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 -
Mello_

Why call him a God?

701 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 

 

Loved this guy!
 

“All we are saying is give peace a chance....”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
38 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I can't help but wonder if people who claim evil is just a cultural aspect have reason to downplay it's significance. Perhaps they sleep better at night?

Well, what is it, if it isn't just a human evaluation ? it is part of practical living to assign values in the range of extremely good, to extremely bad, and evil is just another way of saying "strongly negative" in the social context. Would a person be able to do evil removed from the social context ? I think that explains the jailhouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

This is where your fundamental problem is, this is the age-old "problem" of the opposites, you are wanting the "good" but not the "bad", when neither exist, other than as your evaluation of a circumstance at the time. 

Wrong again. I don't want either to happen. I accept that they both do happen. I understand the dichotomy of black and white, good and evil, old and young. 

It is what it is.

But IF a benevolent and omnipotent being exists, it apparently has much different morals then I do.

The only thing anyone can do is evaluate the circumstances at any given moment in time. What else would you recommend?

It's a judgement call. That's the point that seems to be eluding you. You can't get past the fact that not everybody thinks like you do. 

By your logic we could assert that nothing exists. They exist as concepts. That is why you are dismissive of the OP. You seem to be saying that if a concept is not a concretely defined thing then it doesn't exist.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but words don't have strict definitions. They have usages.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
51 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I can't help but wonder if people who claim evil is just a cultural aspect have reason to downplay it's significance. Perhaps they sleep better at night?

Yeah, I think most can agree that Ted Bundy was evil, even Ted Bundy labeled himself as evil.

There is definitely evil. 
 


 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Wrong again. I don't want either to happen. I accept that they both do happen. I understand the dichotomy of black and white, good and evil, old and young. 

It is what it is.

But IF a benevolent and omnipotent being exists, it apparently has much different morals then I do.

The only thing anyone can do is evaluate the circumstances at any given moment in time. What else would you recommend?

It's a judgement call. That's the point that seems to be eluding you. You can't get past the fact that not everybody thinks like you do. 

By your logic we could assert that nothing exists. They exist as concepts. That is why you are dismissive of the OP. You seem to be saying that if a concept is not a concretely defined thing then it doesn't exist.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but words don't have strict definitions. They have usages.

It seems this Creator needs to comply with your directive, or be deemed non-existent. You sound like a malcontent, you want the world to be different, but rather than do what you can, you want divine intervention, I guess if it becomes retrospective, you and I might by wiped from the program, as our forbears "immorally" dispossessed the former inhabitants of the land we live on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Yeah, I think most can agree that Ted Bundy was evil, even Ted Bundy labeled himself as evil.

There is definitely evil. 
 


 

 

Well, if Ted said it, I believe him, he was a straight shooter.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Yeah, I think most can agree that Ted Bundy was evil, even Ted Bundy labeled himself as evil.

There is evil. 


 

 

When you speak of "Evil" as a property independent of a source, you stray into ecclesiastical halls. Now, I have no problem with that, being a Theist, just thought I'd point that out.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
10 hours ago, OverSword said:

Why would simulation eliminate God?  Say we exist in a simulation, does that make our existence less real?  If a created being created the simulation or otherwise caused it to exist who's to say that was't also the work of God?  My real fantasy is if we intelligent simulations can learn how our own code works can we then use that knowledge to change our reality or perhaps even have some influence or presence in the world of our creator or other simulated realities. 

I didn't suggest that it eliminates God/s etcetera, I suggested that it would make beliefs in the paranormal and God's more palatable. 

Actually I said it would be contradictory to believe, or suggest, that the existence of God/s is impossible and believe that it's a simulation. 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

'twas the Irish in me.:P

Once ye get the Irish in ye, ye can't get it out. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Once ye get the Irish in ye, ye can't get it out. 

Focail ghaois!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Yeah, I think most can agree that Ted Bundy was evil, even Ted Bundy labeled himself as evil.

There is definitely evil. 

Exactly. Those likening survival to infringing upon another's personal space and rights are not the same thing. Willfully inflicting pain or worse upon another for personal gain is plain wrong. I think people who dismiss evil as a cultural image might just have something to hide to be honest. It's like self validation the way I read it 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Exactly. Those likening survival to infringing upon another's personal space and rights are not the same thing. Willfully inflicting pain or worse upon another for personal gain is plain wrong. I think people who dismiss evil as a cultural image might just have something to hide to be honest. It's like self validation the way I read it 

Yep, hand waving and denying evil is an eyebrow raiser. 

