The Atheist Perversion of Reality

April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for all your wonderful essay-posts and insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

As you said in an earlier post:

The time of the Eternal Now perhaps might be understood as incorporating (by virtue of its being the ultimate context of) all observations of all observers always. To an observer standing outside the finite world system, these would be perceived as simultaneous events.

But no human observer can ever "physically" do that! Man does not stand outside the system he observes, but is ineluctably part and participant of it. And yet he "shapes" the way the universe is to be seen and, thus, understood. Too often, he uses the measure of his own current (necessarily imperfect) understanding, applies it to the "objective" world, and then concludes "the world is definitively thus and so, given the criteria of judgment acceptable to ME." This is how man stumbles into the delusive position of being "the 'measure' of all things."

And as TXnMA said earlier (emphasis mine):

I submit (or agree) that it is physically impossible for any observer confined to a reference frame within our universal system to experience your "universal now".

Because of the Holy Spirit's indwelling it is possible to become more aware of being alive in Christ (timelessly) than alive in the flesh (time-bound.)

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

I testify this has become true for me.

God's Name is I AM.

[Alamo-Girl]

But, we make a terrible mistake if we imagine the one outside space/time as being human-like in abilities and perceptions. Just the discussion itself should have disavowed us of that notion.

Again, precisely so, dear brother in Christ!

Sadly people have this annoying tendency to anthropomorphize God into a small "god" their puny, mortal minds can comprehend.

[Alamo-Girl]

Clearly, the doctrine of "man is the measure" is the most vicious form of reductionism there is. It not only ruins minds, but it ruins souls....

Oh so very true, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you for all of your insights!

[betty boop]

If it sees all events concurrently would that be meaningful? Wouldn't that be the same as nothing happening at all?

That would surely seem to be the case with a finite observer located within the fabric of space and time. A finite mind by its own resources probably would never be able to make any sense of an observation of completely simultaneous totality. (But then, show me a human observer who has ever had such an experience. There have been a few in human history; but they are very few and far in between indeed. In the past, they were called prophets and saints.)

Yet to an infinite Mind, this would pose no difficulty whatsoever.

[Alamo-Girl]

LeGrande: There is no definitive frame of reference...

betty boop: It seems this is the very point you would need to demonstrate, LeGrande, in order to "falsify" the idea of the Eternal Now.

Indeed. Great catch!

I must head out now, but look forward to reading any further comments this evening!

[MHGinTN]

‘Now’, any sort of ‘Now’, including an Eternal ‘Now’ is a temporal concept and God is not confined by any dimension, much less Time.

[MHGinTN]

Le Grande’s notion may be a good definition of Hell, where the individual soul has zero reference beyond itself for anything, yet is aware ‘it is’. God was described as the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, etc. yet there is now something moving and something He has created, caused, so He is by defintion the antithesis of that ‘nothing happening at all’ Hell.

[betty boop]

...the inescapable conclusion so far is that the observer is inherently part of the equation.

That is, he is part of the very same system that he observes, and moreover his observation ineluctably "disturbs" the system he's observing.... There is a certain sense in which the subjectivity inherent in perception is not reducible to zero. And that is why, I suppose, the uncertainty principle (a/k/a/ the indeterminacy principle) is not confined just to the quantum world, but is a constant feature of Reality at all scales.

[Hank Kerchief]

“Yeah, but that’s just your brain chemistry talking.”

I assume you are being sardone, which I appreciate.

But there are those who say such things seriously, and it makes me wonder how they think they know about brain chemistry. Just “brain chemistry” knowing “brain chemistry” sure sounds circular to me.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

First let me apologize for dredging up this old post. Just bumped into this thread, and was not aware of it’s age until after I had posted, and FR does not allow one to correct such mistakes.

Thank you, however, for your very long answer. My question was intended to discover the context for another question. If you are interested, that question is, what do you think sin is?

The Bible says “ ... sin is the transgression of the law,” (1Jn. 3:4) and “where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Rom. 4:15). Christians tell me they believe right and wrong are absolute (which is what I believe) but if what is sin, or not sin, can be changed simply by changing the law (e.g. changing the Sabbath laws) doesn’t that make right and wrong contingent and arbitrary. [I know all about the ritual laws being fulfilled in Christ, and that is not the explanation.]

