US Oligarchs Find Common Ground In Circumventing Law

[maskedmelon]

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a creator though. It is possible, we just have no way of knowing. If there is one though it is either malevolent or impotent. I suppose it could be apathetic or dead too. It is most certainly not benevolent and omnipotent.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a creator though. It is possible, we just have no way of knowing. If there is one though it is either malevolent or impotent. I suppose it could be apathetic or dead too. It is most certainly not benevolent and omnipotent.

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

That is an interesting thought. I don't know. I suppose the appropriate response would be

"No, because that'd be a paradox"

To which the reply would be,

"Well then the universe is a paradox."

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

No. Is Rogean all things p99? The creator imo is separate from the creation. You cant apply the same rules to the creator. Pantheist will disagree but who cares what they think since its all "one" and you just get recycled with no lasting repercussions.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No. Is Rogean all things p99? The creator imo is separate from the creation. You cant apply the same rules to the creator. Pantheist will disagree but who cares what they think since its all "one" and you just get recycled with no lasting repercussions.

Rogean is not a creator, Rogean is a replicator. Just like man could clone or replicate itself. No such thing as man in the context as creator. Man alters, fabricates, and assembles. Only the idea is created, the final product is merely assembled.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I suppose it could be apathetic or dead too. It is most certainly not benevolent and omnipotent.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

we just have no way of knowing.

I rearranged that for you so that the paragraph stops conflicting [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Something to ponder: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ienceofgod.htm
A couple points of the 2pg article I disagree with, and the last summery paragraph I'd strike out, but overall a good article for a link here. It's a long read, could spur further investigation, read at your convenience.

For Science!

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I rearranged that for you so that the paragraph stops conflicting [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Something to ponder: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ienceofgod.htm
A couple points of the 2pg article I disagree with, and the last summery paragraph I'd strike out, but overall a good article for a link here. It's a long read, could spur further investigation, read at your convenience.

For Science!

I'll take a look at it ^^

However, the fact that we cannot be certain of the existence of a creator does not prohibit us from making inferences about its nature if it did exist.

For example, suppose it is 4:34 on Thursday and we are at a party. The party began at 4:30. We have no idea whether or not all invitees are in attendance, but we know that those who are not are most certainly late [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll take a look at it ^^

However, the fact that we cannot be certain of the existence of a creator does not prohibit us from making inferences about its nature if it did exist.

For example, suppose it is 4:34 on Thursday and we are at a party. The party began at 4:30. We have no idea whether or not all invitees are in attendance, but we know that those who are not are most certainly late [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or they are there but we are just too preoccupied with something to notice. Lots of times I've had those moments where someone or something that I thought wasn't there actually was there all along, the realization hit me by surprise.

Our senses are pretty funky, I really-really-really wish I could even look into the sky and see the whole UV spectrum at night, or feel the literal waves of the universe roll over me. I know it's there and active, a big part of my life knowing it or not, I search it often, but... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
At least my faith says it's there. Still can't touch it or show it to you directly w/o need for the same faith, but it's there. Even our concept of pictures are limited, so much more going on there we can't see of the sky, that a camera can only show grey ghosts of.

And not just the big stuff that mesmerizes me, like mega black holes and magnetars and such, but even to the tiny world we can see nothing of, yet is active in our lives. That world is a huge mystery the way it works, especially in the realm of quantum physics. I'm blown away the more and more I learn of it over the years, just astounding. When I was born, we had no idea the Universe was so huge and also so small. And I think we have hardly even scratched the surface of our reality, we are so very small.

My personal interpretation? We are in a hatchery. Too much or too little we just don't develop as we should, individually. If the hen pecks the shell open we die. Certainly we are meant to search things out and develop, just look how complex everything is from the biggest to the smallest of things in our universe. Those things always there but we just didn't know how to look (and still don't fully), which is not simply by sight. And then individually we move on, just as like the first law of thermodynamics.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or they are there but we are just too preoccupied with something to notice. Lots of times I've had those moments where someone or something that I thought wasn't there actually was there all along, the realization hit me by surprise.

I am specifically referring to the nature of people who are actually not there, whether we as attendees know or do not know that they are not there. If they actually are not there (whether we see them or not, or are even aware of them at all) then they are late.

If we are looking for a specific person and do not see them then I agree, they could be anywhere. Whether we see them or not has no bearing on their lateness if they truly are not there though.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Our senses are pretty funky, I really-really-really wish I could even look into the sky and see the whole UV spectrum at night, or feel the literal waves of the universe roll over me. I know it's there and active, a big part of my life knowing it or not, I search it often, but... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
At least my faith says it's there. Still can't touch it or show it to you directly w/o need for the same faith, but it's there. Even our concept of pictures are limited, so much more going on there we can't see of the sky, that a camera can only show grey ghosts of.

