Now I know I'm supposed to be taking something altogether different from this post, but dang the man in that image is VERY handsome (read fine as hell but since that is about the Bible I'll elevate a bit, lol). A hair cut and a shave and he could be on GQ!
That may be, but what is the point of your question? Are you attempting to suggest that God doesnt exist or are you pointing out that we cant say for sure that God exists. Either way your inquiries are fully responded to by the term faith. Really, what more is there to explore?
No, I'm not DV. You kill me with the "I wasnt talking to you, I was talking to so and so" bit. Are you interested in discourse or are you simply hell bent on (finally) trying to pin DV on something? If its the latter, than I'll shut up. If its the former, then make your next point. Or should I say ask your next question. Rarely do you ever depart from questions and make a point.
* S: (n) beauty (the qualities that give pleasure to the senses)
Note the word "qualities".
qual·i·ty (kwŏl'ĭ-tē) pronunciation n., pl. -ties.
1. 1. An inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property.
"distinguishing characteristic" = a specification.
Ergo, Beauty not only can be specified, it must be specified.
To some "beauty" is a painting of particular (specific) colors and shapes and combinations thereof. To others "beauty" is the look of a woman of certain (specific) combination of color of hair, facial shape, shin taint, height, breat size, buttocks size.
etc.
"Beauty" is always conceived in the context of specificities. Even the "beauty" of an intellect.
* S: (n) fulfillment, fulfilment (a feeling of satisfaction at having achieved your desires)
Note the word "desires". A "desire" can be specified. Thus "fulfillment" can be specified, measured. It is measured by your specific desires having been satisfied. Fulfilled, that is.
Nice try. But note that the definition of beauty you offered does not specify which qualities 'give pleasures to the senses.' So my point stands. Beauty is something unspecified (because its different for different people -- like the basis of faith -- as I said before we dwindled into the tit for tat that is your approach) but certainly not lacking in substance. Like God.
Was there something else I could clear up for you?
"Then I do what my conscience tells me - to the best of my abilities."
If God is both good and evil. And assuming that you can conceive of the will of God by "clearing your mind". How do you know that what your conscience tells you God's will is, is not evil?
"Nice try. But note that the definition of beauty you offered does not specify which qualities 'give pleasures to the senses.' So my point stands."
Not at all. The fact that different people give different specifications to "Beauty" only means that Beauty is specified differently, but it is always specified.
That is quite different and opposite from not being specified.
"The fact that different people give different specifications to "Beauty" only means that Beauty is specified differently, but it is always specified."
This was really all I was trying to say about God. (although I could debate on the intricacies of your point above, I'm just choosing not to) I'll ask again, what has been your point in all of this?
"but how made the leap that something without specification is without content is beyond me."
and now look at your agreement"
"'The fact that different people give different specifications to "Beauty" only means that Beauty is specified differently, but it is always specified.'
This was really all I was trying to say about God..."
The initial statement which led to this chain of thought was Big J's "God is inconceivable to humans."
That is, can not be specified. Now you are saying God can be specified differently by different people as they desire?
Which means that God is relative (Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder) which means God is not absolute. Which means God is not God, for by definition God is the alpha to omega, that is God is absolute.
Ergo. Your conception (non-conception since you say God can not be conceived) of God is NOT God.
Meaning you are worshiping, have faith in, an idol.
The physical instantiation of what would be considered "God" at the human scale of existence, is the genome.
1. It's immortal
2. It's all powerful in our sphere
3. It created and sustains you
4. It has an infinite grammar
5. It has non-computable functions
6. It operates at the quantum level
7. It's the locus of agency
everything else is circularly masturbatory conversation.
At a planetary scale of existence, something on a higher scale instantiates the divine. At a solar level of existence, something still higher, and so on...,
If it has both of these, it is non-specific, that means it has no content, which means that the gnome does not exist. Since we know that the genome exists, it can be specified which means that it does not possess infinite grammar.
Nothing is not computable. The only way to conceive of Quantum Mechanics is via computations.
MF said: "If God is both good and evil. And assuming that you can conceive of the will of God by "clearing your mind". How do you know that what your conscience tells you God's will is, is not evil?"
