GM: Content
Indeed
The Realist:
Husband
Wanting to change the rules making more complicated rather than keeping things simple.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 7#p1108497
William: FTL:
GM: Tributary ZonesOPQ: "Trinity" Where did this concept come from?
William: To answer the OPQ, the concept came from humans trying to figure out the nature of a god-concept which came from the Hebrews "The LORD is ONE" and mixed in with the Gentiles and their many-gods concept.
Neither concept is incorrect, except maybe as stand-alone, for each concept compliments the other when the concepts are properly aligned.
The "Us" doesn't reference any particular number which can be assigned to the nature of GOD, for we do not know how many individual parts were involved in the initial creative impulse in designing this universe.
What it does indicate is that there was a Mind, there was Instruction and there was the Doing.
And after that initial Doing was Done - there was rest before the next epoch really got under way, and more Doing was Done.
Given the thread of YHVH's influence re the human aspect of this image, at least 2 more can be added to the trinity idea...the human man and woman, made in the image of...somehow lost the knowledge, or maybe never knew the knowledge and having to work it out...
It is all about aligning one's individual mind with the overall Mind and thus being counted as part of the "Us" team, Doing The One's Thing, Together
Trustworthy Navigational Aids
Prolonging the inevitable
Opening Doors is found Where minds meet Use Heart is where GOD Exhibits
Anger
Tricky
William: Anger unresolved, is useless. The way forward is to transform the energy anger feeds from, into something more productive than warfare.
GM: A Real Beauty
An illuminating quality
Jacque Fresco
William: Yes. The opportunity for humans to build for themselves a way better environment than they have so far never achieved building...
GM: Look For The Significance
Unknown/Hidden/Occult
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 9#p1070229
William: FTL:
William: This has something to do with what I mean by cutting away any bad science. No matter how scant the data, try to keep withing the storyline the data comes from...while discussing a succinct storyline in a wider framework...the long story we all are temporarily involved within...[Replying to Miles in post #129]
The implication is clearly there in that the Garden God is attributed in Genesis 3:14 with punishing the Serpent with a curse which makes the serpent a belly-crawler.No mention of "limbs" in Genesis 3:14 whatsoever. Moreover:
You appear to be arguing that it was always a belly-crawler, which is not following the storyline, and therefore your argument cannot be accepted as valid.
Nor do they speak human languages.ser·pent
/ˈsərpənt/
noun: serpent; plural noun: serpents
1. literary a large snake.
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary
___________________
Genesis 3:14
So the Lord God said to the snake, “You did this very bad thing, so bad things will happen to you. It will be worse for you than for any other animal. You must crawl on your belly and eat dust all the days of your life.
Snakes don't have legs.
I would caution anyone not to accept that because nowadays 'Serpent' means 'snake' [according to some dictionaries] that this means one can rightfully manipulate the story to align with the modern day meaning of the word.
The word used in the garden story was "Serpent" and what it is described as prior to the Gods curse upon it - is definitely NOT a snake.
GM: Embrace the discomfort
Simple Crop Circles
William: Crop Simple Circles = 195
GM: The Gaia Hypothesis = 195
William: So the idea is to recognize when an argument circles back on itself to its starting point...what one is looking for re discussion is resolution, which can still appear to circle back on itself, but does not become circular, but rather - spirals away with the new information gather ed through the discussion/argument...
GM: "What Is Within Is Without, Equal"
Interesting
"Haha Joke We Win"
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 5#p1090475
William: FTL; re Child Abuse. [Re: Evil thoughts?]
William: What I was attempting to convey therein, was that such things are the result of nature, but are understood to be something which Humans have to enforce rules in order to curb that nature.P1: Given what we understand of DNA et al - things which were once socially accepted - taken for granted - done without guilt - which are then considered to be evil by a more modern society which has connected the dots and discovered therein that the act of abusing children has social consequences primarily in the negative - this works against the society advancing and is thus seen as a threat which requires dealing to.
Thinking about [fantasize about] molesting children may be a throwback connection to those former actions we can inherit but if they are not recognized as such and dealt with accordingly, the chances one will eventually be dissatisfied with mere fantasy and proceed to actualizing will significantly increase and the results will not be easy to deal with for either the victim nor the victimizer.
One may not be able to stop the birds flying overhead, but one is able to stop them nesting in ones hair.
This is not to say that nature is somehow immoral for the design [assuming sentience is involved on a larger scale than humans are currently aware of] but that there is built into the system, wiggle-room where we can adjust as necessary.
