|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 10:55:07 GMT
Except that religion has the far better enforcement mechanism. Mind your own business. Well we don’t usually burn people at the stake for not following health and safety regulations so there is that. Yes, you do.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 11:59:44 GMT
You're about as ignorant as they come, Arlon. Have you ever wonder why you don't have any friends? Anyway I've grown tired of you for a while. So, blocked until I feel like messing with you again. Tootles. Arlon posts this way because I really do think he believes what he posts. I give him that much credit. But...in the same way someone might misconstrue what gravity will do, I think he misconstrues what experiments in self-organization up to now have shown.
If someone didn't understand exactly how gravity works, and depended on a few millions of examples/demonstrations they might be led to make the wrong conclusions about what happens under what conditions. For example, it has been shown to be absolutely dependable that if one jumped off a ladder/cliff/bldg here on earth, he would plummet to the ground...because gravity. So...they MIGHT assume that gravity only works because the object they jumped off was attached to the earth. But then someone on a aircraft flying/floating above the earth jumps off and (with hopefully the aid of a parachute to keep them from splatting) shows that the whole 'being attached to the earth' thing is irrelevant. So there must be something else. Because even if one is floating above the earth and jump off the thing they're in, they will be moved, via gravity, toward the earth. BUT, that would lead to the wrong conclusions about what would happen in all cases where something is 'floating' above the earth. I give an example from a sci fi book I read. The scene is in space ship orbiting earth. They are trying to get someone to confess and are threatening to 'throw them off the space ship' to get them to talk. They suit the guy up and move him to the escape hatch. Of course he's terrified because HE believes that as soon as he's pushed out the door, he'll plummet to earth just like if someone was pushed out the door of an airplane or dumped off a hot air balloon. But of course he doesn't plummet to earth. NOT that gravity isn't still in effect or isn't still a 'law.' But rather it doesn't work like they thought it did and or works differently under those conditions.
The same applies to experiments so far in self organization. SO FAR, it appears the longer chain molecules haven't been shown to have the advantage. But they've been working on it for what, 100 or so years in a handful of labs with a few hundred or thousand scientists? To give up would be like telling those who experimented with heavier than air flying machines to give up because everyone just knows those can't fly. And some DID try to dissuade those inventors. And anyone pointing out that birds are heavier than air and still can fly would be told they can do it because God keeps them in the air...unless they also understood aerodynamics.
And even more recently they've discovered forces that do just the opposite of gravity such that the universe appears to be expanding...notwithstanding the reliability of the 'law' of gravity. It's just that under SOME conditions gravity doesn't apply and doesn't work to counter OTHER forces.
The bottom line is I don't take Arlon's attempts to fend off debate by using personal insults seriously or personally. It shows a kind of desperation because first, he KNOWS they can't have exhausted all the situations where self-organization is impossible. At best they've only shown, to apply my example above, that jumping off a bldg here on earth allows gravity to work as expected. Second...and much more importantly, he is merely pushing the problem into the unknown and is solving it by positing and asserting features and capabilities ad hoc and 'just so' such that this unknown CAN be the answer. And, I guess, he would have people stop doing research on bio genesis.
But the truth is, that even if SOMEONE SOMEWHERE did combine the right chemicals/molecules/compounds in the 'just so' setting that DID result in bone fide living molecules that grew, reproduced, and out-competed other shorter chained molecules, i.e. demonstrated ALL the properties of life, the answer would be 1) well we don't know if THOSE were the conditions in an early earth and 2) 'look, it took intelligent scientists years to accomplish' or more simply 3) that 'god just did it again, in the beaker, in that lab.'