I won’t be disappointed if you don’t wish to answer.

Have a nice day. Thanks for your kind response.

Hank

[betty boop]

Your mind is all twisted up with Hume’s and Kant’s anti-reason philosophy, and you’ve never been able to get beyond it. So sad.

I think it's quite possible that Kant might agree with you that Hume's position was "anti-reason." (Though I don't agree with Kant about this — I strongly resonate with many of Hume's "radical" insights!) But Kant would have had a fit if you accused him (of all people!!!) of being "anti-reason."

Legend has it that Kant was so exercised by David Hume's magisterial "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" that he was inspired to write Critique of Pure Reason in rebuttal. Evidently what got Kant going was Hume gave priority to experience rather than to reason itself in the acquisition of human knowledge.

Evidently Hume was of the opinion that reason cannot give us any real connection between sense perception and objects sensed. That is, their relation has nothing to do with reason, but with the way human beings experience things (largely governed by the structure of sense perception), which forms the basis of "custom" and habits of mind generally.

IOW, the connection between sense and what is sensed is not a logical connection, it is a experiential connection that tends to become habitual over time. It is that on which we base our reasonings once that "connection" is realized as a "precept." Then — and only then — does reason have "something to do."

Hume is not anti-reason. Kant is not anti-reason — indeed, if it seems that Hume "disparages" reason, Kant would appear to be "elevating" it to virtually divine heights....

You wrote: "It’s by means of concepts that we identify the entities and events of perception that are knowledge, not the perceptions or experiences themselves." Hume would say there are only three primary sources of knowledge: sense, memory, experience. We cannot form percepts, let alone concepts, without these.

[Yardstick]

No, my point is mostly serious.

Why should I believe what a walking chemistry experiment has to say? How is it that a chemical reaction can claim anything about what is true when its thoughts are nothing more than a reflection of a set of initial physical conditions?

Only spiritual beings can have an understanding or even an opinion about anything because only spirits have consciousness and will.

On a related note — isn’t true that the persona known as “Hank Kerchief” is actually an experimental computer program designed to imitate a real person (real meaning conscious; conscious meaning possessing awareness, a seat of personality, a point of perception, etc)?

In other words, when we interact with you, there really is no “you” there, right?

[LeGrande]

Is it safe to say that no one is questioning the Theory of Relativity, QM or basic observational physics in our space/time?

The only question seems to be is if there is some hypothetical being outside of space/time (reality as we know it) could other rules apply to that being? Certainly! Anything is possible in our imaginations! Heck we even invented God : )

[Hank Kerchief]

My my, and you used to be so polite.

I’d ask you if all Christians are in the habit to putting words into other people’s mouths and thoughts into other people’s heads and than condemning for those made-up words and thoughts, but it would be an insult to all the decent and honest Christians whom I know and for whom I have a profound respect and admiration.

I was speaking only for myself and explaining nothing more than why I do not call myself an atheist. For me it would be silly, for others it may be very serious.

There is another reason I do not identify myself as an atheist, because so many Christian just assume that makes me their enemy. I have written more than one defense of Christianity; (e.g. http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/articles/article80.php ) I publish Christian writers on my website; (e.g. http://usabig.com/iindv/jrnl_ii.php?art=209 ) and always treat reasonable Christians with the dignity and respect all decent men deserve. That does not seem to be the case with all Christians apparently.

Now I have no idea what got your panties in a wad, but whatever it is, I assure you I did not mean to upset you, and I am not upset with you. Sometimes people just speak or write rashly and I have very thick skin. I am not your enemy, and certainly not the enemy of any sincere Christian.

Hank

[betty boop]

Heck we even invented God : )

As that statement stands, it is merely a totally unsupported (pre)supposition. What "we" ever "invented" God? Let's see your data!

And it seems to me not everything that we can imagine becomes "possible" simply because we can imagine it. Do unicorns really exist? If they do, it seems they exist in a sense that is not physically realizable. Just like most "second realities." They can be "imagined": But if they don't "map to Reality," they cannot exist as real entities.

[Hank Kerchief]

“Socrates once said something to the effect, I know that I know nothing for a certainty, and that makes me the wisest man of all men. I am wisest, for I acknowledge my ignorance.

