Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jude]

All this only makes sense if you assume that the mind of God works in human terms ... humans are ... incapable of understanding any but the most immediate and local aspects of the universe, it's absurd to suppose that the being which created/runs the universe would behave in ways that make sense to us.

Why? If god's actions are perfectly rational, they would be self-evidently rational; in the same way that the most perfect machine will be so clearly labeled and mechanically elegant that anyone could understand it, the perfect thought process would be clearly understandable to anyone.

Why would they be self-evidently rational to humans? Our minds didn't evolve to commune with universal truth or to be perfect rationality-producing machines.

And isn't it the whole purpose of religion to explain the actions of god(s)? What kind of explanation is "Well, we can't know"?

I don't know! I'm just pointing out why it's ridiculous to hold a being like God to human standards of behavior and motivation.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Yeah, Jude is right.
Humans are not the center of the Universe, God is.
It is illogical to say that we are special. God, at least, seeds (or seeded) infinite numbers of 'mankind' if He is eternal.

It's like an equation. When it's not zero, when one of it's factor (this time, it's Energy and Time) is infinite, the equation also become infinite.

Sorry if this post is incoherant. Please forgive me.

[Duke 2.0]

So there are a number of people who take the Bible literally.

I would like to point out a lot of this confusion can be solved by not using this particular restraint.

[chaoticag]

Humans are not the center of the Universe, God is.

Actually, we are, as the center of the universe is where the observer is and because space-time curves in such a way that traveling infinately in one direction brings you full circle, I think.

But I'm more bothered about why God even wants worshipers: what difference does it make if people believe in him or not? Why should he care enough about it to send those who don't believe in him to hell for eternaty?

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Humans are not the center of the Universe, God is.

Actually, we are, as the center of the universe is where the observer is and because space-time curves in such a way that traveling infinately in one direction brings you full circle, I think.

But I'm more bothered about why God even wants worshipers: what difference does it make if people believe in him or not? Why should he care enough about it to send those who don't believe in him to hell for eternaty?

That's a very humanocentric point of view.

And, I don't know either. About the last part. Some said that's God created us because of his need of things to be loved. The question is: Need? God have no need. I think.

Well, we're all discussing about philoshophy. The chance of both of us is wrong is larger than any of us being true.

[Rooster]

Why is everyone reffering to Adam? Everybody knows that Eve was mankinds liberator 
And I don't believe in omnipotence and omniscience. Those things aren't possible, but you can get close to that.

I wonder when HawkFrost will show up

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Why is everyone reffering to Adam? Everybody knows that Eve was mankinds liberator 
And I don't believe in omnipotence and omniscience. Those things aren't possible, but you can get close to that.

I wonder when HawkFrost will show up

Those things are possible, if you CONTAIN the universe.
And have infinite mass as a result (from the perspective of the observers, us)

[Duke 2.0]

Why is everyone reffering to Adam? Everybody knows that Eve was mankinds liberator 
And I don't believe in omnipotence and omniscience. Those things aren't possible, but you can get close to that.

I wonder when HawkFrost will show up

Those things are possible, if you CONTAIN the universe.
And have infinite mass as a result (from the perspective of the observers, us)

Or are the universe.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Why is everyone reffering to Adam? Everybody knows that Eve was mankinds liberator 
And I don't believe in omnipotence and omniscience. Those things aren't possible, but you can get close to that.

I wonder when HawkFrost will show up

Those things are possible, if you CONTAIN the universe.
And have infinite mass as a result (from the perspective of the observers, us)

Or are the universe.

I still hold the believe that He is an omni-verse being. As in, exists in all universes.
That means He's got to be able to create and destroy universes freely.

[Rooster]

Ants should worship us because we can destroy them with A-bombs...
I don't think that by being a lump of animal cells we can vaporise bacteria within our body freely, or AIDS for that matter.
We have no control of what is within us, and I don't think that entity known as god could blast our planet with no effort.

[Duke 2.0]

Ants should worship us because we can destroy them with A-bombs...
I don't think that by being a lump of animal cells we can vaporise bacteria within our body freely, or AIDS for that matter.
We have no control of what is within us, and I don't think that entity known as god could blast our planet with no effort.

