The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

 

This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...

 

Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.

A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.

Other threads of interest:

Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data

Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.

Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.

Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins

A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst

Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism

 

UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.

AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:


THE FULL DEBATE!

 


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Problems posting from

Problems posting from Safari on Leopard. Will repost with Firefox


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote: I can make

thiest wrote:

I can make declaritive statements about the perfection of the universe that are true by default of living in this universe for example.
The Universe is perfect for Forming Human Beings with Free Will.
This declaritive statement is true, both me and you understand it is true, I declare it, and you know it to be true by observing that indeed the universe is perfect for forming human beings, as that is which it has done, so the evidence to back up the perfection of the universe in certain respects is existant and can not be ignored.


But how do you know that the universe is *supposed* to form human beings with free will. Just because something does a particular thing, doesn't mean that's what it was designed to do (or that it was designed at all)

Let's say I claim to have created the perfect refrigerator. Of course, this claim does not go unnoticed and someone challenges me to prove my refrigerator is indeed perfect. So, I deliver one of my "perfect" refrigerators to this sceptic and he goes about testing it. What he finds is that my refrigerator doesn't actual cool things at all. In fact, it actually keeps things warm. However, to my skeptics surprise, my refrigerator actually transfers every milliwatt of power to the items it contains as heat. No energy is lost in the process. As such, it could be said that my refrigerator is a perfect heating device.

Now, if you said that my refrigerator does what it does perfectly, then I would agree. However, that's not what refrigerators are supposed to do. They are supposed to cool things. Does this somehow mean my refrigerator is perfect?

There is no evidence that the universe is supposed to form or test free will beings. In fact, there is no evidence that the universe was intentionally designed to specifically do anything at all. Nor is there any evidence that it does the things that it happens do to perfectly since we don't have any other universes to compare it to.

It might be the case that my refrigerator emits some kind of pollution or causes food items it heats to become toxic. Or someone could always come up with a smaller heating device that is just as efficient or emits less noise as mine. Perhaps, someone could come up with a device that doesn't use any energy at all. As such, these devices could heat items in a different, yet better way and would become the standard for perfection.

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


And would God have the right to judge us just because a test he created was perfectly executed? If I think of the perfect test to find out if you like chocolate or vanilla ice cream, does that mean I have the right to judge you based on your choice since the data was obtaned in a perfect manner? No, it doesn't.


Yes it does, the situation you are put in is part of the judgement, when you know what is wrong and choose the wrong, you will be judged for it, same goes here on earth in the judicial system, in Texas where I live the law for insanity is "you can not distinguish between good and evil" if this can be established then you will be declared insane and your case will be aquitted, how can you judge someone unless they Knew they were doing wrong, we humans are capable of understanding this, of course God understands this, God judges by the situation you are in personally , as humans do also, so yes, God has a right to judge you when you knowingly commit wrong actions, you will be repaid for your deeds, as all people will, in the Fire of Redemption.



But you claim that my entire system for identifying and selecting good and evil was given to me by God. I did not create it myself. As such, my ability to identify and select good and evil would be solely based on the faculties God gave me. Either these faculties correctly identify and select good over evil or they do not. There is no in between.

If you say that the faculties God gave us were designed to only work correctly in some cases, then that's exactly what will happen. But I fail to see how God can pass judgement in these cases because that's exactly what God designed it to do. The fact that I might know I'm choosing evil over good would be irrelevant as that too must be part of the design. If it's not, then God did not design and create me down to the last detail.

In other words, If God and God alone deserves the glory for everything, then God and God alone bears responsibility for everything. You can't have it both ways.

thiest wrote:


Again Prove imperfection within the universe, or stop saying it is imperfect, I just showed you perfection, here is another statement.

The Universe is Perfect for Forming Stars.



You're right. I can't say the universe is imperfect since I don't think the universe is supposed to do anything in the first place. But based on what you claim the universe is supposed to do, I'd say it's far from perfect. I'd also say that there are things the universe does that appears to imperfect since we've invented more efficient ways of doing the same thing.

On the other hand, you're claiming to have the knowledge of which environments are optimal for forming stars and equivocally know that there are no other configurations that might could be better than ours. How exactly did you come to this conclusion?

Perhaps there are configurations that would end up creating stars that provide more energy or last longer than ours. As such, universes based on these configurations would be more perfect for forming stars than our own. Or perhaps there could be a configuration that form something which plays the same role as a star but in a completely different and vastly more efficient way. In other words, who says that stars are really the best solution in the first place?

thiest wrote:


Please Maya, explain to me how you recognize if something has intelligence behind it, give me the Criterion for saying something has intelligence behind it, then I will show you how their is intelligence behind the Universal order.



I'm not saying that I can prove the universe wasn't planned by God. I'm saying that everything we see and know about the universe makes this highly improbably and even conflicts with it.

If there is order in the universe that was put there by God, then God intended to make urination difficult for men over 60 since he designed their urethra to pass though their prostrate gland. I don't consider this "order" placed by a supernatural being.

thiest wrote:


Finally you will admit that the universe is not based on anything random, as you said it over and over, are you starting to see the light? Human beings will inevitabbly exist in this universe, it is coded into the Universe by the Laws and inside the Matter.



By random, I mean lack of intent.

Prove to me that what's happening was really planned by an all knowing and all seeing supernatural being. Because, if it was, even the tiniest detail of our universe clearly and obviously reflect the perfectness and infinite knowledge of God.

And if this plan was indeed perfect, then it should be so simple and obvious that it should extremely easy to implement and need no explanation or interpretation. Instead, what you call a plan is indistinguishable from nature.

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


In other words. Things happen. They happen because God made them happen. God is all powerful, all knowing and perfect. Therefore, regardless of what happens, it was supposed to happen that way and it's the only right way



Precisely.



Again, you haven't proved that

- God even exists
- God makes things happen
- God really is all knowing and perfect
- What happens is what God really intended

Until you can prove these things you're simply left with "things happen", which isn't saying much.

thiest wrote:


Like i Said, nature is an image of God, is not an image of you in the mirror indestinguishable from the actual object being reflected? to the Eye? Gods image is reflected in nature, as the hindus know very well, and the Will of God is reflected in the Love of Joshua the Annointed.



But if this image is indistinguishable, then how you do know there is something to be distinguished from in the first place? This is my point. You have to add something on top of nature since there is no evidence of the supernatural or intent.  

thiest wrote:

If the plan was not instituted by God, then who instituted it?


You're the one who claims there is a plan. Show me the plan that actually is coherent and applied constantly. Show me how the results prove they were created by a perfect God. As I illustrated above, the fact that anything does exactly what it does, doesn't prove intent.

If it did, then the fact that I reject God would mean that God intended me to reject him. I would have no choice in the matter. And that he would be judging me for doing exactly what he intended me to do.

I am in awe of nature. It will exist long after I am gone. It is so vast that I could only visit a tiny fraction of it in my lifetime. We find something new about it every day. You have taken the extra step in assuming that God is really behind nature. I do not.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
ok, been busy for a while

ok, been busy for a while with my thoughts and life, your post is really long so I will go piece meal through it, it will prob take a post from here at work and then at home to reply so bear with me.

But how do you know that the universe is *supposed* to form human beings with free will. Just because something does a particular thing, doesn't mean that's what it was designed to do (or that it was designed at all)

Design is recognized through abstraction, much like the concept of time, We abstract time out of events that are occuring around us using our human minds, in the same way, I abstract design out of the forms that occur in nature and the overall structure of the universe and the proccess of formation of the stars, planets, life, and human beings.

Yeah, just because something does something does not mean it was designed to do so, such as the new testement documents, designed to help people work out their salvation through communion with the logic of God, I abstracted this design out of the Form of the new testement, instead it is used as a means of control through orginizational structures that create dogmatic creeds for people to follow.

So just becasue the new testement does give people control other overs in certain respects, you are correct that indeed it was not designed to do so, but through human ingenuity and manipulation can indeed to that which it is not designed for.

So when we recognize design and purpose, which are concepts that need to be abstracted from form and function, we must use all of the obtainable knowledge and wisdom at our disposal, this includes both Con-science, which to me is a much higher form of science than empricical science as it is within our own beings.

So this is why I indeed find design in nature and purpose, and that the deisng and purpose is indeed intended, intention is also a concept that needs to be abstracted out of the form and function of things.

God being the ultimate abstraction, I also abstracted knowledge of God from the Universe itself, also while being gifted with it from the God that I so abstracted through the reasoning mind he has bestowed upon me.

It is quite annoyoing trying to write and think and stuff while at work, i am gonna finish this up when I get home later tonight.

peace.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Physboy
agnostic deistTheist
Physboy's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Scientific Spiritualist

Hello,

I am a noob to site and so a little about myself.  I do believe in God, however, I do not believe in organized or doctrine based religion.  Basically, I do not do religion.  I am a Physics major with a bit of experience in Philosophy and have dabbled in the study of world religions.

I have some questions regarding the assertion of science results as the ultimate truth of existence and reality.  From what I understand, regarding our relative common knowledge, we as humans only have the ability to use our 5 senses to partake in the observing component of the scientific method.  From what I have come to understand we as humans also have the ability to have any one or multiple senses fooled at any time.  Do not these two observations necessitate that by definition the results obtained from the scientific method are actually relative and not ultimate truths?  (Obviously necessary truths are involved in the scientific method but are not necessary, nor relevant to my point, as I am dealing with the limit of the ascription of scientific results to a given truth classification.)  In addition, if the answer to the aforementioned question is "yes", then does it not also logically follow that science can never tell you anything about ultimate reality?  At best lending only a rendering of probabilities and possibilities in an attempt to understand that which exists and is only perceivable to our senses (relative yet again).

It seems to me that as a result of the above perspective, the validity of proving or disproving the existence of an entity of supreme or godlike qualities (ultimate truth) using science can not exist.  Therefore the claim that the act of scientists compartmentalizing their logic is an illogical act (per Kelly during end of debate), is also not valid. It only stands to reason that if science cannot tell you anything about ultimate reality then the use of it for the purpose of determining ultimate truths is nothing more than the practice of believing that scientific results are giving you the picture of ultimate reality (you know kinda like the religions claim to give people the picture of ultimate reality).  I mean hell, we have enough problems just trying to get science to explain our own relative experiences (the reason scientific results are so dynamic).

As a scientist, my perspective is this:  Science is great for helping us to understand the things that we appear to have in common when it comes to sense experience.  One of the things that science as well as simple observation has given us is that boundaries in all facets of life appear to exist.  Does it not also make sense that in and effort to gain a more balanced and fuller understanding of our existence we also have boundaries in our thought processes for our different experiences with our existence.  So... to sum, in my opinion scientific studies and spirituality (the act of coming into touch with the ultimate truth of existence) are two totally different creatures with necessary logical boundaries.   Without these boundaries, the scientific studies turn into nothing more than some other belief system like religion attempting to come into the knowledge of the ultimate truth.

One more point, I did find that the use of judgemental words during the debate like "stupid" and "ignorant" reduced the debate to nothing more than two religions moraly bashing each other.  I find nothing benneficial regarding morality, or rationality by acting judgemental.  Sticking to the facts keeps the point on the top of peoples heads, acting in condescending fashions only serves to close ears.  Rational no??

Challenge your perspectives with the truth.


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Hasn't anyone picked up on

Hasn't anyone picked up on the fact that "Thiest" is yanking your chain?  No one could have their head shoved that firmly up their own ass.

 

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Physboy wrote: ...It only

Physboy wrote:


...It only stands to reason that if science cannot tell you anything about ultimate reality then the use of it for the purpose of determining ultimate truths is nothing more than the practice of believing that scientific results are giving you the picture of ultimate reality (you know kinda like the religions claim to give people the picture of ultimate reality). I mean hell, we have enough problems just trying to get science to explain our own relative experiences (the reason scientific results are so dynamic).



Physboy,

You're under the assumption that all atheists I think science is absolute truth. This is not the case.

If you ask me what reality is, i'd say it's a brief moment in which we experience the world around us. However, as soon as you try to describe or give meaning to this reality, you create a conceptual representation of that which you experience.

Science is a series of concepts that we create in an attempt to get closer to reality. But it's not absolute reality. For example, science doesn't mandate morality, nor can one branch of science cover every possible part of our universe. Atoms were named atoms becauase, at one point, we though they could not be broken down any smaller. However, science and engineering have value in a wide range of contexts which are quite practical and repeatable. For example, Evolution allows us to predict how life evolves. We can use this knowledge at a biological level to produce medicines and treat diseases. We can use engineering and mathematics to build cars, planes, computers and buildings. These are, for the most part, repeatable and valuable in specific practical contexts. They are also falseifiable - that is we can take a particular concept and prove it is wrong in a extremely wide set of circumstances.  

However, there is a danger of taking a particular concept and claiming it *is* absolute reality and has value in all contexts. This is true, regardless if your concept is religious or scientific in nature.

Religion, on the other hand, does try to represent absolute reality. It dictates morality and makes claims about physical and scientific truths about our universe to give itself authority. However, religious concepts, such as creation science, do not have any value outside supporting the Bible. It conflicts with the evolution of life as we know it and can't be used to predict biological processes or treat diseases. It exists to make God an authority over man, just as the manufacture of your car claims your local dealership is the best place to get your oil change and tune up.

While I can't speak for Kelly, I'd describe compartmentalizing as the failure to hold religious concepts up to the same standards as other concepts you may have.

While you might say that religion gives people a common set of moral values, it does so in a disingenuous manner since it claims to represent absolute reality. This leads to the use of religious concepts in contexts where they have little to no value and are not practical or repeatable. In some cases, the outcome can be extremely poor or even result in violence or death.

For example, I was driving today and saw another bumper sticker that said "Jesus is the Answer." Of course, my immediate thought was "the answer to what?" as this is a incomplete sentence.  Apparently, the driver of this car thinks the "what" is irrelevant as Jesus is the answer to absolutely anything and everything.

What stocks would Jesus invest in? What healthcare and medical treatments would Jesus recommend? Does Jesus know what job I should take given my particular skil set? Should I take out that mortgage on a home? How about foreign policy issues and acts of aggression between nations? If Jesus really is the son of God, who created everything, then he should have answers to absolutely any and all questions, right? And we should heed these answers regardless of what other concepts we have regarding the physical world, correct? But does this work in practice? No, it doesn't.

God doesn't answer prayers in any remotely predictable way nor does he reveal himself in any concrete way that we can detect. Humanity appears to be organically evolved though nature, instead of the intentional product of a perfect being. In fact, many theists claim that God's will is so mysterious and his powers are so great that we simply can't understand him or his actions. As such, God is simply
indistinguishable from nature. Isn't that just a bit too convenient?

The concept that whatever is behind our existence must be sentient, all knowing, all seeing and perfect, seems to be an absolute truth without any explicit support from nature and in conflict with many other concepts we currently conceder valuable and predictable.

