How God could fail to convey His message?

[seeds]

Isn’t the search for “Ultimate Truth” kind of at the core of philosophy itself?

No! What kind of "ultimate" do you expect philosophy to discover?

If you Google the definition of philosophy, then I “expect” the core impetus of philosophy (in other words, the “spirit” that drives philosophical enquiry) to be actively engaged in the first answer that appears on the Google page, which is:

“...the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence...”

If the end goal in philosophical enquiry is not the attainment of some form of ultimate truth regarding “reality and existence,” then I can’t imagine what is.

Is this ultimate truth meant to be applicable to all that live in the universe?

Absolutely yes! Why wouldn’t it be?

And just to clarify that statement, it is applicable to all that live in the universe, but perhaps not of any interest to most of the all. For it is obvious that apes, dogs, ants, and paramecium, etc., have no use for such knowledge (if that's what you're getting at).

Humans are so fond of their Ultimates and be forever in love with it like a Holy Grail which doesn't exist either. The only ultimate reality which lives up to its name is the universe itself.

Are you talking about a universe that allegedly began as a tiny kernel of compressed matter that was somehow impregnated with every possible process and ingredient necessary to create all of reality as we understand it?

Are you talking about a cosmic “seed” that seems to have appeared out of nowhere, that subsequently exploded into a vast and chaotic field of disparate quantum particles that somehow managed – by sheer chance – to configure themselves into a state of order that defies comprehension?

Are you talking about a universe that according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, that without the presence of consciousness would exist as spread-out waves of phase-entangled (superpositioned) patterns of energy and information that have no reality as we understand “reality” to be?

Is that the ultimate reality you speak of that “lives up to its name”?

What does that even mean?

...if philosophy is the “love of wisdom,” then what greater wisdom could there be than that which is inherent in the answers to the ultimate questions of “how and why” we are here?

Aren't we aware of the "how" already...

Reread my previous comments above, and if you can logically explain how the random and mindless influences of gravity and thermodynamics could somehow cause a chaotic dispersion of quantum particles to magically blend together to form the order implicit in these two spectacularly complex objects...



...then let’s have it.

Are these incipient "ultimate questions" meant to convey the idea that a "special" destiny must be inherent in our existence? If these "Ultimates" intimate that hope, then that is an absurd hope indeed engendered by a consciousness that hasn't been properly trained yet...speaking of which...!

I assume that “...speaking of which...” was meant as an insult to me.

I guess that knowing that you are arguing with a theist (actually a “panentheistic idealist” to be precise), causes you to “see red” (as you mentioned earlier) and you simply can’t resist the urge to insert the occasional slur. Is that about right?

Hope in life acts as an indispensable force driving us forward. We begin every endeavor in its glow by having confidence in the fulfillment of expectations which are the "life" intentions asserted by hope. Being such a striving force, we compel it to serve beyond its proper confines believing in assumptions which exceed our duration though here too it serves as an anodyne for those who are blessed to believe. I would never talk anyone out of it...

By reason of the fact that you actively argue against the possibility of our continuing on in a transcendent context that exists above and outside of this material context is, in itself, an attempt (by you) to talk someone out of the hope they derive from believing in such things.

...but if presented in philosophy forums, it becomes a subject for scrutiny.

As does your implied belief that the universe is the product of serendipitous processes.

Pretend that you have been completely successful in convincing billions of humans to give up the beliefs that bring them so much hope, solace, and comfort in life...

...and then tell us what it is you have to offer as a replacement for those beliefs that will, in turn, have a similar utility and effect?

...I can't imagine a replacement acceptable to those who cling to this hope.

Yet, while knowing that you have no replacement for it, you still make every effort (via philosophical argumentation) to destroy that hope.

What's up with that, Dubious?

And how, precisely, does that square with your earlier statement...

...I would never talk anyone out of it...

...?
_______

[BradburyPound]

Just curious, have you fallen for the cholesterol lie, The original study to support the cholesterol hypothesis was faulty. The investigator cherry picked the data to support his ideas, when the truth is that there is little connection between fat and heart disease.

I saw a great programme last month from ARTE the French channel which de-bunks the cholesterol/diet heart disease hypothesis. I'd say it was still speculative, but I tend to agree; it has long been known that many people with high cholesterol who pursue a low cholesterol diet end up with high cholesterol regardless of their change in diet after a short period, since the body makes all the cholesterol it needs. Additionally there are several countries whose population have high cholesterol in their diet yet have low heart disease.

