Not to accuse you of jealousy, but I do have that knee-jerk reaction to degree people who think their "official" path to intense knowledge is the only path. I have often encountered undisguised and overt jealousy at my lack of formal credentials. Jealousy because I sometimes got to sit and brainstorm with academic prizewinners including Nobel and MacArthur.
If I worded anything inaccurately about Godel above, THAT should be the target of your criticism, not my credentials. I will ignore now your opening as trivial and disingenuous itself.
God was very instrumental in opening doors for me to sit with great leaders in academia. This has happened over and over, and the only reason I can figure out why is that I have a job to do in applying my good fortune to bless others.
As for Godel, I had first heard about his stuff in High School, and thought it may be a key to solving mysteries of consciousness and free will. I was not looking for a job in mathematics, just help in working Neuroscience, where I am also a Rogue Scholar. I don't want to be a neuroscientist either; just need info to bless grads and then others.
As for Godel I searched out the best authors on his 2 famous theorems, which were few in 1966 when I started. Then Hofstadter wrote his Pulitzer Prize winning "Godel Escher and Bach." Soon more authors joined the exposition.
The most authoritative treatment of Godel I knew of in the 1990s from Nobel Prize winning physicist two books on consciousness and the mind, starting with The Emperor's New Clothes. I had been waiting for the top level to pick up where Schrodinger's tiny booklet "What is Life?" had left off in the 1930s, and Penrose went full bore on it. But I was still far from anything that could directly help me with the mystery of free will.
Then Hofstadter wrote another Godel book at the 30th anniversary of "Godel Escher and Bach" because he felt no one really got what he was aiming at. This book is "I AM a Strange Loop."
Although his Godel exposition here is superb, and I got some questions answered about Godel numbering, Hofstadter mostly taught me that Godel was NOT going to help me with free will. I loved what I learned about Godel, and can rub shoulders with any person with a degree in it for mutual learning.
If you haven't yet read "I AM a Strange Loop' then I highly recommend it. It has all sorts of surprises in it, and Hofstadter gets surprisingly personal about his private life and emotions than I was expecting. His main focus there is consciousness, and Godel is but one tool in the inquiry.
Wow. 9 paragraphs on peoples writings about Godel. Zero discussion of his first and most far reaching work - incompleteness theory.
Now that you have enlightened us on your oh so inspired credentials how about actually talking about the mans work.
I'm not gonna wait this is important. Godel published two very influential theorems of mathematical logic. They are concerned with the limits of provability of axiomatic math theories.
The first theory states that no consistent systems of axioms is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers.
So this whole line of thinking would negate the idea that it is possible to prove all Biblical truths from scriptural logic, due to inherent limits.
Godel and Fundamentalism would not be good buddies if you get my drift. The God breathed Word is not something that aligns with Godel.
A lot of the functional value of Godel is that he brought an acceptance of vastness and the minuteness of mankind into the mathematical logic and proofs we use today in geometry and algebras.
Keep in mind I am not the one who brought the mathematician into the conversation.
I would say that VPW did not have the slightest clue about Godel, including missing the major points of his well known publications. And someone searching for secondhand Easter eggs in all of this I would just say would have a proclivity to conspiracy theory. In that I see the similarity to VP.
Yes...please do tell, before I completely abondon this thread to the insanity I know is coming...lol
That was referring to the earlier:
"So, this implies that some parts are and some parts aren't."
YES, that is what what is written in compact form: some is God-breathed and some isn't.
It is from other Easter Eggs, ah, er, I mean.... other hidden or obscure passages that I learn more about the portion that is God-breathed. Meanwhile, we can be pretty sure his love letters to Dotsie weren't, his grocery lists weren't, his Corps memos probably not, etc
It is in TNDC page 37, hidden in at the end of an elementary chapter, that we read "... you will find that every word I have written to you is true."
