Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> writes:
For people that are nice, have correct opinions and
feel safe when in the approving company of others?
No, they're for discussion of science fiction, in written form.
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:22:14 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
For people that are nice, have correct opinions and
feel safe when in the approving company of others?
I prefer to be seen, not just fade into the crowd or
run with the pack like dogs.
Opinions?
Jonathan
"EXPERIMENT to me
Is every one I meet.
If it contain a kernel?
The figure of a nut
Presents upon a tree,
Equally plausibly;
But meat within is requisite,
To squirrels and to me.
I can't speak to the conformity of rec.arts.sf.written, but I can
assure you with complete confidence that in alt.atheism, you get
judged (and rightfully so) on the merit of your opinion.
My opinion is that if you're going to be a narcissist, then surely you
can back that up, right?
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
On 1/29/2021 12:16 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> writes:
For people that are nice, have correct opinions and
feel safe when in the approving company of others?
No, they're for discussion of science fiction, in written form.
So you have rules for what people can say then?
Please tell me what I can and can't say?
I wouldn't want to discuss anything that
doesn't meet your approval.
Maybe it would be more efficient if you just
spoke for me instead? Just pretend I'm following
your rules and the approved words should flow
like wine.
On 1/29/2021 12:16 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> writes:
For people that are nice, have correct opinions and
feel safe when in the approving company of others?
No, they're for discussion of science fiction, in written form.
So you have rules for what people can say then?
Please tell me what I can and can't say?
I wouldn't want to discuss anything that
doesn't meet your approval.
Maybe it would be more efficient if you just
spoke for me instead? Just pretend I'm following
your rules and the approved words should flow
like wine.
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:43:27 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/2021 12:16 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> writes:
For people that are nice, have correct opinions and
feel safe when in the approving company of others?
No, they're for discussion of science fiction, in written form.
So you have rules for what people can say then?
Please tell me what I can and can't say?
I wouldn't want to discuss anything that
doesn't meet your approval.
Maybe it would be more efficient if you just
spoke for me instead? Just pretend I'm following
your rules and the approved words should flow
like wine.
You can discuss anything you want to. If you don't stick fairly close
to the topic of the group though eventually you will be dismissed as a
crank and everyone will killfile you so you become a tiny voice
shouting in the wilderness.
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:22:14 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
For people that are nice, have correct opinions and
feel safe when in the approving company of others?
I prefer to be seen, not just fade into the crowd or
run with the pack like dogs.
Opinions?
Jonathan
"EXPERIMENT to me
Is every one I meet.
If it contain a kernel?
The figure of a nut
Presents upon a tree,
Equally plausibly;
But meat within is requisite,
To squirrels and to me.
I can't speak to the conformity of rec.arts.sf.written, but I can
assure you with complete confidence that in alt.atheism, you get
judged (and rightfully so) on the merit of your opinion.
My opinion is that if you're going to be a narcissist, then surely you
can back that up, right?
Narcissist? First time I've been called that.
Maybe I am.
But I can back up my claims about Creation and God
but with only using the latest complexity mathematics.
My religious views are the result of the latest science
concerning evolution.
Here's my 'Bible' below and it explains the creation of
all visible order in the universe. We can discuss
the concept in more detail if you like.
Types and Forms of Emergence
"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
how does an entity come into existence?
In a process of emergence we observe something (for instance
the appearance of order or organization) and ask how this is
possible, since we assume causality: every effect should
have a cause.
The surprising aspect in a process of emergence is
the observation of an effect without an apparent cause" >https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore ><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
Crossposted to three newsgroups, one of which is unrelated to the
other two.
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:39:33 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:22:14 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
For people that are nice, have correct opinions and
feel safe when in the approving company of others?
I prefer to be seen, not just fade into the crowd or
run with the pack like dogs.
Opinions?
Jonathan
"EXPERIMENT to me
Is every one I meet.
If it contain a kernel?
The figure of a nut
Presents upon a tree,
Equally plausibly;
But meat within is requisite,
To squirrels and to me.
