Death

[Immanuel Can]

"A Supreme Being" with no need for distractions, with perfect intent, who never fails.

You've described the perfect computer (which is what some suggest the universe 'is').

Not at all. I've merely listed three attributes which people might (wrongly) associate with a computer, but which are not actually features of a computer at all, and in any case are far from the exhaustive story on the Supreme Being.

Computers only are impervious to "distraction" because it's not sentient, not because it is perfectly interesting in itself. As for intent, it has none, just as it has no volition: computers don't *want* anything. And, of course, computers can fail; they do all the time.

As for additional qualities of the Supreme Being I did not include in those three, there are things like will, creativity, intention, character, purpose....and so on. All of those are features of God too, but not at all of computers. And computers are also contingent items, not necessary entities. But above all, God is a "Person"; not in a limited way analogical to our own personhood, but rather in a prototypical way, as exceeding our personhood.

In short, He's more of a "person" than we are. We're the faint copies. He's the Original. We are "made in the image of God," as the Bible says; He is not merely made in ours.

[Immanuel Can]

Bernard:

you'll will probably never get that.

I "get" it...I know the view very well.

I just think it's wrong.

That's a different thing.

Do you see how out of kilter that reply is to the one you just made above?

Not at all. Perhaps you should explain.

[henry quirk]

I wrote perfect computer.

And: if 'god' has no need for distractions, has perfect intent, and never fails, these qualities negate "will, creativity, intention, character, purpose"

If god is perfect, (god’s thinking is perfect), then god has no need to create Reality (since it exists perfectly in god’s thinking already).

For god to desire Reality 'be' is to admit god is not perfect (since it only by way of a lack that god would move to do 'anything').

Not seein' how you can have it both ways, Manny.

If god is perfect (in all ways) then God has no need (to create).

If god is imperfect then God may have the biggest stick, but not necessarily the superior perspective (leaving you with my 'On the subject of 'god'...' up-thread).

[Immanuel Can]

Not seein' how you can it both ways, Manny.

If god is perfect (in all ways) then God has no need (to create).

I agree. God has no *need* to create. But "need" is not one of the categories I attributed to Him. On the other hand, if He *wants* to create, who's going to stop a Supreme Being from doing it?

You need to stop thinking of the Biblical God as a "force" governed by necessity, and realize He's a Person capable of willing and doing as He pleases.

But this is a very different question from why God might choose to create us.

If god is imperfect then God may have the biggest stick, but not necessarily the superior perspective (leaving you with my 'On the subject of 'god'...' up-thread).

From what "perspective" shall we judge the Supreme Being? What "morality" will we draw on to define Him as falling short of it? Human morality, at its very best, is only a contingent, changeable derivative of His.

So with reference to what standard is it that you have determined you can weigh the Supreme Being and find him "deficient" in the balance?

[henry quirk]

"But "need" is not one of the categories I attributed to Him."

Missing my point entirely.

Again...

If god is perfect, (god’s thinking is perfect), then god has no need to create Reality (since it exists perfectly in god’s thinking already).

For god to desire Reality 'be' is to admit god is not perfect (since it only by way of a lack that god would move to do 'anything').

If god 'wants' then god cannot be perfect...if god is not perfect then why should I give a flip what god wants or does (except as information to help me to navigate around god)?

#

"He's a Person capable of willing and doing as He pleases."

If perfect then god should will nuthin', do nuthin'.

If not perfect, then god is just another obstacle.

#

"From what "perspective" shall we (or, you, Henry) judge the Supreme Being?"

The same standard by which I judge all fictions (and obstacles): *my own.









*which, as of now, remains unchallenged

[Bernard]

Bernard:

Do you see how out of kilter that reply is to the one you just made above?

Not at all. Perhaps you should explain.

The Christ appellation was used during his lifetime in a different way than it was used by Christendom. It was like calling Elvis the King. It just basically meant that the man had found great gifts in himself and used them to his best ability. Christians exaggerate this to the point of making Jesus Christ the greatest manifestation of God in all existence. This is nuts: firstly because there is no way of knowing all the manifestations of life and secondly because life has forever been, and will forever be, and so the possibilities are limitless as to what its manifestations may be in terms of individual living things. But what you religious types do is create a beginning and end point to life where its most convenient for you to do so. Typically you place human life one cut short of God (with a few angels in between)and decide to end everything there and keep us all living in an infinite state of changeless boredom so as to maintain the heirarchy of heaven ,,, which,,, surprise surprise,,, is reflected here on earth in the human religious - and therefore political - heirarchical order. Its about power and greed.

