If people are inherently foolish and petty, throwing in an "especially when it comes to ... " just becomes a further illustration of this primary tendency.
God is an unnecessary prerequisite for understanding math (indeed, any of the sciences.) Religious studies, however would necessitate at least an understanding of the various Gods. (In addition, it is necessary to ignore certain parts of the Bible to accommodate modern mathematics, like 1 Kings 7:23. But no mathematician I have heard of, religious or not, has a problem discarding that particular passage of the Bible.)
. . . illustrates one aspect of humanity where that foolishness and pettiness are emphasized. Inquisition, anyone? Or perhaps I can interest you in a Crusade for your children. No? Well, at least religion will be useful in justifying the subjugation of native Americans.
/// Bullshit. We do not know that no one has ever had no conception of gods. My best guess is that some people have not. <>
What is God? If you want to prove the existence of a god you must first define what god is and isn't. Given it is commonly accepted that the universe contains only one thing; energy, and given Einstein discovered that mater and energy are the same thing and energy cannot be created or destroyed, everything in the universe, seen and unseen, is a manifestation of that primordial energy. That being the case, God must be energy and there is plenty of proof energy exists. Defining energy is a bit more difficult. We can measure it. We can quantify it. We can use it. But defining it is difficult.
I'm not even remotely doing anything of the sort, the problem is how much God belief has dumbed down and failed humanity. Sometimes, the solutions are simple.
The same holds true for tying one's shoelaces. If I then tied my shoelaces and claimed I proved God is un/neccessary, I'm not sure how I would have proved anything but my foolishness. Yet it is amazing how frequently atheists grant themselves the liberty to forgo this requirement in their discussions. Stay tuned for a case in point. (To grant you the greatest charity, and assume that this passage from the bible is representative of its core prescriptives for contemporary and historical christianity .... ) Do you ever consult google when you line something up in the bible to have a go at kicking the shit out of it? Or do you just find it easier to rehash ideas penned by some redbull guzzling slob on an atheist hate site?
Your definition of God is dumbed down. Your presentation of social mechanics, for the sake of establishing victory over a dumbed down definition of God, is also dumbed down. No doubt all this helps you come to the conclusion that the solution is simple.
/// If I wanted to make myself known to as many people as possible, I would do everything within my power to make myself known to as many people as possible. Either god wants people to know or god does not want people to know. Obviously it either does not want people to know or it does not care. Scripture & supposed saints are unreliable. An omnipotent god can tell people it exists. Why is it hiding? What the heck is it afraid of? <>
Not at all. If anything it proves that God does not exists or if he does, doesn't care about my postings.
Once again, you assume its a problem determined by two sincere parties and that the parameters are determined by mere obedience.
I could take you to a couple that stay put☺ for there are boats that can not float and so the coming and going of the tide for them is of no consequence but boats they are...yes boats they are...they were boats to get to their place and although not afloat they have only one description. However that observation may suit you☺... so a retort could be " well some boats dont float with a rising tide which reflects their inability to serve their purpose and present as an example of not doing what a boat is designed to do and yet such judgement neglects recognition that they are indeed are or ever were boats...I think I could build a sermon here...But I dont like saying this is like this or that and offer a parrallel that takes another tack ( boat reference) in which we can question if to talk about boats at all is useful given they are not natural being conceived and built by men and merely a product of human invention much the same as God is the product of human invention and yet our boat floats or sinks in evidence of its undeniable reality an observation that is less available when we invent a god. Perhaps you should talk about fish or perhaps drop parrallels and reference to the subject rather than saying its like this or that...all things are what they are and recognition that most folk do not need comparisions fit to help a child understand ones words would be something wonderful to embrace. And that is positive for in times past and still in some parts of the world they are not allowed any input. Imagine if it is the atheist who is correct in their analysis think of the horrors that a non existent entity has brought to the world. It would be bad enough if real but to think in reasonable probability all the suffering and all the horror has only been about something that never existed except in the minds of those who accept the invention and reject calls for some little support to the unsupported claims. I do wish you could be right about there being a god as that would allow me to abdicate personal responsibilty and think that all is in the hands of someone greater than myself...but really who could be greater than oneself ☺ or at least be better placed to determine my personal action and accept responsibility for such outcomes perhaps more than an entity that may not actually care.. well even if we grant it existence it seems not to care. I think your continued support for your beliefs, although held most private, is