I see that people for decades have become increasingly appalled at the poor quality of public education. You have perhaps heard of "home schooling." People who can afford it, and most people with strong family and religious traditions can, often choose to get "private schooling" (group learning not supported by public funding). Too many people from public schools can't get any work except in the government. If you think I'm insulting, you haven't seen anything yet. You're about to be dragged kicking, biting, scratching and screaming from all the schools and told not to come back. It isn't just that you believe tornadoes are intelligent designers. Do not try to deny that, the equivalence is "true." It is plenty analogous. It is also that you have quite many other failings. Your crippling dependence on "science" makes you believe in more nonsense than bronze age sheepherders ever did. You have become quite the social and political problem in addition to failing science. You also depend too much on government. Religion is not stupid, it's just that so many poor people have no idea what it is. Science isn't stupid, it's just that so many poor people have no idea what it is. They have no idea how limited it is. Trying to replace religion with science shows how very ignorant too many people are. Too many people in the United States depend on government. The U.S. military is multiples of any other military. Half of them are trying to use government to fight fascism and the other half are trying to use government to fight communism. They can't agree what the problem is, but they agree government is the solution. Health care costs are so high in the United States because the demand is too high. Everyone wants "government" heath care. Incidentally, Issac Newton fully understood that a body in orbit does not fall and why. Perhaps he did not picture people going there though. The problem is being solved. I do not want to take too much credit, many people are using the same arguments I do. There will be a new "consensus" with much more reading ability and understanding of science and other arts and their realistic limits. It is however at the present quite the "shock wave" as people who never gave these matters much thought are awakened by the political machinations. It isn't likely either party will be ready to lead by November.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 12:17:29 GMT
Arlon posts this way because I really do think he believes what he posts. I give him that much credit. But...in the same way someone might misconstrue what gravity will do, I think he misconstrues what experiments in self-organization up to now have shown.
If someone didn't understand exactly how gravity works, and depended on a few millions of examples/demonstrations they might be led to make the wrong conclusions about what happens under what conditions. For example, it has been shown to be absolutely dependable that if one jumped off a ladder/cliff/bldg here on earth, he would plummet to the ground...because gravity. So...they MIGHT assume that gravity only works because the object they jumped off was attached to the earth. But then someone on a aircraft flying/floating above the earth jumps off and (with hopefully the aid of a parachute to keep them from splatting) shows that the whole 'being attached to the earth' thing is irrelevant. So there must be something else. Because even if one is floating above the earth and jump off the thing they're in, they will be moved, via gravity, toward the earth. BUT, that would lead to the wrong conclusions about what would happen in all cases where something is 'floating' above the earth. I give an example from a sci fi book I read. The scene is in space ship orbiting earth. They are trying to get someone to confess and are threatening to 'throw them off the space ship' to get them to talk. They suit the guy up and move him to the escape hatch. Of course he's terrified because HE believes that as soon as he's pushed out the door, he'll plummet to earth just like if someone was pushed out the door of an airplane or dumped off a hot air balloon. But of course he doesn't plummet to earth. NOT that gravity isn't still in effect or isn't still a 'law.' But rather it doesn't work like they thought it did and or works differently under those conditions.
The same applies to experiments so far in self organization. SO FAR, it appears the longer chain molecules haven't been shown to have the advantage. But they've been working on it for what, 100 or so years in a handful of labs with a few hundred or thousand scientists? To give up would be like telling those who experimented with heavier than air flying machines to give up because everyone just knows those can't fly. And some DID try to dissuade those inventors. And anyone pointing out that birds are heavier than air and still can fly would be told they can do it because God keeps them in the air...unless they also understood aerodynamics.
And even more recently they've discovered forces that do just the opposite of gravity such that the universe appears to be expanding...notwithstanding the reliability of the 'law' of gravity. It's just that under SOME conditions gravity doesn't apply and doesn't work to counter OTHER forces.
The bottom line is I don't take Arlon's attempts to fend off debate by using personal insults seriously or personally. It shows a kind of desperation because first, he KNOWS they can't have exhausted all the situations where self-organization is impossible. At best they've only shown, to apply my example above, that jumping off a bldg here on earth allows gravity to work as expected. Second...and much more importantly, he is merely pushing the problem into the unknown and is solving it by positing and asserting features and capabilities ad hoc and 'just so' such that this unknown CAN be the answer. And, I guess, he would have people stop doing research on bio genesis.
