Why does God punish the innocent and innocuous?

[MonDie]

Our history is just as relevant. We can't just say the Hebrews are guilty, just because their history was recorded and ours not.

 

And God isn't guilty because.......

[Robittybob1]

 

And God isn't guilty because.......

War was war in those days. It wasn't a matter of guilt.

[iNow]

Our history is just as relevant.

This in no way address the question I've put to you. What is the relevance of your reply that ransacking and pillaging has always happened in context of the exchange we had about what will be found upon "going through the bible?"

 

You: someone is saved at least 20 times in the bible.

Me: far more often people are murdered and slaughtered or commanded to do so in the bible.

You: we have done this stuff throughout history

Me: Wtf? We are talking about the bible and what it commands, not human nature and historical violence.

You: Yep. War is war.

Me: never mind. This shouldn't have to be so hard

[Robittybob1]

This in no way address the question I've put to you. What is the relevance of your reply that ransacking and pillaging has always happened in context of the exchange we had about what will be found upon "going through the bible?"

 

You: someone is saved at least 20 times in the bible.

Me: far more often people are murdered and slaughtered or commanded to do so in the bible.

You: we have done this stuff throughout history

Me: Wtf? We are talking about the bible and what it commands, not human nature and historical violence.

You: Yep. War is war.

Me: never mind. This shouldn't have to be so hard

That's how the conversation has gone. I am showing you that the Lord saves as well as destroys.

[iNow]

I'd rather you show me something other than personal faith and hand waving evidencing that any god(s) whatsoever even exist outside of human imagination in the first place.

 

As it stands now, you may as well be trying to show me that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. So we're clear, I find that claim to be roughly equivalent to yours here about redemption and destruction and their source.

Edited January 5, 2015 by iNow

[Robittybob1]

I'd rather you show me something other than personal faith and hand waving evidencing that any god(s) whatsoever even exist outside of human imagination in the first place.

 

As it stands now, you may as well be trying to show me that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. So we're clear, I find that claim to be roughly equivalent to yours here about redemption and destruction and their source.

If the farts of the pink unicorns cause erections in Leprechauns you might be onto a winner, a competitor to the mighty Viagra Pill. Look into it.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Robittybob1

[iNow]

I see. Hand waving and evasion it is, then. Shocker.

[Robittybob1]

I see. Hand waving and evasion it is, then. Shocker.

I answered you fully and well. See the meaning in my post please.

[Ten oz]

That's how the conversation has gone. I am showing you that the Lord saves as well as destroys.

 

Interiorly in respects to humans of course? The concept of destroying nature and pushing animals into extinction never seem to make there way to any conversation about god. Instead get the narcissistic obsession with humans as the only creation of the creator who need know thy creator.

[recursion]

I disagree. In my opinion science seeks to learn and accumulate information. Truth as a monolithic concept is not tangible. Conclusive truth is redundant as belief in faith.

 

Do you apply this equally to all life? Does a grasshopper make decisions based on what it knows, thinks, and believes?

I'm not sure of the specifics of the question. It is clear that truth is non-tangible in the literal sense, however in understanding it is a definite concept. Learning and accumulating information is separate from the actual process of its digestion and appraisal. The actual process of truthful deduction, which is of the truth in its most fundamental essence, is immutable, exists regardless of environment, and is shared among all life. A grasshopper uses the process of truthful deduction, however basic in its development, to find the most optimal decision. This process the grasshopper uses is the same process we use to discern truth in order to make a decision.

 

 

4 - God is willing to let you suffer but the purpose of suffering is unknown.

 

If you're talking about the God of the bible then, he is not described just as a jealous God but as an incarnate God - who comes and suffers along with us. My view of God is that everything we experience he experiences. Whenever we suffer he suffers too. Just my opinion.

 

 

 

Why do you think that's the reason God created the universe (if he did)? Could there be another reason?

 

 

5 - God doesn't want us to suffer but is powerless to do anything about it.

 

I think what's more important than whether or not people are able to suffer is the existence of choice and responsibility. If God (the assumed creator of the universe for this statement) wanted, he could have forced everyone to live in great restriction, but we would never understand what it means to be just or responsible, thus leaving us with a likely artificial perception of choice (in addition, there would be no history or explanation to anything, leaving much to be desired in the process of understanding complete truth).

 

 

 

Small quip: Is it that we decide 500ms prior, or that our decision can be predicted 500ms prior?

Also, consider that 500ms is half a second -- hardly a fast reaction time at all.

 

 

And God isn't guilty because.......

 

What did God really do that would make him guilty? Every instance of suffering is directly due to an independent being or existence separate from God (the most plausible accusation would be the existence of entropy, which seems unavoidable in a coherent evolving system -- that things do not gravitate towards opposing existences would be difficult to understand).

