Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Cortex_Colossum, Feb 14, 2009.
Perfection is anything that we don't regret. It has no mistake.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
such to see 2 cars coming head on and understanding what is about to occur, removes the phenomena from being an act of God.
Basically, knowledge simply allows 'mass' (we the people) to comprehend existence.
nothing magical about it.
takes nothing from God (existence itself)
Is God a scientist? He is existence itself, with a name. Some use what ever definitions they want or use works of 'old' school to tell them who/what God is. But just as history has shared, even 'that' knowledge had evolved from previous generations.
We all live within existence and knowledge is evolving just as life has.
To observe the 'collective' or all that is (the garden/nature/existence itself), then mankind can be understood as a part of God; learning, evolving...
and that pinnacle is when mass (mankind) can understand itself (God)
such then mass can create life by choice and know it.
mass/energy over time living within the creations it performs (that ever-lasting life)
'you reap what you sow' ............
the last 'word' to all truth, is the 'name'
if 'existence' only operates ONE way: then the math is the 'name' to know.
I think there is a high likely hood that there is a perfection we can't access.
Scientist have frequently asked with the human biology why can we not live forever considering the cell replication process.
There have been questions on the brain that some scientist have a difficult time resolving brain capacity and how it works to why things are not more precise. I was reading one article two years ago that a biologist said, "it's like a critical by small componet is missing.
People in the field that have a mind for this discussion have often made very similar statements of how incredibly the universe, Earth and life are formed. Yet another gentleman measure the error probabilities in all life is some where near .007 percent reproduction. He notes that there is a difference in the randomness of cell division and the errors we see and that they aren't necessarily related. Meaning you could have perfect cell reproduction and still have variety.
I'll post some of my notes later.
Yes. Perfection is not mere actions such as a perfect soccer score. Rather, a state in which we are incorruptible. A state of freedom in thought. Not to mention integrity.
You are describing a state of shock here.
Knowledge is only useful in the world of man. In civilization. It is the result of trial and error. Wisdom is eternal, unlike knowledge.
Nor does it take anything from it.
Could it be a rhetorical question without an answer?
I would prefer to say with no name.
That which is eternal and infinite.
Even when we are capable of creating life we still would not be gods.
so with 2 feet on the ground, what would enable mankind to be equally of that 'state'?
more like the unexpected
a joke is based on the 'unexpected' answer
an occurrence NOT understood, could be a shocker to someone else.
eg.... think of being on this earth in 300 AD with a pair of walkie-talkies or even a bic lighter.
without words wisdom could not be conveyed. Likewise, wisdom is not learned without comprehending the experience.
Defining the experience and sharing the wisdom, takes knowledge and the use of words. (articulation)
just adding.... as we (mankind) can create words.
Mankind is basically creating the definitions for mass to comprehend itself.
we (mankind) are adding to what exists but cannot take away from existence by adding definitions (words)
as i see the 'name' as only being the definition of the 'process'
then i post
Some use what ever definitions they want or use works of 'old' school to tell them who/what God is. But just as history has shared, even 'that' knowledge had evolved from previous generations.
and you reply with
i don't understand that unless you trying to suggest the absolute is already written (don't say that, please .... cuz its a bonafide fib (thou shalt not) so don't)
as it is real hard to say GOD... without associating all of existence itself
but many words and ideas are the 'creation' of individual people? (answer is, all of them)
God 'created' all that is, when observing 'all of existence as ONE' but God is not an isolated entity sitting on a thrown separate from existence, creating, making decisions,.............. talking to people.
as in that frame, then any human being can go plant a tree, water it, nuture it and could sit on a thrown in front of it, and all the critter that live there, can know the god of that tree and if they piss him off, he can cut it down
see how that works?
Boosting this thread because it defines the two types of perfection- perfection in action and perfection in experience.
If there is a god then maybe it is a scientist, because we are scientist and make things like the computer. That interprets codes into ways we could understand them. Similarly our brain takes in "codes" of some kind, for example, the image of a vision and our brain interprets it into a way we could understand it. SO if we were created then we were created to interpret things I assume.
Maybe our universe is some scientist's experiment.
If Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is indeed correct then even the most perfect being could be experimenting with reality due to there being an uncertainty inherent in reality. That would assume that the universe is so dynamic that there is more to it than meets the eye, preventing knowledge of the unobservables.
We sometimes forget, evolution is an invention of nature, and it is the force which crafted us to be as close to perfect for survival on this planet as possible, along with the ecosystem of which we are only a small part. The perfection therefore does not begin and end with us. It is always a work in progress.
If God is God, and God is omniscient, why would he be a scientist?
Omniscient = "knows everything"
Unless you believe human beings were crafted by random processes / or something with only a finite understanding of random or partly random chemical processes, or unless it is possible there exists a deeper motivation or design which underlies chemical processes which gave rise to things like sex, DNA, photosynthesis, etc. themselves, it's a difficult idea to miss. Über scientist, perhaps. The one who wrote the rules of science those of us who are not omniscient has such a difficult time discerning. To call G-d a "scientist", yes, is s step or two down from omniscience.
I'm no YEC or IDer, by the way. I know this may sound like I am. The Earth and the universe are both a great deal older than 5,000 years. Millions of times older, in actual fact.
Because this god is trying to understand the within its self.
Well if that is so, then God isn't God and God isn't all knowing as has been taught for eons. God cannot be all knowing and not know everything. It just doesn't work.
I think if God did know the answers he would TELL us.
Inferring the Limits on Reality (that Even the Gods Must Obey): http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/203
"David Wolpert has his tongue mostly in his cheek when he says that his theory puts limits on religions. 'There cannot be two gods, both of which can perfectly observe everything, or both of which can make anything happen that they want,' he says. In fact, there cannot even be two gods who both have perfect memory. In short, it is mathematically impossible to have a polytheistic universe with all-knowing gods. [...] Writing in the journal Nature soon after Wolpert published his work on inference devices, [physicist Philippe] Binder said that Wolpert’s results 'slam the door' on scientific determinism, as first articulated by Pierre Simon Laplace in the nineteenth century. [...] even a monotheistic God may have to accept some limitations when it comes to such information. With his tongue back in his cheek, Wolpert says that God can get the universe rolling, but can’t interfere with its functioning afterwards. 'Or, after someone else gets the universe going, you can interfere, but you can’t do both,' says Wolpert. Deism is allowed, he says, but not the traditional Abrahamic God."
You really can't make a choice between vengeful (old testament) and personal (loving, caring) deity either. If G-d really loved life, would he/ she have created it so that part of his creation needed to consume the part that derives sustenance from a free energy source?
This arrangement randomizes the whole good/evil question, since all of creation must have purpose. It wasn't practical, energy-wise, for animals to subsist on sunlight. It was an evolutionary dead end as soon as efficient predators evolved with higher energy budgets.
As top predator, what is 'good' to us may be nothing of the sort for the ecosystem of which we are a small part. Fewer humans is probably good from G-d's perspective, so where is the G-d who loves us? Why did he create diseases that afflict us? G-d's will, believe it.
Comments, orthodox vegans? You have chosen to feast exclusively on the part of the ecosystem that is innocent and blameless. There will be consequences for us if this fad continues. Do you believe G-d likes this? He probably would prefer we were cannibals. Where is the G-d of moral values? Why would he/she value your life as compared to, say, that of a vegetable?
It's a good thing that vegetables are not so judgmental. Or are they?
Perfection is a perspective point of view.
Separate names with a comma.