admirable in the face of so much that suggests you are the victim of a universal con job perpetrated on many folk I suppose I feel compassion because unlike the catasrophes one sees on tv here I know a little of one of the victims and chatted such that this victim is more than a number. What I do find curious is your unwavering support for something that you never seem to meaningfuly explain. It seems that you are sure of your position notwithstanding your inability to explain it to others leaving aside if or if not but merely the situation we observe has been capable of observation or at least to content ourselves that such a premise may be so but then perhaps this is not the proper way to approach the matter because as you observe we have failed to define that which we seek to discuss or not discuss as many claim is your position...well not many perhaps only one but no doubt others feel similar even though they have not come forward. Perhaps they have I really dont notice. No doubt you know things that mere mortals such as myself will never know☺ However the more I think about it the more I find benefit in religion for folk who need an answer and do not need to consider it right or wrong. Such acceptance without more than acceptance saves actually realising the answer has not solved all that much. Thank goodness believers never think to ask "well where did God come from" as not making such enquirey leaves them content that all has been explained and answered to their complete satisfaction. And for you ...you can not accept an eternal universe but seem content with an eternal God coming out of eternity to construct a material yet finite universe and to be both present in eternity and our finite universe with no conflict between the strange propositions that would seem to conflict. Alex
I've been known to espouse the very same wish. It would be like moving back into my parents' home. No personal responsibility. Always someone else in authority.
Folk fail to see the benefit of accepting personal responsibility...in practical terms it saves so much upset and indeed hatred of those most folk perceive as having wronged them. If a theif steals from me I dont see him to blame but myself...it is me who should have been more careful and so I dont burn with hatred for someone I cant find. And in the future I take more care. The house fell down "oh Gods will etc" mmmm maybe you could have fixed the foundations when you noticed the tilt☺ I have had a few relationships that broke down..at first it was all their fault but it is somehow empowering to realise and accept that it was me who was 100% in the wrong...I cant fix anything but it beats being a hate filled fool. I will do anything for those I have hurt...but I will always have been wrong. The most empowering thing is to realise and admit you have been wrong...so many will never know just how good it feels on the one hand and how sorry on the other. Anyways some folk remain childlike seeking a new santa for the one that they left in childhood. Anyways who am I to say there is no god when God says all that needs to be said..nothing..it seems...still waiting for JC.. give me a hint so I can note the calander. How many come back parties have we seen? How many times has the guest of honor turned up rather not turned up..never ever..yes check the numbers..says it all really. Alex
/// Sadly, it seems hate is part of human nature. In the movie The Matrix, it is said the 1st matrix was a paradise but humans could not handle it & that seems valid to me. I suspect the vast majority of humans could not be blissfully happy for long in an ideal heaven. <>
Because the definition of God is so broad, you can potentially define anything as a god. And things that aren’t considered to be gods, by comparison become equivalent to gods. When you define a metaphysical process such as the Tao as definitive, you’ve essentially done the same thing that a theist does in defining God. Both are supernatural in the sense that they cannot be empirically discerned, and both are assumed to be actual by their adherents. So you have these two universal guiding properties that adherents describe as different, but actually preform the same function. You can’t call BS on theists for appealing to an unproven supernatural property, and then excuse those who put a different face on it and do the same thing. Like I said before, the jokes will stop when belief in unsubstantiated supernatural entities stop. Sorry for the confusion. Since your post was meant for Musika, I mockingly attempted to answer your request using Musika’s epistemology. Give me a break, I’m in the process of evaluating Musika’s epistemology in order to justify the existence of God. Therefore I have to assume some things that don’t logically make sense. Do you personally know anyone who hasn’t at some point in their life conceptualized a god? I don't. Think about it, just to be exposed to, or discuss the term means it has to be conceptualized to some degree.
Defining the Tao as definitive? As a "process"? I'm not following that. What were you trying to say? ? The Tao is quite often "discerned" empirically - by a finger pointing to the moon, famously. And whatever is meant by assuming the Tao to be "actual", I doubt a Taoist would fully agree. They do not function the same. And they aren't the same "thing", regardless of whatever functions they both perform. You might as well say a boot and a rock and a strong wind and a poorly leveled frame and a bungee hook and a ratchet hinge with a catch are all the same things, functioning the same, because they all hold your door open. I know of no deity that is a "property". Example? The Tao is the very opposite of a "supernatural property" - being neither a property or supernatural. And the concept of "proof" does not belong here.