And not just the big stuff that mesmerizes me, like mega black holes and magnetars and such, but even to the tiny world we can see nothing of, yet is active in our lives. That world is a huge mystery the way it works, especially in the realm of quantum physics. I'm blown away the more and more I learn of it over the years, just astounding. When I was born, we had no idea the Universe was so huge and also so small. And I think we have hardly even scratched the surface of our reality, we are so very small.

My personal interpretation? We are in a hatchery. Too much or too little we just don't develop as we should, individually. If the hen pecks the shell open we die. Certainly we are meant to search things out and develop, just look how complex everything is from the biggest to the smallest of things in our universe. Those things always there but we just didn't know how to look (and still don't fully), which is not simply by sight. And then individually we move on, just as like the first law of thermodynamics.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that there is no creator, just that we have no way of knowing. That does not prevent us from inferring things about its nature though if it does exist. I said if it does exist it is malevolent, impotent or apathetic and not both benevolent and omnipotent for a reason. If it we're benevolent why does it allow suffering? It must either be incapable of doing anything or unwilling to do anything or perhaps it has another reason. If it has another reason though and is omnipotent, then why not alter that other reason such that it is no longer a reason? If it is benevolent then it would do so.

While perhaps less inspiring and certainly less promising, the universe is all the more amazing if the product of random chance. Play a lottery or flip a coin, then go take a look at the life around you and what it is capable of. Then go learn of cellular biology, chemistry and physics and quantum mechanics too, and all the processes by which our world is governed. It is mind blowing (as you've already agreed with ^^) Until you attribute it to an omnipotent source. Then it is not so miraculous, not at all. Why so slow, why so inefficient, why at all?

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am specifically referring to the nature of people who are actually not there, whether we as attendees know or do not know that they are not there. If they actually are not there (whether we see them or not, or are even aware of them at all) then they are late.

If we are looking for a specific person and do not see them then I agree, they could be anywhere. Whether we see them or not has no bearing on their lateness if they truly are not there though.



Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that there is no creator, just that we have no way of knowing. That does not prevent us from inferring things about its nature though if it does exist. I said if it does exist it is malevolent, impotent or apathetic and not both benevolent and omnipotent for a reason. If it we're benevolent why does it allow suffering? It must either be incapable of doing anything or unwilling to do anything or perhaps it has another reason. If it has another reason though and is omnipotent, then why not alter that other reason such that it is no longer a reason? If it is benevolent then it would do so.

While perhaps less inspiring and certainly less promising, the universe is all the more amazing if the product of random chance. Play a lottery or flip a coin, then go take a look at the life around you and what it is capable of. Then go learn of cellular biology, chemistry and physics and quantum mechanics too, and all the processes by which our world is governed. It is mind blowing (as you've already agreed with ^^) Until you attribute it to an omnipotent source. Then it is not so miraculous, not at all. Why so slow, why so inefficient, why at all?

No, I don't take it that you are arguing "that there is no creator". I'm not sure about the "we" part though, that would also be an unknown. Collectively, sure, but I can't speak of individuals other than of myself.

But like I mentioned, collectively there could be problems. If someone had irrefutable proof, they could become a very dangerous individual. If God parted the sky and showed everyone what's up, that would be the end to civilization as we know it. It's game over and we stop striving, stop maturing, and rely on God to do every little thing for us.

Would you do that to your kids, keep them as kids forever? Or do you let them learn and mature? If you don't give your kids everything they want, they throw tantrums, get mad at you and blame you. Then you gotta try to correct that, or just let them go rotten. Your kids suffer, but it's not entirely a bad thing, and in time they mature and become the better for it. So you can't be there to tie their shoes, button their shirts, brush their teeth, these are things they need to learn to do on their own. Then one day hopefully they appreciate your resistance to doing those things for them well into their adulthood.

Some believe in aliens. That these aliens come from a far off galaxy etc. To do that, they would need to be unbelievably advanced. If so, and they are here, why do they let us suffer? If aliens parted the sky and showed everyone what's up, that would be the end to civilization as we know it. It's game over and we stop striving, stop maturing, and rely on aliens to do every little thing for us. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not saying what you should believe, this or that, just that questions are good. As humans, it should be a question, that's healthy. I think that is part of the purpose to being human, and spurs growth and maturity. If anything I just advocate the questioning of things. Even questioning questions.