Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Will Due

Doing God's will.

1,764 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Horta
3 hours ago, Habitat said:

That is explained rationally. By the relationship of elements within a system.  No-one can even speculate how there is a system, it can't be done by looking at the relationships within the system, that system being the accessible universe. This is the reason creation myths have arisen, not to any effect, of course, but the mind does have a way of filling in blanks with something, anything !

That's just back to..."relativity doesn't make sense here, so it must be god". The same thing Newton (wrongly) did when he reached his limit. It's simply the old "god of the gaps" again. 

Plenty of people have speculated on how there is a system, Krauss did it quite plausibly and logically by looking at the relationships within the system. So that would seem untrue.

To remind you of what you originally posted...You did say the "riddle of existence" has no possible rational explanation and therefore requires an irrational one. Firstly the "riddle of existence" is a bit vague, but assuming you mean the observable universe...unless you do understand the "riddle of existence" yourself, how could you possibly know that?

All that we really do know is that the earlier universe was denser and hotter, and that general relativity breaks down at a certain point. That doesn't necessarily mean it can never be understood rationally.

Quote

We cannot know, rationally, that which can't be understood rationally, and the riddle of existence has no conceivable rational explanation, even a world champion liar couldn't come up with one. It becomes the province of the irrational, literally, and to those firmly lodged in rational thought processes, indigestible,

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ellapennella
21 hours ago, Guyver said:

I’m sorry to hear that, but I do understand it.  It’s probably not pleasant to read a thread where your beliefs are criticized or challenged.  It may be that you believe God wrote or inspired the bible, and you may believe that the God of the Jews is the real God, and you don’t wish to argue the point with nonbelievers.  It’s much easier to just discuss these things with people who believe just as you do.  I’m guessing.

You're  guessing is wrong about me.  Faith is a very first foundation of spiritual principle. What you need to understand is  that criticism/mockery  only confirms  the things that Yeshua/Jesus  said  would occur  .  I just don't see the point right now  in having a conversation with you about faith in God/YHWH. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
8 hours ago, Horta said:

That's just back to..."relativity doesn't make sense here, so it must be god". The same thing Newton (wrongly) did when he reached his limit. It's simply the old "god of the gaps" again. 

Plenty of people have speculated on how there is a system, Krauss did it quite plausibly and logically by looking at the relationships within the system. So that would seem untrue.

To remind you of what you originally posted...You did say the "riddle of existence" has no possible rational explanation and therefore requires an irrational one. Firstly the "riddle of existence" is a bit vague, but assuming you mean the observable universe...unless you do understand the "riddle of existence" yourself, how could you possibly know that?

All that we really do know is that the earlier universe was denser and hotter, and that general relativity breaks down at a certain point. That doesn't necessarily mean it can never be understood rationally.

 

Well, "old mate" Stephen Hawking, who was supposedly no slouch in this department, felt he needed to explain why anything existed, and posited a kind of spontaneous generation, which he says the laws of physics actually does allow. I am certainly not about to argue the merits of that, but I do query what is it that "allows" the laws of physics, if you know what I mean ! If you think there is a plausible "rational" explanation, out there, I'd be happy to see it, but expectations are not high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Same with my parents, they didn't know any other way except the traditional one. My mother's people were more native American and used very minimal physical discipline. If you were sick or hurt yourself and cried, you were comforted. If you cried because you didn't get your way in something, you were popped on the lips, smartly with their fingers. If you were bad, you had to fetch your own switch to have it swished between your legs. Both gave you sense that you were doing it to yourself, which of course, led to the independent conclusion that it was easily avoided by not doing it to yourself. My grandmother was a wise woman. My father's way was the traditional Scotch-Irish flogging and you darn well knew he was the author of your distress and you brought it on yourself. We learned not to be bad fairly quickly and were rarely punished. I must say my grandmother's method was more subtle and sparing and far more effective.  

The bolded bit is the critical thing.

If it did that, then it served its purpose. If this could be done with minimal pain, then all the better.

It just gets me how many people were clearly not really loved as children Ie did not have parents who would have given anything, and died, for them, but still wouldn't simply let them have their own way in everything, because that too would have damaged them,  Real love is made evident by both words and actions 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Well, "old mate" Stephen Hawking, who was supposedly no slouch in this department, felt he needed to explain why anything existed, and posited a kind of spontaneous generation, which he says the laws of physics actually does allow. I am certainly not about to argue the merits of that, but I do query what is it that "allows" the laws of physics, if you know what I mean ! If you think there is a plausible "rational" explanation, out there, I'd be happy to see it, but expectations are not high.

