You have failed to offer evidence (of a suitable standard) against God's existence. I have already freely asserted that I know of no evidence for God's existence. — Pattern-chaser

Each are "maybe's" and neither can be honestly be taught as true.

If one doesn't want to sit on a fence, philosophical probabilities can be employed to estimate, based on self-contradiction, the only course available.

Yes. Continue please... — TheMadFool

Presentism does not just amount to the assertion that only present events or entities exist, but also that the present undergoes a dynamical ‘updating’, or exhibits a quality as of a fleeting swoosh, and this additional dynamical aspect is what threatens the substance of the debate between the presentist and an eternalist opponent.

In other words, what is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as to be or has been is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of What IS, and so it has no true ‘nonexistence’, for this as Nothing cannot be. There is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can't have an opposite to form a contrast class.

I guess there were other elements to the puzzle that needed to fall in place before Einstein (1879 to 1955) and Minkowski (1864 to 1909) realized that time was the fourth dimension. — TheMadFool

And, afterward, from them, the preferred mode of time became to be the block universe of eternalism, in which past and future both exist, this opposing our naturally perceived notion of presentism, in which there are only nows passing by, with the future not yet and the past not kept, but, really, we can't tell presentism from eternalism, for their message to us is the same.

To survive as a theory, presentism needs a respite from Einstein’s seemingly unavoidable besieging relativity of simultaneity, since in presentism it is 'now' everywhere.

Revelations is certainly later than Genesis, but where did the Revelation author get the basic idea of snakes not being reliable advisors (I don't know, I'm asking). — Bitter Crank

St. John the Divine had a kind of a pipe-dream while in prison. Not all religions accept the Book of Revelation. 666ers so marked couldn't merely be killed right away, as that was too easy on them; they had to be tortured for a long time.

In symbolic terms it seems the difference between them is just the presence/absence of the curly braces, } and {. — TheMadFool

Actual infinity is not possible; there could always be more. Infinite is not an amount or an extent completed or capped, as extant, as that can't happen.

nymphs — Artemis

Darn; I was hoping to meet one!

Wee can nearly presume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but for a Deity who foresaw and designed it all from scratch by throwing the right stuff in the right amounts together, as nature might have arrived at, too, although He seemingly not able to just do it all instantly. He, as a the greatest scientist, would be the ultimate; just look at His world—well, there are some problems, but overall a job well done. I wonder how He happened to be just sitting around, as First and Fundamental, yet fully intact as a system of mind and emotion and personhood.

for many of those, if they were not in balance, then there would be instability. — jajsfaye

So here we are.

Why is Earth for human life near perfect,
But billions of other worlds so unfit?
Well if this world wasn’t right for life, then
We wouldn’t be here to ask about it!

deviations from the same center in different balancing directions — rlclauer

Pretty good analysis, I'd say.

no particular reasons — Alan

The no particulars as no specifics to the Fundamental First that can't have any may well be why balances have to result. Everything leaks, though, it seems, and so some of the balances tilt, I guess.

I have yet to see an example of myself or anyone willingly choose to do something other than what you most want to do at that moment. — jajsfaye

Yes, and somebody suggested that we always want what we will, since it reflects us and our wants, but we cannot will the will to be other than it is at the moment; but of course learning can change the fixed will to a new and wider fixed will.

So I won't be surprised if one day a Jeff Bezos or a Donald Trump buys gravity or quantum physics. They just need to get the price right. — TheMadFool

Trump wanted to buy Greenland for its resources, much like Alaska was bought, but… a new joke forms… Trump, claiming no global warming, still wanted to corner the market on ice, much as the late 18th capitalists monopolized railroads, steel, and oil, but when Trump went to see Greenland, it was all green and had no more ice!

Trump — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Trump is not unlike the strict Master controller, and many republicans are fundamentalists.

So it seems we can know that classical theism is false — Gregory

Well, at least that the classical 'God' is unlikely, due to self-contradictions. It's hard to sit on a fence, so we would like to know, but all we have is probability to go on.

1. Jesus is a human being
2. A human being is Jesus — TheMadFool

Well, we could cite what the Romans, the Greek, and the Jewish believed at the time, or the disciples and followers, and was people believed 300 years later when Christianity flourished; however, what people go for, whether in one's own belief's favor now, or not, can't be trusted.

model regularities — 3017amen

Math is very amenable to regularities.

I suppose math became of numbers of things and then went toward the relations of things. Early on, we may have had words for one, two, and a few, but then maybe '4' and more were invented so would say how many stones or sheep we had.

