Sketches on Atheism

Aseity, Retrocausality, and the end of the Kalām Cosmological Argument.

mixed-numbers-clock-5475-pAlthough more than willing to admit an outwardly sounding unshakable belief in their god, Christians are typically less than enthusiastic to offer up an actual working definition for it. Ask the average baptised-without-consent congregant and you’ll assuredly get as many half-baked guesses of what their assigned god is as there are believers. Ask an apologist, however, and they will generally deploy all sorts of diversionary tactics just to avoid the subject like it was the plague itself; skirting any detailed commentary in awkward loops while dodging questions and evading all reasonable requests for delineation. It’s a song and dance performed with alarming predictability because there simply is no agreed upon definition to be offered. Even such an elementary question as is the Middle Eastern Christian god material or immaterial? will not be answered by even the most astute apologist for if they commit to one it’ll instantly bring their god into conflict with the other… and that will always end in tears.

What is left for the apologist therefore is just the qualities and skills which they believe their god  has, but even this less-than-satisfactory attempt at definition is fraught with all sorts of problematic needles, and it’s for this reason that the word aseity is always dancing about frantically on the tip of an apologists tongue but typically never quite makes it out in any confident fashion. Attributed to Plato, aseity is (at its simplest) the idea that a capital “G” god is the cause and sole reason of itself; a concept that was borrowed by Judean copywriters when they penned, I am who I am (Exodus 3:14). God, here, is self-determining, self-sustaining, and exists by its own will; uncaused and self-contained. This isn’t however a definition of what this creature is, nothing is actually being described, rather these are qualities the creature should have (in the mind of the believer) so as to be awarded the capital “G.” The important part of aseity, though, is this: it is (capital “A”) Absolutely self-originating and Absolutely self-contained, which on first inspection sounds like an apologist’s wet dream, foot massage, and summer ice cream all rolled into one obnoxiously tidy, gift-wrapped package. That is until the second inspection. Aseity is riddled with a self-annihilating pox. Being Absolutely self-contained means the creature in question is incapable of changing, which is to say, immutable. Change denotes development, and development indicates something less-than-perfect. If the capital “G” god is Absolutely Perfect there should be no requirement, or indeed capacity, for change… and Christian scripture confirms just that: (Malachi 3:6) “I the Lord do not change.” The problem here is that to be immutable nothing at all could ever happen. Nothing. Ever. Not even a thought, let alone a change of mind:

 “And it repented the lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6)

dominoesThe larger, more pressing problem with aseity is however that if a thing is Absolutely self-contained then nothing can exist outside it, which in-turn means the being with aseitic qualities cannot also be the causal agent of itself. Being the causal agent of itself is however the central assumption made in the Kalām Cosmological Argument which posits god as the uncaused cause; the first cause or prime mover. This sounds nice but as its been pointed out time and time again since the Middle Ages the concept is logically inconsistent, although for the Kalām to work (on paper) the theist will insist an exception to the rule of causality does in fact apply to their god. How, precisely, they arrive at this notion is unclear, but if the theist is willing to give an exemption to their god (by removing the magical creator creature from the chain of cause and effect) then to be credible they must simultaneously offer a reasonable and rational explanation for why they won’t also grant that very same exemption to the universe itself. If it’s good for one, why is not good for the other? It’s a conspicuously straightforward question but it is one never answered, and it is for this reason alone why the Kalām Cosmological Argument still exists to this day… but thankfully it won’t exist tomorrow because it ceased existing yesterday.

57777777777At the beginning of 2012 researchers led by Xiao-song Ma and Prof. Anton Zeilinger of the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information at the University of Vienna published a paper in Nature Physics (April 22) detailing a series of experiments which demonstrated that (in the quantum world) future actions can in fact influence past events. That is to say, reverse causality where an effect occurs before its cause, otherwise known as Retrocausality. The experiment was a spin-off from research into quantum entanglement where two particles are inseparably bonded regardless of distance; a state of being that was described by Einstein as “Spooky action at a distance.” Simply put, the team proved that photons can be entangled (the effect) before the cause occurred… meaning at the quantum level information travels fasters than light (instantaneously, in fact), particles can randomly pop in and out of reality (leaving positive energy residues in quantum vacuums = something from nothing), and causality does not have to follow logically.

(physics.org, Apr 23, 2012) “The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. ‘We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured,’ explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.”

