Why Did God Create......

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, you can’t objectively prove morality.

Prove that people should love each other.

Prove that people have a right to life, liberty, and happiness.

Prove that taking illegal drugs is wrong.
[/quote]
If there is no objective reasoning behind each statement, they are all arbitrary and hence meaningless. So yes, there is objective truth, but no we don’t necessarily understand it. Not understanding it does not mean the same as not existing.

[quote]
The reason you believe I don’t get the cosmological argument is because I don’t agree with you. It’s as simple as that. You think it’s self-evident that an infinite regress is impossible. I disagree. You’re practicing the same confirmatory bias as any other believer or nonbeliever, rationalizing why you must be right and anyone who disagrees with you must be mistaken. I know you don’t see it that way, but such is the nature of confirmatory bias. Only very, very rarely do people see it in themselves.[/quote]

No, Ephrem get’s it and he disagrees with me, but he understands the argument. It isn’t that I think an infinite regress is impossible. It is actually impossible, to think it is is to misunderstand reductive reasoning. It’s so much an impossibility that its a logical fallacy. It’s in the list of logical fallacies. It is a logical error because it requires the essence of itself to be true, which is circular reasoning. The essence of a think isn’t sufficient to explain anything about a thing. I didn’t make this up out of thin air. This is a documented well known fallacy of logic and an argument that contains one is invalid, period. There is no way around it. There is no reworking the laws of logic so it might kinda sorta work…
There are two ways to understand it, try to go in to a infinite regress and it will be self evident very quickly why it’s impossible. I cannot help but to think that you cannot get past the ‘infinite’ part of the problem. Infinity isn’t the problem. That which is finite cannot be infinite, that which is finite can’t be both finite and infinite.
It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement for that is an opinion and cosmology is an argument, not an opinion. You have an opinion of the argument but an opinion isn’t a counter argument, nor does it say anything about the conclusion other than you do not like it. Confirmatory bias has nothing to do with the validity of the argument, it’s the premises that make the argument valid, not anybodies opinion on the matter.

642

[quote]pat wrote:
You can’t just drop a bomb and walk away, you have to defend it.[/quote]

I never defend my crop dusting. Specially after eating steak.

643

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
“Do not search for the truth;
only cease to cherish opinions.”

Seng-ts’an - 3rd Zen Partriarch

“To free yourself from all the error’s inherent in the truths we snatch at…”

Carl Jung

…

It would probably be missing the point to argue for these words, so I won’t.[/quote]

Eastern Philosophy is garbage.[/quote]

Mathew 18:3

And he said: Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven…
[/quote]

Become wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Think like a child, don’t have the intellectual ability of a child.

644

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Hey, at least with your perfect certitude, you don’t have to bother with asking all those pesky questions like I do :)[/quote]Au contraire mon fraire. God’s perfect certitude concerning ultimate epistemology and yes ontology provided to me in Christ serves as the divinely perfect launching point for every last question I ever COULD ask or dare ask.

I believe in the scientific method. I believe it bears much fruit even in the hands of rank God hating sinners. I believe in the laws of logic and non contradiction. Use em all the time. See I have a justifiable reason for these beliefs. My Father God is both their designer and overseer. I willingly utilize these blessings in humble submission to His revealed Word and they hence serve me (and Him) quite well. The fact that I joyfully proclaim MY inability to penetrate and comprehend ANYTHING independently of Him is at once my also joyous proclamation of His eternally contemporaneous and exhaustive ownership of absolutely every actual and possible object of knowledge that is or ever could be. HE DEFINES EVERYTHING INCLUDING EVIL AND ESPECIALLY MAN.

I’m on a need to know basis. He tells me every single thing I need to know in His written Word, in natural life as strictly interpreted by His written Word and yes in Spirit to spirit communication that always and in every way also answers to His written Word.

The scientific method and laws of logic insofar as they actually do work for you, do so only because you’re continuously stealing from my toolbox to maintain your machine. Actually it’s your toolbox too, you’re my brother in Adam, but you’d prefer living in meaningless uncertainty to confessing responsibility to the God who gave it to us. Instead you simply deny it’s there.

