct. But in your philosophy there is no such objective moral guide. In the end, in your philosophy, since ‘all is god and all is good’ in your book, it all boils down to ‘What would Bruce do?’ You simply have nothing solid to appeal to as a objective moral standard save your own personal opinion about what you might think is right or wrong. But you have absolutely no right to claim that your opinions of moral standards are true. Thus the irresolvable dilemma you found yourself in the other day when you were arguing pro-abortion against StephenB defending pro-life, in the conception to birth thread.
Here you go Bruce. Since you believe that evil does not really exist and thus in subjective morality, here’s the moral of the story;
Bornagain:
1. In the quote I was responding to, #6, you state: “But of course Bruce, your forever mold-able pantheistic philosophy, where you highjack every scrap of evidence you can get your hands, and ignore, or severely ‘adjust’ your philosophy to accord to, every piece of evidence that directly contradicts your pantheistic philosophy.”
My pantheism consists of two major components: First, the assertion that the physical universe is an illusion. All there is are our sense perceptions, which give us the illusion that there is something “out there” to which they correspond. It is a kind of virtual reality in which God plays the role of the computer that maintains and coordinates the illusion for all of us. In other words, all there is is mind; matter does not exist as such. Second, there is only One absolute, infinite existence, which is God, the end and the beginning, the alpha and omega, the all in all, of which you and I and all that exists is a part.
You have not even addressed this philosophy, much less offered any contradictory evidence.
2. I don’t claim boorish is evil; that’s your interpretation. I merely observe that you lack common courtesy and the respect which the maintainers of this blog expect its commenters to grant one another, and that this lack of courtesy is a strong indicator that deep down you are aware that you have no effective counterarguments to my position.
3. Your entire argument against my philosophy is that you can’t derive an objective moral guide from it. I agree; you can’t. However, all this argument amounts to is that you object to my philosophy because you don’t like the consequences. Not liking the consequences is never a valid argument against the truth. The truth is what it is. If you don’t like the consequences, too bad. That doesn’t falsify the truth.
4. Although there is no objective moral code derivable from my philosophy, there is a very clear guide for action contained therein: in each moment, act according to your answer to the question, “What would Love do now?” This is not subjective morality simply because it isn’t morality at all, since does not include any particular rules for behavior. And the reason to do this is not because it is the “right” way to act, it is because in acting in this way one will be true to one’s highest Self, and this is the most satisfying and joyful way to live.
5. Do you really believe that WWJD is an OBJECTIVE standard? You can’t know what Jesus would do in a given circumstance in which you find yourself, because he isn’t here to ask! You can only make an educated guess, based on your interpretation of the only record that exists of his life, the Bible. That makes WWJD HIGHLY subjective. You’re deluding yourself, Bornagain; your morality is no more objective than an atheist’s.
Bruce, though you have said much that could be used against you, at the end you ‘subjectively’ state this:
Yet Jesus is alive right now and ‘is here’ for anyone to ask (That’s the WHOLE point of Christianity Bruce!):
Music:
Carrie Underwood – Jesus, Take The Wheel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU
Bruce as well, I find it very interesting that modern science never achieved sustained development save for in Judeo-Christian cultures. Though each non-Judeo-Christian culture has its own reasons for inhibiting the development of modern science, it is interesting to note the reason why it never developed in pantheistic cultures. As you yourself admit (at least in this thread) you hold this material reality to be, in a fairly strict sense, a illusion. Thus from a pantheistic perspective it is pointless for someone to study the material world as objectively real, hoping to understand it, since it is merely illusory. i.e. why should someone go to all the trouble of trying to understand something that is a illusion. Indeed pantheism goes to the extent of even denying that our perception of the world is even reliable at all. Whereas, although Judeo-Christianity does not hold material reality as ultimate reality i.e. As God, It does hold that there is a certain objectivity to the material world that is very worthy to be studied, and certainly does not hold material reality to be ‘illusory’ in the strict sense as you have meant it to be.
as well you said that I did not address this ‘illusory’ point of yours, yet a few days ago, in post 7, I held that material is not as illusory as you were making out to be.
Semi OT: This Week on Unbelievable : What created the universe?
http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
Edgar Andrews is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and the author of “Who Made God?” He claims that the hypothesis of God is the best explanation for a variety of aspects of human existence and the universe as revealed by science. He has debated Richard Dawkins.,, Robert Stovold is an atheist with a background in evolutionary biology. He believes that positing God is an unneccesary addition to the facts that science gives us about the universe. They discuss fine tuning of the Universe, whether God could be behind the Big Bang and why the laws of nature are so elegant and intelligible to humans.
