Debunking Flat Earth

[Freodin]

... or God condescends to interact with those with imperfect understanding.

This reminds me of the scene in the movie "Contact", where the representative of the advanced galactic civilization who sent the message to the Earth detailing how to build a machine to traverse an ancient intergalactic transportation system.

Recall all of the misunderstanding which ensued from those striving to understand the message on Earth. Recall the words of the alien to Jodie Foster's character ... "small moves, Ellie, ... small moves" ...

Pst... that's fiction.
In fact, it is a sure-tell sign of fiction if your transcendent being is limited by his human authors.

 

[Tom 1]

But the way you convey your instructions does have an influence on the outcome.

Yes, say your intent is to pass on information clearly. You try to do so. There are several possible outcomes:

You aren’t very good at giving instructions, the person tries to do what you said but it ends badly as you didn’t explain it very well.

You do give instructions well, the other person follows your instructions and all goes well.

The other person tries to follow your instructions but makes a mess of it for some reason.

The other person ignores your instructions and does it their own way.

While you are giving instructions, the person is thinking about something else and forgets what you said.

The person pays no attention to any of it and goes off to do something else.

In what way does your intent influence which of these outcomes (or some other outcome) happens?

 

[A_Thinker]

Pst... that's fiction.
In fact, it is a sure-tell sign of fiction if your transcendent being is limited by his human authors.

We deal with such situations every day in real life. For instance, ... if you've ever raised children ...

 

[Tom 1]

If you are precise and understanding of your student, the result is more likely to be positive. If you are vague or even wrong, the result is more likely to be negative.

Yes, that is the how. The intent behind the quality of your instructions may be manifold, but this is already a different issue.

 

[Tom 1]

How he does it is irrelevant right now.

No, the how is the most relevant factor.

 

[Tom 1]

Of course the intention "does" something. It determines your path of action

No, it doesn’t. It determines that you do something, which may in turn be driven by other somethings. The path of action is driven by your understanding of any available data.

 

[Freodin]

We deal with such situations every day in real life. For instance, ... if you've ever raised children ...

If you base your way of raising children on being a child... sorry, can I have your adress to call CPS on you?

Seriously... the whole point of "raising children" (or similar situations) is that we as adults have greater knowledge, more experience, better understanding than the child.

In such a fictional setting, the "parent" does not. They cannot have a better understanding, because their creator does not have such a better understanding. And you cannot escape this problem in a fictional setting... it will always show.

And that goes for the opposite direction as well... if this clearly shows in a story, it is a sign that it is fictional.

 

[Freodin]

No, it doesn’t. It determines that you do something, which may in turn be driven by other somethings. The path of action is driven by your understanding of any available data.

Why would you follow an understanding of available date if you do not have an intention to do so?

 

[Tom 1]

Why would you follow an understanding of available date if you do not have an intention to do so?

You wouldn’t.

Intention - do something

Means of influencing the outcome - what you do (how)

Successful achievement of the desired outcome - dependent on a whole range of factors, many of which you can’t control.

 

[Freodin]

I fear we have manged to divert quite a way from the original point, which you still haven't understood.

But enough of that. If I have learned something from that conversation, it is that: I really do not want to work with you, as a coworker, subordinate or supervisor.

 

[A_Thinker]

In such a fictional setting, the "parent" does not. They cannot have a better understanding, because their creator does not have such a better understanding. And you cannot escape this problem in a fictional setting... it will always show.

And that goes for the opposite direction as well... if this clearly shows in a story, it is a sign that it is fictional.

Here, I don't comprehend the point you are trying to make, ... because it doesn't correspond to either situation referenced.

In neither situation (i.e. the Bible or the movie "Contact") are we referring to a situation where the "adult" is less informed, learned, or experienced than the "child(ren)".

What we cannot escape ... is that OUR understanding of any truths communicated to us as human beings ... will be hampered by the imperfection and inconsistency of OUR understanding. Everything we perceive or receive as revelation is filtered through OUR own human weakness.

Science (and I am a proponent of Science) gives us ample proof of the universality and consistency of this principle. The goal of perfect and complete understanding is fraught with challenge.

 

[Tom 1]

I fear we have manged to divert quite a way from the original point, which you still haven't understood.

But enough of that. If I have learned something from that conversation, it is that: I really do not want to work with you, as a coworker, subordinate or supervisor.

I think I understood it quite well. The original quotes equate outcome with intent. This is a false proposition.

.

 

[Freodin]

Here, I don't comprehend the point you are trying to make, ... because it doesn't correspond to either situation referenced.

In neither situation (i.e. the Bible or the movie "Contact") are we referring to a situation where the "adult" is less informed, learned, or experienced than the "child(ren)".

What we cannot escape ... is that OUR understanding of any truths communicated to us as human beings ... will be hampered by the imperfection and inconsistency of OUR understanding. Everything we perceive or receive as revelation is filtered through OUR own human weakness.

Science (and I am a proponent of Science) gives us ample proof of the universality and consistency of this principle. The goal of perfect and complete understanding is fraught with challenge.

