Young Sheldon beats a pastor at the God game

Young Sheldon is the precursor to Older Sheldon in the popular TV series, The Big Bang Theory. So says Wikipedia. Here's a video of Young Sheldon showing his scientific and logical skills as he gets the best of a church pastor. This clip gets Einstein wrong. He didn't believe in the Christian God. Einstein believed in Spinoza's god, which is Nature.

Comments

[vinny]

Science is based upon " unified field " " atomic energy " which is shabd , nothing but shabd.

[Goku]

So, you are also a fan of the show(s)?

[Spencer Tepper]

Science is merely our best attempt to leverage mechanical means, principles of objective measurement and thinking, hypothesis creation, reality testing, and refined theory development to understand this already existing reality. Science is superior to rhetoric, but where people try to use science to answer questions outside the current technical capacity of science, they are no longer scientific.

In this video young Sheldon dispels some common rhetoric of religion, but cannot touch upon the question of God.

If God were our human conception of Him, there is no God.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the human mind cannot understand God. Even the Bible says so in many places.

In this way young Sheldon is a better representative of the Bible than this preacher, who offers rhetoric not found anywhere in the Bible. But then again this preacher is the literary foil invented by the script writers.

The foremost evidence of bias in thinking is when a straw man is created by one side in the image of their opposition as a means to disprove the opposition. When you see that you are not seeing an objective picture. You are seeing rhetoric again, Masquerading as reason and science.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Spencer : "Science is merely our best attempt to leverage mechanical means, principles of objective measurement and thinking, hypothesis creation, reality testing, and refined theory development to understand this already existing reality."

Why "merely"?

If God were our human conception of Him, there is no God.

(a) That does not follow, does it now?
(b) Even granting (only for the sake of argument) that the latter does follow from the former, does this really take the argument forward? Perhaps there is no God. Perhaps.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the human mind cannot understand God. Even the Bible says so in many places.

Does it matter what St Thomas Aquinas wrote? Does it matter what the Bible says?

Not discounting what they've said just because they've said it, not for a minute. That would be erring on the opposite direction!

But to give any weight to what they've said, wouldn't you need to reference all of their arguments here? To make those arguments, wouldn't you need to actually make them? Just the fact that they've said these things, what does that matter?

this preacher is the literary foil invented by the script writers. The foremost evidence of bias in thinking is when a straw man is created by one side in the image of their opposition as a means to disprove the opposition.

Agreed. Just fiction, no more. But I enjoyed it nevertheless!

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative!

Nice to hear from you:

You had some questions of my post....here are my efforts to reply.

You wrote:

"Quote Spencer : "Science is merely our best attempt to leverage mechanical means, principles of objective measurement and thinking, hypothesis creation, reality testing, and refined theory development to understand this already existing reality."

Why "merely"?"

Because any explanation of reality is only an abstract concept. It may be an accurate picture, or a faded photo, or a crayon drawing. But science isn't reality. Science attempts to accurately reflect reality. Science will never actually be reality. And Science admits it only understands a relatively small portion of reality. There is far more there to experience than science can accurately detail.

You cited my statement and replied:

"If God were our human conception of Him, there is no God.

(a) That does not follow, does it now?
(b) Even granting (only for the sake of argument) that the latter does follow from the former, does this really take the argument forward? Perhaps there is no God. Perhaps."

Argumentation is a function of mental conception. It seeks to get to the most accurate mental conception. Argument can use science, either objectively or in a slanted way. Argumentation tries to replace one conception with another. That's the best it can do.

But no conception is real. Reality is separate. Whatever our tiny brain can try to ferret out as God is not going to be God and because it lacks measurable data, it will be sorely biased and inaccurate.

You cited my quote and responded.

"St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the human mind cannot understand God. Even the Bible says so in many places.

Does it matter what St Thomas Aquinas wrote? Does it matter what the Bible says?

Not discounting what they've said just because they've said it, not for a minute. That would be erring on the opposite direction!"

St. Acquinas and the Bible are merely references from other thinkers and philosophers, and lovers of God from long past. If you read them, and find value in them, that is to your benefit. I refer to them as a shorthand. The notion that the human mind cannot comprehend accurately God, because God is not part of this system, He is the entire system and more, is not a new notion. It is a very old notion.

In scientific terms, we can only test what we can manipulate. If you can't manipulate a variable in some way, at best you will have correlation, but not causality. And God can't be measured because is not a reduce-able element of the creation. He is all of it and beyond. Every effort to try to claim one element, one event, one idea is God, for the purposes of testing that, is already false.

God can't be tested, not because He isn't the ultimate reality, but because our mechanism and method for testing reality in science is restricted to what are called Independent Variables. In God all variables are dependent. Hence, He is beyond both conception and scientific measurement. However, He is not beyond experience.