As such, I can't believe this claim without holding religion to a different standard as every other concept I hold. Nor do I see any particular advantage in doing so. If God is all the things that religion claims to be, then why shouldn't we hold the concept of God to the same standards as everything else? What valid reason can we come with with for not doing so? Because we want to or because it makes us feel good? Because, without it, we fear there would be some great moral collapse?

Whether Theist is spewing BS or not, there are people who really do think that religion paints a picture of absolute reality.  

However we, as conscious beings, can create moral systems without a supernatural being watching over us. We can be giving and loving without the fear of spending eternity in Hell or God's wrath. We can take complete responsibility for our actions and our own future. If anything, I'd say religion (and culture / tradition) takes responsibility away from us and gives us a false sense of purpose.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Fung Tzu
Fung Tzu's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Since I can't get this to post on the "appreciation" thread

Hi there! I just finished watching the big debate on YouTube and I think the RRS walked away with both a logical and moral victory. The WoTM resorted to some pretty disgusting tactics such as implied threats of hell, stupid jokes about evolution, and Todd Friel's pathetic ambush of Brian to avenge his comrades.

What's funny is that Christians realize that their side lost too. All they can do is say how Ray and Kirk were oh so polite while whining about how "meeeaaan" Brian and Kelly were. Funny that they'll usually make fun of the angry woman who either had or lost someone to cancer in the very next paragraph.

If I have one criticism, it's that you let Ray and Kirk draw you off topic. The debate was about scientifically proving the existence of God yet they went off into irrelevant fields such as history and morality. If you had called them out on this, you could have avoided parts of the debate where the poorly informed would see no clear-cut winner.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Let's say I claim to have

Let's say I claim to have created the perfect refrigerator. Of course, this claim does not go unnoticed and someone challenges me to prove my refrigerator is indeed perfect. So, I deliver one of my "perfect" refrigerators to this sceptic and he goes about testing it. What he finds is that my refrigerator doesn't actual cool things at all. In fact, it actually keeps things warm. However, to my skeptics surprise, my refrigerator actually transfers every milliwatt of power to the items it contains as heat. No energy is lost in the process. As such, it could be said that my refrigerator is a perfect heating device.

Now, if you said that my refrigerator does what it does perfectly, then I would agree. However, that's not what refrigerators are supposed to do. They are supposed to cool things. Does this somehow mean my refrigerator is perfect?

There is no evidence that the universe is supposed to form or test free will beings. In fact, there is no evidence that the universe was intentionally designed to specifically do anything at all. Nor is there any evidence that it does the things that it happens do to perfectly since we don't have any other universes to compare it to.

It might be the case that my refrigerator emits some kind of pollution or causes food items it heats to become toxic. Or someone could always come up with a smaller heating device that is just as efficient or emits less noise as mine. Perhaps, someone could come up with a device that doesn't use any energy at all. As such, these devices could heat items in a different, yet better way and would become the standard for perfection.

Your annalogy doesnt really work with the universe as we have no other universe in which to compare it to as you said.

From my perception using human reasoning and knowledge I can say the universe is perfect for lots of things.

 The Universe is perfect for forming matter.

It is not really debatable wether or not the universe does this, it is scientifically proven.

And matter does not have a better or worst kind.

 Matter is Matter.

so it is indeed perfect for fomring matter.

But you claim that my entire system for identifying and selecting good and evil was given to me by God. I did not create it myself. As such, my ability to identify and select good and evil would be solely based on the faculties God gave me. Either these faculties correctly identify and select good over evil or they do not. There is no in between.

You do create your own system, you choose what to think about, you choose what actions to commit, god knew what you would do, yet you still do them willfully in your own knowledge, prove it to yourself watch.

Pick up a pen, and make a willfull decision which way to point it.

 Is God forcing you to point it in any certain direction? Or can you make yer own decision which way to point the pen?

Same goes for moral issues, you havea con-science you use it doint you?

You use your con-science to make decisions that are not forced upon you by God, he might have made the situation that you are in, but you use your own judgement to do right or wrong as it is based in your mind.

If you say that the faculties God gave us were designed to only work correctly in some cases, then that's exactly what will happen. But I fail to see how God can pass judgement in these cases because that's exactly what God designed it to do. The fact that I might know I'm choosing evil over good would be irrelevant as that too must be part of the design. If it's not, then God did not design and create me down to the last detail.

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.

In other words, If God and God alone deserves the glory for everything, then God and God alone bears responsibility for everything. You can't have it both ways.

You are responsible for your decisions as based in the morality you create within the matrix of this world.

 

Ill finish the rest up later, its late and im tired.

 

Peace.

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
God designed you to be


Thesist wrote:

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.


Theist, it's really comes down to a simple question.

Do you think God deserves the Glory for everything in the universe? Yes or No?

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:


Thesist wrote:

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.


Theist, it's really comes down to a simple question.

Do you think God deserves the Glory for everything in the universe? Yes or No?

Yes.

 

But the Shame that you Create shall come back upon you, not go to God.

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote: Veils of

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


Thesist wrote:

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.


Theist, it's really comes down to a simple question.

Do you think God deserves the Glory for everything in the universe? Yes or No?



Yes.



So, God deserves the glory for all of man's good works but not mistakes or evil he may do?

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Fung Tzu
Fung Tzu's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Thesist wrote: God

Thesist wrote:

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.
Have you actually read the Bible? A quick look at Genesis will show that God did *not* give us the knowledge of good and evil. According to that creation myth, we took it against his will.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:
thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


Thesist wrote:

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.


Theist, it's really comes down to a simple question.

Do you think God deserves the Glory for everything in the universe? Yes or No?



Yes.



So, God deserves the glory for all of man's good works but not mistakes or evil he may do?

The Only Glory you could ever Have can only be given by The Almighty Theos.

 Yet you can Create your own Shame.

 Just Serve the Kurios.

Drink the Wine of Life and Eat of the Bread of Logic.

And things will go well for you.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Fung Tzu wrote: Thesist

Fung Tzu wrote:
Thesist wrote:
God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.
Have you actually read the Bible? A quick look at Genesis will show that God did *not* give us the knowledge of good and evil. According to that creation myth, we took it against his will.

The Almighty Theos Knew what he was Doing.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote: Veils of

thiest wrote:


Veils of Maya wrote:
thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


Thesist wrote:

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.


Theist, it's really comes down to a simple question.

Do you think God deserves the Glory for everything in the universe? Yes or No?



Yes.



So, God deserves the glory for all of man's good works but not mistakes or evil he may do?


The Only Glory you could ever Have can only be given by The Almighty Theos.

Yet you can Create your own Shame.


Theist,

Your claims simply doesn't add up...

- I can choose Good and Evil
- I can choose Good and Evil because God made me like him.
- When God chooses Good, he gets the glory for his decision
- When God created evil, he is not responsible for his decision
- When God gave man free will, which he knew would cause men to choose evil, he is not responsible for his decision
- When I choose Good, God gets the glory for my decision
- When I choose Evil, I'm responsible for my decision

If I'm responsible for my actions because I can choose Good and Evil just like God, then God is responsible for his actions because he too has exercised his free will.

Again, you claim the only faculties I have to chose Good or Evil were given to me by God. As such, my ability to identify and select good and evil would be solely based on the faculties God gave me. Either these faculties correctly identify and select good over evil or they do not.

This is like giving me a calculator, knowing full well it's only accurate half of the time, then punishing me for not submitting the right answers on a test. It simply doesn't add up.

Of course, you think whatever God does is "Good" since you think God is perfect and infinitely wise beyond imagination. Everything is part of some master plan that we human beings simply can't understand. It also just so happens to look like a organic universe that wasn't created without purpose or intent.

The whole Idea that God somehow created this elaborate plan to purify us or teach us something is simply an attempt to make sense out of the struggles and realty of our beautiful, yet fragile existence. Nature simply doesn't substantiate any of this.

I'm a technology consultant. My job is to find patterns and build concepts around processes and systems. I'm good at solving problems because I'm always looking for commonalities and interactions in complex systems.

Yet, from experience, I know it's easy to take this search too far. One can over-engineer a system when it's really not necessary. It's in our nature to try to put the pieces together even though they might not always fit. If you squint hard enough or want them to bad enough, you may think they do, but on close inspection it seems obvious to me they do not.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote: The Only

thiest wrote:
The Only Glory you could ever Have can only be given by The Almighty Theos.

Yet you can Create your own Shame.

Just Serve the Kurios.

Drink the Wine of Life and Eat of the Bread of Logic.

And things will go well for you.

What's up with the overzealous use of the shift button? So you figured out where it is, but that's no reason for wearing it out like that.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:
thiest wrote:


Veils of Maya wrote:
thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


Thesist wrote:

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.


Theist, it's really comes down to a simple question.

Do you think God deserves the Glory for everything in the universe? Yes or No?



Yes.



So, God deserves the glory for all of man's good works but not mistakes or evil he may do?


The Only Glory you could ever Have can only be given by The Almighty Theos.

Yet you can Create your own Shame.


Theist,

Your claims simply doesn't add up...

- I can choose Good and Evil
- I can choose Good and Evil because God made me like him.
- When God chooses Good, he gets the glory for his decision
- When God created evil, he is not responsible for his decision
- When God gave man free will, which he knew would cause men to choose evil, he is not responsible for his decision
- When I choose Good, God gets the glory for my decision
- When I choose Evil, I'm responsible for my decision

If I'm responsible for my actions because I can choose Good and Evil just like God, then God is responsible for his actions because he too has exercised his free will.

Again, you claim the only faculties I have to chose Good or Evil were given to me by God. As such, my ability to identify and select good and evil would be solely based on the faculties God gave me. Either these faculties correctly identify and select good over evil or they do not.

This is like giving me a calculator, knowing full well it's only accurate half of the time, then punishing me for not submitting the right answers on a test. It simply doesn't add up.

Of course, you think whatever God does is "Good" since you think God is perfect and infinitely wise beyond imagination. Everything is part of some master plan that we human beings simply can't understand. It also just so happens to look like a organic universe that wasn't created without purpose or intent.

The whole Idea that God somehow created this elaborate plan to purify us or teach us something is simply an attempt to make sense out of the struggles and realty of our beautiful, yet fragile existence. Nature simply doesn't substantiate any of this.

I'm a technology consultant. My job is to find patterns and build concepts around processes and systems. I'm good at solving problems because I'm always looking for commonalities and interactions in complex systems.

Yet, from experience, I know it's easy to take this search too far. One can over-engineer a system when it's really not necessary. It's in our nature to try to put the pieces together even though they might not always fit. If you squint hard enough or want them to bad enough, you may think they do, but on close inspection it seems obvious to me they do not.

 

Have Mercy, and Theos will have Mercy on you.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Dadvocate
Dadvocate's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Where do "we" fall on the mercy chain gang?

Quote:
Have Mercy, and Theos will have Mercy on you.

And if receiving mercy is our goal in this scenario, can we assume that Theos is motivated in a similar way? Is Theos getting the same payback as we are? I wonder who gives Theos mercy and then who gives this entity mercy...

Why does this yarn sound familiar?

No wait, what if mercy, like any manifestation of a theos, is our creation after all? Why, well, gee, the act of mercy could be quantified in human terms for humanity's sake. It could be understood within the context of us.

No, it couldn't be that simple. It has to come from somewhere out there and we are so awful and imperfect and lustful and have ugly genitalia that we couldn't have come up with this idea on our own.

Ho hum.

Please tell me that the fate of modern theology has more to offer than this bile. At least put up a fight before you go. Hell, a marginally significant temper tantrum is better fodder than this tripe.

Cheers!

{edit color} 


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote:   Have

thiest wrote:

 

Have Mercy, and Theos will have Mercy on you.

One doesn't have to belive in a supernatural being to show or receive mercy. Nor does the fact that mercy exists prove the existence of God.  

 

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote: From my

thiest wrote:


From my perception using human reasoning and knowledge I can say the universe is perfect for lots of things.

The Universe is perfect for forming matter.

It is not really debatable wether or not the universe does this, it is scientifically proven.

And matter does not have a better or worst kind.

Matter is Matter.

so it is indeed perfect for fomring matter.



Using my own perception and knowledge, I can say that the universe is perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators.

It's not debatable as if the universe actually does this since we know that a small number mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators really do exist.

So, the universe is indeed perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators.

Since you claim that the mere fact that any happens in the universe proves that it's designed by God to happen, then God must have designed the universe to be perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators. Right?

Of course, God couldn't possibly be responsible for making this decision.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Dadvocate
Dadvocate's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Oh Mercy me

Quote:
One doesn't have to belive in a supernatural being to show or receive mercy. Nor does the fact that mercy exists prove the existence of God.

  

That of course is the point that we all should understand. The problem comes when someone asserts that the mercy one receives is in fact coming from his or her “Theos.” Then all one has to do is post hoc one’s way into categorizing whatever one did earlier to deserve this mercy and one has a neat little circle to build a tradition on.

  

Of course it helps a great deal if one gets enough people around to agree on what mercy is and how to give it (as proxies for Theos) and it also helps a lot if one can even establish what it means to have received no mercy at all. With that added assertion one has all the tools one needs in order to live an entire life with blinders on.

 

Sad really

 

Cheers!


Dadvocate
Dadvocate's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Perfect Equivocation

Quote:
Using my own perception and knowledge, I can say that the universe is perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators... Since you claim that the mere fact that any happens in the universe proves that it's designed by God to happen, then God must have designed the universe to be perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators. Right?

I understand where you are going with this Veils, and I think your point is a fair one. All the same would claim further that it is not a good idea to give Theist this equivocation in the first place.

The notion of perfection implies not only the creation of both the good and bad examples in the universe (if those are in fact the right words), but it also implies efficiency, economics in time and material, reproductive benefit, and a whole lot of other things that I am sure we could add to the mix. Forgive me for not naming the person who brought this up a few pages back, but I think it was said well. To imply perfection within the universe, one needs more universes for comparative purposes to establish that perfection, and even then the sample might not be large enough to make that claim. Just think of the sample size of data necessary to determine at what temperature different species of frogs perish or in determining why some mammals need to care for their young for long periods of time while others are self reliant very quickly. There are I am sure better examples I could cite. That complexity of knowledge, which itself may not even reach perfection status, requires a great deal of data. Why shouldn’t this be the case for a universe with exponentially more complex systems than either of these two examples? The statement by Theist is as bankrupt as it is presumptuous, which is, well, par for the course.

Theist, as usual, says he knows enough to know, but like all his catcalls he has zero foundation in these claims. The only rational comment he can make on the universe given what we all know is that the universe displays a capacity for:

forming matter.

You know, even that seems a stretch. What if the matter already existed? Then it would be more a question of containing matter than creating it. And if that is true then a jar is perfect for containing matter if we wish to apply Theists thinking.

He cannot know in any way that the system of the universe we observe in isolation is in fact perfect. It is what it is based on what we know. Perfection shouldn’t be asserted by either side, unless of course a new definition of perfect is being used and explained at the forefront, something I see Theist avoiding like the plague.

Cheers!

