God is testing us all

[-1-]

Hahaha! Well said, how could God refuse that! I would add though, um God, if you do reveal your existence to Dubious, please be gentle..

God can refuse to show itself to humanity all it wants, but by doing that, it (and mainly you, Attofishpi!) can't expect us to be fools who believe in a thing that has no evidence of being.

[attofishpi]

3. And god always keeps his promises.

Does it? Where are you getting this idea?

It follows from the covenant.

The covenant never indicated anything beyond some sort of 'salvation'.

, there is a dichotomy which you can't explain here, Attofishpi.

I'm the one that has been banging on about the dichotomy of God for years around these very parts.
See above re the explanation. You are sounding like a typical brainwashed fundamentalist in your approach!

5. Job kept his side of the bargain.

Buy bull parables, not worth than more than a gander.

Hoo, boy, are you ever cherry-picking. Typical of bible-thumpers. Believe in one part of the bible, but not believe another part? How does this work? For a mathematician, for instance? "I believe that 5+5=10, but I reject that 5x5=25, because that would destroy my proof."

It's called the common sense of a discerning rational approach to such things.

That's what cherry pickers of the bible do: if they are cornered by a self-contradicion in the bible, they simply glide over it.

What do you suggest is a more rational approach to someone that can't accept that there is a man floating in space that seperated the waters from the earth?
The interesting fact in all this, is that God is WANTING us to question it all. Why Y Y? Y buy bull = bible homophonically...it doesnt want obedience but intelligence.

You can't do that with me, sorry. You either accpet the entire bible as a the word of god, or you reject it, but you can't accept parts of it and rejects other parts of it. That's the entire point.

That's the simpleton approach. So glad you are not a theist.

No. If God has interacted with some, and then mere men that were not privvy to actual experience write what they BELIEVE or WANT, then it becomes obvious, that to comprehend the actual message is to be discerning.

Remember. I would not wish what I was tested with upon my worst enemy. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW GOD?

You declared that your god is a morally despicable creature. It lies and it breaks its own promises.

Why does that make it a 'despicable creature'?
Just because it betrays when one hasn't passed a higher test. Too week to make a weak? or vice versa - the dichotomy continues - hard to >LIVE when EVIL< is done to you via God and its tests.

In other words, you can't get out of the mess you found yourself in, except by dubious means, and by means that defile your own god.

Where are you pulling this crap from?

God can refuse to show itself to humanity all it wants, but by doing that, it (and mainly you, Attofishpi!) can't expect us to be fools who believe in a thing that has no evidence of being.

I've provided ample evidence for someone with enough intellect that can see the anomalies around us are too remotely unlikely to have occurred naturally.
My site.
www.androcies.com

[Lacewing]

God only tests those who believe in such a thing, and who want to explain it that way -- as it is a way of validating the story they live by. There are countless reasons why people are profoundly challenged and enlightened throughout their lives. Whatever one attributes such experiences to, is their own trip.

[-1-]

I've provided ample evidence for someone with enough intellect that can see the anomalies around us are too remotely unlikely to have occurred naturally.

I think you have willfully ignored facts, and shaped evidence to support your belief.

I don't think you have provided any evidence to support your theory. You blatantly belittled or denied very, very serious logical binds, and as such, you revealed your bias. Your evidence relies on cherry-picking facts, and on your mystical experience which I respectfully believe that you believe was reality.

This mystical experience you sometime allude to, is compelling, I believe. But I ask you to consider that those who haven't had this mystical experience, have the right to not consider it as evidence, as it is a personal experience, very personal, not transferable.

[-1-]

God only tests those who believe in such a thing, and who want to explain it that way -- as it is a way of validating the story they live by. There are countless reasons why people are profoundly challenged and enlightened throughout their lives. Whatever one attributes such experiences to, is their own trip.

This is true. Very true.

But it cuts all connections between humans of different beliefs, and if accepted, your view would preemptively prevent discussion and a motivation to convince others of your truth.

