Tenko

Let's say that hypothetically you're starving and you enter a room which has a basket full of chocolate and a stack of firewood. The memories of eating food which you still possess, the belief that wood is not food which you still hold, and the knowledge that starvation leads to death which you have obtained, all lead to your decision to eat the chocolate and make your stomach happy. Surely, this is not a reason to be sad? It's a good thing you know what food is and that wood can't be eaten and that starvation leads to death, because now you get a whole basket full of chocolate instead of a stomach full of splinters. How many other options were there? You could have eaten wood, or stones, or dog vomit, or nothing at all. Those are all options. But they suck. How much happiness do you currently enjoy by choosing not to brush your teeth with steel wool? And having teeth that aren't gound to dust means more happiness by way of more food options, a more glamorous appearance, more time available to spend pursuing happiness instead of waiting for swollen abcesses to go away, etc. How could it be that the pursuit of happiness itself can be a source of sadness? Making a choice in order to make yourself happy as opposed to sad is an act of increasing your happiness, not an act of reducing it. So you know what makes you happy. Even if you can't find it, at least you know what it is. Even if it's impossible you could still dream about it. Even if it's stolen from you, you still know what it is that makes you happy, and you can still dream about it even though having it at the moment is impossible, and you can still pursue it in the future even though you don't have it now. This all seems like a lot of power to me, rather than a lack of power. Looking at the chain of events would be looking at the past. Regrets, hindsight, etc. Seemingly so many things that could have been done but only one thing was done. If you're considering what the future holds, realize that foresight is profitable while hindsight is not. So many things that can be done. Even if only one thing can be done at a time, since the choices have yet to be made, the options become increased from one to countless. So don't think in terms of determinism when looking at the future. The deterministic universe includes your free will in its gears, which means your choices and actions help to determine your own future. Your free will is effective. Goals are possible. Dreams might be fulfillable. Unless you think they're impossible. Then your goals and dreams are already dead. And then, only the goals and dreams of other people will remain, but so will you, without any of your own. There's a war on for your mind, because only you can turn yourself into a slave. Only you can give up your own future because only you can make your choices. If you are, at least in part, the co-author of the book that is your future, based on the things that you want and the choices that you make in order to obtain them, then the potential to find happiness, plan it out and make it happen, is there. The fact that goals can be conceived and some dreams might actually be possible, isn't that reason for joy rather than depression? If the things that happened to us in the past are a cause of depression, then why hang onto them at all? Why not just figure out what kind of future would deliver the most happiness for you, and stop building the future where you have no choice or freedom or happiness, etc, and start building the future that you want to live in? Often times, to overcome something you have to walk away from it. To overcome an addiction to a drug, to lose weight, to gain freedom, you must walk away from something. Because we're all free by default. Unless we think we're not. To overcome government slavery we must stop funding it, stop waving flags, stop voting, and stop empowering those who would increase slavery; we must walk away from it. To overcome a hungry stomach, we must first not become a slave to the stomach; we must walk away from it, or our stomachs will be used against us to enslave us. To overcome the world, would we not have to walk away from it as well? Can one build the future that he wants, without first walking away from the future that was placed in front of him by other people? By hungry wolves. He has to walk away from the wolves to find green pastures, right? So you've got this incredible opportunity to make of your life what you will and be one of the authors of your own future; to find happiness. But these stumbling blocks have been put in front of you, so that if you don't make the right choices, you will end up 'belonging' to someone else. Isn't it wonderful that we have the power to prefer that basket of chocolate over that stack of firewood? That we have the power to prefer freedom instead of slavery? To try and pursue actual freedom, which most people don't want you to have for various reasons, is something that you are capable of doing. If you prefer it.