{edit color}


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Dadvocate wrote:

Dadvocate wrote:


Theist, as usual, says he knows enough to know, but like all his catcalls he has zero foundation in these claims. The only rational comment he can make on the universe given what we all know is that the universe displays a capacity for:

forming matter.

You know, even that seems a stretch. What if the matter already existed? Then it would be more a question of containing matter than creating it. And if that is true then a jar is perfect for containing matter if we wish to apply Theists thinking.

He cannot know in any way that the system of the universe we observe in isolation is in fact perfect. It is what it is based on what we know. Perfection shouldn’t be asserted by either side, unless of course a new definition of perfect is being used and explained at the forefront, something I see Theist avoiding like the plague.

Cheers!


I agree, this does seem like a stretch.

However, to claim perfection, all you need is a specific criteria in which to compare against. If you claim the criteria is mediocrity, inefficiency, or a limited number of results, as I did, then perfection can be claimed against this criteria. For example, one could claim someone committed a perfect murder since they killed someone and left no clues or evidence that could point to them as the clulprit. You don't need other murders to compare them to since the criteria of not leaving evidence can exist without someone actually leaving evidence. All you need is the potential for leaving evidence.

While some murders are more watertight than others, it's reasonable to call such a murder perfect since it fits the criteria.

The crux of the issue here is that Theist's seems to think that he can derive God's intention for the universe based on what the universe actually does. This is where he comes up with his criteria for perfection.

Theist wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


...In other words. Things happen. They happen because God made them happen. God is all powerful, all knowing and perfect. Therefore, regardless of what happens, it was supposed to happen that way and it's the only right way



Precisely.



In doing so, he makes claims that the universe is perfect for creating matter, beings with free will, etc.

I'm simply pointing out that, by using the same logic as Theist, one could also assume that the universe is perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators because a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators are born in our universe. I'm assuming that a less than efficent, low quantity restult is what's intented because that's what exists.

This goes back to my point that...

Veils of Maya wrote:


If you're saying that the Universe is a "machine" that does X and it does X perfectly, then I would agree. But that doesn't mean the end result of X is a perfect result compared to some other result.



In reality, all of this this is a non-statement. Things do exactly what they do. They can't do anything else. Implying that anyone can derive intention from what the universe does because it does just that is irrational, which was the point of my post.

Without some kind of proof or evidence that God really exists, is behind the creation and function of the universe and intended the universe to do what it does, he's simply making statements that can't be substantiated. As such, claiming that God exists since someone had to design the universe to do what it does, is circular.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Dadvocate
Dadvocate's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Perfect Connotations

Quote:
However, to claim perfection, all you need is a specific criteria in which to compare against. If you claim the criteria is mediocrity, inefficiency, or a limited number of results, as I did, then perfection can be claimed against this criteria. For example, one could claim someone committed a perfect murder since they killed someone and left no clues or evidence that could point to them as the clulprit.

Hmmm??? I understand your point, but I’m a bit tied up with the application of perfection for something that could be more a question of context. Let me explain my definition a bit more to see if we can’t get some mileage out of this side point.

Let’s say for instance that the perfect murder 1906 is committed and deemed perfect because the person who left “no evidence” in this case did so at a time when DNA testing was not available. The perfect crime then is really not perfect because it becomes solvable within another context some 95 years later. In the same way, our perfect murder 2007 might appear so until such a time that evidence (and the leaving of it) is viewed based on whatever techniques become available later on or in another city or another country.

This is why I would argue that perfect anything requires a great number of samples to be able to be considered validly perfect. The samples might need to be seen over large periods of time space or cultures, but these samples are still necessary.

If I am honest about this, though, I guess I’d have to say I have a bias against actually applying perfection to anything tangible in our known world and universe. In my opinion it’s a hitching post that we can strive for in a sense, but it is never anything we can label as achieved or attained. I accept that we use the word commonly for things that work really well: “That was a perfect pass by Jenkins.” But then I also note that it can get cluttered up with misnomers if we try to apply it to things like a tomato or a universe. I’m willing to cautiously accept terms like “perfect” with things like the rows of a shark’s teeth. The real meaning is actually “well suited for.” But I can’t for the life of me see how anything human made can ever be considered perfect, and I think humans are even more out of bounds in saying that a universe for instance—which appears very undersigned—could be called perfect in that same sense.

Given what you’ve said in your post above, it seems we would agree on the reasons why this is the case. Our only disagreement comes from how strongly to apply our respective notions of perfection to our own context as human beings.

Thanks for taking a banal point from Theist and making it interesting by the way.

Cheers! {edit color}


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Dadvocate wrote:

Dadvocate wrote:


Let’s say for instance that the perfect murder 1906 is committed and deemed perfect because the person who left “no evidence” in this case did so at a time when DNA testing was not available. The perfect crime then is really not perfect because it becomes solvable within another context some 95 years later. In the same way, our perfect murder 2007 might appear so until such a time that evidence (and the leaving of it) is viewed based on whatever techniques become available later on or in another city or another country.



I see where you're headed here, but in this case I'm basing perfection on a fix set of criteria.

Here's another example...

Imagine someone creates a test in which anyone who's ever taken it has always answered each question correctly. This would result in everyone having a perfect score. The fact that no one in the history of the test has ever missed a question (no imperfect scores exist) does not in any way change the fact that everyone's scores were perfect. This is simply comparing something to a set of criteria and calling it perfect if it meets all criteria. Either you get all of the questions right or you don't and no one can get a better than perfect score since the criteria is fixed. While someone could answer all of the questions faster than anyone else, it's is not part of the criteria of the test.

Theists is claiming the criteria in which we should judge the universe for perfection happens to be exactly what the universe does. Since the universe really can't do anything other than what it actually does, it would do so "perfectly", which he claims this is proof that God exists. Essentially, he's retroactively observing the universe and using his observations to define his criteria for perfection.

This is like claiming I received a perfect score on a test, while missing three questions, since missing these questions was supposedly the intended outcome.

When asked how he knows what the universe does is what it's supposed to be doing, he simply says the universe must be perfect since it was made by a perfect being: God.

It's simply one big circular reference.

dadvocate wrote:


If I am honest about this, though, I guess I’d have to say I have a bias against actually applying perfection to anything tangible in our known world and universe. In my opinion it’s a hitching post that we can strive for in a sense, but it is never anything we can label as achieved or attained.

...

But I can’t for the life of me see how anything human made can ever be considered perfect, and I think humans are even more out of bounds in saying that a universe for instance—which appears very undersigned—could be called perfect in that same sense.



Yes. I'm hesitant as well because I don't think there is any intent in the universe to which we can use a criteria for perfection. However, I'm willing to conceed that you could say things like I'm a perfect example of myself because I am my own, self-defining criteria. However, this is really a non-statement since I can't be an imperfect example of myself nor does merely being "me" imply any sort of advantage when compared to other individuals.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
In response to

In response to Dadvocate.

 

Recieveing mercy is not the Goal in the Scenario, the Goal in the Scanario is obtaining Salvation which is Personal Knowledge of the Truth of Life.

Mercy is an Abstract Idea, in Chrisitanity Joshua is the Living Image of the Mercy of Theos.

Where did Mercy Come From? It is an Act Commited by Sentient Beings, it was not "Created", it is Given and Recieved and Comes from within sentient Beings.

Mercy is understood in any Context between two Beings where One has Power over the Other.

Wow, were you serious when you said that about human beings? I think you better stick to describing yourself Dadvocate because what you say about humans being "Ugly", "Full of Lust", and "Imperfect". Your view of us is quite fucked, your philosophy is horrible and you need to lighten up, maybe you should allow the Light of Theos to Permeate your Human Flesh so you can see the Truth of Human Life, Enter the Light of the Logos.

It is a neccesity that Those things exist in your mind, but of course they are existing by those who revel in such things, and have disregard for the Truth of this Universe, your view is the View of Backbiting and Prideful People.

The Fate of Modern Theology? Who cares about Modern Theology? Truthful Salvation Through Knowledge is the Sought after Goal of This Life and with your Attitude, you shall Nevar Recieve it.

 

Cheers to you my Brother.

I hope you come to the Truth, But if Not, I hope you can at least live with your "Disgusting Genatalie"

I quite love all the Universe, including our "Disgusting Genetalia"

I think you are a Weirdo of Sorts, something Becoming all to common.Tongue out

 

In Love Brotha!

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:
thiest wrote:

 

Have Mercy, and Theos will have Mercy on you.

One doesn't have to belive in a supernatural being to show or receive mercy. Nor does the fact that mercy exists prove the existence of God.

 

 

Exactly my Point, if you Have Mercy the Almighty Theos will have Mercy upon you, If you Love, he Will Love you, if you Hate, he will Love you. 

Tell me Maya, what "Fact" will prove the Existance of Theos?

The "Facts" are Already among us, he is Proven to me, he Is not Proven to you because that is the Will of Theos.

 The Revelation of Theos is Mighty, and it is obviously to High of a Thought for your Lowly Desires.

I do not mean to Offend you, but it is the Truth.

 In Love Brother.

 

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Using my own perception and




Using my own perception and knowledge, I can say that the universe is perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators.

 

Indeed it is, Without them how would I know how Truly Great Theos was, like I Said it is a nessacity that Those Things exist, I Thank God for Them as it is what Shows his True Greatness.

It's not debatable as if the universe actually does this since we know that a small number mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators really do exist.

 Indeed this is True, I do not Disagree, are you not Happy that you are not One of them? Thank the Almighty Theos.



So, the universe is indeed perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators.

 

Indeed, you are Correct.

Since you claim that the mere fact that any happens in the universe proves that it's designed by God to happen, then God must have designed the universe to be perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators. Right?

 

Indeed, he Did, and I am Grateful that he did such things, It is the Way of Truth, Thank the Almighty for his Awesome Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for without it, how could we understand the Good?

 

Of course, God couldn't possibly be responsible for making this decision. 

 

Oh, he is surely Responisble.

 

Much Love Brother. 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Dadvocate wrote: Quote:

Dadvocate wrote:

Quote:
One doesn't have to belive in a supernatural being to show or receive mercy. Nor does the fact that mercy exists prove the existence of God.

That of course is the point that we all should understand. The problem comes when someone asserts that the mercy one receives is in fact coming from his or her “Theos.” Then all one has to do is post hoc one’s way into categorizing whatever one did earlier to deserve this mercy and one has a neat little circle to build a tradition on.

Of course it helps a great deal if one gets enough people around to agree on what mercy is and how to give it (as proxies for Theos) and it also helps a lot if one can even establish what it means to have received no mercy at all. With that added assertion one has all the tools one needs in order to live an entire life with blinders on.

Sad really

Cheers!

 

Tis you with the Blinders on, Can you see the Holy Light of the Logos?

I Can.

You are Blind to it.

But you didnt put the Blinders on.

Theos placed them on you.

Peace Brother.

 

In Love. 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Dadvocate wrote: Quote:

Dadvocate wrote:

Quote:
Using my own perception and knowledge, I can say that the universe is perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators... Since you claim that the mere fact that any happens in the universe proves that it's designed by God to happen, then God must have designed the universe to be perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators. Right?

I understand where you are going with this Veils, and I think your point is a fair one. All the same would claim further that it is not a good idea to give Theist this equivocation in the first place.

The notion of perfection implies not only the creation of both the good and bad examples in the universe (if those are in fact the right words), but it also implies efficiency, economics in time and material, reproductive benefit, and a whole lot of other things that I am sure we could add to the mix. Forgive me for not naming the person who brought this up a few pages back, but I think it was said well. To imply perfection within the universe, one needs more universes for comparative purposes to establish that perfection, and even then the sample might not be large enough to make that claim. Just think of the sample size of data necessary to determine at what temperature different species of frogs perish or in determining why some mammals need to care for their young for long periods of time while others are self reliant very quickly. There are I am sure better examples I could cite. That complexity of knowledge, which itself may not even reach perfection status, requires a great deal of data. Why shouldn’t this be the case for a universe with exponentially more complex systems than either of these two examples? The statement by Theist is as bankrupt as it is presumptuous, which is, well, par for the course.

Theist, as usual, says he knows enough to know, but like all his catcalls he has zero foundation in these claims. The only rational comment he can make on the universe given what we all know is that the universe displays a capacity for:

forming matter.

You know, even that seems a stretch. What if the matter already existed? Then it would be more a question of containing matter than creating it. And if that is true then a jar is perfect for containing matter if we wish to apply Theists thinking.

He cannot know in any way that the system of the universe we observe in isolation is in fact perfect. It is what it is based on what we know. Perfection shouldn’t be asserted by either side, unless of course a new definition of perfect is being used and explained at the forefront, something I see Theist avoiding like the plague.

Cheers!

 

It just is not right for you to equate your knowledge of the universe with mine, nor My knowledge of the Universe with yours, they are very differant.

You have Perceptual, Sensical Knowlegde and So do I.

 I have Inner Being Knowledge, alot of it, you apparantly have Zilch.

 How do those Blinders Feel?

In Love Brother. 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:
Dadvocate wrote:


Theist, as usual, says he knows enough to know, but like all his catcalls he has zero foundation in these claims. The only rational comment he can make on the universe given what we all know is that the universe displays a capacity for:

forming matter.

You know, even that seems a stretch. What if the matter already existed? Then it would be more a question of containing matter than creating it. And if that is true then a jar is perfect for containing matter if we wish to apply Theists thinking.

He cannot know in any way that the system of the universe we observe in isolation is in fact perfect. It is what it is based on what we know. Perfection shouldn’t be asserted by either side, unless of course a new definition of perfect is being used and explained at the forefront, something I see Theist avoiding like the plague.

Cheers!


I agree, this does seem like a stretch.

However, to claim perfection, all you need is a specific criteria in which to compare against. If you claim the criteria is mediocrity, inefficiency, or a limited number of results, as I did, then perfection can be claimed against this criteria. For example, one could claim someone committed a perfect murder since they killed someone and left no clues or evidence that could point to them as the clulprit. You don't need other murders to compare them to since the criteria of not leaving evidence can exist without someone actually leaving evidence. All you need is the potential for leaving evidence.

While some murders are more watertight than others, it's reasonable to call such a murder perfect since it fits the criteria.

The crux of the issue here is that Theist's seems to think that he can derive God's intention for the universe based on what the universe actually does. This is where he comes up with his criteria for perfection.

Theist wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


...In other words. Things happen. They happen because God made them happen. God is all powerful, all knowing and perfect. Therefore, regardless of what happens, it was supposed to happen that way and it's the only right way



Precisely.



In doing so, he makes claims that the universe is perfect for creating matter, beings with free will, etc.

I'm simply pointing out that, by using the same logic as Theist, one could also assume that the universe is perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators because a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators are born in our universe. I'm assuming that a less than efficent, low quantity restult is what's intented because that's what exists.

This goes back to my point that...

Veils of Maya wrote:


If you're saying that the Universe is a "machine" that does X and it does X perfectly, then I would agree. But that doesn't mean the end result of X is a perfect result compared to some other result.



