Question for Creationists

First topic message reminder :

QUESTION FOR CREATIONISTS

For the sake of this argument we must assume God was responsible for the creation of all life on Earth.    To put the question in the right perspective, a brief quote from Genesis:

Genesis 24: ‘And God went on to say “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to their kind.” And it came to be.’

Now the scene is set for this serious question to our Creationist members:
If God was/is so powerful, able to create suns and planets, and all the life on Earth, why create dinosaurs then allow them to be exterminated from the planet about 65 million years ago? This event was believed to have been caused by a meteor 6 miles wide, (and a couple of others) slamming into Earth. Coupled with huge volcanic eruptions such events caused a change in the atmosphere, consequently responsible for a climate change making food resources in short supply and the ultimate death of the dinosaurs, coupled with poisonous gasses from the volcanic eruptions. This was exacerbated  due to thick dust  darkening the skies for a year or more causing the death and destruction of a lot of plant life as well as the dinosaurs.

As asked above, why did God allow this to happen and have to start all over again with different, new species of life? Surely with his power he could have stopped the meteors, or was it beyond his abilities, thereby making him not so powerful as portrayed and believed?

Over to you folks.

Veya, the infinite regression of god (who created the creator) is not blown away by anything. If god is in many ways human by the definitions you, eddie and vic lay out then god himself changes over time, vic even suggests god's beginning. In this case god is not infinite and something was there before.

As to your claim star is being racist- what if a black African or Chinese person said the same? Would you call it racist then?

I am great on physics, let alone Quantum physics but others clearly believe using science there does not need to a be a God creating our universe:




The Big Bang was strange -- and we still don't understand it, said Professor Stephen Hawking in his latest speech.
But whatever happened in the first seconds of creation, it didn't take God's help.
Our universe did not require the intervention of any divine being, he said.
"What was God doing before He made the world?" Hawking asked in his new address, delivered at the California Institute of Technology.
"Was He preparing Hell for people who asked such questions?"
At the speech, attended by a full house and another 1,000 people crammed on a lawn outside watching giant TV screens, the hugely respected scientist and author said that humanity should not seek to fill areas of its current ignorance with fantastical stories.
"There are two attitudes one can take," Hawking said.

"One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul. At a conference on cosmology in the Vatican, the Pope told the delegates that it was OK to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation, and the work of God.
"I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition, like Galileo."

Hawking went on to discuss current theories for the creation and expansion of the universe, and outlined the areas he believes are most exciting for future study.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/18/stephen-hawing-big-bang-god_n_3106626.html

Hi folks. Thanks Brasidas for the Hawkins lecture. A brilliant mind indeed. The question as to whether God exists or was responsible for the creation of the Universe, this is, at the moment, left open to a personal acceptance or denial. I deny it, for there are multiple galaxies and possibly other universes. Life, that includes suns, planets, etc, is constantly in a state of flux, ie: it replicates until its demise, but out of the debri of that demise new life comes along to fill the space.

Now, to divert a little bit and to throw some more wood on the fire, the following may be of interest to some of you. It shows, to my mind, that dear old Pater God was more human than is believed, therefore just a myth.

JEHOVAH’S WIVES

Many people don’t know that Jehovah had three wives, it’s possible Moslems based their allowance of three wives on that legend.

AHOLIBAH, ASHIMA BAETYL, ASHERA.

Ashera was worshipped alongside Jehovah in Solomon’s temple. Solomon also built two Goddess temples beside Jehovah’s in Jerusalem.

As I’ve said before, the feminine principle was as important as the male. Many Goddesses were worshipped throughout the world and I think the above info’ highlights that practice. Based on that, I’d say Jehovah was no more important than the Goddesses.

I await the ususl rebuttals with anticipation...lol...or should that be Anne Ticipation.

eddie wrote:Didge I'm afraid that I won't be watching that.
My belief in "God" or a "higher power" if we don't want to use names, is very real.
I've had my "proof" - very real proof - on two separate and very spiritual occasions.

I don't feel the need to argue the intricacies becasue I've already said what I think.

Zack will understand this: People who don't want to know will never want to know and no amount of words will ever change them as they see things in black and white only.

And btw? I really do know I'm quite a long way from mentally ill.

Not only do I get it from a personal point of view Eddie but Quran also mentions such people.

To paraphrase the Quran: those who cannot see beyond the material world, it is as if a yolk has been placed in front their neck such that they cannot see what is beneath their feet.

Didge thinks if Jesus or Muhammed (peace be upon them) were to appear now they would be thought of as mentally ill, esp in the scientific era. Well then why were both prophets persecuted "in their time"? Some of them also believed they were delusional.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge I'm afraid that I won't be watching that.
My belief in "God" or a "higher power" if we don't want to use names, is very real.
I've had my "proof" - very real proof - on two separate and very spiritual occasions.

I don't feel the need to argue the intricacies becasue I've already said what I think.

Zack will understand this: People who don't want to know will never want to know and no amount of words will ever change them as they see things in black and white only.

And btw? I really do know I'm quite a long way from mentally ill.

Not only do I get it from a personal point of view Eddie but Quran also mentions such people.

To paraphrase the Quran: those who cannot see beyond the material world, it is as if a yolk has been placed in front their neck such that they cannot see what is beneath their feet.

Didge thinks if Jesus or Muhammed (peace be upon them) were to appear now they would be thought of as mentally ill, esp in the scientific era. Well then why were both prophets persecuted "in their time"? Some of them also believed they were delusional.

I still think Muhammad suffered from a mental illness because scientifically he would be diagnosed as one by hearing voices. The fact you take the views of someone who would be diagnosed with a metal condition as if they have spoken to a God, shows how gullible people really are. Both were just men, good orators with the brilliant ability of persuasion. The fact is there is no evidence Muhammad talked to anything not of this world. With Jesus, well we have him down as about one of the best teachers to havewalked this earth and he never claimed to even be the son of God but man, it was Paul and Pauline Christianity that made Jesus divine and the son of God. The earliest Jewish Christians just saw him as the Jewish Messiah, where they still practiced Jewish beliefs.

I mean if somebody told you that have mass orgies in their bedroom every night with human sized busty Faries, you would think they were nuts right, where they have no evidence to back this up?