 Is retrocausality real? Do particles really behave this way without having their parameters altered through optical cavities? Researchers led by the University of Washington’s John Cramer working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider think so and are testing for just that, but what Xiao-song Ma and Zeilinger have already proved is that causality is not as rigid as anyone had previously imagined. As physicist, Sean Carroll, said: “causes and effects aren’t really fundamental. It’s the laws of nature that are fundamental, according to the best understanding we currently have, and those laws don’t take the form of causes leading to effects; they take the form of differential equations, or more generally to patterns relating parts of the universe. So the question really is, ‘Can we imagine laws/patterns which describe a universe without God?’ And the answer is “sure,” and we get on with our lives.” And with that the central components of the Kalām Cosmological Argument are invalidated, leaving apologists with an awful gap-filled headache and the painfully awkward realisation that they are further away today at defining their particular god than they were yesterday.

Advertisements

85 thoughts on “Aseity, Retrocausality, and the end of the Kalām Cosmological Argument.

    • That’s the great question. For now, at least, no one is saying it occurs in the super atomic world. There’s plenty of psychics out there claiming this research validates their skills, but they’re clutching at straws and not doing the actual science any favours. Where its thought to be applicable is in quantum computing, but that is beyond my capacity to understand and write about with any confidence.

      Like

      • “There’s plenty of psychics out there claiming this research validates their skills, but they’re clutching at straws and not doing the actual science any favours.”

        Indeed, and it’s far from my intentions to support those folks. As you know, my question is purely theoretical.

        Like

    • On the surface, retrocausality is still causality. The event may not go cause -> effect, in the same way we imagine it should, but unless there’s a demonstration of retrocausality also giving rise to freedom-of-effect then causality, from a deterministic view, is unaltered. (Although I’d be very excited to be shown wrong that)

      Like

      • I don’t know how much this affects the KCA. Even if the cause can follow the effect, it’s a stretch to make that ‘the cause can be dependent on the effect’. That means that the argument can still stand as the cause having to be external to the universe itself.
        That said, I remember trying to compose a post in my head while I was at the gym about a year ago. It was very hot, so forgive me if this sounds a little delirious: the quanta would appear to exist as either independent of time or, given certain circumstances, able to permeate the fabric of time (and therefore also space [as far as a hypothesis goes, this could go someway to explain spooky action at a distance]). If that is the case then at some level it is conceivable that a quantum reality exists independent of space/time and matter/energy (everything we know came into being at the Big Bang). And in that reality causality can exist independent of time and that could be the cause of the universe.

        High speculative, I know. But I was weight training in an un-air-conditioned gym in 40 degree heat.

        Like

      • Sounds fine to me, but then again so did astral projection when i was 13. You’ll have to ask a real physicist. Matthew Rave is.

        This, however, does ruin the KCA as casualty (which it insists is unbreakable, until that is the theist goes and breaks it) is not fixed. The researchers didn’t break any laws, rather just slowed the decision down.

        Like

    • I’ve always felt that determinism collapses cause and effect. If everything’s predetermined, then you could run an entire series of events backwards and get the same result. So who’s to say that one event caused the next simply because it happened earlier in time. If determinism is correct then time and causality are as illusory as free will.

      Like

      • The problem is, we need a deterministic set-up of events to make sense of the world. This doesn’t necessarily say that set-up is true, but we are, at least, reliant on it for meaning.

        Like

      • Ha! My exact thoughts on logic in general. Hasn’t stopped us from putting it to damn good use though!

        Still not sure if you agree with my first point though.

        Like

      • I’m not sure if i do or if i don’t. Determinism smacks too much of an overseer god, and that idea is just silly. That said, any action will naturally increase the odds of some series of events while simultaneously decreasing the chances of others occurring. Can you increase the probability of any event occurring to 100% certainty? 99.99%, sure, but 100%?

        Like

  1. I have several 100 Watt Marshall amp valves that power my brain. I think one or two just went Pfssst…once I reached the paragraph starting….At the beginning of 2012 researchers led by Xiao-song …

    Like

    • LOL. Imagine my head! I had to read through article after article on this. I’m still not entirely sure i get it (the delaying the decision bit is confusing), but everything seems to say these guys flipped causality around… which is pretty cool.

