Sound arguments for God's existence.

[Noxot]

That is a weird way of conceptualising reality. Not unworkable, but very alien to me. I do not conceive of reality in terms of hierarchy, authority, or obedience, but of interdependence, necessity, and cooperation. Maybe it's ultimately a case of tomato/tomato, but unsurprisingly, I find my approach far more productive than yours. (I concede, though, that our species has spent most of its history and pre-history in hierarchical structures, following "alphas" and structuring societies around such principles. It is not a coincidence that monarchies were ubiquitous until the advent of industrialization - or that they started to disappear just at that point. I'd say the material circumstances of our existence have changed sufficiently to retire hierarchical models of social organisation, or at least to gradually phase them out.

it was slang. we all pick something that we value. something/s reign in our lives. the quality of our spirit is based on that which we deeply love. i'm an anarchist so I hate dominators. i think there is such a thing as legit authority such as a teacher that can teach someone something. so hierarchies of competence seem valuable to me. you would probably call those things some other name.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Among the soundest arguments is we accurately inherit all our actions or if we are forgiven, must be forgiven by God to change our evil deeds to good, and if we are rewarded, the best appreciating judge and most thankful of the thankful, only can do that, and who would through his generosity of our attachment to his mystic links and words brought to life, accept intercessions of those images of God and appointed salvation Captains to peace and justice, and among the proofs is our guilty, and among the proofs is our sense of achievement and honor for good, and among the proofs is the love between a man and a women, which is established through truth of his light and name, fabrics of love manifested through the witness of our time, and among the proofs is the ordered nature of morality and the balance, and among the proofs is the instability of the dirty word and the chaos it ensues, and the Creative force that gives everything it's creation and guides them to their goals, among the proofs is his perception is needed for growth and his sustenance is needed, and among the proofs is the division of the journey in 3 stages, and among the proofs, is how the middle is even further split in 5 with accurate details, that reflect the clouds and the water of the water cycle, a clear miracle, that the divine clouds and water for sustenance, is manifested in physical nature, and the path and levels of faith and guarding, the levels of love, have been time and time again accurately explained by divine Messengers.

 

[Arius]

Among the soundest arguments is we accurately inherit all our actions or if we are forgiven, must be forgiven by God to change our evil deeds to good, and if we are rewarded, the best appreciating judge and most thankful of the thankful, only can do that, and who would through his generosity of our attachment to his mystic links and words brought to life, accept intercessions of those images of God and appointed salvation Captains to peace and justice, and among the proofs is our guilty, and among the proofs is our sense of achievement and honor for good, and among the proofs is the love between a man and a women, which is established through truth of his light and name, fabrics of love manifested through the witness of our time, and among the proofs is the ordered nature of morality and the balance, and among the proofs is the instability of the dirty word and the chaos it ensues, and the Creative force that gives everything it's creation and guides them to their goals, among the proofs is his perception is needed for growth and his sustenance is needed, and among the proofs is the division of the journey in 3 stages, and among the proofs, is how the middle is even further split in 5 with accurate details, that reflect the clouds and the water of the water cycle, a clear miracle, that the divine clouds and water for sustenance, is manifested in physical nature, and the path and levels of faith and guarding, the levels of love, have been time and time again accurately explained by divine Messengers.

Beautifully said, so how do you see a non Muslim, example a: "Kafir"?

 

[Halbhh]

So I'm just wondering, do you think humanity (everyone except Noah's 8) before Noah's flood considered their life as "good", as you neatly described it here?:

-- "Good" would be that which better than any other way/solution/idea/set of rules works the best to enhance/increase/support quality of life for the community/species as a whole. Where 'quality of life' means that more people live longer lives with more (self-reported) happiness, or simply that is the total level of contentment is highest.

They did live for many hundreds of years, .. Noah himself lived 950 years !?

Thanks.​

For clarity first, I laid out a definition of 'good' that is not attached to any particular culture or viewpoint, but is more general, so that it would be clear what I was saying about how one can test an idea to see if it was "true" or "good", regrardless of assumptions or beliefs. (one doesn't even need to think there is such a thing as an absolute truth even for this particular definition, which is testable also, as a scientist would prefer)

About your very interesting question: did people before the flood generally think their own lives as they were living them were....'good' in their own view, I suppose you mean in a sense of feeling satisfied or pleased that life was what they could hope it to be mostly?

I'd guess -- and only guessing is possible at all for anyone -- that some smallish minority may have imagined their life 'fairly good', but on the other hand many or most would not think their lives 'good', since, as the text says "Now the earth was... full of violence."

Of course, that would mean that many or most would be on the losing end of that same constant violence, therefore would not feel their lives were so 'good', right?