To claim that we do not understand something which you cannot prove exists or let alone understand yourself is very moot to say the least Zack

Eilzel wrote:So eddie, is your god the creator of life and the universe OR is god your own conciousness?

And you compared your 'spiritual experience' with zack's, hence my comparison. Zack's god says there are no other gods but Allah and we're inevitably screwed if we don't follow him- so if Zack's right then you are wrong- we can of course believe what we want and if we 'feel' our god is real then that's splendid, but so is a kid believing in Santa. Certain faiths however are exclusively 'our way or nothing'.

Anyway as I said, is your god creator of life OR is he your own conciousness (or both)? I mean come on, we can all use the whole 'if I think he's real he is real' line.

I hear this ignorance all the time. It's not your fault, it is decades (if not centuries) of brainwashing non-Muslims into believing that Allah is not "the God" of other religions.

Allah is simply Arabic for "The God", Al-Ilah. Even Arabic bibles translate God into Allah.

If Eddie and I (or anyone else) believe in the creator of a universe, then we believe in the same God/Allah/Bhagvan. We just share differnt paths to the same God.

It's really that simple. You are either naive or propagating a deception. You pick.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:So eddie, is your god the creator of life and the universe OR is god your own conciousness?

And you compared your 'spiritual experience' with zack's, hence my comparison. Zack's god says there are no other gods but Allah and we're inevitably screwed if we don't follow him- so if Zack's right then you are wrong- we can of course believe what we want and if we 'feel' our god is real then that's splendid, but so is a kid believing in Santa. Certain faiths however are exclusively 'our way or nothing'.

Anyway as I said, is your god creator of life OR is he your own conciousness (or both)? I mean come on, we can all use the whole 'if I think he's real he is real' line.

I hear this ignorance all the time. It's not your fault, it is decades (if not centuries) of brainwashing non-Muslims into believing that Allah is not "the God" of other religions.

Allah is simply Arabic for "The God", Al-Ilah. Even Arabic bibles translate God into Allah.

If Eddie and I (or anyone else) believe in the creator of a universe, then we believe in the same God/Allah/Bhagvan. We just share differnt paths to the same God.

It's really that simple. You are either naive or propagating a deception. You pick.  

Nonsense on every level.
If the beliefs of her God differ to yours, then it stands to reason they would not be the same and most certainly would not be viewed as God by Muslims, especially if she views there was no prophet called Muhammad that preached or spoke to your God. It is a very subjective area which is based around belief systems. The beliefs her deity has made be at odds with what you believe.

So what do you even bother with the rules of the Koran for Zack? If following eddie's open, loving, non pork hating, non homophobic, no expectations of praying god is the same as yours then what's the point of your religion or any religion at all.

You might also want to tell the Sunnis and Shias they are bickering with each other over nothing, as well as the Jews and Hindus- since you're all headed the same direction anyway.

Eilzel wrote:So what do you even bother with the rules of the Koran for Zack? If following eddie's open, loving, non pork hating, non homophobic, no expectations of praying god is the same as yours then what's the point of your religion or any religion at all.

You might also want to tell the Sunnis and Shias they are bickering with each other over nothing, as well as the Jews and Hindus- since you're all headed the same direction anyway.

His reason is that Eddie actually believes in Allah, but does not understand it is the Allah of the Muslims and fails to understand who Allah really is. It is a patronizing view based around his own beliefs being right. As would he claim that the beliefs of Eddie's God are right and his own Quran and Hadiths are lies about God/Allah if indeed they are the same God? That he is indeed mistaken and that Eddie is right in regards to her views of her deity? So he is in fact stating she does believe in the same God, but that she is wrong in regards to her belief about this deity. This is a weird view that Muslims believe everyone is Muslims and even before Muslims existed.




You have to admit Zack this would be your only line of reasoning to claim Eddie believes in the same deity as you

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I hear this ignorance all the time. It's not your fault, it is decades (if not centuries) of brainwashing non-Muslims into believing that Allah is not "the God" of other religions.

Allah is simply Arabic for "The God", Al-Ilah. Even Arabic bibles translate God into Allah.

If Eddie and I (or anyone else) believe in the creator of a universe, then we believe in the same God/Allah/Bhagvan. We just share differnt paths to the same God.

It's really that simple. You are either naive or propagating a deception. You pick.  

Nonsense on every level.
If the beliefs of her God differ to yours, then it stands to reason they would not be the same and most certainly would not be viewed as God by Muslims, especially if she views there was no prophet called Muhammad that preached or spoke to your God. It is a very subjective area which is based around belief systems. The beliefs her deity has made be at odds with what you believe.

Such defensiveness and militancy speaks volumes Didge.

It's very simple: Jews and Muslims believe in the same God but have different paths. So why not Eddie and I?

You make life difficult for yourself brother.

Eilzel wrote:So what do you even bother with the rules of the Koran for Zack? If following eddie's open, loving, non pork hating, non homophobic, no expectations of praying god is the same as yours then what's the point of your religion or any religion at all.

You might also want to tell the Sunnis and Shias they are bickering with each other over nothing, as well as the Jews and Hindus- since you're all headed the same direction anyway.

Becuase free will implies we can all choose our own path.

And differnt regions do not war becuase of differences in theology. That is also naive.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Nonsense on every level.
If the beliefs of her God differ to yours, then it stands to reason they would not be the same and most certainly would not be viewed as God by Muslims, especially if she views there was no prophet called Muhammad that preached or spoke to your God. It is a very subjective area which is based around belief systems. The beliefs her deity has made be at odds with what you believe.

Such defensiveness and militancy speaks volumes Didge.

It's very simple: Jews and Muslims believe in the same God but have different paths. So why not Eddie and I?

You make life difficult for yourself brother.

Muslims believe it is the same God, Jews do not believe it is the same God.
Again Christians do not believe their God is the same as Muslims, just as Jews do not believe Jesus is the son of God and that Christianity is Polytheist.
The point is you are being patronizing to Eddie claiming she believes in Allah, and that she does not realise it is Allah and that her views and conception of her God are wrong.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:So what do you even bother with the rules of the Koran for Zack? If following eddie's open, loving, non pork hating, non homophobic, no expectations of praying god is the same as yours then what's the point of your religion or any religion at all.

You might also want to tell the Sunnis and Shias they are bickering with each other over nothing, as well as the Jews and Hindus- since you're all headed the same direction anyway.

