i have lived with the math, since being a 16 yr old kid and have spent the last 3 decades making sure. I had no idea what it meant, until my mother told me and i gave out a loud 'oh sheet' i could care less about being held in high marks as i already know, that i am not the importance; the children, the furture, mankind, existence itself. Heck i am in heaven most every moment i am awake. ie..... the best method of experiencing bliss is to appreciate every moment. no one mentioned a 'cause', just the facts that is what is so cool about truth; anyone can experience it, if honest with themselves nope. no doubt hence, the arrogance. ( i dont give a hoot if people believe me, as i mentioned in the line above, truth is equally felt and that differentiation is based on selfishness if a person chooses to sustain disregard of truth) hence, anyone can 'walk on water' as well know the 'father' (existence itself), it dont mean people have to be accepted by anyone else, as it is each individuals own awareness that truth enables. The combining of the like minded will take time. ie... you be on the ground floor and why i mentioned your 'light' (chain of life) must be something. perhaps your ancestor was a disciple and never died just as jesus (per bible) said. 'some of you will not taste death' (but few comprehend what that meant but now you do) Yet, to return to the scope; Are you ONE with god (existence itself)? yes or no.............. (ie... see how the 'choice' is still YOURS) screw me.................... i am in no need of a crown of thorns (the thorns being the responsibility to all) i see it fit to enable the good and let the bad be destroyed (war is coming/fire from the sky) OK....... but remember, when yu take your next breath, are you a part of it all? Are you eating of HIS body (natures food), is nature clothing you...... walk thru the list and ask yourself. Again, screw appeasing me. then what does the cross mean? what is the anhk? Why are symbols used in math? is math the universal language (of the globe)? (think of trade between nations, the value of each symbol may differ but the math is the same) took many moons to come to terms with it all, but i find that as long as i am honest with myself, i could care less what people think of me. what i do, is all that is important. i rather like the idea as when something is published about me, in such a sense of being someone special, you will perhaps never read from me again as i will probably run to the hills. These forums help me learn how to play with the wolves and debate and associate and articulate addressing and dealing with just about every diviation of truth, lies and selfishness anyone could perhaps care to come into contact with. As well i can keep my finger on the pulse. But could you imagine if people actually believed i was the mess of a man...... i would have people bringing their children to my feet begging for me to fix them (heal with miracles) and all i could do is tell them, that they have been believing in lies. All i could then do is tell them the truth; That a doctor is the miracle man/women of healing such things............. all i can do is enable each to comprehend that what they do is their ever lasting. For example; you and i are within this pond of existence, our actions are like tapping the pond leaving waves within. If our waves are good, they will combine with others and create a bigger and longer lasting wave/existence within existence (the pond/the body of god). ie.... good (actions we can cause to exist) support life to continue bad: loss to the common (selfish) its stupid easy. and like i said, you are a part of it, whether you like it or not.
Will you do me the honor of giving me your name so that I can know when it is you about whom they write? Feel free to PM--I will respect any confidentiality requested.
In a general sense I agree. But at the same time, knowledge is impossible without some degree of limitation as the very concept of knowledge separates the true from the false and the thing at issue from all other things. This is the good side of limits that those who argue for some sort of unlimited openness often leave out. I haven't spelled it out in the recent past, because so few rarely bite when I bring it up (itself an interesting phenomenon), so give me some time to compose it for you. The only reason I can think of for arguing that I'm assuming total knowledge is to leave room to describe as good something we see as evil; that had we more knowledge, something we see as evil is actually good. The logical conclusion of this argument is moral relativism, for no matter what level of moral knowledge you reach, one can always invoke a higher unknown that invalidates it. This is a semantic rebuttal. Use whatever word you think means the opposite of love.
I agree that the quest for knowledge presumes that it can be attained. However, that doesn't necessitate that it is ever attained fully by one individual or in one (for lack of better word) receptacle. It will be appreciated! Not necessarily. You can always claim a higher level of knowledge would reveal either good or bad, but that doesn't mean the claim is correct. Perhaps the answer is there and speculation just passes it by or due to a lack of understanding dismisses it, or any number of reasons why the "correct" answer goes unrecognized--it's not just that we don't have enough knowledge already; we don't have enough AWARENESS, IMO.
