On 10 Mar, 15:58, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
> " We understand
> nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He
> wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal
>
> I can see how this fits in with your monistic view of God, Pat, but it
> shows up one of the major conceptual weaknesses of the conventional
> Abrahamic views of the all-loving, all-caring, at the same time
> judging-to-heaven-and-hell God. It's the basic problem of
> predestination, stated in all of its horrific unavoidable logic by
> John Calvin:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)
>
> Personally, even if I tended towards belief, I'd want nothing to do
> with such a God.
>
> Francis
>
{snickers} If there is such a God, you can't escape it by disbelief
or wishes. God is NOT all-loving, as that goes against omnipotence.
"Caring" is a difficult word due to its ambiguity. He is intimately
involved and cares (by virtue of force!) that those who disbelieve
remain in their disbelief and that believers remain in their belief
and is perfectly capable to enforce that. Cherishing, is a better
term. But it still comes with the concept that He cherishes the
atheist to remain an atheist in order to do that which only atheists
can do. Thus my "willingly or unwillingly" comment to Slip.
> On 10 Mrz., 15:31, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mar, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I guess this swings over to Fidd's thread (very busy but..) on
> > > Pascal's Wager.
>
> > To a degree, it does...yes. No one will be able to prove it to
> > others, but rare experiences serve as proof to a few.
>
> > > "If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I
> > > saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in
> > > faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I
> > > am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God
> > > sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. We understand
> > > nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He
> > > wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal
>
> > That last line of 'blind(ing) some...' is very true. But that is
> > necessary in order to test the faith of the faithful. Thus the VERY
> > important role of atheists.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/fbeaab7...
>
> > > On Mar 10, 8:01 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"
> > > > That is the question Pat.. and I have no intention of trying to prove
> > > > it.
> > > > nor will I attempt to.
> > > > Allan
>
> > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Pat <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 9 Mar, 20:21, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > Pat
> > > > > > I have no need to ask for proof of what i know to be true. Nor do I
> > > > > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > create strange arguments.. even science knows that a perfectly
> > > > > > straight
> > > > > > line will end at its starting point. enjoy your physics and
> > > > > > geometry I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > enjoy my God.
> > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > My arguments aren't strange, they're logical. And, of course, you
> > > > > aren't the only reader here. So, when I address your statements, I
> > > > > address them (your statements) for a larger audience with you as a
> > > > > primary audience. Whilst you may have no need of proof or even
> > > > > examples, others might, so I proffer them. In my opinion, God must
> > > > > work within a framework of His design and I view my 'job' as being to
> > > > > discover and reveal as much of that framework and design as I can.
> > > > > The doctor needn't treat the healthy but not all are healthy and some,
> > > > > whilst believing thay are healthy, aren't; and some whilst believing
> > > > > they are ill, aren't. And I have to address them all or I'm being
> > > > > unfair.
>
> > > > > BTW, your example of a perfectly straight line ending at its starting
> > > > > point is only true in the case of a line that extends throughout all
> > > > > of space-time (and THAT assumes a curvature TO space-time, which
> > > > > contradicts the 'straightness' of the line). And, since you didn't
> > > > > specify the length of the line, your example is incorrect, for a
> > > > > straight line that is one inch long will prove your example false.
> > > > > Yet, if the one inch line is drawn around a sphere that has a
> > > > > circumference of one inch, your statement is still false, as the line
> > > > > is curved and not straight. I value geometry and there is much to be
> > > > > learned from it.
>
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pat <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 15:32, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Whoa Pat
>
> > > > > > > > > That One is beyond gender, which is why He
> > > > > > > > > can't have children. Although all creatures are, in a
> > > > > > > > > metaphorical
> > > > > > > > > sense, His children, none are, in reality, because they do
> > > > > > > > > not grow
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. If any did,
> > > > > > > > > there'd
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > chaos, as how can you have two omnipotent entities? Logic
> > > > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > allow for it.
>
> > > > > > > > With your statement you just separated God from the rest of the
> > > > > > > universe!