Ever seen that little EGGSQUISITE passage? You probably did when you first got into the Word. Most of us saw it early like that, but a few years later, when we got arrogant and thought we had mastered that chapter, it completely eluded us. Hardly anyone knows it is there now. It helps me narrow down which writings are God-breathed.
Another WELL hidden item is VPW's last/lost teaching, that 99% of non-Corps grads never knew about. In that last MOST IMPORTANT teaching he TWICE tells us to master the written materials that come with the class. A huge colorful Easter Egg to me!
I still have some work to do on further defining these boundaries.
There are other Eggs I have for to share here, but that's enough for now. I am on the lookout for more as I study.
I am under the impression that in newer PFAL books page 83 is unchanged.
I'll have to check.
"So, this implies that some parts are and some parts aren't."
Did you notice that little word "implies"? Now couple that with "not...necessarily".
It doesn't mean that some parts are and some parts aren't. It only implies that some parts may be God-breathed. Then, again, maybe none of it is God-breathed. It's not stating an absolute. There is an element of uncertainty. So, the question remains, how do you determine which parts might be God-breathed and which parts might not be God-breathed? Or, for that matter, that any of it is God-breathed. "Not-necessarily" is not an Easter egg as you call it. It's simply a common phrase that people use to indicate a lack of absolute certainty.
Did you notice that little word "implies"? Now couple that with "not...necessarily".
It doesn't mean that some parts are and some parts aren't. It only implies that some parts may be God-breathed. Then, again, maybe none of it is God-breathed. It's not stating an absolute. There is an element of uncertainty. So, the question remains, how do you determine which parts might be God-breathed and which parts might not be God-breathed? Or, for that matter, that any of it is God-breathed. "Not-necessarily" is not an Easter egg as you call it. It's simply a common phrase that people use to indicate a lack of absolute certainty.
Bad grammar on your part. Ask a grammar expert.
But, Waysider, I see you started a similar thread, and I will leave you folks alone there.It is not my intention to derail. I think most of my posts that go off topic are due to responding to challenges posed to me.
In that thread, “Another PFAL Class Full of Dead Men's Bones,” you posted something there that is pertinent here also. My comments are in red.
Another iteration of the PFAL class. No matter how many times TWI staff tries to collaborate efforts on foundational constructs and principles, they continue to fail. They are blinded by self-importance and a haughty spirit of pride that obstructs them from a spiritual relationship with the Lord. I agree this prevailed from the mid 80s until now, but with diminishing intensity on the “self-importance and a haughty spirit of pride.”
1. Power for Abundant Living (1967). Wierwille plagiarized wholesale from B.G. Leonard (stolen class) Totally bogus.VPW was given the go ahead God to use anything that He had given to B. G. Leonard.
2. PFAL '77. Wierwille attempted to update this class in 1977 (failed)WRONG !!! . That mission to replace the ’68 film class with PFAL’77 was ABORTED when VPW was told by God that he was wrong in doing that project. The replacement idea was scrubbed at that time, before the new class started.I was in the BRC lunchroom when he announced this to at least a hundred people, just 4 days before the start of PFAL’77.In the SNT tape 1 day before PFAL’77 started, some of the same comments were made again.
3. Way of Abundance and Power Class (1996). Martindale's attempt. A class filled with sport analogies and jockstrap ego. (crash & burn) I TOTALLY AGREE
4. WAP Class Update (2004 ?). Three Amigos teach sections. Still has the lingering effects and questions of Craig Martindale's presidency and cover-up. I TOTALLY AGREE
5. Power for Abundant Living Today (2022). Shiny and new. Makes it looks like twi is actually doing something rather than just serving refried teachings over and over again. I TOTALLY AGREE ..... but I also think many of them are reachable now in private.A few have contacted me from seeing my posts here.Some have admitted to me that they now have their own bootleg copies of PFAL, and only tolerate leadership for the materials, and pray for their enlightenment and healing.
You seem to be the grammar expert, so I'm asking you.
Thanks for the compliment, but I had to ask experts to be sure.
I am good at it, but not expert.
