All classes should pay the same rate. That is the only fair solution. Anything else makes the government the judge of who is allowed to be how wealthy.
The government should get less of everyone's money, regardless of their status. This whole idea of raising taxes on "the rich" is simply a case of special treatment. The government should see all people equally, and all people should be taxed at an equal rate. That is fairness and equality. It is not the government's job to pass judgment on who is allowed to have how much money.
Of course, many people want the government to bring "the rich" down to their level. They want the government to take things from people--as long as they aren't the ones being taken from.
This is only logical: the government is the most inefficient money-spending machine there is. It's completely irrational to give it more money before first reducing its spending. The Democrats want to throw more money after the bad, to put more money into a pocket with a hole in it. That's stupid. First make the hole smaller, then see if you even need to add more money.
And during every single time they've been in control spending has gone through the roof. But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich.
Empty, meaningless assertions. Opinion at best.
The problem is that some think the solution to the perceived imbalance (which isn't really anything new in the world) is for the government to play Robin Hood. But people can't seem to figure out that the government is the Sheriff of Nottingham; it can't be Robin Hood at the same time. The solution is to give the Sheriff less money, not to steal more of it.
Yeah, sure, after being the ones to balloon the national debt with entitlement programs--after being the ones to make the cuts necessary in the first place--they say, "You know, we need to make some cuts. And raise taxes some more, too. And you know what, we're even willing to make cuts to Social Secu...oh, wait, you mean you aren't willing to make cuts? You obstructionists!"
Someone has to stand up to the Democrats and say, "NO MORE TAXES." That responsibility falls to the Republicans.
What boggles my mind is why anyone thinks more taxes are necessary. With the enormity of government pork, inefficiencies, and failures to oversee itself (such as Inspector General posts left unmanned by none other than our very own hero of hope, President Obama), why would anyone want to give the government more money?! It's like a parent whose teen blows his allowance on booze and has none left to pay his own car insurance, and then the parent gives the teen more money to pay it. What a foolish parent! We have a situation in which the teen's peers have to step in and say to the teen's parent, "DO NOT GIVE HIM ANY MORE MONEY!" But the parent thinks that throwing more money at him will fix him, that "this time" it will work.
The logical disconnect is astounding. But I guess you can't fix stupid by the time stupid is stupid.
I probably did misunderstand you. Like I said, your words were quite vague, and sometimes contradictory or incompatible. I tried to point out how you were vague and how you could be more specific in your thinking or writing. You are free to perceive my attitude as arrogant, but I said that your thoughts are promising simply because I can tell you have thought about this a lot, but you haven't expressed your thoughts clearly; there is much potential for you to do so. Until you have articulated your own point of view clearly, I can't accurately evaluate it and respond to it. I tried to do what I could with the picture I tried to piece together.
No, I commented on the "game", exposed it if you will, but I did not play it, because I refused to answer his question with a simple "yes" or a "no". If you want a basketball analogy: he wanted me to shoot from the free-throw line, but I refuse to limit myself to that option when I can shoot a 3-pointer. But he refuses to acknowledge the existence of the 3-point line. He wants to change the rules of the game, but I refuse to play by his rules.
You haven't explained how I have contradicted myself, so your assertion is unfounded. Nice ad hominem, though.
Sorry, you're wrong. Braun did not pass Segura. Braun was out because he was tagged out while both players were standing on 2nd. In such a case, only the lead runner has the right to the base.
Sorry, you're wrong. Braun was out because he was tagged while Segura was also standing on 2nd. If Segura had not been standing on the base, Braun would not have been out when he was tagged, regardless of whether Segura had made it safely to 3rd. If two runners are touching a base at the same time, only the lead runner has the right to the base, and only he is safe.
So a situation like this is possible:
1. Segura runs from 2nd toward 3rd. 2. Braun reaches 2nd from 1st. 3. A tag is applied to Braun, but he's on 2nd, so he's safe. 4. The ball is thrown toward 3rd, but Segura is running back toward 2nd. 5. Segura arrives at 2nd. 6. A tag is applied to Segura. Both players are standing on 2nd. Being the lead runner, Segura is safe. 7. A tag is applied to Braun. Being the trailing runner, he is out.
That's actually what happened, minus step 3. Step 3 was just to illustrate that Braun is safe at 2nd until the runner ahead of him is also touching the base.