[Immanuel Can]

The Christ appellation was used during his lifetime in a different way than it was used by Christendom. It was like calling Elvis the King. It just basically meant that the man had found great gifts in himself and used them to his best ability. Christians exaggerate this to the point of making Jesus Christ the greatest manifestation of God in all existence.

I don't think...no, I should be more definite than that...I'm quite sure that you don't actually know what Christianity teaches; I can judge by your comments. I also am waiting to see from what source you claim to have knowledge about Christ that is not Biblical. Please be frank with that. I do not know to what you are reacting, but it is certainly not to Christianity, whatever it is.

This is nuts: firstly because there is no way of knowing all the manifestations of life and secondly because life has forever been, and will forever be, and so the possibilities are limitless as to what its manifestations may be in terms of individual living things

.
I have to honestly confess I have no idea what you're going on about in these lines. They just look to me like a random rant. What is it all about?

But what you religious types do is create a beginning and end point to life where its most convenient for you to do so. Typically you place human life one cut short of God (with a few angels in between)and decide to end everything there and keep us all living in an infinite state of changeless boredom so as to maintain the heirarchy of heaven ,,, which,,, surprise surprise,,, is reflected here on earth in the human religious - and therefore political - heirarchical order. Its about power and greed.

Again, you're not reacting to any Christianity I know. I honestly can't help clear up your misconceptions, because I have no idea where you're even getting them. Are you suggesting I'm personally motivated by "power and greed"? Since you don't know me from Adam, I can't imagine how you decided that. Or are you trying to claim that the group of Christians with whom I'm associated are involved in "power and greed"? Again, you have no idea what you're alleging. Now, I would *hope* the former is not true, but I can certainly disprove the latter.

You've lost me.

[Bernard]

Look, I appreciate the good things in Christianity, but the thing has a lot of history to it that many refuse to look into, and thus deny themselves some very obvious and irrefutable facts. But in general the same basic schemata is still there and is full of holes. You don't have to look to the bible to learn who Jesus was. There are dead sea scrolls, nag hammadi, the gnostics, some Roman and other historical references, and you need to look at history in general as conclusively as possible - other cultures of his time - influences from India, Greece, Europe. What was Constantine about? The Nicean council? How did St Paul really fit in? I also chose a quote from a Gibran book on Jesus which sums up beautifully who the Christ. Don't thimnk its Gibran's imagination - better than old Bible, I can assure. But above all there is yourself and the questions to ask yourself of what is being presented to you.

My comments are not personal toward you unless they are taken so by you,,, in so far as I'm shooting at Christian faults.

Quote:
This is nuts: firstly because there is no way of knowing all the manifestations of life and secondly because life has forever been, and will forever be, and so the possibilities are limitless as to what its manifestations may be in terms of individual living things
.
I have to honestly confess I have no idea what you're going on about in these lines. They just look to me like a random rant. What is it all about?

Well, its about what I see about life, to wit: life/existence is composed exclusively of living things. There is no observable beginning or end to life, and therefore of living things as well, seeing as life is composed exclusively of living things. Not only is there no observable beginning or end to life/existence, but nothing else can be imagined or invented whatsover, in any shape or form, to replace it with... it is all there is! Some people say life emerged from nothing and goes back to nothing, but as we know, things just don't reduce to nothing or accumulate from nothing.

[QMan]

Now you seem to equate philosophy with logic. This is a mistake. The persuit of wisdom isn't the persuit of reason. Wisdom is quite different territory. Wit is closer to wisdom than reason, etymologically and otherwise. It's a Modern mistake. Philosophers of today would find those of old quite surprisingly different company than they might imagine them to be.

Wisdom from "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy":

The most successful wisdom theory is the Deep Rationality Theory (DRT). In other words, to be wise, you must also be deeply rational (among other things). According to the DRT wise people do not think they know when they lack sufficient evidence. Since your claims are no more than pure opinion and speculation there is no wisdom in what you say and you should certainly not be believed.

Look, conclusions are just points of reference along the way that often soon become redundant. It's the journeying that counts.. Journey without end.

Wrong again. Points of reference pre-exist conclusions, they are markers that are already available while conclusions have yet to be formed as a result of your making progress with the process. Once conclusions are arrived at, they become relevant facts and not ignorable redundancies. Also, really, your Journey is without end? Not if you don't believe in a hereafter it isn't! Let me know the name of the travel agent you got that journey through.

[Bernard]

Of course reason is very important to be used well in philosophy but its not the goal. Logicians were once a separate entity to philosophy until imperialist culture got a hold of it and put it at the forefront of philosophical thinking because it suit its purposes.

