Understanding a Christian World View Pt One.

I feel that one of the main problems I have when conversing with people about my personal theological beliefs is a lack of understanding of how I actually view the world. I find that many people lack the ability to separate their thought processes from their own world view. This happens the most when we begin to reach the very base assumptions of our world views because those are the parts of our beliefs that we use to interpret and judge reality. When you reach this disconnect it is very hard to continue a meaningful conversation if the person is stuck in this box and not willing to step out of that box and allow their thought processes to change to see if what is being said is logically coherent with the presuppositions the other has put forth. So what is a world view?

Ronald Nash defines a world view as a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality. With that said lets get down to the topic:

As a Christian what are the very basic assumptions about the world that I would make? The most basic assumption is that this world's existence is contingent upon the existence of some type of Creative Entity. So that is where we will begin. So far i don't think I should have much disagreement on the logical coherence of that assumption. There is nothing incoherent in that sentence the only thing one may question is whether or not the assumption is logically sound. So why would we think this world is contingent upon some Creative Entity? The simple answer is because of cause and effect. Logically the universe could not have caused itself. Matter could not have created itself. Because the idea of something creating itself is self-contradictory. In other words it is bad logic. This is because in every case where something has actually been made, that which caused it existed prior to it. What we would call our universe has beginning at around 14-15 billion years ago. It logically had a prior(though prior some what loses it normal meaning here) cause which brings us to the idea of a creative entity. As a Christian what is one of the most basic assumptions I would make about this entity? The most basic assumption is that this entity is an agent. Meaning this entity has the capacity to act in any given environment. An agent also typically has some sort of awareness of their physical actions and the goals that the activity is aimed at realizing. So what reason do I have for believing that this Creative Entity was some sort of agent. The most simplistic answer I can give is because this Entity created information.

Information in this day and age is often times confused with the medium that carries it. For example, you read quite a few words by the time you have gotten to this point in the thread, but if I asked you what is my favorite color red, blue, or orange? You probably wouldn't know. This is because though I have said many things I haven't given you the necessary information needed to answer that question. If I asked the same question again but this time I said my favorite color starts with the letter 'b', what is my favorite color red, blue, or orange? You would immediately know my favorite color is blue, but lets change it up again. What if the statement was the exact same but this time I gave you the color red, black, blue, or orange? Your odds would improve but again would be lacking information. Lets finish it off with one final statement. My favorite color starts with 'b' and is the third item in the list or colors. What is my favorite color, red, black, blue, or orange? Again you would now know my favorite color is blue, but what gave you the confirmation? Was it the words? The location of or spelling of the colors? No. The necessary information came from the message, not the medium or form that it takes. There are many ways I could convey this same message with different mediums. I could draw a diagram. I could make a gesture towards something blue. Hopefully this clears up the misconception that information is a physical entity.

So why does the existence of information lead you to the idea that the Creative Entity is an agent? Again a rather simple answer. The creation of information is contingent upon something with agency. A rock cannot produce information. A rock is what it is and we as agents in this world can assign information to describe attributes of the rock, but the rock itself cannot produce and convey a message. What we often times don't realize is that when discover physical constants such as the speed of light or electromagnetic strength is that the medium of the information is the force and we are simply discovering the message tuck beneath one that if you study enough you find that the balance required for life to exist is quite fragile. Then you continue forward into the realm of biological systems and you find that the cell not only contains information, but actually can read and utilize the information to build a body plan. That means that biological systems were caused by something with agency as they can read and utilize input to preform a specific task. As a C# developer if I were to sit down and just begin banging on my keyboard with no thought to what buttons I hit the computer wouldn't be able to utilize my code to build the product I am thinking of, but if a give it specified information that the system can understand then it will compile and do exactly as I ask. The software would utilize instructions to automate some process that I've decided. DNA is to a biological system as the source code is to my program. It demonstrates a sense of awareness of their physical actions and the goals that the activity is aimed at realizing, which implies the existence of an agent in all cases. Even though I created the software program in the scenario earlier it could be studied without any reference to the agent(me) behind it, but it would be silly to deny the existence of agency behind a system that utilizes information in that way. In the same way I find that it would be silly to deny the existence of agency behind the creation of biological systems as they utilized information in the exact same way, and like in the color analogy from before what tells the ribosome what to do are not the chemicals but the message. An example of this is the codon UGA in mycoplasmas and humans. Mycoplamsa ribosomes and Human ribosomes react to the same chemicals in very different ways as the message communicated is completely different. In human's UGA is a stop codon which ends the process of translation. In Mycoplasmas UGA will tell the ribosome to make tryptophan, and then keep chuggin along. So these are very simple starter topics. I will go far more in depth with anyone who is here to actually have a conversation. But hopefully you can start to see how I look at the world. As I get into later topics I will begin to discuss why these presuppositions allow things of supernatural origin to become logical possibilities in this world. Enjoy.

