How come some people have no intuition whatsoever ?

Those are the ones that call it a load of baloney and ruthlessly overrun any "feelings."
We all have intuition. Some of us are brave and act on it and so encourage it.

Use it or lose it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 8:22am:

How come some people have no intuition whatsoever ? Those are the ones that call it a load of baloney and ruthlessly overrun any "feelings." We all have intuition. Some of us are brave and act on it and so encourage it. Use it or lose it.

Is it because most of us are 'engrossed' with our [this] physical reality ?

Because we find it much easier to 'stroke' the physical, than to 'stroke' the spiritual ?

'stroke' = = engage with






We always have a choice.

We can engage with what is 'apparent'.

Or we can seek reality [.....beyond the 'apparent'].

When we are 'engaged' with the world we don't see beyond it, because we never look, because we allow ourselves [we choose] to be constantly distracted by this physical world.






What i believe....

We humans, all we humans, are all spiritual beings.

And we come to this physical existence specifically [i believe], to exercise the 'power' of choice [given to each of us, by God],
....in this physical existence.

And in this life, by our choices, we demonstrate to ourselves, to ourselves, to ourselves, that we understand the consequences of our choices.
....well, some of us do!!!

Choice is a mental power, a thought power,
....a spiritual power.

Here, here, here, in this 'reality', here on this little planet, our choices have no form, until we express them, physically!
[...or so we think! But that is another story!!]






THE TRUTH....

All men have been corrupted by their 'power' of choice [i.e. by the exercising of their choices, in this physical world!].

Some of us seek to alleviate our [real] spiritual corruption, by seeking redemption, through spiritual repentance.

We all choose....
....to either come to the LIGHT,
....or to deny the TRUTH, and to dwell in the DARKNESS.

We choose.







This life is a mystery, and a 'parable', of sorts.

Why has God used the experience of this 'parable' to teach us [the TRUTH]?


Matthew 13:10
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13  Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16  But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.




Don't blame God, don't accuse God.

God is just....
....and men are wicked, blind fools.

You judge a tree by it's fruit. Intuition can be a convenient shortcut and can sometimes give you a great leap, but it can also lead you up the garden path. It is effectively a form of lazyness, in that people cannot be bothered figuring out why they think something.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 1:42pm:

You judge a tree by it's fruit. Intuition can be a convenient shortcut and can sometimes give you a great leap, but it can also lead you up the garden path. It is effectively a form of lazyness, in that people cannot be bothered figuring out why they think something.

Very true.

The truth we feel, neither mitigated by the faculties of intellect, nor given by authority, is the genesis our deepest held beliefs, which we will defend even against the presence of incontrovertible fact.

Hence religion's survival of science.

You feel that science is somehow at odds with religion?

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 2:43pm:

You feel that science is somehow at odds with religion?

From the Judeo-Christian-Islamic context, it would seem unlikely that the world was made in 7 days and is only 5 1/2 thousand years old and certain that the solar system is heliocentric as opposed to geocentric (even though our intuition may tell us otherwise), for example.

Religion is not astronomy or geology.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 2:59pm:

Religion is not astronomy or geology.

No, but its description of the physical world was required to be believed, was believed and still is believed and accepted as truth by many of the faithful.

My wife has just about the worst situational awareness of anyone I have ever met, she also takes people at face value on what they say and pays no attention to speech emphasis or body language.

I have fairly good situational awareness and am quite observant to the secondry happenings around me, so she thinks it's almost psychic. When we used to go bush walking she used to be completely focused on the destination usually the waterfall at the end of the track, It was quite humorous how much she would miss along the way before she learned to slow down. I usually move through the bush like I'm hunting so you can see quite a lot.

Her mother once made a comment about a person she saw "Look, she must be a very nice lady because she dresses so lovely". So this is an indication of the social education my wife recieved. I explained that the Devil is a renouned snappy dresser and can quote scripture for his purpose. Went completely over her head.

Like 'Everybody's OK until you get to know them'... All that's left is the rate of one's aquainting.