But the truth is, that even if SOMEONE SOMEWHERE did combine the right chemicals/molecules/compounds in the 'just so' setting that DID result in bone fide living molecules that grew, reproduced, and out-competed other shorter chained molecules, i.e. demonstrated ALL the properties of life, the answer would be 1) well we don't know if THOSE were the conditions in an early earth and 2) 'look, it took intelligent scientists years to accomplish' or more simply 3) that 'god just did it again, in the beaker, in that lab.'
It is his obstinance that becomes so wearisome. He has convinced himself he’s figured it all out and rest of us are fools for not listening to him based solely upon his opinions. I’ve noticed no matter established the science theory, it is wrong because...ha, ha...it’s just limited vision scientists who came up with it... he has correct answer. I would not care, but sadly he’s little different than the typical right winger who readily believes all science is just so much fancy government bullshit that can be do using duct tape, c-clamps, and bailing wire. That might work a two-bit mechanic. Too much of this magical thinking has help land the world in the mess it is in right now. And I think he gets most of this stuff the Discovery Institute and like ID websites. He uses the same style of condescension they do. Pluto is round.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 25, 2020 12:35:16 GMT
Too many people in the United States depend on government...They can't agree what the problem is, but they agree government is the solution. Health care costs are so high in the United States because the demand is too high. Everyone wants "government" heath care. Just as the sun will rise in the east, we can likewise count on Arlon's bloviations to contain at least one assertion that is so spectacularly wrong-headed and ignorantly backward as to beggar belief that the words are before the reader.
Health care costs are so high because of too much demand and dependence by everyone on government?
Here is the stark, simple, and WELL KNOWN fact: "On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person on health than the U.S. spends." And those other wealthy countries listed on the comparison chart ALL have health care systems where the government plays a far more extensive role than it does in the United States. www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 12:43:43 GMT
Too many people in the United States depend on government...They can't agree what the problem is, but they agree government is the solution. Health care costs are so high in the United States because the demand is too high. Everyone wants "government" heath care. Just as the sun will rise in the east, we can likewise count on Arlon's bloviations to contain at least one assertion that is so spectacularly wrong-headed and ignorantly backward as to beggar belief that the words are before the reader.
Health care costs are so high because of too much demand and dependence by everyone on government?
Here is the stark, simple, and WELL KNOWN fact: "On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person on health than the U.S. spends." And those other wealthy countries listed on the comparison chart ALL have health care systems where the government plays a far more extensive role than it does in the United States. www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start That does not address prices. Prices are lower there because the demand is lower, not because of the administering entity. They do not depend as much on government in those countries as apparent from the much smaller size of their military. I do not however expect you to understand that even after it has been carefully explained. The internet is rife with proof irresponsible children run the news.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 25, 2020 12:57:06 GMT
Just as the sun will rise in the east, we can likewise count on Arlon's bloviations to contain at least one assertion that is so spectacularly wrong-headed and ignorantly backward as to beggar belief that the words are before the reader.
Health care costs are so high because of too much demand and dependence by everyone on government?
Here is the stark, simple, and WELL KNOWN fact: "On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person on health than the U.S. spends." And those other wealthy countries listed on the comparison chart ALL have health care systems where the government plays a far more extensive role than it does in the United States. www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start That does not address prices. Prices are lower there because the demand is lower, not because of the administering entity. They do not depend as much on government in those countries as apparent from the much smaller size of their military. I do not however expect you to understand that even after it has been carefully explained. The internet is rife with proof irresponsible children run the news. Uh if the "demand" is higher then why are all the industrialized nations with universal healthcare ranked ahead of the US by the WHO and they still pay less? Why is the demand for healthcare about the same despite increasing prices over the years? Do you see how what you're saying makes no sense? You do realize buying healthcare is not the same thing as buying candy right? It's funny you keep accusing others of being "children", you have a very juvenile view of how economics actually works "The higher the demand, the higher the price!" model doesn't work with inelastic goods, this has already been explained to you.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 25, 2020 13:00:52 GMT
Just as the sun will rise in the east, we can likewise count on Arlon's bloviations to contain at least one assertion that is so spectacularly wrong-headed and ignorantly backward as to beggar belief that the words are before the reader.
