The great hallucination

[ffg]

Well, no, if you just said that about Hitler then the huge amount you were airbrushing out would indicate you were indeed editorialising, I think.

Incidentally, back on the hauntings (for the last time, I hope!) I believe Ann Boleyn likes to turn up in many locations, head tucked underneath her arm.

Thanks for the reply, great stuff.

I’m perfectly ok with not countering the hauntings now. Though, I do have a counter if you are ever interested.

With regard to the Hitler statement, Do you not see in your response here that it is a desire to add details to what is not in the objective statement I made?

You just introduced a desire for the exact thing you wish to call myth by folks, 2000 years earlier - details.

Now we should evaluate why details are not myth with hitler, but myth with Jesus.

Have a great weekend!

 

[Picky_Picky]

Simply, I would say, the only way for creation to know there is a creator, is for the creator to inform the creation of said creator’s existence.

Would you agree?

I suppose to be extremely clear, in other words, there is NO WAY creation can learn of creator without an act from creator.

That’s probably true. I suppose in theory we could deduce God by some logical process, but it’s certain that we haven’t succeeded with that yet. I suppose we could find some statement by God woven into the fabric of the universe (preferably in English), like a watermark, obeying the laws of physics but clearly God’s message with God’s signature in an unquestionable form — but then that would be an act by the creator informing us of said creator’s existence. With you so far.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks for the reply, great stuff.

I’m perfectly ok with not countering the hauntings now. Though, I do have a counter if you are ever interested.

With regard to the Hitler statement, Do you not see in your response here that it is a desire to add details to what is not in the objective statement I made?

You just introduced a desire for the exact thing you wish to call myth by folks, 2000 years earlier - details.

Now we should evaluate why details are not myth with hitler, but myth with Jesus.

Have a great weekend!

I don’t follow your logic at all. I could add many things to your statement which are not myth, and which would improve the capacity of the statement to convey reality.

 

[ffg]

I don’t follow your logic at all. I could add many things to your statement which are not myth, and which would improve the capacity of the statement to convey reality.

Thanks for the reply.

I think we are down to 2 topics, which is good for confusion sake. This one I think is the quicker answer. Though we can marry the topics eventually, perhaps even after the next round.

I think as I mentioned earlier, the key difference between how you and I approach history might be what is causing a fall-out here.

Literally, all I wanted was to confirm on the simple objective statement -

‘Adolf Hitler was a man in Germany in the 20th century.’

adding details to that statement, does not change in the least, it’s reality. It is true, no?

I am not denying details. Just making a statement. I understand quite well many of the details, but if we could just walk logically, starting with a simple objective statement.

If agreed, it is impossible to do anything to the line to ‘improve the capacity of the statement to convey reality.’ because it is a true statement.

You can’t get more true than true.

Of course you can add color (details), as you mentioned. of which I agree.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks for the reply.

I think we are down to 2 topics, which is good for confusion sake. This one I think is the quicker answer. Though we can marry the topics eventually, perhaps even after the next round.

I think as I mentioned earlier, the key difference between how you and I approach history might be what is causing a fall-out here.

Literally, all I wanted was to confirm on the simple objective statement -

‘Adolf Hitler was a man in Germany in the 20th century.’

adding details to that statement, does not change in the least, it’s reality. It is true, no?

I am not denying details. Just making a statement. I understand quite well many of the details, but if we could just walk logically, starting with a simple objective statement.

If agreed, it is impossible to do anything to the line to ‘improve the capacity of the statement to convey reality.’ because it is a true statement.

You can’t get more true than true.

Of course you can add color (details), as you mentioned. of which I agree.

Well, perhaps I’ve derailed. But my argument (and I can no longer remember why I was making the argument!) was that no history is written without a point of view, without an opinion. I think you replied something like: “Not so. I could make this statement about Hitler and it takes no point of view but is simple fact.” My reply is that what you have stated is a simple fact but it does take a point of view. If I were to publish my History of Adolf Hitler with just that sentence in it, I would be taking a point of view by ignoring the significant facts about Hitler’s life.