In reality, all of this this is a non-statement. Things do exactly what they do. They can't do anything else. Implying that anyone can derive intention from what the universe does because it does just that is irrational, which was the point of my post.

Without some kind of proof or evidence that God really exists, is behind the creation and function of the universe and intended the universe to do what it does, he's simply making statements that can't be substantiated. As such, claiming that God exists since someone had to design the universe to do what it does, is circular.

 

I know what I Know and you Know what you Know.

I Know the Mighty Theos, you do Not.

It is the Way of the World.

Peace Brother. 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Theist wrote:  I know

Theist wrote:


 I know what I Know and you Know what you Know.

I Know the Mighty Theos, you do Not.

It is the Way of the World.

Peace Brother.



And we reach the point in the conversation when the theist falls back to making naked assertions of knowledge that cannot be substantiated or authenticated as obtained from a supernatural source.

I just know and you don't.

It's the way of the theist.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:
Theist wrote:


 I know what I Know and you Know what you Know.

I Know the Mighty Theos, you do Not.

It is the Way of the World.

Peace Brother.



And we reach the point in the conversation when the theist falls back to making naked assertions of knowledge that cannot be substantiated or authenticated as obtained from a supernatural source.

I just know and you don't.

It's the way of the theist.

 Wrong as usual, It is not based on "Naked Assertion" is is all Based in Perception.

I Percieve The Almighty in the Concrete World through the Abstraction of Forms and Functions.

You Percieve No God through the Concrete Universe, that is your Perception.

Ask yourself this Maya.

 Can you Percieve Something that Does not Exist?

And remember, to Perceieve Something is to See Something and to See Something is to Know Something.

I Know what I See and you Know what you See.

 Do you not Agree?

 

I say to you that I Know and See and Percieve that Theos the Almighty Resides in Oneness.

One is Equal to Infinity.

Theos in both Oneness and Infinity, as they are the Same.

Now, tell me this Maya.

 

You Claim that God Does Not Exist.

 

Is it Possible to Know or to See or To Percieve that which is not Seeable, or Knowable, or Percievable?

Or Only that which Is?

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote: Veils of

thiest wrote:

Veils of Maya wrote:
Theist wrote:


I know what I Know and you Know what you Know.

I Know the Mighty Theos, you do Not.

It is the Way of the World.

Peace Brother.



And we reach the point in the conversation when the theist falls back to making naked assertions of knowledge that cannot be substantiated or authenticated as obtained from a supernatural source.

I just know and you don't.

It's the way of the theist.

Wrong as usual, It is not based on "Naked Assertion" is is all Based in Perception.

I Percieve The Almighty in the Concrete World through the Abstraction of Forms and Functions.

You Percieve No God through the Concrete Universe, that is your Perception.

Ask yourself this Maya.

Can you Percieve Something that Does not Exist?

And remember, to Perceieve Something is to See Something and to See Something is to Know Something.

I Know what I See and you Know what you See.

Do you not Agree?

 

I say to you that I Know and See and Percieve that Theos the Almighty Resides in Oneness.

One is Equal to Infinity.

Theos in both Oneness and Infinity, as they are the Same.

Now, tell me this Maya.

 

You Claim that God Does Not Exist.

 

Is it Possible to Know or to See or To Percieve that which is not Seeable, or Knowable, or Percievable?

Or Only that which Is?

 

 

Perceiving something in your mind doesn't make it true. Otherwise, this world would be scary as hell due to all of the people who do acid.

 

im·ag·i·na·tion      /ɪˌmædʒəˈneɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-maj-uh-ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
2.the action or process of forming such images or concepts.
3.the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy (def. 2).
4.the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.
5.ability to face and resolve difficulties; resourcefulness: a job that requires imagination.
6.Psychology. the power of reproducing images stored in the memory under the suggestion of associated images (reproductive imagination) or of recombining former experiences in the creation of new images directed at a specific goal or aiding in the solution of problems (creative imagination).

 

 

Ooh! #6 is a good one! #4 is pretty good, too! 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote:   I know

thiest wrote:

 

I know what I Know and you Know what you Know.

I Know the Mighty Theos, you do Not.

It is the Way of the World.

Peace Brother.

I'm either delusional or drugged or imaginative ("Know&quotEye-wink about what I'm del/drggd/imgntv about, and you're del/drggd/imgntv about what you're del/drggd/imgntv about.

I "Know" the Many Pokemon, you do Not.

It is the Way of the Pokemon Master.

Also, I know it's frowned upon when people enter a thread and kinda steer it off topic, but it does pertain to the "RRS defeats WOTM". I also don't know if this has already been mentioned, since I don't have a search function or anything, and it's been months since I went through all of the posts, so I'll post it anyways.

I remember Brian mentioning how all life forms that have ever existed are transitional forms in the debate. True. But when Martin Bashir (sp) asked Brian to explain this, mistaking being born such a form with growing up or something like that, Brian kinda was frustrated and started to talk about the National Science Museum (ok, honestly, don't remember if that's the right museum). I'm pretty sure Brian himself is aware of this, but since I haven't seen it mentioned, and people might be confused about that, just want to clear it up.

Yes, every creature ever born is a transitional form... and remains that transitional form throughout its/his/her life. They aren't born a trans' form, then after 5 years become something else, as I recall Bashir being confused about.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: thiest

Archeopteryx wrote:
thiest wrote:

Veils of Maya wrote:
Theist wrote:


I know what I Know and you Know what you Know.

I Know the Mighty Theos, you do Not.

It is the Way of the World.

Peace Brother.



And we reach the point in the conversation when the theist falls back to making naked assertions of knowledge that cannot be substantiated or authenticated as obtained from a supernatural source.

I just know and you don't.

It's the way of the theist.

Wrong as usual, It is not based on "Naked Assertion" is is all Based in Perception.

I Percieve The Almighty in the Concrete World through the Abstraction of Forms and Functions.

You Percieve No God through the Concrete Universe, that is your Perception.

Ask yourself this Maya.

Can you Percieve Something that Does not Exist?

And remember, to Perceieve Something is to See Something and to See Something is to Know Something.

I Know what I See and you Know what you See.

Do you not Agree?

 

I say to you that I Know and See and Percieve that Theos the Almighty Resides in Oneness.

One is Equal to Infinity.

Theos in both Oneness and Infinity, as they are the Same.

Now, tell me this Maya.

 

You Claim that God Does Not Exist.

 

Is it Possible to Know or to See or To Percieve that which is not Seeable, or Knowable, or Percievable?

Or Only that which Is?

 

 

Perceiving something in your mind doesn't make it true. Otherwise, this world would be scary as hell due to all of the people who do acid.

 

im·ag·i·na·tion /ɪˌmædʒəˈneɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-maj-uh-ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
2.the action or process of forming such images or concepts.
3.the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy (def. 2).
4.the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.
5.ability to face and resolve difficulties; resourcefulness: a job that requires imagination.
6.Psychology. the power of reproducing images stored in the memory under the suggestion of associated images (reproductive imagination) or of recombining former experiences in the creation of new images directed at a specific goal or aiding in the solution of problems (creative imagination).

 

 

Ooh! #6 is a good one! #4 is pretty good, too!

 

I see what you Say Skull Man.

 

Do you not See in the Argument of the Oh most Highest of Wisdom of Socrates?

That Men only Can Judge that Which is True, that Both at the Same Time, They Can Make False Judgement?

 

Do you see This Most Reverent Precept? 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
ctressle wrote: thiest

ctressle wrote:
thiest wrote:

 

I know what I Know and you Know what you Know.

I Know the Mighty Theos, you do Not.

It is the Way of the World.

Peace Brother.

I'm either delusional or drugged or imaginative ("Know&quotEye-wink about what I'm del/drggd/imgntv about, and you're del/drggd/imgntv about what you're del/drggd/imgntv about.

I "Know" the Many Pokemon, you do Not.

It is the Way of the Pokemon Master.

Also, I know it's frowned upon when people enter a thread and kinda steer it off topic, but it does pertain to the "RRS defeats WOTM". I also don't know if this has already been mentioned, since I don't have a search function or anything, and it's been months since I went through all of the posts, so I'll post it anyways.

I remember Brian mentioning how all life forms that have ever existed are transitional forms in the debate. True. But when Martin Bashir (sp) asked Brian to explain this, mistaking being born such a form with growing up or something like that, Brian kinda was frustrated and started to talk about the National Science Museum (ok, honestly, don't remember if that's the right museum). I'm pretty sure Brian himself is aware of this, but since I haven't seen it mentioned, and people might be confused about that, just want to clear it up.

Yes, every creature ever born is a transitional form... and remains that transitional form throughout its/his/her life. They aren't born a trans' form, then after 5 years become something else, as I recall Bashir being confused about.

 

I "Know" the Many Pokemon, you do Not.

It is the Way of the Pokemon Master.

 

Indeed, if what you Claim is True about you Being the Pokemon Master, then Indeed I shall come to you For Information about the Pokemon.

 

I Say This.

that Joshua the Annointed Adonai who is the Light of The Logos ,The First Born of Theos, indeed is the Master of the Judgement of Theos.

 

So by your Own Logic, Who should I look to For Information of the Pokemon?

That would be You.

 

Who should I look to for The Information on the Almighty Theos?

Joshua The Annointed, Prove Me Wrong Please, Oh Wise Man. 

 

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   I see what you


Quote:

 

I see what you Say Skull Man.

 

Do you not See in the Argument of the Oh most Highest of Wisdom of Socrates?

That Men only Can Judge that Which is True, that Both at the Same Time, They Can Make False Judgement?

 

Do you see This Most Reverent Precept?

 

I see the concept. I just think it is you who is making the false judgment.

And you, of course, think it is me. We have now established that we disagree on something. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote:   I "Know"

thiest wrote:

 

I "Know" the Many Pokemon, you do Not.

It is the Way of the Pokemon Master.

 

Indeed, if what you Claim is True about you Being the Pokemon Master, then Indeed I shall come to you For Information about the Pokemon.

 

I Say This.

that Joshua the Annointed Adonai who is the Light of The Logos ,The First Born of Theos, indeed is the Master of the Judgement of Theos.

 

So by your Own Logic, Who should I look to For Information of the Pokemon?

That would be You.

 

Who should I look to for The Information on the Almighty Theos?

Joshua The Annointed, Prove Me Wrong Please, Oh Wise Man.

 

 When I said I'm the Pokemon Master, what did you think that meant? That I just collect Pokemon cards, and watch the cartoons?

I actually collect real pokemon, with my real pokeballs. I really do go on adventures chasing more and more pokemon. I actually send my pokemon to fight in battles. etc...

Ok, needless to say, the assertions I made above are ludicrous; but you should get my point. (By the way, I was never even interested in Pokemon, but my cousin almost drove me nuts with the franchise. And the only decent concept that climbed a foot out of the black hole of bizarre fantasy was "mewtwo", so yea I'm a fiction-that's-akin-to-Dragonball Z fan.) But, that's what I meant when I typed what I did, in my first post. I didn't mean I merely knew all the pokemon names, their powers, or anything; I was being silly to make a point: I was saying I was intimate with the pokemon I had captured, in the same way I think you would mean you're intimate with theos.

And further more, even if I happen to be some "master of pokemon" in whatever sense, you having to come to me for information regarding pokemon is not of "my own logic", but would just be common sense. Becuase who else would you speak to?


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote: Veils of

thiest wrote:


Veils of Maya wrote:
Theist wrote:


I know what I Know and you Know what you Know.

I Know the Mighty Theos, you do Not.

It is the Way of the World.

Peace Brother.



And we reach the point in the conversation when the theist falls back to making naked assertions of knowledge that cannot be substantiated or authenticated as obtained from a supernatural source.

I just know and you don't.

It's the way of the theist.


Wrong as usual, It is not based on "Naked Assertion" is is all Based in Perception.

I Percieve The Almighty in the Concrete World through the Abstraction of Forms and Functions.

You Percieve No God through the Concrete Universe, that is your Perception.




We all make abstractions out of the universe. If we did not, it would be extremely difficult to switch between different models of cars or do our jobs.

Abstractions are a mechanism we use to categorize and conceptualize the physical universe.  They are one of many ways we can slice and dice reality into convenient ideas that help us navigate and manage our world.

However, I realize these abstractions are limited in their context and value. They are simply one of many ways of looking at things. Most importantly, they do not represent an absolute truth that has value in all contexts.

You, on the other hand, claim that you perceive God in the abstraction of our universe, that he really exists, and that he is the answer to everything and anything. You also claim this is the only true way of looking at things.

This is were we differ.

Theist wrote:


Ask yourself this Maya.

Can you Percieve Something that Does not Exist?



Sure you can.

All models of cars are different. They have pedals, levers and controls of different sizes in various locations. They are constructed out of different materials with different manufacturing techniques. Yet, when you look at all of these models, you recognize them as a car.

However, this abstraction does not really exist. There is no one abstract "car" that you can touch or see. However, without this abstraction, it would be difficult to drive a rental car or trade in your current vehicle for the latest model.

Just as important, the concept of a car has a limited value. Just because something looks like a car, doesn't mean you can actually drive it. Nor does it mean all cars have the same quality or safety ratings. The concept of "safety" is something completely different. Also, the concept of a "car" tells us nothing about other things like the weather, what stocks to invest in or who we should date or marry. It's usefulness is limited to a particular context.

thiest wrote:


And remember, to Perceieve Something is to See Something and to See Something is to Know Something.

I Know what I See and you Know what you See.

Do you not Agree?



To continue my example, you know about cars, but this does not mean the abstract definition of a "car" really exists in physical reality. Nor can you use the concept of a car to fly an airplane. You can know how to drive a car, yet have no idea how safe it is, how it really works internally or how to repair it if it breaks down.

thiest wrote:


I say to you that I Know and See and Percieve that Theos the Almighty Resides in Oneness.

One is Equal to Infinity.

Theos in both Oneness and Infinity, as they are the Same.



You've abstracted God from the universe and claim that...

- You have knowledge of God
- I do not have knowledge of God because I'm simply not looking for it in the right place
- God really exists, even though you have no concrete evidence to back up your claim
- God created everything, is all powerful, all knowing and perfect. Therefor, your concept of  God has value in all contexts and is always correct, regardless of how imperfect it seems.

thiest wrote:


Now, tell me this Maya.

You Claim that God Does Not Exist.



I do not believe the theist's claim that God really exists. Nor do I believe that the concept of God has value in all contexts.  When you, or other theists, tell me that I will be eternally punished by God for not believing he really exists or following what you perceive as his will, I think you're taking your concept of God too far.

I think the concept of God has value, but in respect to what humanity's perception of God say about our psychological needs as a species. About our needs as societies. Etc.

In other words, if people are perceiving God, then this perception represents something that they feel is important to them, but I don't think it means that God really exists or that we should live our lives by what other perceive as his will.

I think the concept of God is a convenient way that some people use to try and make sense of the world. Just like the concept of a car is a convenient way of looking at the many different makes and models of automobiles that exist.

thiest wrote:


Is it Possible to Know or to See or To Percieve that which is not Seeable, or Knowable, or Percievable?