I think it's more reasonable to suggest that there are brain functions which are capable of observing and predicting and operating to produce certain physical actions, rather than estimating conceptual, statistical outcomes.
I can grant that such a mechanism might, when applied to appropriately-modeled problems, give similar outcomes as a natural process. But I think it's rather silly to suggest that a crow's brain actually tries to acquire food by "maximizing future world states", because this implies that the crow's brain is capable of reason, even on a subconscious level (isn't the crow's brain entirely subconscious?).
There's little difference between a process and "processes producing results close to a process"--that's the whole point.
Entropy is a concept we perceive and impose upon models of the universe. It's unlikely that crows also understand this process; and to claim that "the universe" or "biological processes" created such a process in the crow's brain is nearly to anthropomorphize such non-human concepts. To say that a computer program designed to solve an artificial problem modeled to human specifications is likely similar to the process in a crow's brain which solves real-world problems which are infinitely more complex seems ludicrous to me, like a solution in search of a problem.
In the meantime, neurological researchers are trying to figure out how brains actually work...
You sound like a lawyer, friend. Am I on trial here?
I submit that you are intentionally framing the question to make it appear that I'm contradicting myself. You're ignoring the clarification I gave of my answer: that there's a difference between declaring the entirety of what exists in such a realm (which is unknowable, and not my claim) vs. declaring a portion of what exists in it based on the presupposition that our universe was created by a higher being (which is reasonable, and my claim). You're not seeking truth right now; you're merely seeking to make me look foolish. This is just like a trial in which a lawyer is not seeking truth but victory for his client.
You are simply creating God in your own image. You are delineating his boundaries according to your finite, human perception.
Who are you to say what God is supposed to do? That is simply creating God in your own image, putting him in a box of your own design. If God created the universe, if he created matter and energy and natural laws, how could he be bound by your ideas?
So, not only is The God beyond your "finite, human perception" (end of any conversation on this topic - with you), you want to "seal the deal" by piling reverse appeal to authority on top of that?
See, there are couple of problems there. Not only is your opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about ("finite, human perception", God unknowable, goodnight) and that anything you say on the topic of The God is essentially bullshit (i.e. talking about something you no nothing about - as it is beyond your "finite, human perception") - you are somehow an expert on what the omni-doubleplusgoodwitheverything-creature is NOT supposed to do.
You're creating a false dichotomy: that either we can know everything about God or nothing about God. This is not logical. Having a finite, limited perception precludes us from having a complete understanding of him, but it does not mean that we cannot understand anything about him. This is especially so if one believes that God has chosen to reveal certain aspects of himself to us; this is only admitting that we can know what he has made known.
Who are you to say what God is supposed to do?
Who are you to QUESTION what The God is supposed to do? Are you saying The God is NOT omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent? If The God is all that - then it is supposed to be doing good things all the time - or the benevolence goes out the window.
Again, you have not answered my argument, and you have simply reasserted that God is supposed to do what you think he is supposed to do--that you are the judge of what is benevolent. I question these assumptions you are making, but you are accepting them without question. Ironically, you imply that I am the naive one.
And you actually dare to question others, with your "finite, human perception" of the subject, as if there is some objective authority on the subject of The God, and you are in possession of said authority?
What's next? You're gonna say that The God talks to you? Sure it's not The Dog? One CAN easily confuse them.
I guess you are misunderstanding me, and I think you are projecting on me ideas and beliefs and arguments from other people. I have the impression that you are angry as well, perhaps at people who believed in God yet treated you badly.
I think it's very important to question everything you believe. If you don't know why you believe what you believe, do you really know what you believe? Is your faith strong?
Please do not misunderstand me, friend: I do believe there is an objective authority on God, and I believe that authority is solely himself. I do not possess such authority. I only possess what I believe to be the words which he inspired and intended to be passed on to us today, words which I can interpret and comprehend only in accordance with my limitations as a human being. I don't claim that he speaks to me in visions or dreams or anything like that. You're absolutely right to be skeptical of anyone who makes such claims--they could simply be hearing what they ate for dinner that night.
Feel free to keep on arguing. I'm gonna go sleep instead.
Sleep well, friend! I hope you wake up with renewed passion for seeking truth, casting aside the shackles of ideas that others try to impose on you. Don't take my word for anything! Investigate the truth yourself and make up your own mind. The stakes are too high to rely on anyone on earth!