I don't know. It's just my best guess, based on my own intuition and the teachings of the world's greatest spiritual teachers. I trust that God is not evil. I have faith.
ants at the ass-end of creation lacking the most rudimentary control of their own puny being arguing about the nature of the absolute is a guaranteed recipe for comedy gold, every single time....,
If it has both of these, it is non-specific, that means it has no content, which means that the gnome does not exist. Since we know that the genome exists, it can be specified which means that it does not possess infinite grammar.
Nothing is not computable. The only way to conceive of Quantum Mechanics is via computations.
rotflmbao
Michael, please stop.
Human language has an infinite or generative grammar.
Human cognition is capable of a great many non-computable functions.
The genome gives rise to both human language and human cognition.
You should dust off your basic understanding of probability, irrational numbers and R...,
Craig, I even deal with imaginary numbers. That's how I came up with the concept of tachyons when I was 13. Of course I was beat to getting published in 1968. ;)
"Human cognition is capable of a great many non-computable functions."
If God communicates with humans, then God does so in human terms, that is, human "language" (however defined) otherwise humans would not be able to understand God's communication.
Right?
Which means that in so communicating with humans God surfaces from this dwelling of "a much deeper truth" and adopts the human language and conceptions of morality.
True?
I mean, given that we are not God we can not, by your definition go to this "place of a deeper truth".
Thus God, for all intents an purposes, in communicating with humanity speaks humanity's moral language.
Thus God is either moral or amoral in human terms.
"If God communicates with humans, then God does so in human terms, that is, human "language" (however defined) otherwise humans would not be able to understand God's communication.
Right?" M Fisher
Wrong.
I am sure God communicates on Godly terms. He challenges humans to step up by seeking to understand and in the process experience growth.
Which means that in so communicating with humans God surfaces from this dwelling of "a much deeper truth" and adopts the human language and conceptions of morality.
True?" MFisher
I don't think so Fisher.
Anymore than when we communicate with children do we adopt the childs' language and conception of fairness.
"I mean, given that we are not God we can not, by your definition go to this "place of a deeper truth". M Fisher
Actually, I think we are God, but we don't realize yet.
Actually, I think we are God, but we don't realize yet.
Certainly a manifestation of it at this scale of being - but that doesn't say a whole lot.
"Human cognition is capable of a great many non-computable functions."
mathematical insight
But then the Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem should have indicated as much to you...,
R?
shorthand for time asymmetry...,
Show me...
Which non-human intelligence last deigned to communicate with you? What were the contents of that communication? Truthfully answering these two questions will verify your station at the ass-end of the ray of creation....,
Fish said: "How do you know that they are "the world's greatest spiritual teachers"? I think you might rather want to trust your own intuition as to what is right and wrong."
I read the words of Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and others, and they are consistent with my own intuition (when I'm thinking clearly).
man has been granted free will to lean toward what is good and walk along the narrow gate, or enter that which is evil in the easy wide gate that leads to destruction.
"Though shalt have no gods before me"
ReplyDeleteThe Buddha has many similar passages which basically state that control of the mind is more important than any other thing on earth.
ReplyDeleteNow I know I'm supposed to be taking something altogether different from this post, but dang the man in that image is VERY handsome (read fine as hell but since that is about the Bible I'll elevate a bit, lol). A hair cut and a shave and he could be on GQ!
ReplyDeleteIf God is good, who created evil?
ReplyDeleteMichael Fisher said...
ReplyDelete"If God is good, who created evil?"
Who?
or What?
Either way, the answer is God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf evil emanated from God, is God good?
ReplyDeleteMichael Fisher said...
ReplyDeleteIf evil emanated from God, is God good?
Yes
God is inconceivable to humans.
ReplyDelete"God is inconceivable to humans."
ReplyDeleteInconceivable = can not be conceived.
If God can not be conceived by humans, how do you know what God's will is?
"God is inconceivable to humans."
ReplyDeleteInconceivable = can not be conceived.
If God can not be conceived by humans, how do you know God exists? That is, how do you conceive of God? (assuming you are human)
WE HAVE FAITH.
ReplyDeleteMy question to DV still stands...
ReplyDeleteThat may be, but what is the point of your question? Are you attempting to suggest that God doesnt exist or are you pointing out that we cant say for sure that God exists. Either way your inquiries are fully responded to by the term faith. Really, what more is there to explore?
ReplyDelete"WE HAVE FAITH."