Hello everyone. I've posted here before. I want to reply to some of the ideas in the recent video so I had to find some space to post a long argument because the youtube comments section is too small. When I debate for the existence of free will I find it hard to follow the opposing arguments, usually because I am thinking what free will is ends up being different from what the other person is thinking free will is. Since I cant just lose my own vocabulary in order to talk to someone I have to use a new word or a sentence containing the definition provided by the other person, not the words "free will". When trying to find out what they think free will is, it's like I can never get past that one step to get further into the argument. Even if we talk for hours it can still happen. The determinist might say something like this, "In a deterministic universe, on a tuesday morning in a cafe, Bob had a slice of lemon pie. Like a rock rolling down a cliff can only land in a certain position, Bob could only have had that lemon pie and not the cherry pie, or anything else for that matter. Therefore choice is an illusion and Bob does not have the power of free will." I am not arguing against determinism. I'm arguing for the existence of free will within a deterministic universe. So aside from that, here are a few questions... Can you answer yes to these questions? A lack of free will involves Bob choosing lemon pie? The presense of free will involves Bob doing what he chose not to do, which would be eating a cherry pie or abstaining from pie altogether? Eating our least favorite food instead of our most favorite food would then be an example of free will, because we were capable of breaking our own preference and changing what would have happened? How could it be that the power of free will is only achieved by doing something that you chose not to do? Is it not true that sacrificing your choice and doing what you don't want to do is evidence of a lack of free will, and not evidence for it presense? Doesn't it seem like someone interested in propagating slavery would prefer that people believe having free will = doing what you don't want to do and having no free will = doing what you want to do? When a person believes they are only free when they don't get to choose, haven't they already resigned to slavery? If a person believes they don't have free will because of determinism (or anything else) aren't they resigning their free will by voluntarily choosing to do so? How else could they have come to a preference of belief on the subject than by exercising the power of preference of belief? Is a slave made by the power of the enslavers or by the power of the slave? Can you answer yes to these questions? Is a lack of free will manifested when Bob arrives in the cafe with a choice between 7 different flavors of pie? Is the power of free will only manifested if Bob can achieve the impossible, which would be to eat a cherry pie that day instead? Does free will only involve the power to do things that can never happen because determinism did not allow them to happen; the power to do the impossible? Is it fair to attack free will by defining it as including only that which is impossible, despite the definitions anyone else is working with? If there is no such thing as free will, then why should we bother building a society geared towards freedom? If no one has the power of choice, how can a government or a lack of government shift the nature of the universe from deterministic to magical? If societal restructuring cannot create free will, then what's the point of it all? If people are automatons, and they have no free will, then why bother trying to setup a society which expands freedom? Do you want to give more options to people who, in reality, each have only one option? If you say to a man that hearing is an illusion, are you not depending upon the existence of real hearing? Are you not waiting for that man to hear what you say and consider it and reply to it? If you say to a man that he has no free will, are you not attempting to change his opinion on the subject? Are you not recognizing that the man could possibly change his mind and agree with you, or do you really believe that he has no free will and thus cannot change his mind and will never agree with you? If he can never agree with you, then why did you try to convince him? Who managed to convince you?

I heard that Muslims make traditional trips to a holy city (Mecca?) and worship en mass around this black building. I also heard that only 'high Muslim priests', or whatever the correct term is, are allowed to enter this building, and that no one else is allowed to see what is inside. I'd be curious to know what is inside.

You make a good point that people throughout history have fantasized their own religions, or even their own interpretations of religious text. And that the imaginitive power of man is certainly capable of doing an even better job at making stuff up than it already has. So, what does it mean when we accept the premise "99.9% of people make stuff up about God, for whatever reasons" as being assumed true? Nothing. For consensus does not equal truth value. The truth value of God's existence is not modified by how many people are correct or incorrect, empirical or imaginitive. We are not evaluating the existence of the Loch Ness Monster nor Leprachauns, at least that's not what I was doing in the first post. To try and say that "Because unicorns have not been proven to exist, that means anything that hasn't been proven to exist must not exist due to my failure to prove it one way or another," is to find an excuse to stop looking, an excuse which is not technically valid. I anticipate the next response as being, "Why should we not give up looking for unicorns and the loch ness monster? Why should we keep trying to prove their existence or nonexistence?" And my answer to that is this: My post is not about encouraging the search for bigfoot, nor unicorns, etc. My post is about encouraging the search for God. How many implications does the discovery of bigfoot have on you, personally, and how many implications does the discovery of God have on you, personally? That's a big difference between the two, isn't it? So why should we not give up looking for God? Because God is a lot greater than bigfoot or a unicorn, and God can do much more for us than bigfoot or a unicorn, and God can give us eternal life unlike bigfoot and a unicorn, etc. I just discovered reputation points. I have -24 so far. Interesting to know that if someone is polite and rational they are unpopular here. Or is it my beliefs that are unpopular?

