<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on" width="100%"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">If I'm God, and you the devil? may we agree on an impartial judge? </TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on"> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
god and the devil are illusions. created by church and state to control the masses. if anything everyone is both go(o)d and (d)evil. saying person A is god and person B is devil, is like saying person A is white and person B is black. you are seeing the differences instead of the simmilarities. the only person that may judge me is me. im not swayed either way, i (try to) wander right down the center.
As an athiest I do not believe in god so I can not believe in the devil. I think man has good and evil inside him. Only you can decide what kind of person you will be.
how I take in this is... having "god" and the "devil" AGree on creating a being that has a perspective that is governed by an "evenLined" being that is going to be a judge towards them two...is like combing a Positive and Negative Charge and creating a complete neutral charge? you get the jist
I understand the gist, maybe. you are saying that good and evil exist to maintain equilibrium. how can we enjoy good, if we've never known bad? am I correct? here's my take on the ying yang (spelling sorry). I can see that ballance is there, I don't believe good and bad are always equal though. not with respect to a group of people. what is important to the group, is simply what the majority values, good or bad, or indifferent. if 3 people are in a room and they all value the taste of blood, someone is going to lose, good or bad, see my point? whatever you call it justice is possible, but not necessary, that is up to us, each one of us, unless we're alone. peace
But like all religious dualistic concepts, it's just another false dichotomy, or false dilemma if you wish. Which is why different faiths have this tendency to demonise any other faith. Their god is good, and any other god is false and thus a representative of the devil. A god is supposed to be all that is good, a devil all that is evil. And in between are humans. Get rid of the theistic BS, and you can read it as two abstracts of human nature. The ideal of good, and the equal opposite of good. However the fallacy here is that there is no such thing as absolutes within morality. There is the norm, and deviant to the norm. Deviant do not equal evil, just different. If deviancy results in harm, we could call it evil, but a better description would be to characterize it as a flaw in the person or people that transgress the norm. As such, we are all more or less impartial judges. Whatever falls outside the norm, we can value as either eccentric, insightful, free-spirited or outright harmful.
I think I see the point you are trying to make zylark, I can't see the relevance of gods, though. real or not, they aren't relevant. if people don't have a god, they will make one out of the people in power or something else, or themselves. I agree that there is certainly nothing wrong with deviance, as long as it doesn't effect the natural rights of others. heck, I keep some handcuffs in the bedroom just in case
You might be interested in the "Evil and Suffering" argument? its very interesting. i wasent a beleiver, but when i started philosophy and ethics, i just wondered what can create something so vast? how can it have just made itself? personally i beleive God is beyond any human reasoning, therefor he is infinite, and has always been there. Doesent sound logical i know but God is beyond any human reasoning!
I agree. I see God whenever people are together. I don't see him with my eyes as an illusion, don't get me wrong, I just perceive more than what is apparent. ex. if I have all positive feelings for myself, and you yourself, then we are together, even in the presence of no one else, there is more to consider than you and I. I just don't see we, as the same as you and I, it's more. I'm happy with me, you're happy with you. there is more happiness available though, now I can be happy with you, and you, me. is this making any sense? it would seem when I'm alone I can use all of my happiness on myself, but then when someone else is present, I don't have to lose any happiness for myself to give some to another, there is a new source, that is undetectable in the simple act of being together. peace
This is just argument from ignorance. Why could our universe not "made" itself? Who is to say we are not part of a larger reality, a larger universe. Just one instance of reality in a plethora of others? What is wrong with saying "We do not know. Yet!". If you want the true answer, just ascribing existence to some mystic god, is basically just dishonest and furthermore will never lead to any enlightenment as to the questions that remain. And at any rate, what created god? If god can be infinite, why not a larger universe that created this?
you did nicely to reiterate a point of this nice person. I believe he already stated his ignorance, in stating he knew this wasn't logical. we all can chose something to believe in that we don't understand, reasonably or not, so long as we're not hurting anyone else, where's the harm? I believe the argument, who created God is from ignorance. there is no way to comprehend the beginning. there are a miriad of guesses, all equally plausable, imo. we can't really conceive something that just always was or is, that doesn't mean there was or wasn't a beginning, we just can't conceive it.