Life is like a beanstalk ...isn't it?
Consider the Lillies......

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I feel that one of the main problems I have when conversing with people about my personal theological beliefs is a lack of understanding of how I actually view the world. I find that many people lack the ability to separate their thought processes from their own world view. This happens the most when we begin to reach the very base assumptions of our world views because those are the parts of our beliefs that we use to interpret and judge reality.

What if these individuals whom have formed their personal world-view have done it off of not belief, but by evidence?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
So why would we think this world is contingent upon some Creative Entity? The simple answer is because of cause and effect. Logically the universe could not have caused itself.

Why not? It is a well known phenomena within Cosmology that super-massive objects collapse upon themselves and that all black holes compress matter into a singularity. In science, the Universe suddenly expanded from a singularity (not nothing), so technically, yes, it would have been caused by itself.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Matter could not have created itself.

No one has suggested matter created itself

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Because the idea of something creating itself is self-contradictory.

So where did god come from?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
This is because in every case where something has actually been made, that which caused it existed prior to it.

Right, like a singularity forming the universe.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
What we would call our universe has beginning at around 14-15 billion years ago. It logically had a prior(though prior some what loses it normal meaning here) cause which brings us to the idea of a creative entity.

The expansion of a singularity.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
As a Christian what is one of the most basic assumptions I would make about this entity? The most basic assumption is that this entity is an agent. Meaning this entity has the capacity to act in any given environment. An agent also typically has some sort of awareness of their physical actions and the goals that the activity is aimed at realizing. So what reason do I have for believing that this Creative Entity was some sort of agent. The most simplistic answer I can give is because this Entity created information.

This is illogical because it's circular reasoning: "The entity is an agent, an agent does things in any environment, I believe the entity is an agent because the entity created everything"

This answers nothing, nor is it logical, it only leads to an excessive amount of questions.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
So why does the existence of information lead you to the idea that the Creative Entity is an agent? Again a rather simple answer. The creation of information is contingent upon something with agency.

This is only logical if you already have a premise, which in itself is an inaccurate and illogical way of evaluating anything.

You don’t say “I have an answer, lets look for things to support it” you say “I have a question, lets look for things that can form an answer”

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
A rock cannot produce information. A rock is what it is and we as agents in this world can assign information to describe attributes of the rock, but the rock itself cannot produce and convey a message.

You keep using terms like “information”, “agent” and “message” as if it is commonplace to use these terms in a logical argument, which in this case is far from acceptable. They are essentially empty terms to make your sentences appear as if they are valid.

Rocks can produce a lot of things. for example, a rock is merely a dense mass of minerals. These minerals can be rubbed off creating other materials. They can be crushed down to have the same effect too. The weight of a sum of rocks can create pressure on other materials and elements which give rise to new things, like diamonds for instance.

Using your generic terminology, a rock solves all the issues you’ve just listed.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
What we often times don't realize is that when discover physical constants such as the speed of light or electromagnetic strength is that the medium of the information is the force and we are simply discovering the message tuck beneath one that if you study enough you find that the balance required for life to exist is quite fragile.

So now you’re assuming that because many things in physics can be reduced to mathematics, it’s thus a message created by something else? The thing is, physics doesn’t require there to be a god in order to function. It functions perfectly fine on it’s own without define interference. It can even create order.

Didn’t you just say rocks don’t have a ‘message’, too?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Then you continue forward into the realm of biological systems and you find that the cell not only contains information, but actually can read and utilize the information to build a body plan. That means that biological systems were caused by something with agency as they can read and utilize input to preform a specific task.

Once again, you falsely personify naturally occurring phenomenas and state “it must be god” because you’ve come into these questions illogically, and already with an answer in mind.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
But hopefully you can start to see how I look at the world.

I can see quite easily how you look at the world. It’s quite transparent and easy to spot that you’ve made several illogical decisions when both evaluating the world around you, deciphering information, and how you draw conclusions.

All of which relate to a false premise: “God did it, let’s find information to support my answer”

a reply to: Ghost147

Well done!

I have no idea what that text written by ServantOfTheLamb meant anyway, other than: Something exist and "God" did it! That's what christians beliefe!