“It is a kind of virtual reality in which God plays the role of the computer that maintains and coordinates the illusion for all of us. ”
Well put.
So, in your view, what are “we”, the points of consciousness attached to this virtual reality (via brains within the VR) that are experiencing this VR?
Bruce, I know, besides the divinity of Jesus, that you have attacked the integrity of the Bible from time to time. To which I thought you might find the following interesting:
mike1962, are you a pantheist to? i.e. Do you hold the strict meaning of the word illusion as the pantheist does?
mike1962, more specifically do you agree with Bruce’s absurd claim in 6.1 that ‘pantheism IS theism’??? i.e. that black is white?
Mike1962: “So, in your view, what are ‘we’, the points of consciousness attached to this virtual reality (via brains within the VR) that are experiencing this VR?”
Excellent question. In my view, there is only One absolute existence, as I have said. You can call the One existence God, if you wish, or The All, or All That Is, or whatever term you are most comfortable with. The All wished to experience its magnificence. It could know, intellectually, that it was magnificent, but the experience was impossible because to experience something, “not that” has to be present in experience as well. When all there is is magnificence, magnificence ceases to be.
Therefore All That Is divided itself into billions of individuations, each an image and likeness of itself. You can call these “souls” if you wish. You and I are included among these individuations. It also created the virtual reality we experience as physical reality, and some of us souls agreed to immerse ourselves in this virtual reality, temporarily forgetting Who We Really Are in order to have the experience of limitation, the opposite of our magnificence, so that we, and through us, who are parts of Him, God, can remember Who We Really Are and in the process have the exquisite EXPERIENCE of our and His magnificence.
Does this answer your question satisfactorily?
So does God send parts of God to hell at the judgement Almighty Bruce?
Bruce “Does this answer your question satisfactorily?”
Yes. Thanks.
I suspect that space-time is a computed reality, that sub-atomic “objects” are values in a virtual reality. This explains the non-intuitive features of QM quite handily. What the computing medium is I haven’t a clue. Maybe it’s the Creator itself. Maybe it’s something else created by the Creator. I don’t know. And I think it’s beyond the purview of humans to determine it.
Pantheism is theism by definition. Bruce is basically stating the advaidic vendanta view that Brahman “fragments” in the sense producing lots of individuated “souls” or “spirits” each with an individual point of consciousness, all the while staying Brahman with a “core” of infinite consciousness that is differentiated from the individual consciousnesses. Such a view is certainly theistic in the common definition. Do I believe it? No. But I don’t disbelieve it either. I don’t believe or reject anything that specific. I have no way of knowing the details of the ontological differences between myself, others, and the Ground of All Being. Better to take a humble position of such things. Pragmatically, what matters to me is the Golden Rule. But I am intrigued by the ideas of others.
mike As to: ‘Pantheism is theism by definition.’
Really??? Why are they two different words then???
I looked and pantheism and it did not say ‘see theism’
whereas I looked up theism and it did not say ‘see pantheism’
HMMM???
Bornagain: You said, “Yet Jesus is alive right now and ‘is here’ for anyone to ask (That’s the WHOLE point of Christianity Bruce!)” You then followed this by some Biblical passages in support of this statement.
In the first place, that is NOT “the whole point of Christianity”. The whole point of Christianity, by your own admission, is to be saved from suffering in Hell for all eternity by accepting Jesus as one’s personal savior, since this is the only way that (a supposedly unconditionally loving) God will forgive us for our “sins”.
Secondly, Bible quotes are not going to change the fact that when given a particular moral dilemma or difficult decision to be made, a Catholic will get one answer from Jesus, an ecumenical Christian another, a Southern Baptist a third, a member of the Missouri Synod a fourth, and so on. Furthermore, individual members of each group will get different answers as well. By any normal definition of the term, this makes WWJD a subjective approach. The fact is, Bornagain, there IS no objective morality. This is one point about which many Christians delude themselves. ALL morality is subjective.
Re. 6.1.1.2.3:
You speak of “the reason why [science] never developed in pantheistic cultures” as if you actually knew what the reason was. Again, you express an unsupported opinion as though it were established fact. Leaving aside the fact that your term, “pantheistic culture”, is a vague generality which in all probability has no specific meaning, your statement is pure speculation.
You say, “Thus from a pantheistic perspective it is pointless for someone to study the material world as objectively real, hoping to understand it, since it is merely illusory.” Speaking for myself, I find the study of the material world is actually enhanced by my philosophical perspective, since from that perspective, studying the material world is illuminating the awesome and stunning intelligence and creativity of the mind of God. I love to study science for exactly that reason. I find it awe inspiring (Literally–it inspires awe in me.) to contemplate the elegance and perfection of the design of the virtual world we inhabit.