ReplyDeleteIf you can not conceive of God, what is the basis if the concept, the idea of God of which you have faith?
"That may be, but what is the point of your question?"
ReplyDeleteThe point of my question is "why"? I am not proving or disproving anything.
"Either way your inquiries are fully responded to by the term faith."
Clearly, given my question above, they are not.
whatever it is an individual learns, reads, experiences or believes.
ReplyDeleteThe point of my question is "why"?
ReplyDeleteto which I would respond, "why not."
anon, are you DV? My question "why" was directed to him.
ReplyDelete"whatever it is an individual learns, reads, experiences or believes."
ReplyDeletewhatever
adj : one or some or every or all without specification
whatever = without specifications = without content = nothing = non-existence.
So you are saying God does not exist?
No, I'm not DV. You kill me with the "I wasnt talking to you, I was talking to so and so" bit. Are you interested in discourse or are you simply hell bent on (finally) trying to pin DV on something? If its the latter, than I'll shut up. If its the former, then make your next point. Or should I say ask your next question. Rarely do you ever depart from questions and make a point.
ReplyDeleteMichael Fisher said...
ReplyDeleteIf evil emanated from God, is God good?
Yes
Michael Fisher said...
why?
Just as up cannot exist without down, good cannot exist without evil.
God is both the yin and the yang, the thesis and anti-thesis.
I used the term "whatever" intentionally. I did not intend to specify the thing on which one's faith can be based. its different for every person.
ReplyDeletebut how made the leap that something without specification is without content is beyond me.
ReplyDelete"but how made the leap that something without specification is without content is beyond me."
ReplyDeleteWell, then give me an example of something, anything, that has no specification but has content.
beauty
ReplyDeleteDV...
ReplyDelete"God is both the yin and the yang, the thesis and anti-thesis."
So you are saying God is both, good and evil?
fulfillment (sp?)
ReplyDeletefulfillment (sp?)
ReplyDelete"If God can not be conceived by humans, how do you know what God's will is?"
ReplyDeleteI try my best to clear my mind so that I'm thinking clearly. Then I do what my conscience tells me - to the best of my abilities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"beauty"
ReplyDeleteNoun
* S: (n) beauty (the qualities that give pleasure to the senses)
Note the word "qualities".
qual·i·ty (kwŏl'ĭ-tē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.
1.
1. An inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property.
"distinguishing characteristic" = a specification.
Ergo, Beauty not only can be specified, it must be specified.
To some "beauty" is a painting of particular (specific) colors and shapes and combinations thereof. To others "beauty" is the look of a woman of certain (specific) combination of color of hair, facial shape, shin taint, height, breat size, buttocks size.
etc.
"Beauty" is always conceived in the context of specificities. Even the "beauty" of an intellect.
Got another example?
Noun
ReplyDelete* S: (n) fulfillment, fulfilment (a feeling of satisfaction at having achieved your desires)
Note the word "desires". A "desire" can be specified. Thus "fulfillment" can be specified, measured. It is measured by your specific desires having been satisfied. Fulfilled, that is.
Nice try. But note that the definition of beauty you offered does not specify which qualities 'give pleasures to the senses.' So my point stands. Beauty is something unspecified (because its different for different people -- like the basis of faith -- as I said before we dwindled into the tit for tat that is your approach) but certainly not lacking in substance. Like God.
ReplyDeleteWas there something else I could clear up for you?
Re: fulfillment, see above.
ReplyDelete"Then I do what my conscience tells me - to the best of my abilities."
ReplyDeleteIf God is both good and evil. And assuming that you can conceive of the will of God by "clearing your mind". How do you know that what your conscience tells you God's will is, is not evil?
anon...
ReplyDelete"Nice try. But note that the definition of beauty you offered does not specify which qualities 'give pleasures to the senses.' So my point stands."
Not at all. The fact that different people give different specifications to "Beauty" only means that Beauty is specified differently, but it is always specified.
That is quite different and opposite from not being specified.
DV,
ReplyDeleteIf God is both good and evil, God is amoral.
Yes?
amoral = without morality.
Which would mean that God doesn't give a shit.
Michael Fisher said...
ReplyDelete"So you are saying God is both, good and evil?"
No.
I am saying both good and evil are tools of God.
"The fact that different people give different specifications to "Beauty" only means that Beauty is specified differently, but it is always specified."