      Like

  2. Hi John,

    Not so much as a hat tip eh? I see what kind of guy you are. I think you should define what kind of cause you are interested in. Is the cause under consideration univocal or non-univocal? In addition you have missed a very important distinction. Does God change? According to what you have written God’s a se precludes change. however metaphysical change is the process of *becoming something different or other than something was” while becoming [the word you should have chosen] is the transition from potentiality to actuality.

    God does not and cannot change in terms of his essential properties but his a se does not preclude his *becoming* or a change from potency to being in the act of x,y,z. The argument you have proffered equivocates and is not a defeater of God’s becoming.

    Like

    • Hi BBG

      So, what kind of guy am I?

      I’ll grant you this, you have been braver where other apologists haven’t, but you still haven’t answered my patently simple question: if you’re willing to give an exemption to causality to your god, why not also grant that same exemption to the universe? Why one and not the other?

      Do you think you can see yourself clear to finally provide an answer?

      Now, “God does not and cannot change in terms of his essential properties

      What’s an “essential property”? Please also let me know how you “know” these are the properties (essential or not) of your god, and how you “know” they cannot change.

      Also, which god are we talking about here? You also still haven’t answered that question.

      Like

      • Hi John,

        With all due respect, in answering the question you have posed commits me to a fallacious response. You are essentially asking me to assert that there is in difference between an univocal cause and a equivocal cause. I thought that perhaps you understood that at bottom this is a meaningless question. In order to answer the question you would have to demonstrate the Christian conception of God and his causality is univocal. You demurred on this point, claiming neutrality. What you have done is knocked down a straw man claiming the question is patently simple, while in fact you are asking theists to grant an exemption an apple being red and wondering why we are unwilling to say that an orange is red.

        Like

      • So, you’re not going to answer? There was actually nothing deeper to it, nothing sinister or tactical, just an honest question which no theist has ever been willing to answer. I was hoping you might. It seems like such a simple thing to answer. Clearly it’s not.

        Like

      • Essential properties, part and parcel of an Introductory class in Metaphysics. The epistemological question notwithstanding I know that God has these properties because he has said so. In a random universe, how do you *know* anything at all, and I mean in the universal sense.

        Like

      • “Truth” will always only be an approximation.

        Metaphysics, huh? Sorry, but I have zero to no patience for metaphysics as it is little more than philosophical word games. Nothing of it is real and when superimposed over theology it can be condensed down to just two simple words: Necessary Existence; the ethereal supposition that rides entirely on a wish. “I can think of god, therefore god exists.” It’s linguistic nonsense masquerading as something meaningful. As Thomas Paine rightly concluded: “The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing.”

        Now, speaking of data, you claim: “I know that God has these properties because he has said so.” That has piqued my curiosity. God has said? Firstly, which god? Secondly, where did god speak? Thirdly, which properties did this god say it had? Fourthly, how do you know it is truthful?

        Like

      • I feel you have not grasped the idea of a changeless ultimate phenomenon. You assume the independent reality of psychophysical phenomenon, and this prevents the idea of changelessness from making sense. As for definitions of God, they require ‘classical’ concepts. They are bound to be incorrect, for the same reason that interpretations of QM using classical concepts will be incorrect. It is not for nothing that apophasis is the recommended approach to speaking of God. Other approaches are almost certainly going to be dualistic. But yes, I agree that most people who say they believe or do not believe in God have no idea what they’re saying.

        Like

      • Hi Guy. Thanks for the comment. I can easily grasp the idea of a changeless phenomenon, it’s really not that difficult at all, but I can just as easily dismiss it as a mental flight of fancy for nothing in the universe has demonstrated itself to be changeless. It’s a word game not rooted in any expression of reality; subatomic or super atomic. People are naturally repulsed by entropy so they’re prone to imagining something solid, something predictable. It’s a comforting thought, a warming notion, it wraps up this concept of a god people cling to, but it’s not real…. As far as we understand “real,” which the experiments detailed have proven is more peculiar (and looser) than we expected.

        Like

    • “Was” is the problem isn’t it? Time, order of operations. And isn’t the point of the Kalam argument that god is the necessary univocal cause, unless we have an equivocal sense of beginning in the argument’s usage?

      Like

      • John – I think you are still assuming the true reality of change. Once you do this a changeless phenomena makes no sense. The two idea have to go together, first an unchanging Ultimate, second the lack of inherent existence of phenomena subject to change. You will find that nobody has yet demonstrated that any substantial phenomenon changes. This is what Zeno was trying to say, that our everyday idea of phenomena makes change paradoxical. You cannot ridicule the idea of an unchanging phenomenon unless you can first show that changing phenomenon are truly real. As nobody can do this you are left promoting an opinion, not a result of analysis. This wouldn’t mean that you are wrong, of course, but it means that you might be. It might be the case that the idea of a changing phenomenon makes no sense, as Zeno and countless others have argued.

