A Second Channel of Communication?

[Slowvehicle]

My time is limited and I simply cant answer all the posts. Why do you assume I'm avoiding yours?

...because you have failed to address them...

 

[blue triangle]

When you pray, either silently or aloud, where do you think your words go to, and how do they get there? If you are alone, who or what hears them? If you assume God, I expect you think that God considers whether or not to do anything about it. Perhaps the degree of sincerity is taken into account. How do you know whether what happens next would have happened anyway regardless of whether a prayer has been thought or said, or has been answered or rejectedd by God?

I'm not really here to talk about that and I have more than enough on my hands as it is. Sorry.

You might want to try prayer though, with sincerity and a genuine desire to know.

I am not sure whether the book, The Improbability Principle' by Prof David Hand, is relevant here, but I wonder if it would answer some of your questions. The author was a speaker at a meeting I went to and was most interesting.

I'm not the one asking questions.

 

[blue triangle]

Blue Triangle:
How do you know that your god wants to communicate in this way?

He's everyone's God, and he communicates in lots of ways. Patterns in scripture seem to be one of them.

What evidence do you have that the calculations you allege are contained in the verses were performed simultaneously?

I'm not here to talk about methods, which would take us well outside the thread topic. What I was really saying, though, was that the verse simultaneously holds many different patterns. It is, however, difficult to envisage one pattern being added, then another, then another, in a linear way, because each change usually affects what is already there.

Do all verses of the Bible display this kind of encoding?

There seem to be patterns in different verses and at different levels. I have no idea if every single verse is encoded in the same way as Genesis 1.1, but I suspect the answer is no.

If not, why not?

If a miner finds a gem, would you ask him how the gem was made? What forces put it there? Why it isn't in another rock? Why it isn't bigger or shinier (when you've only seen the tip of it sticking out of the rock surface)?

Why would your god choose to communicate in this way?

Again, he's your Father too. Isn't it enough that God has communicated, without asking why he did it in this particular way? Does it seem strange to you that God would communicate to man in the text of the Bible, the book Christians claim is God-inspired? You may think that isn't proven, but I would ask you to read more about it before you jump to any conclusions.

 

[blue triangle]

...because you have failed to address them...

No, it's because I have chosen not to answer them. There's a difference.

 

[Slowvehicle]

He's everyone's God, and he communicates in lots of ways. Patterns in scripture seem to be one of them.

Given your bristly punctilio about having the dishonesty of your arguments pointed out, you really, really ought to be more careful making completely unevidenced statements of your superstition as if they were facts.

What you have posted here is, simply, not true. You, personally, may hold it as an opinion, but it does not reflect any demonstrable reality.

Simply put, I have no 'god'. It is dishonest of you to attribute any 'god' to me.

I'm not here to talk about methods, which would take us well outside the thread topic. What I was really saying, though, was that the verse simultaneously holds many different patterns. It is, however, difficult to envisage one pattern being added, then another, then another, in a linear way, because each change usually affects what is already there.

...and, as long as you get to say which operations, and in what order, must be done to "reveal" the "pattern" (and as long as "close enough" is, however incorrect, close enough), you can "reveal" any pattern you choose to pretend was your "discovery".

There seem to be patterns in different verses and at different levels. I have no idea if every single verse is encoded in the same way as Genesis 1.1, but I suspect the answer is no.

Yes, "seems"...as looked at through the superstition to which you are in thrall. Pareidolia, all the way down...

If a miner finds a gem, would you ask him how the gem was made? What forces put it there? Why it isn't in another rock? Why it isn't bigger or shinier (when you've only seen the tip of it sticking out of the rock surface)?

Depends upon how hard the miner tries to convince me that his 'god' "put" that gem there for him to find...

Again, he's your Father too.

This is a false statement, a reflection of your own, personal, superstitions.

Isn't it enough that God has communicated,

This is another false statement, another reflection of your own superstitions.

without asking why he did it in this particular way?

The false statements continue...

Does it seem strange to you that God would communicate to man in the text of the Bible, the book Christians claim is God-inspired?

...and continue..."pressed down, shaken together, and overflowing", as it were.

You may think that isn't proven, but I would ask you to read more about it before you jump to any conclusions.

You might want to "aquaint yourself[sic]" with the meaning of "chutzpah".

