Total posts: 3,856
-->
@Double_R
Your response to Ra [my moniker for TheGreatSunGod] re: probability increasing was spot on, you need no further enlightenment there. My argument was that wee can also increase the probability of existence of God [or Gods] increase by the number of natural senses we can use to gain further knowledge of all things. Science, today, depends on the five with which we're familiar. But other animals have, mostly in addition to those, senses like echo location, identification of magnetic north, of blood in vessels, and perhaps we might acquire reading of other minds. These skills can only increase our knowledge, and may serve to find evidence of God. I believe faith, as described by Paul in Hebrew's 11: 1 [really the entire chapter] is such a sense we can acquire and depend upon for further empirical understanding.
Faith, to me, is much more than mere belief. Faith demands action on it. Belief demands nothing of us. We can believe whatever, but we cannot have true faith in whatever. That in which we have faith must already be true, and we, only by extreme effort to engage faith, can learn of its truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
It's difficult to decide if your argument is more FBA or reparations. The two are not natural co-habitatants of the same theory, but you have shoved them together.
Re: FBA [Fundamentally Black Americans]: I presume that implies that some Blacks claim to be responsible for the foundation of the USA, but that event did not occur for another roughly 168 years [1787 - initial ratification of the US Constitution, which officially established the Government of the USA], whereas BLM, and, I presume, therefore, FBA, assigned 1619 as that founding event, when in reality, that date was just the first year Black slaves were introduced to American shores. However, there were also free Blacks in America, some who may have arrived before 1619 - I don't know. Definitively afterward. However, what defines race, black, or otherwise, such as Asian, Hispanic, or White? As it happens, since 2003, with the completion of the Human Genome Project, there is no genetic justification for race; it is a social construct, only, but no DNA has genetic definition of "racial" distinctions. Humans are 99.999...% identical, but the differences do not define any racial physical features. They just don't, period. Oops. Yeah, some kid on another site [anyone younger than me - at 75 - is a "kid"] tried to convince me that saliva tests can identify race. No, they cannot. They identify by geographic region, such as that most blacks genetically and geographically place their ancestry in Africa. Same with Asia's, in Asia, and Whites in Europe. But those distinctions are not 100% accurate, because, clearly, geographically, many Asans, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites are born in America, and not in Asia, Africa, Spain, Mexico, et al, or Europe, ancestry be damned.
Re: reparations: regardless of the heated argument for and against [and both side ought to settle down, because...], the US Constitution happens to have a word [actually, three words] about that. It is called ex post facto. Ref; Article I, Section 9, clause 3: "No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law shall be passed." Ignore "bill of attainder" - it is not relevant to this discussion. But, ex post facto is: it means: establishments of any law that makes criminal act only after it is committed. From 1619, until abolishment by the 13A in 1865, slavery was legal as of 1619 in identified colonies and ultimately those States at the establishment of the US as of 1787. As of 1865, therefore, slavery was abolished as illegal, and, therefor, there was, after 1865, no basis on which to justify reparation payments, /That is the condition today. Reparations are unconstitutional, regardless of argument to the contrary.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Living things are too poorly designed for God to exist. T
What did God create that was perfect at creation? It was not in his purpose to create perfection, and nothing hie created was nor is perfect. He created to allow growth and improvements of all created things. Eden was not perfect, just perhaps a more beautiful place in which, as is related in Genesis, all things God created were "good," although none of them were perfect. Perfection is ours to accomplish, or not, because perfection is a process, not a destination. Otherwise, existence is truly boring, and always will be. Nope, boredom was not God's purpose, either, which is why, even for God, perfection is an ongoing process, even for him, not a destination in which he has already done all things, and learned all things, because knowledge is endless, just as he is, and we will be. Otherwise, heaven is a boring place, and I do not believe God is bored, and I do not ever want to be bored.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You're talking about the principal of indifference which is not calculating probability,
Nope. that's not how probability works, Among other things, I am a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. It is particularly not so when speaking of things that exist outside of of empiric knowledge, which includes virtually all but those who have met God face-to-face, and, therefore, for whom God is an empirical reality. But that doers not say God cannot be proven, just not by the empirical method [exercise of our limited five senses. But who says only five are abailablale to us? Other annals have other senses; why must we believe they are unavailable to us? I don 't. I believe they can be learned. We just don't try. Therefore Gods can be proven by other means than just our science, as we know it today. That increases probability, by the way.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