“[Y]ou said that I did not address this ‘illusory’ point of yours, yet a few days ago, in post 7, I held that material is not as illusory as you were making out to be.”
In #6, you imply that there is evidence that “directly contradicts” my philosophy. I have challenged you several times to come up with some such evidence. You have not. In fact, you have not even addressed my philosophy (laid out in summary once again in 6.1.1,2). I can find no place in #7 where you address my philosophy at all. If you disagree, give me a quote from #7 where you do so.
“Bruce’s absurd claim in 6.1 that ‘pantheism IS theism’… i.e. that black is white?”
Well, this is very interesting. I went to the dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary, 1989) to find out the official definitions of the two terms. I found that “theism” is defined to be “belief in the existence of a god or gods”, so by that definition I am certainly a theist. What surprised me is that the definition of pantheism is “the doctrine of identifying the Deity with the various forces and workings of nature.” I have always understood pantheism to mean the belief that everything that exists is a part of God. By that definition, pantheism is a species of theism, and so I was both. However, it appears I was wrong about the definition of pantheism, so I stand corrected. I am a theist but NOT a pantheist.
“So does God send parts of God to hell at the judgement Almighty Bruce?”
Of course not. This is one reason that I am convinced that there is no Hell (and no judgement). Why would God punish a part of Himself? What possible purpose could be served by that?
You’re beginning to understand. Congratulations!
Bruce you state, after a long lecture of me not refuting your philosophy (and defending pantheism for months on these very threads), this priceless statement, ‘I am a theist but NOT a pantheist.’
For crying out loud Bruce,
you, by your own admission, don’t even hold to a consistent position in philosophy wherewith to form a stable heuristic in science! 
(Which I, and several others have been pointing out to you for months) Whereas my Christian philosophy has varied not one iota! I can just shake my head at the absurdity of it all!
this is exactly what I meant by forever moldable philosophy that you possess. I’m sure you will claim something else tomorrow!
Well Bruce, as laid out in post 7.1 and 7.1.1, reality, not your subjective opinion, reveals that hell is a very real possibility within what we can discern of reality. ,,, But hey Bruce, that’s just reality itself giving us that clue!
I’m sure that is No problem for someone who equates himself with God as you do.
BA77: Really??? Why are they two different words then???
Pantheism is one form of theism. Pan “all”, theism “Godism.” I didn’t mean to say that pantheism is the only form of theism. I think that’s obvious.
Re 6.1.1.2.12: I have not changed my philosophy one iota, not one dotted i or crossed t, not by an angstrom unit. All I did was look up the dictionary definition of pantheism and realize that my philosophy doesn’t satisfy the meaning that term. I freely admitted my ignorance regarding the meaning of that word.
You, however, then take that admission and try to turn it into a philosophical inconsistency on my part so that you can label my position absurd. You are either too stupid to understand what I actually said or you did understand it but had the hypocrisy to ignore what you understand in a petty attempt to win points in this debate we are having.
Just like most Darwinists attempting to refute ID, you don’t grapple with my actual arguments. Rather, you spend your words in vain attempts to twist what I say into something that you can label “absurd”, “irrational”, or some such. You really need to know how transparent your efforts are. Their only effect is to make you look like a petulant child trying to win at any cost, even to the point of serious compromise of your integrity. You do NO service to the cause in which you labor (the promotion of Christian thinking).
O, wad some Power the giftie gie us/To see oursels as others see us!/It wad frae monie a blunder free us/An’ foolish notion.
Robbie Burns
—Bruce: “There is no evidence that contradicts my philosophy.”
It is not a question of evidence but rather one of internal inconsistency. A good example may be found below:
–Bruce: “Therefore All That Is divided itself into billions of individuations, each an image and likeness of itself. You can call these “souls” if you wish. You and I are included among these individuations.”
So, according to Bruce, Bruce is a part of God and is also identical with God, as is, Mike1962, Bornagain77, and myself. Since BornAgain 77 and I disagree with Bruce and Mike, it follows that God disagrees with himself. Also, since Bruce thinks He is God and since Bornagain 77 and I don’t think we are God, it follows that God thinks He is God and also doesn’t think He is God. It doesn’t get any more absurd or irrational than that.
Re 6.1.1.2.13:
“Well Bruce, as laid out in post 7.1 and 7.1.1, reality, not your subjective opinion, reveals that hell is a very real possibility within what we can discern of reality.”
It may be in your reality. In my reality, God is unconditionally loving. That automatically eliminates the possibility of Hell.