Quote:

No, but its description of the physical world was required to be believed, was believed and still is believed and accepted as truth by many of the faithful.

It is not required and never was required. People just believed it because it was the best available theory at the time. When a better theory came along, religion dropped it without a fuss because it isn't what religion is about. People just get hung up on it because they want to believe that religion and science are somehow mutually exclusive and that science somehow validates or invalidates non-scientific beliefs. They will pretend that world history revolved around one or two minor disagreements between scientists and religious bureaucrats. They will pretend that science can somehow disprove God's existence, or that religions make claims that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. They will deliberately confuse science with the non-scientific claims made by academic media-whores and they will deliberately confuse religion with claims made by people that used religious texts as validation, even though they had nothing to do with religion. They will hold up religious cranks who claim far more academic territory for religion than can be justified as representative of religion, and scientific cranks who claim far more academic territory for science than can be justified as representative of science.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 3:21pm:

Like 'Everybody's OK until you get to know them'... All that's left is the rate of one's aquainting.

;D ;D True. I apply the first part as a common courtesy, then make evaluations on whether a 2nd meeting is mutually or personally benficial. I only have a limited amount of time on this earth :'(.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 3:37pm:

Quote: No, but its description of the physical world was required to be believed, was believed and still is believed and accepted as truth by many of the faithful. It is not required and never was required. People just believed it because it was the best available theory at the time. When a better theory came along, religion dropped it without a fuss because it isn't what religion is about. People just get hung up on it because they want to believe that religion and science are somehow mutually exclusive and that science somehow validates or invalidates non-scientific beliefs. They will pretend that world history revolved around one or two minor disagreements between scientists and religious bureaucrats. They will pretend that science can somehow disprove God's existence, or that religions make claims that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. They will deliberately confuse science with the non-scientific claims made by academic media-whores and they will deliberately confuse religion with claims made by people that used religious texts as validation, even though they had nothing to do with religion. They will hold up religious cranks who claim far more academic territory for religion than can be justified as representative of religion, and scientific cranks who claim far more academic territory for science than can be justified as representative of science.

Galileo would've been happy to hear that. He's just done 400 years of Purgatory for his heretical assertions. By the way, Pope John Paul II decreed that scientists may investigate back to the big bang but may not speculate beyond that, because that's in the realm of God's terrain.

Quote:

in that people cannot be bothered figuring out why they think something.

What is interesting is that A thought occurred.
Not why it did.

Islamists like abo intuitively afraid of truth. Why is that?

oops

Well, I have seen, and experienced some 'weird' stuff in my time, but I expect most of it could be explained away, 'naturally', if we bothered to investigate it thoroughly.
Like Locutious said, it is more likely to do with the limitations of our own awareness.

I once had a neighbour with trained attack dogs, scary dobermans, which he warned against ever approaching, like, if we kicked the footy into his yard, do NOT try and retrieve it, because they will attack.
Anyway, one day I was wandering out to put my socket set back in my car, after fixing a tap, when I heard growling, I looked up to see one of the neighbours dogs had got out, and was crouched a meter away from me, ready to leap up and rip my throat out.
I froze.
Instantly I thought, sh1t, this dog is gonna rip my throat out, then, still frozen, showing no external change, I thought, if this mongrel moves, I will smash his skull in with this socket set.
The instant I changed my thought from fear, to aggression, the dog stopped growling, sat, looked at me for a few more seconds, then turned and walked away.

I always thought that it was the dog's intuition which let it know that I had become a threat to it, but if we examined it closely, it was more likely that dog's abilities to read body language, etc. showed the animal my intent.

I think for we humans, similiar things happen at times, but we don't analyse why we feel like we 'know' some things.

True, Mozz. And we easily forget that we too are animals and at a certain level, we speak the same language as any other - particularly with other intelligent mammals. Just like we usually correctly interpret the signs of intent in other animals.

tallowood wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 10:19pm:

Islamists like abo intuitively afraid of truth. Why is that?

May i venture, tongue in cheek....

Because its in our nature, to be fearful of the new, and unknown???

And abu is just reverting to type???