Isn’t this sociopathic? 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
21 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Yep, hand waving and denying evil is an eyebrow raiser. 

Isn’t this sociopathic? 

 

No, granting identity to "evil" makes as much sense as doing the same for ugliness. It's psycho-ceramic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
35 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No, granting identity to "evil" makes as much sense as doing the same for ugliness. It's psycho-ceramic.

How does ugliness intentionally and willfully cause harm would be my question, 

Evil is also a behavior which is wrong-doing for the purpose to harm. 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

How does ugliness intentionally and willfully cause harm would be my question, 

Evil is also a behavior which is wrong-doing for the purpose to harm. 

Exactly. That's the difference between animal survival and evil. Intention.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Evil is also behavior which is wrong-doing for the purpose to harm. 
 

You mean like the dog that bites the postman ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Thread cleaned

If someone is acting inappropriately - report them please, don't throw insults at them, all that does is make things worse.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

You mean like the dog that bites the postman ?

We are discussing people not dogs. 
By the way, it is a big no no if a dog bites a mail carrier. 
I have worked as a mail carrier. 
I have known carriers that were seriously hurt by a dog. It is not a joking matter. 
And sadly, a dog will get put down. Dog bites are reported.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
5 hours ago, Habitat said:

It seems this Creator needs to comply with your directive, or be deemed non-existent. You sound like a malcontent, you want the world to be different, but rather than do what you can, you want divine intervention, I guess if it becomes retrospective, you and I might by wiped from the program, as our forbears "immorally" dispossessed the former inhabitants of the land we live on. 

You have a really terrible issue. Your first statement is completely wrong.

I don't believe god exists. For plenty of reasons that do not include said being "complying with my directive."

Apparently your reading comprehension skill are somewhat poor. I said earlier that I don't want good or bad to happen. I simply understand that both do happen. How do you conclude I want divine intervention to make things better?

I DON'T BELIEVE A GOD EXISTS. 

How in the name of this nonexistent entity, could I want something I don't believe in to change anything?

As for being a malcontent, I don't think you know what that means and are just trying to find a sly way to be insulting. As usual.

As for you last sentence, I have no idea what that gibberish is supposed to mean.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 hours ago, Habitat said:

I think the difference is, as I have alluded to, we are no longer accountable to "head office", if merely in a simulation. There is "someone" above us in the chain of command, to answer for our flawed performance.

You don’t know that to be true. Consider this. If you are a simulated person that simulation exists within creation. Who’s to say that God, supposing he is real, didn’t cause the simulated souls to be created through him influencing programmers? Just another reason why I like playing with this idea. The levels of what could be true are endless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It doesn't mean anything at all. It's back to what hammer said. Just replacing God with a computer.

There's just no good reason to consider it a valid option. There is good reason to consider the world very real and a product of nature though.

I disagree. There is good reason to consider a valid possibility. The numbers of simulated realities that would exist if they did.  Just because your imagination won’t allow you to go there doesn’t make it an invalid proposition. The University of Washington are actually developing experiments to test this theory. 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
15 hours ago, Habitat said:

I don't trust that being a genuine sentiment

No, it is me trying not to say "p*ss off"

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

Physics does not refute an afterlife.  Physics is all about describing observations from this life.  

Yes it does. The be explained it many times. With all due respect, if you think that, you're just not keeping up. The best physicists from Berkley have outright made that very statement.

I searched for proof of this statement and actually came up with a wide variety of viewpoints from physicists but found nothing about Berkley physicists stating that they have used physics to refute an afterlife.  Do you have a link?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It doesn't mean anything at all. It's back to what hammer said. Just replacing God with a computer.

There's just no good reason to consider it a valid option. There is good reason to consider the world very real and a product of nature though.

No.  Not God, the universe. And IMO there is good reason to consider this a possibility.  Furthermore, and to me the funnest part about the entire idea is that if you are a simulation living in a simulation that is nature to you so how do you know?  You don't.

Edited by OverSword

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.