Yes. See above.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
And further more, even if I


And further more, even if I happen to be some "master of pokemon" in whatever sense, you having to come to me for information regarding pokemon is not of "my own logic", but would just be common sense. Becuase who else would you speak to?

 

So if I want to Learn about God, who Should I inquire to?

 

Oh, Obviously Richard Dawkins, Brian Sapient, and Rook Hawkins, Duh!

Becasue they are the "Master of the Knowledge of God" Right?

They are Masters of the Non-Existant!

They are Masters of Nothing!

Geniuses!

 

I Have a Great Idea! 

Now I Will Go create a Website and Write a Book on "Hate" and How it Does not Exist! 

Ill Call it, "The Loving Response Squad" Website and I will Have a Slogan that is Called "Hate is a Mind Disorder"

Then Ill write my Book Called "The Hate Dilusion"

Then I will Rid the World of This Rediculous Idea Called "Hate"

 "Wish" me Luck!

Wait, I Mean "Pray" for me Fo Sho! 

Peace Dudes!

 

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
We all make abstractions

We all make abstractions out of the universe. If we did not, it would be extremely difficult to switch between different models of cars or do our jobs.

 Abstractions are a mechanism we use to categorize and conceptualize the physical universe.  They are one of many ways we can slice and dice reality into convenient ideas that help us navigate and manage our world.

However, I realize these abstractions are limited in their context and value. They are simply one of many ways of looking at things. Most importantly, they do not represent an absolute truth that has value in all contexts.

 So Time is not an Absolute Truth and Abstracting it Is not Scientific? Also Measurement of anything is Not Real? Abstraction of Measurement is Very Real, or should we just Say that Abstraction of Measrurement is a Figment of Our Imangination? Is Abstraction Real then Maya?

You, on the other hand, claim that you perceive God in the abstraction of our universe, that he really exists, and that he is the answer to everything and anything. You also claim this is the only true way of looking at things.

The Only way of Looking at Things is The True and Right Way, And This is Through Theos, The Eternal Ether, The Flowing Truth, The Spirit of God. 

Abstractions are Thought Substance and It is Completely Real, The Truth is the Ether that Thought Flows Through and is The Essence of God. 

  I do not Claim to Percieve God, I Percieve God, in the Eternal Essence of All Things.

What is it that you Claim to Percieve? or do you Percieve Nothing? 

All models of cars are different. They have pedals, levers and controls of different sizes in various locations. They are constructed out of different materials with different manufacturing techniques. Yet, when you look at all of these models, you recognize them as a car.

However, this abstraction does not really exist. There is no one abstract "car" that you can touch or see. However, without this abstraction, it would be difficult to drive a rental car or trade in your current vehicle for the latest model.

Just as important, the concept of a car has a limited value. Just because something looks like a car, doesn't mean you can actually drive it. Nor does it mean all cars have the same quality or safety ratings. The concept of "safety" is something completely different. Also, the concept of a "car" tells us nothing about other things like the weather, what stocks to invest in or who we should date or marry. It's usefulness is limited to a particular context.

Ok, So you do not belive in the Abstract Model of The Car.

 Does the Abstract Form of The Circle Exist?

Does The Abstract Form of a Square Exist?

Does the Abstract Form of a Sphere Exist?

Strange because thay are Imbedded into the Universe, yet they do not Exist, According to you Maya? 

You've abstracted God from the universe and claim that...

- You have knowledge of God
- I do not have knowledge of God because I'm simply not looking for it in the right place
- God really exists, even though you have no concrete evidence to back up your claim
- God created everything, is all powerful, all knowing and perfect. Therefor, your concept of  God has value in all contexts and is always correct, regardless of how imperfect it seems.

Indeed, The Annointing is Wonderful. 

Is the Concrete Evidence of the Pyramids Evidence that the Egyptians Existed?

Wait, that must have been a Random Geological Formation?

Must be.

Wait you will Say, but we Have Other Evidence, Writings, Artifacts, Things of This Nature.

I am in possession of a Divine Artifact, Its Called a State of Being and I Possess One, It is Quite Nice, I Also Abstract The Eternal Essence From The Code Within The Divine/Natural Order, It is Quite Glorious.

I spent alot of Time polishing it off and Excavating it, Removing the Impurities From it and Cleaning it So I could get a Good Look at the Artifact, Boy, You should Dust yours Off and Examine it Sometime, maybe then you Can Make a Deduction on its Origin?

I have Found the Origin To be The Most Ancient and Uncreated Essence, It is In The Same State as my Eternal and Wonderful Theos.

Now that I have Discovered Immortality, What do I have to Worry About? Cept the Day when I shall Remove the Body and Become Like my Father.

Oh it Shall be Glorious. 

I do not believe the theist's claim that God really exists. Nor do I believe that the concept of God has value in all contexts.  When you, or other theists, tell me that I will be eternally punished by God for not believing he really exists or following what you perceive as his will, I think you're taking your concept of God too far.

 

You only Punish Yourself, The Flaming Fire is a Spirit of Theos that Will Cleanse your Soul of Impurities, Do what you Will, Your Punishment is your Own, Only Your Own Deeds Will come back upon you, as is Taught by the Religion of The Earth, In the Sacred Writings of The Modern and The Ancient.

I think the concept of God has value, but in respect to what humanity's perception of God say about our psychological needs as a species. About our needs as societies. Etc.

 

So what does it Say about Our Needs Maya, I would be Much Enthralled to hear what you Say our Needs are and How they Relate to the God of The Universe.

In other words, if people are perceiving God, then this perception represents something that they feel is important to them, but I don't think it means that God really exists or that we should live our lives by what other perceive as his will.

Wait, So they Percieve Something that is Important to Them, but it Does not Exist? Where did they Get this "Importance" of This "Thing" That Has Nevar Existed?

Seems Impossible To Find Something to Be Important, but it Has Nevar Existed? 

Where Does the Idea of God Come From So To Speak?  In your Mind? 

I think the concept of God is a convenient way that some people use to try and make sense of the world. Just like the concept of a car is a convenient way of looking at the many different makes and models of automobiles that exist.

So The Concept of The Circle is Just a Convenient Way for Us to Percieve the Universe, But Circles and Spheres Do not Really Exist? 

So the World is not a Sphere?

And when I think of a Sphere in my Mind, Theires Really No Such Thing as a Sphere? 

thiest wrote:

Is it Possible to Know or to See or To Percieve that which is not Seeable, or Knowable, or Percievable?

Yes. See above.

 

So what your Saying is that The Thing Being Percieved Does not Exist, but the Perception of the Thing Does Exist?

So Perception Can Exist Without Something that is being Percieved?

So I can Percieve Something That is Nothing?

So things that Do not Exist Can be Percieved? 

Actually That Sounds Quite Absurd.

What Exactly Am I Perceiving then When I am Looking At The Almighty Theos in His Boundless Sphere of Eternal Essence? 

Peace Dude. 

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
I apologize, perhaps I

I apologize, perhaps I should have been more clear (and shouldn't have bothered: nit-picky below), though I thought what I was trying to say would have been understood.

I actually hesitated to put that last paragraph in (I'll be referring to my post before this one when I say things like, "last paragraph" ), because I felt I was being nit-picky about your use of the word logic, and I think I kinda knew what you really meant - not 'by my logic', but something more like 'by my points'. Really, I'm more interested in you're response to my other paragraphs, seeing as they seem to be more to the point, rather than on some technicality of the use of some word (as my last paragraph was meant for). But, I suppose I'll elaborate on my last paragraph:

When I say, "but [that] would just be common sense. Becuase who else would you speak to?" and "in whatever sense", I mean:

1) Pokemon actually exist, and further I happen to collect and send them into battle. In this case, you should ask me for info regarding pokemon.

2) Closer to this reality, in which pokemon do NOT exist, but, as a condition I said in my last paragraph "I happened to be a master of pokemon in 'whatever sense'", where I trade pokemon cards and watch the cartoon series, again you should ask me for info regarding pokemon.

3) Again, closer to this reality in which pokemon do not exist. But this time, being a "master of pokemon", let this sense be: I'm clinically insane, thinking they actually exist, yet still know almost everything about them. I'm in my back yard, yelling at thin air (as the kids in the cartoon yell at their pet pokemon, telling them how to fight in the arena). I may be insane in this scenario, but you still might want to ask me if you want info about pokemon.

(as an aside, in THIS reality, I dislike the pokemon franchise, so I might be the last person you want to ask; remember, I said, "IF I happened to be a master of pokemon" )

In such possibilities, I say again: you having to come to me would just be common sense. It's not "my logic" you would come to me to ask for info, as I understand it. You just simply have no choice (unless there are other pokemon masters of course, but that point should also be understood, and your response to me was in the context of you coming exclusively to me, again as understood). And that would be by your logic, not mine; I'm not making any decisions, when you decide to come ask me.

As a response to you,

thiest wrote:


So if I want to Learn about God, who Should I inquire to?



Oh, Obviously Richard Dawkins, Brian Sapient, and Rook Hawkins, Duh!

Becasue they are the "Master of the Knowledge of God" Right?

They are Masters of the Non-Existant!

They are Masters of Nothing!

Geniuses!



Well, it depends on what kind of information you're looking for.

Do pokemon exist? Why not?
Ask almost anybody on the planet who's familar with the franchise, but not delusional people who are religious about pokemon (if there are any such of the latter).

What are the pokemon names, powers, etc...?
Ask anyone who trades cards, watches the cartoon, plays the games, etc...

Now, ask the similar questions regarding gods:
Do god(s) exist? Why not?
Yes (to your Q, not mine directly above), I would recommend the people you mentioned, for the very reasons they would suggest: lack of evidence, cultural evolution and syncretism and memetics and ancient naivete, etc...

What are the god(s)' names, powers, etc...?
Ask any follower of the respective religion that/those god(s) fit in. Theologions are supposed to be the experts on such matters, but in the words of Pat Condell, theology is really more of a creative art than a branch of philosophy. (in case you're interested why/what he meant when he said that, search for him on YouTube; he only has 11 or 13 or so vid's)

thiest wrote:


I Have a Great Idea!

Now I Will Go create a Website and Write a Book on "Hate" and How it Does not Exist!



Hate can be measured. Sociology and Psychology are sciences, even if rather "soft". God(s), and any supernatural phenomena, on the other hand, can't be measured. If any god(s) possibly exist that CAN be measured, then they fall in the same category as pokemon: there is a lack of evidence, so don't bother.

But again, I digress: I'm more interested in your response to my first three paragraphs (my first point), not my last paragraph (2nd point). Especially the last sentence in my 1st point:

ctressle wrote:


I didn't mean I merely knew all the pokemon names, their powers, or anything; I was being silly to make a point: I was saying I was intimate with the pokemon I had captured, in the same way I think you would mean you're intimate with theos.



Translation: if I was convinced I was intimate with pokemon (say, in possibility 3 way above), then would I not be delusional?


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Abstractions.

Quote:
So Time is not an Absolute Truth and Abstracting it Is not Scientific? Also Measurement of anything is Not Real? Abstraction of Measurement is Very Real, or should we just Say that Abstraction of Measrurement is a Figment of Our Imangination? Is Abstraction Real then Maya?

Measurement is abstract in the sense that there are different rules of measure. For example, you might measure things in pounds or you might measure things in grams. Both are units of measure, both measure weight, and both are real; however, they operate in different-sized units. The abstraction here lies in the fact that measurement is real, but the units of measurement are arbitrary.

Similarly, to go back to the car example, we know that cars are real, but the form (model) of a car is arbitrary.

Therefore, when you simply say "measurement" or you simply say "car" you are using an abstraction.

thiest wrote:

You, on the other hand, claim that you perceive God in the abstraction of our universe, that he really exists, and that he is the answer to everything and anything. You also claim this is the only true way of looking at things.

The Only way of Looking at Things is The True and Right Way, And This is Through Theos, The Eternal Ether, The Flowing Truth, The Spirit of God. 

Abstractions are Thought Substance and It is Completely Real, The Truth is the Ether that Thought Flows Through and is The Essence of God.

The existence of abstractions is not indicative of a god in any way. You're simply applying god to the abstract so that you can't be cornered by people who ask you to define him in a concrete way.

thiest wrote:

  I do not Claim to Percieve God, I Percieve God, in the Eternal Essence of All Things.

What is it that you Claim to Percieve? or do you Percieve Nothing?

Atheists perceive all kinds of things. They just don't perceive a god anywhere.

thiest wrote:
 

Ok, So you do not belive in the Abstract Model of The Car.

Just need to make a clarification here.

The point isn't that abstraction itself doesn't exist or that we can't conceive of an abstraction that stands for cars in general. When you say the word "car", I form an abstraction in my mind that symbolizes what makes up a car. When I hear the word, my mind immediately assembles all of the things that it knows can be attributed to "car". However, even though it's possible to perceive such an abstraction, it is impossible to  have such an abstraction actually exist. The abstraction I form in my mind is not a mental picture of any real, particular car. It stands for all possible aspects of cars and no particular car while excluding all aspects that do not involved cars, and it does this all simultaneously and ambiguously in a way that I understand. However, this abstraction cannot exist in physical reality.

thiest wrote:

 Does the Abstract Form of The Circle Exist?

Not in physical reality, no. When you say the word "circle" I conceive of an abstraction that encompasses all possible circles, no particular circles, and nothing that does not involve circles. However, such a thing does not and cannot exist in physical reality.

The abstraction exists, but the physical thing does not.

thiest wrote:

Does The Abstract Form of a Square Exist?

No.

thiest wrote:

Does the Abstract Form of a Sphere Exist?

No.

thiest wrote:

Strange because thay are Imbedded into the Universe, yet they do not Exist, According to you Maya?

Circles, squres, and spheres of various kinds exist in the universe, but not a single one of them is the abstract form. They are all particular forms. The abstraction is simply a tool we use to identify these forms when we see them. It is a sort of mental filter.

thiest wrote:

Indeed, The Annointing is Wonderful. 

Is the Concrete Evidence of the Pyramids Evidence that the Egyptians Existed

Wait, that must have been a Random Geological Formation?

No one here would ever argue that. They were obviously man-made. There is plenty of evidence that the Egyptians did, in fact, exist. Actually, they still do. Egypt is still a country.

thiest wrote:

Wait you will Say, but we Have Other Evidence, Writings, Artifacts, Things of This Nature.

True.

thiest wrote:

I am in possession of a Divine Artifact, Its Called a State of Being

 You said "divine artifact". Your use of "divine" automatically sets your example apart from the "physical artifacts" you mentioned in reference to the Egyptians. So already this is a faulty comparison.

thiest wrote:

 and I Possess One, It is Quite Nice,

You possess a consciousness. Every living person has one of these. However, as Dan Dennett has pointed out, (and as has been proven), just because you have consciousness does not make you an expert on the nature of consciousness. 

thiest wrote:

 I Also Abstract The Eternal Essence From The Code Within The Divine/Natural Order, It is Quite Glorious.