;D    ;D    ;D

mozzaok wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 7:47am:

Well, I have seen, and experienced some 'weird' stuff in my time, but I expect most of it could be explained away, 'naturally', if we bothered to investigate it thoroughly. Like Locutious said, it is more likely to do with the limitations of our own awareness. I once had a neighbour with trained attack dogs, scary dobermans, which he warned against ever approaching, like, if we kicked the footy into his yard, do NOT try and retrieve it, because they will attack. Anyway, one day I was wandering out to put my socket set back in my car, after fixing a tap, when I heard growling, I looked up to see one of the neighbours dogs had got out, and was crouched a meter away from me, ready to leap up and rip my throat out. I froze. Instantly I thought, sh1t, this dog is gonna rip my throat out, then, still frozen, showing no external change, I thought, if this mongrel moves, I will smash his skull in with this socket set. The instant I changed my thought from fear, to aggression, the dog stopped growling, sat, looked at me for a few more seconds, then turned and walked away. I always thought that it was the dog's intuition which let it know that I had become a threat to it, but if we examined it closely, it was more likely that dog's abilities to read body language, etc. showed the animal my intent. I think for we humans, similiar things happen at times, but we don't analyse why we feel like we 'know' some things.

moz,

May i venture, that perhaps the dog wasn't picking up so much on your new aggressive frame of mind [which the socket piece in your hand engendered], as much as your sudden lack of fear?




I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Dune - Frank Herbert

mozzaok - I have heard dogs commumicate a LOT through body language.

To look bored (in dog language) yawn, blink and hang head down or to a side.
Heard it on the radio, by an irishman called the dogman.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 10:44am:

mozzaok - I have heard dogs commumicate a LOT through body language. To look bored (in dog language) yawn, blink and hang head down or to a side. Heard it on the radio, by an irishman called the dogman.

We underrate dog intelligence, until you realise they have the capacity to deceive and practice it whenever they can. Like the home guard dog who lets a stranger onto the property... lying on the porch like a fat lazy mutt... Until the stranger tries to leave the property... then in a wink he turns into Kujo.

Dogs can smell fear and aggression, sharks can too. I don't think it is due to their intelligence, though, probably primary survival instinct embedded in their nervous system.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 7:47am:

Well, I have seen, and experienced some 'weird' stuff in my time, but I expect most of it could be explained away, 'naturally', if we bothered to investigate it thoroughly. Like Locutious said, it is more likely to do with the limitations of our own awareness. I once had a neighbour with trained attack dogs, scary dobermans, which he warned against ever approaching, like, if we kicked the footy into his yard, do NOT try and retrieve it, because they will attack. Anyway, one day I was wandering out to put my socket set back in my car, after fixing a tap, when I heard growling, I looked up to see one of the neighbours dogs had got out, and was crouched a meter away from me, ready to leap up and rip my throat out. I froze. Instantly I thought, sh1t, this dog is gonna rip my throat out, then, still frozen, showing no external change, I thought, if this mongrel moves, I will smash his skull in with this socket set. The instant I changed my thought from fear, to aggression, the dog stopped growling, sat, looked at me for a few more seconds, then turned and walked away. I always thought that it was the dog's intuition which let it know that I had become a threat to it, but if we examined it closely, it was more likely that dog's abilities to read body language, etc. showed the animal my intent. I think for we humans, similiar things happen at times, but we don't analyse why we feel like we 'know' some things.

Dogs have an acute sense of smell. In a word, Pheronomes - or is it Fearonomes?  ;)

When an animal demonstrates that it can deceive is when an animal reveals its capacity for abstract thought.

As I said, I have never really analysed how the dog picked up my change of attitude, but the idea of smelling fear, is certainly interesting.

I know I did not make any overt change in my attitude, I remained frozen on the spot, but whether my eyes changed, in how I looked at him, or if indeed pheremones would release so quickly, for the dog to be able to smell them, at the same instant that my attitude changed, I really don't know.