Are you arguing that it is better that we have no awareness of our own ignorance, or that we could ever become wise without understanding our own limitations?”

It wasn’t and argument, it was a question. Perhaps you have difficulty understanding the difference.

I would suggest, however, that B-Chan, and his sycophants, apparently believe ignorance is more important than knowledge, because it is what they always emphasize. No one believes everything is known or even can be known. What seems to be missed by the ignorance worshipers is, not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything.

Question: do you believe we know anything? If you do, how do we know it?

Hank

[betty boop]

I was speaking only for myself and explaining nothing more than why I do not call myself an atheist. For me it would be silly, for others it may be very serious.

It doesn't matter what you call yourself, if that is, in fact, what you are. Which you admit. Call yourself something else if you like! "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...."

Sorry if you feel I'm being "rough" on you. I just have an overwhelming sense that you are acting like (1) a sophist and (2) a hypocrit when you mouth words like this:

I’d ask you if all Christians are in the habit to putting words into other people’s mouths and thoughts into other people’s heads and than condemning for those made-up words and thoughts, but it would be an insult to all the decent and honest Christians whom I know and for whom I have a profound respect and admiration.

If I'm putting words into your mouth, maybe you need to articulate your points with greater accuracy, so I need not have to try to "guess" at your meaning....

I am gratified to learn you know "decent and honest Christians ... for whom I have a profound respect and admiration."

But if that's really true, then why do you sneer at Christians, seemingly every time you get the opportunity?

[mrjesse]

Said MrJesse: If LeGrande thinks he can demonstrate his claim, then by all means I wish he would.

Replied LeGrande:I have tried many times : ( mrjesse simply doesn't seem to understand frames of reference, two body problems, or that there is not a universal 'now' in relativistic physics.

And now says MrJesse:
I do understand two body problems, but that is besides the point.

Some questions do not need to involve the discussion of frames of reference because they are implicitly defined.

For example, if two cars are driving along and I take a snapshot photo I can absolutely say that "These two cars were x number of degrees apart at the time and place I took the photo." You see, there is no need to talk about frames of references because the frame of reference is obviously based off of the other car.

Another example: Let's say I had a camera which simultaneously took a snapshot of the apparent optical position of a jet plane at 10,000 feet altitude, and a snapshot of the apparent sound position. (I actually read years ago in a magazine about a camera that imaged sound instead of light. It was designed to be able to show sources of vibrations and noise on a flying helicopter to check for loose screws and cracked panels.)

But back to my thought-experiment. Let's say I take this light+audio snapshot photo of the jet plane that's 10k feet above me. Because the light from the jet plane travels faster then the sound from it, the optical position will appear so many degrees ahead of the audio position.

Thus it is perfectly correct of me to then say "For an observer on the earth, at an instant in time, the plane appeared x number of degrees ahead of where the sound was coming from." The statement is true, and we don't have to go off on any distractions of "what frame of reference."

Now for those who don't know, Pluto is kind of way out there. It orbits the sun extremely slowly, at least compared to the earth. It's orbit takes it closer and further from the sun, but at its furthest it's about 6.8 light hours away. This means that at 6.8 light hours, the earth has turned about 102 degrees by the time Pluto's reflected light reaches us.

LeGrande has kindly mentioned(next to last paragraph) and then later expounded(Para 4) that the sun appears about 2.1 degrees behind where it actually is, due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes the sun's light to reach earth.

He has also explained of the 2.1 degrees that If the Sun was closer the angle would be smaller, and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger.

He has also explained to me that if the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged from its real position by 180 degrees

Now, mind you, if it was the sun orbiting the earth every 24 hours - then I'd agree with him! If the sun were actually moving around the earth at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes, then yes, by the time light arrived at the earth, it would be coming from where the sun was 8.3 minutes ago, which would not be where the sun is anymore. But alas, the sun is not orbiting the earth very much. The 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes is majorly due to the earth's own rotation, which means that while the sun's light may be 8.3 minutes old, it's still coming from where the sun is because the sun is in the same place that it was 8.3 minutes ago.

So you can see that if one believes that the sun is apparently 2.1 degrees displaced, and that it would be more apparently displaced if it were farther, then the natural question arises about Pluto, which is at times up to 6.8 hours away.

