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 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?
I don't think the person in question honestly cares past deny everything religion said.
I love my cells, all 100 trillion-ish of them. But I certainly would/do help my stomach cells die so the acid doesn't eat through me.
"loving" my cells is subjective. Them needing to reproduce fast for me is not subjective. In fact, I don't much care what they think about me.
I don't think the person in question honestly cares past deny everything religion said.
I love my cells, all 100 trillion-ish of them. But I certainly would/do help my stomach cells die so the acid doesn't eat through me.
"loving" my cells is subjective. Them needing to reproduce fast for me is not subjective. In fact, I don't much care what they think about me.
Weird, because according to Religion AND the said forum participant whose pseudonym I do not recall (perhaps rafius, if memory serves me well) "real" love would require that you (or gods) care what they (natural thinking beings) think of you (or gods), accepting that they might think. I don't know about you, but I would assume caring to be the herald and hallmark of love.
Spoiler
Not necessarily over-caring in jealousy or dwelling in envy though. Not that envy and jealousy are completely useless or completely detrimental.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
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.
I fell off at the corner: the conditions of a universe are simply what they are, to expect them to be different is error, QED. "Detail" my apple.
I fell off at the corner: the conditions of a universe are simply what they are, to expect them to be different is error, QED. "Detail" my apple.
I was only replying to the implication that the "flaw is our own for mis-expecting" sentence. That is why I sniped some of the post that I was quoted from you since I had no real issue with it.
If you did not mean, what I thought you implied then I am glad we are in agreement.
For sure, the stoic tenet of "accept what is as it is" thing has largely little to do with who or what is at fault or is flawed.
I was only replying to the implication that the "flaw is our own for mis-expecting" sentence. That is why I sniped some of the post that I was quoted from you since I had no real issue with it.
If you did not mean, what I thought you implied then I am glad we are in agreement.
For sure, the stoic tenet of "accept what is as it is" thing has largely little to do with who or what is at fault or is flawed.
It only has everything to do with who is at fault for insisting on flawed views. Seriously, I don't get your thought at all.
It only has everything to do with who is at fault for insisting on flawed views. Seriously, I don't get your thought at all.
I had some major typos and grammar issues in that one post. But I think I understand your mistake in that fraction of an idea with some confidence, however.
You think that if we view what IS as flawed, then it is WE who are flawed for perceiving it as "needing change for the better". No?
Yet things can be seen as needing change for the better, without the observer being flawed for simply noticing it and pointing it out.
Even so, the idea that it is our fault for perceiving wrong incorrectly (faultily, flawfully) and not the ultimate designer making flaws (given that I know you are/were a religiously liberal Christian) is an idea which is self-contradictory, for if it is we who are flawed for perceiving what IS as flawed, then we would still BE flawed. Which is one reason why I pointed out that your restriction (I'm guessing in an attempt to protect the idea of a Perfect Creator) was unnecessarily dichotomous.
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.
I had some major typos and grammar issues in that one post. But I think I understand your mistake in that fraction of an idea with some confidence, however.
You think that if we view what IS as flawed, then it is WE who are flawed for perceiving it as "needing change for the better". No?
Yet things can be seen as needing change for the better, without the observer being flawed for simply noticing it and pointing it out.
Even so, the idea that it is our fault for perceiving wrong incorrectly (faultily, flawfully) and not the ultimate designer making flaws (given that I know you are/were a religiously liberal Christian) is an idea which is self-contradictory, for if it is we who are flawed for perceiving what IS as flawed, then we would still BE flawed. Which is one reason why I pointed out that your restriction (I'm guessing in an attempt to protect the idea of a Perfect Creator) was unnecessarily dichotomous.
Well, there is the problem: your "understanding" is exactly backwards. If a universe has properties and processes that is simply the way they are; there is no right or wrong or " flawed" about them. The only "flaw" that comes into play would be thinking that they are (or even should be) different than what they are. An orbit in a planetary system, for instance, may be decaying and due to have the orbiting body fall into a particular sun. That is not a flaw in the system and processes of that universe, the flaw is in thinking that the orbit is (or should be) perfect. That is simply wishful thinking and completely divorced from reality:"flawed." Try thinking in real terms instead of nebulous "ideals."
Would that simplified perception mean that you think the Gaps in Knowledge absolutely must be filled with something preferable? Do you deny agnosticism and solipsism? Do you refuse to confess it for yourself?
What I am saying is that is certainly possible and most likely that things are just as they evidence themselves when tested as properly as possible. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I don't know for sure and that you don't know for sure either. This steadfast humility is the foundation of perfect wisdom. Anyone or something else could happen to be correct, even if accidentally and/or given their life circumstances and exposures.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 04-29-2019 at 12:02 PM..
Well, there is the problem: your "understanding" is exactly backwards. If a universe has properties and processes that is simply the way they are; there is no right or wrong or " flawed" about them. The only "flaw" that comes into play would be thinking that they are (or even should be) different than what they are. An orbit in a planetary system, for instance, may be decaying and due to have the orbiting body fall into a particular sun. That is not a flaw in the system and processes of that universe, the flaw is in thinking that the orbit is (or should be) perfect. That is simply wishful thinking and completely divorced from reality:"flawed." Try thinking in real terms instead of nebulous "ideals."
The resistance to God is based largely on the attributes assigned by humans that have no basis in anything other than their demands for God to qualify to be God in human eyes. This provides ample fodder for the atheists who argue against these largely self-contradictory Omni attributes and demands about what God MUST be.
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.