If it's so clear, friend, why don't you explain it instead of asserting it? Or are you playing semantic games by missing my intended meaning? I guess if you can't figure out what I mean then maybe you shouldn't listen to me...or maybe you should keep trying to understand me so we could both come to knowledge of the truth.
Your arguments do so many mental backflips that I dissuaded from believing anything you say simply by it's association with you.
Well, at least you admit your logical fallacy, but that doesn't excuse it, nor your ad hominems. You could try to argue rather than making assertions and insults...couldn't you?
We're in agreement on that. I can't prove there is a God or an afterlife, and I can't prove the reverse. Therefore, believing in them is not contrary to reason (unless you have other assumptions, such as a faith in strict materialism). However, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who allows us to perceive reality through our senses does run into a contradiction. Either one recognizes that and changes one's beliefs, or one rejects reason as pertaining to religion.
I honestly don't understand the contradiction you are referring to. If it's what you refer to later about omnibenevolence, I'll answer that later.
But one thing you haven't mentioned is the question of reason itself. I would submit that, if a supernatural being did create the entire universe--matter and energy and physical laws--from nothingness (as best we can imagine true nothingness), then our concept of reason would by definition be limited compared to his, and our efforts to apply reason to him for the sake of understanding him, however diligent and fair, would necessarily fall short. Therefore we should admit that, simply because we cannot reasonably understand something doesn't mean it is invalid or untrue or non-existent. Please note, however, that this does not require "rejecting reason as pertaining to religion," but simply recognizing our human finiteness. Just as modern medicine cannot heal all diseases, it is still useful; just as science cannot completely explain all natural processes or laws, it is still useful. We simply must humbly remember our limitations.
I made some bad assumptions about you personally, and I apologize for that. I was projecting what I've seen in others onto you.
Thank you for admitting that.
However, upthread you were arguing that we didn't now what omniscience would be like, and I find that puzzling. I'm clearly not omniscient, and don't know what it would be like. I do know that the effect would be knowing everything. Omnipotence is similar. These are fairly simple concepts, overall, even if we can't possibly apprehend them in detail. They would mean, making common assumptions, that everything is in accordance with God's will.
I find your arguments puzzling. Logically, since we cannot know everything, we cannot know what it would be like to know everything. It's easy to say, "the effect would be that I would know everything," but it's impossible, by definition, to know what the effect of knowing everything would be--so it's impossible to know what it would be like to be omniscient. A poor analogy would be to say, "If I knew how to play the piano, I'd know how to play the piano." (A Yogism if I've ever heard one!) But unless one actually knows how to play the piano, one cannot explain to someone else what it is like to play the piano; one cannot know or even truly imagine the ideas and "worlds" that would then be open to one's mind and abilities. It is one thing to listen to someone else express certain musical ideas on the piano--it is another thing entirely to be able to express certain ideas yourself, and greater still to be able to create and express new ideas. But unless you know how to play the piano, you can't even know what the piano is capable of expressing--or, at least, you only know what you have heard so far, and you can't even investigate it yourself.
Omnibenevolence is subject to more debate. In context, it means that everything that happens is for the best. It's certainly arguable that much suffering is a consequence of free will (another metaphysical concept that can't be proven), and I shouldn't have used waterboarding as an example, but it's obvious that much suffering has no direct or apparent indirect connection with human moral decisions. It appears that animals can suffer unnecessarily, and I don't see that they're capable of sinning in the human sense, so it looks to me like there is unnecessary suffering that has nothing
Hi. If you haven't exhausted your enthusiasm for arguing about this, maybe you'll find me more entertaining than the other guy....
I'm always interested in truth and the idea of it.:)
If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is, regardless of what we think, feel, or believe about him.
I'm not sure this is completely true. Certainly there is truth to it, but there is also a lot in my experience that says that what god is can not be completely decoupled or separated from what we think about god. In other words, god isn't totally distinct from our thoughts about god.
Sorry, but you're presupposing that God only exists as a concept in our minds. This is not logical. For example, there may be planets orbiting other stars which we have not detected. Whether we know of their existence does not change whether they exist. If we do detect them, whether we detect their characteristics accurately does not change their actual characteristics. In the same way, if a supernatural creator being does exist, he exists independently of our realization, understanding, or acknowledgment. For God's existence or characteristics to depend on our thoughts would make us the creators of him, would make us God. Since we are unable to create matter or energy from nothing, we are not supernatural creator beings, and not God.