post #1 the more boxes you add, the probability increases due to
I appreciate the addition of boxes, and I agree probability increases, but the probability is greater by addition of boxes also because of the probability of 9ncreasing the number of gods, as you allege in your post #15. I believe in generations upon generations of gods in both infinite regression and progression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Ahhh - flat earth. That's a good false claim, and I've personally experienced the proof over a hundred times. I was once in Paris a couple of years ago, another friend in NYC, and another in Rio, in mid-December about one week from Winter solstice. We were all looking at a night sky, but, by telephone conference we determined we were each looking at a clear night. If we were on a flat earth, we should have all seen the same constellations, but each of us were actually looking at different constellations. The other experience was a flight from NYC to Madrid. The pilot said our altitude was about 36,000 feet. I could see the curved horizon over the Atlantic. No, the glass port I looked through was not warped, or straight lines on the ground would have been warped. Nope, they were straight. That can only happen on a sphere [oh, okay, an oblate spheroid], and I've experience that view on flights from US to Asia and Europe, and back over a hundred times. Earth is not flat. Nor is any other body we see in space. Not unless all of them [millions of them close enough to see their shape] have their poles in geosynchronous orientation to celestial north, but not one planet, nor moon, nor the sun are just in our solar system, let alone anywhere else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All you say is true. It's just that pollution, as bad as we are by expressing it, is not the existential threat the claimant alarmists say icy is, because they don't know, either. I claim neither volcanism nor snowball Earth was ultimately Earth's existential threat before man existed. I think Earth's only existential threats are her sun, going nova, or a rogue planet or asteroid, and we will not cause them, either.
As for AI, I wish we would remember that without human input, they express the intelligence of a stone. It does not innovate, it merely vomits on command. It may do it more quickly than we do, but fast is relative. At one time, 4 mph was our top speed. Now, it is more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
And I want "climate science" to grow up and stop being a pedantic child. For being such a young science [about 200 years old], it seems full of itself for no valid reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Give me solid proof those things are an existential threat, then maybe you have a point. Without it, you got bupkis. Have any idea how bad things were when extreme volcanism ruled the Earth? No, you do not. I don't, either, just that it was so much worse than now. AlGore's "existentialism is a cake walk by comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
take away the Nobel prize from Al Gore.
AlGore's Nobel Prize was a political certainty, but a scientific travesty, jut as his docudrivel Oscar was a political certainty, but a scientific failure. 140 million years ago, the first mammals dealt with an infinitely worse climate, having virtually the same physiology that we do. Were they uniquely to blame for their existential climate change?
No, and we are not, either. AlGore is an an ignorant arse.
Created:
Posted in:
FYI, for my 20th year running, I celebrated Earth Day [4/22] by turning on every light inside and around my property for five minutes just to snub Mr. Al Gore, the Inconvenient Truther, whose AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum I await with panting breath. Without it, net zero ain't happening, my friends, no mater how long at hard you howl at the moon that claimate change [yes, that is spelled correctly] is an ongoing, existential threat to life on Earth. Bullshyte. Tell me the cause of Snowball Earth, and how, in spite of covering the Earth in ice, volcanism continued, and that for the last 28 years [since 1997, when NOAA began measuring Earth temperature - surely by using all the same continuously calibrated equipment with well-trained operators who always use the same measurement technique at all the same measuring stations all over the Earth, and all the equipment used is accurate to 10x the measurement specification tolerance [all the foregoing is necessary, or your data is insufficient to demonstrate that those 28 annual measurements all demonstrate continuous warming of the Earth...
Bullshyte. NOAA began measuring Earth temperature annually from 1970 - 55 years ago [through 2024] of those 55 years, there is a general trend of rising temp, but actuary measurements show 28 years above the trend and 27 below it. That means 49% of the measurements are cooler and 51% are warmer. That is, statistically, an indication of normal variation, not spiking hot temperature. 1.1º C rise in temperature in those 55 years. Whoop-di-doo.