His reason is that Eddie actually believes in Allah, but does not understand it is the Allah of the Muslims and fails to understand who Allah really is. It is a patronizing view based around his own beliefs being right. As would he claim that the beliefs of Eddie's God are right and his own Quran and Hadiths are lies about God/Allah if indeed they are the same God? That he is indeed mistaken and that Eddie is right in regards to her views of her deity? So he is in fact stating she does believe in the same God, but that she is wrong in regards to her belief about this deity. This is a weird view that Muslims believe everyone is Muslims and even before Muslims existed.




You have to admit Zack this would be your only line of reasoning to claim Eddie believes in the same deity as you

Materialists always over complicate and then wonder why they're confused. Lol!

Same God (creator), differnt path. That simple.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Such defensiveness and militancy speaks volumes Didge.

It's very simple: Jews and Muslims believe in the same God but have different paths. So why not Eddie and I?

You make life difficult for yourself brother.

Muslims believe it is the same God, Jews do not believe it is the same God.
Again Christians do not believe their God is the same as Muslims, just as Jews do not believe Jesus is the son of God and that Christianity is Polytheist.
The point is you are being patronizing to Eddie claiming she believes in Allah, and that she does not realise it is Allah and that her views and conception of her God are wrong.

Look at the way you are wording phrases such as "patronising to Eddie claiming she believes in ALLAH".

What you're trying to do is quite transparent. And childish.

Eddie can call the creator of the universe God, Allah or Bhagvan - they all mean the same thing.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


His reason is that Eddie actually believes in Allah, but does not understand it is the Allah of the Muslims and fails to understand who Allah really is. It is a patronizing view based around his own beliefs being right. As would he claim that the beliefs of Eddie's God are right and his own Quran and Hadiths are lies about God/Allah if indeed they are the same God? That he is indeed mistaken and that Eddie is right in regards to her views of her deity? So he is in fact stating she does believe in the same God, but that she is wrong in regards to her belief about this deity. This is a weird view that Muslims believe everyone is Muslims and even before Muslims existed.




You have to admit Zack this would be your only line of reasoning to claim Eddie believes in the same deity as you

Materialists always over complicate and then wonder why they're confused. Lol!

Same God (creator), differnt path. That simple.

I am of all people am not materialistic.
Again you know for a fact you think the God Eddie believes in is Allah, which would mean you think her views of Allah are wrong, not that your views on God are wrong and hers right.
The reality of even one God makes little sense based on duality.
Eddie is not restricted in her beliefs of a deity as you are. Hers is actually a good way to look at a deity, one she cannot explain herself, but needs little explaining as its based on good and love.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Muslims believe it is the same God, Jews do not believe it is the same God.
Again Christians do not believe their God is the same as Muslims, just as Jews do not believe Jesus is the son of God and that Christianity is Polytheist.
The point is you are being patronizing to Eddie claiming she believes in Allah, and that she does not realise it is Allah and that her views and conception of her God are wrong.

Look at the way you are wording phrases such as "patronising to Eddie claiming she believes in ALLAH".

What you're trying to do is quite transparent. And childish.

Eddie can call the creator of the universe God, Allah or Bhagvan - they all mean the same thing.

You my not like the facts, but if Eddie believes in the same deity as you, no matter what each of you call this deity, your view is that she is believing in Allah and that her views on allah are wrong based on your beliefs in Islam being right. This is based on your view of one God.
There is no two ways around this, based on the view this is the same deity by both of you. If such a God existed, only one of you would be right, but you are coming at this, based on your won beliefs, that her beliefs are wrong and yours are right if it was the same God

So you have free will, I never questioned that. But you are saying that you can eat pork. You don't need to pray, in any direction. And those Muslim parents who tell their kids god think gay is a sin are wrong.

You are saying all that by saying that eddie's path and yours will lead to the same result. You are therefore choosing to live by rules you don't need to.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Materialists always over complicate and then wonder why they're confused. Lol!

Same God (creator), differnt path. That simple.

I am of all people am not materialistic.
Again you know for a fact you think the God Eddie believes in is Allah, which would mean you think her views of Allah are wrong, not that your views on God are wrong and hers right.
The reality of even one God makes little sense based on duality.
Eddie is not restricted in her beliefs of a deity as you are. Hers is actually a good way to look at a deity, one she cannot explain herself, but needs little explaining as its based on good and love.

I'm not talking about that sort of materialism.

"You KNOW for a fact I THINK...." Lol! Seriously? No wonder you are confused.

If Eddie believes in a being that is the creator of the univers, then we do believe in the same God.

Yes, we have different paths. And I do prefer my path to hers.

No need to over complicate beyond that. You are just confusing yourself.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



I am of all people am not materialistic.
Again you know for a fact you think the God Eddie believes in is Allah, which would mean you think her views of Allah are wrong, not that your views on God are wrong and hers right.
The reality of even one God makes little sense based on duality.
Eddie is not restricted in her beliefs of a deity as you are. Hers is actually a good way to look at a deity, one she cannot explain herself, but needs little explaining as its based on good and love.

I'm not talking about that sort of materialism.

"You KNOW for a fact I THINK...." Lol! Seriously? No wonder you are confused.

If Eddie believes in a being that is the creator of the univers, then we do believe in the same God.

Yes, we have different paths. And I do prefer my path to hers.

No need to over complicate beyond that. You are just confusing yourself.

Not confused at anything because I only speak of the real materialism, yours is just a pipe dream.
Path is just a polite way of saying her views on her deity are wrong, you are just dressing up this to nicely so as not to insult her beliefs, which I can accept and is a better way of putting this. So fair enough on that. It still does not escape the fact though that one of you or even both could be wrong in their beliefs her. With you declaring her God is the same as yours, is really saying it is Allah, being the Arabic name for God and that her beliefs would be wrong.
Dress it up all you like, as to claim she believes in the same deity is saying though her beliefs in this God are wrong based on your own beliefs in Islam.
As Eilzel said there is no need for rules if you only need to be on the path of belief in God.

Eilzel wrote:So you have free will, I never questioned that. But you are saying that you can eat pork. You don't need to pray, in any direction. And those Muslim parents who tell their kids god think gay is a sin are wrong.

You are saying all that by saying that eddie's path and yours will lead to the same result. You are therefore choosing to live by rules you don't need to.

I don't have to do any of those things but I choose follow that path.