I can't speak to the conformity of rec.arts.sf.written, but I can
assure you with complete confidence that in alt.atheism, you get
judged (and rightfully so) on the merit of your opinion.
My opinion is that if you're going to be a narcissist, then surely you
can back that up, right?
Narcissist? First time I've been called that.
Maybe I am.
How would you prefer to interpret "I prefer to be seen, not just fade
into the crowd or run with the pack like dogs"?
But I can back up my claims about Creation and God
but with only using the latest complexity mathematics.
My religious views are the result of the latest science
concerning evolution.
First of all, I didn't see you make any claims at all about either
"Creation" or "God". Before you make claims, perhaps you could define
these things so we can start from the same place?
Here's my 'Bible' below and it explains the creation of
all visible order in the universe. We can discuss
the concept in more detail if you like.
Types and Forms of Emergence
"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?”
You're pre-supposing that "an entity" exists.
In a process of emergence we observe something (for instance
the appearance of order or organization) and ask how this is
possible, since we assume causality: every effect should
have a cause.
This is a well-known slippery slope argument.
The surprising aspect in a process of emergence is
the observation of an effect without an apparent cause"
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf
Yeah.... don't think I'm going to some dodgy unknown ftp site, thanks.
How about you post the salient points?
Here's my 'Bible' below and it explains the creation of
all visible order in the universe. We can discuss
the concept in more detail if you like.
Types and Forms of Emergence
"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
how does an entity come into existence?
In a process of emergence we observe something (for instance
the appearance of order or organization) and ask how this is
possible, since we assume causality: every effect should
have a cause.
Look at this stock chart from the other day.
Someone claps their hands and the birds
...take flight.
https://www.tradingview.com/x/Uk8JOUV1/
and another
https://www.tradingview.com/x/FcXOeLmy/
Just like GameStop did last week
https://www.tradingview.com/x/FzG82saG/
A new pattern of expression has suddenly been 'created'
but notice their universal 'viral' behavior.
Someone comes up with a good idea, invest in heavily
shorted stocks, and connect that idea with social media
and BOOM a 'viral' movement is created seemingly out
of thin air that can change the world in a flash.
Emergence has explored and discovered the math
behind such acts of creation.
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 03:52:42 -0500, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore >><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
Crossposted to three newsgroups, one of which is unrelated to the
other two.
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Tell that to the original poster, thanks.
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational
analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a
supernatural entity. Why is that?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious
philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in
what your particular brand of this is.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so
far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other
branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
omniscient and omnipotent?
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 08:59:36 -0500, Dreamer In Colore ><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 03:52:42 -0500, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore >>><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
Crossposted to three newsgroups, one of which is unrelated to the
other two.
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Tell that to the original poster, thanks.
Either (a) the original poster would be the troll you are feeding or
(b) you are admitting to being the troll. Either way, <plonk>
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore ><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational
analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a
supernatural entity. Why is that?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
Sadly, the Bible is not what he is referring to.
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious
philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in
what your particular brand of this is.
Well, you can if it actually exists.
Don't be surprised if it turns out to be ... very mushy.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so
far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other >>branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
omniscient and omnipotent?
Only in philosophy. And philosophy-influenced theology. Except
Plotinus, of course; in Plotinus, the One provides only one service: >existence.
And, BTW, both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" have wildly divergent
alternate meanings.
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:03:55 -0800, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational
analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a
supernatural entity. Why is that?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
Sadly, the Bible is not what he is referring to.
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious
philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in what your particular brand of this is.
Well, you can if it actually exists.
Don't be surprised if it turns out to be ... very mushy.
It's ok. I can handle mushy.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
omniscient and omnipotent?
Only in philosophy. And philosophy-influenced theology. Except
Plotinus, of course; in Plotinus, the One provides only one service: existence.
Now that's an interesting statement. The Christian God is supposed to
be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and that's regardless
of philosophy. Those are foundational principles for that particular
deity, or did I miss something?
And, BTW, both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" have wildly divergent
alternate meanings.
Also an interesting statement. What alternate meanings can you
ascribe, when "omni" means "All"?