> > > > > > > > To me that is one of greatest mistakes made by the religions of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > world.
> > > > > > > > I do not want to separate God as I understand him from from his
> > > > > universe
> > > > > > > ,,
> > > > > > > > I only want to be part of it although it is only the tinest
> > > > > > > > part..
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > as I am part that. That is my dream
> > > > > > > > .....
>
> > > > > > > > Okay if you read your statement carefully Or better yet as I
> > > > > > > > read it
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > are saying God can not have children, there is nothing
> > > > > > > > metaphorical
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > Gods children. When you have a child Pat both you and the
> > > > > > > > woman that
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > involved are nothing more than the tool the Father Creator
> > > > > > > > uses to
> > > > > bring
> > > > > > > > about the new child's life into the universe. As I watch new
> > > > > > > > life
> > > > > being
> > > > > > > born
> > > > > > > > into the universe whether it is a baby an ant or insect, or
> > > > > > > > even
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > entire galaxy I can only sit in awe at the skill and abilities
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > God.
>
> > > > > > > > His children, none are, in reality, because they do not grow up
> > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
>
> > > > > > > > When you start making statements like this you are in my mind
> > > > > separating
> > > > > > > God
> > > > > > > > from his universe. Though it is suttle like placing God else
> > > > > > > > where l
> > > > > (he
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > in heaven) in reality you are separating yourself from God. or
> > > > > placing
> > > > > > > > limits like (because they do not grow up to be...)
> > > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > I have no problems with limiting God. He cannot produce a
> > > > > > > spherical
> > > > > > > cube, for example. Or, more simply put, God cannot NOT be God.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > are other limits as well, and they are all logical. In fact, all
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the negative commandments in the 10 commandments can be derived as
> > > > > > > being based on things that God cannot do, therefore we SHOULD not
> > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > For example, God cannot create, in any single object, a thing
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > fairly represents the entirety of God, therefore, we should not
> > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > nor worship idols. My statement that God cannot have children
> > > > > > > stands. That is, he cannot beget an entity that can become
> > > > > > > omnipotent
> > > > > > > as there cannot be, logically, two things that are omnipotent, No
> > > > > > > separations involved, only logic. One cannot be two. That's not
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > say that One cannot 'appear' to be countless. THAT can be done
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > extensions of the One and a given geometry.
>
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Pat
> > > > > > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 8 Mar, 20:42, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Well pat one of the things I can not explain is what is
> > > > > > > > > > beyond.
> > > > > . .
>
> > > > > > > > > > > True. I agree. Consciousness, in my physics, doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > exist,
> > > > > per
> > > > > > > se,
> > > > > > > > > > > in this 4-D universe, rather, the interface to it exists
> > > > > > > > > > > here.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The concept of a 4--D universeis kind of strange because it
> > > > > > > > > > fails
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > you to be everywhere at the same time..
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > , that is a very Islamic concept.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is not just Islamic and they did not originate it..
>
> > > > > > > > > > > well ..
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, true. And Muslims would be happy to agree with
> > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > to go back to Abraham and, in truth, Noah and Adam,
> > > > > > > > > > > before all.
> > > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > > a Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept, because it is
> > > > > > > > > > > described that
> > > > > way
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > those scriptures revealed by "The God of Abraham".
>
> > > > > > > > > > from what i have read of the koran they will not like my
> > > > > assessment
> > > > > > > ..
> > > > > > > > > > there is to much man in it people trying to be important..
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > expand
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > is said originally
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If string theory is true, it allows for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > us, as physical bodies, to exist throughout these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other non
> > > > > > > > > space-time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dimensions and move through them as we move through
> > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > sense.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, you're not far off there, either, although I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > say
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are IN heaven, just that you pass through it (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hell)
> > > > > while
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exist here, although at a level which is completely
> > > > > > > undetectable.
> > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bond of which you speak, I refer to as "that we are an
> > > > > > > extension of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the energy that is" and that that energy is God's, as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > else. As for your last statement, how can you hide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > omnipresent and how can you hide your knowledge
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