You are the man who put out His own eyes to avoid seeing what he refuses to acknowledge, but keeps using the knowledge from the days of his eyesight to live because he has no choice, all the while comforting himself with the lie that he never really did see in the first place. The Lord described you (and me) in the 3rd chapter of the Gospel of John in His conversation with Nicodemus. He is the light who has come into the world Elder Forlife, but you love darkness because your deeds are evil. You will not come to the light lest your evil be exposed. All this prattling on about uncertainty and the honest acknowledgement of your limitations is an intellectually convenient device designed to make sure your long missing eyeballs don’t somehow make their way back into their sockets.

Oh yes it is.

645

The story of Job details this well.

Obviously you did not read the story of JOB. Anyone with a full functioning brain knows the ultimate plot of Job’s story was to show how cruel and retarded this GOD can be Satan was just a minor character.

read the story you retard.

646

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Why did god create satan?[/quote]

To show your mom what horse cock is all about.

647

Hope this is true ^

648

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh I know, it’s saying that there really is no such thing as truth, only opinions and there for one is not better than the other, so quit thinking your right. How utterly meaningless. We can disect the statment a million different ways and it’s still not really a good ‘order’ to follow. Hell the statement itself is likely a cherished opinion.
[/quote]

What I know about the rest of Zen the application is that by thinking we are right to others we become wrong and there is now a basis for external conflict. And thinking that some of the content of life is good and that some of it is bad means inevitable dissatisfaction and internal quandries.

People say “oh but there are threats”. But there are also many, many, many, many false positive and false negative “threats”. “Oh but this is bad” but if an alligator eats a man is it bad? Or is it “an alligator eats a man”. Alligators must eat, humans aren’t designed to live forever, and they’re “made of food”, you can’t make this stuff up, lol.

From the animal design of our brains and bodies we are predisposed to strongly “prefer” things for survival but from the rational side of things we can see where this can sometimes or very often be the route toward pain as opposed to away from it. You would have to redesign the brain to approach this ideal, and indeed this is what zen monks try to do in their lifelong practice, and neuro-plasticy partly accomodates their effort.

It would be overly certain of me to say I know enough to defend it fully or that it would even be desireable and unironic. And saying so seams like the easy way out, which ain’t bad. Being right is a very high standard and unrealistic I think with the available information and the information processing capacity. I’d rather just be aware.

But hell, clearly I do have something like an opinion about all this Epistemological nonsense. Just cause I thought it once, or maybe I was told it, doesn’t mean it’s right. Maybe I’m becoming double agnostic.
[/quote]

Every single word of your last two posts can be equally applied to your own beliefs.

649

Cortes,

That’s kind of the point.

650

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Cortes,

That’s kind of the point.[/quote]

Just reread your post and I think I understand it better now. I was under the impression you were comparing religious thinking to the crowd phenomenon above while assuming that “rational” scientific inquiry is somehow not subject to this human behavioral trait.

ALL of us conduct our lives based upon a large number of assumptions. There is knowledge that gets us through day to day life and makes the world a better (or worse) place, and then there is that knowledge that sits just out of reach, and will remain there always. This is where faith takes over, and, again, we ALL have faith in certain things, though some will kick and scream refusing to acknowledge it. That’s why I get a little annoyed when a “hot-headed atheist” will come in here with his contemptuous, sneering denigration of religion as if we were somehow different in kind. Atavistic lemmings, worshiping their sky wizard, dumb as children. Particularly when they tip their hand by making all sorts of completely wrong assumptions as to what we believe in the first place.

651

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Cortes,

That’s kind of the point.[/quote]

Just reread your post and I think I understand it better now. I was under the impression you were comparing religious thinking to the crowd phenomenon above while assuming that “rational” scientific inquiry is somehow not subject to this human behavioral trait.

ALL of us conduct our lives based upon a large number of assumptions. There is knowledge that gets us through day to day life and makes the world a better (or worse) place, and then there is that knowledge that sits just out of reach, and will remain there always. This is where faith takes over, and, again, we ALL have faith in certain things, though some will kick and scream refusing to acknowledge it. That’s why I get a little annoyed when a “hot-headed atheist” will come in here with his contemptuous, sneering denigration of religion as if we were somehow different in kind. Atavistic lemmings, worshiping their sky wizard, dumb as children. Particularly when they tip their hand by making all sorts of completely wrong assumptions as to what we believe in the first place. [/quote]

We are all subject to confirmatory bias.

Howewever, that doesn’t mean religion is remotely as well qualified to understand reality as science.

Skepticism is at the core of science, while unquestioning faith is at the core of religion.