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 08:59:36 -0500, Dreamer In Colore ><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 03:52:42 -0500, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore >>><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
Crossposted to three newsgroups, one of which is unrelated to the
other two.
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Tell that to the original poster, thanks.
Either (a) the original poster would be the troll you are feeding or
(b) you are admitting to being the troll. Either way, <plonk>
Sat, 30 Jan 2021 03:52:42 -0500, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com>:
Crossposted to three newsgroups, one of which is unrelated to the
other two.
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Tell that to the original poster, thanks.
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational
analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a
supernatural entity. Why is that?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious
philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in
what your particular brand of this is.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so
far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other
branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
omniscient and omnipotent?
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:39:33 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> scrawled
in blood:
Here's my 'Bible' below and it explains the creation of
all visible order in the universe. We can discuss
the concept in more detail if you like.
Types and Forms of Emergence
"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?”
In a process of emergence we observe something (for instance
the appearance of order or organization) and ask how this is
possible, since we assume causality: every effect should
have a cause.
Oh for fuck's fucking sake: the onto-cosmological argument?
Seriously?
Well, you just admitted that you're a moron.
Don't bother responding; won't see it.
Don
aa#51
o- DNRC
Jedi Slackmaster
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:03:55 -0800, Paul S Person ><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore >><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational
analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a
supernatural entity. Why is that?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
Sadly, the Bible is not what he is referring to.
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious
philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in >>>what your particular brand of this is.
Well, you can if it actually exists.
Don't be surprised if it turns out to be ... very mushy.
It's ok. I can handle mushy.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so >>>far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other >>>branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
omniscient and omnipotent?
Only in philosophy. And philosophy-influenced theology. Except
Plotinus, of course; in Plotinus, the One provides only one service: >>existence.
Now that's an interesting statement. The Christian God is supposed to
be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and that's regardless
of philosophy. Those are foundational principles for that particular
deity, or did I miss something?
And, BTW, both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" have wildly divergent
alternate meanings.
Also an interesting statement. What alternate meanings can you
ascribe, when "omni" means "All"?
On 1/30/2021 9:22 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:39:33 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> scrawled
in blood:
Here's my 'Bible' below and it explains the creation of
all visible order in the universe. We can discuss
the concept in more detail if you like.
Types and Forms of Emergence
"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
how does an entity come into existence?
In a process of emergence we observe something (for instance
the appearance of order or organization) and ask how this is
possible, since we assume causality: every effect should
have a cause.
Oh for fuck's fucking sake: the onto-cosmological argument?
Seriously?
Well, you just admitted that you're a moron.
Don't bother responding; won't see it.
That was a quote from a well-respected major university
you just called moronic. In fact it was a quote from the
Computer Science dept of this university...
https://www.uni-kassel.de/uni/en/international-service/international-profile/university-of-kassel
And you're calling me, I mean the Phd that wrote the
quote a moron?
On 1/29/2021 10:43 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational
analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a
supernatural entity. Why is that?
Because the ultimate source of creation and impetus for
Darwinian evolution...is invisible and inherent.
And I have the scientific evidence for all of the above.
Most have termed the above phenomena 'Acts of God'.
Today modern science calls it Type 4 (strong) emergence.
'A rose by any other name..."
The following excerpts show that science and religion
are seeing the same creative force, but merely giving
it different names.
Types and Forms of Emergence
Distributed Systems Group,
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science,
Universität Kassel, Germany
[Creation]
"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?”
[inherent]
"If we consider the world of emergent properties, the deepest
mysteries are as close as the nearest seedling, ice cube, grain
of salt or pile of sand, as Laughlin explains in his book
[Laughlin05]. It is doubtful that the *ultimate laws* can be
found at inconceivable high energies or extreme scales,
if we do not understand things at our own scale well enough"
[invisible]
"The surprising aspect in a process of emergence is
the observation of an effect without an apparent cause."