Look at what's happened to Chinese philosophy in the last 100 years... same as what's happened to us in the last 500. the mysticism, intuition and spirituality has become divorced from philosophy.

Points of reference are derived from conclusions as much as they pre-empt them.

For God's sake don't believe in me or anyone else, but believe, believe.

Its fine if what I say is speculation and opinion only for you. Its not for me. You don't expect a free course on what Bernard thinks, how he thinks, how he comes by what he thinks, and why he expresses things in the way he does do you? You and I haven't got time for that. You can't expect such things from others on a public forums.

[QMan]

Of course reason is very important to be used well in philosophy but its not the goal. Logicians were once a separate entity to philosophy until imperialist culture got a hold of it and put it at the forefront of philosophical thinking because it suit its purposes.

Look at what's happened to Chinese philosophy in the last 100 years... same as what's happened to us in the last 500. the mysticism, intuition and spirituality has become divorced from philosophy.

Points of reference are derived from conclusions as much as they pre-empt them.

For God's sake don't believe in me or anyone else, but believe, believe.

Its fine if what I say is speculation and opinion only for you. Its not for me. You don't expect a free course on what Bernard thinks, how he thinks, how he comes by what he thinks, and why he expresses things in the way he does do you? You and I haven't got time for that. You can't expect such things from others on a public forums.

I won't quibble with you Bernard. I certainly do believe but not necessarily blindly, which we really shouldn't, don't you agree. So I like to place my bets for my belief with the highest probabilities. There are many who say they belief but unless you know that what they belief in makes sense, you have to be careful. Take the current beliefs in the legalization of marijuana in the USA, which is predictably going to be highly detrimental and send our society into a downward spiral. My beliefs are no good if they don't create a Good for society. So, I don't belief without rhyme and reason.

[Bernard]

For sure, be wide awake about believing. I don't quite agree that beliefs have to make sense because many people have acted on gut instinct to get out of peril, and it made no sense to them at all at the time but they believed it would work, and it did. I regard belief as more like a mood, a disposition with which one welcomes each new challenge: 24/7 belief in the here and now - my travel agent actually. Look them up. They are located at the center, which is everywhere.

[Immanuel Can]

Look, I appreciate the good things in Christianity,

It doesn't seem to me that you even know what these things are. I hate to guess, but I think you must have a very poor acquaintance indeed with this subject. And though I can't say what this acquaintance is, I'm absolutely certain my own is far more extensive.

very obvious and irrefutable facts.

This is what people usually say when they know they're bluffing and don't want to be questioned. Is that you?

There are dead sea scrolls, nag hammadi, the gnostics, some Roman and other historical references,

I'm afraid, Bernard, that this is proof-positive you're bluffing. You don't know what's in the Dead Sea Scrolls, clearly; you also have not read the Nag Hammadi manuscripts (I have) and you don't know what the Gnostics were all about (I've read their stuff too: some of which is from the NH manuscripts, but not all is)...as for "other historical references," that just sounds like you ran out of sources you hadn't read. They would need to be better than the ones you've listed, or they'd be worthless to your cause. I'm sorry to "call you out" on that, but I don't know how else to point out that you're simply not right.

There is no observable beginning or end to life, and therefore of living things as well, seeing as life is composed exclusively of living things.

Non sequitur: it does not follow. If one cannot "observe" a thing, it does not mean it *has* no end; it just means one's perspective is limited to as far as one can see. One cannot "see" the end; it still may have one.

Bernard, I mean this very kindly: let me suggest that instead of trying to lob verbal "hand grenades" at Theism to see if it will "blow up," you get honest with yourself and admit that maybe you haven't seen it all yet. Why not go and meet some real Theists, have a talk with them, see what kinds of people they are, and what they really think and do. Then start forming judgments. I think you will meet some extraordinary people. Then if you still want to throw hand grenades at them, at least you can do it from knowledge, not from mere speculation, conjecture and mis-guess.

Don't bluff: find out.

[Bernard]

Only one of us here knows what I've read and researched, and its not you.

Non sequitur: it does not follow. If one cannot "observe" a thing, it does not mean it *has* no end; it just means one's perspective is limited to as far as one can see. One cannot "see" the end; it still may have one.

Not when we are talking about existence..
You have to assume it is innocent of mortality until proven guilty.
A hard ask for Christians.

[Bernard]

There are three types of in dependant existence in Christianity: God's existence (we know this is independent because it came before any other existence). Two: the existence od the world and us. Three: the existence of heaven, a post-death place basically unless you feel inclined to take Jesus with a bit more seriousness than your little Christian mind is used to and see heaven spread out before you on earth.