First of all, thank you for taking the time to look up all those quotes. I'm checking them with my KJV Bible. If God has all the time he needs to study a problem and fully understand everything involved before deciding what to do about it, I would call that infinite understanding, because no matter how cmoplex the problem presented God still has enough time to figure it out. "His understanding is infinite" is different from "God knows all things, including things impossible to know." I just don't see it here. To be able to know all things is possible if all things includes a finite set of things. If God created this universe and can examine it from a distance taking as much time as desired, then God certainly is capable of knowing all things about His universe. If God can see a person's every move and hear their every word, from birth to death, then why is it not fair to say that God knows everything that you're going to say and do? This verse is saying that God can see past, present, and future, and can 'declare' them to us (prophecy), and that there is none like Him who can do that. I don't see anything here that include logically impossible feats. Jesus is saying here that men cannot save themselves, only through God can man be saved. That a rich man trying to get into heaven by himself is ridiculously hard, but with God it becomes possible. The context of all 3 verses makes it logically understandable, unless you remove all but the last 7 words from the context and that wouldn't even be a complete sentence. Again, taking context into account here 1:37 is talking about Elisabeth who was called barren for her infertility being able to do that which is impossible, conceive, because "with God nothing shall be impossible". The context implies that God can do in His universe that He created what He wants to do; that He has the power to do so. Would man have the time to learn every little thing that God can know or that God does find out? Man has to sleep, God does not. Moreso than that, there's so much that God knows that it would take a phenomenal time to learn it all. Can man comprehend every single thing that God comprehends? There is no searching for God's understanding, as far as people on the earth are concerned, because it's an impossible task for them to accomplish in their current state with the time limit they each have. The true word of God from the KJV does not say "his understanding is beyond measure". When the Bible says that God knows the future and communicates it to us in the form of prophecy, there are many things one can do with that information. Three things that come to mind are: #1. Spend a lot of time pondering irrelevant extremes to find one which does not allow prophecy to work, then dismiss everything relevant to prophecy using this imagined model. #2. Pick your nose. #3. Check out the prophecy. Is this stuff really happening? So long as you're stuck debating technicalities and definitions and what-not, you will totally miss prophecy which is cloaked in metaphor, because your requirements are too technical and rigid to allow metaphor a chance for consideration.

But the set of traits being evaluated here is the one I posted at the top. If you want to evaluate your traits for God, we can do that. But I don't know how stating new traits for God invalidates the traits I posted at the top. We're not evaluating the common form of omnipotence, etc, we are evaluating logically possible forms (albeit more limited) forms of those things. If you are saying that the Bible claims God can do everything including that which is logically not possible, I would like to see the verse which says something along those lines. Because I don't know of any. But you didn't even read what I wrote. I am choosing traits which are specifically non-contradictory, and I have chosen a trait which states that "God is at least one unit of something." so I'm not actually claiming that God is made out of nothing. I also never said that God was infinitely complex. Could you take a look at the argument again?

Well I'm not claiming that anything I've written here is deductive proof of God's existence. I'm just trying to keep the idea 'on the table' as possible. Many people claim to hear or otherwise receive answers to their questions in prayer, and the Bible claims that this will happen as a result of prayer as well. I know that someone else's testimony is not proof. I am providing a possible example of seeing or hearing God. It would have to happen to you, of course, before you believed, unless you had faith before. And it takes an inch of faith to pray in the first place, because if you think nothing is going to happen, why bother? If you cannot hear God due to a lack of faith (as described in the Bible) then I understand why you percieve no evidence. It might be that evidence cannot penetrate the barrier built from lack of faith, unless an inch of a crack forms first.