 

[stanfr]

Ha! Fools, all of you...how could you possibly ignore the overwhelming evidence presented to you?
I neglected to mention that Cx37, gene 2071 (the 37 incidentally refers to it's molecular weight...an immutable property which I could no way have introduced to suit my nefarious goals ) is also known as GJA4, the gap junction (coupling!) ALPHA protein.
There's no way all these connections could be coincidental. Face it, the bible was encoded in your genes (or vice versa...)

 

[blue triangle]

Given your bristly punctilio about having the dishonesty of your arguments pointed out, you really, really ought to be more careful making completely unevidenced statements of your superstition as if they were facts.

What you have posted here is, simply, not true. You, personally, may hold it as an opinion, but it does not reflect any demonstrable reality.

Simply put, I have no 'god'. It is dishonest of you to attribute any 'god' to me.



...and, as long as you get to say which operations, and in what order, must be done to "reveal" the "pattern" (and as long as "close enough" is, however incorrect, close enough), you can "reveal" any pattern you choose to pretend was your "discovery".



Yes, "seems"...as looked at through the superstition to which you are in thrall. Pareidolia, all the way down...



Depends upon how hard the miner tries to convince me that his 'god' "put" that gem there for him to find...



This is a false statement, a reflection of your own, personal, superstitions.



This is another false statement, another reflection of your own superstitions.



The false statements continue...



...and continue..."pressed down, shaken together, and overflowing", as it were.



You might want to "aquaint yourself[sic]" with the meaning of "chutzpah".

Two points:

1. I was answering questions put to me about "my god", not making unsolicited comments. The one making those is you.

2. If you want to have a real dialogue here, try getting off your high horse. Try acquainting yourself with mature posting habits. Try making substantive points yourself, instead of riding on the back of others' postings.

 

[blue triangle]

You won't get away with reversing the burden of proof here. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, it is up to you to show it is true, not to us to show it isn't. Pareidolia is the null hypothesis which you have to give us good reason to reject. Generating a 'special' number from your chosen text which is just one of thousands for which a case for 'specialness' could be made, and approximations to universal constants by carefully cherry picking a particular sequence of arithmetical manipulations from the millions of sequences available, does not cut it.

Is the burden of proof on theists? This claim is often made by atheists and skeptics, but I believe both sides have a burden of proof. A-theism may seem to mean "no belief in God or gods", but it is always associated with a certain worldview, whether it is admitted or not. Usually, it means atheists believe in a naturalistic universe, one that "just happened" or was inevitable given the laws of nature. In other words atheists and skeptics usually maintain a belief in a "bottom-up" universe. Theists usually believe in a "top-down" universe, set in motion by a heavenly Creator or creators. So what we really have is two opposing worldviews, top-down and bottom-up. Where is the burden of proof there? I would say it was equal.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Two points:

1. I was answering questions put to me about "my god", not making unsolicited comments. The one making those is you.

Another transparently dishonest post.

it was, in fact, you, who asserted, without the least skerrick of evidence, that "your" 'god' is "everyone's" 'god'.

I am someone (a proper subset of "everyone"), and your superstitious assertion is incorrect about me (and, by their report, incorrect about other proper subsets of "everyone"). Continuing to assert an incorrect proposition is dishonest. Expecting others to follow in thrall to your personal superstition is just silly.

You never did address which bits of your "bible" are figurative, and which bits are literal. is it the same method by which you decide when to concatenate, when to divide, when to multiply, when to square, and when to simply fudge the data in order to produce your pre-determined results?

Further, if you intend for one of your sweeping invocations of your superstition to be seen, and addressed, by only one poster, you should "aquaint yourself[sic]" with PM. This is, after all, a forum. If you say, about "your" 'god', that it is "everyone's" 'god', you ought to expect to be called on it.

...or, you could provide evidence to back up your superstitious assertion.

2. If you want to have a real dialogue here, try getting off your high horse. Try acquainting yourself with mature posting habits. Try making substantive points yourself, instead of riding on the back of others' postings.

You appear to be personally misled about the meaning of the colloquialism, "high horse". You might want to "aquaint yourself[sic]" with its actual meaning before bandying it about...

It has been, in fact, your "arguments" which have been presented as depending upon superior understanding.

Of course, when one is preaching superstition, that pretense is all one has.

 

[tsig]

Two points:

1. I was answering questions put to me about "my god", not making unsolicited comments. The one making those is you.

2. If you want to have a real dialogue here, try getting off your high horse. Try acquainting yourself with mature posting habits. Try making substantive points yourself, instead of riding on the back of others' postings.

I give this post a half a huff.