Well, the "why is there something instead of nothing" is a different thing altogether. It's a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as the colloquial "nothing", except as a concept that is itself a product of human irrationality IMO.

To include "nothing" in any scientific explanation, it has to be defined. Then because it has properties it is "something", which is one of the major criticisms of the "god did it" people (correctly IMO).

Hawking didn't really offer a mystical or miraculous type of "spontaneous generation" though, but one that in principle is scientifically explainable.

It also looks like another example of someone positing a rational explanation and discussing it rationally, which you feel can't happen (but does regularly).

Why does anything have to "allow" the laws of physics? This is a very biased and somewhat irrational position to begin with. If you have any genuine reason for why that would be necessary, I'd like to see it also.

This is what Hawking's co author said about it...

Quote

“Our conclusion: This (the universe) can all be explained through science and we don’t need God to explain how the universe came into existence or why the laws of nature are what they are,” said Mlodinow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Why does anything have to "allow" the laws of physics? This is a very biased and somewhat irrational position to begin with. If you have any genuine reason for why that would be necessary, I'd like to see it also.

This is what Hawking's co author said about it...

Quote

“Our conclusion: This (the universe) can all be explained through science and we don’t need God to explain how the universe came into existence or why the laws of nature are what they are,” said Mlodinow.

You might as well say, that the "laws of physics", are God. So far as I can see, in that argument, that is what is being said. We don't need the incredibly loaded word God, we'll just substitute "laws of nature". I don't see that, as an advance on the traditional creation myths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
30 minutes ago, Horta said:

Well, the "why is there something instead of nothing" is a different thing altogether. It's a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as the colloquial "nothing", except as a concept that is itself a product of human irrationality IMO.

To include "nothing" in any scientific explanation, it has to be defined. Then because it has properties it is "something", which is one of the major criticisms of the "god did it" people (correctly IMO).

Hawking didn't really offer a mystical or miraculous type of "spontaneous generation" though, but one that in principle is scientifically explainable.

It also looks like another example of someone positing a rational explanation and discussing it rationally, which you feel can't happen (but does regularly).

Why does anything have to "allow" the laws of physics? This is a very biased and somewhat irrational position to begin with. If you have any genuine reason for why that would be necessary, I'd like to see it also.

This is what Hawking's co author said about it...

 

Are you sure it is not simply that the concept of nothingness is too foreign for people get.

Nothingness exists in the absence of something/anything.

We can thus name it, and define it, and it can exist.    Just because there is nothing there doesn't mean it doesn't exist; rather the, "nothing there" is the essence of nothingness. If there was something or any thing there, it would not be nothingness.

This is separate to the argument in science as to whether there truly was, or ever is, a state of nothingness preceding the big bang,  and whether nothingness is so unstable it collapses (or expands)  to become something 

People find it hard to understand that something can come from nothing  (especially  spontaneously ) but it appears that this might be so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

Children of God is actually used in the Gospel, "The peacemakers will be called the children of God."

The indignation only goes down to the 4th generation in the 10 commandments. But, there is a law that is brought up later again and again that a father is not to be punished by his son's sins and a son not punished for his father's sins.

Women have prominent places throughout scripture, like Sarah, Eve, Esther, Ruth, Mary, Miriam, and a couple in Judges or Joshua I can't remember. I think one of those was an important female judge of Israel, and the other was commended for how she murdered the enemy by driving a stake through his head.

The Queen of Sheba.

 

Edited by Opus Magnus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually we could have, but chose not to.  there remain  no laws against it in Australia  and certainly were none last century.

  Our kids were already damaged, and required love and firm parenting, with strict boundaries.   They had  often been exposed to enough violence without adding to it  The y could leave any time but stayed because they were loved and protected 

lol our parenting mattered and still matters. We still have close contact with the youngest two, now  in their early twenties who each have children of their own and still require financial and  emotional support It is interesting that we are the only adults they trust and turn to for help. Their relationships with their real families remain totally dysfunctional and highly emotional 

I accept your word that you were not speaking about me,  although you have recently said very similar things about my health

Why didn’t you adopt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
3 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

You're  guessing is wrong about me.  Faith is a very first foundation of spiritual principle. What you need to understand is  that criticism/mockery  only confirms  the things that Yeshua/Jesus  said  would occur  .  I just don't see the point right now  in having a conversation with you about faith in God/YHWH. 