Obviously we can't just make up anything we want to about god and expect it to make sense. And maybe almost as obviously, we're not presently capable of making up anything about god that does completely make sense.
This raises the question of what "makes sense." Makes sense to who? If God exists or has attribute A, but we don't think he exists or don't think he has attribute A, that doesn't change whether he exists or has attribute A--whether something "makes sense" to anyone doesn't change what actually is the case.
But I'm not sure that the question "what is god like?" has an answer that's completely distinct from "what is god like,for us?", and the answer to the second question is interdependent with our thoughts about god.
You're basically arguing here that we can't really "know" anything; that there is no reality other than our own perception of it. This is not logical, however: while two people may perceive a certain wavelength of light as different colors, the fact that the light exists and has a certain frequency doesn't change.
It doesn't seem to me that there is a completely clean distinction that can be made between 'god' and 'idol'.
This statement depends entirely on your definitions of the terms "god" and "idol." When I say, "God," I refer to an almighty creator being. When you say, "god," I don't know what you mean--perhaps some ideas influenced by mythological characters and polytheistic religions. When I say, "idol," I refer to a concept, object, or being, real or imagined, which is worshiped, other than God. When you say, "idol," I don't know what you mean--apparently the same as when you say, "god."
Most people assume, for instance, that scripture is either inspired by god or not, and if it is inspired by god, then any problems it has must be errors in interpretation. This assumption doesn't not fit my experience and observation well at all.
Other potential problems include transcriptional and translational errors. It's entirely possible to believe that the original writings--which we do not have--were inspired by God and still recognize the potential for mistakes in the human preservational processes. It has been argued that God, rather than handing down already-written documents, purposely worked within humans and human processes to communicate his message. As to why, this is debatable. One possible reason is to prevent the documents themselves from being worshiped as
Slashdot Mirror
All classes should pay the same rate. That is the only fair solution. Anything else makes the government the judge of who is allowed to be how wealthy.
The government should get less of everyone's money, regardless of their status. This whole idea of raising taxes on "the rich" is simply a case of special treatment. The government should see all people equally, and all people should be taxed at an equal rate. That is fairness and equality. It is not the government's job to pass judgment on who is allowed to have how much money.
Of course, many people want the government to bring "the rich" down to their level. They want the government to take things from people--as long as they aren't the ones being taken from.
Irrational, opportunistic hypocrites.
This is only logical: the government is the most inefficient money-spending machine there is. It's completely irrational to give it more money before first reducing its spending. The Democrats want to throw more money after the bad, to put more money into a pocket with a hole in it. That's stupid. First make the hole smaller, then see if you even need to add more money.
And during every single time they've been in control spending has gone through the roof. But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich.
Empty, meaningless assertions. Opinion at best.
The problem is that some think the solution to the perceived imbalance (which isn't really anything new in the world) is for the government to play Robin Hood. But people can't seem to figure out that the government is the Sheriff of Nottingham; it can't be Robin Hood at the same time. The solution is to give the Sheriff less money, not to steal more of it.
Yeah, sure, after being the ones to balloon the national debt with entitlement programs--after being the ones to make the cuts necessary in the first place--they say, "You know, we need to make some cuts. And raise taxes some more, too. And you know what, we're even willing to make cuts to Social Secu...oh, wait, you mean you aren't willing to make cuts? You obstructionists!"
Someone has to stand up to the Democrats and say, "NO MORE TAXES." That responsibility falls to the Republicans.
What boggles my mind is why anyone thinks more taxes are necessary. With the enormity of government pork, inefficiencies, and failures to oversee itself (such as Inspector General posts left unmanned by none other than our very own hero of hope, President Obama), why would anyone want to give the government more money?! It's like a parent whose teen blows his allowance on booze and has none left to pay his own car insurance, and then the parent gives the teen more money to pay it. What a foolish parent! We have a situation in which the teen's peers have to step in and say to the teen's parent, "DO NOT GIVE HIM ANY MORE MONEY!" But the parent thinks that throwing more money at him will fix him, that "this time" it will work.
The logical disconnect is astounding. But I guess you can't fix stupid by the time stupid is stupid.
Yeah, pointing out bias in moderation is flamebait. Thanks for proving my point.