 

[stanfr]

Is the burden of proof on theists? This claim is often made by atheists and skeptics, but I believe both sides have a burden of proof. A-theism may seem to mean "no belief in God or gods", but it is always associated with a certain worldview, whether it is admitted or not. Usually, it means atheists believe in a naturalistic universe, one that "just happened" or was inevitable given the laws of nature. In other words atheists and skeptics usually maintain a belief in a "bottom-up" universe. Theists usually believe in a "top-down" universe, set in motion by a heavenly Creator or creators. So what we really have is two opposing worldviews, top-down and bottom-up. Where is the burden of proof there? I would say it was equal.

You're conflating separate issues--the origins of the universe with your claim that there are biblical 'codes' If I hand you a rock, and state that it is unintelligent, whereas you maintain it is intelligent, the burden rests on you.

 

[tsig]

Is the burden of proof on theists? This claim is often made by atheists and skeptics, but I believe both sides have a burden of proof. A-theism may seem to mean "no belief in God or gods", but it is always associated with a certain worldview, whether it is admitted or not. Usually, it means atheists believe in a naturalistic universe, one that "just happened" or was inevitable given the laws of nature. In other words atheists and skeptics usually maintain a belief in a "bottom-up" universe. Theists usually believe in a "top-down" universe, set in motion by a heavenly Creator or creators. So what we really have is two opposing worldviews, top-down and bottom-up. Where is the burden of proof there? I would say it was equal.

You are both wrong the universe was created by Snord. He likes to watch us suffer like a child enjoys tearing wings off flies. He often puts meaningless correspondences in holy literature so he can enjoy the frustration.

 

[Pixel42]

Is the burden of proof on theists? This claim is often made by atheists and skeptics, but I believe both sides have a burden of proof. A-theism may seem to mean "no belief in God or gods", but it is always associated with a certain worldview, whether it is admitted or not. Usually, it means atheists believe in a naturalistic universe, one that "just happened" or was inevitable given the laws of nature. In other words atheists and skeptics usually maintain a belief in a "bottom-up" universe. Theists usually believe in a "top-down" universe, set in motion by a heavenly Creator or creators. So what we really have is two opposing worldviews, top-down and bottom-up. Where is the burden of proof there? I would say it was equal.

Wherever there is a plausible mundane explanation, the burden of proof is always on the person claiming a supernatural one. Whether or not there might be a case to be made when it comes to the existence of God, if the choice is between a well documented and understood phenomenon like pareidolia and contrived numerological fantasies the location of the burden of proof is clear.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Is the burden of proof on theists? This claim is often made by atheists and skeptics, but I believe both sides have a burden of proof. A-theism may seem to mean "no belief in God or gods", but it is always associated with a certain worldview, whether it is admitted or not.

Speaking of needing to "get down off your high horse"...

You, personally, have made assertions that your 'god' exists, and is communicating with us, and is "everyone's" 'god'.

It is up to you to support those superstitious assertions, with evidence.

I should also point out, to one of your prickly punctilio, that "always associated with a certain worldview" is, in fact, another false statement. The thing that you (and others who make the same false statement) do not comprehend is that atheists confess no creed. One only need read this forum to see that.

Usually, it means atheists believe in a naturalistic universe, one that "just happened" or was inevitable given the laws of nature. In other words atheists and skeptics usually maintain a belief in a "bottom-up" universe. Theists usually believe in a "top-down" universe, set in motion by a heavenly Creator or creators. So what we really have is two opposing worldviews, top-down and bottom-up. Where is the burden of proof there? I would say it was equal.

Perhaps you should "aquaint yourself[sic]" with the differences between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, before you make such a sophomoric error. You are not the first on these forums to make this false claim.

That, or you could send the atheists of straw you have raised up to stand over there, under that windmill.

To be clear: I am an atheist. I simply do not believe in 'god', in "a 'god' ", in your 'god', nor yet in any 'gods'. I could be persuaded, with adequate evidence. You, personally, have presented no such.

You made claims about the 'god' of your superstitions. You get to support those claims.

Whenever you are ready...

 

[Slowvehicle]

I give this post a half a huff.

I think you are being too generous.

Quarter-huff, at best.

 

[blue triangle]

Wherever there is a plausible mundane explanation, the burden of proof is always on the person claiming a supernatural one.

If God is real and intervenes in our lives then that is perfectly natural. You are using words like 'supernatural' and 'theist' to support your case, by suggesting a extra entity that has to be explained, but it's really about opposing worldviews, one full of meaning, the other bereft of it.

