Daffodil: I just wanted to mention that if your new avatars (or however you think of them) are your own art, I like the style. I guess I do even if they're not your own, but I like the idea that you drew them, too.
William: My Grand Daughter drew the ones I use representing The Other, [currently with tussock on its head] The Atheist [Red] and The Theist [blue]
Mostly the memes are created using internet art plus images I create and morphed together depending on how the storyline I am using develops...so these are presented in a type of comic strip manner...
The story unfolding is that;

in it's ongoing journey of discovery it's path has been blocked by the monstrosities of Atheism

and Theism;

and conceals itself under a tussock bush

while trying to find the way to pass the blockade.

I think that the process allows me to say a lot in a succinct manner...
Thanks for your comment.

Daffodil: That makes it so much better! I'm glad I asked. Have a good day.
[/quote]
_____________________
120922 [Intelligence Without Wisdom]
SCLx8 + select last LE per shuffle
Preamble
Tied To The Moon Mindfulness - Light the spark - Everything is The Expression Of The Creator [The Freedom Of Friendship] - https://debatingchristianity.com/for...89853#p1089853 - The More We Do Away With Falsity ~ The Better Equipped We Are With Truth. - A Degenerative Force to Existence - Recipe
AP= [=Collective Dynamics Unus Mundus [= a primordial unified reality from which everything derives.]]
[Collective Dynamics Unus Mundus = 361]
[Three Six One = 142]
[142]
Fearlessness
Get Comfortable
Post ignored
Forty Two
Self-discipline
New Years Eve
The Ishango bone
Source Sync
Nurturing
Madventures
Don’t fall asleep
Soul Has an Agenda
Copper snakes
Communicating
Redefine Oneself
RSP = SCLx4 Page 314
08:17 [The Confusion of War]
Page 314
GM: If these separate theories are really true, then they should ultimately come together into some master theory.
Unnecessary Tangent
William: 
In the case of the diagram, the "Unnecessary Tangents" are positions are D and F [Atheism and Theism] - the one thread [E] which doesn't stray far from the initial position [absolute ignorance ] moves in a straight line to the common default end. [G]
GM: Translucent [transmitting and diffusing light so that objects beyond cannot be seen clearly. b : clear, transparent translucent water. 2 : free from disguise or falseness]
Sound
Constructing some type of reality experience in which I could hide from the true unchangeable nature of Myself
Explain
William: As we have talked about before - re "Sound & Creation of things"
The Effect of Sound and The Universe
[ Replying to Miles in post #7]
Q: Does Sound Create The Universe.
non-Theist: Nope. Why should it? I know, I know, god can do anything and in any way he wishes, but one has to ask why he would bother with the speaking part when ostensibly all that would be needed is a simple willing it to be so, as in the very beginning when "God made from nothing the heavens and the earth." with no mention of having had to say a thing.
William: When we 'will' something, this involves language and from that, imagery. While this of course happens internally and therefore we [each of us who can do so] are subjective witnesses to the fact that we 'hear' our inner 'voice' and from that, create said images, we understand it as a real process.
We can - from that point - use material [condensed Quantum Particle] which is already available, in order to make that which we image into something tangible. We call this process "invention".
The sound God made, can be understood in that same way, and explain what 'in the image of' means, re Humans.
We have the same ability to create things in our mind [ideas] which one would expect in a Universe which shows us that frequencies and patterns are involved in how things are formed. Everything is a micro to its macro.
What we call 'reality' may well be something which exists in the mind of [a] God.
GM: No thought about fate or of ending up late Yet I still like to think where I'm going
Not Right
https://debatingchristianity.com/for...90647#p1090647
William: FTL;

[ Replying to tam in post #99]
Well, the example is there to help us (man).
That is an after effect .
In the real-time re the story, "WHO was GOD trying to teach?"
But the account PUBLICLY rebutted the PUBLIC accusation that the Adversary had made (as pertains to Job), showing anyone watching or listening that the Adversary was wrong, was proven wrong.
The public were the adversary, not Satan. That is a side issue re human involvement in the interplay between God and Satan....re my mentioning;
The account allowed Job to answer for himself, so there can be no question as to his integrity.
Job was not consulted by either God or Satan as far as I am aware. Are you able to direct me to the passages where God or Satan consult Job before settling on a deal which involved Job?
Satan isn't testing God. This was not a test for God. Satan is not a mirror for God, or a co-creator, or even a Son (the Son is Christ < - the actual and true image of God). Satan is OUR accuser, OUR adversary, and he seeks to destroy us (mankind, and in particular, anyone who belongs to Christ, to God). He is an enemy.
I suspect that this thinking has evolved through The Christianities attempting to un-slur the image of GOD as presented by the Israelites/Hebrews but has been unsuccessful in getting humans any closer to understanding GOD in the image of יהוה.
The mirror image of this process can be seen in how Early Christians understood the image of Satan as per the Hebrew Script - to appear as such;