Health care costs are so high because of too much demand and dependence by everyone on government?
Here is the stark, simple, and WELL KNOWN fact: "On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person on health than the U.S. spends." And those other wealthy countries listed on the comparison chart ALL have health care systems where the government plays a far more extensive role than it does in the United States. www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start That does not address prices. Prices are lower there because the demand is lower, not because of the administering entity. They do not depend as much on government in those countries as apparent from the much smaller size of their military. I do not however expect you to understand that even after it has been carefully explained. The internet is rife with proof irresponsible children run the news. "Comparing the costs does not address prices!"
"We can tell those people don't depend on government as much for health care because they have smaller armies!"
Keep at it, Arlon. Some of us would really be interested to know how long a person can continue to type long after their brain has been deprived of oxygen.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 25, 2020 13:12:49 GMT
Arlon posts this way because I really do think he believes what he posts. I give him that much credit. But...in the same way someone might misconstrue what gravity will do, I think he misconstrues what experiments in self-organization up to now have shown.
If someone didn't understand exactly how gravity works, and depended on a few millions of examples/demonstrations they might be led to make the wrong conclusions about what happens under what conditions. For example, it has been shown to be absolutely dependable that if one jumped off a ladder/cliff/bldg here on earth, he would plummet to the ground...because gravity. So...they MIGHT assume that gravity only works because the object they jumped off was attached to the earth. But then someone on a aircraft flying/floating above the earth jumps off and (with hopefully the aid of a parachute to keep them from splatting) shows that the whole 'being attached to the earth' thing is irrelevant. So there must be something else. Because even if one is floating above the earth and jump off the thing they're in, they will be moved, via gravity, toward the earth. BUT, that would lead to the wrong conclusions about what would happen in all cases where something is 'floating' above the earth. I give an example from a sci fi book I read. The scene is in space ship orbiting earth. They are trying to get someone to confess and are threatening to 'throw them off the space ship' to get them to talk. They suit the guy up and move him to the escape hatch. Of course he's terrified because HE believes that as soon as he's pushed out the door, he'll plummet to earth just like if someone was pushed out the door of an airplane or dumped off a hot air balloon. But of course he doesn't plummet to earth. NOT that gravity isn't still in effect or isn't still a 'law.' But rather it doesn't work like they thought it did and or works differently under those conditions.
The same applies to experiments so far in self organization. SO FAR, it appears the longer chain molecules haven't been shown to have the advantage. But they've been working on it for what, 100 or so years in a handful of labs with a few hundred or thousand scientists? To give up would be like telling those who experimented with heavier than air flying machines to give up because everyone just knows those can't fly. And some DID try to dissuade those inventors. And anyone pointing out that birds are heavier than air and still can fly would be told they can do it because God keeps them in the air...unless they also understood aerodynamics.
And even more recently they've discovered forces that do just the opposite of gravity such that the universe appears to be expanding...notwithstanding the reliability of the 'law' of gravity. It's just that under SOME conditions gravity doesn't apply and doesn't work to counter OTHER forces.
The bottom line is I don't take Arlon's attempts to fend off debate by using personal insults seriously or personally. It shows a kind of desperation because first, he KNOWS they can't have exhausted all the situations where self-organization is impossible. At best they've only shown, to apply my example above, that jumping off a bldg here on earth allows gravity to work as expected. Second...and much more importantly, he is merely pushing the problem into the unknown and is solving it by positing and asserting features and capabilities ad hoc and 'just so' such that this unknown CAN be the answer. And, I guess, he would have people stop doing research on bio genesis.
