mightychurch.com

If God doesn’t design or intervene, what’s he good for?

2009-12-13T09:30:37Z

God doesn’t design… he doesn’t intervene in the world ever either. What’s he good for?

Are we living in a simulation?

2010-05-29T13:38:37Z

I came across the simulation argument the other day, and its fun to think about. (There’s more on Wikipedia.)

Here’s a guy on YouTube explaining the argument in simple terms as an argument for God.

The logic goes something like this: It’s reasonable to think that in the future we’ll have exponentially more powerful greater computers than we do today, and with this power will come the ability to create virtual consciousnesses. (That’s not as far fetched as it sounds, especially if you accept that what is consciousness is just a product of our own neural networks, in the same way a computer game is just the product of hardware + software—an abstraction that is greater than the sum of its parts.)

If, in the future, we can run these simulations, then our only constraint in creating new consciousnesses is computational power—one sentient being with enough computational power could simulate numerous virtual universes, each with billions of consciousnesses. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, it’s much more likely we are one of these virtual consciousnesses, not an original sentient being (or so the argument goes).
The God part comes in when you consider that (a) the posthuman being running the simulation would seem omniscient/omnipotent to those within the simulations; and if one future sentient being could run such a simulation, then how much more could a genuinely omniscient/omnipotent being?

Possible objections to the idea that we are in a simulation now is the probability that we may go extinct before we reach a ‘post human’ stage where we could run these simulations, or for some reason we choose not to run such simulations in the future.
Now all this is just fun to think about, but what I think is interesting is the emergence of the software/hardware metaphors for explanations of reality. The Matrix is the obvious example in pop culture, but it’s interesting to consider ideas of simulations, virtual machines, and consciousness as an abstraction of evolved, physical neural networks (no magic ingredient required), as for me that help me reconcile some religious ideas with what we know about evolution, especially that:
- Who we are (physically, and consciousness) is just an abstraction on top of physical parts, in the same way a computer game world is an abstraction on top of electrical and 1s and 0s
- *Because* of this fact an afterlife is *more* likely (from an evolutionary point of view), because we are just an instruction set that can be emulated, virtual-machine style in another context
- Perhaps this language of simulation and abstraction with computer-based metaphors help us understand claims that God is ‘in control of’ or ‘sustaining’ the universe (which drive me mental) in some way, but I’m still thinking about that.

Anyway, check out the simulation argument and have a think about it :)

Depression- again

2010-05-24T13:31:03Z

I say “again” because it was often dicussed in the old Anglican forum. I’m not sure why, but it is often mentioned in relation to clergy. Probably only because , like politicians, they are in the public spotlight.
I bring it up again because to my way of thinking recent developments are as sensational as landing on the moon.
Quote ” Faulty Circuits” Scientific American April 2010—” Because mental disorders such as depression display no conspicuous brain damage,they were long thought to stem from purely psychological processes.
Neural imaging is revealing that abnormal activity along a circuit of brain structures involved in mental processing underlies many mental disorders, making the phyical dysfunction—-visable for the first time”
” The goal of treatment might be akin to “rebooting ” a computer that has frozen”
Treatment would involve cell culture, electrical pulses and various drugs together or alone.

Just think- if Jesus returns in the near future He would not have to rely on the heavenly Father to expel demons—just give a referal to the nearest Neural Imaging clinic. Now that’s progress.

Best SHORT explanation of “End times” and Revelation stuff

2010-05-07T11:05:11Z

Hi all,
Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind” series seems to be doing the rounds in my neck of the woods, so I’m putting out a new call for any good, fresh articles or podcasts that explain Revelation really well and concisely. Something like a 5 to 10 minute piece on why Revelation is not necessarily a time-line of future events to be interpreted, but more of an A-mil position (but not written as bad as the wiki! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennial

Charles Darwin

2009-11-19T22:29:58Z

I must apologise for bringing Charles Darwin and his natural selection and Origin of Species up again. It has been done to death and then some. Last Sunday on ABC tv an excellent series on Darwin and his friends and family has reignited my passion. Darwin wasn’t the first to think of the evolution of man, but he had the facts and figures to give it scientific worth. Most of the establishment and scientists at the time were literalists, if they thought about it at all.
It took an unusual mix of factors to get his ideas into print. He was bitter towards God for letting two of his children die young. His own health was poor( cyclical vomiting) apparenly partly due to inbreeding. As with most successful men their women are often overlooked as the reason for success or death. Darwins wife Emma had much to put up with, but as a Wedgwood women, she had the money and skills needed to gather support. She was more deeply religious than Charles.
I cannot understand , then or now,why there is so much antagonism between the concepts of creation and evolution. Evolution is evident in the creation story of Genesis. First the light, then ocean, sky,earth,plants, a bit more light, fish,birds animals and humans.
Evolution is also evident in the Old Testament in the creation of the Jewish society. First, as in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and numbers there is great emphasis on laws and rules. As the OT progresses the chapters deal with history,prophecy, beautiful poetry and songs about love and nature, fatherly advice (often stern) and aphorisms, many of which are on our desk calenders today. So for me, evolution and creation go together. There is no conflick and in any case it is not for us to understand God .