But eating less fat remains a good piece of advice, since gramme for gramme fat has twice the calories of protein and carbohydrates, yet does not satiate as effectively.
In our world of affluence, those with a propensity to put on weight are well advised to avoid as much fat as possible.

Not true. People have got fatter and fatter on the 'low good fats, high trans fat/high carb' modern diet. It's refined sugar, manufactured 'trans fats' and white flour that are the problem, not good fats like unprocessed animal fat and the monounsaturated fat found in foods like avocado and olive oil.

Whilst I agree that some modern carbs fail to produce satiation effect, I'd add that obesity is not simply a modern phenomenon, and has always accompanied affluence.
So, it is true to advise eating less fat regardless, for the reasons I gave.
I'd also say that the whole notion of good and bad fats is also pretty bogus,
Animal fat is more natural to eat than all vegetable oils, which are, in addition, dangerous to cook with as they render Aldehydes.
When it comes to obesity eating fat always results in the body storing it, the moment that the baseline energy requirements are met.

[thedoc]

I saw a great programme last month from ARTE the French channel which de-bunks the cholesterol/diet heart disease hypothesis. I'd say it was still speculative, but I tend to agree; it has long been known that many people with high cholesterol who pursue a low cholesterol diet end up with high cholesterol regardless of their change in diet after a short period, since the body makes all the cholesterol it needs. Additionally there are several countries whose population have high cholesterol in their diet yet have low heart disease.

But eating less fat remains a good piece of advice, since gramme for gramme fat has twice the calories of protein and carbohydrates, yet does not satiate as effectively.
In our world of affluence, those with a propensity to put on weight are well advised to avoid as much fat as possible.

Not true. People have got fatter and fatter on the 'low good fats, high trans fat/high carb' modern diet. It's refined sugar, manufactured 'trans fats' and white flour that are the problem, not good fats like unprocessed animal fat and the monounsaturated fat found in foods like avocado and olive oil.

Whilst I agree that some modern carbs fail to produce satiation effect, I'd add that obesity is not simply a modern phenomenon, and has always accompanied affluence.
So, it is true to advise eating less fat regardless, for the reasons I gave.
I'd also say that the whole notion of good and bad fats is also pretty bogus,
Animal fat is more natural to eat than all vegetable oils, which are, in addition, dangerous to cook with as they render Aldehydes.
When it comes to obesity eating fat always results in the body storing it, the moment that the baseline energy requirements are met.

It seems that we are all a party to "derailing this thread" but I find the derail just as interesting as the OP, and It seems that a few others do to as well.

"Postby Lacewing » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:45 am

What does this private chit chat conversation about what you eat or how you want to die on a couch have to do with the topic or... anything of public interest at all? Maybe you should PM each other privately. "

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I saw a great programme last month from ARTE the French channel which de-bunks the cholesterol/diet heart disease hypothesis. I'd say it was still speculative, but I tend to agree; it has long been known that many people with high cholesterol who pursue a low cholesterol diet end up with high cholesterol regardless of their change in diet after a short period, since the body makes all the cholesterol it needs. Additionally there are several countries whose population have high cholesterol in their diet yet have low heart disease.

But eating less fat remains a good piece of advice, since gramme for gramme fat has twice the calories of protein and carbohydrates, yet does not satiate as effectively.
In our world of affluence, those with a propensity to put on weight are well advised to avoid as much fat as possible.

Not true. People have got fatter and fatter on the 'low good fats, high trans fat/high carb' modern diet. It's refined sugar, manufactured 'trans fats' and white flour that are the problem, not good fats like unprocessed animal fat and the monounsaturated fat found in foods like avocado and olive oil.

Whilst I agree that some modern carbs fail to produce satiation effect, I'd add that obesity is not simply a modern phenomenon, and has always accompanied affluence.
So, it is true to advise eating less fat regardless, for the reasons I gave.
I'd also say that the whole notion of good and bad fats is also pretty bogus,
Animal fat is more natural to eat than all vegetable oils, which are, in addition, dangerous to cook with as they render Aldehydes.
When it comes to obesity eating fat always results in the body storing it, the moment that the baseline energy requirements are met.