But the truth is, that even if SOMEONE SOMEWHERE did combine the right chemicals/molecules/compounds in the 'just so' setting that DID result in bone fide living molecules that grew, reproduced, and out-competed other shorter chained molecules, i.e. demonstrated ALL the properties of life, the answer would be 1) well we don't know if THOSE were the conditions in an early earth and 2) 'look, it took intelligent scientists years to accomplish' or more simply 3) that 'god just did it again, in the beaker, in that lab.'
It is his obstinance that becomes so wearisome. He has convinced himself he’s figured it all out and rest of us are fools for not listening to him based solely upon his opinions. I’ve noticed no matter established the science theory, it is wrong because...ha, ha...it’s just limited vision scientists who came up with it... he has correct answer. I would not care, but sadly he’s little different than the typical right winger who readily believes all science is just so much fancy government bullshit that can be do using duct tape, c-clamps, and bailing wire. That might work a two-bit mechanic. Too much of this magical thinking has help land the world in the mess it is in right now. And I think he gets most of this stuff the Discovery Institute and like ID websites. He uses the same style of condescension they do. Absolutely...it's a common tactic to cover up what they are doing. They've had success brow beating polite people in debates...people who abide by their double standard.
The naturalist somehow adopts the attitude that THEY have to have explanations for all their 'explanations' while the supernaturalist conveniently special pleads and claims their explanation needs no explanation. The naturalist confines himself to ONLY what science knows now while they get to manufacture, whole clothe, a whole different reality about which nothing is known or even CAN be known and this 'unknown' aspect of it gives them leeway to invent how their explanation CAN solve all the problems arising in the natural world. They know..deep down, that their explanation is a just so explanation that must be taken on faith. And I personally don't have a problem taking some things on faith, but I recognize when I do it. The good apologists...and there are some...recognize this and don't act as if any of their arguments actually prove God. All they do...and I have to admit many do it quite eloquently...is provide lines of reasoning that, if one accepts the underlying premises, would seem to make their version of God more likely than not in their (an many other people's) opinion. They contend some unknown explanation is better than just saying 'I don't know' but they know that much of what they end up positing is essentially based on faith...guesswork, if you will. They must assert that THEIR explanation somehow avoids the many limitations that seem to confine the natural world, not realizing that by doing so, they open the door to any naturalist to assert the same thing to some heretofore unknown aspect or arrangement of the natural world.
They contend: -That life requires a designer...obviously not ... if God is alive. Their argument proves life does not always require a designer.
-Complexity requires a designer...unless they can show their god is NOT complex, that is obviously not true either.
-A mind requires a designer? Obviously not if God has a mind. -God exists eternally? Per their definition, God can't have been created, which means it exists eternally. But how can that be if it thinks sequential thoughts. If it thinks sequential thoughts then one follows another and there must have been a 'first thought' and it had to have had a beginning. Otherwise, its sequential thoughts represent in infinite regression.
And if it CAN'T think sequential thoughts then all its thoughts happened with NO time separating them such that the universe...created in that one thought-frame must have also always existed...and therefore exists eternally because there was no case/situation/instance where it didn't exist if there was no case/situation/instant in which God hadn't thought of creating. That leads to a contradiction if we are to believe the universe DID start and time DID begin at a finite point in the past.