If I added that he was kind to animals and loved music, architecture and art, and had a minor talent for watercolour; that he was also courageous, volunteering for the army in WW1 and being decorated for bravery. If I were to say that after the war the German economy collapsed and there was disorder on the streets; that the existing parties were unable to solve the nation’s problems; that Hitler joined a new party and soon became its leader, promising to rebuild the economy; that he inspired millions of supporters and that in 1933 the president called on him to lead the nation. If I were to say in a few years the economy was buoyant and Germany back among the leading powers; but that in 1939 Britain and France declared war on Germany, joined in the next three years by the US and USSR; that Germany was attacked by air, sea and land, including mass bombings of civilian areas that killed hundreds of thousands of noncombatants; that by 1945 the country had been invaded from east and west. That Hitler remained at his post in Berlin until the invaders were almost at his gates, when he committed suicide to evade capture. That several of his closest followers were captured by the invaders and executed; that the invaders completed their conquest and parcelled out the country between them. That some of Hitler’s followers escaped to South America, but that even there they were not safe from kidnap and killing …

If I were to add that to my book, all of it fact, would my book be truthful? Would it express a point of view?

 

[ffg]

Well, perhaps I’ve derailed. But my argument (and I can no longer remember why I was making the argument!) was that no history is written without a point of view, without an opinion. I think you replied something like: “Not so. I could make this statement about Hitler and it takes no point of view but is simple fact.” My reply is that what you have stated is a simple fact but it does take a point of view. If I were to publish my History of Adolf Hitler with just that sentence in it, I would be taking a point of view by ignoring the significant facts about Hitler’s life.

If I added that he was kind to animals and loved music, architecture and art, and had a minor talent for watercolour; that he was also courageous, volunteering for the army in WW1 and being decorated for bravery. If I were to say that after the war the German economy collapsed and there was disorder on the streets; that the existing parties were unable to solve the nation’s problems; that Hitler joined a new party and soon became its leader, promising to rebuild the economy; that he inspired millions of supporters and that in 1933 the president called on him to lead the nation. If I were to say in a few years the economy was buoyant and Germany back among the leading powers; but that in 1939 Britain and France declared war on Germany, joined in the next three years by the US and USSR; that Germany was attacked by air, sea and land, including mass bombings of civilian areas that killed hundreds of thousands of noncombatants; that by 1945 the country had been invaded from east and west. That Hitler remained at his post in Berlin until the invaders were almost at his gates, when he committed suicide to evade capture. That several of his closest followers were captured by the invaders and executed; that the invaders completed their conquest and parcelled out the country between them. That some of Hitler’s followers escaped to South America, but that even there they were not safe from kidnap and killing …

If I were to add that to my book, all of it fact, would my book be truthful? Would it express a point of view?

I didn’t disagree that literary works have POV’s, it was the stance that not one is written without a POV.

In quite a simplistic form, I countered. Obviously a one sentence book, though informative, might leave the reader wanting more.

I don’t think it’s necessary to detail why someone either doesn’t know a more full picture, or doesn’t write a more full picture in the first place, if known.

There are a lot of reasons why writing is incomplete. Purposeful or not.

If you believed what you wrote above as the ‘full truth’ and then were presented with more details (For instance - detailing why the invasion occured), are you not presented with the ability to reject or accept something that would eliminate your POV?

Head hurting questions:

If certain objective truths are all we know and we share them, is it a POV? Does one need to know more details exist for a POV to be in place? Otherwise is it just truth building on truth?

Have a good day!

 

[ffg]

That’s probably true. I suppose in theory we could deduce God by some logical process, but it’s certain that we haven’t succeeded with that yet. I suppose we could find some statement by God woven into the fabric of the universe (preferably in English), like a watermark, obeying the laws of physics but clearly God’s message with God’s signature in an unquestionable form — but then that would be an act by the creator informing us of said creator’s existence. With you so far.

Excellent.