I'm not saying both paths will lead to the same result. Maybe the will, maybe it won't. But I believe my path will get me there. Eddie MUST select her own path, whether it is the same as mine or not. I am not the judge.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I'm not talking about that sort of materialism.

"You KNOW for a fact I THINK...." Lol! Seriously? No wonder you are confused.

If Eddie believes in a being that is the creator of the univers, then we do believe in the same God.

Yes, we have different paths. And I do prefer my path to hers.

No need to over complicate beyond that. You are just confusing yourself.

Not confused at anything because I only speak of the real materialism, yours is just a pipe dream.
Path is just a polite way of saying her views on her deity are wrong, you are just dressing up this to nicely so as not to insult her beliefs, which I can accept and is a better way of putting this. So fair enough on that. It still does not escape the fact though that one of you or even both could be wrong in their beliefs her. With you declaring her God is the same as yours, is really saying it is Allah, being the Arabic name for God and that her beliefs would be wrong.
Dress it up all you like, as to claim she believes in the same deity is saying though her beliefs in this God are wrong based on your own beliefs in Islam.
As Eilzel said there is no need for rules if you only need to be on the path of belief in God.

To be anything other than polite would be judgemental. And I am not the judge.

We could both be wrong. But that is exactly why we MUST choose our path based on true intention and not compulsion or even persuasion. Or if Eddie becomes a Muslim becuase I persuaded her, should could blame me in front of God if Islam is the wrong path.

Again - it's very simple.

But then going back to you believing in 'the same' god. That is evidently not true. You are being slyly elusive when you say your paths wont have the same result- what outcome do you expect for one who does not follow the Koran?

You follow those rules for a reason. If eddie believed in your god she know what's good according to Him and follow the same rules.

Eddie claims to have had some sort of encounter or experience with her non Koranic god, I presume you can say the same. From my perspective then you understand why I think you are both sorely mistaken- since you can't both have experienced god if your gods are different- which they are; or Allah has been nor been entirely forthcoming when he spoke to eds lol

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Not confused at anything because I only speak of the real materialism, yours is just a pipe dream.
Path is just a polite way of saying her views on her deity are wrong, you are just dressing up this to nicely so as not to insult her beliefs, which I can accept and is a better way of putting this. So fair enough on that. It still does not escape the fact though that one of you or even both could be wrong in their beliefs her. With you declaring her God is the same as yours, is really saying it is Allah, being the Arabic name for God and that her beliefs would be wrong.
Dress it up all you like, as to claim she believes in the same deity is saying though her beliefs in this God are wrong based on your own beliefs in Islam.
As Eilzel said there is no need for rules if you only need to be on the path of belief in God.

To be anything other than polite would be judgemental. And I am not the judge.

We could both be wrong. But that is exactly why we MUST choose our path based on true intention and not compulsion or even persuasion. Or if Eddie becomes a Muslim becuase I persuaded her, should could blame me in front of God if Islam is the wrong path.

Again - it's very simple.

Fair enough Zack, the point I am making though would be that this is your God and Eddie believes in the same God, but you both differ in your beliefs on this God, where one or both could be wrong, which is what I am pointing out. To a Muslims she would believe in Allah, though with wrong beliefs, as they view Christians and Jews also.
I know you are not judging her, but by your own beliefs and subconsciously, would you believe her views on her deity as being on the wrong path? Being as they differ to the Islamic view of God, otherwise you then view Islam as possibly wrong if you say her path could lead her to heaven with no Islamic doctrine.You said you do not know, which means she might. Other her path is wrong or right and goes back to Eilzel's point on rights and wrongs.
That is called having doubt bro in if your faith is right.

Have to go, but want to throw in some more points into the mix around religious belief. The belief in the Abrahamic Gods of forgiveness, where the deity is meant to be most compassionate and forgiving. This is nothing short as an untruth and based on conjecture of what is right or wrong. Let alone the fact humans have been found to be more compassionate and forging than the deities commands found within the religious Abrahamic works. It would be false to claim this God is all forgiving and compassionate, due to the fact a hell should not even need to exist in that belief of forgiveness to punish people. To be truly forgiving you would have to be able to forgive anything wrong done, that would be truly compassionate.

This also goes back to my earlier point on if a God existed, it would seem far more probable that such supreme intelligence would be devoid or have no need of emotions. Something highly intelligent would logically not need to have any emotions. Hence if one did exist, we are just the by-product of some scientific experiment. Something of such high intelligence though would not need the use of emotions to rationalize anything, as emotions do cloud making the correct decision. Hence why if such a Deity existed to claim it is loving, compassionate and forgiving is very much false. As it would mean a deity who has emotions would be fallible. You do not need emotions to make the correct decision. Something with such supreme intelligence would to me make the most logical decision.
Hence why the view of the Abrahamic deities do not fit the view of if a supreme all intelligent being existed. They confuse it with human emotions.


Catch you all later

Eilzel wrote:But then going back to you believing in 'the same' god. That is evidently not true. You are being slyly elusive when you say your paths wont have the same result- what outcome do you expect for one who does not follow the Koran?

You follow those rules for a reason. If eddie believed in your god she know what's good according to Him and follow the same rules.

Eddie claims to have had some sort of encounter or experience with her non Koranic god, I presume you can say the same. From my perspective then you understand why I think you are both sorely mistaken- since you can't both have experienced god if your gods are different- which they are; or Allah has been nor been entirely forthcoming when he spoke to eds lol

Actually you're making a lot assumptions, so I'll try to explain.

For example, we can both claim to speak on behalf of Didge. We think we know him fairly well. But will we agree on everything that Didge has said or done? Probably not. We will have differing views. BUT we are still talking about the same Didge. Didge can decide which one of us is right.

Eilzel wrote:But then going back to you believing in 'the same' god. That is evidently not true. You are being slyly elusive when you say your paths wont have the same result- what outcome do you expect for one who does not follow the Koran?

You follow those rules for a reason. If eddie believed in your god she know what's good according to Him and follow the same rules.

Eddie claims to have had some sort of encounter or experience with her non Koranic god, I presume you can say the same. From my perspective then you understand why I think you are both sorely mistaken- since you can't both have experienced god if your gods are different- which they are; or Allah has been nor been entirely forthcoming when he spoke to eds lol

And no, I have not had any encounter with God.