That, in turn, would prevent those with developing minds and developing philosophies to be exposed to thought.

In fact, humanity, if its general action accepted the philosophy you describe, would become a body of individuals, each isolated in their own philosophy, and in fact, make each person become an island unto himself or herself.

Clashes, battles, wars, are not serving only the victors; for the spirit of the defeated are imbued into the spiritual make-up of the victors. Any interaction between two opposing bodies that touch, will have their molecules mixed on the surface where they touch, and these molecules can and will work their way into the very fabric of their host bodies. Cultural exchanges work much the same way. A theist will only acquaint himself with the views of an atheist, and both go home to their families after the intellectual battles with a bit of a better understanding and perhaps even tolerance for the other.

[Lacewing]

God only tests those who believe in such a thing, and who want to explain it that way -- as it is a way of validating the story they live by. There are countless reasons why people are profoundly challenged and enlightened throughout their lives. Whatever one attributes such experiences to, is their own trip.

This is true. Very true.

But it cuts all connections between humans of different beliefs

Can't the potential creativity in the Universe be big enough to include such diversity without there needing to be one supreme truth -- AND why would that indicate a disconnect? It just makes the "Universe" bigger than (perhaps) most people consider.

and if accepted, your view would preemptively prevent discussion and a motivation to convince others of your truth.

When people accept that there are many truths, is there not still much to discuss and learn?

What actually stifles and limits discussion is an incessant habitual addiction to one view.

In fact, humanity, if its general action accepted the philosophy you describe, would become a body of individuals, each isolated in their own philosophy, and in fact, make each person become an island unto himself or herself.

I don't think so. I think the desire to insist on a single "rightness" would be replaced by a broader acceptance and appreciation of vast potential... and what we might do with that.

[Eodnhoj7]

God only tests those who believe in such a thing, and who want to explain it that way -- as it is a way of validating the story they live by. There are countless reasons why people are profoundly challenged and enlightened throughout their lives. Whatever one attributes such experiences to, is their own trip.

This is true. Very true.

But it cuts all connections between humans of different beliefs

Can't the potential creativity in the Universe be big enough to include such diversity without there needing to be one supreme truth -- AND why would that indicate a disconnect? It just makes the "Universe" bigger than (perhaps) most people consider.
Creation may be the supreme truth as a universal form of opposition to nothingness.

and if accepted, your view would preemptively prevent discussion and a motivation to convince others of your truth.

When people accept that there are many truths, is there not still much to discuss and learn?

What actually stifles and limits discussion is an incessant non-thinking addiction to one view.

In fact, humanity, if its general action accepted the philosophy you describe, would become a body of individuals, each isolated in their own philosophy, and in fact, make each person become an island unto himself or herself.

I don't think so. I think the desire to insist on a single "rightness" would be replaced by a broader acceptance and appreciation of vast potential... and what we might do with that.

[Lacewing]

Can't the potential creativity in the Universe be big enough to include such diversity without there needing to be one supreme truth

Creation may be the supreme truth as a universal form of opposition to nothingness.

Why does creation need to be viewed/identified as a supreme truth? It just is... as is destruction... as is nothingness... etc.

What is the point of believing in a supreme truth?

[Eodnhoj7]

Can't the potential creativity in the Universe be big enough to include such diversity without there needing to be one supreme truth

Creation may be the supreme truth as a universal form of opposition to nothingness.

Why does creation need to be viewed/identified as a supreme truth? It just is... as is destruction... as is nothingness... etc.

All truth statements exist through the verb "is", it is one of the constants in the grammatical interpretation of truth.

What is the point of believing in a supreme truth?

Because we must refer to "the point" in order to justify what is and what is not. It is our ability to observe structure, premised intuitively and rationally through the application of dimensions as summated through the "point".

When referring to truth, many intuitively resort to a universal measure of space the "point", and from this we may know that truth as existence is embodied under the point as a foundation for reason, which leads to structure, which further leads to "creation" as a universal constant.