I have seen those people on the telly, who read body language, and they get some pretty spectacular results, and some animals certainly use it to read us humans, but as our spoken language evolved, our abilities with,  reliance upon, this more intuitive form of communication, seems to have diminished.

I think it's just a case of use it or lose it. I suspect our legal system for example has reduced people's ability to detect fraud. If your next meal depended on not being ripped off, you'd be a lot more wary about who you opened your wallet for.

Sometimes if an animal gives you a big enough fright, everyone can smell it. ;D ;D

The closest I've had to losing control was in the lignum with maybe 3 metres visibility tops and a huge tusked boar casually strolls into view. No shotgun, only the bow and a 50 metre backpedal to the nearest tree. I can't remember if I said "mummy" or "F#@K Off" either way I was extremely lucky it was people shy. He probably had a laugh about it later.

Reminds me of the Farside cartoon where the bear is in the cave holding up some human hunter's skulls and saying to the youngsters....."OK once more then it's off to bed.......Hey Bill, do you think there are any bears in this cave??" Something like that

mozzaok wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 1:14pm:

As I said, I have never really analysed how the dog picked up my change of attitude, but the idea of smelling fear, is certainly interesting. I know I did not make any overt change in my attitude, I remained frozen on the spot, but whether my eyes changed, in how I looked at him, or if indeed pheremones would release so quickly, for the dog to be able to smell them, at the same instant that my attitude changed, I really don't know.

Body language experts will tell you that due to the tiny muscles around them, the eyes are the most subtle and best indicators of true intent. They're almost impossible to control. Smell is a dog's most acute sense so it wouldn't be surprising if dogs could smell adrenalin or bile or the host of chemicals the body releases when motivated by emotion.

humans can easily sense fear and aggression in other people

Maybe that's why gunfighters talk about who blinked first. BANG! 8-)

Hmmm I think we should get over putting intuition in some kind of mystical context. What it comes down to is that we have two brains - a primitive brain and a cerebral cortex. Sensory input goes first to the primitive section of the brain, and is processed by the hypothalamus in conjunction with the Reticular Activating System. The processing function is baud limited and this is what gives us our reaction time. Not all information is passed on through the RAS, so some low level information lies dormant and gives us feelings of intuition - which some may describe as sixth sense. So in summary, we have rapidly acquired sensory information at 'low res' plus delayed information at 'high res'.

Some people call it gut feeling. Some people talk about feeling it in their heart and point to the fact that the heart itself contains neurons (Nerve cells) in support of some misguided belief that the heart or the gut have a cognitive role. In point of fact they are talking through another part of their anatomy, and (actually now that I come to think of it) the anus has more neurons than the heart anyway. (joking) ;D

muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 9:43am:

Hmmm I think we should get over putting intuition in some kind of mystical context. What it comes down to is that we have two brains - a primitive brain and a cerebral cortex. Sensory input goes first to the primitive section of the brain, and is processed by the hypothalamus in conjunction with the Reticular Activating System. The processing function is baud limited and this is what gives us our reaction time. Not all information is passed on through the RAS, so some low level information lies dormant and gives us feelings of intuition - which some may describe as sixth sense. So in summary, we have rapidly acquired sensory information at 'low res' plus delayed information at 'high res'. Some people call it gut feeling. Some people talk about feeling it in their heart and point to the fact that the heart itself contains neurons (Nerve cells) in support of some misguided belief that the heart or the gut have a cognitive role. In point of fact they are talking through another part of their anatomy, and (actually now that I come to think of it) the anus has more neurons than the heart anyway. (joking) ;D

The smart brains connected to the....  dumb brain.... the dumb brains connected to the... hypthalamoo.... Oh mercy how they scare.

Ah, yes... the biological reductionism song.

muso - hahahahah


Quote:

point of fact they are talking through another part of their anatomy, and (actually now that I come to think of it) the anus has more neurons than the heart anyway.

Reductionism? Well ok. It's just that we have a pretty good idea of how it all functions, and if some of the effects we are talking about are predictable consequences of this anyway, just why do we need to add superfluous mystical explanations?