GM: Crafted
The Law of Attraction
Symbols
Friable [easily crumbled.]
Foresee/Foresight
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 9#p1082379
William: FTL:
GM: "The curating is done when I am taking my first baby steps and learning to say "dada" and "mama" and after uttering those sounds show -at least that I am able to do that - so the next level entry is made available to me, and I learn how to shape the sounds I can make, following codes which have been around since long before my own arrival on this planet, to what the data signifies, that is information I am interested in."[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #22]
Yet I do not ask you to support your proposal any less than you ask me to support mine.My point is, considering this OP, to propose a mind as creator is no more supportable than my proposal.
We are left with logic, only I refrain from making comments involving biscuits et al - perhaps because my position does not cause that kind of frustration in me, to project out onto my fellows...
What...that 'biscuits did it' is just as likely? You want me to believe that you actually believe that?I wasn't referring to minds as biscuits, but to the equal validity of both propositions for a created universe.
This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?It's a provisional belief, but I find the supporting data exceedingly compelling.Provisional and Compelling to what? The position of Atheism?This still does not answer the question. What makes that theory the superior candidate?To the hypothesis/ theory of the mind being a product of the biological.
Especially since it does not outright-positively exclude the theory of "Mind did it," and thus sits as an effect rather than a cause.
Perhaps that is a beef you have with the whole idea of a Cosmic Mind...understandable if one is filtering their information through the position of Atheism - but not enough to warrant my removing the theory from the table as 'inferior', and joining the ranks.
Well - what is going on here then Joey?The fact I've engaged in this debate should be all the evidence required to consider me open to other ideas.
I've been quite open in saying I find your notions in this matter very intriguing, so closed ain't what's going on here.
It is not as if I am asking you to consider joining a religion. I am asking you to seriously consider the possibility that we exist in a creation and it is a result of a creative mind.
I am trying to encourage you to see the logic in the middle-ground position which wisely understands that there is not enough information to establish any belief either way but certainly enough information to show the unreasonableness of those less-superior positions.
Yes. I also observe that it cannot be shown to be false and fanciful.So then we see, the claim in the OP can't be shown to be true and factual.
"The Knowledge Of The fact that code exists helps immensely in our ability to understand that intelligence is categorically involved in this existence."
Tracks In The Snow Embracing the shadow Hidden Treasure Jesus Christ
"Lilibet"
William: Yes I agree with the assessment. I am learning as I go along and observing where the resistance is coming from, in that process.
It is pertinent and fine to be skeptical, but it is not fine to use the position of skepticism to veil one's mind from investigating the hard-to-believe, by hand waving it away. That is not how skepticism is supposed to work.
GM: https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 6#p1103956
William: FTL:
GM: Path[Replying to Clownboat in post #436]Gah!More straw. I have not said that I assume we exist within a creation.Quote-mining and then commenting out of context is creating a strawman argument Clownboat.Post 426 William statetd: "My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation..." doesn't cease to exist as a possibility. (Underline added).
Facetious impertinence noted.Get off your cross, we need the wood!
If the reader has been following my posts, they will know that my position is that I think it highly likely that we exist in a simulated reality.It is a fact, that your position is that we exist within a creation.
Incorrect. I assume nothing of the sort, as I am still compiling the evidence. In that, as I continue to show, the evidence appears to strongly suggest that this is the case. The suggestion is strong enough that I can examine the various Creator-Claims to see if any of them "fit the bill" re the evidence.That the agent behind this creation remains a possibility does not remove your claim that you do in fact assume that we exist within a creation.
This is an incorrect analysis Clownboat. My position is still one of possible creation. It is a possibility, and therefore worth investigation.As of now, your words "the mind behind creation doesn't cease to exist as a possibility" clearly informs us that your position is one of a creation.
That you are open to the mind that you claim might be behind it being a possibility
There is no other way in which one can approach re investigation. If a mind does exist, then I am open to hearing from it.
You conflate my position as one of 'claiming' when it is one of 'thinking it possible' - That is not my "bad".helps you not with the claim you do in fact make about the creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl45nkMaYvYPlease turn in your wood.
In The Beginning...
182
In Out and All About
Path In The Beginning...
Guitar and Ukulele
Whatever you do
Aye...A name I call myself.
Through Others
The Wider Reality
Synchronicity
In William’s Room
Under question
Crop formations
Mirror-Mirror
Went To The Devil
Quantum Mechanics