I'll go thru the beginning steps, again.
But first let me emphasize something that I have said 50 times here including a bunch in recent years.
This sentence in question is a huge claim by VPW if my grammar analysis is correct.
HOWEVER, just because he claims that doesn't mean he is correct in claiming it.
Are you surprised to hear me say that? If so, you have not been paying enough attention to the details of what I post. I have said it often here.
More math talk:
I cannot prove that VPW is correct in this page 83 sentence, any more than I can derive God's existence from logic.
I have never tried to prove that written PFAL is God-breathed.
What I have proved over and over is that all you folks missed a lot and forgot a lot.
I can prove that Dr had many HUGE claims that slipped by you all unnoticed.
I posted 22 such claims here 15 years ago. Did you miss them?
I posted 3 such claims in the past few days. The other two are TNDC 37, 116
My logic is:
If you missed these hidden statements, how many other things did you miss or forget?
I am constantly finding other things that were missed.
So my logic is, since you folks missed all these huge claims, you can't be trusted to criticize the class or books. You are not done absorbing them and far from mastering them. Your criticisms are totally bogus due to persistent and deliberate incompetence, IMO.
**********************
PFAL p. 83
"Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Of course you want that to say:
"None that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed."
...or other similar forgeries.
*/*/*
The words "not all" mean "some" because if I eat NOT ALL of a pizza, then there is SOME left for you.
So that legitimately transforms the original sentence to:
"Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Ok, that's already a huge claim. You can look elsewhere in my posts here on how to handle the word "necessarily." That word makes the claim even bigger.
You said that like it's something that IF a person wanted to, s/he COULD forbid God from working with sinful men...
Oh, I have seen many forbid the possibility that God could or would do that. Aren't you doing that? Isn't my breaking this forbidden idea what's got everyone riled up against me?
I think this may be similar to the situation where HAD Jesus claimed to BE God, it wouldn't have bothered the Pharisees much, and wouldn't have threatened their authority. Why should they waste energy on shutting up a crazy man claiming the impossible.
But we see from the accuracy of the Word that Jesus did NOT claim to be God, but the Son of God. THAT was not so impossible, AND it severely threatened their authority. What Jesus was claiming had some POSSIBLE merit to it and they could not allow that to be even pondered, so the pulled out all the stops to stop him.
So, I come along and say something that CLEARLY is possible for a powerful and loving God, that he would clarify all our mixed up, flawed Bible versions and give us a FRESH start with God-breathed words to build into our lives, no in depth research needed.
It clearly IS possible for God to do this, and that's why you all must find any way to shut me up or make me look silly to lurking readers. You can't really attack my logic or my data, so you attack me. You fear "authority" as whistle blowers will be blown.
No need to go into Godel numbering. A basic discussion of incompleteness theorems would suffice.
This is way more than remotely connected.
Hey, if you think it is important, post it yourself.
I don't think it is important fore me to bother with, unless you are baiting me for an ambush, and then I know it is not important. I could not care less if you don't believe I studied it or understand it.
Let's see your exposition. I an not baiting you, but relish the thought of learning more. Unlike most authors I can ask you questions if I don't understand a portion.
Godel has been described as one of the most difficult intellectual pursuits in the Western culture, but that was long ago, and before Hofstadter made it a little easier 40 years ago, and then more so 15 years ago.
Mike said: "You can't really attack my logic or my data, so you attack me.
Seriously?
I didn't attack you. But you're saying I "fear" authority? You? Are you claiming to be authority? Are you claiming to be a whistleblower?
That's just silly.
Sorry. A typo on my part.
Slightly rewording it:
You fear that your "authority" as GSC expert whistle blowers will be blown."
You see, if I am right then you folks are VERY wrong and in spiritually deep do do. So I MUST be right or you lose all that you have built for yourselves. If I am right then you are as wrong as the Pharisees for not recognizing good.
If I am wrong, it is not that big a deal to me, nor to God. I've been wrong before, and forgiven. It's easy for me to bounce back from my errors.
