[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38861708]I don't see how it can be argued that God is the first cause for everything if things exist which are claimed to be outside of him.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
And also free will is completely contradictory with the notion that God is omniscient. If he created things with full knowledge of what they would eventually do, your "good" and "bad" actions are predetermined. If it is possible for him to create things which can act without his prior knowledge, he is not omniscient.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
Not that you've necessarily claimed that any of those things are true, but such contradictions essentially rule out the gods that I would say probably the majority of earth believe in.[/QUOTE]
I think he meant more of evil as a necessary polarity, the absence of God, just like dark is the absense of light.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38861708]I don't see how it can be argued that God is the first cause for everything if things exist which are claimed to be outside of him.[/QUOTE]
Oh boy, this is a HUGE issue.
I can explain this in primarily two ways, one is a theodicy, and the other is a reference to sacred geometry.
Firstly the theodicy is one that describes the transgressions of the character known as Lucifer. While Adam and Eve were the first humans to sin, it is written in the apocryphal book of Enoch, among other ecclesiastic historical sources, that the origin of sin was Lucifer or Satan (Lucifer is the Avatar of Satan in so much as Jesus is the Avatar of God). Satan or Shaitan also means the adversary. Ultimately it was Lucifer's desire in his heart to rise above the stars of God, and be a god himself. But he was decieving himself. He wanted to create the world anew to his own liking. During the fall of the Angels it is said that the angels that were loyal to God were disgusted with this new concept of trying to or being apart from God. But as stated before it is futile to try to do so.
This deception and futility will lead nicely into my next point incorporating Sacred Geometry. There is a pattern by which all geometric shapes can be depicted, some believe that the matrix of reality is based on this simple pattern. This pattern is called the Flower of Life, it is simply a set of concentric circles expanding outwards.
This is an example of the flower of life:
[img]http://www.newalexandria.org/works/i-ching/flower-of-life.gif[/img]
The origin is the center circle (God) From there a super-position of the same self to the outer limits of oneself (in circle terms) In the fractal pattern described above. This is basically the origin of the idea that everything is God within circles you won't read about in Christian or Science Daily.
The lucifer pattern is simply the claiming of importance of any one circle other than the origin. The reason this is both a step away from and a step towards God is because although you can find a circle or world within any non-origin circle. The pattern from the origin will inevitably spread out to infinity always encompassing any large construction found within.
To explain in more common terms: Sin is the willful going against God. The problem of free will is not defeated by omniscience because Omniscience is the ability to know everything, omnipotence would imply his ability to limit his own knowing to what has been done. Such is the creation of free will.
People ask why do we not live in a perfect world with nothing but goodness if God is so good?
Well the answer I would agree with Leibniz in part. We are living out the best of all possible worlds, while logically it could clearly be better than it is now, the best of all possible worlds isn't just a world where there is no war and everyone praises god (assuming he exists). Because to simply just create such a world would not consitute legitimacy, you cannot just create a conscious perfectly loyal entity, such is proven by the fall of the angels and the fall of man. Yet ultimately if we are to fufill this best of all possible worlds we must be good.
A perfect world would not make the people in it perfect.
The perfected people in a world would make the world perfect instead.
Its a matter of perspective.
I know the discussion about color was a long time ago but I made this image to help explain the idea to people who didn't quite get it (I made in paint and I can't draw)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XDQdf.png?1[/img]
different colours cause the same effects on people so I would say that everyone sees them somewhat the same, just more or less intense depending on whether they are colour blind or a tetrachromat
Until we know more about how to brain creates the concept of color we won't ever know for sure.
I've never really believed or dismissed the theory. I just found that when someone says "what if your blue is my red, etc etc" a lot of people don't fully understand what is meant by it.
Did anyone ever post that TED video explaining it? I want to see that
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38863732]different colours cause the same effects on people so I would say that everyone sees them somewhat the same, just more or less intense depending on whether they are colour blind or a tetrachromat[/QUOTE]
But this doesn't necessarily have to do with exactly how your mind pictures the color. It's not even fully known if most feelings we associate with colors are genetic or social constructs.
but I saw an example they tested it on people from different cultures and ethnicity and all the results were the same.