This premise does not rely on a many worlds interpretation, but instead on a 'resonance' across spatially and temporally disconnected spaces. This resonance is a product of, given the 2 assumptions, all possible states being realized an infinite number of times. — JosephS

The 'resonance' wouldn't be there since there is probably no kept history of the universe; however, all eventualities should still repeat, in their turn, even exactly you if the quantum resolution was fine enough. In this way, the universe is kind of its own history.

There's no 'infinite' amount or extent that can be capped or completed, but potentially the repeats should keep on going, with the universe being finite. Though, as in the expansion of pi goes on forever, it is probably not exhaustive.

(1. 10 q1-9)

10
— Other Works —
کارهای دیگر

Nizam al-Mulk invited me to Isfahan,
To opulent palaces, the imperial court.
I read the rich libraries of the Seljuqs,
Which offered Euclid and many treasures.

I worked on the new calendar for Sanjar,
In an astronomical observatory.
The Sultan wanted the first day as Spring,
So I spread the extra days far and wide.

The Persian New Year of Nowrýz is based
On an actual astronomical criterion,
The sun entering the astronomical sign
Of Aries at the vernal equinox.

This brilliant method guarantees keeping
Nowrýz at the vernal equinox forever.

15 days were added every 62 years,
The length of a year being 365.241935 days,
And for every 5000 years,
The calendar has to be adjusted by one day.

The years 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28,
And 33 became leap years of 366 days
With the average year being 365.2424 days.

I wrote several treatises:

Sultan Sanjar had me back to stay at the court.
I worked the division of a quadrant of a circle,
And refuted doubt concerning parallels,
And in algebra related the conic geometry.

On the deception of knowing
The two quantities of gold and silver
In a compound made of the two…

On music theory, of mathematical relationship
Among notes, minor, major, and tetrachords.

Made references to the views of Farabi and Avicenna
To offer a reclassification of musical scales.

(1. 10 q10-21)

A discussion regarding the relationships
Among time, motion, and God,
Which ends with an Avicennian discussion
On incorporeal substances, celestial spheres
And their relationship to angels.

The essence of The Necessary is One
In all aspects and in no case can there
Be multiplicity except in abstraction,
In which case its number can reach infinity.

The essence for which multiplicity
In abstraction is conceived does not become multiple.
All of the attributes of the Necessary Being
Are abstract and none of them contains any existence.

Good Has to Include Evil as its Opposite:

If one were to conduct a good versus evil
‘Cost-benefit analysis,’
The good far exceeds the evil.

The ratio between the goodness that darkness brings
To the evil it causes exceeds that of one to a million,

And in accordance with wisdom in the world,
There is very little evil
That is qualitatively or Quantitatively
Comparable with good.

In my major philosophical work,
On Being and Necessity:
‘Avoiding a great amount of good
Due to the necessity of having little evil
Is itself a great deal of evil.’

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Being is better than non-being,
The very gift of existence is ontologically good
And the world has been created for a good purpose.

The question of ‘being’ and ‘necessity’
Are among the most
Perplexing philosophical questions.

First ontological questions are concerned with
‘What is.’

(1. 10 q22-38)

Second, the question concerning
‘What is it?’

Which pertains to the substance
Or essence of a thing;

Third,
‘Why is it?’

This last question seeks
To determine the cause of a thing.

On the necessity of contradiction in the world,
Determinism and subsistence.

On the relationship between
Existent beings and existence,
The accidental relationship between them
And whether either of them
Exist by their own necessity.

On the knowledge of the universal principles
Of existence the universals of knowledge.

Without sin, our evolution would end and we would go extinct. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yes, and although it's not pretty, we survived not in spite of our violence but because of it!

Even some of our cooperation became due to its necessity to help in the hunt, whether of animals or enemy tribes.

But it’s where we ‘determine the best course of action’ that I think we’re falling well short of our potential. — Possibility

Practice, practice, practice, for those with the will, along with some pausing, which allows for more creative solutions to appear, in lieu of reactiveness clobbering their space.

I agree, but too many philosophers engage in extraneous double speak. They figure the more words one uses, the more important they may look & feel. — 3017amen

We can leave 'they' to be 'them'. In my posts of prose or poems, I aim to be concise and precise, trying to fill every vein with ore, putting some meat into them.

Hey, would that happen to be one interpretation known as original sin ? — 3017amen

Original sin is more like an innate tendency in human design rather than useless philosophical babbling due to poor definitions or whatnot.

unequivocally — 3017amen

def: in a way that leaves no doubt

So, it is still slipping in that it is true for sure.

It is that for yourself only there is no doubt and it is 100% for sure, as your own experience, which is fine, as then you are not being even close to being mistaken by any listeners as you teaching truth and fact for all.

Yes, preachers always having to say 'maybe' won't make as many converts.