See... that is exactly the point. We cannot escape our limitations. So if we invent stories where we are "communicated truths"... we still are bound by our limitations. These "truths" can never exceed that what we already know.

A child can tell a story about being an adult... but it will always do so from the position of a child, without the understanding of an adult... and thus the fictional adult will be limited to the child's understanding.
The "advanced alien" will always be limited to our understanding... his "advances" cannot transcend our own experiences and reasonable extrapolations.
The same for deities. Any fictional deity will always show the limits of the people who invent it.

 

[Freodin]

I think I understood it quite well. The original quotes equate outcome with intent. This is a false proposition.

It didn't. That alone shows that you didn't understand it.

If you must know actually I have been successful in a number of careers. Non-coms wanted me on their fire teams. I ran National award winning crisis services and was nominated for the prime minister’s award. I’ve had several prestigious clients as a freelancer in other areas of work. I could go on. Few people I’ve worked with were unhappy with my way of doing things.

Well... I didn't think you work the way you try to argue here. It would render you... non-functional.

 

[Tom 1]

It didn't. That alone shows that you didn't understand it.

Yes, it does.

Here is the actual argument, which avoids conflating ‘intent’ ‘how you do things’ and ‘outcomes’ as it seems to me you have done.

God intended for the bible to be misunderstood: This needs to be defined; misunderstood how?
1) Misunderstood as in badly understood?
What would this involve?
2) Misunderstood as in simply not understandable in some way?
What would that mean?
3) Misunderstood as in it’s original meaning would be effectively rendered inpenetrable?

(Please feel free to add your own definition). Ok, if this is the intent, what does it achieve? What is its outcome (please show specific cause and effect)

Next, how would this be done? This is the question which may have an affect on the outcome. How would a fictional God, or a real God follow through on any of these intents? More to the point, which of these intents has been fulfilled and how - in what ways does the bible match all or any of these points?

God didn’t intend for the bible to be misunderstood:

What factors prevent the bible from being understood, despite this intention? Which of these is relevant to or is an outcome of the original intent? Please be specific.

What relevance does human behaviour have to the equation?

 

[A_Thinker]

The same for deities. Any fictional deity will always show the limits of the people who invent it.

The same will be true for any potential deity (fictional or not). Noone has perfect understanding. It is good that we can agree upon that ...

Christian philosopher Paul said as much millennia ago ...

"For now, we see, as through a blurred glass." 1 Corinthians 13:12a

 

[JacksBratt]

And if they believe in him, and believe in something that they misunderstood about him and his ways... he will grant their wish for eternity with an alternative version of him who conforms to their misunderstandings. Right?

No, then they will have knowledge of all things and the truth about them.

The basic message is that God, if He exists, is totally righteous and personifies love..

Tell me a "misunderstanding" that, when corrected, would have the poor misunderstood soul finding that they wish that they weren't there for eternity.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, it does.

Here is the actual argument, which avoids conflating ‘intent’ ‘how you do things’ and ‘outcomes’ as it seems to me you have done.

God intended for the bible to be misunderstood: This needs to be defined; misunderstood how?
1) Misunderstood as in badly understood?
What would this involve?
2) Misunderstood as in simply not understandable in some way?
What would that mean?
3) Misunderstood as in it’s original meaning would be effectively rendered inpenetrable?

(Please feel free to add your own definition). Ok, if this is the intent, what does it achieve? What is it’s outcome (please show specific cause and effect)

Next, how would this be done? This is the question which may have an affect on the outcome. How would a fictional God, or a real God follow through on any of these intents? More to the point, which of these intents has been fulfilled and how - in what ways does the bible match all or any of these points?

God didn’t intend for the bible to be misunderstood:

What factors prevent the bible from being understood, despite this intention? Which of these is relevant to or is an outcome of the original intent? Please be specific.

What relevance does human behaviour have to the equation?

Nope. Sorry, but you didn't understand the original "argument".

The bible does get "misunderstood". This is an observable fact, and in this regard here, this was a statment made by a Christian.

Scripture is vastly misinterpreted and misunderstood

Now the question was: what is the cause of that "vast misinterpretation and misunderstanding of scripture".
In regard to intent, this is either intentional... or not. (Where the "not" category includes both a different intention as well a no intention at all).

That's all. No differences in outcome or reasons for different outcomes. Just a single, binary question about intent.

All the talk about methods and fulfilments and outcomes is irrelevant. You just don't understand it.

 

[Freodin]

No, then they will have knowledge of all things and the truth about them.

The basic message is that God, if He exists, is totally righteous and personifies love..

Tell me a "misunderstanding" that, when corrected, would have the poor misunderstood soul finding that they wish that they weren't there for eternity.

That means basically that God will grant everybody what you wish for them.

 

[Freodin]

The same will be true for any potential deity (fictional or not). Noone has perfect understanding. It is good that we can agree upon that ...

Christian philosopher Paul said as much millennia ago ...

"For now, we see, as through a blurred glass." 1 Corinthians 13:12a

See, and there is where we disagree.
A fictional "superiour being" can never exceed the limits of the inferiour ones.
A real one can. That's why it is superiour.