Why did God say: Let us give Satan to mankind?

[birch]

I do not think nature needs to improve. I think humans do.

Belief in nature is good. Belief in a supernatural God is idol worship along with moral and intellectual dissonance and is evil.

Regards
DL

How is nature 'good'? What part? But you are arguing from the point of view of ethics/morals and what is right/wrong. Nature is built on predation, manipulation and deceit either for defense or offense. So what is so different from what those who believe in the supernatural doing that's so different?

You need to blame nature truly. Nature is responsible for all of it. And then going further, the universe. So, it's nature that needs to be improved/changed etc and we try to do it all the time as there are things trying to harm or kill us constantly.

I agree religion is a problem and very dangerous as we can see with extremist groups. It keeps an archaic element that anyone can call upon to not only justify a movement but "claim" ultimate power while "believing" it. ISIS, for example.

But then look at atheist regimes like North Korea with their death/labor camps and oppression of it's people. They are not more ethical because of a lack of religion, though adding religion to justify atrocities and oppression is just more obnoxious, hateful and egotistical, if that is possible.

But it's like with most things it seems, even food will kill you as it comes with harmful side effects. Very few things are pure and honest.

But I agree with you overall in that I think religion will seriously at one point in the future will have to undergo a revolution in that either it will be greatly modified from today or it should go the way of the dinosaur. The only issue with that is there should be a good replacement in place before that though or else it may just be a temporary hiatus or lull as it's just amoral ground zero otherwise and just as bad or worse can come from that.

 

[Greatest I am]

birch

On nature.
It is irrefutable that we live in the best of all possible worlds , as this is the only possible world given the anthropic principle, entropy and our past.

So saying nature is not good would not be accurate at all. It is the best it can possibly be.

We might think of many changes we would like to make, but that does not negate that what we have is the best that can possibly be, given the history behind us.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

How is nature 'good'? What part? But you are arguing from the point of view of ethics/morals and what is right/wrong. Nature is built on predation, manipulation and deceit either for defense or offense. So what is so different from what those who believe in the supernatural doing that's so different?
.

Your forgot to mention that evolution also promotes cooperation. Perhaps that is why your reply is so one sided.

With that in mind, the religious should have their supernatural imaginary God default to cooperation the same way people do when they can.

Regards
DL

 

[birch]

Your forgot to mention that evolution also promotes cooperation. Perhaps that is why your reply is so one sided.

With that in mind, the religious should have their supernatural imaginary God default to cooperation the same way people do when they can.

Regards
DL

And how does cooperation have to do with ethics? If someone doesn't need to cooperate, they may just destroy, if they don't care about ethics. Ethics is a rather interesting thing, especially in light of those are capable of opposite extremes such as gratutious violence and predation of innocence for it's own sake/enjoyment. So ethics is, similarly from what i've noticed, a choice that is not always dependent on survival but just compassion or sympathy.

My view isn't one-sided. It is, unfortunately, a fact. And that fact is nature doesn't require the best from us and it can always revert to the lowest base as a tool or reset and that low is an understatement. Since you are agnostic, you should know that in the past, the agnostics were honest in evaluating this universe as inferior. It was the christians who hyped it based on ego as most would do. Even the bible says a house built on sand will fall and its falling all the time. It's always dependent on constant predation and deceit which should tell anyone who still has not been completely desensitized that something crucial is missing here.

But the biggest illusion that's the most telling is there is no real foward 'evolution' because the same inferior or distasteful traits evolve and come along right with us, that's because those traits the laws of nature favors so you have more nasty or mean organisms winning and procreating. This is why you have a strange blend of technology and primitive organisms (humans) resulting in a subpar society. The reality is definitely not some star trek episode full of the most well behaved, ethical, intelligent and evolved (in the positive sense) humans.

Truthfully, if humans don't decide to turn this technology on itself as in genetic manipulation, it will always be the same.

 

[Greatest I am]

agnostics were honest in evaluating this universe as inferior.

Inferior??

It is demonstrable that we live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world, given our past.

You may think it inferior but those who see clearly will see the evolving perfection I see.

This is why you have a strange blend of technology and primitive organisms (humans) resulting in a subpar society.

It may be subpar to you but to reality, it is the best that we have collectively been able to accomplish to date and is the best that it can possibly be, given all the conditions that have brought us to this point in time.

This is irrefutable.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

So saying nature is not good would not be accurate at all. It is the best it can possibly be.

Nonsense. It's not the best possible world, only just good enough.