Oh, I haven't seen that, sounds interesting. But there's still way too little research and knowledge in the field (due to our limited knowledge in neurobiology) to with 100% certainty say that we all picture colors as the same. Though we can probably safely say that they all follow a similar pattern based on the frequency of light.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
Oh and I very much doubt that if people do see different colors that it's just regular colors replaced with other colors (green instead of red for example), it would probably be unimaginable for anyone else to picture, just like you can't picture a brand new color outside of our spectrum.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38862992]To explain in more common terms: Sin is the willful going against God. The problem of free will is not defeated by omniscience because Omniscience is the ability to know everything, omnipotence would imply his ability to limit his own knowing to what has been done. Such is the creation of free will.[/QUOTE]
"He's so omnipotent he can do things he doesn't know" is dumb. It's a logical contradiction. If he doesn't know everything, he is [I]not[/I] omniscient, he is only omnipotent. It's essentially the same as asserting a yes or no answer to the question, "Can and omnipotent God create a stone so big he cannot lift it?" It's missing that either answer results in a paradox.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38865354]"He's so omnipotent he can do things he doesn't know" is dumb. It's a logical contradiction. If he doesn't know everything, he is [I]not[/I] omniscient, he is only omnipotent. It's essentially the same as asserting a yes or no answer to the question, "Can and omnipotent God create a stone so big he cannot lift it?" It's missing that either answer results in a paradox.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely disagree, while The stone Paradox is a logically impossibility like a square circle, what I am saying is not.
He has the ABILITY to know everything, but the power to choose what he is aware of. Furthermore if we are REALLY to delve into this issue I am just going mention that the other quality of God (Being Eternal) may infact dispell this problem all together because God does not see time from before or after like us. He is outside of time, therefore he can see it all at once. We may not be ebb and flow in the universe in so much as we are a predetermined (by our free will composition) which way we will take through the soupy 5th dimension.
Ultimately what I want to say is that we are quick to think about God thinking about things the same way as we do, but if there is a God who is Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, omnipotent and Eternal, then we will need to put some more effort into defining his archetype than that of angry cartoon character in the clouds.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
also on the topic of colors: I believe what Pageking was trying to convey is that although we all know what is red because we can point to it. Red in of itself is undefinable, just like the words Left and Right.
If you had a communication device to some alien millions of light years away, and you had to define to them the color red. Or more complicatedly, the direction left or right. The reason is that although we each experience it, unless we have some visual cue to give an example of, we will never be able to truly convey the information of what it subjectively looks like. I'm sure you could tell the aliens the wavelength of the color you want, but that is not what I am refering to.
With left and right it would be utterly impossible to convey the definition as the alien would have no point of reference in common with you.
Colors, directions, and emotions, are something that can only be taught by experience. If you don't believe me then try to define "anger" subjectively.
God is simply a concept, in the same category as unicorns, elves, and manbearpig. This is only to say is that it is a concept that does not exist in reality and does not apply reality, which puts it into a class that doesn't apply to reality because it is all made up.
I can imagine someone might disagree with the above. and really when someone is disagreeing with the existence of God, it doesn't have to do God at all, but it is the matter is about something different. For many, especially those who are really built into Christian communities, pretending to believe in God is the false bond that holds them together. If you want to test my theory, start pointing obvious contradictions in the the concept of God itself, or in what is known as a holy book. Be curious at first, really listen to what they say, and then be honest with them about their answer.
If you are looking to not piss someone off, two good ones are.
1. Did Adam have a belly button, because if he did, God has a belly button?
2. God created heavens, the earth, light and darkness on the first day. On the fourth day he creates the sun, the moon, and the stars. How does this make sense?
What is completely interesting about these problems is that they seem to pass by a person's defenses in that they really understand that there is an issue. Then they tend to try to figure it out by making crap up, and then they eventually forget about it.
i know, it's utterly ridiculous when you argue about god that way johnny. all we're squabbling about here are labels and terms. in the end, god is god, he is everything and nothing and has the power to do anything.
does it contradict itself fuckloads? yeah! there are simply things at work in this situation you cannot rationalize. you cannot bring god into a legitimate hard facts conversation and then argue over what to call his position in the universe (omnipotent, omniscient, etc.)
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
[B]GOD IS NOT RATIONAL, AND CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO DO SO LOL[/B]
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38869660][B]GOD IS NOT RATIONAL, AND CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO DO SO LOL[/B][/QUOTE]
Yet, the statement is a rationalization about god, meaning that you are creating a rule that only applies to people who disagree with you. If god cannot be rationalized, logically, nothing can be said about god. But, you made the statement about god. Of course, all that is happening is you are saying "I can talk about god but you can't" and dressing it up in an argument that most have trouble processing. This is typically called manipulation.
this is why it is stupid to argue about the rationality of god because it's practically infallible to fall back on exactly what you just described.
gotta admit whoever created this concept of god was a fuckin genius.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38869660][B]GOD IS NOT RATIONAL, AND CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO DO SO LOL[/B][/QUOTE]
Worthless sidestep. There's no point in ever discussing whether he does or does not exist if he doesn't have to abide by any reasonable law. There's no point trying to determine whether he exists, or what he wants, or why we exist. Philosophy is worthless.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
Not to mention there are tons of theologists who would vehemently disagree with the notion that god is not rational.