Created:
Posted in:
Who is Courtney Roth? There are about 60 Internet users by that name. I doubt all are as vile as this one, who seems addicted to two things: f**king and Trump. Surprised she doesn't use Courtney Trump; he sure occupies her head, rent-free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Shila
@TheGreatSunGod
This is a time of reverence, not personal attack, no matter to whom, and which is always, always a lost argument. The last argument. Though not a Catholic, I appreciate the the Bishop of Rome, by whatever name is his, and personally mourn the loss of Francis. Have a proper heart today, at least.
GreatSun, Ra, - thank you for your posts today top start this string. Properly reverent and appropriate in this open forum. At least for some of us.
Created:
Posted in:
because they can.
People can also jump from high buildings because they can. Does not mean they should. That is the better principle. Some may think they are the exception to the rule, but gravity is a very jealous natural law and will take any takers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
When people are "safe" from diseases, they have no incentive to eat healthy or live healthy.
Who invented that gem? You and your sock puppet? You're barking arg the wrong tree. I eat healthy because I want the result of being healthy. I am 75. My doctor tells me I have the heart of a 20-year-old because I eat well and stay active. I do the grocery shopping, and only buy from the perimeter of the store = fresh meat, fruit, veggies and dairy. We grow our own, as well, and also freeze dry meals and have fresh water storage so we eat the same if emergency dictates the store unavailable, even if that emergency lasts four years, and growing. I never drink or smoke and never have, including any drug. Never, ever. Can you say the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
even tho you would think more vaccines = more health.
I am suspicious that the poor health of post-vaccine conditions has naught to do with subsequent health, but the poor, personal choice of what subsequently goes in the pie hole. The nemesis of personal health is in the mirror, not in the hypodermic vaccine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Wow. So much fluff. So is your self-centered motivation campaign to be a moderator. Consider me a no-vote [although I don't think that's how moderators are selected] should it come to that. And I am not alone. Maybe you quit the site in your head, but the reality is, you're still here, and that is not a good position-stake for a moderator. I respect those guys, one and all, but you ain't them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I don't know about other sites; I was attractred to this site. However, this site has two debate versions: "serious" Debate, and the informal Forum. The preference for the informal version is obvious. In 17 separate topics [excluding the DebateArrt section, and games], there are more informal topics in just two of them [science and religion] than all of the serious debates, combined. I think some of the "serious" debates do not fit that description, and belong in Forum, but, that's me. I find some topics in Debate trite and infantile, suited for the Forum. I personally have almost more posts in Forum than there are of all Debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Possible, of course. But is it honorable? Not according to my OED. That was your set condition. I've cited it back to you. You have illusions of moderation if you believe that is honorable. I hold you to your word, just as I hold to its definition. Can't be all things to all people. "Be yourself," Oscar Wilde said, "everyone else is taken."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The condition was stated as "Behave with honor." If that's "honor" to you, you have bigger problems than this little exercise. or, don't words mean things anymore? I did not spend $1,900 on a print version of 20 volumes of the OED just to expect that outcome; I don't care how much wokeness screams about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Is it Elon's name of the design? Doubt it. He runs the company. He has people who do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I don't think EVs are innovative, either. They do poorly in damp/humid environments, the battery acts like a beta-test failure, and with over 50% of the vehicle being plastic components, and still needing petroleum-based lubricants [no one has yet innovated AlGoreGooeyJuice], it is not even "net-zero." 100% dependent on fossil fuel, except for fuel, and even for that, the battery still needs to be charged by connecting to an energy grid that is >60% from fossil fuel.
So, net zero... when??? ROFL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
1. Foster an environment where any opinion was welcome no matter how taboo.2. Foster an environment where we behave with honor and a basic level of respect for each other
Seems to me these two environments are opposed. How does one "foster an environment" of "[behavior] with honor and a basic level of respect for each other" where
"any opinion [is] welcome no matter how taboo?"
Created:
Posted in:
They got Trump to reverse his tariffs on Chinese electronics.
Trump is not a Chinese innovation. I asked what they've brought to the table. Obviously, nothing we haven't already innovated.
Created:
Posted in:
No need to innovate
Yes, berceuse otherwise, China's "innovation" is also known as theft
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
- China – 31.6% Global Manufacturing Output.