Besides, my PFAL stand means I absorb LOTS of KJV verses in my PFAL study, and what I am judged for is how I walk in love.
If you folks are found guilty of trashing God's biggest work in 2,000 years, the restoration of His Word, then you will soon be knowing how Judas felt at the day of Pentecost.
So, you folks just MUST be right and I must be either stopped or discredited.
I look confidently at the bema NOT for how I proved things to you, or how many Easter Eggs I find. I will be judged for how I LIVED what is taught in just about any flawed version of the Bible.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
65
71
161
68
Popular Days
May 28
50
Apr 30
49
May 2
41
May 10
37
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 65 posts
waysider 71 posts
Bolshevik 161 posts
Nathan_Jr 68 posts
Popular Days
May 28 2022
50 posts
Apr 30 2022
49 posts
May 2 2022
41 posts
May 10 2022
37 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
Scripture, The Bible, is not *a* language. "It interprets itself", though.
T-Bone
Excerpts from the first draft for a totally revised burnt orange book “Power For Materialistic Living Today”, page 3, Introduction: The Materialistic Life …This post literally changed my life. My
Raf
It is almost impossible to overstate how much this reeks of bullcrap. I'll be gentle: If Euclidian geometry were wrong on one point, Euclidian geometry would be perfectly content to remove
Posted Images
OldSkool
Yes...please do tell, before I completely abondon this thread to the insanity I know is coming...lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Is it time to move this thread to Just Plain Silly?
Who cares, anyway? Hands up, now!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Wow. 9 paragraphs on peoples writings about Godel. Zero discussion of his first and most far reaching work - incompleteness theory.
Now that you have enlightened us on your oh so inspired credentials how about actually talking about the mans work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I'm not gonna wait this is important. Godel published two very influential theorems of mathematical logic. They are concerned with the limits of provability of axiomatic math theories.
The first theory states that no consistent systems of axioms is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers.
So this whole line of thinking would negate the idea that it is possible to prove all Biblical truths from scriptural logic, due to inherent limits.
Godel and Fundamentalism would not be good buddies if you get my drift. The God breathed Word is not something that aligns with Godel.
A lot of the functional value of Godel is that he brought an acceptance of vastness and the minuteness of mankind into the mathematical logic and proofs we use today in geometry and algebras.
Keep in mind I am not the one who brought the mathematician into the conversation.
I would say that VPW did not have the slightest clue about Godel, including missing the major points of his well known publications. And someone searching for secondhand Easter eggs in all of this I would just say would have a proclivity to conspiracy theory. In that I see the similarity to VP.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That was referring to the earlier:
"So, this implies that some parts are and some parts aren't."
YES, that is what what is written in compact form: some is God-breathed and some isn't.
It is from other Easter Eggs, ah, er, I mean.... other hidden or obscure passages that I learn more about the portion that is God-breathed. Meanwhile, we can be pretty sure his love letters to Dotsie weren't, his grocery lists weren't, his Corps memos probably not, etc
It is in TNDC page 37, hidden in at the end of an elementary chapter, that we read "... you will find that every word I have written to you is true."
Ever seen that little EGGSQUISITE passage? You probably did when you first got into the Word. Most of us saw it early like that, but a few years later, when we got arrogant and thought we had mastered that chapter, it completely eluded us. Hardly anyone knows it is there now. It helps me narrow down which writings are God-breathed.
Another WELL hidden item is VPW's last/lost teaching, that 99% of non-Corps grads never knew about. In that last MOST IMPORTANT teaching he TWICE tells us to master the written materials that come with the class. A huge colorful Easter Egg to me!
I still have some work to do on further defining these boundaries.
There are other Eggs I have for to share here, but that's enough for now. I am on the lookout for more as I study.
I am under the impression that in newer PFAL books page 83 is unchanged.
I'll have to check.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No it isnt. Im done here Mike. I truly hope your eyes open at some point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't think this is the place to go into such detail. How many could follow it? I think you are just trying to drag my arse here.