It's like any other technical subject. We have the custodians of the technical information, who know how say computers work, then we have the general population who just use them.

If it is possible to grasp the technical details of a subject by investing some time and effort studying it, does that justify the lazy position of just attributing it all to the great Etruscan God Turms, who controls the internet, thought processes and in fact all information technology - biological or inorganic?

Is ignorance a good excuse for mysticism? You tell me, because ignorance, new age charlatanism and mysticism are all in plague proportions.

muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 10:09am:

Reductionism? Well ok. It's just that we have a pretty good idea of how it all functions, and if some of the effects we are talking about are predictable consequences of this anyway, just why do we need to add superfluous mystical explanations? It's like any other technical subject. We have the custodians of the technical information, who know how say computers work, then we have the general population who just use them. If it is possible to grasp the technical details of a subject by investing some time and effort studying it, does that justify the lazy position of just attributing it all to the great Etruscan God Turms, who controls the internet, thought processes and in fact all information technology - biological or inorganic? Is ignorance a good excuse for mysticism? You tell me, because ignorance, new age charlatanism and mysticism are all in plague proportions.

muso,

[off topic, but in the same ball park]

You ask.....


Quote:

.......Is ignorance a good excuse for mysticism?

You should watch this series, which is availble on YOUTUBE.

precis,
A group of scientists find mechanisms in our bodies, and in the bodies of animals, which they can't explain in/by evolution.

These scientists argue that, logically [and quite convincingly], that it would seem impossible that evolution could produce the particular mechanisms examined.

It is quite detailed, and scientific.

I have not seen a refutation of this scientific evidence, which questions how is it possible that evolution could produce such mechanisms within animal bodies?
.....[given the stated scientific understanding, of how evolution is supposed to work]

I have this program on DVD.



YOUTUBE
"Unlocking the Mystery of Life preview"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Ot0YKHoTk

Yadda,

Here are a list of stupid things that I have taken a personal vow never to do again:

1. Repeat the same word over and over until it loses its meaning
2. Break into the monkey's enclosure at the zoo and make screeching animal noises.
3. Urinate against the prevailing wind
4. Anything involving fireworks and parts of my anatomy
5. Burn my hand by focussing the suns rays with a magnifying glass.
6. Attempt to learn tapdancing
7. Throw live ammunition into a bonfire
8. Plug the eyes from a dead fish I have just caught and eat them.
9. Sing on stage without attending any rehearsals
and finally:
10. Talk about science with a creationist.  

You see, life is too short to waste time doing anything pointless.

muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 10:09am:

Reductionism? Well ok. It's just that we have a pretty good idea of how it all functions, and if some of the effects we are talking about are predictable consequences of this anyway, just why do we need to add superfluous mystical explanations?

We dont.


Quote:

It's like any other technical subject. We have the custodians of the technical information, who know how say computers work, then we have the general population who just use them. If it is possible to grasp the technical details of a subject by investing some time and effort studying it, does that justify the lazy position of just attributing it all to the great Etruscan God Turms, who controls the internet, thought processes and in fact all information technology - biological or inorganic? Is ignorance a good excuse for mysticism? You tell me, because ignorance, new age charlatanism and mysticism are all in plague proportions."

Not really.... But mysticism is a whole lot more fun and whets the appetite for a sense of wonder.

In as much as mysticism can exist alongside science, it should.

muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 9:43am:

Hmmm I think we should get over putting intuition in some kind of mystical context. What it comes down to is that we have two brains - a primitive brain and a cerebral cortex. Sensory input goes first to the primitive section of the brain, and is processed by the hypothalamus in conjunction with the Reticular Activating System. The processing function is baud limited and this is what gives us our reaction time. Not all information is passed on through the RAS, so some low level information lies dormant and gives us feelings of intuition - which some may describe as sixth sense. So in summary, we have rapidly acquired sensory information at 'low res' plus delayed information at 'high res'. Some people call it gut feeling. Some people talk about feeling it in their heart and point to the fact that the heart itself contains neurons (Nerve cells) in support of some misguided belief that the heart or the gut have a cognitive role. In point of fact they are talking through another part of their anatomy, and (actually now that I come to think of it) the anus has more neurons than the heart anyway. (joking) ;D