So, LeGrande, please apply your own claims to this simple question:

For an observer on earth at a point in time when Pluto is 6.8 light hours away and the earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours, when Pluto appears directly overhead, will it really be 102 degrees off - and not even really in the night sky?

That is a very simple question - just like the flying jet or the two moving cars. No fancy explanations are needed regarding frame of reference or universal "now" or anything else. But you see, most folks are going to raise an eyebrow or two if they are told that Pluto isn't even in the night sky when we look up and see it (with a powerful telescope, of course.) But that is, as best I can tell, exactly what LeGrande's claims seem to indicate. How can I logically come to any other conclusion?

So if I'm the one that's so hopelessly ignorant, that's besides the point. LeGrande can still answer my question, and show us all how wrong I am! But if a fellow doesn't even believe his own view well enough to apply it to a simple question, then may I ever so humbly say that perhaps they shouldn't be trying to convince other people of their views without expecting a little bit of questioning from honest folk.

Said LeGrande:Reality is not always what you may think it is.

True - but just because I might think something is reality when it's not does not mean that I should accept as reality something that doesn't even look like it! Trying to know what is reality among the things that look like reality is challenge enough. But accept things as reality that make no sense and don't even look like reality will move one into the realm of believing unlimited absurdities - of which there are ample vendors!

When you look at a star you are actually seeing photons that left it a long time ago. In effect you are looking back in time, to what things were like in the past and in some cases the very distant past (billions of years).

And that's why I specified so clearly "For an observer on earth, at a point in time..."!

I know that this view [billions of years] of reality doesn't agree with your idea that all creation occured 12,000 years ago and I have no hope or desire to change your mind.

It certainly is true that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days about 7k years ago.
Indeed, I have not found that science has demonstrated that the earth is billions of years old. Those who believe they know it's that old are merely having faith in people they've never met about things they've never seen. And that, my dear friends, is not science! The only way that "science" has "proven" that the earth is billions of years old is by accepting the dogma that there's no other possible way that it could have come to exist. But nobody knows for sure that there is no other way, so that's not scientific either!

You see, to me, science is real and solid. For example, I scientifically determined that if you put too much current through or voltage across an LED, it will emit a bad smell, turn black inside, and stop working. I've found that the experiment works repeatably, and if anyone doubts I can show them, or I can send them a dozen yellow LEDs with instructions on how to do the demonstration themselves. See, that is real science. If someone can't demonstrate something to me, and especially if their claim violates the laws of physics (like, for example, the big bang which says something came from nothing) I'm really not going to want to classify it as science.

I love science and have personally performed many many common scientific experiments and to me science is a real thing. It is something you can do and see and try and test. My latest experiment was shining a laser through a chunk of Selenite, and seeing interesting patterns of the light coming out the other side. (Photo-Documented here: Jesse's laser & Calcite/Selenite experiment)

But all that is completely besides my "Pluto" question! I'm just following a logical scientific thought process here, and for the oddest reason ever, those purporting to be with science keep bringing up religion!

So why not just answer my Pluto question, as I asked it?

~~~~~~~~~~~

It is my conclusion indeed that The Atheist Perversion of Reality is why science education today is in such shambles. The Atheist teachers and professors pervert reality and saturate their students in it. I think many of them either know that they are wrong to some degree, or at least refuse to apply their belief to some questions or to reality because in doing so they fear that reality would debunk their belief - which they call science.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Hank Kerchief]

“That is, he is part of the very same system that he observes, and moreover his observation ineluctably “disturbs” the system he’s observing.... There is a certain sense in which the subjectivity inherent in perception is not reducible to zero.”

What a load of post-modernist pseudo-scientific bunk. What, the only way anything can be correctly observed is if there is no context? What, we cannot understand that we are part of the context of everything we observe?

If our own existence and nature invalidate the certainty of any observation, all the observations on which the uncertainty principle are based have to be thrown out—thus, no uncertainty principle.

Sigh!!!

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Dearest Betty Boop,

Rough on me?

Well, no, just having a little fun with you, and thought I might be able to lighten you up some. But if you are determined to be grumpy and cantankerous with a nice old man—fire away.

Hank