It's funny because I was raised catholic and ran fast away from that into athiesm, and from there into deism with no affiliated religion, then had revelations and became christian. So I have some roots in philosophy and logic, and I can't accept the idea of a self-contradictory god as being the living God that I believe in now. The point is that, if God exists and the Bible is His message to us, then we will miss out on eternal life if we don't consider the possibility of God's existence. If God exists, and His message is some other book, then vital instructions are being ignored. This is not the same as a galaxy far, far away, because it has implications which stretch out into you and either save you or damn you; because God's intervention reaches here from that far away. If it's within the bounds of reality but no one has collected acceptable proof, then regardless of any arguments given for either side, the truth value of the proposition is still in question because proof has not yet been entered into the equation. The arguments offered without proof are no more valid as proof than a self-contradictory statement. Again, I'm not claiming deductive proof through my arguments, I'm just trying to point out that this idea might be worthy of "remaining on the table," until evidence of the proposition emerges either way. When trying to discover, say, the cause of a disease before knowledge of germs, one must be able to imagine many things and test those imaginations for truth or falsehood before they can arrive at the discovery of germs. How far can these imaginations go when trying to visualize the cause of a disease? No limits, like you say. How far do these imaginations need to go? Only as far as to discover germs. So as far as looking at the above listed traits from a deistic perspective, it's still on the table? From a christian perspective, If God's traits are self-contradictory, then let's examine some of those. What if one of God's traits is that He saves righteous people from death? All the sudden you have incentive to seek God and learn, and punishment for making your life "exactly the same no matter the discovery." A question even more important than that one would be, does God exist? Because the truth exists independently from anyone's needs. So regardless of why I feel I need God, the question on the table is His existence. Another good question would be, does your need or lack thereof for God affect the truth value of His existence? #5. God is at least one unit of something.

One of my favorite things to do a long time ago was find quick ways to prove the non-existence of a god using traits described to me by other people. It would frustrate them, but if you're going to believe in an existing God then he had better not have self-contradictory properties. Well now that I'm Christian, I'll have a go at attempting to define traits which do not disqualify themselves from existence. If no one can point out reason to believe in non-existence, would that not mean the question is 'up in the air' or 'on the table' until proven or disproven one way or the other? I'm not saying we should treat an unproven question as though it is true, I'm saying that we should treat an unproven question as though it could be true, at least theoretically, given assumption of specific non-contradictory traits. Before you ask what reason there is for entering these assumptions (basis in reality, evidence, fact, research, etc), or what reason there is for evaluating a hypothetical being which emerges from the traits assumed, let me explain. Let's say someone designs a new invention called 'the printing press'. Now, at this point in time no printing press can be seen, examined, or used, because there are none anywhere. The only evidence that the printing press works as the inventor claims is a mechanical drawing he made on a large piece of paper. All we could do would be to enter the assumption that, with all parts shaped and put together, this machine would do what we think it would do. And we would also have to evaluate this hypothetical device using its assumed traits before building it, or else we cannot design it and then we cannot build from a working design. To do anything otherwise equals abandoning the pursuit of building the printing press. Now let's ask, why even bother evaluating the possibility of God existing? We have many books claiming to be messages from God. Many people have near-death and OOB experiences, some have astral projection experiences. Some people think dreams are from a different level of reality. Some people claim memories of past lives. Some people claim to have experienced miracles. If any one of these things happens to a person, why should that person not then consider the possibility of God? Should that person really just find the first sentence they don't understand and snap the book shut and say they've disproven the whole thing? I mean, everyone does what they want to. It just seems to me that some people give very little consideration to ideas that are not instantly self-terminating (possibly valid ideas) because they don't like that particular subject, but when talking about other subjects, a lot of consideration is expected. Or perhaps it's that one subject is already delcared moot, no matter what new arguments are brought forth? Instead of the common idea of omniscience, let's say that "God can find out anything about anything in His universe." This trait also places the information elsewhere, as an accessible medium, instead of requiring it to all be stuffed into one mind and all be conciously thought of simultaneously forever. This also draws closer the claim that "we were created in His image." Instead of the common idea of omnipotence, let's say that "God can do anything possible except sin." 'anything possible' rules out logically impossible feats while preserving the infinite range of potential valid actions. We know that God hates hypocricy and therefore would not practice hypocricy, thus God who tells us to not sin should also not be sinning. Instead of the common idea of omnipresense, let's say that "God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants." This is carefully worded to allow God to be in more place than one, simultaneously, yet still be logically possible. Some people like to define God as invulnerable to logical attack, or existing where A can equal non-A, or existing with an inpenetrable barrier between Him and us, in order to evade good arguments against their claimed traits. Defining anything that way makes it self-implode, so we have to add the trait "God exists within the boundaries of reality," and the trait "God is at least one unit of something," and the trait "God can reach out and intervene here." #1. God can find out anything about anything in His universe. #2. God can do anything possible except sin. #3. God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants. #4. God exists within the boundaries of reality. #5. God is at least one unit of something. #6. God can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it]. Are any of these traits contradicting each other or themselves? Is there a trait that must be added or else the whole thing falls apart? Is there a trait here that must be removed or else the whole thing falls apart? If you can show me something wrong here I'd try to fix it or abandon whatever trait needs to be abandoned. Disclaimer: Keep in mind that these are just assumed traits for a hypothetically existing God, or for a God whose existence is still possible or 'on the table' based on described traits. This is not an attempt to prove the existence of God - only an attempt to put the possibility of His existence back on the table.