and it was only much later that The Christianites reshaped Satan to appear as such;
This being the case, The Christianities have also evolved the image of GOD, from;
On that count, I have no choice but to reject your reasoning as it is based upon falsified imagery.
GM: William's
Ask...
The Christchurch EQ
Is Like...
“If you're looking for something more in life, you're likely to find it in something less.”
A lot of weird things have been happening...
When Done Say "Done"
Freeing the soul
The Subject
https://debatingchristianity.com/for...62167#p1062167
William: FTL;
[ Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #97]
The quicker way to say that is "God" is the "Life" - and more comprehensively, the consciousness which experiences the nature of the Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation [HERS] and learns through said experience of that nature, ways in which to 'make the experience easier' and thus morals evolve through the natural course of nature unfolding re consciousnesses involvement within said nature.
That way, the 'gap' is filled...
GM: https://debatingchristianity.com/for...75267#p1075267
William: FTL;
 Originally Posted by nobspeople post_id=1075260 time=1650477255 user_id=15266
 Originally Posted by William post_id=1075256 time=1650475961 user_id=8427
 Originally Posted by nobspeople post_id=1075234 time=1650450291 user_id=15266
 Originally Posted by William post_id=1075191 time=1650406963 user_id=8427
[ Replying to nobspeople in post #2348]
Personally, I believe god was created in man's image and in a male dominated society of the time, god was thusly 'male' in its description.
But let's take the happy trolley to what I'll call 'imagination-land', where god created everything.
Again, in a male dominated society of the time the bible was written, it would make sense for men to write about god as a male.
There are cultures on this planet that, even today, have more than one gender.
So for someone to expect god to be only 'male or female' seems, at best, reflective of the culture in which one currently lives IMO
How that relates to 'paradise'.....? Maybe there, it will be non-binary, genderless or androgynous? Maybe everyone will look the same, sound the same, think the same... that may be paradise for some?
Obviously the culture will have to shift from the male-dominated one to the shared one [whatever that might be] and would be all-inclusive for that.
I would rather not have sex-organs in such a paradise - not just because they appear to be so connected re the problems of the world - but more realistically, there would be no more need to 'go forth and multiply' since no one will be dying anymore.
My preference re 'what is paradise' re 'living forevermore on this one planet' would be to have the ability to exist through all forms simultaneously, know all thoughts being thought at all times and be able to direct the progress of the population toward ensuring continuous peace and harmony.
Good points. I wonder if this 'paradise' would be much different than what many would like to believe.
People believe all sorts of conflicting things.
They think that YHWH built something good which then somehow got spoiled by something evil.
What they are really saying through their stories, is that they don't like some things that are part of the creation, so they want those things removed.
Perish the thought of having to live forever without good old heterosexual sex...they probably would even resist being in the form of the opposite gender to what they are at present... I suppose what is Good in YHWHs eyes, isn't necessarily good according to everyone, and so 'stories get made up'.
Until ganna be gets here, its all just ganna be no show and nothing to tell except beliefs shaped in dissatisfaction and condemnation...
Maybe
As you said, people believe all sorts of conflicting things....
Well until it happens, such things remain beliefs.
Wishful thinking.
Signs of dissatisfaction with the world YHWH created and demanding better - with the perks of course.
Like being married to the same person forever or being the same sex forever because that is what being 'good' is all about.
I would rather be a robot with a mind of its own, and deal with the fact of being on this planet forever as an opportunity to lay aside that which is unnecessary and perhaps even use these humans who still cling to the old good, to my advantage by having them live the way they believe is good while they enjoy the paradise I built for them while they slept.
Like a Shepard with his sheep, corralled so that they have no knowledge of the ones they despised so willfully in the name of GOOD, they are doomed to a forever on this planet while the rest fly free and enjoy the fruits of The Grand Galaxy.
It is a fitting sentence for such. Justice.
GM: Convenient
Virtues Vehicle Extreme
End Of Act I
Use Heart
https://debatingchristianity.com/for...84036#p1084036
William: FTL;
AB: The problem with making nature or biology the foundation of objective morality is that then it justifies the psychopaths or the male lions that kill the other male lions and their offspring just so they can take over the pride. Both are following their nature or biology. At best, I think we can say that morality is part of nature, but that alone does not tell us which morals are good or bad.
William: Q: "What is it about humans which has the ability to comprehend a [supposed] "Perfect World", which is so obviously different from the real world?"
We search for answers...
What have our sciences done to answer this question?
Or is it a matter that our sciences are being used specifically like unto the male lions, suppressing the main herd while they go about sailing into a particular direction they have selected for themselves?
For the herd notes, [for example] that as grandiose as the latest space telescope is - hurtling and unfurling [fully shaded] toward it's destination some million miles out and, simply to peer into the secrets of the past to 'try and understand'...the herd understands that the money could be 'better spent' on creating a perfect world here in the heart of imperfection - so why is that not been done?
