Wise words. Who will watch over my family after I'm gone? — Agent Smith

The humans who are still here. Once they have got their act together of course. Until then, your concerns are justified but we will get there a lot quicker if we get rid of money, private land ownership, exclusive governmental control over military, countries, theistic influence over politics and/or politicians etc, etc.
The fact that the list is still quite long shows how much there is to do. Maybe the anti-life people could get off their misanthropic butts and help out a little more. That would help!

The humans who are still here. Once they have got their act together of course. Until then, your concerns are justified but we will get there a lot quicker if we get rid of money, private land ownership, exclusive governmental control over military, countries, theistic influence over politics and/or politicians etc, etc.
The fact that the list is still quite long shows how much there is to do. Maybe the anti-life people could get off their misanthropic butts and help out a little more. That would help! — universeness

This, some would say, is building castles in the air, a mere pipe dream. I'm an optimist though so, yeah!

This, some would say, is building castles in the air, a mere pipe dream. I'm an optimist though so, yeah! — Agent Smith

I understand this apathy, when facing tasks/changes which seem insurmountable BUT, an old comparator is what kind of general responses do you think you would have got from people if you lived 500 years ago and you looked up at the moon and said 'one day, I think men will walk on the surface of the moon?'

Addition: Maybe we were just born too soon to benefit from such needed change. It took 2022 years to get from the short, even more traumatic human life experience of the days in which the Christian fables are set, to the 'improved' state we are now in for most humans today. I think we need at least the same duration again, perhaps much, much more. Just a few more seconds in the cosmic calendar.

Be clearly, lucidly written; no conflicting interpretations, no confusion as to what is intended
Have no internal contradictions
Have no contradictions to genuine scientific knowledge — Art48

If god were a machine maybe he could provide some exact mechanistic explanation of himself.
If god is Being, on the other hand, then I think when he allegedly said "I Am That I Am", that that was a sufficiently simple and clear explanation.
The Hindus boiled it down to one sound/syllable: Om

There is a saying: A word to the wise is sufficient.

I understand this apathy, when facing tasks/changes which seem insurmountable BUT, an old comparator is what kind of general responses do you think you would have got from people if you lived 500 years ago and you looked up at the moon and said 'one day, I think men will walk on the surface of the moon?'

Addition: Maybe we were just born too soon to benefit from such needed change. It took 2022 years to get from the short, even more traumatic human life experience of the days in which the Christian fables are set, to the 'improved' state we are now in for most humans today. I think we need at least the same duration again, perhaps much, much more. Just a few more seconds in the cosmic calendar. — universeness

Talk is cheap. Theory and praxis are two enitrely different worlds and most of the bridges between 'em have collapsed so many times that we need to rethink whether this is even possible.

However, this sorry state of affairs may be just a symptom of the real illness - bad thinking! I'm hopeful though! After all, we've made it this far and our present condition is definitely an improvement if we ignore perverse effects. G'day.

G'day. — Agent Smith

I like Oz speak. I definitely prefer "Bonza!" to the fanatical Japanese scream of "Banzai," during there infamous futile bayonet charges in WW 2. I think most of them got shot. The Banzai charge was a rather unsuccessful war strategy. (sorry @javi2541997)

The Banzai charge was a rather unsuccessful war strategy — universeness

You are wrong, but I respect your opinion as much as I respect all the integrity of Japanese soldiers defending the honour of Hirohito

I like Oz speak. I definitely prefer "Bonza!" to the fanatical Japanese scream of "Banzai," during there infamous futile bayonet charges in WW 2. I think most of them got shot. The Banzai charge was a rather unsuccessful war strategy. (sorry javi2541997) — universeness

Non intellego! (I hope I got that right).

You are wrong — javi2541997

I know I cant change you mind regarding the Banzai charge but would you agree that it is not highly respected or valued with military strategists. I have read a couple of books written by those involved in the hell of war, such as one I have just completed, The personal memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. Even in those days of facing only musket fire and early cannon fire (in comparison with the much more lethal weapons of WW 2). The bayonet charge was mostly unsuccessful.
Look at the disaster of 'Pickets charge' at Gettysburg! The rebel yell was equally and probably more impressive (imo) than screaming a word like banzai, which is not much better than the traditional 'CHARGE!' Anyway I digress again so I shall type no more on the topic in this thread.

Banzai — universeness

What does it mean, this Banzai?

G'day is an Australian greeting. Australia is often called OZ, hence my use of 'OZ speak.' Bonza is another Australian slang word used to exclaim that something is good.
Banzai was just something Japanese soldiers shouted when charging allied soldiers during WW2.
They were fanatical charges where the Japanese mostly got slaughtered in large numbers. Sometimes it was their final charge rather than surrender. Google says that in Japanese, the literal translation is '10 thousand years.'