Yeah, but by what tech that they, themselves, innovated? They do great reverse engineering to copy stuff, but what have they innovated lately, besides covid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus too used magic which he called miracles.
There is not a single miracle performed by Jesus using magic. All miracles follow natural law with applied sufficient faith to command nature to follow its own rules; a skill he has in abundance, such as commanding a spirit departing the body to return to it, such as will happen with resurrection. All who resurrect [virtually everyone, including sons of perdition who will not inherit any kingdom of glory for their wickedness] do so by this priesthood power of healing faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Magic is not necessarily evil in its nature, but we've developed a history of thinking black is the equivalent of evil. Bad association, that's all.
Created:
Posted in:
AI is very, very bad at researching.
That's why it was dubbed "artificial."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
wrongly referred to as AI.
That always may be true, but I find a lot of questions google keeps messing up are answered quite adeqtately by a random-thinking human brain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
wrongly referred to as AI.
I agree with that. AI is very poorly named. We tend to do that with new tech stuff. A lot of new tech is named poorly. Who ever thought a trail coming out of a mouse's head was aptly named that needed anatomy instead of so much high tech educating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
AI is permanent.
Nothing artificial is permanent That's why it's artificial. Favce it; it is a sorely named tech, just like "mouse" was for a computer peripheral. The tail was coming ours of trey mouse's head. Never did Ike that one. We just do not do a good, creative job of naming tech stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I dont know what that means.
It's my own created idiom. Just replace the 'f' back to the original 'j', and you have the mind at that useless play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
you are fighting for a lost cause
Nope. As long as I can think, and produce, I'll be ahead of AI. I'll be impressed when AI can crawl under my car to losses the oil plug and not get dirty, or set my granddaughter on it's knee and comfort the loss of her first boyfriend. And that's the easy one. She's not yet quite old enough for that. The other, younger stuff that causes her tears are the toughest there is. Having raised her mother, I know she never had tougher times. Nope, AI will never have that kind of skill that always ends with her arms tight around my neck. AI is useless to give and receive like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
greatest technological advancement since invention of internet.
I'm not yet yet certain that was such a great idea. It cannot touch the invention of the light bulb, or even a paper clip.
Now, as for the invention of writing...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Just tell AI to give you 80 arguments on forum topic,
What's simple is that we are not debating you; we're debating AI, and it is so artificial, it cannot even appreciate when it wins, or accept losing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
think of AI as my "second brain".
What's wrong with the 1st brain? All one needs is one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It makes debating easy.
Not here, it doens't. You have a goose egg there. And you just negated any debate with me. I will not use it, and will not compete with it. I do not consider artificiality as an adversary
Created:
Posted in:
Within other topical posts in which I have participated with regard to AI, I have opposed the general use of that tech. While I recognize there may be valid use of AI, I have several concerns that it represents potential for harm. Here are my resins of opposition:
In later junior high school [8th, 9th grade] I began writing reports, essays, term papers, etcd, and also later in high school and college, which were seriously researched, which meant, then, frequenting my local library. We did not yet have the Internet in the 60s when I was in school, graduating from high school, and beginning college. While it would have been easy to plagiarize, even then, not having the facility of copy/paste, unless by the laborious re-write, I always cited my sources when not enlightened by personal written record of my own thinking. I determined early on that plagiarism would not represent my efforts fairly. I did not fool myself that others original thoughts will never be used by me without citation for their effort. Ignoring all that, just to get a paper written, is easier accomplished today, even without use of AI. With AI, the effort is easier still, but I cannot ignore that it amounts to cheating my own education if I indulge in it, even now. I will not do it.
I wasn't paid for my education efforts of writing such essays and reports ion school. I am paid today for the books and articles that I write, but I will never indulge the use of AI to do my thinking and writing for me simply because it is not representative of my own thinking. I cannot, in good conscience, take payment for printed or online publication over my name. I will not do it. Nor will I do it even when I am ghostwriting for another to publish over their name. They are paying me for that service, but I will not be paid for others' thinking, even if it is merely an artificial brain.
The same is true of illustration, which AI can now do, for the very same reason.
There is another concern. Once I have published anything with my name under it, I have announced publicly that it is my work. Even if what is written or illustrated is merely personally opinion, particularly when about another person, or about a specific point of view that I may not personally share, I have opened myself to legal consequence if it is considered libel or slander. If I have done so by use oof AI, who else knows that is the source, and not me, personally. I am still libelous or slanderous and can suffer the legal consequences. I will not do it.