        At any rate, none of this has anything to do with comforting thoughts or warming notions. An unchanging phenomenon would be cold comfort for theists.

        Like

  3. Nice article. I’ve never thought much of the Kalam argument. I don’t think it makes much sense from premise 1 unless you’re an essentialist. I’ve asked the questions implicit in your examination of aseity many times of myself and others: What is an Omni-anything personality, how does such an entity (?) relate to the rest of the world, how do you conceive of a mind without experience, how do you think you can know about such a thing? There are answers to these questions, but they must all refer to personal intuition. I’ll have my uncertainty plain, thank you.

    Like

    • Hi Keith. Yes, it’s quite easy to prescribe awesome sounding qualities to something (unicorns fart rainbows) but its another thing to actually justify those claims in the real world. The problem with the Kalam is simply that theists first demand that causality is unbreakable, then straight away go and break the demand by excluding their god from it’s apparently unbreakable grip working with some magic wave of the wand. POOFISM!

      Like

  4. I think you have been paid to see to the demise of several of my brain cells. Yours truly haven’t read Plato though I will but I have read commentaries about his Idea or rather as thing in itself is will and it is un-caused and self contained and that intelligence comes in aid of the will as seen in the difference between inanimate and animate objects. I hope that begins to make sense

    Like

  5. Reminds of an argument I came up with at the age of 12 (I was a weird kid)…if I have free will, and if God exists and is omniscient, then I can control God with retrocausality. Here’s how: I ask him to predict what number I will write down on a piece of paper. He is supposed to write the prediction on a paper of his own and seal it in an envelope. He does so. Now: can I not control God’s choice? Let’s say I want to force him to have written “17”. I write down “17”, which retroactively forces God to have written 17 in the past. Poor God: he has no free will in this matter. He’s dancing to my tune. Free will and omniscience are incompatible.

    Like

    • Wow, what a great thought experiment. Sort of goes along with my response to Mordanicus above. Also reminds me of a scene in Bill & Ted. “If you’re really us from the future, what number am I about to hold up?” “Three, dude.” Inevitably he does so. Were you watching Bill & Ted alot when you were 12?

      Like

      • It all depends on your definitions. I think of the world as being a static 4D spacetime, so cause and effect are sort of worthless terms. But if you insist on saying that there is a past, present, and a future, and that these terms are MORE than just humans’ subjective perceptions, then you’re forced into retrocausality as a way of wrapping your head around some very real correlations in quantum physics.

        Like

      • I’d tend to see the universe, like Matthew, as a 4D frozen shape. This is not as weird as it sounds: you just take time to be the 4th dimension and imagine the whole thing “from outside.”
        OK, maybe it is a little weird.
        I read a little about retrocausality in “Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point” by Huw Price, where he argued for retrocausality as the only way to explain certain quantum phenomena (he was thinking about entanglement). In my view, that was just his particular way of interpreting the mathematics, which make perfect sense with regular causality and a wave-function containing all possible states of the system. Price actually favours a more “classical” view of quantum mechanics (Bohmian mechanics) and in that context you need retrocausality to make things work.
        In other words: my take on this would be that you need retrocausality if you want QM to feel more “classical” but you can do without it otherwise.
        That said, I highly recommend Price’s book. It will really force you to challenge any preconceived notion you may have about time.

        Like

      • you need retrocausality if you want QM to feel more “classical”

        That sounds antithetical, but i think i know where you’re coming from. Been reading a bit of Sean Carroll overnight and he’s at pains to lessen the readers emotional attachment to causality in general.

        Like

  6. Usually silent, had to come in here in re remarks of another commentator:
    Conjugation: vocal, univocal, equivocal.

    Also, since brain is fried like others have said, I must play instead. Here, then, to my everlasting shame:

    I in my piety
    Grant God Asiety,
    ‘Cause, “Dude – She’s a diety!”

    Like

  7. Awww, c’mon John! Missing it, are we? Okaaaaay … God is all three of His qualities, right?

    So if he (oops) He is everywhere at all times, that means He’s as big as the universe.
    In entirety.
    Has to be, no possible argument.