Speaking about gut instincts, try this. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

Stephen Colbert should have been made an honourary life member of the Chasers after this speech. Gold!

muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 11:47am:

Yadda, Here are a list of stupid things that I have taken a personal vow never to do again: 1. Repeat the same word over and over until it loses its meaning 2. Break into the monkey's enclosure at the zoo and make screeching animal noises. 3. Urinate against the prevailing wind 4. Anything involving fireworks and parts of my anatomy 5. Burn my hand by focussing the suns rays with a magnifying glass. 6. Attempt to learn tapdancing 7. Throw live ammunition into a bonfire 8. Plug the eyes from a dead fish I have just caught and eat them. 9. Sing on stage without attending any rehearsals and finally: 10. Talk about science with a creationist.   You see, life is too short to waste time doing anything pointless.

Some people just need a nice cup of cocoa and a lie down.

muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 11:47am:

Yadda, Here are a list of stupid things that I have taken a personal vow never to do again: 1. Repeat the same word over and over until it loses its meaning 2. Break into the monkey's enclosure at the zoo and make screeching animal noises. 3. Urinate against the prevailing wind 4. Anything involving fireworks and parts of my anatomy 5. Burn my hand by focussing the suns rays with a magnifying glass. 6. Attempt to learn tapdancing 7. Throw live ammunition into a bonfire 8. Plug the eyes from a dead fish I have just caught and eat them. 9. Sing on stage without attending any rehearsals and finally: 10. Talk about science with a creationist.   11. Talk about creation with an open minded scientist.   You see, life is too short to waste time doing anything pointless.

muso,

You missed one.

I've added it to your list for future reference.     8-)

Now, where is that nice cup of cocoa?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 11:59am:

muso wrote on Jan 30th, 2009 at 11:47am: Yadda, Here are a list of stupid things that I have taken a personal vow never to do again: 1. Repeat the same word over and over until it loses its meaning 2. Break into the monkey's enclosure at the zoo and make screeching animal noises. 3. Urinate against the prevailing wind 4. Anything involving fireworks and parts of my anatomy 5. Burn my hand by focussing the suns rays with a magnifying glass. 6. Attempt to learn tapdancing 7. Throw live ammunition into a bonfire 8. Plug the eyes from a dead fish I have just caught and eat them. 9. Sing on stage without attending any rehearsals and finally: 10. Talk about science with a creationist.   You see, life is too short to waste time doing anything pointless. Some people just need a nice cup of cocoa and a lie down.

If that was an ageist comment, I'll have you know that I still do some crazy things, and I'm actually still proud of having tried all the things on that list at least once. Don't stick labels on me. I like to break moulds.

By definition, Yadda just demonstrated that he prefers to speak to closed minded people (scientists included).  

muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 1:43pm:

If that was an ageist comment, I'll have you know that I still do some crazy things, and I'm actually still proud of having tried all the things on that list at least once. Don't stick labels on me. I like to break moulds.

Don't mean no harm. Just 'avin a larf.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 2:04pm:

muso wrote on Jan 30th, 2009 at 1:43pm: If that was an ageist comment, I'll have you know that I still do some crazy things, and I'm actually still proud of having tried all the things on that list at least once. Don't stick labels on me. I like to break moulds.    Don't mean no harm. Just 'avin a larf.

HMMM   :-/

Yadda,

Just for a laugh, why don't you tell us what flavour of creationist you are, and why your own particular lofty Mountain top view of 'creation' (your personal unique insight into absolute truth) is superior to that of other types of creationists.