And if a god can have sequential thoughts with NO time separating them and if somehow, that doesn't represent a contradiction due to an infinite regress, then sequentiality does not require time, thus some aspect of the natural world could also exist eternal yet still produce universes and time.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 25, 2020 14:18:10 GMT
I see that people for decades have become increasingly appalled at the poor quality of public education. You have perhaps heard of "home schooling." People who can afford it, and most people with strong family and religious traditions can, often choose to get "private schooling" (group learning not supported by public funding). Too many people from public schools can't get any work except in the government. If you think I'm insulting, you haven't seen anything yet. You're about to be dragged kicking, biting, scratching and screaming from all the schools and told not to come back. It isn't just that you believe tornadoes are intelligent designers. Do not try to deny that, the equivalence is "true." It is plenty analogous. It is also that you have quite many other failings. Your crippling dependence on "science" makes you believe in more nonsense than bronze age sheepherders ever did. You have become quite the social and political problem in addition to failing science. You also depend too much on government. Religion is not stupid, it's just that so many poor people have no idea what it is. Science isn't stupid, it's just that so many poor people have no idea what it is. They have no idea how limited it is. Trying to replace religion with science shows how very ignorant too many people are. Too many people in the United States depend on government. The U.S. military is multiples of any other military. Half of them are trying to use government to fight fascism and the other half are trying to use government to fight communism. They can't agree what the problem is, but they agree government is the solution. Health care costs are so high in the United States because the demand is too high. Everyone wants "government" heath care. Incidentally, Issac Newton fully understood that a body in orbit does not fall and why. Perhaps he did not picture people going there though. The problem is being solved. I do not want to take too much credit, many people are using the same arguments I do. There will be a new "consensus" with much more reading ability and understanding of science and other arts and their realistic limits. It is however at the present quite the "shock wave" as people who never gave these matters much thought are awakened by the political machinations. It isn't likely either party will be ready to lead by November. I never thought/suggested religion is stupid. Religion is a natural reaction to a certain worldview, and I am not sure how much conscious control people have over their respective world views.
And as to where I'll be dragged, kicking and screaming. Who knows. But it's not happening here. I've made simple and straight forward requests that anyone could answer if they HAD the answers. Contrary to being shocked or afraid of the outcome, I would embrace some unequivocal basis to believe in the supernatural, gods or God. It could be exciting and certainly not at all threatening as you seem to think it would be. So I still await your treatise.
I can well believe Newton fully understood gravity and would have been able to figure out what would happen in that situation since he did his experiments with cannons and cannonballs. He may have realized that if someone could magically be astride and survive a cannonball as it was launched, that 'falling off' the cannonball would not have caused one to plummet to the ground, since his motion would still match the cannonball. My analogy was only to demonstrate how a limited perspective could lead to the wrong conclusions. One could raise many other examples where the belief of the day would have contended something that was happening would have been impossible.
Plate tectonics is a perfect example. When it was first posited as an explanation for why the coastlines of some continents seem to match with amazing precision the lead scientists of the day guffawed at the idea of 'continents plowing through the ocean floor' to crash against one another or to separate. Wegner was laughed at and ultimately perished in a blizzard never realizing his ideas would eventually form the basis of a whole new explanation for why the earth looks the way it does. They ultimately discovered that indeed continents do NOT plow through the ocean floor, so the naysayers were half right. But the reality was much more interesting in that the ocean floor and the continents move together floating on a somewhat molten interior due to convection. At least that's the current hypothesis. But before they knew how it could happen, many rejected the possibility just like you currently reject the idea that natural unguided processes might result in life.
The lead scientists of the day were convinced the earth did not move and that all the other bodies in the sky DID move and all their apparent motion relative to an earth observer was due to THEIR movement. It was completely obvious to them in every way that the earth could not be moving They did experiments proving their point. But their experiments suffered from limited perspective. And, in a way, they were half right and half wrong...the truth was somewhere in the middle. Most of the motion of celestial bodies we observe IS due to the earth's movement. BUT those celestial bodies ALSO move and that motion can be detected with careful observation. So the scientists of the day weren't totally wrong in detail, but were wrong in principle. Just so, the current experiments in trying to find ways that smaller molecules can be coaxed to form longer ones may just be missing a key element...something no one has thought of yet.
So, you see, it's not that I don't get it...it's that you can't sell it.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 25, 2020 14:23:51 GMT
Yes, & being a mathematician, he would have been regarded as a brilliant man himself. He was arguing against the atheists of his day. Had it been Muslims that were trying to take over his nation, then his wager would have been why Christianity over Islam; or if Protestants were trying to take over his nation, his wager would have been why Catholicism over Protestantism. But he's not giving any strong argument to prove there is a god. In Pascal's theory, god may not even exist, but if he does, your options are better to accept him than not. He leaves open the likelihood there is no god. Some of us want to know the truth because it's the truth, not because we seek to benefit from it. All he was doing was refuting the atheist philosophers of his own day that were pushing their "No god" views on people. Eg. "I think, therefore I am." ~ Rene Descartes. Pascal wasn't a theologian. He was a mathematician. That said, here's an essay on this particular question on Quora.com which gives a better defence of one's own faith (Catholic), than simply Pascal's Wager. Gabriel Dionisi's Response On 'Why Catholicism Is The One True Faith?'