Well, to cite a similar example, calculus makes use of the number i (square root of negative 1) and even though there is no such number, and even though no one could ever count i apples or measure i inches of distance, its still valid to use in an algebraic equation because it's simply a variable whose value is never calculated. If 4i = 8X, then divide both sides by i and you get 4 = 8X / i. So yeah, work can be done with these numbers that have no defined value, but only because the work done with them never tries to define their value. I just don't see how infinity could exist in reality. It's a concept like the number i. Surely if we don't think the number 7 exists in reality, then the number i and the number infinity must also be nonexistent? Because 7 would be a lot easier to define in reality than something which has no definition. The number 7 is more like a descriptive word "red" than an existing independent object. That apple is red. There are 7 red apples. Maybe I still haven't understood what you mean though, would be my fault. I haven't taken the higher math classes. So if that's my problem forgive me Trying this from a different angle let's assume the number 7 exists because we can touch 7 red apples with our fingers and count each touch. This way, the existence of a number manifests itself by our ability to physically move our bodies across its domain. Can you make infinity manifest itself? No one could ever touch infinity apples infinity times with their finger, all they can do is keep trying to finish. No one could touch i apples because if they're never touched an apple before then they're already touched too many apples. I gotta say that I still think you're right, even though I don't agree with the argument to prove your point. I've read something similar called The Simulation Argument, and I have considered this possibility from many different angles. How else could we call ourselves "creations" if we're not created? This argument if true would also explain how eternal life is possible, and how the death of flesh is just one stage within an eternal lifespan.

The mechanism which causes attraction also causes repulsion under different circumstances. I just created a more complex theory which incorporates the same matter/energy into different behaviors using different circumstances.

Sometimes signs come in the most obvious ways. That post of yours above this one was your 666th post. But I won't think on it as bad. I already admitted that Bible quotes aren't accepted as empirical evidence by those who do not have faith. That's what I am doing. I am discussing possible reasons why God wouldn't answer one's prayer for proof of His existence. Are you reading what I'm writing? You have given me a default answer when my post probably deserves a bit more attention than that. In no place in my post have I asserted that the things I quoted are true because they are quoted. What I have done instead is suggest possible reasons why God won't answer one's prayer for proof of His existence. Wanna discuss it?

How can this feel so wrong... Yet this feel so familiar... Seriously though, infinity, like a number, can only be a concept. Infinity cannot exist in reality. There cannot be an infinite amount of matter, or an infinite amount of energy, or an infinite amount of complexity. There can be a finite assortment of matter which repeats infinity times, so long as the number of things that actually exist is still finite. Infinity can exist as a scope of calculable information, or an infinite amount of time, both being concepts.