And that is exactely why I'm not a christian, by the way. Although...nah...I just can't slap myself into buying their concept.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Because the idea of something creating itself is self-contradictory.

Unless it's God? Or did something/someone create God and if so, who/what created God's creator and who/what created the creator of the creator and so on and so forth?

That's an infinite regress.

a reply to: Ghost147

What if these individuals whom have formed their personal world-view have done it off of not belief, but by evidence?

We all come to our world views based off our experiences here in this life, the information we take in, and how we interpret that information, but the way you interpret information is based off the very basic assumption of your beliefs. I am a bit confused as to what you are referring to as evidence. Are you saying you have reasons for why you believe it to be a certain way? Do you mean someone who approaches the world with a naturalistic world view? Please clarify don't want to put words in your mouth.

Why not? It is a well known phenomena within Cosmology that super-massive objects collapse upon themselves and that all black holes compress matter into a singularity. In science, the Universe suddenly expanded from a singularity (not nothing), so technically, yes, it would have been caused by itself.

Define a singularity for me please. Tell me what is it's essence, or the set of attributes which make it what it is.

No one has suggested matter created itself

Are you suggesting it is eternal?

So where did god come from?

The question is logically incoherent. You cannot ask when something not bound by time began, it simply doesn't make sense.

Right, like a singularity forming the universe.

I refer you back to my previous response. Please describe what the singularity is.

This is illogical because it's circular reasoning: "The entity is an agent, an agent does things in any environment, I believe the entity is an agent because the entity created everything" This answers nothing, nor is it logical, it only leads to an excessive amount of questions.

Strawman. This is not the argument I put forth so i don't really have much to say here.

This is only logical if you already have a premise, which in itself is an inaccurate and illogical way of evaluating anything. You don’t say “I have an answer, lets look for things to support it” you say “I have a question, lets look for things that can form an answer”

Are you even trying to comprehend what I've said? Nothing about that statement says that I have started with an answer and then went to look for things to support it....The only thing I said was the creation of information is dependent upon prior existence of an agent...

You keep using terms like “information”, “agent” and “message” as if it is commonplace to use these terms in a logical argument, which in this case is far from acceptable. They are essentially empty terms to make your sentences appear as if they are valid.

I used those terms to convey certain information to the readers. If you think they are empty then you are obviously missing the message....

Rocks can produce a lot of things. for example, a rock is merely a dense mass of minerals. These minerals can be rubbed off creating other materials. They can be crushed down to have the same effect too. The weight of a sum of rocks can create pressure on other materials and elements which give rise to new things, like diamonds for instance. Using your generic terminology, a rock solves all the issues you’ve just listed.

Sure and at what point in any of those processes did the rock produce any information? You as an agent have given descriptions to those processes but those processes do not produce information. At what point could you call the rock an agent during those processes? The rock has no agency as it has no awareness of its physical actions nor does it have an idea of the goal its attempting to realize.... it fits none of the criteria.

So now you’re assuming that because many things in physics can be reduced to mathematics, it’s thus a message created by something else? The thing is, physics doesn’t require there to be a god in order to function. It functions perfectly fine on it’s own without define interference. It can even create order.

Mathematics are just the medium . You are constantly confusing the medium of information rather than the meaning . The fact that certain mechanics can be preformed without manual input from a being doesn't discredit the existence of the being...I'll refer you to the idea of a programmer and a program...the programmer doesn't have to manually feed input into the program after its been created...This world functions based on a set of instructions that we have discovered and we have discovered that life is fragile with respect to these instructions.

Once again, you falsely personify naturally occurring phenomenas and state “it must be god” because you’ve come into these questions illogically, and already with an answer in mind.

I haven't personified anything. Are you denying that mRNA and ribosomes exchange information that contains meaning?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Unless it's God? Or did something/someone create God and if so, who/what created God's creator and who/what created the creator of the creator and so on and so forth? That's an infinite regress.

I'll tell you as I told Ghost. That question is logically incoherent. It is the same as asking when did eternity start? Or what is the shape of purple? The question simply isn't logical.

a reply to: Willingly

Then discuss it. What are you confused on?

This post may be useful on the "who made God" side of the argument (too long to be copied here);

The "Beyond God" questions

a reply to: DISRAELI

Thats a much more in depth response but I completely agree.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
We all come to our world views based off our experiences here in this life, the information we take in, and how we interpret that information, but the way you interpret information is based off the very basic assumption of your beliefs.