I probably did misunderstand you. Like I said, your words were quite vague, and sometimes contradictory or incompatible. I tried to point out how you were vague and how you could be more specific in your thinking or writing. You are free to perceive my attitude as arrogant, but I said that your thoughts are promising simply because I can tell you have thought about this a lot, but you haven't expressed your thoughts clearly; there is much potential for you to do so. Until you have articulated your own point of view clearly, I can't accurately evaluate it and respond to it. I tried to do what I could with the picture I tried to piece together.
No, I commented on the "game", exposed it if you will, but I did not play it, because I refused to answer his question with a simple "yes" or a "no". If you want a basketball analogy: he wanted me to shoot from the free-throw line, but I refuse to limit myself to that option when I can shoot a 3-pointer. But he refuses to acknowledge the existence of the 3-point line. He wants to change the rules of the game, but I refuse to play by his rules.
You haven't explained how I have contradicted myself, so your assertion is unfounded. Nice ad hominem, though.
No, by reason I mean reason, as in thinking logically about cause and effect.
Species chauvinistic? Really?
No, Braun didn't pass Segura because he didn't try to advance to 3rd.
Sorry, you're wrong. Braun did not pass Segura. Braun was out because he was tagged out while both players were standing on 2nd. In such a case, only the lead runner has the right to the base.
Sorry, you're wrong. Braun was out because he was tagged while Segura was also standing on 2nd. If Segura had not been standing on the base, Braun would not have been out when he was tagged, regardless of whether Segura had made it safely to 3rd. If two runners are touching a base at the same time, only the lead runner has the right to the base, and only he is safe.
So a situation like this is possible:
1. Segura runs from 2nd toward 3rd.
2. Braun reaches 2nd from 1st.
3. A tag is applied to Braun, but he's on 2nd, so he's safe.
4. The ball is thrown toward 3rd, but Segura is running back toward 2nd.
5. Segura arrives at 2nd.
6. A tag is applied to Segura. Both players are standing on 2nd. Being the lead runner, Segura is safe.
7. A tag is applied to Braun. Being the trailing runner, he is out.
That's actually what happened, minus step 3. Step 3 was just to illustrate that Braun is safe at 2nd until the runner ahead of him is also touching the base.
But would it have been modded down if he's said, "Republican"?
Truer words...
I think it's more reasonable to suggest that there are brain functions which are capable of observing and predicting and operating to produce certain physical actions, rather than estimating conceptual, statistical outcomes.
I can grant that such a mechanism might, when applied to appropriately-modeled problems, give similar outcomes as a natural process. But I think it's rather silly to suggest that a crow's brain actually tries to acquire food by "maximizing future world states", because this implies that the crow's brain is capable of reason, even on a subconscious level (isn't the crow's brain entirely subconscious?).
There's little difference between a process and "processes producing results close to a process"--that's the whole point.
Entropy is a concept we perceive and impose upon models of the universe. It's unlikely that crows also understand this process; and to claim that "the universe" or "biological processes" created such a process in the crow's brain is nearly to anthropomorphize such non-human concepts. To say that a computer program designed to solve an artificial problem modeled to human specifications is likely similar to the process in a crow's brain which solves real-world problems which are infinitely more complex seems ludicrous to me, like a solution in search of a problem.
In the meantime, neurological researchers are trying to figure out how brains actually work...
You sound like a lawyer, friend. Am I on trial here?
I submit that you are intentionally framing the question to make it appear that I'm contradicting myself. You're ignoring the clarification I gave of my answer: that there's a difference between declaring the entirety of what exists in such a realm (which is unknowable, and not my claim) vs. declaring a portion of what exists in it based on the presupposition that our universe was created by a higher being (which is reasonable, and my claim). You're not seeking truth right now; you're merely seeking to make me look foolish. This is just like a trial in which a lawyer is not seeking truth but victory for his client.
I decline to play this game.
You are simply creating God in your own image. You are delineating his boundaries according to your finite, human perception.
Who are you to say what God is supposed to do? That is simply creating God in your own image, putting him in a box of your own design. If God created the universe, if he created matter and energy and natural laws, how could he be bound by your ideas?
So, not only is The God beyond your "finite, human perception" (end of any conversation on this topic - with you), you want to "seal the deal" by piling reverse appeal to authority on top of that?
See, there are couple of problems there.
