Are you a robot? Why not?
The point was not that we can´t - the point was that we wouldn´t.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you a robot? Why not?so if its made from organic components and have a self replication system we cant consider it as a robot? why not?
The point was not that we can´t - the point was that we wouldn´t.look at this wood watch for instance:
watch wood - חיפוש ב-Google:
lets say that it even have a self replication system. according to your criteria we cant consider it as a watch?
For me, there is plenty of evidence for a Superior Designer that brought about human life. The alternatives are just underwhelming. So I agree with you.i do think that we can prove that god exist. for example: lets say that we will find a robot with a living traits like self replication and DNA. if such organic robot is evidence for design then also human is evidence for design.
so if its made from organic components and have a self replication system we cant consider it as a robot? why not? look at this wood watch for instance:
watch wood - חיפוש ב-Google:
lets say that it even have a self replication system. according to your criteria we cant consider it as a watch?
For me, there is plenty of evidence for a Superior Designer that brought about human life. The alternatives are just underwhelming. So I agree with you.
Thanks for your contribution.
You are claiming things about this God. You can't just say that any God is necessarily your God.
Actually, my position is that you don't have the exclusive key to happiness. But, yes, it involves that observation.
I understand that you believe that. I'm not saying that there aren't joyful Christians (although I have met some depressed ones), but you seem to think that there aren't joyful people who aren't Christians. That is the flaw in your position that I see.
LOL! I'm sure that God, if such an entity exists according to Christian understanding, needs nothing at all. An "omni" being can't have needs.
Remember, we are not talking about the Christian God.
so if its made from organic components and have a self replication system we cant consider it as a robot? why not? look at this wood watch for instance:
lets say that it even have a self replication system. according to your criteria we cant consider it as a watch?
I believe that there are some atheists that are atheist simply because of the mainline Christian description of God. They cannot fathom this God and therefore eventually move away from Him. The Christian description of God is not God, and if you knew the real God of the universe, you may feel differently about Him.
Again, the key to a fuller happiness is a true knowledge of God. Having access to this God, and becoming like this God, even to the degree of being able to create like Him. That knowledge propels me to continue on the path.
I know there are atheists that experience happiness in this life and are comfortable in their settings. Underlying this happiness, however, is the reality that in a few years, its over, forever over. That self imposed reality has to take a strain on your momentary happiness. If you say that it doesn't, I think you are just fooling yourself.
God is only God because He has someone to be God to. He is God to His created children and He has given them the principles of eternal joy and happiness (in the form of commandments) that have been developed over eons of time, that have proven to be true. Even an "omni" needs love and family. He wants His children (just like all fathers) to grow up to be like Him and to share in His knowledge, power, and glory. He is teaching us how to be "omni" like Him.
Mainline Christianity has no idea of this process and in fact will fight me over this concept, but it is true.
My path is clear, and straight, and is full of excitement as I learn the principles of joy and happiness and godliness. It is not all going to church on Sunday. It is far beyond that minor event. It is a lifestyle.
That is the very reason that I believe you are the type of person that God wants, because you are smart, articulate, agressive etc., etc., etc.
Listen to what Jesus told Joseph Smith:
This is found in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 130:18-19
18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.
It is said that 'the power of God is intelligence'. I believe that. I believe that God is the most intelligent Person in the universe. I believe also He is the most humble Person in the universe, and the most powerful, and the most loving, and is all knowing and the most merciful. You will notice that qualities of God are interesting. Powerful, intelligent, all knowing, yet humble, loving, merciful. If God did not have all of these qualities He would not be God.
The study of God and His words and principles is a life long study, but it is interesting to find the true concepts of the real God and what you can look forward to being also. Join in the research, find a more exciting life than darkness at the end of a pretty good life.
I know there are atheists that experience happiness in this life and are comfortable in their settings. Underlying this happiness, however, is the reality that in a few years, its over, forever over. That self imposed reality has to take a strain on your momentary happiness. If you say that it doesn't, I think you are just fooling yourself.
lol, Jesus talked to Joseph Smith.
He was a con man. The Mormon church is built on just as many lies as any other church.
How do you know any church is based on lies?
You don't see any truth or value in self-giving love so that others who are hurting may live and feel loved? That's the truth and love that the church of Christ is built on and I'm truly sorry if you've never felt that love.
We are called to heal the sick help the poor, while some may do the opposite, that doesn't change the calling Christ has given the church.
The fundamental claim built around any theistic religion is that a god exists, and that usually comes with a list of ways you should behave.