It’s probably about time to pull from what is thus far the best logical process to deduce God I’ve heard. To save a lot of words, if you have the ability to download the talk from the following site and listen to it, we can discuss the thought process without laying the long bit of logic all out here…

lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/speaker/fr-michael-schmitz
(Third selection down on the page, the picture of the talk is just a white background with the words “Jesus is… __________.” (note, I have no gain in the advert., it’s just good information)

If you are not interested, let me know and I can try and compact the thought process as we go forward. But this guy does a great job as he explains an encounter.

To specifically address your comments here, I like that - watermark.  If there is a thing, that created everything, his watermark is surely everywhere. So it seems it could be a matter of learning what to look for vs. where to look. Surely, since we exist in time, we can hold up certain events to the light and see the watermark much better than others.

God can't contradict himself, so he would very much work in union with natural law - he would be it's author. We can absolutely use scientific methods in union with understanding God. (The theory of the big bang was first developed by a Catholic Priest)

I don't really understand this thought process from folks who like to put up the science vs. religion debate. All they have to do is think about what they are saying and see the crack in the logic. If God exists, he created the sciences and works in union with them, if he doesn't exist, science methods and theories existing, can't be a cause or explanation for that which doesn't exist, by definition.

With regard to 'signature in unquestionable form' - surely God would think his signature is clear, as the 'creation', it's on our shoulders to realize it and act according to it.

I don't have doubt that if God stood in front of me and smashed me on the head and said, 'I am God', I would walk away with a sore head wondering why a nut hit me.

God can't contradict himself, thus God can't coerce. His signature will always be questioned, but that proves creation was created in Love, because love by definition can't force a response / return.

So having the ability to question a signature (if God exists), in essence is a small evidence.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I didn’t disagree that literary works have POV’s, it was the stance that not one is written without a POV.

In quite a simplistic form, I countered. Obviously a one sentence book, though informative, might leave the reader wanting more.

I don’t think it’s necessary to detail why someone either doesn’t know a more full picture, or doesn’t write a more full picture in the first place, if known.

There are a lot of reasons why writing is incomplete. Purposeful or not.

If you believed what you wrote above as the ‘full truth’ and then were presented with more details (For instance - detailing why the invasion occured), are you not presented with the ability to reject or accept something that would eliminate your POV?

Head hurting questions:

If certain objective truths are all we know and we share them, is it a POV? Does one need to know more details exist for a POV to be in place? Otherwise is it just truth building on truth?

Have a good day!

Well, OK, we disagree. What a surprise!

 

[Picky_Picky]

Excellent.

It’s probably about time to pull from what is thus far the best logical process to deduce God I’ve heard. To save a lot of words, if you have the ability to download the talk from the following site and listen to it, we can discuss the thought process without laying the long bit of logic all out here…

lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/speaker/fr-michael-schmitz
(Third selection down on the page, the picture of the talk is just a white background with the words “Jesus is… __________.” (note, I have no gain in the advert., it’s just good information)

If you are not interested, let me know and I can try and compact the thought process as we go forward. But this guy does a great job as he explains an encounter.

To specifically address your comments here, I like that - watermark.  If there is a thing, that created everything, his watermark is surely everywhere. So it seems it could be a matter of learning what to look for vs. where to look. Surely, since we exist in time, we can hold up certain events to the light and see the watermark much better than others.

God can't contradict himself, so he would very much work in union with natural law - he would be it's author. We can absolutely use scientific methods in union with understanding God. (The theory of the big bang was first developed by a Catholic Priest)

I don't really understand this thought process from folks who like to put up the science vs. religion debate. All they have to do is think about what they are saying and see the crack in the logic. If God exists, he created the sciences and works in union with them, if he doesn't exist, science methods and theories existing, can't be a cause or explanation for that which doesn't exist, by definition.

With regard to 'signature in unquestionable form' - surely God would think his signature is clear, as the 'creation', it's on our shoulders to realize it and act according to it.

I don't have doubt that if God stood in front of me and smashed me on the head and said, 'I am God', I would walk away with a sore head wondering why a nut hit me.