But I'd guess that even some of those temporarily on the 'winning' (?) end of the violence themselves -- some or even many of them may have felt it was less 'good' than merely 'better than the alternative'.

Altogether, it seems a pretty nasty situation, don't you think? To be in a world of kill-or-be-killed, win-or-lose, all the time.

Very not-good compared to our own typical lives, where we can have significant periods of peace usually, not feel in threat for our lives usually.

Usually. If we continue to follow the golden rule in this nation in large extent, at least.

Of course, all of these bodies we are all in are still really in the same boat, in the end! Dust.

Like a morning mist that fades in the sun. And the sun always breaks out of the clouds sooner or later.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Not really. If God decides killing is fine it becomes moral.

So you can’t call it objective.

Agree. Morality is by its very nature subjective. An action is judged to be malevolent or benevolent or amoral based upon subjective criterion. However, if we believe in a Creator, we then would have to assume that that Creator has the authority to determine morality for his own creation. If we do not believe in a Creator one has not need to make that assumption. Without belief in a Creator, morality can not be claimed to have been based upon a single transcendent authority but must be based upon other criterion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. The brain is very complex.
2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.
3. If the brain is the source of morality and goodness, then most of humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the brain.

The brain is not the source of morality and goodness. It is what intelligently recognizes morality and goodness. That doesn't require understanding of how the brain works.

5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.

That doesn't follow. Gravity wasn't an illusion before Einstein.

6. Goodness is not an illusion.

How would you know, since point 5 suggests that we weren't justified in our beliefs in morals and goodness?

7. If naturalism is not true, then it is possible to justify belief in morality and goodness.
-thus We are justified in belief in morals and goodness.....

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Arius]

For clarity first, I laid out a definition of 'good' that is not attached to any particular culture or viewpoint, but is more general, so that it would be clear what I was saying about how one can test an idea to see if it was "true" or "good", regrardless of assumptions or beliefs. (one doesn't even need to think there is such a thing as an absolute truth even for this particular definition, which is testable also, as a scientist would prefer)

About your very interesting question: did people before the flood generally think their own lives as they were living them were....'good' in their own view, I suppose you mean in a sense of feeling satisfied or pleased that life was what they could hope it to be mostly?

I'd guess -- and only guessing is possible at all for anyone -- that some smallish minority may have imagined their life 'fairly good', but on the other hand many or most would not think their lives 'good', since, as the text says "Now the earth was... full of violence."

Of course, that would mean that many or most would be on the losing end of that same constant violence, therefore would not feel their lives were so 'good', right?

But I'd guess that even some of those temporarily on the 'winning' (?) end of the violence themselves -- some or even many of them may have felt it was less 'good' than merely 'better than the alternative'.

Altogether, it seems a pretty nasty situation, don't you think? To be in a world of kill-or-be-killed, win-or-lose, all the time.

Very not-good compared to our own typical lives, where we can have significant periods of peace usually, not feel in threat for our lives usually.

Usually. If we continue to follow the golden rule in this nation in large extent, at least.

Of course, all of these bodies we are all in are still really in the same boat, in the end! Dust.

Like a morning mist that fades in the sun. And the sun always breaks out of the clouds sooner or later.

Thank you Halbhh, and I agree, only I don't see much difference between the pre-flood and what we have today. Even here in the States during the cold-war, the children were told to duck under their desks to get ready for a nuclear attack, which is pretty dramatic.

And if we consider the truth about todays Gaming for teens/young/old adults alike, the brain fMRI shows that children are going through the exact same stress as those in war, ducking in trenches as the real bullets are flying by them.

We can get used to almost anything, and if it persists, we just chalk it off as "normal"

So I agree with the Bible:
Mathew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

God bless you.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Among the proofs for God is that everything is given it's creation and reality by him and then he is what guides them.

Try to see the above statement from the best possible angle and don't assume I making the circular argument which from one angle may seem to be the argument.

 

[Zoness]

Among the proofs for God is that everything is given it's creation and reality by him and then he is what guides them.

Try to see the above statement from the best possible angle and don't assume I making the circular argument which from one angle may seem to be the argument.

Okay, I won't see it as circular. But I still don't know what it means. The world exists therefore good exists? I'm not sure how that's proof it's still just a fatih statement.

Plus, even if it we're proof of God it isn't proof of a specific God as far as I can tell. It would still be something like a Desk clockmaker god.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Okay, I won't see it as circular. But I still don't know what it means. The world exists therefore good exists? I'm not sure how that's proof it's still just a fatih statement.

Plus, even if it we're proof of God it isn't proof of a specific God as far as I can tell. It would still be something like a Desk clockmaker god.

I want you to reflect, just so you can see how some phrases can be said one way but mean another. I will reply in a month and explain what I meant.