Why is the rest of the herd being experimented on and used for that one purpose?
Just so a few lions can have their names recorded for all time?
Is that moral?
GM: A Bit Of Cat And Mouse
All of life
William: All of Life a bit of Cat and Mouse = 247
[247]
Those who lack belief in gods
Recover what was lost
No Country For Old Men
Much pain but still time
All of Life a bit of Cat and Mouse
The Ancient grey entity
When the dust settles
The Never Ending Story
Two sides of the same coin
GM: https://debatingchristianity.com/for...70222#p1070222
William: FTL;
[ Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #98]
Then the claimant should be able to show the universe was created, without invoking some entity that's immune to the requirement of having been created itself.
Why do you think that is even a logical request to be demanding? The 'claim' as far as this thread subject is addressing is more a simple logical observation. Something which came into existence, cannot have logically done so from nothing.
To believe that it did, is really where the special pleading is coming from.
I contend my argument stands to logic, where folks claim the universe was created, they should be able to show it was.
That is actually illogical Mr.Knothead. for two reasons;
1: The idea that the universe popped out of nowhere is special pleading
2: The logical observation that the universe must have being made out of something must imply it was set into motion by something else. "Created".
Logically, the universes existence is the very thing which should show one that the universe was created.
Unless you can prove that the universe has always existed, I have no choice but to accept your argument as unsupported opinion, of the special pleading variety.
To kick that off;
Re: your statement "This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator."
Q: Why does something which has not been shown to have had a beginning, have to be assumed it ever had one?
It disregards the universe existing in a prior form.
No it does not.
It is possible that the universe has always existed in this manner, but does not assume that the shape that it takes in its manifestation is simply a mindless process, rather than a mindful purposeful reinvention of itself from the one state to the next - and has been happening like that eternally as in - it has always existed as something which begins and ends and begins again ad infinitum essentially meaning that it has never begun or ended at all. All along, mindfully creating itself into whatever it wills to.
Bonus question ;
Re the thread topic;
Q: Why should Creatio ex nihilo be accepted as something other than special pleading?
I don't think it should. Where one proposes a god's involvement, they should be expected show that's what happened.
Well at least we agree on that.
The Tanager claims that a God created the universe from nothing...he is not the only theist to makes such a claim.
But just as interestingly, there are also a number on non-theists who also believe that the universe had a beginning and that it popped into existence from nowhere.
The only minor difference between the two similar belief systems is that the theist who believes in this, claims a "God" made it magically happen, whereas the non-theist who believes in this, claims that it just magically happened.
But like I said, they both believe that it - an obvious something - came from nothing.
aka. Special Pleading by both parties.
Logically The Mind/consciousness/self awareness is therefore that which shapes the matter which we call "The Universe" - and anyone who does not think that the universe has a mind, is not paying attention to the one piece of evidence which indisputably shows that mind and matter interrelate as The Ghost and The Machine.
GM: Teaching Music
Tabula Rasa
Psychic
William: Tabula Rasa Psychic = 179
[179]
Tabula Rasa Psychic
Arm up - Fight battle
No Doubt about It
Stay the course
Spirituality
Make a list for that
Psychic powers
The Garden Story
Well Its A Start
Livingstone Hall
Laugh in the face of death
We Are All Becoming One
The Great Unwashed
GM: Making friends with your mind
Our Neutral Ground
William: Our Neutral Ground Making friends with your mind = 533
The Cosmic Mind is made up of differing levels of intelligence = 533
GM: The art of relationship
Penetrate The Bidden Zone
William: Penetrate The Bidden Zone The art of relationship = 474
[474]
The self arranging is a flag signifying mindfulness.
Penetrate The Bidden Zone The art of relationship
Fear-Based Thinking Ensures You Get To Know It
The outward expression of an inward reality.
I do have something substantial to work with.
GM: The Trinity of Love are three things operating as One Thing
Start From Scratch
They just add ambiance to the spooky...
Tai chi
Comparison
10Q
The Light in The Dark Everyone a great spark every one of us all here together
Mysterious process
https://debatingchristianity.com/for...81586#p1081586
William: FTL;
If mathematics cannot describe a system of "True Free Will" this may be because such a system does not actually exist?
[ Replying to Inquirer in post #86]
Yes that could be the case except for the fact that I know I have free will, as I said it is a self evident truth. So my free will cannot be computed mathematically (because it must be non-deterministic) it is not computable.
As an Agnostic my position re The Question "Does True Free Will Exist?" is "Lack of any current information to establish certainty"
Also, the focus is on the The Question, so am I to assume your claim of having free will corresponds with your belief that TRUE free will exists, and that you consider no difference between your 'free will' and what you previously referred to as "true free will"?
From the Agnostic position;
I accept that your belief that a person has will, as valid.