I'm not talking about the quest for knowledge. I am talking about knowledge itself. Knowledge assumes limits, distinctions. Hence the idea of being totally open-ended about knowledge is contradictory as it implies that one may know things without any distinctions. Anyone who says that something you think is right is actually wrong if viewed from a perspective of higher knowledge is assuming that he is right. This is where your style of argument fails. No matter what I say is right, you can say that if I knew better I would know it's wrong, and vice versa. The functional effect of this style of argument is to eliminate the possibility of being right or wrong and is thus nihilistic. The reason this has to do with God is that a charge that God is acting immorally is often rebutted by the believer with the claim that if I could see things God's way then I would realize I'm wrong. This argument is not only logically flawed for the reason give above but is also morally flawed because it justifies arguing that any and every act, no matter how evil it might seem to us, is actually good if we could see it correctly. For example, this argument can be used (and indeed has been used) to argue that the Holocaust was absolutely wonderful. This also has the effect of rendering God's morals inherently beyond our reach, thereby short-ciruiting any claim that God is good.
I don't think we are disagreeing here. I would say PERHAPS it is wrong. But that doesn't mean it IS wrong or ISN'T wrong. One might suggest that is how it operates "functionally," but that's not what it is in fact because the hope of knowing at some point continues. People decide what makes sense to them and live according to that--that decision eliminates the nihilistic nature of not being able to fully know. The decision grounds the perspective, even when one is fully aware that it is a decision and not empirical. Isn't that a logical statement? Doesn't is make sense? I'm not arguing that it is true or not--I'm merely saying that the statement is a reasonable response whether one believes it is true or not. Just because you don't buy the concept, doesn't mean it isn't logical. It could even be wrong, and still be logical. I don't see how you leap to negating the goodness of God based on his being inherently the norm for what is Good. There seems to be no logic there--that seems an emotional response that it's "not fair."
The natural world is the world we have evidence for. For example, electrons are part of the natural world but we have never directly see them. However we have iron clad evidence for them. Time is part of the natural world but we have never seen it. Dark matter is part of the natural world by we have not directly seen it. The unmeasurability of some quantum events may be due to true randomness, but it may also be due to only apparent randomness. There might be some force we don't know about that is causing these supposed random events. This is all speculation though. To call something supernatural has too many mythological connotations that I would never name anything related to quantum effects "supernatural."
You are simply refusing to nail down morality, which is merely an extension of my original criticism. I see that what you said is a response, but I don't see how it's reasonable. It's not a matter of whether I buy the argument or not. It's a matter of the nihilistic implications of the argument itself. If you want to cop to being a nihilist, fine. You very rarely address my actual points. I am not talking about a norm for what is good. I am told that God is good and that this goodness is absolute, both in him and in goodness itself. Now according to your own logic (namely that something I think is evil is actually good if I could see it the way God sees it) it is not possible to determine whether God is good or not. You are reduced to a bald claim that God is good. A leap to infinity, or a leap of faith as it's often called. There is nothing logical in a leap of faith.
The stuff in quantum mechanics have nothing to do with ancient mythologies so lets not call quantum randomness "supernatural." Another problem is that calling something supernatural infers that it is completely distinct from the natural world and is somehow above the natural world. Quantum randomness involves particles that are part of the natural world so it is not completely detached from the natural world. And there is no scientific data to suggest that quantum randomness is "above" the natural world. Using this religiously charged term is very innaccurate and is a big mistake. Lets use scientific terms for scientific areas of study.
Here's a thought, you are the only being in existent All of creation is you. Boring place ain't it. Perhaps creating a hole in the universe full of entities who are tiny pieces of you living lives stuck in the prison of time to die and be merged back into the whole so you can experience life through them will liven the place up.
I don't know. Does it really matter? Either way I'm glad this universe exists. THEY HAVE PIE HERE! I like pie.
no need too when you capture what 'is real' then plant the seeds from your point of view and do what you can for others to understand. ie..... take a cup of water and take a child to a plant outside. Ask the child to pour the water onto the plant and ask him/her why that is good. Share that by their action, the plant can live longer and that is how to measure 'good' You taught the child the lesson (good) the child awakens to comprehend the basis of their actions and forever more, if that lesson is taught to the next, eventually WORLD PEACE will reign. Teach them 'what' god is in the sense of 'all' that exists as one and we live within the body of 'it'. That what we do, is our everlasting. ie.... if you teach the lessons learned to a young mind as early as possible, they are equiped to overcome the lies all by themselves. As for you; buy seed, leave the big cities and enable life by your cause, you will live longer. Do not fear death anymore than 'sleeping' each nite as when asleep, your consciousness is out but alive just the same, upon existence! enjoy
Well-- I wish you well and all that is good. I'm not convinced of your being anymore "special" than the rest of us, but I do agree that when we are good, and teach good to others by guidance and example, the good spreads--and that itself is a special cause to rightly devote a life to. Peace be with you.
That's a good question. I have always wondered what the purpose of our existence is. I still don't know.
We DO know...its simply the attraction of 2 bodies in a zero gravity envorment. This was tested on a space shuttle mission. An astronught let a bag of sand (I think it was sand) loose. Instead of the sand merely floating away aimlessly, they became attracked to one another and started to clump together.