God can't contradict himself, thus God can't coerce. His signature will always be questioned, but that proves creation was created in Love, because love by definition can't force a response / return.

So having the ability to question a signature (if God exists), in essence is a small evidence.

I’ll try to find the chance to listen – although it won’t be easy for a bit. Life – huh!

As to your second half, I think I profoundly disagree. But I’ll have to think about it to make sure!

My best wishes to you.

 

[ffg]

I’ll try to find the chance to listen – although it won’t be easy for a bit. Life – huh!

As to your second half, I think I profoundly disagree. But I’ll have to think about it to make sure!

My best wishes to you.

Thank you, and the same.

I did a poor job in my last…

To address the original comment that has us moving down this path- I believe you did not understand why someone would say Jesus’ resurrection changed their POV when it seems to accept God exists, must come first.

The point of this path is to show that it is not logical to believe in a God without him informing us. The key watermark for that person, was the resurrection.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thank you, and the same.

I did a poor job in my last…

To address the original comment that has us moving down this path- I believe you did not understand why someone would say Jesus’ resurrection changed their POV when it seems to accept God exists, must come first.

The point of this path is to show that it is not logical to believe in a God without him informing us. The key watermark for that person, was the resurrection.

Point of Order, chair! Well, Point of Information, perhaps. I think you are conflating two channels for God informing us, because we had (I thought, but perhaps it was just me) identified three possibilities:

1 Logic: God could have provided us with the logical tools that would have enabled us to deduce his existence.

2 Watermark: God could have left a clear, comprehensible signed message constructed within the laws of physics/chemistry/etc that govern our universe and therefore discernible to our normal processes of observation etc.

3 Intervention: God could have intervened dramatically into our universe, in contravention of our laws of physics/chemistry/etc, in a supernatural display that demonstrated his existence.

I think the Resurrection has to fall in “Intervention”.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

 

[ffg]

Point of Order, chair! Well, Point of Information, perhaps. I think you are conflating two channels for God informing us, because we had (I thought, but perhaps it was just me) identified three possibilities:

1 Logic: God could have provided us with the logical tools that would have enabled us to deduce his existence.

2 Watermark: God could have left a clear, comprehensible signed message constructed within the laws of physics/chemistry/etc that govern our universe and therefore discernible to our normal processes of observation etc.

3 Intervention: God could have intervened dramatically into our universe, in contravention of our laws of physics/chemistry/etc, in a supernatural display that demonstrated his existence.

I think the Resurrection has to fall in “Intervention”.

Aye, but every conversation is a little different, and quickly sent to the pile of ‘good day’, By moving too quickly, or using terms immediately rejectable (in one’s current state or POV).

Thus I wanted to back up and simplify since Picky seemed to agree to the point that in order for creation to know God exists, he must inform creation. By what means and plowing through ‘hot’ words will come in time.

As a side note, I will be out of town for a week caring for my ill Dad, I don’t know if I’ll have time to access.

 

[ffg]

Sorry, I’m focussed on leaving, I thought Picky’s note was from SavingGrace.

Oops.

Anyway, I have to get out of here.

I’ll catch up when I can.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Sorry, I’m focussed on leaving, I thought Picky’s note was from SavingGrace.

Oops.

Anyway, I have to get out of here.

I’ll catch up when I can.

Good luck.

 

[ffg]

Thank you, it was good. Difficult sometimes, but it’s good work.

I like how this lined up here with your first note on page three, a great re-starter. Great idea with the point of order, let’s do this often if it seems we are chasing around too much.

The trip did allow me to listen to the “Jesus is ________” CD multiple times on the drive. The reason I thought of this talk for us here is for #1 on your point of order. If you get a chance to listen, consider the stuff that seems unrelated like threads of a nice woven blanket, it’s difficult wrapping up in a single thread to stay warm by the fire. There are other threads needed, and as a whole, the blanket works well.

Regarding our #1 on the point of order, it is a single thread in the CD and will be a single thread of our analysis, currently. When we dive in though, we’ll need more threads to hold the blanket together.