In short, in this regard, St. Acquinas, the Bible and the Saints are absolutely accurate and in accord. That is their own witness of God, their reported observation.

You wrote:
"But to give any weight to what they've said, wouldn't you need to reference all of their arguments here? To make those arguments, wouldn't you need to actually make them? Just the fact that they've said these things, what does that matter?"

It only matters to provide you with a point for your own investigation. And as a reference if you are familiar with their works.

My point is only that my argument has corroboration from others renowned in this field of inquiry.

You wrote:

"this preacher is the literary foil invented by the script writers. The foremost evidence of bias in thinking is when a straw man is created by one side in the image of their opposition as a means to disprove the opposition.

Agreed. Just fiction, no more. But I enjoyed it nevertheless!"

Yes, to honor the effort, it must be said there is more than fiction here. Which is why Brian posted the video. While they have made a straw man of religious arguments, the points they placed into the mouth of their preacher actor are real (albeit false) arguments made by fundamentalists in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. So they have attempted to be accurate, but not complete.

[Jen]

“In God all variables are dependent. Hence, He is beyond both conception and scientific measurement. However, He is not beyond experience.
In short, in this regard, St. Acquinas, the Bible and the Saints are absolutely accurate and in accord. That is their own witness of God, their reported observation.”

Spencer, shamans have visions and out of body experiences and we don’t call them saints. Sure, they use hallucinogenic drugs but how do we know the truth about the altered states of consciousness stories in the Bible.

We believe what we want to believe in. We also manifest inner experiences from our beliefs.

Found this article. Gotta laugh…

When Moses received the Ten Commandments from God, he was summoned right to the top of Mount Sinai.
But the man who led the Children of Israel to safety may have been even higher at the time, if an Israeli academic is to be believed.

Psychology professor Benny Shanon says it was likely Moses was hallucinating under the influence of a mind-altering drug at the time of his biblical achievements.

To back up his theory, Professor Shanon says the acacia tree, frequently mentioned in the Bible, contains one of the most psychedelic substances known to man.

The professor, who came up with his theory after experiencing firsthand the effects of a hallucinogenic brew used in religious rituals in Brazil, said the story of Moses and the burning bush also had the hallmarks of a psychedelic experience.

The account in the Book of Exodus of the bush's ability to burn without being "consumed" is generally attributed to the presence and power of God.

High of the beholder? Moses and the burning bush. The acacia tree, frequently mentioned in the Bible, contains one of the most psychedelic substances known to man

But to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Professor Shanon, who freely admits to having experimented with mind-bending substance "about 160 times in various locales in contexts", it is evidence of the power of drugs.

Writing in the journal Time And Mind, the professor said the telltale signs of drug-induced visions included a loss of sense of time, seeing bright lights or fire, the blurring of the senses and profound religious and spiritual feelings.

"I propose that this event involved no change in the real world, having nothing to do with either the bush or the fire," he said.

"Rather, it is reflected in the radical alteration in the state of consciousness of the beholder - that is, Moses.

"Moses's sense of time changed and an actual moment in physical time was subjectively perceived as an eternity...enough time for the bush in front of him to be burnt and consumed.

"But in the external physical domain, only a fraction of a second had elapsed, hence no actual change in the bush was perceived."

According to the professor, Moses was not alone in dabbling with drugs, with the assembled Children of Israel likely to have been in "an altered state of awareness" when Moses brought the Ten Commandments down from Mount Sinai.

Professor Shanon told Israeli radio: "As far as Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics."

Even a description of Moses with "shining skin" is seen as a reference to the euphoric, sweat-inducing effects associated with drug use.

He concludes: "Admittedly, the smoking gun is not available to us.

However, so many clues present themselves, which, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, seem to cohere into a intriguing, unified whole.

"I leave it to the reader to pass his or her judgment."

Some judgments, however, were less than kind.

Orthodox rabbi Yuval Sherlow stressed that the Bible was trying to convey "very profound" events.

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "For people who believe in such a God, it is perfectly rational for Him to be acting in a supernatural way."

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jen!

You wrote:
"Spencer, shamans have visions and out of body experiences and we don’t call them saints. Sure, they use hallucinogenic drugs but how do we know the truth about the altered states of consciousness stories in the Bible."

It is difficult to say what is going on in someone else's head. So, if a person says "I see a blue car will come down the road next" and then an orange car does, you can claim that this was in error. The perception may have been a hallucination. The internal experience did not corroborate with reality.

When Pythagoras claimed he had seen the earth from space, and it looked like a round ball with patches of leather for the land, he was in fact correct. Whatever his internal experience was corroborated with reality. It may have been any number of things internally. But it was accurate.