I have to disagree. All fats are definitely not created equal. The irony today is that it's the poor who are the fattest.

[BradburyPound]

Not true. People have got fatter and fatter on the 'low good fats, high trans fat/high carb' modern diet. It's refined sugar, manufactured 'trans fats' and white flour that are the problem, not good fats like unprocessed animal fat and the monounsaturated fat found in foods like avocado and olive oil.

Whilst I agree that some modern carbs fail to produce satiation effect, I'd add that obesity is not simply a modern phenomenon, and has always accompanied affluence.
So, it is true to advise eating less fat regardless, for the reasons I gave.
I'd also say that the whole notion of good and bad fats is also pretty bogus,
Animal fat is more natural to eat than all vegetable oils, which are, in addition, dangerous to cook with as they render Aldehydes.
When it comes to obesity eating fat always results in the body storing it, the moment that the baseline energy requirements are met.

I have to disagree. All fats are definitely not created equal. The irony today is that it's the poor who are the fattest.

What you are saying does not add up. Margarine is more expensive than butter. Poor choose margerine.
Margerine is made from caustic soda in a range of chemical processes.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Whilst I agree that some modern carbs fail to produce satiation effect, I'd add that obesity is not simply a modern phenomenon, and has always accompanied affluence.
So, it is true to advise eating less fat regardless, for the reasons I gave.
I'd also say that the whole notion of good and bad fats is also pretty bogus,
Animal fat is more natural to eat than all vegetable oils, which are, in addition, dangerous to cook with as they render Aldehydes.
When it comes to obesity eating fat always results in the body storing it, the moment that the baseline energy requirements are met.

I have to disagree. All fats are definitely not created equal. The irony today is that it's the poor who are the fattest.

What you are saying does not add up. Margarine is more expensive than butter. Poor choose margerine.
Margerine is made from caustic soda in a range of chemical processes.

Whether it 'adds up' or not doesn't alter the fact that it's true. The 'poor' today aren't the same as the poor of a hundred years ago. General standard of living has risen. And I'm talking about modern 'Western' countries. I think junk food is ridiculously expensive, but a lot of poor people practically live off it. And if the poor choose margarine as you say, then that fits with what I said about trans and poor quality fats. It's a lot better to buy butter.

[BradburyPound]

I have to disagree. All fats are definitely not created equal. The irony today is that it's the poor who are the fattest.

What you are saying does not add up. Margarine is more expensive than butter. Poor choose margerine.
Margerine is made from caustic soda in a range of chemical processes.

Whether it 'adds up' or not doesn't alter the fact that it's true.

It is true that you perceive poor people to be fat.
This might be from the fact that poor people tend to be less well educated and less intelligent.
But you would have to offer some facts for your perception.

Eating less fat is still good advice.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What you are saying does not add up. Margarine is more expensive than butter. Poor choose margerine.
Margerine is made from caustic soda in a range of chemical processes.

Whether it 'adds up' or not doesn't alter the fact that it's true.

It is true that you perceive poor people to be fat.
This might be from the fact that poor people tend to be less well educated and less intelligent.
But you would have to offer some facts for your perception.

Eating less fat is still good advice.

I didn't say they are all fat. You also posted your reply while I was editing. This seems to be a pretty good article. It's American, but the US does have the fattest people, with one in three being obese. Corn syrup consumption has been associated with NAFLD, and when someone has liver problems it's almost impossible for them to lose weight, even with calorie restriction. Have you seen the crap that American children eat at school? It's all about money of course. Big business gives schools incentives to promote their shitty non-food. And marketing. It's no longer 'cool' to take a cut lunch to school, and everyone is too 'busy' to do it anyway. Chilren's developing brains need iron especially, and they ain't getting that from a plateful of yellow globs. It's not such a stretch to wonder if there really is a concerted conspiracy to make the population stupider and stupider. After all, it's a cinch to manipulate stupid people.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/

[seeds]

It seems that we are all a party to "derailing this thread" but I find the derail just as interesting as the OP, and It seems that a few others do to as well.

Doc, this isn't rocket science.

At the expense of derailing this thread even further...

...if an exciting new topic like “fat and cholesterol” suddenly pops up in a thread that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fat and cholesterol, you create a new thread and discuss it there.