[Lacewing]

What is the point of believing in a supreme truth?

Because we must refer to "the point" in order to justify what is and what is not.

But we don't know anything supremely, do we? How could we... and why would we? What humans think, changes/evolves over time. My question above is asking: What is the NEED/DESIRE of believing that we know some sort of supreme, all-encompassing truth? Why is that important or necessary? What is the payoff? Why is it not enough to say: "This is what I see as true right here, right now." Doing that, acknowledges known limitations and unexperienced potential, rather than proclaiming ultimate supreme truths that apply to all of creation throughout time... based on one person's puny perspective and programming.

[attofishpi]

I've provided ample evidence for someone with enough intellect that can see the anomalies around us are too remotely unlikely to have occurred naturally.

I think you have willfully ignored facts, and shaped evidence to support your belief.

I don't think you have provided any evidence to support your theory. You blatantly belittled or denied very, very serious logical binds, and as such, you revealed your bias. Your evidence relies on cherry-picking facts, and on your mystical experience which I respectfully believe that you believe was reality.

This mystical experience you sometime allude to, is compelling, I believe. But I ask you to consider that those who haven't had this mystical experience, have the right to not consider it as evidence, as it is a personal experience, very personal, not transferable.

I really don't give a flying rats backside what you believe.

[-1-]

I really don't give a flying rats backside what you believe.

However, what you believe, I am sure is germane to the topic. You can't detach yourself from your belief, and that is that. I accept that. Your belief is an extremely important factor in this conversation.

So while you can detach yourself from considering what I believe, I can't ignore what you believe, in order to keep this conversation going.

[-1-]

God only tests those who believe in such a thing, and who want to explain it that way -- as it is a way of validating the story they live by. There are countless reasons why people are profoundly challenged and enlightened throughout their lives. Whatever one attributes such experiences to, is their own trip.

This is true. Very true.

But it cuts all connections between humans of different beliefs

Can't the potential creativity in the Universe be big enough to include such diversity without there needing to be one supreme truth -- AND why would that indicate a disconnect? It just makes the "Universe" bigger than (perhaps) most people consider.

and if accepted, your view would preemptively prevent discussion and a motivation to convince others of your truth.

When people accept that there are many truths, is there not still much to discuss and learn?

What actually stifles and limits discussion is an incessant habitual addiction to one view.

In fact, humanity, if its general action accepted the philosophy you describe, would become a body of individuals, each isolated in their own philosophy, and in fact, make each person become an island unto himself or herself.

I don't think so. I think the desire to insist on a single "rightness" would be replaced by a broader acceptance and appreciation of vast potential... and what we might do with that.

I accept your reasoning. No problem with that.

I made my remark on the further assumption, which I provided, and which was not part of your thesis or opinion, and that was an important part to my thesis: if people acted on the philosophy you provided, meaning, if people minded their own beliefs and never went beyond "Whatever one attributes such experiences to, is their own trip." That is, if people internalized their own trip is their own, and nobody else's and left it at that.

Your observation is correct, again: that diversity leads to synthesis and therefore to progress. But the atomic view of people in a society where personal experience and opinion is only the business of the individual, the atomic view never develops into anything bigger. That's all my addition was saying.

So in a way, I was trying to show that for diversity and for ensuing analysis and for consequential progress to happen, you can't cocoon and declare that your belief is yours, mine is mine, and let's keep it that way; at least the different types of beliefs MUST be voiced, and more importantly, MUST be heard. This destroys the notion that individual opinions are one's own business (you used the word "trip") and that's how it should remain.

You can have one or the the other, but you can't have both. "Whatever one attributes such experiences to, is their own trip." If you don't voice what you attribute it to, then there is no apparent diversity, because others won't be acquainted with your experience. If you voice it, then you deny that it's the individuals own trip only.

[Eodnhoj7]

What is the point of believing in a supreme truth?

Because we must refer to "the point" in order to justify what is and what is not.