Speak for yourself.

I don't make conclusions and then look for answers. The conclusions I've formed were formed from evidence that was gathered.

Therefore "the way I interpret information" is not subject to bias based on beliefs. It's a far more accurate way of determining what is and what is not reality and factual.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I am a bit confused as to what you are referring to as evidence. Are you saying you have reasons for why you believe it to be a certain way?

Forget the term 'belief' all together. 'Belief' is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something.

I don't 'believe' that life on earth diversified through reproduction with variation, I've evaluated the processes which show that reproduction does indeed cause diversity in organic life, and only then did I come to a conclusion.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Do you mean someone who approaches the world with a naturalistic world view? Please clarify don't want to put words in your mouth.

No. I have come to this conclusion myself through experimentation, education, cross-confirming conclusions and objective observation.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Define a singularity for me please. Tell me what is it's essence, or the set of attributes which make it what it is

A gravitational singularity, is a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

You can learn more here, if you're interested

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Are you suggesting it is eternal?

Not at all.

We simply do not know. Proton decay has never been observed, but may be a possibility, and we don't believe that electrons can ever decay, either. We simply do not know the answer to that.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The question is logically incoherent. You cannot ask when something not bound by time began, it simply doesn't make sense.

But saying that something like a universe creating being - one that would have to interact within space-time to some degree to have any effect at all - does make sense?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Strawman. This is not the argument I put forth so i don't really have much to say here.

It has nothing to do with topic divergence or attack. The logic you're using to form the argument is illogical, therefore can be dismissed before even responding to it.

Why would it be considered irrelevant to note that your original argument is literally using illogical logic? I've even demonstrated how it is illogical by putting it into a simpler format.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Are you even trying to comprehend what I've said? Nothing about that statement says that I have started with an answer and then went to look for things to support it....The only thing I said was the creation of information is dependent upon prior existence of an agent...

That's an answer!

Stating "the creation of information is dependent upon prior existence of an agent" is the answer you've come to, and then you've looked for information to support it.

I'm sorry you don't realize this, but your entire way of deciphering reality is completely illogical.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I used those terms to convey certain information to the readers. If you think they are empty then you are obviously missing the message....

It's not a matter of me 'thinking they are empty', they literally mean absolutely nothing unless you've personally given those words a specific meaning in order to support your own preconceived conlusions.

There is nothing like an "agent", you've just made it up and applied your own definition to it.

There is nothing like "information", at least in the way you're depicting it as, because the way you're depicting it as is solely based on a premise that 'something must have created it that way'

There is no "message" because you've just assumed that the information "has to be for a purpose".

All of these things can only be used because you needed to distort their actual meanings in order to fit your concept.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Sure and at what point in any of those processes did the rock produce any information?

You've never described what "information" means! You're using it as an empty vessel to add context to your description. "information" can mean anything.

The weight and pressure of rocks can create diamonds, it can create oil, it can create layers found in the geological time scale which hold the information of a specific moment in time. How is that not "information"?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You as an agent have given descriptions to those processes but those processes do not produce information.

WTF is an agent!??!?!

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
At what point could you call the rock an agent during those processes?

I wouldn’t call anything an “agent” because it’s a ridiculous term that means absolutely nothing.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Mathematics are just the medium. You are constantly confusing the medium of information rather than the meaning.

And the delusion continues. Now you’ve applied a new term that equally means nothing and has no explanation.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I haven't personified anything. Are you denying that mRNA and ribosomes exchange information that contains meaning?

“biological systems were caused by something with agency as they can read and utilize input to preform a specific task.”

The “agent” is the thing that you’re personifying. You are directly stating that biology is intrinsically involved with a 'designer' and that it 'designs things' due to it's 'design'

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: theantediluvian

Unless it's God? Or did something/someone create God and if so, who/what created God's creator and who/what created the creator of the creator and so on and so forth? That's an infinite regress.

I'll tell you as I told Ghost. That question is logically incoherent. It is the same as asking when did eternity start? Or what is the shape of purple? The question simply isn't logical.

Look at the bible as a jigsaw puzzle, it can be pieced together.

Genesis 1:1 shouldn’t have happened. The bible assumes that the great usurper exits and never questions that assumption. The earth flooded out proves the great usurper is not an unfounded assumption. The beginning of the universe is in Genesis 1:1. Darkness was upon the earth, it appears the earth is in some kind of black substance. The great usurper and those who helped him out are on the earth, but would they be willing to explore this black substance? This black substance is so dark, the great usurper can’t see his hand in front of his face. Now the earth, the opposite of the created order is ‘nothing,’ (water). But to the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than ‘nothing’ (chaos). 