I remain undecided in relation to your belief that will is free, as it appears that will is only free, relative to the environment which constrains said will.
In that, I can accept the term 'free will' but not the term 'true free will'.
Why is it unreasonable to you?
Because I am in the Agnostic position re The Question.
We are faced with free will being real (I have it anyway, even if you don't)
I have this 'free will' but acknowledge that it is only 'free', relative to the environment it is operating within.
we are faced with free will being non-determinism, we are faced with the laws of nature being deterministic and so we are faced with how to explain that a physical system (me) can behave non-deterministically when all the parts I'm built from behave deterministically.
I do not view this as any kind of dilemma as I can accept the deterministic nature of the environment my will operates within, and that it appears to be operating independently of said deterministic environment.
However, the position of Agnosticism also accepts that things are not always as they appear to be, because ones personal beliefs have a way in which information becomes filtered through said beliefs, allowing for a distorted image rather than a real one.
Agnosticism allows for deeper investigation - taking a closer look, like a detective with a magnifying glass...the pipe, and indeed the substance being smoked, is not necessarily necessary to that end, but perhaps helpful nonetheless. 
Removing filters of belief however, are necessary, in order that any image thus presenting, is not distorted.
Positing God who has will, intent as the source of this non-determinism seems entirely reasonable and rational, what alternative, better explanation can you think of for explaining the presence of non-determinism in systems that are constructed from parts that are strictly deterministic?
Agnosticism accepts the validity of the possibility the environment we exist within is indeed a created one {a creation}, implying therefore, that there is a creator.
The position of Agnosticism also requires questions are asked, pertaining to the identity of supposed creator, which is why I asked;
What is this 'God' you are referring to? Some religious image?
GM: Process
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ZlXD7COMU [34:30…]
GM: https://debatingchristianity.com/for...89180#p1089180
William: FTL;
[ Replying to historia in post #80]
Also, not every discussion on this forum is strictly for/against Christianity, like the broad question of whether God exists, or, you know, this thread. In many of those discussions, the distinction between atheism and agnosticism remain important, as you already agreed.
So I don't see a compelling reason in your responses to collapse them together.
From what I think I understand so far, on the question of whether a creator [GOD] exists, a person who say's "maybe-maybe not" is categorized as a "weak atheist" by atheists, due to the not knowing and not having faith so not believing.
It is a simple matter of belief, because if there is a Creator GOD - there is no direct way of knowing and there is no sure way of showing any indirect way if there is or not.
The term "weak atheist" appears to be derogatory in relation to being a strong atheist, who appear to be those who have taken the step into believing that a Creator GOD does not exist, and expressing that belief into the community.
I think that perhaps some agnostics have a problem with accepting the term "weak" as it implies they are apathetic, indifferent, [stuff like that] and those ones at least are making efforts to examine the question and have not reached a point where they feel they can honestly make a choice either way.
I have also observed that many ex- theists who have chosen to become [proselyte] strong atheists are among the most outspoken in their zeal to preach their new message - the message that a Creator GOD does not exist and think it is reasonable to assume that they were also outspoken when they believed that a Creator-GOD did exist.
[I think of it therefore, in terms of personality traits.]
When I began to question theism - specifically The Christianities - it was to do with their imaging of a Creator-GOD and when I made the move away from that, [perhaps largely due to my personality - I was never outspoken] I quietly approached the subject [Creator GOD] rather than simply abandon it "because of" theisms handling of it or any other number of reason as to why folk say they chose to become atheist.
Which is to say, I did not choose to believe that there was no Creator-GOD simply on account of "theist behaviours" or "reading the bible" [some reasons given by some who have changed position from theist to atheist] but rather, I chose to examine the question in more detail, and today I am grateful for having made that choice.
One thing I have learned is that the real question to be asking is not the one which separates "atheist" from "theist" [demanding that an individual must either be one or the other re the question] as believing or not believing in the existence of a Creator [and in the case of believing that there is - defining that Creator] because this step is jumping the gun and is thus a mis-step or stumble.
So - from my position, I see both atheists and theists as having jumped the gun, and instead of working together [as people] on finding answers to the Real Question which we should be asking, they fight over the question of a Creator GOD.
It is from that position I remain firm that I am neither theist or atheist, or for that matter - even agnostic - because the question re the existence of a Creator isn't the one I have been asking and finding out answers to.
GM: The joy of being an Independent Conscious Intelligence connected with another ICI far greater than ones self...
[08:51]
[What Shall We Call It?
Acknowledge the Agreeable
Conscious Dreaming
Wish fulfillment
I share your joy!
Making Things Easier
Shepherding Moons
Links And Symbols
The Prime Directive]
|
|
Bookmarks