Edited by MikeHow many people can follow Godel Numbering? I couldn't for years.
I forget how we even got onto Godel. He is only remotely connected to what we talk about here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/animals-count-numbers.html
Blah blah blah .. . Blah blah . . . Blah blah blah blah blah
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Did you notice that little word "implies"? Now couple that with "not...necessarily".
It doesn't mean that some parts are and some parts aren't. It only implies that some parts may be God-breathed. Then, again, maybe none of it is God-breathed. It's not stating an absolute. There is an element of uncertainty. So, the question remains, how do you determine which parts might be God-breathed and which parts might not be God-breathed? Or, for that matter, that any of it is God-breathed. "Not-necessarily" is not an Easter egg as you call it. It's simply a common phrase that people use to indicate a lack of absolute certainty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Bad grammar on your part. Ask a grammar expert.
But, Waysider, I see you started a similar thread, and I will leave you folks alone there. It is not my intention to derail. I think most of my posts that go off topic are due to responding to challenges posed to me.
In that thread, “Another PFAL Class Full of Dead Men's Bones,” you posted something there that is pertinent here also. My comments are in red.
Another iteration of the PFAL class. No matter how many times TWI staff tries to collaborate efforts on foundational constructs and principles, they continue to fail. They are blinded by self-importance and a haughty spirit of pride that obstructs them from a spiritual relationship with the Lord. I agree this prevailed from the mid 80s until now, but with diminishing intensity on the “self-importance and a haughty spirit of pride.”
1. Power for Abundant Living (1967). Wierwille plagiarized wholesale from B.G. Leonard (stolen class) Totally bogus. VPW was given the go ahead God to use anything that He had given to B. G. Leonard.
2. PFAL '77. Wierwille attempted to update this class in 1977 (failed) WRONG !!! . That mission to replace the ’68 film class with PFAL’77 was ABORTED when VPW was told by God that he was wrong in doing that project. The replacement idea was scrubbed at that time, before the new class started. I was in the BRC lunchroom when he announced this to at least a hundred people, just 4 days before the start of PFAL’77. In the SNT tape 1 day before PFAL’77 started, some of the same comments were made again.
3. Way of Abundance and Power Class (1996). Martindale's attempt. A class filled with sport analogies and jockstrap ego. (crash & burn) I TOTALLY AGREE
4. WAP Class Update (2004 ?). Three Amigos teach sections. Still has the lingering effects and questions of Craig Martindale's presidency and cover-up. I TOTALLY AGREE
5. Power for Abundant Living Today (2022). Shiny and new. Makes it looks like twi is actually doing something rather than just serving refried teachings over and over again. I TOTALLY AGREE ..... but I also think many of them are reachable now in private. A few have contacted me from seeing my posts here. Some have admitted to me that they now have their own bootleg copies of PFAL, and only tolerate leadership for the materials, and pray for their enlightenment and healing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You seem to be the grammar expert, so I'm asking you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks for the compliment, but I had to ask experts to be sure.
I am good at it, but not expert.
I'll go thru the beginning steps, again.
But first let me emphasize something that I have said 50 times here including a bunch in recent years.
This sentence in question is a huge claim by VPW if my grammar analysis is correct.
HOWEVER, just because he claims that doesn't mean he is correct in claiming it.
Are you surprised to hear me say that? If so, you have not been paying enough attention to the details of what I post. I have said it often here.
More math talk:
I cannot prove that VPW is correct in this page 83 sentence, any more than I can derive God's existence from logic.
I have never tried to prove that written PFAL is God-breathed.
What I have proved over and over is that all you folks missed a lot and forgot a lot.
I can prove that Dr had many HUGE claims that slipped by you all unnoticed.
I posted 22 such claims here 15 years ago. Did you miss them?
I posted 3 such claims in the past few days. The other two are TNDC 37, 116
My logic is:
If you missed these hidden statements, how many other things did you miss or forget?