ReplyDeleteThis was really all I was trying to say about God. (although I could debate on the intricacies of your point above, I'm just choosing not to) I'll ask again, what has been your point in all of this?
DV...
ReplyDelete"I am saying both good and evil are tools of God."
If neither good or evil are of the essence of God, but mere tools, that is separate from God, then God is neither good or evil.
Which means God is amoral.
Which means that when "Jesus answered. 'No one is good—except God alone."", Jesus lied.
Which would fit with your concept of an amoral God.
anon...
ReplyDelete"I'll ask again, what has been your point in all of this?"
To reduce confusion.
anon...
ReplyDeletelook at yoour statement:
"but how made the leap that something without specification is without content is beyond me."
and now look at your agreement"
"'The fact that different people give different specifications to "Beauty" only means that Beauty is specified differently, but it is always specified.'
This was really all I was trying to say about God..."
The initial statement which led to this chain of thought was Big J's "God is inconceivable to humans."
That is, can not be specified. Now you are saying God can be specified differently by different people as they desire?
Which means that God is relative (Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder) which means God is not absolute. Which means God is not God, for by definition God is the alpha to omega, that is God is absolute.
Ergo. Your conception (non-conception since you say God can not be conceived) of God is NOT God.
Meaning you are worshiping, have faith in, an idol.
what a bunch of empty sophistry...,
ReplyDeleteThe physical instantiation of what would be considered "God" at the human scale of existence, is the genome.
1. It's immortal
2. It's all powerful in our sphere
3. It created and sustains you
4. It has an infinite grammar
5. It has non-computable functions
6. It operates at the quantum level
7. It's the locus of agency
everything else is circularly masturbatory conversation.
At a planetary scale of existence, something on a higher scale instantiates the divine. At a solar level of existence, something still higher, and so on...,
Sure. You win. How's that?
ReplyDeletecnulan...
ReplyDelete"4. It has an infinite grammar
5. It has non-computable functions"
If it has both of these, it is non-specific, that means it has no content, which means that the gnome does not exist. Since we know that the genome exists, it can be specified which means that it does not possess infinite grammar.
Nothing is not computable. The only way to conceive of Quantum Mechanics is via computations.
MF said: "If God is both good and evil. And assuming that you can conceive of the will of God by "clearing your mind". How do you know that what your conscience tells you God's will is, is not evil?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know. It's just my best guess, based on my own intuition and the teachings of the world's greatest spiritual teachers. I trust that God is not evil. I have faith.
"You win."
ReplyDeleteI don't think so.
ants at the ass-end of creation lacking the most rudimentary control of their own puny being arguing about the nature of the absolute is a guaranteed recipe for comedy gold, every single time....,
ReplyDeleteBig J...
ReplyDelete"the teachings of the world's greatest spiritual teachers."
How do you know that they are "the world's greatest spiritual teachers"?
I think you might rather want to trust your own intuition as to what is right and wrong.
cnulan..
ReplyDelete"ants at the ass-end of creation lacking..."
Is that a statement of fact or a statement of faith (belief)?
Michael Fisher said...
ReplyDeleteIf neither good or evil are of the essence of God, but mere tools, that is separate from God, then God is neither good or evil.
Which means God is amoral.
I don't think it does Mike.
I think the concept "morality" is a human convention projected by men whose conception of God is not much more than a glorified monarch.
God is no more "moral" than is the wind, and is no more "amoral" than is gravity.
God is beyond the morality of men and dwells in a place of a much deeper truth.
DV, does God communicate with humanity?
ReplyDelete"4. It has an infinite grammar
ReplyDelete5. It has non-computable functions"
If it has both of these, it is non-specific, that means it has no content, which means that the gnome does not exist. Since we know that the genome exists, it can be specified which means that it does not possess infinite grammar.
Nothing is not computable. The only way to conceive of Quantum Mechanics is via computations.
rotflmbao
Michael, please stop.
Human language has an infinite or generative grammar.
Human cognition is capable of a great many non-computable functions.
The genome gives rise to both human language and human cognition.
You should dust off your basic understanding of probability, irrational numbers and R...,
DV: "God is beyond the morality of men and dwells in a place of a much deeper truth."
ReplyDeleteJesus: "No one is good—except God alone."
So, who is the authority on God here, you DV, or Jesus Christ?