“I’m sure that is No problem for someone who equates himself with God as you do.”
Once again, you exhibit your usual dishonesty by distorting my meaning in order to be able to ridicule it and thus win points. You will not find one quote from me anywhere in any blog which can be construed to mean that I equate myself with God. I say that I (and you and everyone else) am a PART of God, made in His image and likeness. Since when does the part equate to the whole?
Bornagain: “So, according to Bruce, Bruce is a part of God and is also identical with God.”
No, this is incorrect, as I pointed out in an earlier post. The part is not identical with the whole. Once again, your intense need to prove me wrong causes you to make the most elementary of logical errors.
And there is nothing absurd or irrational in the idea that one part of God could disagree with another part of God, if it served His purpose for that to occur.
Since you are emotionally unable to countenance the possibility that my philosophical position could be a valid one, you render yourself also unable to understand my philosophy, and thus you are unable to understand my explanation of God’s purpose in creating us and the physical universe, so you cannot see how it could serve God’s purpose for one part of Him to disagree with another part of Him. If you understood my philosophy, it would be obvious to you.
Therefore, my philosophy will always appear absurd to you, even though every effort you make to prove that it is absurd only ends up making you look foolish, intellectually dishonest, or both.
Actually, it depends on which definition of “theism” you adopt. By the general definition, “belief in the existence of a god or gods”, pantheism is also theism, since it holds that nature and God are identical, and thus believes in the existence of a god. If, however, one adopts the more restrictive definition of theism, “belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world”, then pantheism isn’t theism, because a personal or creator God is specifically excluded from the definition of pantheism.
Mike,
Up till this thread, I also looked at the etymology of pantheism and assumed that it meant simply a belief that everything was God. But since actually looking up the definition and discovering that pantheism excludes the ideas of a personal and creator god, I realize that my philosophy is not, after all, pantheism, even though I do believe that everything is God, since I hold that God IS personal and the creator of the Universe.
Bruce 6.1.1.2.15:
Good so far:
Yet Bruce in 11.1.2
Thus which is it, did God create man in his image or is everything God??? You can’t have it both ways. And flip between positions when it suits you rhetorical purpose.
Bruce you state:
I agree, God is unconditionally loving as exemplified by the Cross,,, And yet evil, contrary to your denials, really does exists thus exemplifying the need for the cross in the first place, go figure! Why should your desire for the way you wish reality to be trump the way reality is actually constructed???
notes as to the two different ‘eternalities of time’ found in reality: Time, as we understand it, comes to a stop (becomes eternal) at the speed of light: as well the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapes’ into a tunnel shape, (much like a sheet of paper folding and collapsing into a tunnel shape), around the direction of travel, as a ‘hypothetical’ observer accelerates towards the higher dimension of the speed of light (3:22 minute mark of this video).
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
Whereas there is another higher dimensional tunnel found in reality for a hypothetical observer ‘falling into’ a black hole;
Time dilation for each scenario is confirmed here:
In other words, as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particularly disturbing interest, to the higher dimensional eternal framework of time found at black holes, it is interesting to note that entropic decay, which is the primary reason why all things grow old in this universe, and even why, ultimately, all living organisms eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of destruction’.
Needless to say the implications of this ‘eternality of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually’ minded persuasion!
As well, besides having eye-witness testimony testifying to ‘accelerating up a tunnel to ‘a light”, in near death experiences, we also have ‘eye witness’ testimony of ‘falling down a tunnel’ to hell;
A man, near the beginning of this video, gives testimony of falling down a ‘tunnel’ in the transition stage from this world to hell:
The man, in this following video, also speaks of ‘tumbling down’ a tunnel in his transition stage to hell:
Now I am fairly certain that none of these people, who have had Near Death Experiences, know the physics of General, and Special, relativity all that well, so this is fairly stunning confirmation that their testimonies are trustworthy.
further note:
further note:
Music and verse:
Bornagain,
Re. 6.1.1.2.16: “Everything is God” simply means that God created everything that exists out of Himself, much as we create our dreamscapes and everything in them out of ourselves. The difference, of course, is that God does this consciously, and with purpose and deliberate intent, and what He creates is incomprehensibly vaster and more complex than our dreams. Part of what God creates (out of himself) are individuations or localizations of Himself, or souls. These souls from time to time incarnate into human bodies, and include you and me. Since souls are individuations or localizations of Him, they have been created in His “image and likeness”. Thus, everything is a part of God, including you and me, and we are created in His image and likeness. Both are true.