Thank you for correcting me.  I agree that faith is the foundation of spiritual principle.  But I don’t agree that Jesus ever said that people would mock or criticize Christianity.  Peter said that people would mock in the last days, and Paul wrote of people being a certain way.....but didn’t specify mockery or criticism.  He said people would be boastful, lovers of themselves, lovers of money.  

Jesus did say that Christians would be hated and persecuted.  Interestingly, he did not say that Christianity would become the largest and most popular religion in the world.  

But I respect your right to not wish to speak to me about it,  

peace be with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That was my point to sherapy She had the skills and time, but even so it required her home schooling her boys so that she could have a monopoly on their values  education and training.

Most parents only get a few hours with their kids each day,  and that is often not enough for fancy methods of instilling lessons and self discipline,    but she had all day, every day. 

I don’t know anyone that didn’t give 110 percent of their time to raising their children, including home schooling if it suited their children. It is an incredible honor to guide kids and so much fun. I never had to punish my kids or cane them, I had boundaries, I had rules, and open communication, and the mindset we would encounter things along the way but we would work it out with dignity, I didn’t need to fear monger my kids. My sons respect us, and we respect them, there wasn’t anything more important or pressing than giving them my time. 

I think you are envious and wish you would have had the kind of parenting I gave to my sons. 

You know what I wish you would have too. 

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
40 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I don’t know anyone that didn’t give 110 percent of their time to raising their children, including home schooling if it suited their children. It is an incredible honor to guide kids and so much fun. I never had to punish my kids or cane them, I had boundaries, I had rules, and open communication, and the mindset we would encounter things along the way but we would work it out with dignity, I didn’t need to fear monger my kids. My sons respect us, and we respect them, there wasn’t anything more important or pressing than giving them my time. 

I think you are envious and wish you would have had the kind of parenting I gave to my sons. 

You know what I wish you would have too. 

I do not believe the bolded bit 

The percentage of good/ effective parents is quite small.

I admire you for the rest, but as i say, you had the time and skills to work at it.

Many parents do not, with both working long hours from the time a child is a few months old  and often with little understanding of the needs of children.

Respect is essential. I respected my parents more than any other humans on earth and they respected us as children,   but understood that we WERE children 

There was no fear and honestly I don't get why people think this is fear based.

  Pain causes the mind to create a strong memory and avoid the cause of the pain in future   Thus a short application of pain is a stronger behaviour modifying factor than discussion, reason or argument.   As i said we had a lot more pain from play  related injuries and activities, than my parents ever inflicted on us, yet we never feared playing .  

lol i had the BEST parenting in the world. It lacked nothing.  And my relationship with MY parents as an adult reflects this. As does the character and success/happiness of my siblings , their children and grandchildren At my parents funerals many speakers noted the character of their children and the success of their parenting down through three more generations  .

I would not have respected an adult who failed to mete out consequences for behaviours that were deserved.

I would have felt they did not love me enough to have the courage to punish me for wrong doing.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 2/14/2019 at 5:44 PM, Habitat said:

This is the age-old philosophical problem of the "opposites". We want the good, without the bad anywhere to be seen. In other words, we only want what is beneficial, not what is detrimental. Never mind that the guy next door may have a very different idea of what would be beneficial, and it may even be your idea of what is detrimental, aka, "bad". These are concepts that are calibrated differently, according to our particular circumstance. The idea that "bad" things should not be happening, that some God should step in, would lead to a situation where everyone is a robot, you would be constrained to act without any input that could lead to something "bad" happening, and we know "bad" things can happen from our actions, even without that intent. In that robotic state, so too would "good" be abolished, you cannot extinguish one, without also abolishing the other, they being two extremes of the same thing. Value.

The opposites are what appear to be.  I was just stating the obvious.  One would hope that everyone would agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Why didn’t you adopt? 

Adoption is notoriously difficult in Australia.

 Only a handful of children are adopted each year.

eg in 2016/17 there were just 42 adoptions of Australian children  in Australia (and about 260 foreign children )

 

Also we wanted to care for local kids from local families so that if possible they could go back to those families 

MAny thousands of children are taken from  their parents for protection but the govt tries to reunite children with their natural parents (partly  in response to the fiasco of the  stolen generation of Aboriginal children taken from their parents and placed with white families )

In 2017 (remember, only 42 adoptions in the 2016/17 year ) there were 47,915 children living out of their homes, either in govt care or with foster carers 

Besides, it wasn't about us and our needs, but about what we could offer to children and  young people. We didn't need to adopt them to love them and care for them. 

Lastly it would have required a lot of bureaucratic control and intervention.

We had permission and help from all the authorities involved, but no financial aid, and no control over us, from them  

 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.