Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have struggled to accept the "red in tooth and claw" aspects of our Reality - what is frequently referred to as Theodicy, or the problem of evil.
I was not referring to 'evil' or the things man can do.
Nature (which you declare is a loving god) blesses us with 'natural' events like hurricanes, tornadoes, devastating floods, volcanoes,etc.
You want to believe nature is god, fine, but you maybe should ditch the 'loving' part
I was not referring to 'evil' or the things man can do.
Nature (which you declare is a loving god) blesses us with 'natural' events like hurricanes, tornadoes, devastating floods, volcanoes,etc.
You want to believe nature is god, fine, but you maybe should ditch the 'loving' part
why?
If I listed only the "bad things" your father did to you or couldn't stop from happening to you, would that mean he didn't love you?
If I listed only the "bad things" your father did to you or couldn't stop from happening to you, would that mean he didn't love you?
or do you mean "god is only love"?
I think he means that if his biological mother/father caused floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, or volcanic eruptions, he wouldn't consider his biological mother/father to be that loving.
I think he means that if his biological mother/father caused floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, or volcanic eruptions, he wouldn't consider his biological mother/father to be that loving.
I was questioning "ditch the loving". If volcanoes and earthquakes have to happen, then it could still be loving. I see their god thing more like a gardener. If one believes in it that is. to the weeds its wickedness ... 100%. To the tomatoes its a savior.
In a room full of weeds what would we hear?
in a room full of tomatoes what would we hear?
I could have sworn you were implying that a perfect and stable "creation" and "design" of orbits implies a perfect and stable creator. Yet orbits are highly imperfect and unstable, so they are unlikely to be created or designed by Perfection.
Yes if by "nothing" you mean "no mind but definitely unminded qualities." Indeed, all of the "pattern" (rather than "design") in nature, like beautiful snowflakes (some look ugly) and slowly crumbling orbits would come about by unminded physical laws and forces (just a name for seamingly stable qualities).
It would require a lot of energy and would be rather catastrophic (yet probably manageable, ultimately, and definitely for some animals) to make the Earth spin in the other direction.
But why wouldn't a REAL god take up your offer easily? Is is scared, is it lying? Does it not exist? Is it in the toilet?
A weak and humble human such as I can only do so much given my limitations.
But perhaps your supposed God can take up your offer more easily at some point soon? Depends on how it pretends its procrastination to do what is good is patience to do what is bad (judgment rather than education) though.
What is the world record for not blinking? Should be easy to beat for a believer in Allah the destroyer and ender of what is natural. Or if Christianity is true, they should be able to get powers and favors to do what they think God wants to be done (which would end with the conversion of MANY, even if not convert me, or other agnostics, or a few atheists somehow).
If what is natural is ultimate, though, then the world record will be broken only through natural and secular means (or even through mysteries).
If SUPERnatural is ultimate, then it will be CLEAR, nature could not UNDO the clearness and obviousness of the truth of SUPERnature having dominion over nature.
Yet natural unminded forces would also be forces all by themselves.
May the FORCE be with you.
Indeed, to the bane of the false gods, we have logic, intelligence, resources, and abilities to do a lot of things.
If the gods/heavens don't want them done, they should ban them, or do something about them, in a timely way, rather than a stupid one. No measly "force" could stand against them
Einstein. Newton. Avicenna. Galen. Socrates.
Veneration of many things unworthy of veneration, even as much a mere "mysterious force."
Instead of veneration, they should have settled at awe and wonder at its appropriate stage.
You are trying to deflect. It has not worked, as I have now pointed it out a couple of times with your tangent attempts at defending your original premise that pattern implies mind.
Thankfully we are using a writing mode of discourse, it would otherwise be difficult to have mental capacity and time to answer anything but your most salient (or loudest) questions more directly, although they are most in truth largely tangent to the methods of how to determine "mindful design" in something even as incomprehensible as much of modern art.
Whether or not I can "fix" the mistakes and imperfections in allowed/existing existence or work against the forces of nature does not really matter to my original counterpoint against your misguided but I am guessing honest assertion that a "stable orbit" means that Allah is true, rather than the freer (less statue jealous/envious/fearful) Vishnu is true, or that there no imagined Gods maintaining their ever-crumbling stability at all.
Thus none of these things you listed point to one or multiple Gods or to a mindful design.
Not the existence of things
Not the pattern of things
Not the location of things
Not the motion of things
Not the formation of things
Not the interaction of things
Not the maintaining of things
Not the direction of things
Not the complexity or function of things
Not the non-rewindability of things
Not the difficulty of things
Not the unmanageability of things
Not the unchangeability of things
Unminded physical qualities (laws and forces) could still lead to any and all of these, as there might not be anything to stop these qualities from being as such as they are, in their ultimate nature.