That's quite a bunch of woo-woo. Sounds good, but what does this mean exactly? What code? What divine/natural order? This isn't an argument from design is it? That would be dangerous territory for you to enter.

thiest wrote:

I spent alot of Time polishing it off and Excavating it, Removing the Impurities From it and Cleaning it So I could get a Good Look at the Artifact, Boy, You should Dust yours Off and Examine it Sometime, maybe then you Can Make a Deduction on its Origin?

As I said before, you have used the term "artifact" only rhetorically, and so this is not a genuine comparison.

You're also trying to prove your beliefs by parading your satisfaction with them. If they existed, wouldn't even an unsatisfied person be able to perceive them? If so, how would they?

thiest wrote:

I have Found the Origin To be The Most Ancient and Uncreated Essence,

Is this a first cause argument? Your showing favoritism toward your superior being here. You're essentially saying that everything must have a cause except for your god or "theos" or whatever you call him. Why does he get an exception when nothing else gets an exception? If he doesn't need a cause, why can't we suppose that nothing else does either?

He's only uncaused because you want him to be.

thiest wrote:
 

Now that I have Discovered Immortality, What do I have to Worry About? Cept the Day when I shall Remove the Body and Become Like my Father.

Dead. =)

thiest wrote:

You only Punish Yourself, The Flaming Fire is a Spirit of Theos that Will Cleanse your Soul of Impurities, Do what you Will, Your Punishment is your Own, Only Your Own Deeds Will come back upon you, as is Taught by the Religion of The Earth, In the Sacred Writings of The Modern and The Ancient.

Translation: "I'm not saying that you have to believe what I believe. All I'm saying is it would be a real shame if something bad happened to you, you know?"

So... believe in your religion or else? Good argument.

thiest wrote:

So what does it Say about Our Needs Maya, I would be Much Enthralled to hear what you Say our Needs are and How they Relate to the God of The Universe.

Our needs are not related to any god of the universe. That was pretty easy.

thiest wrote:

Wait, So they Percieve Something that is Important to Them, but it Does not Exist? Where did they Get this "Importance" of This "Thing" That Has Nevar Existed?

Children find Santa Claus to be a very wonderful and important thing. They try to be good for him because they know he's watching and he's got goodies for them if they're good little kiddies.

Simply believing something is true does not mean that it must be true. Believing something is important does not mean that it must be important.

thiest wrote:

Seems Impossible To Find Something to Be Important, but it Has Nevar Existed?

People who have studied emotion would probably characterize it as a goal of some sort. By following/believing in a certain god/religion, they are attempting to achieve some goal.

As with other personal goals, the achievement has a positive emotional response. The failure to achieve the goal has a negative emotional response.

Perceiving a goal and believing you are on the right track for accomplishing that goal will make you happy, but it does not mean that the goal in question can actually be achieved or is even real.

If a child believes that if he is good, Santa will bring him presents, this belief can bring him happiness and a feeling of contedness. If he believes he is on track to accomplish his goal, he is happy. If he honestly believes in Santa, he is happy. However, this goal-based happiness does not prove that Santa is real, nor does it prove that being good will guarantee you presents on xmas.

thiest wrote:

Where Does the Idea of God Come From So To Speak?  In your Mind? 

Yeah, basically.

thiest wrote:

So The Concept of The Circle is Just a Convenient Way for Us to Percieve the Universe, But Circles and Spheres Do not Really Exist?

No, the concept of a circle is just a convenient way for you to understand all circles, not the entire universe.

Understanding the entire universe in terms of an abstraction would require you to conceive of an abstract model of what constitutes universes.

Quote:
 

So the World is not a Sphere?

The world is not a perfect sphere, actually. There is a lot of force being pushed outward to its equators due to its high rate of rotation, thus making it slightly ovular. But even if the world were a perfect sphere, it would not be the abstract form of all spheres. And even though it is ovular, it is not the abstract form of all ovular things.

Quote:

And when I think of a Sphere in my Mind, Theires Really No Such Thing as a Sphere? 

There is such a thing as a sphere. However, when you think of "sphere" in the general sense, you are not thinking of any specific sphere. If you say, "the earth" or "that globe" or something to that extent, you are thinking of something specific. But just the idea of "sphere" is an abstraction since it stands for all possible spheres, no particular spheres, and nothing that does not involve spheres, simultaneously.

Quote:

So what your Saying is that The Thing Being Percieved Does not Exist, but the Perception of the Thing Does Exist?

Yeah! I can't believe this! He almost gets it! He's almost there!

Quote:

So Perception Can Exist Without Something that is being Percieved?

Sure. People who do drugs have all kinds of crazy stories. Be careful not to use the word "perception" unfairly though. It can mean a lot of different things. For example, don't try to say "I can perceive a car"---a visual perception---and then try to say "I can perceive god"---a mental/psychological perception.

Have you ever seen an optical illusion? We can perceive things with our eyes that aren't true as well.

thiest wrote:

So I can Percieve Something That is Nothing?

You can perceive something and think it's something that it's not.

thiest wrote:

So things that Do not Exist Can be Percieved?

Things that do exist can be perceived as being something that they are not. This "something" that the actual thing is not is what does not actually exist.

thiest wrote:
 

Actually That Sounds Quite Absurd.

It's a strange thing to describe, but it makes sense.

thiest wrote:

What Exactly Am I Perceiving then When I am Looking At The Almighty Theos in His Boundless Sphere of Eternal Essence? 

You're accepting what you think you see and are failing to accept what is actually true.

thiest wrote:

Peace Dude.

Peace.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote:   So if I

thiest wrote:

 

So if I want to Learn about God, who Should I inquire to?

Some would say that the only way to truly know and understand God is if you had an absolute, unmediated relationship with him. For example, you don't really know me and I don't really know you because our only means of understanding each other is through the text we read here. It is hardly a representation of what we actually are. It is a horrific understatement of each of us, since we both possess complex bodies and minds.

So if you really want to know God, you must really know God, and if you can direct me to a place where I can walk in and wave to him and have him wave at me, I would do that. But we can't do that. The "knowledge" that typical theists give of god tends to be the mediated kind. 

 

Quote:

Oh, Obviously Richard Dawkins, Brian Sapient, and Rook Hawkins, Duh!

They don't claim to have knowledge of something that doesn't actually exist. They just claim that it doesn't exist and there is no evidence for its existence. A big difference.

Quote:
 

Becasue they are the "Master of the Knowledge of God" Right?

They are masters of demonstrating the lack of evidence for god, each of them specializing in a certain field of evidence.

Quote:
 

They are Masters of the Non-Existant!

They are Masters of Nothing!

Geniuses!

They specialize in knowledge of things that exist, but they use that knowledge to show that something else does not exist. Quit playing rhetorical games. I'm not that stupid and neither are you.

Quote:

I Have a Great Idea!

Now I Will Go create a Website and Write a Book on "Hate" and How it Does not Exist!

Sure it does. It's an ambiguous idea, but we can observe it.

Quote:
 

Ill Call it, "The Loving Response Squad" Website and I will Have a Slogan that is Called "Hate is a Mind Disorder"

It is a mind disorder. Did you think I would disagree with you on that?

Quote:
 

Then Ill write my Book Called "The Hate Dilusion"

Have fun with that.

Quote:
 

Then I will Rid the World of This Rediculous Idea Called "Hate"

Awesome! That would actually be really cool of you!

Quote:
 

"Wish" me Luck!

It is wished!

Quote:
 

Wait, I Mean "Pray" for me Fo Sho!

Oh, well I'm not doing that. Prayer is bullshit.

Quote:
 

Peace Dudes!

Peace! 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest wrote:

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


We all make abstractions out of the universe. If we did not, it would be extremely difficult to switch between different models of cars or do our jobs.



So Time is not an Absolute Truth and Abstracting it Is not Scientific? Also Measurement of anything is Not Real? Abstraction of Measurement is Very Real, or should we just Say that Abstraction of Measrurement is a Figment of Our Imangination? Is Abstraction Real then Maya?



The abstraction of time has limited value since it represents a limited aspect of natural phenomenon in the universe. If a parent misses a bus and fails to attend their child's play, the impact could be negative. However, if I miss a flight and that flight crashes, the impact would be positive. The fact that 10 seconds have passed since staring this sentence can be interpreted in various number of ways.

The process of abstracting measurements is a real process. But can you show me something that can only be described as one inch? No, you can't. You can show me things that have features which measure one inch tall or one inch long, but their dimensions are only one facet of it's overall properties.

Again the concept of one inch is simply a way to group parts of the universe together for our convenience.

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


You, on the other hand, claim that you perceive God in the abstraction of our universe, that he really exists, and that he is the answer to everything and anything. You also claim this is the only true way of looking at things.



The Only way of Looking at Things is The True and Right Way, And This is Through Theos, The Eternal Ether, The Flowing Truth, The Spirit of God.

Abstractions are Thought Substance and It is Completely Real, The Truth is the Ether that Thought Flows Through and is The Essence of God.

I do not Claim to Percieve God, I Percieve God, in the Eternal Essence of All Things.

What is it that you Claim to Percieve? or do you Percieve Nothing?



Our minds are constantly building what we conceive as "reality" based on the concepts we create. This is a process you can step back and observe.

I perceive parts of the universe that I, society, culture and science have identified as being useful.

Example. My Uncle passed away unexpectedly earlier this year. My perception of my Uncle was that an easy going guy who always had something funny to say. I also saw him as someone who was very sociable and well connected since he used to operate a record store and then moved on to start a hunting and fishing magazine. One memory in particular stands out - when I was younger, he got me great tickets to Genesis when they were on tour and introduced me to Phil Collins. As such, my concept of my Uncle was based on these memories, experiences and concepts.

However, my younger cousins perceived him as a father. My Aunt perceived him as a husband, partner and provider. My mother perceived him as her brother. My grandmother perceived him as her son. These individual perceptions were build on which aspects of my Uncle were important to them. But even these perceptions were incomplete.

My Uncle also was a business owner, a friend, a fisherman and hunter, a member of the Polar Bear Club, a living organism and a mammal, just to name a few. However, since I'm not a biologist, I didn't look at my Uncle and see a mammal.

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


All models of cars are different. They have pedals, levers and controls of different sizes in various locations. They are constructed out of different materials with different manufacturing techniques. Yet, when you look at all of these models, you recognize them as a car.

However, this abstraction does not really exist. There is no one abstract "car" that you can touch or see. However, without this abstraction, it would be difficult to drive a rental car or trade in your current vehicle for the latest model.

Just as important, the concept of a car has a limited value. Just because something looks like a car, doesn't mean you can actually drive it. Nor does it mean all cars have the same quality or safety ratings. The concept of "safety" is something completely different. Also, the concept of a "car" tells us nothing about other things like the weather, what stocks to invest in or who we should date or marry. It's usefulness is limited to a particular context.


Ok, So you do not belive in the Abstract Model of The Car.

Does the Abstract Form of The Circle Exist?

Does The Abstract Form of a Square Exist?

Does the Abstract Form of a Sphere Exist?

Strange because thay are Imbedded into the Universe, yet they do not Exist, According to you Maya?



If you draw a circle on a piece of paper using a pen, you've arranged ink in a circular fashion. If you project a square on a wall using a projector, you've arranged light into the shape of a square.

Again, show me something that can be only described as a circle or a square or a sphere.

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


You've abstracted God from the universe and claim that...

- You have knowledge of God
- I do not have knowledge of God because I'm simply not looking for it in the right place
- God really exists, even though you have no concrete evidence to back up your claim
- God created everything, is all powerful, all knowing and perfect. Therefor, your concept of God has value in all contexts and is always correct, regardless of how imperfect it seems.



Indeed, The [Anointing] is Wonderful.

Is the Concrete Evidence of the Pyramids Evidence that the Egyptians Existed?

Wait, that must have been a Random Geological Formation?

Must be.

Wait you will Say, but we Have Other Evidence, Writings, Artifacts, Things of This Nature.



A particular group of living things we've conveniently grouped together under the concept of Egyptians created the Pyramids. You could also say a bunch of living cells created the Pyramids, a bunch of atoms created the Pyramids or a bunch of human beings created the Pyramids. Any of these descriptions would be technically correct, however they would all be incomplete since they only present a limited picture of that which created the Pyramids. The concept of an Egyptian can't manifest itself in physical reality and build a pyramid.

Nor does the concept of an Egyptian have value in all contexts. it's a convenient way we can identify a particular group of people who live in a particular geographical location with a particular linage and genetic markup. Even this is an incomplete description.

thiest wrote:


I am in possession of a Divine Artifact, Its Called a State of Being and I Possess One, It is Quite Nice, I Also Abstract The Eternal Essence From The Code Within The Divine/Natural Order, It is Quite Glorious.

I spent alot of Time polishing it off and Excavating it, Removing the Impurities From it and Cleaning it So I could get a Good Look at the Artifact, Boy, You should Dust yours Off and Examine it Sometime, maybe then you Can Make a Deduction on its Origin?

I have Found the Origin To be The Most Ancient and Uncreated Essence, It is In The Same State as my Eternal and Wonderful Theos.

Now that I have Discovered Immortality, What do I have to Worry About? Cept the Day when I shall Remove the Body and Become Like my Father.

Oh it Shall be Glorious.



What you conceder an artifact is not really ancient. The past and future do not exist at this moment. They are concepts our conscious mind have built on the sum of our limited experiences so we can learn new things, do our jobs, save for our retirement, interact with each other, etc.

Reality is what exists at this very moment. And the next moment. And the next. We interpolate between them to create a conceptual view of the world.

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


I do not believe the theist's claim that God really exists. Nor do I believe that the concept of God has value in all contexts. When you, or other theists, tell me that I will be eternally punished by God for not believing he really exists or following what you perceive as his will, I think you're taking your concept of God too far.



You only Punish Yourself, The Flaming Fire is a Spirit of Theos that Will Cleanse your Soul of Impurities, Do what you Will, Your Punishment is your Own, Only Your Own Deeds Will come back upon you, as is Taught by the Religion of The Earth, In the Sacred Writings of The Modern and The Ancient.



We all punish ourselves when we take concepts such as culture, nationality and moral systems, and elevate them to absolute truths which we think have value in all contexts. We mistake convenience for an all encompassing reality.

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


I think the concept of God has value, but in respect to what humanity's perception of God say about our psychological needs as a species. About our needs as societies. Etc.



So what does it Say about Our Needs Maya, I would be Much Enthralled to hear what you Say our Needs are and How they Relate to the God of The Universe.



Are we not a curious species? Do we not fear what we do not know? Would elevating the concept of God to an absolute truth not provide comfort?

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


In other words, if people are perceiving God, then this perception represents something that they feel is important to them, but I don't think it means that God really exists or that we should live our lives by what other perceive as his will.



Wait, So they Percieve Something that is Important to Them, but it Does not Exist? Where did they Get this "Importance" of This "Thing" That Has Nevar Existed?

Seems Impossible To Find Something to Be Important, but it Has Nevar Existed?

Where Does the Idea of God Come From So To Speak? In your Mind?