Moreover an emergent property is a part of the system and at
the same time it is not a part of the system, it depends on a
system because it appears in it and is yet independent from it
to a certain degree. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, “emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or
‘irreducible’ with respect to them”.
Because true emergent properties are irreducible, they can not
be destroyed or decomposed – they appear or disappear instead.
In this sense they may seem to be indestructibe and are
potentially the only things that really exist, but if
they are examined too closely - if we take a
deeper look at the components of the system - they
do not exist at all and often vanish into nothing."
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Explainable and rational.
HOWEVER that does NOT change the fact that creation is
the result of a seemingly invisible, mysterious and
inherent force that exists in everything.
Science and religion can at last become one-in-the-same.
That is my assertion and it's backed up by the most
modern mathematics of all, complexity theory.
You have to deny science exists, to deny 'God' as
perceived via emergent properties exists...NOW.
Jonathan
s
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious
philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in
what your particular brand of this is.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so
far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other
branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
omniscient and omnipotent?
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different from emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores creation by
assuming it the same as emergence. That's why science is wrong, and
evolution is imaginary.
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different from
emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores creation by
assuming it the same as emergence. That's why science is wrong, and
evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
On 2021-02-01 1:28 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different from
emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores creation by
assuming it the same as emergence. That's why science is wrong, and
evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
You are welcome. Now I know how irrational and ignorant you are.
I bet you don't even know that evolution is actually a false
philosophical theory of life either.
On 2021-02-01 11:58 a.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 1:28 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different
from emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores
creation by assuming it the same as emergence. That's why science is
wrong, and evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
You are welcome. Now I know how irrational and ignorant you are.
As in not irrational and not ignorant.
I bet you don't even know that evolution is actually a false
philosophical theory of life either.
Evolution is as close to a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
On 2021-02-01 3:27 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 11:58 a.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 1:28 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different
from emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores
creation by assuming it the same as emergence. That's why science
is wrong, and evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
You are welcome. Now I know how irrational and ignorant you are.
As in not irrational and not ignorant.
I bet you don't even know that evolution is actually a false
philosophical theory of life either.
Evolution is as close to a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
How sad you can only ignore my simple philosophical education to insist
on your ignorance.
On 2021-02-01 12:46 p.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 3:27 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 11:58 a.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 1:28 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different
from emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores
creation by assuming it the same as emergence. That's why science
is wrong, and evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
You are welcome. Now I know how irrational and ignorant you are.
As in not irrational and not ignorant.
I bet you don't even know that evolution is actually a false
philosophical theory of life either.
Evolution is as close to a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
How sad you can only ignore my simple philosophical education to
insist on your ignorance.
You've provided nothing buy meaningless buzzwords.
On 2021-02-01 3:52 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 12:46 p.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 3:27 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 11:58 a.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 1:28 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different >>>>>>> from emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores
creation by assuming it the same as emergence. That's why science >>>>>>> is wrong, and evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
You are welcome. Now I know how irrational and ignorant you are.
As in not irrational and not ignorant.
I bet you don't even know that evolution is actually a false
philosophical theory of life either.
Evolution is as close to a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
How sad you can only ignore my simple philosophical education to
insist on your ignorance.
You've provided nothing buy meaningless buzzwords.
You only expose your lack of philosophical understanding.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate
and so far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.atheism,rec.arts.sf.movies
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
On 2021-02-01 12:54 p.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 3:52 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 12:46 p.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 3:27 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 11:58 a.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 1:28 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different >>>>>>>> from emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores
creation by assuming it the same as emergence. That's why
science is wrong, and evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
You are welcome. Now I know how irrational and ignorant you are.
As in not irrational and not ignorant.
I bet you don't even know that evolution is actually a false
philosophical theory of life either.
Evolution is as close to a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
How sad you can only ignore my simple philosophical education to
insist on your ignorance.
You've provided nothing buy meaningless buzzwords.
You only expose your lack of philosophical understanding.
And you show I was right.