Whether or not there might be a case to be made when it comes to the existence of God, if the choice is between a well documented and understood phenomenon like pareidolia and contrived numerological fantasies the location of the burden of proof is clear.

Perhaps our worldview is less to do with evidence, capacity for being deluded, tendency towards confirmation bias, etc and more to do with our internal state.

 

[Slowvehicle]

If God is real and intervenes in our lives then that is perfectly natural.

First, "cotch dem bear". Then you can pontificate about what the bear must be like.

You are using words like 'supernatural' and 'theist' to support your case, by suggesting a extra entity that has to be explained, but it's really about opposing worldviews, one full of meaning, the other bereft of it.

Just because your superstition has you completely in thrall, that does not mean that your worldview is bereft of meaning"; only that you believe what you believe without a sniff of actual evidence.

On the other hand, methodological naturalism works; its adherents are unlikely to uncork such howlers as, "My 'god' is everyone's 'god'..."

Perhaps our worldview is less to do with evidence, capacity for being deluded, tendency towards confirmation bias, etc and more to do with our internal state.

Suppose you provide evidence to support this surmise.

 

[stanfr]

If God is real and intervenes in our lives then that is perfectly natural. You are using words like 'supernatural' and 'theist' to support your case, by suggesting a extra entity that has to be explained, but it's really about opposing worldviews, one full of meaning, the other bereft of it.

You claim you only seek "the truth". Well, what if that "truth" has no meaning?
What if the rock you hold is just a rock, and not one that talks to you? Can you handle the truth?

Perhaps our worldview is less to do with evidence, capacity for being deluded, tendency towards confirmation bias, etc and more to do with our internal state.

There are pharmaceuticals to deal with that condition. But it might be easier to simply clear the cobwebs from your head, fewer side effects that way.

 

[Delvo]

I neglected to mention that Cx37, gene 2071 is also known as GJA4, the gap junction (coupling!) ALPHA protein.
There's no way all these connections could be coincidental. Face it, the bible was encoded in your genes (or vice versa...)

Not only that, but the digits in both cases add up to 10, and the Hebrew symbol for 10 was the letter yod, the first letter of the names "Yahweh" and "Yeshua` (Jesus)"! Also notice that the number of characters apiece in "Cx37", "2071", "YHWH", and "YŠWʕ" is always four, the number of Gospels, and together they add up to 16, which is the square of four and the number of Old Testament books of the prophets... which, if added to the numbers of Gospels and the number of Testaments, takes us right back to the beginning: the number of letters in the alphabet, which is also the number of autosomes in humans!

Is the burden of proof on theists? This claim is often made by atheists and skeptics, but I believe both sides have a burden of proof.

If so, the atheists' continues to be met in every event that happens every where every day: the universe continues running along just exactly like it would if there were no gods.

Usually, it means atheists believe in a naturalistic universe, one that "just happened" or was inevitable given the laws of nature. In other words atheists and skeptics usually maintain a belief in a "bottom-up" universe. Theists usually believe in a "top-down" universe, set in motion by a heavenly Creator or creators. So what we really have is two opposing worldviews, top-down and bottom-up. Where is the burden of proof there? I would say it was equal.

Bottom-up, because it relies only on what is observed, not what is observed plus something else that was simply made-up. Bottom-up instead of top-down also happens to be the only way of finding out things about the universe that can actually find out things about the universe, because top-down explanations could be concocted to explain anything & everything, which means they really explain nothing, whereas bottom-up explanations are limited to explaining the way things actually are.

Pray to him, sincerely.

If you pray regularly...

You might want to try prayer though, with sincerity

Sincerity in prayer is impossible for anyone who doesn't already have belief in the gods.

 

[stanfr]

Not only that, but the digits in both cases add up to 10, and the Hebrew symbol for 10 was the letter yod, the first letter of the names "Yahweh" and "Yeshua` (Jesus)"! Also notice that the number of characters apiece in "Cx37", "2071", "YHWH", and "YŠWʕ" is always four, the number of Gospels, and together they add up to 16, which is the square of four and the number of Old Testament books of the prophets... which, if added to the numbers of Gospels and the number of Testaments, takes us right back to the beginning: the number of letters in the alphabet, which is also the number of autosomes in humans!

Yes, and 1+0=1 (Genesis 1.1) and you forgot to include GJA4, the name of the connexin for which there are 20 variants. add 20 to 16 (your total) and you get 2016...we are indeed living in the end times! Quick, copyright this discovery before someone beats us to it and makes millions!