In short, if you start claiming things are true when you have no justification for doing so, you are engaging in dishonest behaviour. That is the case for every theistic religion I'm aware of.
1. Why would I even need an objective justification for doing good? For me as a part of this world it´s perfectly enough that it is good for this world.Yes, objectively good ways to behave, like healing the sick and helping the poor. Yes, people can behave that way without God telling them to, but their justification for why it's objectively good to behave that way is limited.
Well, as long as this world last, the justification "it´s good for this world" is going to last, and it´s perfectly sufficient.Agreed, justification for claims is important, but any justification apart from God who lives forever, is limited justification that doesn't last.
Yes, objectively good ways to behave, like healing the sick and helping the poor. Yes, people can behave that way without God telling them to, but their justification for why it's objectively good to behave that way is limited.
Agreed, justification for claims is important, but any justification apart from God who lives forever, is limited justification that doesn't last.
Fraid not:Ed1wolf said: ↑
Allowing mothers to kill their children in the womb devalues human life greatly. Since Roe vs Wade, child abuse has increased exponentially because parents realize that they could have gotten rid of them earlier. Secular humanist judges and officials are forcing Christians to endorse messages that go against their religious beliefs thereby violating the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
de: Nonsense, child abuse has dropped dramatically over the last century. 100 years ago it was completely acceptable in most circles to beat the crap out of your kid (or even your wife) for disobeying. Doing that now will land you in jail. The difference is it's more visible now because it's no longer considered acceptable and people actually report it to the police.
Bakers and photographers are being forced in multiple cases in the US to bake cakes endorsing gay marriages and being forced to photograph and film them. Do you think blacks should be forced to bake a birthday cake for the Grand Dragon of the KKK? But you are right gays could get "married" anytime they wanted in the past they did not need the SCOTUS or the government to endorse it so there was no reason for the ruling.de: As for gay marriage, first off the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly made up of Christians, and nobody is forcing Christians to endorse anyone's marriage. Your endorsement is not required for two people (gay or straight) to get married. Your opinion on their marriage (as well as my opinion) is completely irrelevant.
They are free to get "married". It should just not be endorsed by the government because the behavior is not good for people just like smoking. Also, as I demonstrated earlier with the quotes from the DOI the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Those principles are what has made it the greatest nation in history. And people like myself want it to stay great.de: Your religious beliefs matter to your life, nobody else is required to care at all about them. So stop pushing them on other people when they're trying to get married.
No, the natural laws and moral laws of this universe were both created by the same Being, so there is a general connection between the two. Though sometimes God is merciful and some people may not acquire a disease but generally they do.ed: It can be seen in how even natural laws "punish" you when you violate His moral laws. Such as when you are promiscuous you will probably get an STD. They come from His moral character.
de: That has to do with biology, when you sleep with a lot of people your risks of acquiring a disease is higher. That has nothing at all to do with morality.
ed: In other news, when you take public transit, or working in a school, you're also at a higher risk of catching a cold. That's also biology. Contact with more people means more contact with germs.
Yes, He did, His moral laws which He created and revealed in the Bible such as the Ten Commandments and Christs moral teachings are based on His character.ed: No, He didn't invent the standard, it is part of who He is, ie His moral character.
de: So therefore god is not the author of morality. He didn't create it.
No you are confused. His moral law objectively exists because it is based on His objectively existing moral character. So there is an objective standard that we are judged by. As I stated above it is analogous to the laws of nature or physics.ed: Nothing above refutes that His moral law is not an opinion because it is based on the fact of His objectively existing moral character. Just as the laws of physics objectively exist because even though they are non-physical they exist outside of human minds irrespective of what you believe about the laws of physics.
de: How do you have an objectively existing moral character independent of himself? Is his moral character some different entity, or is that a part of him?
How would it reproduce? Does it grow new wood? In growing new wood, does it code for protein synthesis with DNA? What is the difference between that and a plant?
How would you tell, say, a duck and a organic duck robot apart?if it would be a watch,
then why not consider an organic robot a robot?
I think the chances that nature eventually will begin to copy devices created by humans (and not vice versa) is pretty low. Until then I will consider my dog an organic product of nature, and not a self-replicating organic robot designed to fetch the newspaper for me.lets say that this watch can to all that stuff. can we consider it as a watch. and if its a watch then who is having the burden of proof in this case: someone that claim that a watch can evolve naturally, or someone that claim that such a watch need a designer?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?