    Seeing that by definition there can be only one universe (otherwise it would be a douverse, or triptoverse, etc etc ad infinitem) and on size alone we’d be fielding a contradiction …

    … ergo big Gi is the universe.

    There. I hope that clears things up a bit …

    Like

    • (Oops, got dragged away for some chores.)

      Now to finish it—take solace in the fact that although they don’t know it, all Christians, Muslims, Jews, and things actually worship YOU (I don’t need to explain why).

      Like

      • Aw Gee, I don’t know …I just Goes alonG with ’em.

        Some of my favourite people are witches (most of which are poseurs) and they have Gods Galore—I can help myself at any time. But I see the loGic of Dog (dyslexic God)(sorry, couldn’t resist it) as being the universe itself and of course all who sail in her. Could be wronG.

        I prefer nature Gods myself — they seem more … natural.

        Like

  8. Sean Carroll said it best: everything we know suggests that cause and effect is not fundamental, but a by-law. The laws of physics are fundamental. Cause & Effect seems to be a higher-order macroscopic phenomenon. Great article Mr. Zande!

    Like

    • Yes, apologies for that, my heads didn’t fair much better. The final analysis is this: cause and effect isn’t fixed, it can be flipped, at least at the quantum level of things. The effect can pre-date the cause. The experiment used some trickery (slowing the photons by squeezing them through an optical cavity), but they didn’t break any fundamentals laws doing it. Well, that’s my layman’s understanding of it. I could, of course, be wrong.

      Like

  9. Wow! I’m loving this post. It throws a new wrench into my studies of determinism and free will, which I’m still trying to figure out. Perhaps it’s time to take a leap into the frenzy world of physics.

    Like

  10. Silliness. They work too hard. If someone asked me to describe my god, I would just tell them, “My god is,” and let THEM wrestle with it. 🙂

    Like

    • I tend to agree. Swimming in ontological word salads is painfully meaningless, although at times it can be hilarious. The Christian philosopher is a remarkable breed; unconcerned with reality, seemingly unaware that word games (even when shown to be logically inconsistent) are nothing but vaporous discharges of ornately coloured zero’s.

      Like

      • Drat. I was leaving then saw this. It reveals a rare ignorance of philosophy. How about using logic and analysis to make your case rather than calling the kettle black.

        But I must not keep arguing. Seems to me many people have no real interest in the issues.

        Like

      • Ultimately philosophy is meaningless. I understand you hold a different opinion, and that’s fine, but it produces and moves nothing. Philosophical meanderings do not make the effort to prove the Christian god any more rationally attractive or ultimately fruitful than a child writing a thousand hope-filled letters to Santa Claus. It’s a hopeless adventure; hopeless, that is to say, in any honest or physical sense… not so hopeless or incurable if the theist whose determined to bail water simply bypasses the honest and the physical and jumps right to the finish line. The trick, of course, is in semantics; sophisticatedly baffling word games which neither address nor even admit the complete absence of evidence for their god but rather skirts reality altogether by simply defining their god into existence… ornate colloquy’s whose sole purpose is to conclude god, as opposed to demonstrating it. Granted, as a solution it’s as ingenious as it is underhanded, but its little more than creative cheating, and therefore valueless.

        I did an article on the whole silliness of Christian philosophy which begins to touch on my thoughts:

        https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/mischievous-genius-2/

        Like

      • Well, if philosophy is meaningless there’s not much point in my reading yours is there?

        Never mind Christian philosophy, there is a lot of silliness in philosophy wherever you look. It’s up to you and me to do it better. But there’s nothing I can say to change your mind about any of this if you dismiss philosophical reasoning. It’s all I’ve got.

        Like

      • Sorry, don’t get me wrong. I’m not dismissing it out of hand. I find Christian philosophers terribly painful, but i’m not entirely sure you fall under this grouping. Philosophy is good to a point, but beyond that node in non-space one must climb out of the chair and actually do something; explore, test, discover… dance 😉

        Like

      • Yes. Sorry if I’ve been a little tetchy. I agree. A lot of (enter religion of choice here) philosophy is muddled and confused. It does tend to become muddled and confused when we do it while trying to protect our beliefs from coming to any harm. Modern consciousness studies is a perfect example, But it’s not much use making this criticism of certain philosophical approaches if we ourselves cannot do better. You can’t blame Christian philosophers for being just as confused as Dennett and Dawkins.