:up:

The problem is, it seems to me, worship – idol-making – not g/G per se. Theism is idolatry. The apophatics got it right, I think: anything said or imag(in)ed (e.g. "graven images", scriptures, theologies, sermons) about the infinite is necessarily finite and thereby false; even (especially) the belief that the infinite "exists" is idolatrous. — 180 Proof

You're late to the party.

"Maimonides held that God so far exceeds our capacity to have knowledge of the divine nature that we are severely limited in how we are able to describe or comprehend God. Even substance cannot be predicated of God in the sense with which we use the word to express knowledge of entities in the created order. In the terms of Maimonides’ negative theology, we would not describe God as the most powerful, all-knowing, incorruptible substance at the top of a hierarchy of substances. That is a positive conception."

https://iep.utm.edu/maimonid/#:~:text=Maimonides%20held%20that%20God%20so,entities%20in%20the%20created%20order.

I have mentioned "apophatics" (re negative theology) here and on several other threads. It's a tradition I've been acquainted with since the early 1980s and have incorporated into (my own) negative ontology. So not "late to the party" by any stretch.

What a genuine word of God would look like

In order to be credible, it would need to be in line with scientific theories, specifically, the Theory of Evolution. That is, it would need to be a narrative full of killing, raping, and pillaging; life would need to be presented as a struggle for survival; full of might makes right. IOW, exactly the way mainstream theologies do. As such, the Bible is an excellent contender for being The Genuine Word of God.

Nothingness. If he would exist I would imagine him as the pure representation of silence and emptiness. — javi2541997

Nah. I imagine God as a Trumpista.
Look at the world: it's full of killing, raping, and pillaging. If God exists and has created the world, then he approves of all this killing, raping, and pillaging. It's how he wants things to be. Anything that proposes to tbe "the genuine word of God" needs to reflect that.

NONE OF IT WAS DOWN TO GOD(s)! It was all down to our behaviour! — universeness

God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, could have arranged for less bloody ways of humans acting on their free will. But he didn't.

. If God exists and has created the world, then he approves of all this killing, raping, and pillaging. It's how he wants things to be. Anything that proposes to tbe "the genuine word of God" needs to reflect that. — baker

Well the theists always use the same argument in that context: God is not guilty of human's free will. :rofl:

Silence. — Banno

The problem is, it seems to me, worship – idol-making – not g/G per se. Theism is idolatry. The apophatics got it right, I think: anything said or imag(in)ed (e.g. "graven images", scriptures, theologies, sermons) about the infinite is necessarily finite and thereby false; even (especially) the belief that the infinite "exists" is idolatrous. — 180 Proof

That's ironically escapist when it comes from people who have a combative, authoritarian attitude toward people; but when it comes to God, they turn to putty. Even Job had more fighting spirit!

Well the theists always use the same argument in that context: God is not guilty of human's free will. — javi2541997

Enter the evolutionary survival of the fittest.

A god could surely just implant complete knowledge in all human minds, without the need for any long-form narrative. — Tom Storm

The story goes that this is precisely what he did, but some people are just wicked and don't love God.

The big question for me is why is it that god/s are never known directly? — Tom Storm

Because you're not good enough, you're not qualified to see and hear God directly.

Well the theists always use the same argument in that context: God is not guilty of human's free will. — javi2541997

What about earthquakes, drought, famine, disease, childhood cancer, etc.?

What about earthquakes, drought, famine, disease, childhood cancer, etc.? — Art48

Natural disasters which are suffered by people. Those catastrophes represent the randomly of life. Some experiences it and others don't.

A genuine word of God would, I think, be very big if written, and very loud if said.

God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, could have arranged for less bloody ways of humans acting on their free will. But he didn't — baker

Well, it couldn't, if it has no and never has experienced existence.

Pots and kettles!

Si comprehendis, non est Deus!

Si comprehendis, non est Deus! — Agent Smith

:eyes:

Dicens, advena fui in terra aliena.
[Moses] :flower: :ok:

Dicens, advena fui in terra aliena.
[Moses] :flower: :ok: — javi2541997

I always figured Moses was a Roman. Well, as much as he was a prince of Egypt, anyway.

Dicens, advena fui in terra aliena. — javi2541997

Translation please.

If a God ever did reveal himself/herself to humanity, the revelation would:
Be clearly, lucidly written; no conflicting interpretations, no confusion as to what is intended
Have no internal contradictions ... — Art48

All these points are plausible and make sense. But they refer to 1) a "rational" God and 2) a God that think as humans think. Yet, such a God may not exist. We must never forget that God is created by Man and not the other way around. What God does and can do is based on what we have imagined for him that he does and can do. We cannot ask later, if he can or should do things that are not expected from him to do.

I create a superhero, say Superman. I give him cartain powers and abilities (super strength and speed, enhanced leaping, super senses etc.). It makes no sense to ask whether he can also become invisible or expect such a thing from him.