Or would want to. Blasting is very violent and rough solution that is generally not a solution at all. Makes more sense to have a more gentle approach. No need to eat dynamite and blow it up to sure your HIV problem.

 Not to mention this deity would not necessarily be inside our sense of 'time.' Human history could just be the time it takes for a single nerve impulse to reach the brain.

[Sergius]

Why Evil?

Why not eternal happiness? Because happiness can't exist without sadness. There is no such thing as good or benevolent without bad or evil. I've heard this so many times before, I'm surprised no-one else here has mentioned it but reality as it exists is based on duality and contrast. Elementary philosophy.

Elementary is exactly the word.  There's plenty of ways to interpret reality, and something being without needed anything to compare it to is just as valid.  That we say "there can be no good without evil" is just a simple of reconciling that the universe has bad things in it with the assumption that bad things are bad.

That good can't exist without evil is just arguing semantics. The only thing that cannot exist without evil is the definition of the word "good". But simply because we don't know something is "good" or are able to call it "good" because we have nothing "not good" to compare it too, doesn't mean we aren't enjoying the benefits of it's goodness anyway. And we would still have something to compare it to: the absence of the good thing (doesn't mean there is an evil or bad thing in its place, simply the good thing is not there at the moment). So, when we have something good, we are happy. When the good thing is gone momentarily, we don't feel any special way about it.

[Sergius]

About the "kicked-out-of-the-garden-of-Eden-conundrum", I have a simple hypothesis: assuming what happened is true and that there was such a God, and the fruit had whatever free-will-superpower-granting properties, my observation was that Mr. God wanted to give people free will (assuming they were nothing but deterministic machines before that, that would always act in the same specific way whenever they were given some input, and free will adds some kind of randomness to the process), BUT, he still wanted everyone to feel guilty about it so he could still control them after the little experiment.

[Duke 2.0]

About the "kicked-out-of-the-garden-of-Eden-conundrum", I have a simple hypothesis: assuming what happened is true and that there was such a God, and the fruit had whatever free-will-superpower-granting properties, my observation was that Mr. God wanted to give people free will (assuming they were nothing but deterministic machines before that, that would always act in the same specific way whenever they were given some input, and free will adds some kind of randomness to the process), BUT, he still wanted everyone to feel guilty about it so he could still control them after the little experiment.

Or they were not meant to have it yet, but eventually they were.

 Now I would like to tie this in to your previous post. I don't believe good and evil are opposites, nor does good require evil(On the contrary, evil requires good). I think of evil as more of a perversion; Good things taken to a time, place, degree, etc that no longer gives the benefits of goodness, to the point where we don't recognize goodness. Rape has sex as it's base, which at the right time, place, partner, degree, etch can be a good thing. Hitler had patriotism as it's base, taken to a limit where it was no longer just somebody trying to save their country but somebody trying to conqueror.

 Thus in theory this 'fruit' could be something that the original ancestors could have eventually received, but they were mature enough for it.
 Of course, I have made some assumptions here that require explaining. However, those are for another post. Heck, I don't think I'm really up to explaining all I believe in in reference to this thread.

[Servant Corps]

@Servant Corps: But God already knows the results of the tests, so he never needs to run them in the first place. Yes, perhaps these "tests" are learning experiences, but in this particular case, what did Adam and Eve learn, considering that before eating of the tree, they would be unable to learn at all, or even make the choices that god would be testing?

Yes, God knows the results, but God still have to do the tests, if only for fairness. God knows what will happen, but what about us humans? We don't know. And it would be unfair for God not to give us the test at all and tell us the results. Hence, we have to go through the tests.

Also, remember what I said before about how the fruit is just an fruit? Man already had knowledge, in fact, God taught Man the 'names' of living things first, giving mankind knowledge, and then told him not to eat the fruit (which has no special properties). I believe the lesson of this test was, "Don't disobey God out of spite and don't listen to the whispers of Satan," but, like IWM, I'm tired.