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 25, 2020 15:15:59 GMT
All he was doing was refuting the atheist philosophers of his own day that were pushing their "No god" views on people. Eg. "I think, therefore I am." ~ Rene Descartes. Descartes definitely wasn't an atheist. In fact the only way he was able to justify that our senses are in any way accurate was to posit a benevolent God who would not deceive us
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 25, 2020 16:59:13 GMT
What does “beyond retarded” mean? Mentally retarded or spiritually retarded? Obviously Pascal was a mathematician and an intelligent man. I'm saying his "Wager" delayed intellectual progress. It doesn't look for truth. It just tells one to go with the flow and truth is unimportant. I like it as a narrative device but the logic only seems to work if you’re undecided.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 25, 2020 17:30:09 GMT
Descartes definitely wasn't an atheist. In fact the only way he was able to justify that our senses are in any way accurate was to posit a benevolent God who would not deceive us How did Descartes reconcile the “fact” listed in the Bible that God does deceive Adam and Eve by not telling them the whole truth about their existence? Satan uses this deception to tempt them away from God. And look what God does to Job. God didn't deceive them. And you are a very sick man.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 25, 2020 17:41:32 GMT
Descartes definitely wasn't an atheist. In fact the only way he was able to justify that our senses are in any way accurate was to posit a benevolent God who would not deceive us How did Descartes reconcile the “fact” listed in the Bible that God does deceive Adam and Eve by not telling them the whole truth about their existence? Satan uses this deception to tempt them away from God. And look what God does to Job. <shrug> I doubt Descartes was all that much of a literalist. Still, the kinda deceit you're talking about is quite far removed from the Matrix-like scenario Descartes was envisioning.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 25, 2020 17:57:29 GMT
God didn't deceive them. And you are a very sick man. I’m talking about a myth. Or do you actually think Adam and Eve existed and universe is less than 10,000 years old? Yes, I actually think that, but I'm still entertaining the notion that Adam and Eve were collectives rather than individuals. Once there was a slob on Coast to Coast defending Aleister Crowley and saying that God lied to Eve by telling her that if she ate the fruit she would die. And he said she ate the fruit and she didn't die. Um....yes, she did. She's dead now. She lived for a long time afterward, but she died; something that would not have happened to her and Adam had they not disobeyed.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 25, 2020 18:22:16 GMT
Yes, I actually think that, but I'm still entertaining the notion that Adam and Eve were collectives rather than individuals. Once there was a slob on Coast to Coast defending Aleister Crowley and saying that God lied to Eve by telling her that if she ate the fruit she would die. And he said she ate the fruit and she didn't die. Um....yes, she did. She's dead now. She lived for a long time afterward, but she died; something that would not have happened to her and Adam had they not disobeyed. A convenient plot twist. And yadda, yadda. I studied the Bible. Why didn’t God just be straight up with them in the beginning rather than put these people through, first being pets in cage, then hell when they pooped in it. It’s like God wanted the precious puppies but kick them out of house the minute the cute novelty was over. And they didn’t ask to be created. But then God goes on to give bad advice to some of the people in the Old Testament like telling Jacob to lie to and cheat Uncle Laban out of some of his goats. Anyway, I’m making philosophical point with Lost. Why indeed. I don't know, and it's none of my business. I deal with it the way it is, not the way I think it should be. Nice signature. Of course, I never said that, but hey, why let a detail like that stop you?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 25, 2020 18:37:03 GMT
<shrug> I doubt Descartes was all that much of a literacist. Still, the kinda deceit you're talking about is quite far removed from the Matrix-like scenario Descartes was envisioning. I’m talking about what’s in the Bible and what believers want to see in it. Interpretations amongst believers are pretty varied. His argument is benevolence and deceit are at odds. He does not refer to the Bible as at this stage of the Meditations it cannot yet be trusted. I'm a bit confused about what you're actually saying here. Descartes starts his Meditations doubting everything except he cannot doubt that he is a thinking thing as the act of doubting itself is thinking. So starting with the foundation that he is a thinking thing he tries to use thought alone to give reason to believe in everything else. He comes to the conclusion that he is not perfect therefore he must have been created by something other than himself - because if he created himself he would have made himself perfect. He also finds he has a concept of a perfect being in mind which could not have originated in the imagination of a non-perfect being such as himself. Therefore he posits a perfect creator. He considers benevolence an aspect of perfection and since benevolence is at odds with deceit, by positing this perfect God he can now justify relying on his senses as well as his thought. He therefore now knows he is not living in something like the matrix.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 22:56:27 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [full text here] < clips > - if the "demand" is higher then why are all the industrialized nations with universal healthcare ranked ahead of the US by the WHO and they still pay less
- Why is the demand for healthcare about the same despite increasing prices over the years?