Are you saying, (and I don't have an issue with your belief without "evidence"), that the big bag happened by a mere chance and the entire universe and everything in it (which is full of flaws according YOUR intelligence) came together by itself?
Are you saying, (and I don't have an issue with your belief without "evidence"), that the big bag happened by a mere chance and the entire universe and everything in it (which is full of flaws according YOUR intelligence) came together by itself?
It's a simple Yes and No question.
By your terms that would be a "yes." What does "by itself" mean? One would normally think in terms of intention, and there is no intent, it just happened that a universe with certain qualities , some of which we are still figuring out, happened. Why would intent be necessary? "Flaw" only means something does not meet your expectations, in which case it is the expectations that are the error.
I was not referring to 'evil' or the things man can do.
Nature (which you declare is a loving god) blesses us with 'natural' events like hurricanes, tornadoes, devastating floods, volcanoes,etc.
You want to believe nature is god, fine, but you maybe should ditch the 'loving' part
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
our goal is to emulate that Holy Spirit because we have been given Dominion over the earth by God's sovereign Will.
We are responsible for how we respond to whatever happens. The environment within which we are to develop a Holy Spirit of agape love is what we have been given Dominion over.
I was questioning "ditch the loving". If volcanoes and earthquakes have to happen, then it could still be loving. I see their god thing more like a gardener. If one believes in it that is. to the weeds its wickedness ... 100%. To the tomatoes its a savior.
In a room full of weeds what would we hear?
in a room full of tomatoes what would we hear?
are either totally right and/or totally wrong?
I don't think that the person in question favors such Stockholm syndrome as you describe with the whole "earthquakes and volcanoes HAVE to happen out of love" thing.
As to the subjectivity of experience that you describe with the consumer tomatoes and hardier weed plants, I don't think that has any bearing on what the person in question was describing in terms of pantheism not being enough to call "loving" in his estimation of objective reasoning.
Should the tomatoes belief that since the weeds have to be cut down due to being better, stronger, and faster at breeding than the chosen (for use and consumption) tomatoes, then it is loving TO THE "useless/abuse-less" Dandelions for them to be cut down?
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 04-28-2019 at 04:52 PM..
Are you saying, (and I don't have an issue with your belief without "evidence"), that the big bag happened by a mere chance and the entire universe and everything in it (which is full of flaws according YOUR intelligence) came together by itself?
It's a simple Yes and No question.
Yes and No. Basically no, because I am not claiming it as definitive. But yes, it would be possible under some given circumstances that are also possible. Many multiple other explanations might fit just as well, with one of them (even if unthought of) being the right one, unless "the right one" is one about multiple dimensions where many different causes are always "the right ones."
I'd defer my guesses and proclamations in proportion to the available evidence.
Regardless, I repeat
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
I could have sworn you were implying that a perfect and stable "creation" and "design" of orbits implies a perfect and stable creator. Yet orbits are highly imperfect and unstable, so they are unlikely to be created or designed by Perfection.
...snip...
If what is natural is ultimate, though, then the world record will be broken only through natural and secular means (or even through mysteries).
If SUPERnatural is ultimate, then it will be CLEAR, nature could not UNDO the clearness and obviousness of the truth of SUPERnature having dominion over nature.
Yet natural unminded forces would also be forces all by themselves.
...snip...
Einstein. Newton. Avicenna. Galen. Socrates.
Veneration of many things unworthy of veneration, even as much a mere "mysterious force."
Instead of veneration, they should have settled at awe and wonder at its appropriate stage.
...snip...
Thus none of these things you listed point to one or multiple Gods or to a mindful design.
Not the existence of things
Not the pattern of things
Not the location of things
Not the motion of things
Not the formation of things
Not the interaction of things
Not the maintaining of things
Not the direction of things
Not the complexity or function of things
Not the non-rewindability of things
Not the difficulty of things
Not the unmanageability of things
Not the unchangeability of things
Unminded physical qualities (laws and forces) could still lead to any and all of these, as there might not be anything to stop these qualities from being as such as they are, in their ultimate nature.
[...snip...]
"Flaw" only means something does not meet your expectations, in which case it is the expectations that are the error.
Yes to your premise; No to your conclusion. This does not mean that the opposite of your conclusion is the right conclusion. Only that your conclusion is faulty in being mostly non-sequitur due to lack of detail and dichotomous in terms of consideration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