 

Interiorly in respects to humans of course? The concept of destroying nature and pushing animals into extinction never seem to make there way to any conversation about god. Instead get the narcissistic obsession with humans as the only creation of the creator who need know thy creator.

 

You make an interesting observation -- that many people do not see life as similar but instead only other members of the same species. All life includes at least a basic ability to make judgement, which implies a basic ability to search for truth.

[Robittybob1]

Interiorly in respects to humans of course? The concept of destroying nature and pushing animals into extinction never seem to make there way to any conversation about god. Instead get the narcissistic obsession with humans as the only creation of the creator who need know thy creator.

Good point. I don't believe the Noah story but before I was only arguing that it was written. In the end the Sun will consume the Earth and all life on it will be extinguished. Are you going to argue that the sun should have been smaller so that it lasted longer. There is no way to make the physical setup last forever. There is always going to be an end to life on Earth at some stage like it or not, and no one is to blame.

[iNow]

Also, consider that 500ms is half a second -- hardly a fast reaction time at all.

You are at least consistent in your ignorance of that which you choose to discuss.

 

While nerve conduction velocity varies and depends on factors like axon diameter and myelination, nerve impulses are in reality extremely fast, with some myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s.

 

What this means is that a signal could travel a full 60 meters, the equivalent of almost 200 feet, in that half second you've so obtusely described as being "hardly fast at all."

 

Think about that... Your head is less than a foot wide, so this signal could travel all the way across it 200 distinct times in that half second.

[recursion]

Good point. I don't believe the Noah story but before I was only arguing that it was written. In the end the Sun will consume the Earth and all life on it will be extinguished. Are you going to argue that the sun should have been smaller so that it lasted longer. There is no way to make the physical setup last forever. There is always going to be an end to life on Earth at some stage like it or not, and no one is to blame.

 

I think we can allow the Earth to be sustained indefinitely. The sun is a fairly understood being, and it's certainly possible to allow it to live indefinitely, so long as the possible collapse (or other theoretical catastrophe such as the thinning of matter or something) can be prevented (it seems at the rate we evolve, we will certainly be able to do nearly anything in the future, so it's not unlikely this universe may never die and the sun is able to be sustained for the entirety of the existence our ability).

 

You are at least consistent in your ignorance of that which you choose to discuss.

 

While nerve conduction velocity varies and depends on factors like axon diameter and myelination, nerve impulses are in reality extremely fast, with some myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s.

 

What this means is that a signal could travel a full 60 meters, the equivalent of almost 200 feet, in that half second you've so obtusely described as being "hardly fast at all."

 

Think about that... Your head is less than a foot wide, so this signal could travel all the way across it 200 distinct times in that half second.

I'm, in part, a musician and I can count without too much difficulty a tenth of a second. The psychological limit for the transition from impulses to pitch perception is at about 30Hz, much much faster than a half of a second, implying cognitive responses/perceptual acknowledgement occurs far more quickly than half a second or even a 10th of a second.

 

However, what you stated has little to do with the actual speed of perceptual acknowledgement and simply iterates over the speed of electric potential through the neurons, but the point remains that half a second is far too long.

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[Robittybob1]

 

I think we can allow the Earth to be sustained indefinitely. The sun is a fairly understood being, and it's certainly possible to allow it to live indefinitely, so long as the possible collapse (or other theoretical catastrophe such as the thinning of matter or something) can be prevented (it seems at the rate we evolve, we will certainly be able to do nearly anything in the future, so it's not unlikely this universe may never die and the sun is able to be sustained for the entirety of the existence our ability).

 

 

If you are talking some possible discovery in the future. I really don't know if what you think possible could happen. I could be pessimistic and say I doubt if humans would be able to achieve this. You seem to have strong religious views and this as well. What sort of philosophy is that?

[iNow]

the point remains that half a second is far too long.

Actually, the point which remains is that evidence suggests that free will may not exist, and this is due in large part to the fact that decisions are made BEFORE entering conscious awareness.

 

This remains true whether the gap is 500ms or 5 minutes, so really your reply is both misguided and irrelevant.

[Robittybob1]

Actually, the point which remains is that evidence suggests that free will may not exist, and this is due in large part to the fact that decisions are made BEFORE entering conscious awareness.

 

This remains true whether the gap is 500ms or 5 minutes, so really your reply is both misguided and irrelevant.

I have heard about this experiment before, so I do understand what you are saying. The inner decision making process maybe subconscious and that gets passed to our consciousness for confirmation. I think those that aren't schizophrenic are capable of overriding our subconscious decisions.

[recursion]

I think we can allow the Earth to be sustained indefinitely. The sun is a fairly understood being, and it's certainly possible to allow it to live indefinitely, so long as the possible collapse (or other theoretical catastrophe such as the thinning of matter or something) can be prevented (it seems at the rate we evolve, we will certainly be able to do nearly anything in the future, so it's not unlikely this universe may never die and the sun is able to be sustained for the entirety of the existence our ability).