Science has tools to test its hypotheses, and rejects hypotheses that can’t be reliably replicated under controlled conditions. Religion has no such tools, and instead people are counseled to eschew doubt and embrace belief.

There is far, far, far more reliable evidence for the laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetics than for the claims of Catholicism, Calvinism, Mormonism, or any other “ism”.

Science isn’t always right, and only a fool would claim this. But science does learn over time, because it has the tools for self-correction and advancement.

652

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Cortes,

That’s kind of the point.[/quote]

Just reread your post and I think I understand it better now. I was under the impression you were comparing religious thinking to the crowd phenomenon above while assuming that “rational” scientific inquiry is somehow not subject to this human behavioral trait.

ALL of us conduct our lives based upon a large number of assumptions. There is knowledge that gets us through day to day life and makes the world a better (or worse) place, and then there is that knowledge that sits just out of reach, and will remain there always. This is where faith takes over, and, again, we ALL have faith in certain things, though some will kick and scream refusing to acknowledge it. That’s why I get a little annoyed when a “hot-headed atheist” will come in here with his contemptuous, sneering denigration of religion as if we were somehow different in kind. Atavistic lemmings, worshiping their sky wizard, dumb as children. Particularly when they tip their hand by making all sorts of completely wrong assumptions as to what we believe in the first place. [/quote]

We are all subject to confirmatory bias.

Howewever, that doesn’t mean religion is remotely as well qualified to understand reality as science.

Skepticism is at the core of science, while unquestioning faith is at the core of religion.

Science has tools to test its hypotheses, and rejects hypotheses that can’t be reliably replicated under controlled conditions. Religion has no such tools, and instead people are counseled to eschew doubt and embrace belief.

There is far, far, far more reliable evidence for the laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetics than for the claims of Catholicism, Calvinism, Mormonism, or any other “ism”.

Science isn’t always right, and only a fool would claim this. But science does learn over time, because it has the tools for self-correction and advancement.[/quote]

Are you saying you think we should use science as the tool to determine what is moral?

653

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Cortes,

That’s kind of the point.[/quote]

And hence why it’s haphazard and reckless. If you have a point to make, make it and state why its the case. Not doing so leads to a whirlwind of epistomological potentials some of which may or may not apply.
Nevertheless, my criticisms of eastern philosophy are just my opinion. Lot’s of people like it. But they tend to be anti-religious folks searching for greater meaning in something and think they find it in eastern philosophy cause it’s kind of like a religion but not really so they can claim they are religious. They see these statements as profound I see them as something a retard can come up with during a powerful acid trip.

654

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Cortes,

That’s kind of the point.[/quote]

Just reread your post and I think I understand it better now. I was under the impression you were comparing religious thinking to the crowd phenomenon above while assuming that “rational” scientific inquiry is somehow not subject to this human behavioral trait.

ALL of us conduct our lives based upon a large number of assumptions. There is knowledge that gets us through day to day life and makes the world a better (or worse) place, and then there is that knowledge that sits just out of reach, and will remain there always. This is where faith takes over, and, again, we ALL have faith in certain things, though some will kick and scream refusing to acknowledge it. That’s why I get a little annoyed when a “hot-headed atheist” will come in here with his contemptuous, sneering denigration of religion as if we were somehow different in kind. Atavistic lemmings, worshiping their sky wizard, dumb as children. Particularly when they tip their hand by making all sorts of completely wrong assumptions as to what we believe in the first place. [/quote]

We are all subject to confirmatory bias.

Howewever, that doesn’t mean religion is remotely as well qualified to understand reality as science.

Skepticism is at the core of science, while unquestioning faith is at the core of religion.

Science has tools to test its hypotheses, and rejects hypotheses that can’t be reliably replicated under controlled conditions. Religion has no such tools, and instead people are counseled to eschew doubt and embrace belief.

There is far, far, far more reliable evidence for the laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetics than for the claims of Catholicism, Calvinism, Mormonism, or any other “ism”.

Science isn’t always right, and only a fool would claim this. But science does learn over time, because it has the tools for self-correction and advancement.[/quote]

I don’t see how you can compare the two? They are completely different studies seeking different answers. Further, the few occasions where science and religion intersect they are seldom at odds. Those who interpret it that way generally have a poor grasp of either science, religion or both.
Truth is truth and scientific truths as are religious ones. If they are at odds, one of them is wrong. Religion does not disagree with laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetics.