 

[Michael 345]

It is demonstrable that we live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world, given our past.

Nonsense. It's not the best possible world, only just good enough.

Nature, the World, Solar System, Galaxy, Universe just is what it is

No more

No less

Value judgements such as good or bad are purely subjective opinions and in essence meaningless as a description of Nature the World etc

The reality is definitely not some star trek episode full of the most well behaved, ethical, intelligent and evolved (in the positive sense) humans.

Nor is it a Chainsaw massacre World

Again it is what it is

The whole Universe operates under unchanging and unchangeable laws of physics

Life has to follow those laws with the wrinkles of being unpredictable in the assessment of its actions

There are NO laws of Nature which are seperate and independent from the Laws of Physics

Laws of Nature are a myth

Nature is subservient to Physics

The unpredictable part occurs because the observer does not have all the information on what is being observed

the best that it can possibly be

This is irrefutable

I refute it

So it is not

 

[Greatest I am]

Nonsense. It's not the best possible world, only just good enough.

You forgot to include the rest of what I put so as to make your foolishness look better than what it does. That is patently dishonest and it that is the only way you can feed your ego then ------

Regards
DL

 

[Michael 345]

birch

On nature.
It is irrefutable that we live in the best of all possible worlds , as this is the only possible world given the anthropic principle, entropy and our past.

So saying nature is not good would not be accurate at all. It is the best it can possibly be.

We might think of many changes we would like to make, but that does not negate that what we have is the best that can possibly be, given the history behind us.

Regards
DL

I refute it

Best is a value judgement and has no more or less than any other value judgement given

It is what it is

No more

No less

What made the world the way it is at any moment is a product of previous happenings which results in the only possible world given the limitations of Physics

No ego to feed here

 

[Greatest I am]

What made the world the way it is at any moment is a product of previous happenings which results in the only possible world given the limitations of Physics

Correct.

Logic and reason make such statements irrefutable.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

You forgot to include the rest of what I put so as to make your foolishness look better than what it does. That is patently dishonest and it that is the only way you can feed your ego then ------

Regards
DL

Only possible doesn't mean best. In fact I would argue that the world runs on imperfection. Every life form is a compromise since it only has to be barely good enough to survive and reproduce. If a system thrives on the horror of predator/ prey interactions, it will.

 

[Greatest I am]

Only possible doesn't mean best. In fact I would argue that the world runs on imperfection. Every life form is a compromise since it only has to be barely good enough to survive and reproduce. If a system thrives on the horror of predator/ prey interactions, it will.

Best possible.

Again you pull one word from a sentence without pulling all of them to complete the thought.

Not too bright that.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

Could be brighter than you think.

 

[Greatest I am]

Could be brighter than you think.

Or even less bright.

I was being politically correct.

Are you the one who likes pain in your S & M circles?

Regards.
DL

 

[Michael 345]

Only possible doesn't mean best. In fact I would argue that the world runs on imperfection. Every life form is a compromise since it only has to be barely good enough to survive and reproduce. If a system thrives on the horror of predator/ prey interactions, it will.

It doesn't mean ANYTHING

Again best is a value judgement

It is what it is

No more

No less

(Lifts needle off cracked record)

In fact I would argue that the world runs on imperfection

The World runs under the laws of physics

Unchanging and unchangeable

Every life form is a compromise

The compromise is the limitations of Physics

barely good enough to survive and reproduce

Barely <<< not require

If a system thrives on the horror of predator/ prey interactions, it will.

Horror is a value judgement and not required

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not afraid to make value judgements about life on Earth, I mean, we are talking about god, not anything real like physics. Of course physics describes base interactions, but when you look at evolution, imperfection rather than perfection is how innovation proceeds. Mutations are necessary to avoid stagnation in the predator/ prey arms race.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Then we would be talking reality and not fantasy.

yeah... pretty much my point
LOL

No supernatural God, I agree.

is there a difference?
in order to be a "god" by definition there must be actions that we would consider beyond nature, thus the term supernatural

So saying nature is not good would not be accurate at all. It is the best it can possibly be.

i saw you post this to birch, but i thought i would add something:
nature simply is - it isn't good or bad
it is actually we who are adapted to "nature" as it is right now making it "the best it can possibly be"

it is nonsensical to qualify nature with any comment like "good" or "bad"

.


.

one thing i have to add about religion versus faith - as i see it:

- a faith can be benign. it is quite literally hard wired into the human psyche. we jump to conclusions. we make assumptions that aren't based on evidence.