Not only is your opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about ("finite, human perception", God unknowable, goodnight) and that anything you say on the topic of The God is essentially bullshit (i.e. talking about something you no nothing about - as it is beyond your "finite, human perception") - you are somehow an expert on what the omni-doubleplusgoodwitheverything-creature is NOT supposed to do.
You're creating a false dichotomy: that either we can know everything about God or nothing about God. This is not logical. Having a finite, limited perception precludes us from having a complete understanding of him, but it does not mean that we cannot understand anything about him. This is especially so if one believes that God has chosen to reveal certain aspects of himself to us; this is only admitting that we can know what he has made known.
Who are you to say what God is supposed to do?
Who are you to QUESTION what The God is supposed to do? Are you saying The God is NOT omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent?
If The God is all that - then it is supposed to be doing good things all the time - or the benevolence goes out the window.
Again, you have not answered my argument, and you have simply reasserted that God is supposed to do what you think he is supposed to do--that you are the judge of what is benevolent. I question these assumptions you are making, but you are accepting them without question. Ironically, you imply that I am the naive one.
And you actually dare to question others, with your "finite, human perception" of the subject, as if there is some objective authority on the subject of The God, and you are in possession of said authority?
What's next? You're gonna say that The God talks to you?
Sure it's not The Dog? One CAN easily confuse them.
I guess you are misunderstanding me, and I think you are projecting on me ideas and beliefs and arguments from other people. I have the impression that you are angry as well, perhaps at people who believed in God yet treated you badly.
I think it's very important to question everything you believe. If you don't know why you believe what you believe, do you really know what you believe? Is your faith strong?
Please do not misunderstand me, friend: I do believe there is an objective authority on God, and I believe that authority is solely himself. I do not possess such authority. I only possess what I believe to be the words which he inspired and intended to be passed on to us today, words which I can interpret and comprehend only in accordance with my limitations as a human being. I don't claim that he speaks to me in visions or dreams or anything like that. You're absolutely right to be skeptical of anyone who makes such claims--they could simply be hearing what they ate for dinner that night.
Feel free to keep on arguing. I'm gonna go sleep instead.
Sleep well, friend! I hope you wake up with renewed passion for seeking truth, casting aside the shackles of ideas that others try to impose on you. Don't take my word for anything! Investigate the truth yourself and make up your own mind. The stakes are too high to rely on anyone on earth!
If it's so clear, friend, why don't you explain it instead of asserting it? Or are you playing semantic games by missing my intended meaning? I guess if you can't figure out what I mean then maybe you shouldn't listen to me...or maybe you should keep trying to understand me so we could both come to knowledge of the truth.
Your arguments do so many mental backflips that I dissuaded from believing anything you say simply by it's association with you.
Well, at least you admit your logical fallacy, but that doesn't excuse it, nor your ad hominems. You could try to argue rather than making assertions and insults...couldn't you?
We're in agreement on that. I can't prove there is a God or an afterlife, and I can't prove the reverse. Therefore, believing in them is not contrary to reason (unless you have other assumptions, such as a faith in strict materialism). However, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who allows us to perceive reality through our senses does run into a contradiction. Either one recognizes that and changes one's beliefs, or one rejects reason as pertaining to religion.
I honestly don't understand the contradiction you are referring to. If it's what you refer to later about omnibenevolence, I'll answer that later.
But one thing you haven't mentioned is the question of reason itself. I would submit that, if a supernatural being did create the entire universe--matter and energy and physical laws--from nothingness (as best we can imagine true nothingness), then our concept of reason would by definition be limited compared to his, and our efforts to apply reason to him for the sake of understanding him, however diligent and fair, would necessarily fall short. Therefore we should admit that, simply because we cannot reasonably understand something doesn't mean it is invalid or untrue or non-existent. Please note, however, that this does not require "rejecting reason as pertaining to religion," but simply recognizing our human finiteness. Just as modern medicine cannot heal all diseases, it is still useful; just as science cannot completely explain all natural processes or laws, it is still useful. We simply must humbly remember our limitations.
I made some bad assumptions about you personally, and I apologize for that. I was projecting what I've seen in others onto you.
Thank you for admitting that.
However, upthread you were arguing that we didn't now what omniscience would be like, and I find that puzzling. I'm clearly not omniscient, and don't know what it would be like. I do know that the effect would be knowing everything. Omnipotence is similar. These are fairly simple concepts, overall, even if we can't possibly apprehend them in detail. They would mean, making common assumptions, that everything is in accordance with God's will.