God just sat for awhile looking at this new black substance structure from his throne room, letting the great usurper sweet it out. As the great usurper sat in this black substance board out of his mind, all of a sudden a wind (invisible force) from God swept over the water. Now God is a spirit being, meaning his body is composed of a substance called spirit. God also has a unique kind of life within that body composed of that substance called spirit, but the life God has within himself produces some kind of light (His glory). It was this glory that used to be the light to the earth, but God couldn’t control it, his glory just shines. As God sat in his throne room, out of nowhere he said, “Let there be light.” 


Now, somehow from God’s throne room he was able to focus his glory into a beam and bounced that beam of glory off of a prism of some kind. The glory beam from the other side of that prism went into that black substance structure, yet that black substance structure contained that glory. So as the great usurper and follow usurpers sat on the earth, as the earth turned, they spend time in that glory and then spend time in that black substance. Time, this is something else unique about this black substance structure, an hour is an hour, something the usurper's never experienced.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: theantediluvian
I'll tell you as I told Ghost. That question is logically incoherent. It is the same as asking when did eternity start?

Except that "eternity" isn't the direct cause of the Universe, The planet, Gravity, Matter, The Human Race, Life on Earth, and morality. These are all things that "god" was said to "directly intervened with".

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: theantediluvian
Or what is the shape of purple? The question simply isn't logical.

By the way, this is the shape of purple:

Purple (violet):

Wavelength: 380–450 nm
Frequency: 668–789 THz
Photon energy: 2.75–3.26 eV

Here's a visual image to help you out.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: DISRAELI

So where did god come from?

The question is logically incoherent. You cannot ask when something not bound by time began, it simply doesn't make sense.

To claim that "god" exists outside the boundaries of time and space is simply to propose that "god" exists in a separate dimension or neighboring universe. It doesn't answer the question of how that dimension or universe arose. In your essays you simply come to the conclusion, and try to convince your readers, that "we can't know what we can't know", therefore, asking is futile.

I disagree. If anything, you have to conclude that there may be infinite dimensions and neighboring universes that exist outside our own, and if that's a requirement of your god, then I propose that there may be infinite "gods" that rule various aspects of dimensional realities.

a reply to: Ghost147

Speak for yourself. I don't make conclusions and then look for answers. The conclusions I've formed were formed from evidence that was gathered. Therefore "the way I interpret information" is not subject to bias based on beliefs. It's a far more accurate way of determining what is and what is not reality and factual.


No. I have come to this conclusion myself through experimentation, education, cross-confirming conclusions and objective observation.

I don't think you go deep enough when looking at your own view. You continue to imply that I get an answer and then come to a conclusion but that is not how I personally came to my views. I think we would both be adherents to methodological naturalism, but your interpretation of the conclusions drawn from that are interpreted in the sense of ontological naturalism where as I interpret it them in a theological perspective. These are areas in which our basics assumptions are different which is why you cannot understand any of the points I have put forth to you.

A gravitational singularity, is a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

First an infinitely small point is rather large compared to any finite point. Second, from my understanding and even the page you posted agrees a singularity is a word for any portion in physics in which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. Its something we have no idea how to observe or understand. You feign this knowledge as to what this singularity is and you call it an infinitely dense ball of matter, but it cannot be matter like what we observe today because it relies upon the existence of space as we know today. So the truth is your inserting an option that is not known. If we are actually going by the world view you claim to follow why have you came to this conclusion rather than taking the appropriate I don't know what was before the first planck time approach?

Not at all. We simply do not know. Proton decay has never been observed, but may be a possibility, and we don't believe that electrons can ever decay, either. We simply do not know the answer to that.

Are you saying its possible that matter is eternal?

But saying that something like a universe creating being - one that would have to interact within space-time to some degree to have any effect at all - does make sense?

I think we have different ideas of what makes something true. I believe something logically incoherent cannot be true. There is nothing logically incoherent about an eternal creator. You might question it's whether or not it is logically sound but nothing about the idea is incoherent. Your question however doesn't make any logical sense. Asking when eternity begins or ends is not a valid question just like asking what is the shape of purple is not a valid question.

Why would it be considered irrelevant to note that your original argument is literally using illogical logic? I've even demonstrated how it is illogical by putting it into a simpler format.

You are claiming that is the logic I am using but it is not. It you simply using dishonest debate tactics.