On 2021-02-01 4:03 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 12:54 p.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 3:52 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 12:46 p.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 3:27 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 11:58 a.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 1:28 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different >>>>>>>>> from emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores >>>>>>>>> creation by assuming it the same as emergence. That's why
science is wrong, and evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
You are welcome. Now I know how irrational and ignorant you are.
As in not irrational and not ignorant.
I bet you don't even know that evolution is actually a false
philosophical theory of life either.
Evolution is as close to a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
How sad you can only ignore my simple philosophical education to
insist on your ignorance.
You've provided nothing buy meaningless buzzwords.
You only expose your lack of philosophical understanding.
And you show I was right.
Your ignorance can never be right.
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 17:03:26 -0500, Dreamer In Colore ><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:03:55 -0800, Paul S Person >><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore >>><dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational >>>>analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a >>>>supernatural entity. Why is that?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
Sadly, the Bible is not what he is referring to.
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle >>>>>anything more than simple stories.
Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious >>>>philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in >>>>what your particular brand of this is.
Well, you can if it actually exists.
Don't be surprised if it turns out to be ... very mushy.
It's ok. I can handle mushy.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so >>>>far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not >>>>omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other >>>>branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
omniscient and omnipotent?
Only in philosophy. And philosophy-influenced theology. Except
Plotinus, of course; in Plotinus, the One provides only one service: >>>existence.
Now that's an interesting statement. The Christian God is supposed to
be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and that's regardless
of philosophy. Those are foundational principles for that particular
deity, or did I miss something?
It would appear that you missed /the entire Bible/, for starters.
And the people I have run into who believe that "supposed to" applies
to "the Christian God" tended to be atheists pursuing a Straw God
Argument.
And, BTW, both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" have wildly divergent >>>alternate meanings.
Also an interesting statement. What alternate meanings can you
ascribe, when "omni" means "All"?
Omniscence:
-- God knows everything that happens because it happens
-- everthing happens because God knows it happens
the second, of course, leads to predestination, among other
abominations.
Omnipotence:
-- God can do anything He wants
-- God has power over each and every thing (excludes logical
paradoxes, which are not "things")
-- God powers everything
Aquinas died before finishing the /Summa/, so some earlier works
appear at the end. One of these explains that the World will end when
God stops turning the crank that makes the outermost sphere rotate.
Since each sphere is powered by the sphere above, all the spheres will
stop and, eventually, all motion will stop.
How literally this was intended to be taken I have no idea, but it >graphically illustrates the second meaning.
I should also point out that "omnipotence" is the Latin term. The
Greek term, "pantokrator" is a /political/ term ("God is the ruler of
all"), as the ending shows (it appears in "aristrocrat" and
"plutocrat" as "ruler" and in "aristocracy", "plutocracy", and
"democracy" in a slightly different form to designate political
systems). In the OT, it is "El Shaddai" ("God Almighty"), which
appears to stress physical strength.
"omnibenevolence" I have rarely enountered, except from atheists as
part of a Straw God Argument. And you forgot "impassivity", also used
mostly by atheists on the attack.
Still, it looks like you are well-read in the atheist religious
philosophers, at any rate.
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 10:32:03 -0500, aaa <jeo@somewhere.org> wrote:
On 2021-02-01 4:03 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 12:54 p.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 3:52 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 12:46 p.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 3:27 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2021-02-01 11:58 a.m., aaa wrote:
On 2021-02-01 1:28 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:As in not irrational and not ignorant.
On 2021-02-01 7:52 a.m., aaa wrote:
Emergent properties and 'Acts of God' could easily be
mistaken for each other.
So you see I'm saying what religion has been witnessing
as 'Acts of God' are in fact Acts of Nature.
Completely different things. Creation is fundamentally different >>>>>>>>>> from emergence. They are not the same thing. Science ignores >>>>>>>>>> creation by assuming it the same as emergence. That's why
science is wrong, and evolution is imaginary.
"Evolution is imaginary."?
Now I know how rational you are.
Thanks.
You are welcome. Now I know how irrational and ignorant you are. >>>>>>>
I bet you don't even know that evolution is actually a false
philosophical theory of life either.
Evolution is as close to a fact as anything non-trivial can be.