Maybe if you start me off with a round figure in years, we can do some haggling and agree over a figure. I'll start off the bidding with about 15 to 20 Billion years. What's your best offer?

muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 3:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 30th, 2009 at 2:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 30th, 2009 at 1:43pm: If that was an ageist comment, I'll have you know that I still do some crazy things, and I'm actually still proud of having tried all the things on that list at least once. Don't stick labels on me. I like to break moulds.   Don't mean no harm. Just 'avin a larf. HMMM   :-/ Yadda, Just for a laugh, why don't you tell us what flavour of creationist you are, and why your own particular lofty Mountain top view of 'creation' (your personal unique insight into absolute truth) is superior to that of other types of creationists. Maybe if you start me off with a round figure in years, we can do some haggling and agree over a figure. I'll start off the bidding with about 15 to 20 Billion years. What's your best offer?

muso,

This music clip must just about fit the bill for you ?....

Fatboy Slim - Right Here, Right Now
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Xh-MiiVMc

;D




muso,

Believe whatever you want to believe.

We all do.

And that belief, is, becomes, a spiritual place.

We all choose that 'place', for ourselves.



And if you find it amusing that i believe in a creationist God, that is fine too.     ;)

Yadda wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 3:45pm:

muso, Believe whatever you want to believe. We all do. And that belief, is, becomes, a spiritual place. We all choose that 'place', for ourselves. And if you find it amusing that i believe in a creationist God, that is fine too.     ;)

Yadda,

Sometimes you come across as beng one more arrogant Creationist and Bible thumper with your endless stream of Scriptural quotations.  But you know what? You just vindicated yourself.

LOL as for believing in a Creationist God, I'm not about to laugh at you for that.  I respect the views of other people. It's just the arrogance of those who don't (respect) that I don't respect.

Getting back to the analogy of standing on Mountain peaks, I don't believe that my Mountain peak offers a better view than yours (just different), and vice versa. So I'm not criticizing your actual perspective.  

This universe is big enough for both of us. Let me shake you hand, fellow human  ;D

P1ss poor muso, creationism is garbage, and you know it, so have the guts to say so without back pedalling to placate the sensibilities of those who choose to follow a religious belief.
It is not up to us to make their decisions seem more valid, by all this tripe about every opinion is as valid as the next, clearly some are not.

;D

It's usually the ones claiming others are invalid that have the invalid beliefs.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 31^st, 2009 at 1:17pm:

P1ss poor muso, creationism is garbage, and you know it, so have the guts to say so without back pedalling to placate the sensibilities of those who choose to follow a religious belief. It is not up to us to make their decisions seem more valid, by all this tripe about every opinion is as valid as the next, clearly some are not.

It depends. I find very little to complain about the belief of the 'God of the Gaps' or the most basic form of Deism.

Let's take the evidence - we have a universe with every single physical constant absolutely perfect for the existence of complex human life.

Then we have on one side

1. The concept of a large number of parallel universes, and the only ones that will have complex sentient lifeforms that debate on internet forums, are those few that are 'just right' - The Goldilocks universes.

...then 2. Just one universe that was set in motion with all the physical constants and laws perfectly in place to allow complex sentient beings to evolve by a higher intelligent power.

Looking at theories 1 and 2, I don't have too much problem with either. Theory 2 begs the question of who 'created' the higher intelligent power. If we postulate the higher intelligent power as a kind of property of the universe (Gaia versus God) then  that addresses that issue at least. Theory 1 has a lot of redundancies about it. Theory 2 may possibly rival theory 1 in terms of  Ockham's razor, scary as it might seem to a hard nosed atheist like yourself.


Quote:

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."[12] This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:[13]    * "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.'"      This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.    * "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."      Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his participatory universe and Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).    * "An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

This is all very cool stuff, but it's based on ideas, and there is absolutely no proof of it. In fact it's not a great deal different from some supernaturalist beliefs.

Personally I don't know how the universe came into being. The most important thing for me is to maintain my naturalistic world view, because it's a mode of thinking that has worked for me in the past.

Maybe we'll never know. Maybe we're not meant to contemplate the terrible visage of God. (sounds like he's ugly as a hat full of arseholes, but I say 'terrible' in the most cosmic sense)

However when people start talking Intelligent Design, my bullshit meter kicks in very quickly. Fo one thing, it's an insult to the grandeur  and elegance of the Universe itself, and possibly even an insult to 'God'

;)