"Here at least we shall be free; the Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choice to reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven." John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book I
;-) Francis On 10 Mrz., 17:47, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » -- 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.