The importance is derived from concepts, which are based on a facet of reality being observed. It's easy to mistake the concept for the thing they are observing.

The idea of God reflects our need to function in a unpredictable world. When a storm rises in furry of lighting, thunder and wind to destroy our homes crop and possibly cause death, we ask "why?" Since, when we get angry, we may lash out in furry at those around us, we project this human behavior onto the universe. We decide it too must get angry as we do. When sex between a man and a women did not always result in a child, early humans could not observe the process of conception since it was internal. Naturally, they wondered "why?" Since human beings choose to do or not do things of their own free will, they projected this action of choice onto the universe.

Obviously, the destruction of their homes, birth, death and transcendent experiences are important facets of someone's existence. However, these people see them as acts of God, not the facets of reality they really are. Since these concepts allow them to function under the prospects of uncertainty, loss and the unknown, they are culturally accepted and eventually edited together into a formal religion.

However, these concepts are not limited to the questions they were intended to answer. They have farther reaching implications.

If God gets angry, then some action or event must have occurred to provoke him. We must appease the God as others appease us. If God chooses who will have children and who will not, there must be reasons behind his choice. We must gain favor with God though our behavior and thoughts, as we choose those who gain favor with us.

As a side effect of assigning God as the source of a natural phenomenon, God becomes the authority on that phenomenon. Those who define the concept of God claim to speak on his behalf. Just as the local Mazda dealership claims to be the best place to have my oil changed since they "represent" the company who manufactured my car.  

We find ourselves thinking God may become jealous with us if we do not pay him enough attention.  We may fear interfering with that attributed to God's will since he might get angry at us, etc.

The result is a series of concepts built on other concepts which were created as a convenient way to make sense of the universe.

thiest wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


I think the concept of God is a convenient way that some people use to try and make sense of the world. Just like the concept of a car is a convenient way of looking at the many different makes and models of automobiles that exist.



So The Concept of The Circle is Just a Convenient Way for Us to Percieve the Universe, But Circles and Spheres Do not Really Exist?

So the World is not a Sphere?

And when I think of a Sphere in my Mind, Theires Really No Such Thing as a Sphere?



The world has spherical features, as do rubber balls and oranges. When describing the geometric features of the world, the concept of a sphere has value. When describing the sorts of material the earth consist of, it has no value. Nor does it have value in describing the color of the earth.

However, you claim that the concept of God is an absolute truth that has value in all contexts. It explains anything and everything. Moral and material. Intent and meaning. It is the only correct view of the universe.

thiest wrote:


Is it Possible to Know or to See or To Percieve that which is not Seeable, or Knowable, or Percievable?

Veils of Maya wrote:


Yes. See above.



So what your Saying is that The Thing Being Percieved Does not Exist, but the Perception of the Thing Does Exist?



Sorry, I should have been more specific. See the earlier post regarding LSD trips, etc.

{Edited to fix formating} 

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
3) Again, closer to this

3) Again, closer to this reality in which pokemon do not exist. But this time, being a "master of pokemon", let this sense be: I'm clinically insane, thinking they actually exist, yet still know almost everything about them. I'm in my back yard, yelling at thin air (as the kids in the cartoon yell at their pet pokemon, telling them how to fight in the arena). I may be insane in this scenario, but you still might want to ask me if you want info about pokemon.

 

 But Pokemon Do Exist so How could the Guy be Insane for Thinking that they Do?

In such possibilities, I say again: you having to come to me would just be common sense. It's not "my logic" you would come to me to ask for info, as I understand it. You just simply have no choice (unless there are other pokemon masters of course, but that point should also be understood, and your response to me was in the context of you coming exclusively to me, again as understood). And that would be by your logic, not mine; I'm not making any decisions, when you decide to come ask me.

 

I was using the Term Logic is the Sense that you were speaking of, alluding to the Fact that you Go to The Experts on Certain Aspects of Knowledge in order to Learn of that Particular Knowledge, Such as I would not Go to a Mechanic to Have him Give me an MRI, and I would Not ask a Brain Surgeon to Fix my Computer.  

 So, are the people here at this Website Experts on God?

Obviously Not as they can not Even See God, and Make the Rediculous Claim that he Does Not Exist, Becasue they can not Interpret the Evidence, And Claim they do it for the Betterment of the World, hehe, Funny. Its Actually Rediculous to Listen to Someone who Tells you what they "Do Not" See.

Therefore They Know Absolutely Nothing About God.

Therefore To Listen The People of This Website about God would be The Equivilant of Asking a Professional Clown to Do My Brain Surgury.

Good Idea Huh. 

 

Do pokemon exist? Why not?
Ask almost anybody on the planet who's familar with the franchise, but not delusional people who are religious about pokemon (if there are any such of the latter).

Yes Pokemon Exist, Have you not Watched the Cartoon? They are Based on Real Life Creatures and Ideas that Exist in the Real Universe.

 Now, ask the similar questions regarding gods:
Do god(s) exist? Why not?

 Please Give me your Definition of God.

 Yes, My God Exists. The Former and Former and Orderer of The Concrete Universe Exists, How Could the Universe Exist without My God? God is the Former,Former, and Orderer of this Concrete Universe. 

Also, Any God that has been Percieved is My God, My God is All Gods and All Ideas, He is the Oneness of All Things, Hes a Bad Ass Mofo.

 
Yes (to your Q, not mine directly above), I would recommend the people you mentioned, for the very reasons they would suggest: lack of evidence, cultural evolution and syncretism and memetics and ancient naivete, etc...

So If their is a Lack of Evidence That Means there is Some Evidence?

Please Tell me about This Evidence.

Ok, So Cultural Evolution, Syncretism, Memetics, and Ancient Naivite are Evidence Against God?

How can you Have Evidence Against Something that Does not Exist?

If there is Evidence Against God, Then God Surely Exists To have This Against God, Else what would the Evidence Be Against?

 Also Those Things are not Evidence Against My God, They are Only Evidence of Themselves.

So your Argument is Smelly.

What are the god(s)' names, powers, etc...?
Ask any follower of the respective religion that/those god(s) fit in. Theologions are supposed to be the experts on such matters, but in the words of Pat Condell, theology is really more of a creative art than a branch of philosophy. (in case you're interested why/what he meant when he said that, search for him on YouTube; he only has 11 or 13 or so vid's)

 

Indeed, The Art of Describing God is Awesome and Unending, How can Words Describe the Former, Former and Orderer of the Universe? Unending are the Words that Will Come From Mans Mouth Describing God's Greatness! 

Hate can be measured. Sociology and Psychology are sciences, even if rather "soft". God(s), and any supernatural phenomena, on the other hand, can't be measured. If any god(s) possibly exist that CAN be measured, then they fall in the same category as pokemon: there is a lack of evidence, so don't bother.      

Man is the Measure of All Things, We Even Measure our Creator, And it is One of the Greatest Past Times, We Measure Infinite Space with a Tiny Ruler, We Measure Infinite Time with a Small Timepiece, and We Measure our One and Ultimate God With Small Words, What Fun! 

Again, If their is a Lack of Evidence, Please Bring me What Evidence you Have, What Evidence is this that you Speak of? 

Translation: if I was convinced I was intimate with pokemon (say, in possibility 3 way above), then would I not be delusional?

When old Perverts get caught under a Sting, when a Cop Acts Like a 13 Year Old but is Really a 40  year Old, And the Pervert is Intimatally Involved with the "13 Year Old", Is the Pervert Delusional in respect to his Intamacy with the "13 Year Old"?

When People Beleived that the Earth was Flat, Was Everyone on the Planet under Some sort of Delusion? 

Nope, They are Proper Perceptions from Improper Perspectives. 

 And thats what you people who Say God does not Exist have.

Proper Perceptions From Improper Perspectives. 

 

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


thiest
Theist
thiest's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Measurement is abstract in

Measurement is abstract in the sense that there are different rules of measure. For example, you might measure things in pounds or you might measure things in grams. Both are units of measure, both measure weight, and both are real; however, they operate in different-sized units. The abstraction here lies in the fact that measurement is real, but the units of measurement are arbitrary.

If Measurement is Real then Abstractions are Real.


Similarly, to go back to the car example, we know that cars are real, but the form (model) of a car is arbitrary.

Go design a Car without a Form or Model of a Car, Have Fun.

I Know My God is Real, the Form or Model of God is Arbitrary.


Therefore, when you simply say "measurement" or you simply say "car" you are using an abstraction.

Oh I see.

I Simply Say God, I am Using an Abstraction.

I Simply Understand Measurements, I Simply Understand Cars, I Simply Understand God.

The existence of abstractions is not indicative of a god in any way. You're simply applying god to the abstract so that you can't be cornered by people who ask you to define him in a concrete way.

Wow, What a Fabulous Assertion you have made, What Knowledge you have Brought to me, How is it you know me So Well!

We have uncovered a Truth of My Archeopatyx and his Thoughts, Anytime that he Does Not understand what Someone is Talking about he Will Say you are saying it Just to "Not be Cornered" ,God is Abstract, he Will be Defined in an Abstract Manner.

How Exactly Do I Define God in a "Concrete" Way if he is "Abstract" in his Being?

Weirdo.

Thats Like saying Describe Something in a Mathematical Way that is a Emotional, They Exist in Differant States of Being, You can Only Define them In Relation to the Other, not in that Exact State.

Here is the Truth, This "Concrete" Universe is "Abstract" From the Perspective of God, God is "Abstract" From the Perspective of this "Concrete" Universe.

Atheists perceive all kinds of things. They just don't perceive a god anywhere.

I Know, your Blind to God, Maybe a Little Humbling will Open your Eyes? Maybe that Which you Think you Know about God and his Non Existance, Which in Itself is Absurd, To Know that Which is Not, Maybe you Just need to Know that you Dont Know, then Maybe you Can Know? You Know?

Just need to make a clarification here.

The point isn't that abstraction itself doesn't exist or that we can't conceive of an abstraction that stands for cars in general. When you say the word "car", I form an abstraction in my mind that symbolizes what makes up a car. When I hear the word, my mind immediately assembles all of the things that it knows can be attributed to "car". However, even though it's possible to perceive such an abstraction, it is impossible to have such an abstraction actually exist. The abstraction I form in my mind is not a mental picture of any real, particular car. It stands for all possible aspects of cars and no particular car while excluding all aspects that do not involved cars, and it does this all simultaneously and ambiguously in a way that I understand. However, this abstraction cannot exist in physical reality.

So, When I Say the Word "God" Where do The Peices that Form your Abstract Conception of God Come From Exactly? Please Explain Deeply.

 

Not in physical reality, no. When you say the word "circle" I conceive of an abstraction that encompasses all possible circles, no particular circles, and nothing that does not involve circles. However, such a thing does not and cannot exist in physical reality.

The abstraction exists, but the physical thing does not.

So When I Think of a Cirlce Then Draw it On Paper, The Circle on the Paper Now Exists But the Abstract Form did not Exist?

So Existance Comes From Non Existance?

Wow, Thats Pretty Awesome Dude.

 

thiest wrote:

Does The Abstract Form of a Square Exist?

No.

 

thiest wrote:

Does the Abstract Form of a Sphere Exist?

No.

 

thiest wrote:

Strange because thay are Imbedded into the Universe, yet they do not Exist, According to you Maya?

Circles, squres, and spheres of various kinds exist in the universe, but not a single one of them is the abstract form. They are all particular forms. The abstraction is simply a tool we use to identify these forms when we see them. It is a sort of mental filter.

So This Tool that we use Does not Exist? How Exactly Do we Use it then?

This Tool of Abstraction that Does not Exist But we "Use" It, Weird, If we Can Use Things that do not Exist, Then Whats the Problem With a God that Does things that Does not Exist?

So You Say all Things Abstract Do not Exist?

But they Do Exist?

You are Weird.

No one here would ever argue that. They were obviously man-made. There is plenty of evidence that the Egyptians did, in fact, exist. Actually, they still do. Egypt is still a country.

And God is Still a Being.

You said "divine artifact". Your use of "divine" automatically sets your example apart from the "physical artifacts" you mentioned in reference to the Egyptians. So already this is a faulty comparison.

This Artifact Exists in This Physical Realm Obviously, So it Is a Good Comparison, My State of Being is Here Observing All of This Around me, And I am Observing it Through a Physical Mind, The Divine Aspect of the State of Being Exists in All Things Physical, Like I Said, It is the Ether in Which All Things Exist and Which All Thought Flows Through.

You possess a consciousness. Every living person has one of these. However, as Dan Dennett has pointed out, (and as has been proven), just because you have consciousness does not make you an expert on the nature of consciousness.

Actually I am an Expert on my Own Conciousness, I can speak for no Other, And no Other Can speak for Me, And Indeed, I Cleaned my Conciousness Up and Purified it To Gain Clarity of Mind and State of Being, And Indeed I am An Expert on This State of Being that I Exist in and I Would Love for Someone To Claim that They Understand MY State of Being and Know it More than Me, It would make me Laugh.

So, I am an Expert on State of Being and on My God.

Prove me Wrong.

That's quite a bunch of woo-woo. Sounds good, but what does this mean exactly? What code? What divine/natural order? This isn't an argument from design is it? That would be dangerous territory for you to enter.

It Means that Through Reason I have Found the Truth, Through Abstracting the Forms that Have Formed and the Functions that have been Produced, I have Traced Back to the Origin of Them Through the Understanding of Being, using the Tool of Abstraction that in your Eyes "Does not Exist" But we "use" it.

The Code is The Order of All Things, Do you Not See it?

As I said before, you have used the term "artifact" only rhetorically, and so this is not a genuine comparison.

You're also trying to prove your beliefs by parading your satisfaction with them. If they existed, wouldn't even an unsatisfied person be able to perceive them? If so, how would they?

The Term Artifact was not Rhetorically, it Was Completely Substantial, and it is a Genuine Comparison. I am Not Trying to "Prove" Anything, This isnt an Argument, it is a Telling of Visions, What I See and what you See, That is all.

What? I am Parading what I see, Not my Satisfation with them, I am Sorry that my Satisfaction With the Truth Overpowers The Truth itself in your Eyes, But I will Tell you , When you See it with your Own Eyes, You will Be Overjoyed, and you Will, Not in Death, But in Life.

If you Want to See clearly Clean out Your Eyes of All Impurity.

What is Impurity?

You Tell me, Then Cleanse Your Eyes of It.

Is this a first cause argument? Your showing favoritism toward your superior being here. You're essentially saying that everything must have a cause except for your god or "theos" or whatever you call him. Why does he get an exception when nothing else gets an exception? If he doesn't need a cause, why can't we suppose that nothing else does either?

He's only uncaused because you want him to be.

It is not about what is Caused or Not Caused but What "Is" and What "Is Not"

I do not Care if My God Has a Cause or Not, He is Still my God, His Essence is Uncreated As it Is Complete Oneness Like my State of Being, If My God Does not Have a Casue Then neither Does my State of Being, For it Is In the Same State As my Origin, Which is my Creator and Father and God.

And for Your Information, Nothing is the Way it is Becasue I want it To be.