If god is not rational, why do we see all the order we do? There's essentially no chance the universe would follow any pattern whatsoever if god did not operate rationally.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38871207]this is why it is stupid to argue about the rationality of god because it's practically infallible to fall back on exactly what you just described.[/QUOTE]
yeah except everyone who has made it out of their freshman year in the philosophy department has generally moved beyond unnecessary appeals to skepticism and accepted that reason is necessary in any philosophical discourse or it's worthless (and in fact reason informs skepticism to begin with)
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38862992]
[img]http://www.newalexandria.org/works/i-ching/flower-of-life.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]
hey i have that tattooed on my chest
but in all seriousness ive never seen that used with god its alwayes used in the term of Spirit, expanding consciousness, and the 7 chakras. also how did you get god into that idea?
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GhettoGeek;38863669]I know the discussion about color was a long time ago but I made this image to help explain the idea to people who didn't quite get it (I made in paint and I can't draw)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XDQdf.png?1[/img][/QUOTE]
this has been proven that unless you have color-blindness every non-emotional attachment thing is seen as the same color for everyone the only things that are different are things like the color of your wife's/GF's eyes i had the TED talk that explainded this way better that i can a few mounths ago so let me see if i can find it
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38871747]
yeah except everyone who has made it out of their freshman year in the philosophy department has generally moved beyond unnecessary appeals to skepticism and accepted that reason is necessary in any philosophical discourse or it's worthless (and in fact reason informs skepticism to begin with)[/QUOTE]
yeah except most people haven't even taken a philosophy or debate class in their [B][I]LIFE[/I][/B]
[editline]18th December 2012[/editline]
either way don't direct your rant at me, i'm not the one making this shit up.
Anybody willing to debate an anarchist? The only thing that you need to agree with me on is that an objective reality exists, that empiricism trumps theory, that truth is better than falsehood, that contradictory statements are incorrect, and that this is an issue of objectivity.
[QUOTE=Pepin;38896304]Anybody willing to debate an anarchist? The only thing that you need to agree with me on is that an objective reality exists, that empiricism trumps theory, that truth is better than falsehood, that contradictory statements are incorrect, and that this is an issue of objectivity.[/QUOTE]
If I were to allow all those things then I must ask you; are morals objective?
answer him.
that's a good question.
yes, answer
we are legion we are one
awh sorry :C fixed it now though!
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38909559]we are legion we are one[/QUOTE]
we are hydra!!!!!!!
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38898311]If I were to allow all those things then I must ask you; are morals objective?[/QUOTE]
Yes, and also logically objective. Imagine Sasha Gray and I try a ethical experiment. To ensure each others safety, we make up a safe word and have psychologists at the scene to observe, in case anything goes wrong. What is this experiment? To see if we could rape each other... at the same time. Well, the first experiment didn't work out because we just ended up having kinky sex. I mean it was a little rough, but I still enjoyed it. So our next idea was that she would rape me, but I would resist. But when we tried this, well, I just locked her in the bathroom. What is odd about this situation is that I am currently doing wrong because I am not raping, and by outsmarting a pornstar, I put Sasha in a situation where she also currently doing wrong because she is not raping. I could go on and on with this, but eventually I "accidentally" let her out and got a nice blow job. Anyway there are far too many logical issues with the idea of rape being a virtue. Logically, this must mean that the opposite of rapping is good, which in reality is possible for everyone to do, while it is certainly not possible for everyone to rape each other at the same time. I can expand on any details if needed.
So what is this Objective of yours then? Furthermore, why is it better not to rape than to rape?
Also your point about locking her in a closet is incoherent as you state that you are doing wrong because "I am not raping" yet you stated just earlier that this second experiment was explicitly about you resisting and not raping her. It seems that you are confusing morality with objective goals.
Allow me to rephrase in hopes for a more coherent, less "abstract", answer;
If back during WW2 EVERYBODY in the world somehow thought that what hitler was doing was okay, would it be morally okay?
[QUOTE=Pepin;38896304]that empiricism trumps theory[/QUOTE]
I must disagree.
pepin i dunno what you just wrote but it made my brain turn to mush.
[editline]21st December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38915038]If back during WW2 EVERYBODY in the world somehow thought that what hitler was doing was okay, would it be morally okay?[/QUOTE]
did you know that eugenics and euthanasia were both popularized in the states and all around the world, even before germany fully accepted it?
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38918760]
did you know that eugenics and euthanasia were both popularized in the states and all around the world, even before germany fully accepted it?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I did. Did you know that the reason Hitler actually got into this whole business of Eugenics is because of his occult ties to the Thule Society. Furthermore he, and his associates, believe that the world was hollow and that we were actually on the inside looking into an empty sphere. Stars were just ice crystals trapped in the sky. They also looked for "The Spear of Destiny" which is the supposed spear that killed Jesus. They at one point attained A SPEAR, but it is doubtful if even a fraction of that spear was the remnant of the original.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.