If you are talking some possible discovery in the future. I really don't know if what you think possible could happen. I could be pessimistic and say I doubt if humans would be able to achieve this. You seem to have strong religious views and this as well. What sort of philosophy is that?

 

Well, usually we can keep something burning forever with the right materials. That statement didn't have to do with religion, but rather intelligent capability and concurrently physical ability (aided by intelligent creations). It is certainly a reasonable (and commonly understood) possibly that machines that will not unlikely be able to think much more quickly than us and that machines can already do logic on very simple to understand perceptions much faster than we can. Things like temperature and correlated burning materials with general object statistics are very simple observations, so I see it looks fairly certain that we can definitely keep the sun burning. In addition, with the eventual (as it seems) mastery of the physical universe, we should be able to prevent the universe from its possible destruction.

 

 

Actually, the point which remains is that evidence suggests that free will may not exist, and this is due in large part to the fact that decisions are made BEFORE entering conscious awareness.

 

This remains true whether the gap is 500ms or 5 minutes, so really your reply is both misguided and irrelevant.

 

I think it was mentioned earlier, that that requires the assumption that you are only your conscious self and that your subconscious behavior is irrelevant of you -- a kind of quasi-virtual perspective of dualism. However, I think it is generally agreed that you are the entirety of yourself, including your body as well, but not including the environment around you. So with that said, I think I finally see what you're suggesting -- that subconscious decisions completely override conscious ones and thus yourself. I would like to provide the counter-argument that you are actually making those decisions with who you are and the processes and deliberations that you, as a person, choose to undergo in order to find conclusion, and that your conscious self is like your voice, in that you initiate speech before you hear. In this case, your choice is still dependent on who you are and what you think is a good way. It is interesting that meditation is sometimes thought of a way learn to understand yourself from a level deeper than consciousness (i.e. similar to understanding that you initiate your speech and then you hear it). As a consequence of the argument of self-ability, I think the feeling of doing something deliberately and the conscious desire to do something is indicative of free-will.

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[John Cuthber]

 

Well, usually we can keep something burning forever with the right materials. That statement didn't have to do with religion, but rather intelligent capability and concurrently physical ability (aided by intelligent creations). It is certainly a reasonable (and commonly understood) possibly that machines that will not unlikely be able to think much more quickly than us and that machines can already do logic on very simple to understand perceptions much faster than we can. Things like temperature and correlated burning materials with general object statistics are very simple observations, so I see it looks fairly certain that we can definitely keep the sun burning. In addition, with the eventual (as it seems) mastery of the physical universe, we should be able to prevent the universe from its possible destruction.

Do you have any idea how daft you look when you say that we can keep a star burning indefinitely?

[Robittybob1]

Do you have any idea how daft you look when you say that we can keep a star burning indefinitely?

It reminded me of the optimism I had once. If the whole Universe can be made from nothing is there any limit?

[Strange]

If the whole Universe can be made from nothing is there any limit?

 

Can the whole universe be made from nothing? Are you joining recursion in his irrational beliefs?

[Robittybob1]

 

Can the whole universe be made from nothing? Are you joining recursion in his irrational beliefs?

He reminded me of the optimism I had once. So no of course not.

[recursion]

Do you have any idea how daft you look when you say that we can keep a star burning indefinitely?

 

I don't look daft at all. However, I suppose it does depend on your perspective. If you seriously doubt the ability of the human species to master what is just a complicated lego set, then perhaps I see your perspective. Also, you may be unfamiliar with modern technological intelligence, of whom who aren't, do perceive the solution to what amounts to a set of mathematical equations is just a matter of time. I suppose in that case, you are the daft one to suggest such an extreme level of incompetence for the human race.

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[John Cuthber]

 

I don't look daft at all.

I think we should have a vote on that.

However the thing you have missed is not that I'm unable to see that mankind may, in the future, be able to feed a star.

I'm reasonably well acquainted with stellar physics.

The thing that you have failed to see is that it would be a bloody stupid way to go about things.

It would be easier to move people to a less clapped out star.

 

But beyond that you remain wrong because of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

I didn't say it's impossible because I don't know how to do it, I said it's impossible because, at a pinch, I can show where someone proved it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

 

Do you not see that, by assuming that you know all about it (and that you know how much or how little I know), you have made yourself look dafter still?

[Delta1212]

Nope. It's due to the rapidly accumulating evidence coming out of empirical neuroscience.

 

Of course it can be denied, especially since studies show that we seem to make decisions roughly 500ms before they even reach or activate our centers for conscious awareness.

Then the question becomes, does the conscious mind need to be in complete control in order for free will to exist?

[Strange]

Then the question becomes, does the conscious mind need to be in complete control in order for free will to exist?

 

It depends on which definition of free will you are talking about. (And probably how you define "complete control".)