Created:
Posted in:
It's not hard to grasp why people can find this idea confronting
Not a surprise to me. I say to the portagonists of such nonsense: "Argue for your limitations; they're yours." [Richard. Bach]
Given my personal philosophy, I do not see a purpose to existence when I don't even have the ownership of my own mind, even if my body is enslaved. Worse that it's not even a living entity, this "determinism."
Created:
Posted in:
Is freewill an illusion?
The illusion is that there is no free will. Anything to belittle our own ties to divinity, and our eventual life potential. Things, i.e., inanimate objects, do not control living beings u8nless those living beings allow it to take over. Things such as AI, let alone the inanimate matter out there wandering around, Nothing more destructive to human intelligence than thinking they are not the ultimate creation. Argue for you limitations; they're yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
More sex?
Yeah, that one stopped me, as well. Particularly when radicals can't even decide what's what, gonad-wise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I disagree.
Determinism ... Scientific Argument:... Neuroscience:...
All three are just limiting objections, and the third is merely a sub-set of the second, after all. But what science "concludes" is about as rational as science once concluded geocentricity, and now, climate crisis.
Earth is no more the center of the universe, let alone our solar system, than an argument that birds fly, camels walk, and, therefore, butterflies swim. Two factual arguments do not necessarily mean a third is also true, but that is the form of a syllogism, but incorrectly applied. And, both volcanism and "snowball earth" have concluded that our historic climate range has been far worse than ours, today, even within the advent of mammals [about 140M years ago], whose systems are virtually identical to human physiological systems, today. In other words, we can endure far worse climates than now, and can think of adaptations - not dependent on evolutionary adpaptations, to improve our survival.
Therefore, what "science," today, says of free will totally ignores that the signals they read now by MRI, or other tech applied, and thinking these are determinism, or science, already deciding before we decide ignores the root of ambition, planning, and execution - the decision-making process of an advance human species. WE have ambition to achieve, WE make a plan, and only then, WE decide to act. That three-phase process is all in our own heads, not the universe. Science has just not caught up to reading correctly what they read. It's kind of like our misunderstanding the First Amendment, which does not say, nor imply, "separation..." What it does say, in the Preamble is: "...a more perfect union." That's the goal. No determined universe is going to force our hand to make that happen. We do so by our free will to make it happen, and whatever inputs we need, government or religion, or science, will work to help that accomplishment. Why separate them as if they can only exist autonomously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
To say God created death is to say God created nothing.
Death = nothing? Nope. Death is a process, like any other. It has a sequence of steps, all but one of which occur during life, and only the last process step results in the consequence of the end of mortal life, but not the end of the spirit's life, which dosed not ever die. That which is nothing is, literally, ex nihilo.
No, infinite regress is impossible. We can talk of hypothetical things in certain realms of knowledge like mathematics being infinite, but those are only analytical and not real
Who says infinite regress is impossible? Non-infinate thinkers, that's who. Show me God's claim that infinite regress is impossible. Otherwise, that's as silly as claiming, today, the geocentricity of Earth relative to the universe, let alone to our solar system. That's just egocentricity. What is unreal about analytics? Are you claiming thought is not real? That's just ex nihilo, as well. Creation [or, rather, organization of chaotic matter and energy] is what makes thought reality.
Also, a thing is what it is. that puts a limit on it. Also, matter is limited by how it is organized. That puts a limit on it. We are limited by what we are meant to do (you cannot do everything in a lifetime). We also have only two parents and come from one place ultimately. That is a limit.
I grant that thinge have limits. But, no thing [an "it" grammatically] is a living presence. All living beings [including plants] are eternal by regression and progression. They will always exist. They will change forms [for example, from spirit matter to physical matter] by form-changing which is not a limitation. Life is not limited but by its form. I will never be a rose. Neither a rose, me, or anyone else. And our parents both have parents... and so on, and, therefore, that is not just one place, nor one set of parents.
"There is no finish line."
I agree, and agree with your conclusion that the period is a finish line. But, relative to life, the statement is true. As I said, our life included for changes, but no living being has an end, ever. There are milestones, but they are merely a marker on the path, but do not define the entire path.