Why would God want to speak with me. Lol!

I see this topic has gone off on a tangent from my original purpose for it, but never mind, it's got some good points and logical arguements, therefore I'm throwing a spanner in the works:

The impression I'm getting is that a bit of crafty psychology is being used by continually stating you all worship the same god, by whatever name. It's much like a Catholic saying to a Born Again Christian, 'look, we both worship Jehovah so why not come along to church.' In the hopes of increasing the flock.

End of lesson, coffee calls.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

To be anything other than polite would be judgemental. And I am not the judge.

We could both be wrong. But that is exactly why we MUST choose our path based on true intention and not compulsion or even persuasion. Or if Eddie becomes a Muslim becuase I persuaded her, should could blame me in front of God if Islam is the wrong path.

Again - it's very simple.

Fair enough Zack, the point I am making though would be that this is your God and Eddie believes in the same God, but you both differ in your beliefs on this God, where one or both could be wrong, which is what I am pointing out. To a Muslims she would believe in Allah, though with wrong beliefs, as they view Christians and Jews also.
I know you are not judging her, but by your own beliefs and subconsciously, would you believe her views on her deity as being on the wrong path? Being as they differ to the Islamic view of God, otherwise you then view Islam as possibly wrong if you say her path could lead her to heaven with no Islamic doctrine.You said you do not know, which means she might. Other her path is wrong or right and goes back to Eilzel's point on rights and wrongs.
That is called having doubt bro in if your faith is right.

It's not so much 'having doubt' and more about the lack of absolute knowledge. As a Muslim this is fine as absolute knowledge belongs to God.

The only power in have is my mind, control of my senses and body. I must use these to gain wisdom, enlightenment or 'hikmah'.

From this wisdom, I believe there is 1 God and believe in the messenger of Islam (Shahada).

But the 'straight path to God' also requires hikmah. My mind, body and senses may not be strong enough. So this is the uncertainty I have.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

To be anything other than polite would be judgemental. And I am not the judge.

We could both be wrong. But that is exactly why we MUST choose our path based on true intention and not compulsion or even persuasion. Or if Eddie becomes a Muslim becuase I persuaded her, should could blame me in front of God if Islam is the wrong path.

Again - it's very simple.

Fair enough Zack, the point I am making though would be that this is your God and Eddie believes in the same God, but you both differ in your beliefs on this God, where one or both could be wrong, which is what I am pointing out. To a Muslims she would believe in Allah, though with wrong beliefs, as they view Christians and Jews also.
I know you are not judging her, but by your own beliefs and subconsciously, would you believe her views on her deity as being on the wrong path? Being as they differ to the Islamic view of God, otherwise you then view Islam as possibly wrong if you say her path could lead her to heaven with no Islamic doctrine.You said you do not know, which means she might. Other her path is wrong or right and goes back to Eilzel's point on rights and wrongs.
That is called having doubt bro in if your faith is right.

Eddie is responsible for her mind, body and senses and must acquire her own wisdom. She is responsible for her own straight path.

We may and do disagree on that path, as do Muslims disagree amongst themselves. But we must all make up are own mind.

Brasidas wrote:Have to go, but want to throw in some more points into the mix around religious belief. The belief in the Abrahamic Gods of forgiveness, where the deity is meant to be most compassionate and forgiving. This is nothing short as an untruth and based on conjecture of what is right or wrong. Let alone the fact humans have been found to be more compassionate and forging than the deities commands found within the religious Abrahamic works. It would be false to claim this God is all forgiving and compassionate, due to the fact a hell should not even need to exist in that belief of forgiveness to punish people. To be truly forgiving you would have to be able to forgive anything wrong done, that would be truly compassionate.

This also goes back to my earlier point on if a God existed, it would seem far more probable that such supreme intelligence would be devoid or have no need of emotions. Something highly intelligent would logically not need to have any emotions. Hence if one did exist, we are just the by-product of some scientific experiment. Something of such high intelligence though would not need the use of emotions to rationalize anything, as emotions do cloud making the correct decision. Hence why if such a Deity existed to claim it is loving, compassionate and forgiving is very much false. As it would mean a deity who has emotions would be fallible. You do not need emotions to make the correct decision. Something with such supreme intelligence would to me make the most logical decision.
Hence why the view of the Abrahamic deities do not fit the view of if a supreme all intelligent being existed. They confuse it with human emotions.


Catch you all later

Someone who makes decisions without emotions and with a series of algorithms (ie pure logic) would be nothing short of a computer.

So let's imagine what the world would be like if we were all computers. How much compassion would that world have?

And it's not so much about right or wrong but how much you deviated from the straight path to righteousness.

hmmmm


this "abrahamic god"

brings forth a soul....

knowing FULL well that it WILL commit a greivious sin

allows it to do so, often to the cost of a number of others well being

he THEN fries that soul for eternity


a compasionate and all merciful god

or a cruel and evil tyrant

moreover will someone...please


DEFINE what constitutes a "soul"

since clearly from literature there are any number of unsouled creatures, and it would appear unsouled humans....

so clearly the soul isnt required for life OR intelligence....

so it cant be the "I am" part of me....

so what is it........

either that OR the literature is incorrect....

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Have to go, but want to throw in some more points into the mix around religious belief. The belief in the Abrahamic Gods of forgiveness, where the deity is meant to be most compassionate and forgiving. This is nothing short as an untruth and based on conjecture of what is right or wrong. Let alone the fact humans have been found to be more compassionate and forging than the deities commands found within the religious Abrahamic works. It would be false to claim this God is all forgiving and compassionate, due to the fact a hell should not even need to exist in that belief of forgiveness to punish people. To be truly forgiving you would have to be able to forgive anything wrong done, that would be truly compassionate.

This also goes back to my earlier point on if a God existed, it would seem far more probable that such supreme intelligence would be devoid or have no need of emotions. Something highly intelligent would logically not need to have any emotions. Hence if one did exist, we are just the by-product of some scientific experiment. Something of such high intelligence though would not need the use of emotions to rationalize anything, as emotions do cloud making the correct decision. Hence why if such a Deity existed to claim it is loving, compassionate and forgiving is very much false. As it would mean a deity who has emotions would be fallible. You do not need emotions to make the correct decision. Something with such supreme intelligence would to me make the most logical decision.
Hence why the view of the Abrahamic deities do not fit the view of if a supreme all intelligent being existed. They confuse it with human emotions.