But we don't know anything supremely, do we? How could we... and why would we? What humans think, changes/evolves over time.
We may not know everything in one respect, yet in another because we observe relations we actually do. I may not see a tree fall in the woods, but I may see the birds fly from the tree and land on my lawn. Their movement is a shadow of the tree falling, and while I may not see the origin of the shadow, I see the shadow none the less.

In another respect we quantify and qualify things in spatial terms. We observe the nature of space through physics, or even at the biological level through observing inherent geometric natures.

Emotionally we referring to experiences as "points", or claim to be "full" of one desire and "empty" of another. We discuss our "direction" we take in the decision making processes that provide the foundation for life.

We "divide" or "multiply" concepts or structures we create with our hands. We put an "addititon" to a house, or "subtract" from our budget for an expense. We see in nature a seed "roots" itself into the ground, and dually through this same branching structure, it exponentiates into further seeds.

We cannot separate our understand of reality, through the axiom, from space.

My question above is asking: What is the NEED/DESIRE of believing that we know some sort of supreme, all-encompassing truth?
Because to claim their is no need is an all-encompassing truth. Or in simpler terms, you can answer this for yourself, "why the question?"

Why is that important or necessary? What is the payoff? Why is it not enough to say: "This is what I see as true right here, right now."
Because often times what we observe as what is true "right here, right now" is simply a medial point or symbol for something else. Right now may in fact point to something beyond "now", but it does not make it any less true that there is "now". "Now" is a constant medial point from which the future and past extend.

Doing that, acknowledges known limitations and unexperienced potential, rather than proclaiming ultimate supreme truths that apply to all of creation throughout time... based on one person's puny perspective and programming.
Does that apply to mankind through time? Is it a supreme truth that one perspective's perspective is puny?

The astrophysicist looks at the stars and marvels how small he is in the grand scheme. The quantum physicist feels like a god in that respect every decision has a ripple effect.

Where does that leave man but a mediator between extremes and a center point extremes. We look at reality and some say it begins on the left, other's say the right, but what if the right and left both originate from a center-point of observation?

[Lacewing]

I made my remark on the further assumption, which I provided, and which was not part of your thesis or opinion, and that was an important part to my thesis: if people acted on the philosophy you provided, meaning, if people minded their own beliefs and never went beyond "Whatever one attributes such experiences to, is their own trip." That is, if people internalized their own trip is their own, and nobody else's and left it at that.

Your observation is correct, again: that diversity leads to synthesis and therefore to progress. But the atomic view of people in a society where personal experience and opinion is only the business of the individual, the atomic view never develops into anything bigger. That's all my addition was saying.

So in a way, I was trying to show that for diversity and for ensuing analysis and for consequential progress to happen, you can't cocoon and declare that your belief is yours, mine is mine, and let's keep it that way; at least the different types of beliefs MUST be voiced, and more importantly, MUST be heard. This destroys the notion that individual opinions are one's own business (you used the word "trip") and that's how it should remain.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yes, I see what you are saying above -- and such a thing wouldn't encourage growth or evolution. It was not my intention to suggest anything like that, however. My point is NOT to say to people "screw you and your opinion", but to acknowledge "look at all the possibilities!" My point is NOT to say to people "leave me alone", but to say "don't try to over-write my program/reality with yours -- rather, let's look at the qualities and obstacles of all without trying to win the top prize for supreme rightness".

In other words... arguing over which sea shell is the most important and most perfect is pointless on a vast beach of seashells. But if we walk along and say, "Oh here, look at THIS one... oh, and here's another one... how beautiful, how useful, or that one's jagged..." -- THEN we are sharing without such personal attachment to claiming the absolute, ultimate best over others.

I'm trying to speak about the attitude/intent behind the communication. Does one want to claim that their way is the only and best way that applies to ALL (essentially making THEMSELVES a god) -- or does one want to acknowledge that there are endless possibilities, many wonderful paths, ALL with their benefits and pitfalls (essentially allowing ALL to be god)?