"Who designed the Designer?"
Concurrent with what I said previously, a father-figure Designer created God, our Designer. And, conditio0onal on worthiness for understanding how to apply the Design Rules, we ultimately become Designers, ourselves.
When We speak of God we speak of absolute, perfect and complete Being itself.
And as I mentioned before, what makes us think God's level of performance is absolute -
All-Perfect, All-Knowing, All-Powerful and All-Loving. That means He is not God.
Who decided to limit God like that? We did? ROFL How do we, imperfect, incomplete, et al, beings decide to limit God, even by description of being "all-whatever," which implies he's at an end of his progression. We blind ourselves, and God to limited progression. Limited regress, too. How did we decide we had the authority to make such a claim? God calls himself "Eternal" and that implies an ever-sharp pencil. I believe him. And I believe in my own eternity and everyone else's eternity
[note the absence of the period]
Created:
AI eases that transition.
Do you know the maxim: "Don't let temps make permanent decisions."
The temp, here, is AI. As I said, AI is, first of all, artificial. That makes as much sense as if/then logic, which is flawed because the "if" clause is invariably, currentry false. and so cannot ever justify the "then" clause. And that is typically how AI approaches reality: by if/then. And that's supposed to represent reality's soft landing?
ROFL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
privation in philosophy.
My understand of privation is that one's needs and wants are simply unavailable, and that this is a constant, i.e., never has been, is not, and never will be available. Death is deprivation; i.e., needs and wants have been and are available, but ultimately will not be available, primarily because body systems do not sustain throughout life. At a cellular nucleus level, the telomeres, the protective "sleeves" at the ends of the DNA double helix in each nucleus breaks down and cannot be repaired, interrupting normal bodily function, allowing aging and death to occur; something I endure, now., on my way to ultimate demise
imperfect purpose
By "imperfect purpose," I mean that God did not create perfect systems, and that was not a failure, but for a purpose. His purpose was for us, by free agency and dominion, to figure out how to improve the imperfections we were given. Simple example. God made a simple box, and this represents the Earth and all that is n it, for our use. Ir has a bottom and four perpendicular sides. Maybe the sides are not all the same size, or some sides have holes in them. It's our job to apply critical thinking to improve the box, ultimately to be a better container to protect all that is in it - maybe even by adding a lid. We are supposed to return Earth to God, beiter than we were given, thus proving our willingness to be obedient to him, and to improve ourselves [who are also imperfect] and our box.
infinite regress is not possible
Sure it is. Get a sharper pencil with an infinitely smaller point. Why do we restrict ourselves thinking up [poorly] that we are limited? Why think that? "The greatest sin is to limit the Is. Don't" - Richard Bach. One idea is to consider perfection as a process rather than a destination. Some things we do are already done perfectly. The trick is to agh capability - an infinite process, not ever fully achieved. God is just further along on the same path. His God is father along than him, because we have progressively sharper pencils. And so on...
God has to have always been God in order to be God.
Who says that's his condition? Do they know what they're talking about, or is this just poor critical thinking? Progress What's wrong with a progressing God who is more perfect today than he was yesterday, last year, last epoque, last... We progress, don't we? I'm smarter and more cap[able than I was twenty years ago, ands so on... Why not God? Does God always act with all the power in his possession, or only the power needed to do stuff? Some stuff is more difficult that other stuff, just as we encounter stuff to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I already provided plenty of proof against this.
You have offered personal opinion, and nothing more. I prefer my view, because I remain in charge of me by my assertion of free agency and dominion of Earth.
The results of your opinion is personal defeat.
Knowledge gained from environment or genes, or found in brain structure, usually when wanting something and knowing it is not there.
Tell me what infant told you that little gem, considering:
"...the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of shared feelings. Yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic consciousness and they still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness. The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. However, the thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established, which is why it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness."
In other words, boyo, your "wanting something and knowing it is not there" is your personal wish balloon. Keep blowing, it needed more bozone..
Created:
-->
@Shila
I cannot get around the clear notion that the flaw of AI is that it's first word tells all: artificial. Why do we need to depend on artificial. That's not reality. No wonder so many people think God is artificial.
Created: