Who says nothing is perfect ? I have met several people on here who can fairly be described as perfect fools.
Theist claims God doesn't exist.
- Thread starter Enmos
- Start date
Who says nothing is perfect ? I have met several people on here who can fairly be described as perfect fools.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, he means "nothingness" is perfect, therefor God is nothingness (read doesn't exist).
It's clear what you wrote. But then, let's face it, the whole belief position is one of arrogance; that a supreme being, creator of the entire Universe is interested in you as an individual.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
So your arrogance showed through. You let it slip. It was a given anyway.
You are waffling phlogo, most probably because you realise how wrong, and off the mark you are, but are too proud to admit it.
Basically put, my understanding is that God is interested in those who are interested in him, and those who aren't interested in him (that doesn't include most who post here AFAICS), are so due to there own free will.
So please explain where arogance comes into it on my part.
Jan.
You are arrogant because you said;
Jan Ardena said:
Implying you had an intelligent mind, or that those that didn't 'understand' god were not of an intelligent mind.
Also, that the supreme being, creator of the entire Universe, is interested in you, as an individual.
That is your arrogance, Jan. Why are you worthy of the attention of a being so powerful it can summon the Universe into existence? Why do you think belief in god comes from an 'intelligent mind'?
It has arrogance written all over it.
I thought Jan put it pretty straight forward
the intelligence bit is just seeing the value in being interested in god - I mean suppose there was a person who was fabulously rich, powerful, famous, strong, charitable and renounced, and the only thing you had to do to get them interested in you was to get interested in them.
Now what would an intelligent person do?
actually if a person encounters another (even if its only to simply to hear about them) who is more intelligent, strong, wealthy, famous etc etc yet all they can muster is discontent ... that tends to indicate envy, not intelligence
He says elsewhere in that thread:
There is a formal issue of argument at work here, namely the problem of infinite regress and the regress argument.
This is an age-old philosophical problem that remains to this day.
So if anything, those who have issues as above with theology-related topics, would do well to look into the problem of infinite regress - so as to become aware that the problem of begging the question isn't something that occurs only in theories of cosmogony, but is a general problem of human cognition.
And in the spirit of offering a possible solution -
For any reasonable discussion to take place, those involved must agree on certain things that cannot be proven.
This is true in science, as well as in religion, and anywhere else.
If we do not agree on some things and take them on faith, then every explanation will seem to us to beg the question.
If we do not agree on some things and take them on faith, then we can always ask "And then what? Where did that come from?"
Much of so-called "Eastern philosophy" is devoted to the topic of what to agree on that cannot be (immediately) proven. What things are so relevant and so important to us that we do not doubt them, even if we cannot prove them? Our desire to be truly happy. Our desire not to suffer. Our desire to live a meaningful life.
So why not take the desire to be happy and not to suffer as our starting point, and see what activities truly lead to fulfilling this desire, and which do not?
Is it, at this point, really necessary to get into heavy theological and scientific debates over how the Universe came into being?
Actually, according to a popular Buddhist teaching, it is envy, pride that sets us on the spiritual path to begin with.
In order to be envious of another's qualities, one must have some awareness of the scope and value of those qualities. So envy is the sign that the envier has some of that awareness.
The task of spiritual practice is then to utilize this awareness properly, to one's benefit.
As I don't believe in God, nor would dare to venture what the personality of said being were like, if it were to exist, nor would I dare to speak for it, I can't really answer that.
Too many people speak on behalf of God. That's the main problem with religion.
But as I am one human out of six billion, on a planet with billions more lifeforms, around one star, of which there may be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, I would say, on the grand cosmic scale, I was pretty insignificant.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Hardly a speck, yet we find ourselves so important..
actually if a person encounters another (even if its only to simply to hear about them) who is more intelligent, strong, wealthy, famous etc etc yet all they can muster is discontent ... that tends to indicate envy, not intelligence
Dude, I'm not envious of Sherlock Holmes, even though I have heard of him. Why? Because he's a work of fiction. Oh, and it's possible for me to appreciate people who are more intelligent etc, without envy.
Are you saying though, that christians are jealous of God?
Not that your point, as tangential as it was, makes any sense of Jan's post. She was being arrogant, plain and simple.
Anyway, try and keep it on topic. Defend Jan's arrogance, if you are capable.
Who would, in your estimation, be qualified to speak on God's behalf, if anyone? What would be the requirements for this qualification?
I think this estimation of your insignificance depends on how big and how powerful you think God is. Perhaps God is so big and so powerful that the powers of His attention are not diminished, even if He pays attention to millions and millions and millions of universes and the living beings in them.
Bottomline, if you don't know how big and how powerful God is, then any estimation of how (in)significant you might be to Him, is a mere speculation, moot, and unreliable.
Whoever God delegated to, in front of the entire planet. He could do that, being omnipotent, and it's too important to have on hearsay;
'Oh yeah, I'm God's representative on Earth, so do what I say, m'kay?'
I don't believe in God so I have no such yardstick. I base it on how big the Universe is!
But he is either willing, but unable to prevent suffering, or not willing, but able. Hmmmm, some God.
It's not an issue for me, as I don't believe in God. And like I said, I do not compare myself against something I don't believe in.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
What it did seem like you were doing was saying that if there was a God by deduction were can see this God would consider me insignificant. I think this kind of speculative deduction is just that: speculative.
That's not what I was saying at all.
The crux of it is this, there are six billion people on this planet alone, and maybe 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars some of which have planets, some of which have life, ...
... so why would God care about an individual, when there are so many lifeforms?
It's arrogant to think a God, who created so much, could care less about one person, and watch over every aspecyt of their lives to see if they sin. Ludicrous and arrogant.
Assuming you believe in Godof course, and a creator God.
I don't.
Has such delegation taken place, or not?
At this point, it doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not. We are exploring the validity of your argument about human insignificance in the face of an allmighty God. Hence I qualified my arguments with "If ..."
This has been directly addressed here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71803