You say that we know religion is likely created for power and profit because religions never change and punish those who call for change. Thus you are implying that the source of religion is not God because religion never changes, and that monotony is the result of evil actions [punishment to enforce monotony]. Thus I say we cannot use the evil actions of others as a 'barometer' for the existence of God. I'm not sure what you're saying here. In my posts I've described how I believe many religions were created for profit and power, and how all mainstream religions are currently being used for such. I've never been arguing from the perspective that people don't create religious text or rewrite religious text for their own profit. I've been arguing the opposite. Well point blank, God intervenes. As far as I understand, God places us here and watches what we do, reacting to those things with a hand that is definitely measurable. The question is, what are you looking for? One could be looking to measure something that is by nature immeasurable, thus disregarding the measurement process entirely as a failure before it even begins. Or one could be looking entirely for things that occur as a mechanism of the universe [its a creation, right?]. If the measurement one takes falls entirely within the boundaries of their normal scientific activity, understanding of reality, etc, then how can one discern between natural and guided phenomena? Even this decision requires some artistic license, or some interpretation, or some amount of faith, or some kind of new protocols. For example: KJV Rev 8:7 "The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up." Now look up Morgellan's Disease and crossreference that with Chemtrails. Did God give us every little detail of what is in the chemtrails? No. But we have enough to go on that an easy interpretation becomes: hail = metallic salts, fire = nanotech DNA which is also mixed with synthetic red blood cells. The chemtrails are also killing trees and grass worldwide. Now admittedly, this is not a videotape recording sent from the future through a timeportal for us to watch events unfold and consider their truth while we hold our pinkies up sipping tea. But despite its lack of resolution, it's spot-on accurate with the detail that it does contain. And the whole point is that, should the Bible be what it claims to be, then we have evidence of God's prophetic power which itself is indiscernable from measurements of nature [God wrote it by employing human hands, etc]. If all of this is really true, if we're all living in the end times, then to borrow pascal's wager, you know the rest. Pascal's wager isn't proof, I know. Now, if you reject the existence of God based on the assumption that God could only be immeasureable... ...and then reject the existence of God based on the assumption that measurements of God and nature are indiscernable... ...then you have created a situation whereby a boolean value being true proves X, and being false also proves X. And you have gone awry somewhere if this is the case.

I grew up in a catholic household before becoming athiest, now I'm a christian. The last day I spent at catholic mass was the day the priest explained why "Jesus won't forgive you if you smoke pot..." I looked around to see the shock on everyone else's faces, but every person was staring straight at the priest and smiling. The shock I felt wasn't about the priest claiming that marijuana was a sin. In 1910 they couldn't give a shit, but nowadays that's a normal attitude. The shock came from the claim that Jesus won't forgive you for smoking pot. But there's already so much wrong with catholicism that people who want to keep Christ's words should be running like cheetas away from those churches. The ten commandments were altered by catholicism to remove the commandement against graven images, so that parishoners could be praying to statues and pictures. Yet in the Bible Jesus tells us specifically to not do these things. Catholic doctrine promotes repetitious prayer, yet in the Bible Jesus tells us specifically not to engage in vain and repetitious prayer. The pope tells Africans not to wear condoms, in a place where starvation and aids are epidemic. The vatican has always been a storehouse of wealth accumulated over centuries of conquest and unknown business, complete with gold, precious art, jewels, etc. Nearly every catholic priest drives a luxury or semi-expensive car on their way to go preach about how money should be given to the poor, then they collect that money and use it to buy the latest model luxury car. Priests claim the power of God in that they have the ability to absolve your sin and forgive you, and that you cannot find forgiveness unless you go directly to them. The Bible tells us that forgiveness comes from God. The Bible doesn't say that it comes from some guy claiming to act on behalf of God, even if that guy also claims the power to damn you to eternal hellfire for not repenting unto whoever he is. There's plenty more than that, but long story short, catholicism is an awful place to begin at, and you have my sympathies as someone who also suffered through that crap.