- a religion, however, is different. it is not benign by any means - it is destructive. a religion is the codified rules, normally surrounding a faith, designed for judgement and application of said judgement to segregate others. the codified rules are usually not flexible

so a religion is prejudice or judgement for the purpose of segregation and as such is divisive by designed - and though most xtians will state otherwise, this is most noticeable when talking about separate xtian beliefs, muslims, judaism, athiests or anyone who rejects xtian belief or states morality doesn't come from their religion

by religion's very existence we teach others that prejudice is ok so long as you perceive your religion to be morally superior

this then carries over to other aspects of life like: politics, pseudoscience, conspiracies, etc

 

[Greatest I am]

in order to be a "god" by definition there must be actions that we would consider beyond nature, thus the term supernatural

I was going to get a bunch of info on old Emperors who named themselves Gods and their sons as sons of God but decided on an easier route.

Yours is a more modern interpretation. The ancients thought that it was impossible to give God any attributes, including supernatural ones. I agree with them because if we give attributes to the unknowable, unfathomable and mysterious, then it would negate the knowableness, un-fathomable-ness and mystery that is God.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

it is actually we who are adapted to "nature" as it is right now making it "the best it can possibly be"

I agree.

it is nonsensical to qualify nature with any comment like "good" or "bad"

I do not agree.

If we can quantify some of nature than we can quantify it as a whole unit as well.

Try putting two bananas in front of yourself. one green and one ripe. Take a bite of each.

One you might think better than the other if you have normal taste buds.

The good one to you could be called good and the other could be called bad.

You mentioned we were suited to and adapted to our environment. That makes it good for us. If evil, we might have gone extinct.

Faith, at it's root, is belief without evidence or proof and is a good way to show that the person of faith is not interested in the truth.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

http://imgur.com/IBroXK9

I mostly agree with your words on religions.

I summarize. They are immoral and not worthy of us.

Regards
DL

 

[Michael 345]

I do not agree.

If we can quantify some of nature than we can quantify it as a whole unit as well.

Try putting two bananas in front of yourself. one green and one ripe. Take a bite of each.

One you might think better than the other if you have normal taste buds.

The good one to you could be called good and the other could be called bad.

While as you note we can quantify aspects of nature, the level or measurement we ascribe to any aspect remains a value judgement

I am unaware of ANY absolute in nature

Well one I guess would be the speed of light

Other aspects of Physics are still being refined and I guess will reach a final absolute sometime

But LIFE I would contend, while operating under the laws of physics, has a flexibility to conform to conditions suitable to grow and reproduce and the adaptability to change should conditions change

Conditions are what they are and life is what it is

End of story

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I was going to get a bunch of info on old Emperors who named themselves Gods and their sons as sons of God but decided on an easier route.

Yours is a more modern interpretation.

perhaps - but just calling yourself a god doesn't mean you are one
typically when someone mentions a "god" there is some imparting of supernatural ability, hence my comment
no one ever believed that historical leadership was actually a "god" by definition - they simply had the power over life and death and the typical lesser class went along

that isn't the same thing as being a god by any stretch of the imagination

I do not agree.

ok - that is your prerogative

If we can quantify some of nature than we can quantify it as a whole unit as well.

Try putting two bananas in front of yourself. one green and one ripe. Take a bite of each.

One you might think better than the other if you have normal taste buds.

The good one to you could be called good and the other could be called bad.

nope - and this is where the mistake lies, IMHO
one is ripe and the other is not - so that is an incorrect analogy for you, but underscores my point

why?

in order for something to be good or bad there must be some morality attached to it, and that means there must be a person to add the subjective interpretation of the situation. therefore it's anthropomorphic interpretation of fruit

WRT - your banana argument
the banana evolved to a point where it replicates with a certain process. it has fruit as part of this life cycle. there is no "good" or "bad" in being ripe or not ripe. there is only being ripe and not ripe. it isn't about good or bad in any way. it's about the evolved cycle of life

period
full stop

You mentioned we were suited to and adapted to our environment. That makes it good for us. If evil, we might have gone extinct.

nonsensical again
- this is like saying that a Lion making a kill on the serengeti is evil for eating an innocent goat
neither evil or innocent can be logically assumed in either argument, for the lion or the goat

if we were alive and it was not the same environment we see today we would be suited to that environment, therefore you can't call it evil, nor can it logically be called evil if we were extinct. it would suck for those who were extinct, for sure, but that isn't the same thing as being evil. it is just being dead