And please save us from a bunch of political double speak. — 3017amen

Not a useful leading supposition that well promotes continuing communication, but demotes.

belief — 3017amen

Yes, I am suggesting that one admits up front that it is a belief for one's self rather than to proclaim it as as so as a truth for all. It's fine and honest to just say, "I don't know", as you suggested previously.

Or more specifically, the belief in Jesus is both a Subjective and Objective truth. Is that a true statement?

Or how about this (phenomenology); I had a religious experience yesterday. Is that a true or false statement? — 3017amen

No one knows. Saying true or false to unknowable unshowables is not honest.

I can unequivocally state, but not prove to you — 3017amen

Halfway to honesty, but better not to imply that there is no doubt as in that the truth is for sure. A 'maybe' would be best.

There was a Big Bang. (not honest)

Maybe there was a Big Bang, because everything is moving outward, but we cannot see anything before 380,000 years because all was opaque.

Yes, I know, for invisible realms it really gets tougher, as the "maybe's" have even less support than the science example above..

The Bible was inspired by God but it's a human construct right? — 3017amen

One cannot honestly preach or teach as truth what isn't known for sure, plus the divine inspiration behind Genesis is just plain wrong, as Genesis is even the polar opposite of what was found.

While true the Saviour is here for redemption purposes subsequent to the fall, it doesn't explain the initial judgement that we were supposedly born into. — 3017amen

Same for "Saviour" being truth and fact as being divine.

“The preachers claim ‘perhaps’ as fact and truth.”

Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach,
As if notions were truth and fact to teach.
Oh, cleric, repent; at least say, ‘Have faith’;
Yet, of unknowns ne’er shown none can e’er reach.

Or say 'maybe' or 'perhaps' or 'I hope' or 'I wish' instead of that it is truth and fact for sure for all. Or 'faith', which even the churches use as an honest word, but, then, of course, go beyond it to claim truth in practice, right and left. Yeah, I know, they want what they want and they want all to do the same, yet there may be children or unsuspecting adults present.

the contempt they feel for those who believe — T Clark

There is but compassion for those who are stuck, those who have to misleadingly teach "maybe's" as truth, as well as anyone who is stuck, such as those ever running into life's wall and getting thrown back into prison or just in general always having to cause trouble. It's not their fault that their will became what it is, compounded by an inability to learn; one is never responsible for how one turned out. Some people are reachable and some aren't. Some teach their belief out of rote or out of fear, who knows. Lately, there is more opposition, such as many more books on the subject, which may impress the fence sitters, although perhaps not the severely indoctrinated.

There are now a billion photons for every proton, indicating 10**9 annihilations early on. Somehow the rest of the pairs rapidly moved apart from their partners, going to who knows where. Perhaps this supports the inflation theory. — PoeticUniverse

INFLATION THEORY

Inflation was so rapid that the particles in pairs
Of the always temporarily emitted virtuals there
Were forced to become separated from one another,
With some then to remain as enduring rather.

There was no place special in time
Nor properties of reason and rhyme.

Our beloved quantum fluctuations
Left their imprint all over creation—
The signature of their emanations
Written in the CMBR’s variations—

A magnifying glass upon their revelations,
As well as in the capitals of matter congregations
Of galaxies, nebulae, and other condensations.

What underwrote this glorious expansion
From such a humble state to a big time mansion?

It’s called inflation.

Perhaps there are many such bubbles blown—
All but one of these pocket universes unknown.

Where did all this energy come from
To amount to this astronomical sum?

It comes from the gravitational field.

Our universe did not begin with this yield
Already stored in the gravitational field;
But, rather, the gravitational field can supply
The energy because its energy found
Can become negative without bound.

As more and more positive energy materializes
The forms of ever growing region sizes,
Filled with a high energy scalar field, arise,

As more and more negative energy materializes
In the form of expanding regions wielded
That are filled with a gravitational field.

There is nothing known that can place a border
On the amount of inflation that can occur
While the total energy remains exactly zero…
Why does this “zero” ever become the hero?

The Hand of the Potter Shakes:

At the crossroads of His human experiment,
God wondered where the human nature went:
“Damn! I formulated it so perfectly in the lab,
So why did it not turn out exceedingly fab?

“Adam and Eve failed in the blink of an eye,
So I sent Commandments down from the sky,
But ever did humans build the golden calves
Diminishing my needed adoration into halves.

“So I killed all experiments but Noah’s sake,
For they were all a big rainbow of My mistake;
I right the human course yet once again to sail
Into those waters where it can not ever fail.

“What’s this, I see that all again has gone amiss;
I’ll have Jesus preach the other check to kiss.
Human nature failed for sure; they put him to death;
I must check my formulas once again to save the rest.

“I will send more prophets to shake the mixture up;
Oh, no, this life cast they still crash; I must give up!”