How sad you can only ignore my simple philosophical education to
insist on your ignorance.
You've provided nothing buy meaningless buzzwords.
You only expose your lack of philosophical understanding.
And you show I was right.
Your ignorance can never be right.
Would you two get a room?
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 10:03:58 -0800, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 17:03:26 -0500, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:03:55 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
from George Carlin?
George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational
analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a
supernatural entity. Why is that?
Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
Sadly, the Bible is not what he is referring to.
That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
anything more than simple stories.
Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
Only those that have never read a single line of religious
philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious
philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in >>>>> what your particular brand of this is.
Well, you can if it actually exists.
Don't be surprised if it turns out to be ... very mushy.
It's ok. I can handle mushy.
And those that haven't read a single line of religious
philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
criticism of religious beliefs.
Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so >>>>> far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other >>>>> branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
omniscient and omnipotent?
Only in philosophy. And philosophy-influenced theology. Except
Plotinus, of course; in Plotinus, the One provides only one service:
existence.
Now that's an interesting statement. The Christian God is supposed to
be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and that's regardless
of philosophy. Those are foundational principles for that particular
deity, or did I miss something?
It would appear that you missed /the entire Bible/, for starters.
And the people I have run into who believe that "supposed to" applies
to "the Christian God" tended to be atheists pursuing a Straw God
Argument.
I disagree! There are plenty of places in the Christian Bible that
point to God having omni-level abilities. "And God said, Let there be
light." No?
Wasn't it St Anselm with the ontological argument that used the
omni-powers as a basis for framing a rebuttal to the problem of evil?
I rather like the "Straw God Argument" label, though. I think I might
have to steal that.
And, BTW, both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" have wildly divergent
alternate meanings.
Also an interesting statement. What alternate meanings can you
ascribe, when "omni" means "All"?
Omniscence:
-- God knows everything that happens because it happens
-- everthing happens because God knows it happens
the second, of course, leads to predestination, among other
abominations.
There's no "because it happens" that is a necessary condition for God
knowing everything. God knows everything... period. Of course that
leads to predestination, which is the whole point of the abomination.
Omnipotence:
-- God can do anything He wants
-- God has power over each and every thing (excludes logical
paradoxes, which are not "things")
-- God powers everything
Aquinas died before finishing the /Summa/, so some earlier works
appear at the end. One of these explains that the World will end when
God stops turning the crank that makes the outermost sphere rotate.
Since each sphere is powered by the sphere above, all the spheres will
stop and, eventually, all motion will stop.
How literally this was intended to be taken I have no idea, but it
graphically illustrates the second meaning.
If God can do anything he wants, and doesn't fix some pretty heinous
issues, then how does that square with omnibenevolence?
One is forced to choose between "God chooses to do nothing", "God
chooses to allow heinous things to happen, and/or actually causes them
to happen in the first place" and "Why do we need a God in the first
place?"
I should also point out that "omnipotence" is the Latin term. The
Greek term, "pantokrator" is a /political/ term ("God is the ruler of
all"), as the ending shows (it appears in "aristrocrat" and
"plutocrat" as "ruler" and in "aristocracy", "plutocracy", and
"democracy" in a slightly different form to designate political
systems). In the OT, it is "El Shaddai" ("God Almighty"), which
appears to stress physical strength.
"omnibenevolence" I have rarely enountered, except from atheists as
part of a Straw God Argument. And you forgot "impassivity", also used
mostly by atheists on the attack.
You haven't hung out in alt.atheism much, I think. The evangelists
make it quite clear that their faith indicates things like "God
commands me to love my neighbor" and "God is all love".
The only reason that I bring up the omni-labels is because I'd like a common-ground starting point for the actual abilities of the
hypothetical deity, otherwise you get a lot of wiggle room and the
arguments devolve into very uninteresting things.
Still, it looks like you are well-read in the atheist religious
philosophers, at any rate.
To my eternal dismay, I will never be as well-read as I want to be.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:43:02 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Files: | 12,197 |
| Messages: | 5,329,716 |