Here’s an analogy. Although it isn’t perfect, it does illustrate how something can be a part of something larger, but still in its image and likeness. Consider a hologram. If you break a hologram into parts, each part still produces the entire holographic image. Thus, each such part, while not the whole, can be said to be in the image and likeness of the whole.
You know, your whole attitude towards me and my philosophy is an attempt to discredit it. Rather than a respectful give and take in which you truly try to understand my point of view, your approach is to look for points where you can prove that my philosophy is wrong. This is a fundamental mistake: because you never make the effort to understand it, your attempts to discredit me always fail, and you simply end up looking foolish or lacking in integrity.
Re. 6.1.1.2.17 & 18: Nothing in this long rumination of the nature of physical reality and time contradicts the fact that unconditional love on one hand and judgment, condemnation, and punishment on the other are mutually exclusive. It is logically contradictory for an unconditionally loving God to create a Hell.
There are many possible explanations for how and why someone could have a vision or experience of Hell as described in the video whose link you included, but the explanation that they are witnessing actual reality is not one of them, not if God truly is unconditionally loving.
Well Bruce, just as I figured, you crossbred the two philosophies so as to avoid falsification.,,, None-the-less, despite my ‘foolishness’ and ‘lack of integrity’ that you accuse me of after such a tactic, I have in fact shown two very, very, different ‘eternalities of time’ within the space-time structure of reality. Moreover I have provided ‘eyewitness’ testimony of ‘tunnel transitions’ that lends much credible weight to both different types of ‘eternalities of time’. Yet you chose your personal opinion about how you think a infinitely just and infinitely loving God should act over the physical evidence and eye witness testimony I provided. Thus you have put your philosophy in a place that is impervious to falsification from either the physical evidence provided and from logical inconsistencies pointed out by StephenB and others. In my ‘opinion’, since ‘opinions’ reign supreme in your philosophy, your philosophy and methodology is no better than that of neo-Darwinists.
Bruce you have repeatedly brought up God’s infinite love to say that hell is logically inconsistent with His character. Yet when we realize that God is also, in being sovereign ruler of the universe, infinitely just, then both hell and Christ’s atoning sacrifice make perfect sense. In fact both characteristics of God’s infinite love and infinite justice are met in Christ. Thus it is not logically inconsistent at all and makes perfect sense in an imperfect ‘sinful’ world. In fact the only thing that would be logically inconsistent would be for someone to deny God His essential attribute of infinite justice in dealing with sin and evil. And to deny the reality of evil in this world in so doing. Which is exactly what you have done!
Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy
http://www.catholicbasictraini.....xts/6e.htm
Re. 6.1.1.2.20: Even when we occupy physical bodies, time is an illusion. All there ever is is the eternal Now. The past is just memories or records of various kinds that we perceive in the Now. Likewise for visions, plans, and expectations of the future. This simply becomes more obvious in the place we inhabit between lives (so I’ve read). So now explain to me exactly how the fact of “eternality of time” as you put it, demonstrates the existence of Hell.
Re. 6.1.1.2.21: “Justice” is just a synonym for “judgment, condemnation, and punishment”. As such, justice and unconditional love are mutually exclusive. The notion of justice doesn’t apply to God at all. The idea that God is infinitely just is an error, invented to get around the obvious objection that God’s unconditional love and Hell are incompatible.
Furthermore, endless intolerable suffering (burning in the flames through all eternity) for a finite amount of sin (It is impossible to commit an infinite amount of sin in a finite amount of time.) hardly qualifies as justice.
Bruce, I believe what I have previously said more than stands up to your superficial responses (rationalizations). Thus I will not respond anymore.
What, Bornagain, you’re going to leave the field to me? What about all those poor souls who might be swayed by my new age nonsense? If you abandon them, who’s going to point out the absurdity and irrationality of my position and thus save them from a fate worse than death? Aren’t you shirking your responsibility here? I’m just asking…
Don’t feel bad Bruce, I don’t argue with brick walls either. And besides, your doing a far better job than I ever could of pointing out the absurdity of your position. ,,, i.e. All is God, God created God, You are God. I am God. God disagrees with God. Evil is a illusion. Sin is a illusion. Space-Time is a illusion,,, Yada Yada Yada!
“Don’t feel bad Bruce, I don’t argue with brick walls either.”
Ah, but Bornagain, you DO. Your metaphor is apt. My philosophy is a brick wall that you and StephenB have been knocking your heads against for over a year in a vain attempt to knock it down.
You haven’t been satisfied with just expressing your point of view in these posts, and allowing it to stand against mine. No, you have been operating out of some need to prove that my point of view is absurd, irrational, and in conflict with “reality”. In doing this, you have set yourself up to fail, because the task is impossible.
You are wise to finally give up the effort.