Catch you all later

Someone who makes decisions without emotions and with a series of algorithms (ie pure logic) would be nothing short of a computer.

So let's imagine what the world would be like if we were all computers. How much compassion would that world have?

And it's not so much about right or wrong but how much you deviated from the straight path to righteousness.

You see you are actually backing my point there as no human has a much faster capability of working out things than a computer. It shows the more advanced and intelligent things become, emotions become redundant, as again they interfere with sound reasoning. The reality is this makes far more sense if God existed than to the ones proposed in the religions. We as humans have made ourselves believe we are something special due to our emotions and a belief that humans are uniquely made in the image of a God, The fact is the in the bible, Torah and Quran the deity is not all forgiven and compassion, where again there would be no need for a hell, if this God was meant to be love. No supreme intelligence would devise or need a hell, it would be beyond rational reasoning to need one, being as this deity can basically do anything. The Abrahamic deity choose not to forgive all and even creates some of them for the sole purpose to suffer in eternity. That is not in any shape or form love. To make some suffer eternally is nothing short of barbaric.

So why do you think something supremely intelligent would in anyway have the need for any emotions?

darknessss wrote:hmmmm


this "abrahamic god"

brings forth a soul....

knowing FULL well that it WILL commit a greivious sin

allows it to do so, often to the cost of a number of others well being

he THEN fries that soul for eternity


a compasionate and all merciful god

or a cruel and evil tyrant

Cruel and an evil tyrant

Human emotions are indeed a problem specifically to the Abrahamic god didge. They are one of many factors which make that particular god easy to dismiss as rubbish.

Its funny how for many, including both eddie and Zack, that belief in any god is something special and requires somes deeper understanding of faith. Where those with any faith can stand together and those with faith in god are set apart. To the point they ignore the glaring differences in what they believe.

It is clear as day both cannot be have a similar experience, to each other, to an ISIS footsoldier, to a Buddhist monk or Hindu guru, or Gandhi. Yet they talk about their experiences as though they are the same and only atheists are different, and somehow shallow and incapable of understanding faith.

Truth is most of them are dead wrong even by their own standards. Their beliefs cant all have a legitimate standing in truth- yet they pretend they are all spiritual regardless. Well sorry but at least one of you us barking up the wrong tree- more likley both

Eilzel wrote:Veya, the infinite regression of god (who created the creator) is not blown away by anything. If god is in many ways human by the definitions you, eddie and vic lay out then god himself changes over time, vic even suggests god's beginning. In this case god is not infinite and something was there before.

As to your claim star is being racist- what if a black African or Chinese person said the same? Would you call it racist then?

If they had said something completely contradictory to the definition of another group and insisted that it was the case. yes they would be.
If they were to say All other races religions are just like our one and subject to the same philosophical interpretation yes they would be practicing Institutional Racism.. as they are displaying not only that their race/culture is superior but that the other does not even count at all.

Eilzel wrote:Human emotions are indeed a problem specifically to the Abrahamic god didge. They are one of many factors which make that particular god easy to dismiss as rubbish.

Its funny how for many, including both eddie and Zack, that belief in any god is something special and requires somes deeper understanding of faith. Where those with any faith can stand together and those with faith in god are set apart. To the point they ignore the glaring differences in what they believe.

It is clear as day both cannot be have a similar experience, to each other, to an ISIS footsoldier, to a Buddhist monk or Hindu guru, or Gandhi. Yet they talk about their experiences as though they are the same and only atheists are different, and somehow shallow and incapable of understanding faith.

Truth is most of them are dead wrong even by their own standards. Their beliefs cant all have a legitimate standing in truth- yet they pretend they are all spiritual regardless. Well sorry but at least one of you us barking up the wrong tree- more likley both

Special, chosen, superior, all make a view to discriminate and that then people are not all equal in their creation. If this is a deliberate design and you are condemned from the start, that is nothing short of wicked and evil. Its all nonsense Eilzel. Those who have been condemned have not even been given the choice of whether they even wanted to exist, as non-existence would be far better than eternal pain and suffering. Even we as humans have the capacity to be more compassionate than the Abrahamic god.
The thing is here Faith is indeed strong in some people and this takes control of their reasoning.
Its true though Eilzel as you say in regards to emotions, being that this is one insecure deity that craves love and punishes you for not loving him/her.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:But then going back to you believing in 'the same' god. That is evidently not true. You are being slyly elusive when you say your paths wont have the same result- what outcome do you expect for one who does not follow the Koran?

You follow those rules for a reason. If eddie believed in your god she know what's good according to Him and follow the same rules.

Eddie claims to have had some sort of encounter or experience with her non Koranic god, I presume you can say the same. From my perspective then you understand why I think you are both sorely mistaken- since you can't both have experienced god if your gods are different- which they are; or Allah has been nor been entirely forthcoming when he spoke to eds lol

Actually you're making a lot assumptions, so I'll try to explain.

For example, we can both claim to speak on behalf of Didge. We think we know him fairly well. But will we agree on everything that Didge has said or done? Probably not. We will have differing views. BUT we are still talking about the same Didge. Didge can decide which one of us is right.

+100

Which goes back to my Philosophy that it is not possible for a mortal language to adequately explain the divine.

Eilzel wrote:Human emotions are indeed a problem specifically to the Abrahamic god didge. They are one of many factors which make that particular god easy to dismiss as rubbish.

Its funny how for many, including both eddie and Zack, that belief in any god is something special and requires somes deeper understanding of faith. Where those with any faith can stand together and those with faith in god are set apart. To the point they ignore the glaring differences in what they believe.

It is clear as day both cannot be have a similar experience, to each other, to an ISIS footsoldier, to a Buddhist monk or Hindu guru, or Gandhi. Yet they talk about their experiences as though they are the same and only atheists are different, and somehow shallow and incapable of understanding faith.

Truth is most of them are dead wrong even by their own standards. Their beliefs cant all have a legitimate standing in truth- yet they pretend they are all spiritual regardless. Well sorry but at least one of you us barking up the wrong tree- more likley both

the last part is only wrong of the institution If atheists are allowed variance in what they believe so are all but fundamentalist of a religion.
All Boil down to a central Idea that there is "something greater than ourselves" to try and encompasses the broadest definition of the divine.

