Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I hope you don't mind me contending with 1 concept of god at a time.
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.
Being/Not Being is a perfect description. Some mystics use the term "God/Not God". Both terms mean the same thing and are interchanged by some mystics.
The thought experiment is a person in isolation who is provided with food water and comfortable temperatures but does not have social interaction with other life forms. Could that person commit an immoral act?Again, it's a thought experiment. If you don't want to engage with it honestly, then just don't. Repeated attempts to mold it into a different thought experiment is dishonest I think.
Yes...and His sentence is to hand us over to our own corruptions.God has judged us evil....hasn't he?
An immoral act is one that causes harm to another. If he's on his own, that's simply not possible.The thought experiment is a person in isolation who is provided with food water and comfortable temperatures but does not have social interaction with other life forms. Could that person commit an immoral act?
No human being is on his or her own. There is always another person: the Holy Spirit of God.An immoral act is one that causes harm to another. If he's on his own, that's simply not possible.
The thought experiment is a person in isolation who is provided with food water
and comfortable temperatures but does not have social interaction with other life forms. Could that person commit an immoral act?
That is how I understood your conditions
Yet you state a person who is lost in the wilderness should search for water (which is provided in the thought experiment)
Or the person is not confined which means that person could wander out and about, chat up various people and return to the isolation at will.
You have repeatedly changed the terms or conditions
I will point to the Book Of Job
Although he could interact with society, Job's story is basically man alone in providence.
Job most certainly could commit an immoral act or a moral act.
He could simply curse God, which is despair.
The point of those two stories is that man is alone in whatever natural circumstance provided.
As I said, no matter where you are, there you are and the only person making you is you
In "To Build a Fire" the man was arrogant.
In the Book of Job, Job was innocent
Yes...and His sentence is to hand us over to our own corruptions.
But there is freedom from that judgment, an opportunity to be restored rather than debased.
No human being is on his or her own. There is always another person: the Holy Spirit of God.
People created the Holy Spirit? How ever did they manage to do that?I'd suggest that's probably why people created him.
As God is outside time and space, we cannot locate Him in either time or space. He's beyond those "goalposts".Sure...but there are goalposts in your claims.
Claim 1# God is outside time and space.
Claim 2# God is everywhere (All possible places).
If you're going to claim that everywhere = outside time and space....I'd ask what sort of location has time and space and why god isn't there or why we wouldn't include it in "everywhere".
Erasing the circumference of the set initially labelled as eternity (aka, goalposts), graphically displays that all time and space is bounded by an unbounded superset, ie., eternity.I'll just point out the obvious, it's not a venn diagram....there's no second set.
Also, you forgot to tell me where to place God.
The federal Bureau of Prisons.BOP system?
Social Contract as in the theory of a political system in which individuals consent to surrender some freedoms in exchange for protection or social order.The government enforces laws, not social contracts.
Is your point that there is no causal being that exists outside time or space?I honestly skipped this because I first read it as proving my point
I think that all three -- matter, space and time -- are interdependent, ie., none can exist w/o the other two. So, outside of time, the others -- matter and space -- do not exist.How about I simplify it...
In the context of time, clearly you think matter, space aka the universe exists.
In the context of "outside of time" do these things still exist in any sense? If they do...is god within them as you so claim?
Not quite.Our own corruption...in his image.
Seems we've already been judged. Hard to imagine why I would worship one who judges me so harshly.
Nope, we bave marred the image.Our own corruption...in his image.
As I suspected, atheism is a moral issue. You want to be your own god.Seems we've already been judged. Hard to imagine why I would worship one who judges me so harshly.
And thereforeAs I suspected, atheism is a moral issue. You want to be your own god.
Correct. Logic, as we think of it and use it and are bound by it, is God's "invention". He does not operate bound by a larger reality. But if it is any comfort to the mind, 'logic' is one of his attributes —like "love" and "existence" and so many other things, God is 'made of' logic. Logic is what it is, because God is logical.This is a logical argument claiming God is not bound by logic.
Fair enough, though that would then imply that morality is subjective, which is a subjective premise. But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.I don't see why anyone would be unable to draw a moral conclusion from a factual premise. What I do think is that no one can prove their moral conclusion factually correct by any means.
Ok. So, do the physicists find it necessary to consider both outcomes true, in order to continue with their descriptions of physics? Part of my problem with this is that reading what is written about this, (which, granted, is a condensed version, and not necessarily accurate, but rather, written to garner attention in this noisy environment of public knowledge), what I begin to see is a blurring of the line between them treating both as true for the purpose of continuing their thinking, but remaining cognizant that they only don't know, and them thinking that both are true.Fall for the notion? It's a thought experiment to explain the problems of quantum mechanics. The notion that both outcomes are true until the box is opened is essentially a metaphor for the problems of describing physics at the quantum level.
It's not a thing to fall for....the problem is a lack of logical language to describe reality at a very small degree of observation.
But you have to agree with His definition. Or not, as the case may be.Fair enough, though that would then imply that morality is subjective, which is a subjective premise. But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.
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?