Eternal Infinite God

Originally posted by amannion
Okay, let me spell this out so that even a moron can understand.
I AM SAYING THAT THINGS ARE NOT [b]SUPPOSED TO BE ANYTHING. Notice the emphasis on supposed. There is no way that things are supposed to be - there is no plan. There is no good world, or bad world.
We just have what is.[/b]

"There is no good world, bad world."
Thats a good starting point, the sort of premise that can lead to furthur understandings.
Either way, you seem to not want to delude yourself and "keep it real" , which is refreshing, as always, as it is wise.
"We just have what is"

Yes, I've coined my own little saying fo that- "Is what is."

So what now? Do you think there is room for furthur undertanding of the "mind" of the universe, (or just simply put "the universe" )?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, your answers are a bit cryptic for me this mornin. Let me have a shot at trying to understand.
I'll just start with one comment- "I dont have a view on how things should be - things are just as they are." I find it hard to believe that a man of your academic qulifications and experience would not have a view on how things "should be".
Not all th ll unclear on your position, but at least you are narrowing down for me what you believe.

I am still unclear on your position, but at least you are narrowing down for me what you believe.

He is some form of error theorist. There is nothing inconsistent about anything he has expressed here.

The confusion can lie in this. Consider the proposition that everything is just as it should be. The error theorist may claim that this proposition is false. Then one may in response assume that this commits him to the idea that there is at least something which fails to be as it otherwise should be. But, no, that does not follow. The error theorist may hold that this proposition is false too. There is no inconsistency here: he may hold that all such claims are false because they all purport to report facts that do not exist. (Or there are other forms of error theory, but this touches on the basic idea.) If, for example, amannion does not think there exist any normative facts about what is better or worse, then he may hold that any claims that purport to report such facts are false because there are no actual facts to which they correspond.

If, for example, you are having some discussion and you say "X is better than Y" and someone else responds "No, that's false", then you might assume he is committed to something else like "Y is as good or better than X". But this does not strictly follow. He may, without any inconsistency, think that both claims are false because he thinks both (1) that such claims purport to report facts of a particular type and (2) there just are no such facts of that type.

There are other forms of error theory, but I think amannion is an error theorist of roughly this type. He may correct me if I am wrong.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I am still unclear on your position, but at least you are narrowing down for me what you believe.

He is some form of error theorist. There is nothing inconsistent about anything he has expressed here.

The confusion can lie in this. Consider the proposition that everything is just as it should be. The error theorist may claim that this prop ...[text shortened]... ink amannion is an error theorist of roughly this type. He may correct me if I am wrong.[/b]

Fine. I too will wait for his response.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, your answers are a bit cryptic for me this mornin. Let me have a shot at trying to understand.
I'll just start with one comment- "I dont have a view on how things should be - things are just as they are." I find it hard to believe that a man of your academic qulifications and experience would not have a view on how things "should be".
Not all th ...[text shortened]... ll unclear on your position, but at least you are narrowing down for me what you believe.

Okay, yes I get what you're saying.
I guess there's two perspectives - the philosophical and the practical.

Philosophically, I don't think the world is supposed to be a particular way. It just is.
Practically I think that there are particular good and bad things and I prefer to try to maximise the good, and I think there are ways we can do this.

I don't think these two are incompatible.
The world is as it is. And I can try and make it better.
Maybe that does sound confusing ...

Originally posted by josephw
How is it that some believe that the concept of an eternal being with infinite powers is a creation of man?

Man invents God, but can't feed the starving children?

Man generates an army of scientists and flies a man to the moon, yet is unable to create an agricultural base enough to feed the hungry?

Man builds war machines costing astronomical amount ...[text shortened]... just how it's supposed to be. Right?

Seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Am I alone?

Quote: " pr '11 19:07
How is it that some believe that the concept of an eternal being with infinite powers is a creation of man? "

I hope I am not nagging you, but what choice do we have, other than to create concepts, if we can, of what might be real, based on what we are given?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"There is no good world, bad world."
Thats a good starting point, the sort of premise that can lead to furthur understandings.
Either way, you seem to not want to delude yourself and "keep it real" , which is refreshing, as always, as it is wise.
"We just have what is"

Yes, I've coined my own little saying fo that- "Is what is."

So what now? ...[text shortened]... r undertanding of the "mind" of the universe, (or just simply put "the universe" )?

Absolutely there is room for understanding the universe.
Look at Evolution as a comparison.

My saying that the world is not supposed to be like anything, is analogous to saying that evolution has no direction, no goal that it is working towards.
But we continue to study evolution and continue to learn more and more about the evolution process.
Likewise we can do the same with the universe.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I am still unclear on your position, but at least you are narrowing down for me what you believe.

He is some form of error theorist. There is nothing inconsistent about anything he has expressed here.

The confusion can lie in this. Consider the proposition that everything is just as it should be. The error theorist may claim that this prop ...[text shortened]... ink amannion is an error theorist of roughly this type. He may correct me if I am wrong.[/b]

Yes. I've not heard of the concept before but I like where it's going.

Originally posted by amannion
Okay, yes I get what you're saying.
I guess there's two perspectives - the philosophical and the practical.

Philosophically, I don't think the world is supposed to be a particular way. It just is.
Practically I think that there are particular good and bad things and I prefer to try to maximise the good, and I think there are ways we can do this.

I d ...[text shortened]... he world is as it is. And I can try and make it better.
Maybe that does sound confusing ...

Doesn't sound confusing to me.
To me , you articulated your positition very succinclty. Thank you🙂