And mathematically they all do have something in common they propose there is a number and Fundamentalist Atheists Propose the number representing god/divine is always 0 or Nothing. As victor explained all other positive numbers have something in common of being something. 0 is the only number that is nothing.

This is also to my point of if the vast majority of us that all allow enough variance in our personal beliefs to not be 'fundamental' about our beliefs Just said "ok we don't know" a lot of conflict would end.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Human emotions are indeed a problem specifically to the Abrahamic god didge. They are one of many factors which make that particular god easy to dismiss as rubbish.

Its funny how for many, including both eddie and Zack, that belief in any god is something special and requires somes deeper understanding of faith. Where those with any faith can stand together and those with faith in god are set apart. To the point they ignore the glaring differences in what they believe.

It is clear as day both cannot be have a similar experience, to each other, to an ISIS footsoldier, to a Buddhist monk or Hindu guru, or Gandhi. Yet they talk about their experiences as though they are the same and only atheists are different, and somehow shallow and incapable of understanding faith.

Truth is most of them are dead wrong even by their own standards. Their beliefs cant all have a legitimate standing in truth- yet they pretend they are all spiritual regardless. Well sorry but at least one of you us barking up the wrong tree- more likley both

Special, chosen, superior, all make a view to discriminate and that then people are not all equal in their creation. If this is a deliberate design and you are condemned from the start, that is nothing short of wicked and evil. Its all nonsense Eilzel. Those who have been condemned have not even been given the choice of whether they even wanted to exist, as non-existence would be far better than eternal pain and suffering. Even we as humans have the capacity to be more compassionate than the Abrahamic god.
The thing is here Faith is indeed strong in some people and this takes control of their reasoning.
Its true though Eilzel as you say in regards to emotions, being that this is one insecure deity that craves love and punishes you for not loving him/her.

Brasidas that is 100% correct
Institutions pervert any ideal towards greed/personal gain.. Even modern Buddhism

Also take into account that the scale of the universe and how insignificant in size even the sun is and Yes it is very apparent that the Abrahamist god is wrong/incorrect and ultimately a waste of time further discussing as Anyone that is willing to put Maths/Science over faith has to agree.

the Only organized religion that's Philosophy can stand up today is Buddhism (and even then Hinduist Buddhism and several other sects can only if they let the core Buddhist philosophy over write all their other stuff) But as said the institution is no different than any other and a cesspit of corruption and hypocrisy

I contend that Aboriginals Religion also stands up (but It is an unorganized religion) simply because their is no fixed words to define their specifics. they are fluid in there transition as oral traditions are, but also have some incredible philosophical ideas Especially when you consider they originate up to 40,000 years ago that means they are supposed to change and be vague like half forgotten dreams.. Which is completely at odd with almost every aspect of western thinking... Even their concept of history and time is dramatically different to ours

Eilzel wrote:Veya, the infinite regression of god (who created the creator) is not blown away by anything. If god is in many ways human by the definitions you, eddie and vic lay out then god himself changes over time, vic even suggests god's beginning. In this case god is not infinite and something was there before.

But time has Multiple Beginnings AND the Universe it self has a beginning and is 'next to' another universe suggesting that the Universe in in something. Time as we define it cannot exist with out light and space for it to travel through. Thus Time Started with the Big Bang when a separate universe interacted with our universe Supposed by the Membranes of the universes touching.

That is Branes theory.. currently held most probable

So "Reality according to Science" has the Same Construct, The universe had to exist before it did to make contact with the neighboring universe to come into existence... it comes back to singularity. when there is no space there is also no time.. we cannot actually comprehend this (as the electrons in our brain that allow us to think require space and time to work/exists).... like we cannot actually comprehend the hundreds of thousands of colours that a cuttlefish can see and we cannot.

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Veya, the infinite regression of god (who created the creator) is not blown away by anything. If god is in many ways human by the definitions you, eddie and vic lay out then god himself changes over time, vic even suggests god's beginning. In this case god is not infinite and something was there before.

But time has Multiple Beginnings AND the Universe it self has a beginning and is 'next to' another universe suggesting that the Universe in in something. Time as we define it cannot exist with out light and space for it to travel through. Thus Time Started with the Big Bang when a separate universe interacted with our universe Supposed by the Membranes of the universes touching.

That is Branes theory.. currently held most probable

So "Reality according to Science" has the Same Construct, The universe had to exist before it did to make contact with the neighboring universe to come into existence... it comes back to singularity. when there is no space there is also no time.. we cannot actually comprehend this (as the electrons in our brain that allow us to think require space and time to work/exists).... like we cannot actually comprehend the hundreds of thousands of colours that a cuttlefish can see and we cannot.

I don't know if it says time began then.  The membrane multiverse changes a lot, but time might have preceded the said big bang...especially if it is only one of several interactions.  But, who knows what time is now?

Mathematics says it...
Time is a measurement of light moving through space if there is no light or no space for light to travel thru, time cannot exist.

http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Someone who makes decisions without emotions and with a series of algorithms (ie pure logic) would be nothing short of a computer.

So let's imagine what the world would be like if we were all computers. How much compassion would that world have?

And it's not so much about right or wrong but how much you deviated from the straight path to righteousness.

You see you are actually backing my point there as no human has a much faster capability of working out things than a computer. It shows the more advanced and intelligent things become, emotions become redundant, as again they interfere with sound reasoning. The reality is this makes far more sense if God existed than to the ones proposed in the religions. We as humans have made ourselves believe we are something special due to our emotions and a belief that humans are uniquely made in the image of a God, The fact is the in the bible, Torah and Quran the deity is not all forgiven and compassion, where again there would be no need for a hell, if this God was meant to be love. No supreme intelligence would devise or need a hell, it would be beyond rational reasoning to need one, being as this deity can basically do anything. The Abrahamic deity choose not to forgive all and even creates some of them for the sole purpose to suffer in eternity. That is not in any shape or form love. To make some suffer eternally is nothing short of barbaric.

So why do you think something supremely intelligent would in anyway have the need for any emotions?

The problem with your human-computer world is that the best of people will be those with a faster CPU. Your world would be discriminatory in favour of the most tech advanced.

Emotions level the playing field and allows the less advanced to make decisions just as quickly as the advanced. For example in a moment of perceived danger, adrenalin kicks in and the person responds by fleeing. While the danger was cognitively recognised, the decision making was emotional and immediate.