- Do you see how what you're saying makes no sense?
- buying healthcare is not the same thing as buying candy
- doesn't work with inelastic goods
- Ranked ahead in what exactly? It's important.
- Most likely inflation, but the matter requires further investigation. The point is not what they pay anyway, it's what they pay in relation to what the United States pays.
- To you, yes.
- To you perhaps.
- How "inelastic" goods are or not depends on whom you ask. You seem to think it does not. If you want to make the case that prices are higher in the United States because Americans consider more health treatments "inelastic," that is just another way of saying what I did. QED. You have a very blind faith in health care, it shows, and it proves my point about the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 23:27:53 GMT
rizdek said: [ full text here] < clips >
- only to demonstrate how a limited perspective could lead to the wrong conclusions
- One could raise many other examples where the belief of the day would have contended something that was happening would have been impossible.
- may just be missing a key element...something no one has thought of yet.
- it's not that I don't get it...it's that you can't sell it
- Your own perspective is limited.
- Citing the mistakes of the "scientific community" of the past is not recommending their predictions of the future.
- I hope it sings the choral to Beethoven's Ninth while performing miracles. Style matters.
- What I can sell? Little, old me? Doesn't matter. Neither does IMDb, at least as far as these issues go.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 26, 2020 0:36:08 GMT
rizdek said: [ full text here] < clips >
- only to demonstrate how a limited perspective could lead to the wrong conclusions
- One could raise many other examples where the belief of the day would have contended something that was happening would have been impossible.
- may just be missing a key element...something no one has thought of yet.
- it's not that I don't get it...it's that you can't sell it
- Your own perspective is limited.
- Citing the mistakes of the "scientific community" of the past is not recommending their predictions of the future.
- I hope it sings the choral to Beethoven's Ninth while performing miracles. Style matters.
- What I can sell? Little, old me? Doesn't matter. Neither does IMDb, at least as far as these issues go.
And there we have it....citing the mistakes of the scientific community is not recommending their predictions for the future....including that life could not arise naturally. I guess that means that even if someone could cite some scientist or group of scientists who categorically declare that life could not arise naturally it might just be a mistaken prediction. I'm ok with that. But the issue is how does one know if God or a god can even produce life? Clearly just the existence of life doesn't necessarily require a creator...because that would mean that a living creator must of necessity have been created and that leads to an infinite regress. Besides, the properties and characteristics a god must possess to be able to do such a feat...if it is far to complex to have occurred naturally make it far more unlikely that such a thing exists.
And, since history shows and and we both agree that the scientific community may be wrong...not only in what they predict but perhaps in how they proceed to do science, we may rest assured that the problem may very well be that to date, they have not combined the right material under the right conditions for the appropriate duration to produce rudimentary life. I find the prospect of discovering how life could be brought forth through natural means to be thrilling. My only regret is that it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
|
|