The precepts of faith are testable on a different level.

655

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Cortes,

That’s kind of the point.[/quote]

Just reread your post and I think I understand it better now. I was under the impression you were comparing religious thinking to the crowd phenomenon above while assuming that “rational” scientific inquiry is somehow not subject to this human behavioral trait.

ALL of us conduct our lives based upon a large number of assumptions. There is knowledge that gets us through day to day life and makes the world a better (or worse) place, and then there is that knowledge that sits just out of reach, and will remain there always. This is where faith takes over, and, again, we ALL have faith in certain things, though some will kick and scream refusing to acknowledge it. That’s why I get a little annoyed when a “hot-headed atheist” will come in here with his contemptuous, sneering denigration of religion as if we were somehow different in kind. Atavistic lemmings, worshiping their sky wizard, dumb as children. Particularly when they tip their hand by making all sorts of completely wrong assumptions as to what we believe in the first place. [/quote]

We are all subject to confirmatory bias.

Howewever, that doesn’t mean religion is remotely as well qualified to understand reality as science.

Skepticism is at the core of science, while unquestioning faith is at the core of religion.

Science has tools to test its hypotheses, and rejects hypotheses that can’t be reliably replicated under controlled conditions. Religion has no such tools, and instead people are counseled to eschew doubt and embrace belief.

There is far, far, far more reliable evidence for the laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetics than for the claims of Catholicism, Calvinism, Mormonism, or any other “ism”.

Science isn’t always right, and only a fool would claim this. But science does learn over time, because it has the tools for self-correction and advancement.[/quote]

Are you saying you think we should use science as the tool to determine what is moral? [/quote]

You know, I wouldn’t say that necessarily but what science can do is tell us, is the function, mechanics and result of various moral ideals. You could set up a double blind study, sort of like the prison experiment and see how one group does living under a moral law, while the other group does the opposite or operates in a way where the moral law is ignored…
I think it would be damn interesting my self…
Maybe I should apply for government funding??

656

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Hey, at least with your perfect certitude, you don’t have to bother with asking all those pesky questions like I do :)[/quote]Au contraire mon fraire. God’s perfect certitude concerning ultimate epistemology and yes ontology provided to me in Christ serves as the divinely perfect launching point for every last question I ever COULD ask or dare ask.

I believe in the scientific method. I believe it bears much fruit even in the hands of rank God hating sinners. I believe in the laws of logic and non contradiction. Use em all the time. See I have a justifiable reason for these beliefs. My Father God is both their designer and overseer. I willingly utilize these blessings in humble submission to His revealed Word and they hence serve me (and Him) quite well. The fact that I joyfully proclaim MY inability to penetrate and comprehend ANYTHING independently of Him is at once my also joyous proclamation of His eternally contemporaneous and exhaustive ownership of absolutely every actual and possible object of knowledge that is or ever could be. HE DEFINES EVERYTHING INCLUDING EVIL AND ESPECIALLY MAN.

I’m on a need to know basis. He tells me every single thing I need to know in His written Word, in natural life as strictly interpreted by His written Word and yes in Spirit to spirit communication that always and in every way also answers to His written Word.

The scientific method and laws of logic insofar as they actually do work for you, do so only because you’re continuously stealing from my toolbox to maintain your machine. Actually it’s your toolbox too, you’re my brother in Adam, but you’d prefer living in meaningless uncertainty to confessing responsibility to the God who gave it to us. Instead you simply deny it’s there.

You are the man who put out His own eyes to avoid seeing what he refuses to acknowledge, but keeps using the knowledge from the days of his eyesight to live because he has no choice, all the while comforting himself with the lie that he never really did see in the first place. The Lord described you (and me) in the 3rd chapter of the Gospel of John in His conversation with Nicodemus. He is the light who has come into the world Elder Forlife, but you love darkness because your deeds are evil. You will not come to the light lest your evil be exposed. All this prattling on about uncertainty and the honest acknowledgement of your limitations is an intellectually convenient device designed to make sure your long missing eyeballs don’t somehow make their way back into their sockets.

Oh yes it is.
[/quote]

Your written word is no more objectively real than the written word of many other belief systems. Believers in those other religions are as devoutly convinced as you that their written word is the TRUE word of god. None of you acknowledges the possibility that your written word was created by men, but all of you accuse other religions of following the written word of men. You speak of blindness and insist that you can see. I was like you once. Now, I believe that all of us are blind, but most are blind to their blindness.