My gosh, what a revelation!

To put this in perspective, click on the following link to see and hear BradburyPound and vegetariantaxidermy (or you) discussing - “How God could fail to convey His message?” - here: https://youtu.be/crIJvcWkVcs
_______

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It seems that we are all a party to "derailing this thread" but I find the derail just as interesting as the OP, and It seems that a few others do to as well.

Doc, this isn't rocket science.

At the expense of derailing this thread even further...

...if an exciting new topic like “fat and cholesterol” suddenly pops up in a thread that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fat and cholesterol, you create a new thread and discuss it there.

My gosh, what a revelation!

To put this in perspective, click on the following link to see and hear BradburyPound and vegetariantaxidermy (or you) discussing - “How God could fail to convey His message?” - here: https://youtu.be/crIJvcWkVcs
_______

Well, the OP makes no sense anyway, so it could be about 'fat and cholesterol' for all I know.

[thedoc]

At the expense of derailing this thread even further...

...if an exciting new topic like “fat and cholesterol” suddenly pops up in a thread that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fat and cholesterol, you create a new thread and discuss it there.

Perhaps fat people are too contented to give much consideration to God's message, and that is why God has failed to deliver.

[thedoc]

Eating less fat is still good advice.

No, it is not good advice, good advice would be to balance the intake of calories and the expenditure of calories. If the intake and expenditure are balanced there will be little if any gain of weight. Fat is a good fuel for the body, sugar is a bad fuel.

[BradburyPound]

It seems that we are all a party to "derailing this thread" but I find the derail just as interesting as the OP, and It seems that a few others do to as well.

Doc, this isn't rocket science.

At the expense of derailing this thread even further...

...if an exciting new topic like “fat and cholesterol” suddenly pops up in a thread that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fat and cholesterol, you create a new thread and discuss it there.

My gosh, what a revelation!

To put this in perspective, click on the following link to see and hear BradburyPound and vegetariantaxidermy (or you) discussing - “How God could fail to convey His message?” - here: https://youtu.be/crIJvcWkVcs
_______

IN GOD WE TRUST.
WE TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT
WE TRUST OUR FOOD.
Where's the contradiction?

[BradburyPound]

Eating less fat is still good advice.

No, it is not good advice, good advice would be to balance the intake of calories and the expenditure of calories. If the intake and expenditure are balanced there will be little if any gain of weight. Fat is a good fuel for the body, sugar is a bad fuel.

Rubbish. That's the usual myth "Sugar is poison".
The fact is that every gramme of fat has to first be converted into sugar by the body, before it can be used to power the muscles and the brain.
The body can make all the fat it needs.

And as for balance of calories. The benefit of eating less fat, is, as I said above. 1) Each grammes of fat as TWICE the calories as either Carbs and Protein, 2) Fat does not provide a feeling of satiation, and so when you eat fat it is difficult for the body to know when enough is enough.

Some of the world's healthiest people subsist of Oats; a complex carbohydrate, and is bulky. It's hard to eat too much.
By contrast the same weight of cheese can have five times to calories and leaves you wanting more, being so appetising.

Obviously these are extremes, but the fact that you can get on without it, fat is not a necessary part of the diet.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Eating less fat is still good advice.

No, it is not good advice, good advice would be to balance the intake of calories and the expenditure of calories. If the intake and expenditure are balanced there will be little if any gain of weight. Fat is a good fuel for the body, sugar is a bad fuel.

Rubbish. That's the usual myth "Sugar is poison".
The fact is that every gramme of fat has to first be converted into sugar by the body, before it can be used to power the muscles and the brain.
The body can make all the fat it needs.

And as for balance of calories. The benefit of eating less fat, is, as I said above. 1) Each grammes of fat as TWICE the calories as either Carbs and Protein, 2) Fat does not provide a feeling of satiation, and so when you eat fat it is difficult for the body to know when enough is enough.

Some of the world's healthiest people subsist of Oats; a complex carbohydrate, and is bulky. It's hard to eat too much.
By contrast the same weight of cheese can have five times to calories and leaves you wanting more, being so appetising.

Obviously these are extremes, but the fact that you can get on without it, fat is not a necessary part of the diet.

It's more complicated than that. Eating the right fat can actually help you burn fat.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/55772 ... -burn-fat/