Michael Fisher said...
ReplyDeleteDV, does God communicate with humanity?
Yes, Michael.
God communicated with me just yesterday through my daughter.
Sometimes he does it through art.
Mostly he does it through signs.
Occasionally he sends a prophet.
Is that a statement of fact or a statement of faith (belief)?
ReplyDeleteIt is a trivially verifiable fact.
DV, does God communicate with humanity?
All the time. Most folks are simply too slow to pick up the transmissions, not clocking enough Hz....,
"R?"
ReplyDeleteCraig, I even deal with imaginary numbers. That's how I came up with the concept of tachyons when I was 13. Of course I was beat to getting published in 1968. ;)
"Human cognition is capable of a great many non-computable functions."
Like?
culan...
ReplyDelete"It is a trivially verifiable fact."
Show me...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDV...
ReplyDelete"Yes, Michael..."
If God communicates with humans, then God does so in human terms, that is, human "language" (however defined) otherwise humans would not be able to understand God's communication.
Right?
Which means that in so communicating with humans God surfaces from this dwelling of "a much deeper truth" and adopts the human language and conceptions of morality.
True?
I mean, given that we are not God we can not, by your definition go to this "place of a deeper truth".
Thus God, for all intents an purposes, in communicating with humanity speaks humanity's moral language.
Thus God is either moral or amoral in human terms.
"If God communicates with humans, then God does so in human terms, that is, human "language" (however defined) otherwise humans would not be able to understand God's communication.
ReplyDeleteRight?" M Fisher
Wrong.
I am sure God communicates on Godly terms. He challenges humans to step up by seeking to understand and in the process experience growth.
Which means that in so communicating with humans God surfaces from this dwelling of "a much deeper truth" and adopts the human language and conceptions of morality.
True?" MFisher
I don't think so Fisher.
Anymore than when we communicate with children do we adopt the childs' language and conception of fairness.
"I mean, given that we are not God we can not, by your definition go to this "place of a deeper truth". M Fisher
Actually, I think we are God, but we don't realize yet.
Actually, I think we are God, but we don't realize yet.
ReplyDeleteCertainly a manifestation of it at this scale of being - but that doesn't say a whole lot.
"Human cognition is capable of a great many non-computable functions."
mathematical insight
But then the Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem should have indicated as much to you...,
R?
shorthand for time asymmetry...,
Show me...
Which non-human intelligence last deigned to communicate with you? What were the contents of that communication? Truthfully answering these two questions will verify your station at the ass-end of the ray of creation....,
Thus God, for all intents an purposes, in communicating with humanity speaks humanity's moral language.
ReplyDeleteobjective morality has little enough to do with the cultural fashions and proclivities comprising the majority of what passes for human morality.
most people have never experienced a moment of objective conscience, and wouldn't know what it was if they did.
what passes for consciousness in most people seldom rises beyond the level of culturally normative automatism...,
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecnulan...
ReplyDelete"Which non-human intelligence last deigned to communicate with you?"
DV
LOL!!!
ReplyDeleteTerrance McKenna got it right...,
ReplyDelete"I always lie."
ReplyDeleteComputable or not?
DV...
ReplyDelete"Anymore than when we communicate with children do we adopt the childs' language and conception of fairness."
Are human children human?
Fish said: "How do you know that they are "the world's greatest spiritual teachers"? I think you might rather want to trust your own intuition as to what is right and wrong."
ReplyDeleteI read the words of Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and others, and they are consistent with my own intuition (when I'm thinking clearly).
"Which non-human intelligence last deigned to communicate with you?"
ReplyDeleteMichael Fisher said...
"DV"
Thank you Michael, for daring to acknowledge the obvious.
I thought I was going to have to walk water or something, before you gave it up.
DV...
ReplyDelete"Thank you Michael, for..."
Emphasis on "non-human", less so on "intelligence".
I think DV is a prophet.
ReplyDeleteanon...
ReplyDelete"I think DV is a prophet."
So is Juanita Bynum.
And I have some interesting swampland to sell you in Florida if you believe in this happy horse shit of religion.
ReplyDeleteman has been granted free will to lean toward what is good and walk along the narrow gate, or enter that which is evil in the easy wide gate that leads to destruction.
ReplyDeleteAhhh ...
ReplyDeletePoetry. I like that Lynn