I don’t expect you to acknowledge my sincerity, nor does it surprise me that you disparage my motivations for believing as I do. I’ve heard it ever since I left Mormonism. How could I leave Christ’s true church and forsake eternal life??? Clearly, I’m bound for the Telestial Kingdom or maybe, if I’m lucky, I’ll make it to the Terrestrial Kingdom. But Celestial glory? Alas, it will never be.

657

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Cortes,

That’s kind of the point.[/quote]

Just reread your post and I think I understand it better now. I was under the impression you were comparing religious thinking to the crowd phenomenon above while assuming that “rational” scientific inquiry is somehow not subject to this human behavioral trait.

ALL of us conduct our lives based upon a large number of assumptions. There is knowledge that gets us through day to day life and makes the world a better (or worse) place, and then there is that knowledge that sits just out of reach, and will remain there always. This is where faith takes over, and, again, we ALL have faith in certain things, though some will kick and scream refusing to acknowledge it. That’s why I get a little annoyed when a “hot-headed atheist” will come in here with his contemptuous, sneering denigration of religion as if we were somehow different in kind. Atavistic lemmings, worshiping their sky wizard, dumb as children. Particularly when they tip their hand by making all sorts of completely wrong assumptions as to what we believe in the first place. [/quote]

We are all subject to confirmatory bias.

Howewever, that doesn’t mean religion is remotely as well qualified to understand reality as science.

Skepticism is at the core of science, while unquestioning faith is at the core of religion.

Science has tools to test its hypotheses, and rejects hypotheses that can’t be reliably replicated under controlled conditions. Religion has no such tools, and instead people are counseled to eschew doubt and embrace belief.

There is far, far, far more reliable evidence for the laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetics than for the claims of Catholicism, Calvinism, Mormonism, or any other “ism”.

Science isn’t always right, and only a fool would claim this. But science does learn over time, because it has the tools for self-correction and advancement.[/quote]

Are you saying you think we should use science as the tool to determine what is moral? [/quote]

No, I’m saying that religion is better suited to tell us about morality than about reality. And unfortunately, its views of morality are skewed by potentially incorrect claims about reality. If a particular religion’s god doesn’t actually exist, the commandments of that god don’t mean much.

658

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Are you saying you think we should use science as the tool to determine what is moral? [/quote]

He clearly places science on a pedestal by itself. Sub-cellular chemical debris does what he claims. If it didn’t, scientifically, we wouldn’t exist. Science just does it differently. One of the biggest differences is that some older and very wrong scientists established and advanced science’s inherent dependence it’s own “immaculate conception” or “spontaneous generation”.

EDIT: Fixed markup.

659

[quote]pat wrote:

Maybe I should apply for government funding??[/quote]

Only if your study gets past the ethics committee.

660

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Are you saying you think we should use science as the tool to determine what is moral? [/quote]

Beyond the evolutionary advantage of altruism to a group, it is rational not to commit violence or otherwise offend your group for purposes of continued breeding and survival. The more disassociated our tribes become the more violence/conflict there is.

Taking the long route, it is therefore most beneficial (from the perspective of self defence) to love every human and make no distinction from them or among them. “But what if they want to steal my watch?”

Mark 10:21

‘Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”’

…

There are two forces in opposition (actually more than two). On the one hand we have a drive to “exceed” and pursue status to demonstrate higher value for the purposes of breeding. Every skill, possession, or view point that we hold dear is essentially a proxy for sexual fitness. And on the other hand we feel empathy for individuals of our group (which is sensitive to distinguishing factors, and varies over distance). As long as we feel that our situation is affected or could be affected by the condition of the sufferer, their concerns become ours.

Both are survival traits, but one of them has a measure of risk because it’s not about our personal survival. It’s about our generational continuity. We are just the booster rockets or hardware that push the survival of our immortal genetic material forward in time. Empathy however is beneficial to not only us but the group as well.

No one will knowingly raise a fist to the man or woman who has non-descriminatory empathy… well… maybe the Romans…

Antipathy is also a survival adaptation, but I contend we have a greater tendency for antipathy nowadays than is justified by our current standard of living and relative level of safety. The old jungle adaptation is becoming obsolete in our increasingly connected world, and rather than protecting us, it’s causing us harm. It’s a tug of war between our amygdala and our anterior cingulate.