I am constantly finding other things that were missed.
So my logic is, since you folks missed all these huge claims, you can't be trusted to criticize the class or books. You are not done absorbing them and far from mastering them. Your criticisms are totally bogus due to persistent and deliberate incompetence, IMO.
**********************
PFAL p. 83
"Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Of course you want that to say:
"None that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed."
...or other similar forgeries.
*/*/*
The words "not all" mean "some" because if I eat NOT ALL of a pizza, then there is SOME left for you.
So that legitimately transforms the original sentence to:
"Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Ok, that's already a huge claim. You can look elsewhere in my posts here on how to handle the word "necessarily." That word makes the claim even bigger.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When I was a little boy, my Mommy told me it's not nice to fib.
You know what I want to say, now? Are you a mind reader, too?
On second thought, maybe you're not really the grammar expert you think you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How Wierwille's words became God-breathed:
HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You said that like it's something that IF a person wanted to, s/he COULD forbid God from working with sinful men...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe it's a grammar thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh, I have seen many forbid the possibility that God could or would do that. Aren't you doing that? Isn't my breaking this forbidden idea what's got everyone riled up against me?
I think this may be similar to the situation where HAD Jesus claimed to BE God, it wouldn't have bothered the Pharisees much, and wouldn't have threatened their authority. Why should they waste energy on shutting up a crazy man claiming the impossible.
But we see from the accuracy of the Word that Jesus did NOT claim to be God, but the Son of God. THAT was not so impossible, AND it severely threatened their authority. What Jesus was claiming had some POSSIBLE merit to it and they could not allow that to be even pondered, so the pulled out all the stops to stop him.
So, I come along and say something that CLEARLY is possible for a powerful and loving God, that he would clarify all our mixed up, flawed Bible versions and give us a FRESH start with God-breathed words to build into our lives, no in depth research needed.
It clearly IS possible for God to do this, and that's why you all must find any way to shut me up or make me look silly to lurking readers. You can't really attack my logic or my data, so you attack me. You fear "authority" as whistle blowers will be blown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How big IS this audience watching you joust against the forces of "you all"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How big would rattle you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No need to go into Godel numbering. A basic discussion of incompleteness theorems would suffice.
This is way more than remotely connected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike said: "You can't really attack my logic or my data, so you attack me. You fear "authority" as whistle blowers will be blown."
That's just silly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hey, if you think it is important, post it yourself.
I don't think it is important fore me to bother with, unless you are baiting me for an ambush, and then I know it is not important. I could not care less if you don't believe I studied it or understand it.
Let's see your exposition. I an not baiting you, but relish the thought of learning more. Unlike most authors I can ask you questions if I don't understand a portion.
Godel has been described as one of the most difficult intellectual pursuits in the Western culture, but that was long ago, and before Hofstadter made it a little easier 40 years ago, and then more so 15 years ago.
The Godel floor is yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry. A typo on my part.
Slightly rewording it:
You fear that your "authority" as GSC expert whistle blowers will be blown."
You see, if I am right then you folks are VERY wrong and in spiritually deep do do. So I MUST be right or you lose all that you have built for yourselves. If I am right then you are as wrong as the Pharisees for not recognizing good.
If I am wrong, it is not that big a deal to me, nor to God. I've been wrong before, and forgiven. It's easy for me to bounce back from my errors.
Besides, my PFAL stand means I absorb LOTS of KJV verses in my PFAL study, and what I am judged for is how I walk in love.
If you folks are found guilty of trashing God's biggest work in 2,000 years, the restoration of His Word, then you will soon be knowing how Judas felt at the day of Pentecost.
So, you folks just MUST be right and I must be either stopped or discredited.
I look confidently at the bema NOT for how I proved things to you, or how many Easter Eggs I find. I will be judged for how I LIVED what is taught in just about any flawed version of the Bible.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Why would it be so much more catastrophic for anyone (here) who is not you? Still absurd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.