        And I agree about doing experiments and tests. In my opinion it is possible to work out the truth about religion and the nature of the world without leaving the chair, and that it is not even that difficult now that we have the internet, but verifying it would require more than philosophising. Still, philosophy does its job, and I think it is a mistake to ignore it.

        To be honest, I would say that most dogmatic Christians ignore philosophy rather than do it badly, and that the same would go for many of their opponents. This results in a stalemate since neither side is well enough armed to defeat the other. We see this here. Lots of sparring but no serious wounds on either side.
        .

        . .

        Like

  11. I have seen Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and others run to Quantum Mechanics to say, “See, this shows you how science if finally catching up to what we have said.”

    Likewise, I see atheists do the same.
    I can imagine non-Kalamist, non-Cosmologist Apologists Christian ‘philosophers’ running to adapt. And after everyone is all secure, atheists and Christians alike, the rug gets pull, and a version of T.O.E. comes up wherein some version of causality is again allowed, and the Kalamists crack open the communion wine!

    Scrambling to the latest science is so common. So very common.

    Like

    • Highly probable. My mind was suitably blown the other day by a physicist who proposed maybe the particle/wave concept we have is entirely erroneous. “What if the nature of energy is in fact a third substance or state which simply mimics a particle or a wave?”

      Further down the rabbit hole we go…

      Like

  12. “I’ll make this simple” When I was at an insane asylum they proposed a personality test. I answered all the questions, and was typed as an ‘ASE’. That stands for ‘artistic, social, entrepenurial’. I admit I was really pushing for artistic. So that being said, my question is, Why is Christianity such an easy target for You?… I had liked you before but now you’re just sounding like a ‘Big Pussy’ John. I’m sure you can get a read on that and get back to me with many more awesome discoveries. And I encourage everyone to read and follow my blog! http://www.mattysblogspot.com Thanks

    Like

  13. Perhaps what we ultimately perceive as causality, at the level of consciousness, is the final chain of events that occurs after the retrocausalities have worked themselves out. The ability to differentiate one causal chain from another would require us to be able to record both so as to do a comparison, and given all the different causal lines that even the simplest event can spawn, this would (in my admitted limited knowledge of quantum physics) escalate exponentially at an extraordinary rate.

    As for “G”od, I believe the Hermeticists said it best: there is that which we can know, and there is that which we can never know. Philosophers concern themselves with the former, and leave the latter to the rantings of the Theologians 🙂

    Like

    • Wonderfully put, and i think you might be onto something. We do not experience reality in real time. Our brains compartmentalize the experience and lay it out in an order we recognize. Deja vu, for example, is really nothing but a processing cockup; an accidental delay between witnessing an event and the brain processing it. This might indeed indicate the possibly of a whole ocean of retro-events occurring just in the flash before conscious takes its snapshot. Interesting stuff!

      Like

  14. Greetings All,

    I have found that those who believe in God could not and will not be convinced that God doesn’t exist in their minds, or is not manifested in the kindness of others, or not in some way the catalyst in a lucky situation-deemed as answered prayer. They can attribute everything to God, and no logical argument, no rational reason will deter them from believing. No Dawkin’s or Hitchen’s book, and certainly a blogger will not keep them from KNOWING in their minds that God exists. Are they deluded? Only those who attribute thought to the mind, kindness to the kind and luck to the lucky may. Only those who don’t believe in God would call them deluded.

    So I asked some Christians friends, the public praying kind, what proof they have. They entertain my disbelief in a non-judgmental way and if freaks me out sometimes. Anyway, they have NO evidence. They said that they pray that I may know god is real by how they live their lives, the good they do and what comes out of their mouths.

    I asked for something real I could post here and Stanley wrote, “It is not possible to prove or disprove something that is transcendental without physical characteristics in physical terms. So the question is really moot.

    It is like attempting to prove or disprove love or hope or sadness exists. God, like anything transcendental, such as emotions, has a valid existence because of perception.

    ‘I am that I am’, is a very clear statement that human’s cannot and will not define God. In other words ‘GOD IS AS GOD IS’ regardless of how we define or perceive or don’t define or perceive or what we do or don’t attribute.”

    Like

  15. Interesting piece my Mr.Zande. ‘Immutable’ happens to be my favourite word of the week. Nice way to say God doesn’t exist, even though I know the DoG does, huh Argie?! 😉

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s