That's an answer! Stating "the creation of information is dependent upon prior existence of an agent" is the answer you've come to, and then you've looked for information to support it.

That is a statement that I defended right after I said it. You want to argue against the statement when you aren't familiar with the terms I am using....

It's not a matter of me 'thinking they are empty', they literally mean absolutely nothing unless you've personally given those words a specific meaning in order to support your own preconceived conlusions. There is nothing like an "agent", you've just made it up and applied your own definition to it.

The word agent or agency is a philosophical term and it means exactly what I said it means in the OP its not some word I just made up...

There is nothing like "information", at least in the way you're depicting it as, because the way you're depicting it as is solely based on a premise that 'something must have created it that way'

Wrong. I am starting to assume you a purposely misrepresenting me for the sake of argument. I described information in the OP using the color analogy. So yes I did describe what information is.

The weight and pressure of rocks can create diamonds, it can create oil, it can create layers found in the geological time scale which hold the information of a specific moment in time. How is that not "information"?

Because weight and pressure of rock creating a diamond over time is a physical process. Information is what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. It is the message....the random action of weight and pressure creating a diamond doesn't communicate information describing the process as you have done is the production and exchange information.

WTF is an agent!??!?!

I wouldn’t call anything an “agent” because it’s a ridiculous term that means absolutely nothing.

An agent is simply something with agency. Agency is simply the capacity of an entity (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in any given environment.

a reply to: windword

God does not exist in any spatial dimensions. He encompasses all things. If we are looking at dimensions in the way string theory looks at things God would be the entire tenth dimension.

a reply to: Ghost147

Clever. It was to make a point I am sure you know what I meant so why be so childish?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I feel that one of the main problems I have when conversing with people about my personal theological beliefs is a lack of understanding of how I actually view the world.

Okay. Understandable to want people to get to know your PERSONAL view better.

I find that many people lack the ability to separate their thought processes from their own world view.

That is a confusing statement. Because we all THINK about what our world is all about once in a while. That is what THINKING is supposed to be: Making sence of what we experience and solving problems we perceive as being the case. So nothing wrong with that.

This happens the most when we begin to reach the very base assumptions of our world views because those are the parts of our beliefs that we use to interpret and judge reality.

So? What's wrong with assuming and judging about what reality is? What is your definition of reality anyway? Mine is, in the ultra-short version: Reality is species truth.

When you reach this disconnect it is very hard to continue a meaningful conversation if the person is stuck in this box and not willing to step out of that box and allow their thought processes to change to see if what is being said is logically coherent with the presuppositions the other has put forth. So what is a world view?

Who is stuck in what box? WHO is the one who does not allow their thought processes to change? And what is logically coherent or not, is up to discuss in a particular discussion. THAT is what discussions in the realm or religion/spirituality are all about anyway. There is no logic in them, other than we, as the ones who discuss them, give it to. Formal logic, on the other hand, is something that is defined. But we certainly do NOT deal in formal logic here. Would you agree?

I already feel bored to even try to make sense to what you said here in your post. I'll get me another glas of white-wine and will see if I'm more motivated than I am now to discuss your view with you. So far, I'm just bored by your words. Sorry for that.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

God does not exist in any spatial dimensions. He encompasses all things. If we are looking at dimensions in the way string theory looks at things God would be the entire tenth dimension.

This is meaningless. What is "all things" How can there be anything where "god" is not? What the heck is the 10th dimension? How do you know that there aren't 10 to the 10th power of dimensions? Is your god limited to what dimensions HE can exist in?

What makes you think that there is only one HE that exists outside of "spatial" dimensions? Why couldn't there be infinite gods of infinite non-spatial dimensions?

Love isn't spatial. Is love a dimension all to itself? How about ideas? From which dimension do they arise? Are there not infinite ideas (information) in infinite dimensions? When one thinks about it, there can't be any less than an infinite number of gods, if we follow your logic.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ronald Nash defines a world view as a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality.

Yes, that is one way to define what a world view is. Here is my definition of what a "world view" is: It is that what makes the most sense to us, being a body-mind-complex that is somehow programmed by genetics and environmental influences that are the glasses we observe the world, ourselfs and others through.



And can a deeply programmed "world view" be changed by discussions anyway? That is what I doubt sometimes. But I think it can be done, IF one is able an willing to do that. If not, not. And I'm not sure IF you really want to do that. I'm of the impression your main concern is to justify and keep your particular world view. That's why I'm still bored, but out of compassion I'll continue to argue.