Determinism does not entail incorrigibility. You become a different "you" when you learn something. A person can learn from his mistakes; he can learn that there are consequences. He can even learn to think more rationally, or coping skills for anger management. — Relativist

:up:

there could be no rational moral justification for such punishment, there could only be practical justification. — Janus

The protection of society would be moral, making the lock-up necessary for other than punishment, although somewhat 'punishing', hoping for learning.

And if you don't know something, just say you don't know; don't let your ego get in the way! LOL — 3017amen

Please come to our church in which we don't teach any of our "maybe's" as truth, nor at all, because we just don't know and can't really preach about an invisible realm merely supposed. In lieu of all that, we offer community, fellowship, and such ideas of doing good strictly for the sake of good, not reward, with no worshipping whatsoever, and thus we are not really even a church in the old sense of the word.

We have strong reasons to believe he would have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things. — Relativist

It is that if his will was different than it actually was, he no longer being him, so to speak, the choices may have been different.

How could people believe in such an evil entity. — T Clark

Yet they do, and are full of excuses such as 'mysterious ways', blah, blah, and even dishonestly teach their suppositions as if they are truth. This could affect all of us if they could impress the government, but this hardly ever happens. Look to cleric-run governments, such as in Iran, to fully grasp it.

Whether or not God is good has no impact on whether or not he exists. — T Clark

Now, although this thread is centered on exposing the supposed Christian God as evil, it shouldn't hurt to extend it toward the likelihood of God's existence or not, if no one minds…

I do not throw the baby out with the bath water either. — 3017amen

There isn't much left in the bathwater as support with the fundamental babies having to be thrown out.

Classical physical biology give rise to our spiritual experiences of the world, and that is a structure that has legitimate selfness too. — Gregory

Seems that at each new level, associated patterns become that operate at that level, and so on.

If the classical is not entirely reduced to the "small", if for no other reason than emergent principles, then maybe scientific explanations of our sense organs don't represent the reality at the top (our experience of the world). What we think we see is really an image created in the brain, but.. is it? Is this not reductionism? — Gregory

Probably, there are many 'smalls' that can lead to the same classical large.

Of course, the sense organs take in what's out there, but ignore a lot, because, I guess, so that we have greater contrast, plus, the brain paints a more useful face on the jumble of waves or whatnot out there.

We only ever 'see' the brain's model, which model also reflects what we already know in forms made by the brain, as proved by dreams, in which not anything comes in through the senses from outside.

Reductionism is popular, but there is something to be said for emergence, such as many connected neurons can do more than just one neuron by itself could do (more is different). We presume that what goes on in Totality is completely relative to the inside of Totality, given that there is no outside to provide any absolutes. Even that as tiny as particles would really be more like that they are hubs of relations, leaving not much to be intrinsic, although Lee Smolin thinks that energy and momentum have to be.

Nice. I don't think General Relativity will ever be reconciled with Quantum Physics. — Gregory

Loop Quantum Gravity is trying to derive quanta of space-time so that General Relativity can be gotten to from quantum principles as an approximation of a finely grained continuum that still operates well at large numbers. It's not easy, but all else has been quantized so far.

If there is a 'God', He wholly made human nature to be what it is, and so it expresses itself accordingly, over a great range stretching from angelic to devilish, to no big surprise.

"Emergent" seems to mean the composition is greater than the smaller parts and so have more meaning. — Gregory

More is different.

Aristotle's "potential infinity" seems to dovetail nicely with seeing the levels energy appears in — Gregory

"Potential Infinity" only works in math. The specific energy levels, say, as for electrons only being able to jump to certain orbits are due, we suppose, to that the waves still have to connect and can't just get chopped off to fit at any orbit.

The definition of 'infinite', largest or smallest, is not that it is an amount, but that it can never complete, and thus it cannot be.

So according to Cantor a segment has an uncountable infinity of points instead of a countable amount. So you could have always from eternity divided a segment and never in forever get to the end. — Gregory

As you may be suggesting, there has to be an end, lest there be no potency, and, for now, it would be at the Planck size.

This can make us feel large against the background of the massive universe. — Gregory

Until the massive universe makes us feel small. It turns out that the mid-point is about the size of a piece of dust.

But the world, I've been told, doesn't exist as a single extended reality, but has levels of reality. — Gregory

Yes and no, for there are fields behind the field quanta that we call particles. There would also be levels of actions/reality emergent for such as atoms, molecules, cells at their levels.

How can we conceptualize how substance is different in the quantum realm? — Gregory

The field quanta form when there is an interaction, bound by a discrete energy spectrum. The base 'substance' would be covariant quantum fields, whatever they consist of, as themselves.