I find your arguments puzzling. Logically, since we cannot know everything, we cannot know what it would be like to know everything. It's easy to say, "the effect would be that I would know everything," but it's impossible, by definition, to know what the effect of knowing everything would be--so it's impossible to know what it would be like to be omniscient. A poor analogy would be to say, "If I knew how to play the piano, I'd know how to play the piano." (A Yogism if I've ever heard one!) But unless one actually knows how to play the piano, one cannot explain to someone else what it is like to play the piano; one cannot know or even truly imagine the ideas and "worlds" that would then be open to one's mind and abilities. It is one thing to listen to someone else express certain musical ideas on the piano--it is another thing entirely to be able to express certain ideas yourself, and greater still to be able to create and express new ideas. But unless you know how to play the piano, you can't even know what the piano is capable of expressing--or, at least, you only know what you have heard so far, and you can't even investigate it yourself.
Omnibenevolence is subject to more debate. In context, it means that everything that happens is for the best. It's certainly arguable that much suffering is a consequence of free will (another metaphysical concept that can't be proven), and I shouldn't have used waterboarding as an example, but it's obvious that much suffering has no direct or apparent indirect connection with human moral decisions. It appears that animals can suffer unnecessarily, and I don't see that they're capable of sinning in the human sense, so it looks to me like there is unnecessary suffering that has nothing
Hi. If you haven't exhausted your enthusiasm for arguing about this, maybe you'll find me more entertaining than the other guy....
I'm always interested in truth and the idea of it. :)
If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is, regardless of what we think, feel, or believe about him.
I'm not sure this is completely true. Certainly there is truth to it, but there is also a lot in my experience that says that what god is can not be completely decoupled or separated from what we think about god. In other words, god isn't totally distinct from our thoughts about god.
Sorry, but you're presupposing that God only exists as a concept in our minds. This is not logical. For example, there may be planets orbiting other stars which we have not detected. Whether we know of their existence does not change whether they exist. If we do detect them, whether we detect their characteristics accurately does not change their actual characteristics. In the same way, if a supernatural creator being does exist, he exists independently of our realization, understanding, or acknowledgment. For God's existence or characteristics to depend on our thoughts would make us the creators of him, would make us God. Since we are unable to create matter or energy from nothing, we are not supernatural creator beings, and not God.
Obviously we can't just make up anything we want to about god and expect it to make sense. And maybe almost as obviously, we're not presently capable of making up anything about god that does completely make sense.
This raises the question of what "makes sense." Makes sense to who? If God exists or has attribute A, but we don't think he exists or don't think he has attribute A, that doesn't change whether he exists or has attribute A--whether something "makes sense" to anyone doesn't change what actually is the case.
But I'm not sure that the question "what is god like?" has an answer that's completely distinct from "what is god like ,for us?", and the answer to the second question is interdependent with our thoughts about god.
You're basically arguing here that we can't really "know" anything; that there is no reality other than our own perception of it. This is not logical, however: while two people may perceive a certain wavelength of light as different colors, the fact that the light exists and has a certain frequency doesn't change.
It doesn't seem to me that there is a completely clean distinction that can be made between 'god' and 'idol'.
This statement depends entirely on your definitions of the terms "god" and "idol." When I say, "God," I refer to an almighty creator being. When you say, "god," I don't know what you mean--perhaps some ideas influenced by mythological characters and polytheistic religions. When I say, "idol," I refer to a concept, object, or being, real or imagined, which is worshiped, other than God. When you say, "idol," I don't know what you mean--apparently the same as when you say, "god."
Most people assume, for instance, that scripture is either inspired by god or not, and if it is inspired by god, then any problems it has must be errors in interpretation. This assumption doesn't not fit my experience and observation well at all.
Other potential problems include transcriptional and translational errors. It's entirely possible to believe that the original writings--which we do not have--were inspired by God and still recognize the potential for mistakes in the human preservational processes. It has been argued that God, rather than handing down already-written documents, purposely worked within humans and human processes to communicate his message. As to why, this is debatable. One possible reason is to prevent the documents themselves from being worshiped as
Mod up.
But doesn't running the simulation require defining what states are possible? Isn't that being specific, even clunky?