So to redo my last thoughts, but direct them properly, I agree it looks like I’m conflating, But I would like to simplify for the moment. So we don’t get lost in a ‘God communicates this way here, but that way there’ situation - yet.

For the time being can we call all communication / ‘visible action in creation’s nature’ from God to creation, God’s ‘Watermark’s’?

Take care,

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thank you, it was good. Difficult sometimes, but it’s good work.

I like how this lined up here with your first note on page three, a great re-starter. Great idea with the point of order, let’s do this often if it seems we are chasing around too much.

The trip did allow me to listen to the “Jesus is ________” CD multiple times on the drive. The reason I thought of this talk for us here is for #1 on your point of order. If you get a chance to listen, consider the stuff that seems unrelated like threads of a nice woven blanket, it’s difficult wrapping up in a single thread to stay warm by the fire. There are other threads needed, and as a whole, the blanket works well.

Regarding our #1 on the point of order, it is a single thread in the CD and will be a single thread of our analysis, currently. When we dive in though, we’ll need more threads to hold the blanket together.

So to redo my last thoughts, but direct them properly, I agree it looks like I’m conflating, But I would like to simplify for the moment. So we don’t get lost in a ‘God communicates this way here, but that way there’ situation - yet.

For the time being can we call all communication / ‘visible action in creation’s nature’ from God to creation, God’s ‘Watermark’s’?

Take care,

Glad to hear you’re in good spirits. I’m away from civilisation (if the www be civilisation) for a week or more. Could you do me a favour some time and clarify your “For the time being … sentence”? I need to make sure my feet are on the right marks.

 

[ffg]

Glad to hear you’re in good spirits. I’m away from civilisation (if the www be civilisation) for a week or more. Could you do me a favour some time and clarify your “For the time being … sentence”? I need to make sure my feet are on the right marks.

Certainly, in an effort to start most simply and move logically. I think we are skipping a step if we are starting here…

‘Creation can only know a creator exists, if creator chooses to inform creation.’

Then jump to the means by which God might inform creation (physical interaction, a phone call, by words on a stone, by a lit tree, ressurection, however creator chooses to inform).

I think keeping all of this communication from God under one umbrella (watermark / God’s signs) for now can help us to focus on the ‘why’. If we conclude that there is no logical reason for God to inform creation of his existence…

Then the means by which he informs, are meaningless.

On the contrary, if there is a good reason for God to inform creation, there is significance in every watermark and we can start to evaluate them individually. Yet keeping in mind each one is one thread of the blanket.

I hope this isn’t more confusing.

 

[ffg]

Now, since I am guessing you are more able to read than write at your current location or state away from the internet…

I’ll lay out some analysis for this question…

Can we find logic in creator informing creation of His existence?

One of the interesting things we have here, is that no, is no. So even the most simple logical reasoning moves us past the question quickly.

We can probably conclude that if Creator exists and creation knows it, why creation knows it is because creator likes it’s creation so much Creator wants creation to know this.

How do we test in our nature?

Well, I’m a husband and father, I want my wife and Children to know I love them (the means by which vary and are numerous, I hope).

Therefore, I can see logically ‘why’ - if God exists, he wants me to know. - He Loves me.

Further, I can conclude it’s His love that is the example for my actions of love, if any exist at all.

 

[ffg]

I have a couple minutes. Thought we could summarize to this point -

If God exists:

1. Creation knows God exists only by action(s) from God.
2. Why does God care to share this info (that He exists)? God wants creation to know because of Love and want for His Creation.
   Reason 1 of I’m sure many, but the key is we can continue evaluating, rather than cut-off due to concluding there is no reason God would want to let Creation know about Him.

I think we’ve laid the groundwork to enter the ‘deducing God’ section. We’ll have to remember to test our threads to this point to ensure we want to keep them or throw them away as we build our blanket.

If you don’t think you’ll listen to that recording, let me know and I’ll kick us off with the logic (probably in very short form). Then we can bat it around.