Things are Only The Way they Are, becasue that IS the Way They Are, No Other Reason

God is, because God Is.

Translation: "I'm not saying that you have to believe what I believe. All I'm saying is it would be a real shame if something bad happened to you, you know?"

So... believe in your religion or else? Good argument.

What? It has Nothing to Do with Believing What I believe, it has to do With Responsibility of Your Own Actions, It is Not a Real Shame if you Get the Due Penalty of Your Wrongdoing, If you Do Wrong you Deserve it to Come Back Upon You, It is Recompense for what you Have Made.

You Reap what You Sow, You know.

You do not Know what I Know, and Unless You Seek It With All of your Mind, State of Being, and Strength, you Nevar Will.

Our needs are not related to any god of the universe. That was pretty easy.

The Question was Posed to Someone Named Maya and Was In Response to Something He Said, I am Sorry you Did not Actually Understand what the Questions Purpose was, I was Delving into Maya's Mind, not Yours at that Time.

Children find Santa Claus to be a very wonderful and important thing. They try to be good for him because they know he's watching and he's got goodies for them if they're good little kiddies.

What does Santa Claus have to do With the Former, Former, and Orderer of The Universe?

Simply believing something is true does not mean that it must be true. Believing something is important does not mean that it must be important.

Who Said Simply Believing Something Made it True?

And I would Stop you on your Next Sentence, Becasue if a Person Beleived Something to be Important than indeed it is, As Importance is Based in Opinion.

People who have studied emotion would probably characterize it as a goal of some sort. By following/believing in a certain god/religion, they are attempting to achieve some goal.

I do not Remember being in on This Study, So it means nothing to me.


As with other personal goals, the achievement has a positive emotional response. The failure to achieve the goal has a negative emotional response.

How are You Defining Positive and Negative?

Examples?

What would be a Failure to Achieve this Goal?

What is the Goal?

 

Perceiving a goal and believing you are on the right track for accomplishing that goal will make you happy, but it does not mean that the goal in question can actually be achieved or is even real.

So now you Know what Makes me Happy?

No You Do Not, And I do not Know what Makes you Happy.

For if I Knew What Made you Happy, it Would Make me Happy Too.

For I would Know Your Happiness, So Indeed you Do not Know what Makes me Happy.

 

If a child believes that if he is good, Santa will bring him presents, this belief can bring him happiness and a feeling of contedness. If he believes he is on track to accomplish his goal, he is happy. If he honestly believes in Santa, he is happy. However, this goal-based happiness does not prove that Santa is real, nor does it prove that being good will guarantee you presents on xmas.

Whats up With all This Talk about Santa Claus?

And your Comparing Childrens Wanting of Presents to Adult Contemplation of The Universe?

Weird.

Yeah, basically.

So God Comes From the Mind? What Things in The Universe Enter The Mind to Create God?

No, the concept of a circle is just a convenient way for you to understand all circles, not the entire universe.

Indeed, The Abstraction of Theos is The Way to Understand All Gods, and The Entire Universe.

Understanding the entire universe in terms of an abstraction would require you to conceive of an abstract model of what constitutes universes.

Indeed, The Essence of All Things, The Oneness of All Things, Theos The Almighty.

The world is not a perfect sphere, actually. There is a lot of force being pushed outward to its equators due to its high rate of rotation, thus making it slightly ovular. But even if the world were a perfect sphere, it would not be the abstract form of all spheres. And even though it is ovular, it is not the abstract form of all ovular things.

 

If I Understand One Circle I Understand All Circles, Their Is Only One Circle To be Understood, and One Sphere to Understand all Spheres, One Porabola to Understand All Porabolas, One Square to Understand all Squares, and One God to Understand All Gods.

Study the Philosophy of Geometry, Then you Will Understand This Also.

There is such a thing as a sphere. However, when you think of "sphere" in the general sense, you are not thinking of any specific sphere. If you say, "the earth" or "that globe" or something to that extent, you are thinking of something specific. But just the idea of "sphere" is an abstraction since it stands for all possible spheres, no particular spheres, and nothing that does not involve spheres, simultaneously.

Like I Said Before.

One Circle To Understand All Circles.

One Sphere To Understand All Spheres.

If a Square is a Square, Can it be a Rectangle or a Polygon?

Any Square I will Ever See I will Understand.

I am the Master of Squares, The Master of Circles, and The Master of My God, For Theos Has Given me Such Reasoning Power.

Thank You Oh Mighty and Wonderful Theos, For all of Your Intelligent Gifts! The Gift of All Thing, An Inheritance that Shall Nevar Perish! Oh The Greatness of The Mighty Theos!

I Praise Your Ultimate and High Name, Above All Other Things that Can be Named!


Quote:

So what your Saying is that The Thing Being Percieved Does not Exist, but the Perception of the Thing Does Exist?

Yeah! I can't believe this! He almost gets it! He's almost there!

I am Sorry But that is Absurd, It is Logically Impossible to Have a Perception With Nothing to Percieve.

Sure. People who do drugs have all kinds of crazy stories. Be careful not to use the word "perception" unfairly though. It can mean a lot of different things. For example, don't try to say "I can perceive a car"---a visual perception---and then try to say "I can perceive god"---a mental/psychological perception.

Have you ever seen an optical illusion? We can perceive things with our eyes that aren't true as well.

I am not on Drugs so Why Bother Bringing it Up.

I View God in The Same Way I View my State of Being, So if God Does Not Exist Then Nether Do I, Theos is Real Just As this Conversation is Real.

You can perceive something and think it's something that it's not.

So What are People who Percieve God, Perceiving?

Do Tell.

Things that do exist can be perceived as being something that they are not. This "something" that the actual thing is not is what does not actually exist.

Again, What is this "Something" that people are Perceiving as God?

You're accepting what you think you see and are failing to accept what is actually true.

What is True? And if My Perception is Wrong, Why is Your Right?

Well, My Perception is not Wrong, It is the True Perception of My God, The Former,Former, and Orderer of All That Is.

 

Peace.

Peace.

 

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Jumping in here to help

Jumping in here to help clarify....

thiest wrote:


I am Sorry But that is Absurd, It is Logically Impossible to Have a Perception With Nothing to Percieve.



It's absurd to assume that your perception can encompass every possible facet of what you've trying to perceive.

While you can create the concept of God from the universe as an abstract idea, you're simply pointing to a facet of the universes and claiming it's God. Yet, you claim your perception is the only true perception, which would mean it would need to be all encompassing. Moral, material, intent, etc. It's a paradox.

thiest wrote:


I View God in The Same Way I View my State of Being, So if God Does Not Exist Then Nether Do I, Theos is Real Just As this Conversation is Real.



But what do you know about this conversation? Not very much. As such, the idea of this conversation has a limited value. You can't use it to tell what I look like. Or where I live. Or use it to predict what will happen to either of us tomorrow.

However, of all the information on this server, I can use the concept of conversations to group all of the bits, characters, words and paragraphs into threads on a particular topic between a particular group of people. This is a convenience. These words also exist outside the scope of a conversation as individual posts. You can also view posts by author, by date, etc.

If Theos is as real as this conversation, and conversations are abstract ideas that have limited value, then Theos is not an absolute truth and does not have value in all contexts.

thiest wrote:


What is True? And if My Perception is Wrong, Why is Your Right?



I know my concepts are merely one way of looking at things. It's all about convenence. You haven't seemed to grasp this concept yet.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Physboy
agnostic deistTheist
Physboy's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:
You're under the assumption that all atheists I think science is absolute truth.

Not at all. I was referring to those who do think science is absolute truth or can tell you anything about absolute or ultimate truth.

Veils of Maya wrote:
For example, science doesn't mandate morality, nor can one branch of science cover every possible part of our universe. Atoms were named atoms becauase, at one point, we though they could not be broken down any smaller.

This is exactly my point, there are limitations to rationalities and logic systems (applicable to all Athiests who claim only to believe in things which can be validated in these ways). The limit of logic systems and rational thinking is the ability to know absolute/ultimate truth, that is the boundary of these cognitive functions. Given that boundary, is it not also reasonable that one can only come to know absolute/ultimate truth from an irrational relative cognitive function?

Veils of Maya wrote:
However, science and engineering have value in a wide range of contexts which are quite practical and repeatable. For example, Evolution allows us to predict how life evolves. We can use this knowledge at a biological level to produce medicines and treat diseases. We can use engineering and mathematics to build cars, planes, computers and buildings. These are, for the most part, repeatable and valuable in specific practical contexts. They are also falseifiable - that is we can take a particular concept and prove it is wrong in a extremely wide set of circumstances.

I am quite clear on this, as I had stated before I am a Scientist, specifically an Experimental Physicist. I am quite aware of the benefits of science and engineering, as well as their characteristics. This is repititious and a bit of a red herring.

Veils of Maya wrote:
However, there is a danger of taking a particular concept and claiming it *is* absolute reality and has value in all contexts. This is true, regardless if your concept is religious or scientific in nature.

Again, this is exactly my point. It is a categorical error to do such.

Veils of Maya wrote:
Religion, on the other hand, does try to represent absolute reality. It dictates morality and makes claims about physical and scientific truths about our universe to give itself authority.

As you stated previously the problem is "taking a particular concept and claiming it *is* absolute reality and has value in all contexts". To clarify, the problem is not allways the religious concept, it is the individual who is responsible for the categorical error. In the case where the concept is making this claim, it was again the individual who had committed a cognitive boundary violation when documenting the concept that makes this claim. Hence, the problem with Religion is that it is usually based on a cognitive boundary violation and categorical error.

Veils of Maya wrote:
However, religious concepts, such as creation science, do not have any value outside supporting the Bible. It conflicts with the evolution of life as we know it and can't be used to predict biological processes or treat diseases. It exists to make God an authority over man, just as the manufacture of your car claims your local dealership is the best place to get your oil change and tune up.

That only stands to reason, an irrational concept can not validate a rational concept. Cognitive boundary violation and categorical error.

Veils of Maya wrote:
While I can't speak for Kelly, I'd describe compartmentalizing as the failure to hold religious concepts up to the same standards as other concepts you may have.

Again, the point is that compartmentalizing is a process that is healthy and necessary for all humans. It is also known as boundary setting. It has been my experience that boundaries exist in all facets of human experience thus far, and that usually the problems occur when boundaries are improperly managed (eg. boundaries are to rigid, to flexible, etc..) I have yet to see any conclusive scientifically validated evidence to show causally that having the boundaries which I have described above, causes any issues for human society or individual existence. If anything, it is the lack of these boundaries and the associated violations of these boundaries, that appears to be associated with social disharmony more than anything else.

Veils of Maya wrote:
While you might say that religion gives people a common set of moral values, it does so in a disingenuous manner since it claims to represent absolute reality. This leads to the use of religious concepts in contexts where they have little to no value and are not practical or repeatable. In some cases, the outcome can be extremely poor or even result in violence or death.

I would say that moral values have historically been handed down via religions in many cultures, but thanks for asking. Regarding the rest...Yea, that would be a cognitive boundary violation. When do we get off of this topic. It is clear we agree on this already.

Veils of Maya wrote:
For example, I was driving today and saw another bumper sticker that said "Jesus is the Answer." Of course, my immediate thought was "the answer to what?" as this is a incomplete sentence. Apparently, the driver of this car thinks the "what" is irrelevant as Jesus is the answer to absolutely anything and everything.

What stocks would Jesus invest in? What healthcare and medical treatments would Jesus recommend? Does Jesus know what job I should take given my particular skil set? Should I take out that mortgage on a home? How about foreign policy issues and acts of aggression between nations? If Jesus really is the son of God, who created everything, then he should have answers to absolutely any and all questions, right? And we should heed these answers regardless of what other concepts we have regarding the physical world, correct? But does this work in practice? No, it doesn't.

In the words of many Rabbies...Oy Vey!!!

Veils of Maya wrote:
God doesn't answer prayers in any remotely predictable way nor does he reveal himself in any concrete way that we can detect.

Agreed, that would be due to limit of scientific observational capacity. There was a time when infra-red and just about all non-visible light was not able to be revealed to man in any concrete way that we were able to detect. Are you now suggesting (and I hope for your own sanity's sake not) that energy and matter do not exist until we can detect them? The old Ese es Percepi argument? C'mon that went down with the fall of the Greek Empire. This is a categorical error, you are trying to suggest that a lack of knowing from a logical and sense experiencial mindset proves a lack of existence. It does not, and that has been concretely proven on numerous occasions in Theorhetical Physics by Experimental Physicists.

Veils of Maya wrote:
Humanity appears to be organically evolved though nature, instead of the intentional product of a perfect being. In fact, many theists claim that God's will is so mysterious and his powers are so great that we simply can't understand him or his actions. As such, God is simply indistinguishable from nature. Isn't that just a bit too convenient?

It sounds like those theists are not involved in categorical errors or cognitive boundary violations. It is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of boundaries, dude.

Veils of Maya wrote:
The concept that whatever is behind our existence must be sentient, all knowing, all seeing and perfect, seems to be an absolute truth without any explicit support from nature and in conflict with many other concepts we currently conceder valuable and predictable.

Ok, ditto response from above regarding the conflict you describe. The notions of all knowing, all seeing and perfect are abstract and completely unkown to us via sense experience. Looking for sense experience evidence to accept or deny the existence of abstract notion is simply irrational. Congratulations, you have now joined the theists in cognitive boundary violations. By the way, value is a totally arbitrary and relative term. I would stay away from using that term when you are trying to assert concrete objective provisional concepts as the only concepts to live by 100% of the time.

Veils of Maya wrote:
As such, I can't believe this claim without holding religion to a different standard as every other concept I hold. Nor do I see any particular advantage in doing so. If God is all the things that religion claims to be, then why shouldn't we hold the concept of God to the same standards as everything else? What valid reason can we come with with for not doing so? Because we want to or because it makes us feel good? Because, without it, we fear there would be some great moral collapse?

If the goal is to be reasonable then it necessitates via evidence and logical anlysis that having effective boundaries for cognitive analysis is healthy and reasonable. To suggest that ALL systems of existence must be analyzed and validated via ONE mindset, is a suggestion of an absolute that is applicable to all that exists. So..there you are now claiming an absolute truth based on your scientific evidence, logic, reason or whatever. Congratulations, you have now joined the group of Athiests and Theists who also claim absolute truths.

Veils of Maya wrote:
Whether Theist is spewing BS or not, there are people who really do think that religion paints a picture of absolute reality.

I know this, and they are just making mistakes that I will not touch on at this moment. The problem is basically within the difference between Spirituality and Religion.

Veils of Maya wrote:
However we, as conscious beings, can create moral systems without a supernatural being watching over us. We can be giving and loving without the fear of spending eternity in Hell or God's wrath. We can take complete responsibility for our actions and our own future. If anything, I'd say religion (and culture / tradition) takes responsibility away from us and gives us a false sense of purpose.

I could not agree with you more on these points. Hence, one of the reasons I do not do Religion.

Challenge your perspectives with the truth.