In fact, in such a survival mode, I'd much rather use emotions than logic. As the decision making would be instantaneous.

In contrast, by the time you awaited the result of an algorithm, you may be dead. So in moments of extreme danger (when your cortisol levels are suppressing your rational brain anyway), emotions motivate much faster.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



You see you are actually backing my point there as no human has a much faster capability of working out things than a computer. It shows the more advanced and intelligent things become, emotions become redundant, as again they interfere with sound reasoning. The reality is this makes far more sense if God existed than to the ones proposed in the religions. We as humans have made ourselves believe we are something special due to our emotions and a belief that humans are uniquely made in the image of a God, The fact is the in the bible, Torah and Quran the deity is not all forgiven and compassion, where again there would be no need for a hell, if this God was meant to be love. No supreme intelligence would devise or need a hell, it would be beyond rational reasoning to need one, being as this deity can basically do anything. The Abrahamic deity choose not to forgive all and even creates some of them for the sole purpose to suffer in eternity. That is not in any shape or form love. To make some suffer eternally is nothing short of barbaric.

So why do you think something supremely intelligent would in anyway have the need for any emotions?

The problem with your human-computer world is that the best of people will be those with a faster CPU. Your world would be discriminatory in favour of the most tech advanced.

Emotions level the playing field and allows the less advanced to make decisions just as quickly as the advanced. For example in a moment of perceived danger, adrenalin kicks in and the person responds by fleeing. While the danger was cognitively recognised, the decision making was emotional and immediate.

In fact, in such a survival mode, I'd much rather use emotions than logic.

You are still not grasping this Zack, as emotions are nothing more than a hindrance in decision making. We are not even talking about a computer here but extreme intelligence and you have to think of what needs does a supreme intelligence need of emotions in rationalizing anything. It would not even come into the equation. Again you are thinking in human terms in regards to adrenalin which can work both ways, when it can make men scared out of their wits go forward under intense fire in battle. The problem you have again with such higher intelligence, is there would be no need for wars because such differences would not exist. If decisions would made on rational thinking many things would just not happen like war, as of the futility and cost of such conflicts would make reason against having them. Emotions is to me one of the most enduring aspects of human and it is what makes us human, but you have to look at this logically that such supreme intelligence makes emotions redundant.

Eilzel wrote:Human emotions are indeed a problem specifically to the Abrahamic god didge. They are one of many factors which make that particular god easy to dismiss as rubbish.

Its funny how for many, including both eddie and Zack, that belief in any god is something special and requires somes deeper understanding of faith. Where those with any faith can stand together and those with faith in god are set apart. To the point they ignore the glaring differences in what they believe.

It is clear as day both cannot be have a similar experience, to each other, to an ISIS footsoldier, to a Buddhist monk or Hindu guru, or Gandhi. Yet they talk about their experiences as though they are the same and only atheists are different, and somehow shallow and incapable of understanding faith.

Truth is most of them are dead wrong even by their own standards. Their beliefs cant all have a legitimate standing in truth- yet they pretend they are all spiritual regardless. Well sorry but at least one of you us barking up the wrong tree- more likley both

What I find incredibly funny and ironic is how quickly supposedly intelligent people are dismissing the value of emotions.

In moments of extreme dsnger and stress, just how capable is your brain in processing decisions? Not very. But emotions allow for quicker decision making in moments of stress.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Human emotions are indeed a problem specifically to the Abrahamic god didge. They are one of many factors which make that particular god easy to dismiss as rubbish.

Its funny how for many, including both eddie and Zack, that belief in any god is something special and requires somes deeper understanding of faith. Where those with any faith can stand together and those with faith in god are set apart. To the point they ignore the glaring differences in what they believe.

It is clear as day both cannot be have a similar experience, to each other, to an ISIS footsoldier, to a Buddhist monk or Hindu guru, or Gandhi. Yet they talk about their experiences as though they are the same and only atheists are different, and somehow shallow and incapable of understanding faith.

Truth is most of them are dead wrong even by their own standards. Their beliefs cant all have a legitimate standing in truth- yet they pretend they are all spiritual regardless. Well sorry but at least one of you us barking up the wrong tree- more likley both

What I find incredibly funny and ironic is how quickly supposedly intelligent people are dismissing the value of emotions.

In moments of extreme dsnger and stress, just how capable is your brain in processing decisions? Not very. But emotions allow for quicker decision making in moments of stress.

Granted they help bring courage sometimes, but good decisions? That is very debatable, where in fact you will find emotions tend to bring about poor decisions. The best commanders you will find in history are cool, clam and collective. More than anything a soldier has to switch off emotionally in order to fight and kill others. Quicker decision making can be very rash indeed and can be very costly. You see there is many problems with emotional reactions. Again do not get me wrong, we are humans because of our emotions and one of the best emotions is love, but it is such emotions that can hinder making the right decisions.

Have to go again - and it's my last night in India - could be my last post for a while -

But here's an algorithm for Didge:

- I need X resource to survive
- my country needs X resource
- Counrty Arabia (for example) has X resource
- Arabia unwilling to give X resource
- go to war with Arabia.

There's an algorithm that leads to war.

It is only emotions that can stop it. For example, war kills innocents. I "feel" bad about that.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Have to go again - and it's my last night in India - could be my last post for a while -

But here's an algorithm for Didge:

- I need X resource to survive
- my country needs X resource
- Counrty Arabia (for example) has X resource
- Arabia unwilling to give X resource
- go to war with Arabia.

There's an algorithm that leads to war.

It is only emotions that can stop it. For example, war kills innocents. I "feel" bad about that.

Complete nonsense, reasoning can stop this, a show of strength can stop this, a preemptive strike can prevent this, none of which need emotive decisions.  Signs of emotions can be seen as a weakness and not strength.


Why can you not post whilst back in the UK?

Anyway all the best, see you later.


Take care bro, I am signing off as off out

Nobody mentioned a general problem with emotions Zack. We said they are a problem where the Abrahamic god is concerned, because an emotional god is going to make mistakes and is prone to development and change- such a god then must have a starting point and cannot be eternal- and therefore not a god as the Abrahamic tradition would have us understand it.

For humans emotions are natural and as you say even helpful. But from a theological standpoint an emotional god raises issues.