The mystic tests reality as often as a baby learning to walk. And as often finds a new way to see and hear and experience, just as a baby discovers how to put together all the stimuli coming to the brain from its arms and legs.

If you take this approach, you will understand that the brain is highly accurate in measuring and predicting and adjusting to all things that have a system of continuous feedback - the sensory stimulation.

Meditation is no different. There are internal stimuli we see, feel and hear with our senses. When we quiet the mind we witness them more fully, including the imagination.

And we learn to distinguish, and control these, at least to the extent of reducing their influence. As we lessen the influence of the external senses, then the thoughts of the mind become clearer. And when we lessen those, we have other experiences that were hidden behind them.

The degree to which those experiences are repeatable, testable, controllable, helps the long term mediator more accurately understand them, just as the brain of a dancer, an athlete, a champion snowboarder is highly accurate in judging balance and movement, using all the available senses. To you and I we can't imagine the kind of intense flow of information from the body which the athlete adroit uses instant by instant.

So similarly, those with no knowledge of the inner senses do not understand that reality. It's not real for them.

Heightening our sensitivity to what is going on around us is the opposite of hallucination.

And then, from that perspective, we see that most people are actually living in a dream, one they cling to but which isn't real.

[Jen]

Spencer,

I like "The mystic tests reality as often as a baby learning to walk." Also, "It is difficult to say what is going on in someone else's head."

When we notice our disagreement with another's perspective this can also help to a better understanding of ourselves, our own projections.

"And then, from that perspective, we see that most people are actually living in a dream, one they cling to but which isn't real."

My favourite fallback perspective when trying to figure things out, when questioning so called reality, is that this life is illusionary anyway :)

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jen

You wrote:
"My favourite fallback perspective when trying to figure things out, when questioning so called reality, is that this life is illusionary anyway :)"

Sometimes I think I'm just a minor character in someone else's dream. Not God's dream, just some other shmuck. As a fictional character, I only get snippets of thought here and there. Not a hero. Just one of those people at the new stand in the background behind the hero. That was my purpose? Just 6 seconds on film. That was it?

I find myself in one scene or another and don't actually get to live a full life between them. But then if all life is like this, the "normal" life between those shots doesn't actually exist for anyone.

;)

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer - how is God? How is that insecure creator doing?

[D.r]

It's easy to be atheist. You don't have to bother to think much any longer.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Arjuna
Don't you know? He's inside you. Have a chat.

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer - nah sick and tired and wary now of seeking a God who is a CHILD. That power from whence we come is a real sociopath. Have you ever enlisted in the army or military? You will see what God does then. It will open your eyes

I do believe he exists - however there is no one in earth who knows him.

[Jen]

Spencer: "Sometimes I think I'm just a minor character in someone else's dream. Not God's dream, just some other shmuck."

This sounds like an awakening, enlightenment already! Check out the link that "me" has posted in the "atheist interpretation of the lord's prayer". I haven't read it all yet but maybe this is what life is all about. We could be characters living in some kind of computer game run by aliens heh.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Arjuna
You wrote
"sick and tired and wary now of seeking a God who is a CHILD. That power from whence we come is a real sociopath. Have you ever enlisted in the army or military? You will see what God does then. It will open your eyes

I do believe he exists - however there is no one in earth who knows him."

Nothing is more horrifying, nothing, than to see what you yourself have done. But it's given to you when you have the strength to tolerate it.

Until then we see horror everywhere else, in denial and projection of our own life long, long ago, buried deep inside of us. Go there. Conquer your only true foe, slay the leviathan, crush the secret conspiracy.

That battle is within you, as it is within each of us. It's the only one worth fighting, the only one you have a chance of winning, because, although a fierce enemy is there, there is your friend also, where no other friend can help you.

The conspiracy isn't just the x files. It's all the files, A to Z.

Point to anyone, anything. There's no end to it, except within, and that comes at a small price
.. Effort under all circumstances. You are dragging with you your own enemy. You used to drink and joke with him. You thought he was clever, sly, seductive. But he is nothing more than a drunkard, and a felon on parole.

To put forth effort under his withering and sarcastic remarks may be a little bit of a challenge, until you realize he isn't real, he is your own invention.

[Spencer Tepper]

One final point Arjuna.
When that internal effort brings you to the beast within, as you raise you sword only to have that beast raise ten more, you will discover the secret of its anihilation: forgiveness.

[777]

I can really not understand what is so difficult
to agree with the FACT that Sheldon is God
c q Brian's "presence" or "existence"

There is no valuable argument for anything else
Before Abraham I AM - - That's just IT

Everything is our own doing

This is a sublime creation , even without hearing/being
the sweet Anahabad Shabd Vibration

777

[D.r]

Jen, does wine go down well with meditation?

Jesus turned water into fine wine.

[Jen]

D.r - you do make me smile - thanks 😄