There is a difference between claiming ignorance and claiming a god. By claiming a god, you do not claim ignorance, you claim a solution. Furthermore, a solution that can never be proven. And even worse, a solution that effectively stops further inquiry into the question. Ignorance is the first step towards understanding.
we are all ignorant to the begining. how is accepting that God did it, any different than accepting the theory of the big bang? we can move on with a conclusion or not, imo. I don't see your point. I believe God did it, can't I still be curious as to how? if I'm in his image, that means I may be able to do it too someday. what's wrong with that?
For one thing, the Big Bang, do not make any claims onto the origin of the universe. It just describes how it expanded _after_ the first couple of split seconds from coming into existence. If you want a testable solution to origin, M-Theory have a couple of valid speculations. Valid as in mathematically possible and conceptually coherent, unlike say "goddidit!"
I apologize for my ignorance at times, zylark. at times, I find myself struggling with your superior vocabulary. all I'm saying is the science of how it all started is irelevant to the fact that something beyond our ability to conceive had a hand in it or not. our beliefs are based on something that exists outside of our physical reality. science and creationists, aren't really arguing in my opinion on where it come from, at least I don't see it that way. maybe you can help me. peace
Why should it be outside our ability to understand? You are not claiming a fact here, you are conjecturing. This is a claim. Not open minded ignorance inviting to inquiry. What makes the claim a bad one, is that it cannot be proven. As such it is nothing but wishful thinking, not a rational speculation. I think you are correct here. It's not so much about the details of origin, but more on the conflict between those that want to find a rational answer, and those that have already made up their mind and don't want to be proven wrong.
it should be outside our understanding, just because we aren't born with infinite knowledge, man, that would be boring wouldn't it? I'm not claiming it needs to stay beyond our understanding, just that at present, it is. the claim is on my belief, not the facts. I may speculate on my beliefs apart from actuality if all the facts aren't present, no? isn't that what science calls a hypothesis? I can't call it that, because I have no need or desire to prove my belief, I don't have a need because it is apart from everything else I may understand. I can hang on to my beliefs of what is beyond this natural existence until I'm no longer here, no? I don't need to be correct here, we can still look together for answers in order to improve our natural condition. God is irelevant, we may cooperate in any way whether both of holds to different beliefs or not. It doesn't change science or what is apart from it. it doesn't effect our possible conclusions. my observation is that if we hold to tightly to what is rational, we miss a lot of fun, among other things, along the way. I understand your position, we aren't very different at all, I just chose one possibility to hold on to that can't be proven wrong. you leave it open. the fact that we don't agree has no other effect than creating something we don't agree on. it doesn't change any answers.
Santa can't be proven wrong either. Rationality does not mean dull. Entertaining supernatural ideas is not more fun than entertaining rational ideas. And furthermore, realizing this life is the only one we got, is an open invitation to have fun. You only have this one chance at it. I understand very much the deist point of view. Origin is a difficult question, and so far left unanswered. And you describe pretty well the differences between deists as yourself and non-believers such as myself. The difference is in requirement of proof. Where there is none, I won't make any claims. Where there is a possibility of proof, I will speculate. Where there is proof I will claim.
I agree. I see the problem is that the many that claim to know of the reality of God, as opposed to the very strong belief is offensive to the many that say, how can you know. it's very sad, there really doesn't even need to be an arguement if we just all accept responsibility for ourselves and aren't so pushy with our beliefs. believers push non-believers, and ya'll push back. I wish we could just stop pushing. it doesn't really matter. another speculation I'd like to consider is that the pushy believers are acting immature. they accept responsibility for their perceived fate of others rather than a simple responsibility to share. this is very dangerous as proved over and over throughout history and hasn't ended in the present. it is simply compassion carried to the point of effecting the rights of others, very wrong. non-believers push back in defense of those whose rights are being effected, very right. some however, do the same as believers in pushing back more than what is allowable to coexist. we've all made a mountain out of a mole hill. those able to rationalize on both sides have a resposibility to enlighten the pushy as to their effects. if the pushy can't stop pushing, their rights need to be deprived untill they might stop being so pushy. what do you think?