Using our God given brains we may work out how some things have occcured, but we are only nibling at eternity.
Why Darwin is so important is also illustrated by good young Joe Hockey (a local boy to ) ,for being criticised by some clerics ( SMH Sat 14/11/09) for offering some of his religious beliefs to the electorate. He wasn’t preaching, just letting us know what he stands for and that IMO is a vital element in a democratic society.
After World WAr 2 we used to here the saying “I might not believe in what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it” Perhaps we should hear this more often.

Final part 3 of Darwin series is on next Sunday 7.30 pm.

What about those who…

2009-02-01T13:44:35Z

What about those who’ve never had the opportunity to respond to the gospel? My concern isn’t about people who’ve heard of Jesus on some inaccurate level e.g. Jesus being good, Jesus being a miracle worker etc. I mean groups such as:

a) Infants
b) Unreached tribal groups
c) Christian schizos who’ve converted but in their ‘bad state’ actively deny God
d) Animals.

What d’ya reckon? I’ve heard from both extremes and everything in between. In asking these questions there may not be a real answer available to us, it could be a case of “waiting until the second coming to see”. But worth asking the questions I suppose…

ARDA Religious Academics

2010-04-15T10:47:45Z

I can’t help giving these evangelical , etherial, cloistered academics a mention. It’s like finding rare orchids in the forrest. They are near http://www.thearda.com.

Who fears a World Government?

2009-10-13T06:52:46Z

Hi all,

I’ve been really interested in the various World Federalist movement lately. As you know I don’t think Federation is a particularly great way to manage Australia, and if we Abolish the States and have ONE unified economy and parliament and legal system for Australia we’d be far better off.

However, the world is a very big place to govern. ;-) So I’m thinking that I’m for Federation, but at the global level. Instead of having diplomats behind closed doors at the UN, we should have democratically accountable open debates in a world parliament. Instead of a kind of voluntary association like the UN with ‘voluntary compliance’ to whatever it decides, we should supe-up the UN (or EU or something else) to become a democratic, accountable, and BINDING legal body on matters of world governance.

We face truly global problems.

As World Citizens Australia says:

“I am not an Athenian, or a Greek, but a citizen of the world” - Socrates
Violence, war, poverty, population explosion, pollution, global warming, resource abuse and monetary disorder!

These are the issues we all face no matter where we come from. Currently no effective way of coming together and solving these problems exist.

World Citizens propose a democratic global parliament be created, where global problems can be discussed and settled, laws to protect us all can be established and people from around the world are able to have a say in global issues that are getting harder to ignore.

I would also add to the list above, “Oil Depletion Protocols, and global financial and taxation rules to limit the powers of unruly multinationals (which are more powerful than some supposedly ‘sovereign nations’).

What do you think about a World Parliament, and how does it make you feel?

Many Christians of the “Left Behind” category kind of fear the rise of the anti-christ with a one world government. Now I’m personally convinced by the Sydney Anglican eschatology which basically sees Revelation as a book explaining theological relationships with our relationship to persecution, our relationship to overall history (that we await the return of our Lord), and of our relationship to ‘beasts’ which are governments opposed to God’s people. But that is ‘beasts’ in the plural, whenever they crop up. As John Dickson said, Revelation is about general theological principles NOW, not some kind of future timetable.
(See “The End of the World as we know it” CPX podcast).
http://cpx.podbean.com/2009/05/11/the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/

What do you think? Are Christians free to pursue a World Parliament as a means to some very important and compassionate ends? (Even if you think it is just a dream.) EG: Social justice policies to prevent civil wars and starvation and atrocities in Africa, etc.

Or do you think Christians supporting such a concept would be co-operating in the rise of the Anti-Christ?

“Absolute” morality - what do you think?

2010-03-28T11:45:04Z

This lines comes up a lot from Christians in atheism discussions, and it’s used as something of a trump card, but when you analyze it, it’s actually (imo) pretty weak.

That said, I’d be interested to hear what you guys think of “absolute” morality - what does it mean to you?

christians In Australia

2009-07-06T21:43:29Z

The Idea for this thread has come from one of michaels last posts.Where he talks about the good commercial practice of asking the customers who are not using your services any more WHY NOT.I describe myself as amongrel Christian Emancipated catholic.having attended services at many different flavours and enjoyed most of them . What this varied journey has taught me is that God is GOD—
_——is GOD how do I know because——-GOD is and it does not have to be any more complicated than that.I will endeavour to post every day as my vision impairment permits .The last church service I went to was a pentecostal service and I will tell tou about it with my next batch of good eye time.
Cheers Ian Lawther.