God's purpose

[Jodie]

Well be that as it may, these exist. It is part of what you refer to as 'the corruption' and for that, is in the process of being sorted out.

Yep, that's how it's explain in Gnosticism. However, if you think of everything as one giant something then logically good and evil would not have the same meaning in that context just like a mutated killer virus isn't really evil.

The 'grand scheme of things' infers purpose. In relation to consciousness in this universe, purpose is evident.
Therefore, in relation to our position, yes. Good and evil are real and that 'the overall being' may not be too concerned, deep down in the rabbit hole where we (it) is presently experiencing stuff, good and evil are relative and part of the process of sorting out purpose in relation to the situation.

The "grand scheme" as I refer to it is simply the landscape for what exists with no implied specific purpose. Our perspective is limited and therefore might not be the correct interpretation of true reality.

Sure. But lets be reasonable. If an evil act was being done to you, would this philosophy still apply?

I'ld think about it on different levels and with mixed emotions. From our human perspective, a truly evil person is considered to be a psychopath, but even psychopaths can be some of the kindest people you'll ever meet if it is to their benefit.

Would you simply say 'oh well Fair enough!' Or would you balk at the intrusion?

I'm living a human existence and I'm certainly a fallible human being. I'ld whoop some ass in the parking lot.

The corruption has gone too far and I would surmise that you would not react as if it were just some incident that happened to a' finite little being with limited cognitive abilities.' I think you would find the assault to be something coming from a finite little being with even more limited cognitive ability than you possess.

I would probably react out of instinct and try to kill the person before he or she killed me first and not feel a bit of guilt or remorse in the process.

Or even from someone who should know better but chooses to be evil.

Technically, not "turning the other cheek" is evil. Thinking bad thoughts is evil. We humans judge evil on a sliding scale but if good and evil really exist then this perception shouldn't apply. One evil thought would be equal to several evil acts.

 

[doronshadmi]

Something to ponder. What was God's purpose for creating the world, universe, and man?

If there is a common source for multiplicity\diversity, then the first step is to directly be aware of it as the minimal determination for any further discussion.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

If there is a common source for multiplicity\diversity, then the first step is to directly be aware of it as the minimal determination for any further discussion.

'It' being?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Here's one that I have previously found...

https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

Sorry for the delay in responding. The topic has surged ahead.

I researched this topic and found the paper he wrote.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.50.9691&rep=rep1&type=pdf

In about the year 2000, I was working for an company supplying electronic chips to manufacturers. One of our objectives was to supply demo circuits to show how new chips could be used.

I was given a FPGA on a circuit board that was connected randomly and asked to program it to perform a certain function. That was tricky. One needs a bit of forethought which pins to use for input or outputs. My memory is not good on the specifics.

The article was very interesting. Hard to follow for lack of specifics.

Is this for real? This experiment is mentioned on the internet, but there seems to be no-one doing commentary or a critique of the experiment. I could find many ways to do so.

The biggest problem is that it is so sensitive to small changes, and possibly outside influences. Having it all on a specific card inside the computer at least gave some repeatability.

High gain circuits with feedback are prone to ringing. The transition from zero to five volts on the input square wave is a critical factor. If different for the 1 kHz and the 10 kHz then that might be a determining factor.

I could go on. {{This is an area I have experience in. The company I worked for had test facilities like lined rooms with special antennae so we could bombard circuits with radio waves of varying intensity and frequency, and check for glitches. We injected noise into power supplies and inputs. Tested for over and under voltage. Ran temperature and humidity trials.}}

I am skeptical of this experiment. In the same way that I am skeptical of personal experiences of mine and others.

I would like some peer review. Much of the basic theory seems okay - just not the FPGA in analog mode. I am just not sure of the value of the results of this particular experiment when used to support "evolution" by selection of the fittest (which I have no argument with).

 

[jimbob]

Sorry for the delay in responding. The topic has surged ahead.

I researched this topic and found the paper he wrote.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.50.9691&rep=rep1&type=pdf

In about the year 2000, I was working for an company supplying electronic chips to manufacturers. One of our objectives was to supply demo circuits to show how new chips could be used.

I was given a FPGA on a circuit board that was connected randomly and asked to program it to perform a certain function. That was tricky. One needs a bit of forethought which pins to use for input or outputs. My memory is not good on the specifics.

The article was very interesting. Hard to follow for lack of specifics.

Is this for real? This experiment is mentioned on the internet, but there seems to be no-one doing commentary or a critique of the experiment. I could find many ways to do so.

The biggest problem is that it is so sensitive to small changes, and possibly outside influences. Having it all on a specific card inside the computer at least gave some repeatability.

High gain circuits with feedback are prone to ringing. The transition from zero to five volts on the input square wave is a critical factor. If different for the 1 kHz and the 10 kHz then that might be a determining factor.

I could go on. {{This is an area I have experience in. The company I worked for had test facilities like lined rooms with special antennae so we could bombard circuits with radio waves of varying intensity and frequency, and check for glitches. We injected noise into power supplies and inputs. Tested for over and under voltage. Ran temperature and humidity trials.}}

I am skeptical of this experiment. In the same way that I am skeptical of personal experiences of mine and others.

I would like some peer review. Much of the basic theory seems okay - just not the FPGA in analog mode. I am just not sure of the value of the results of this particular experiment when used to support "evolution" by selection of the fittest (which I have no argument with).

I have seen references to papers, but it isn't really relevant to my work, which is more device physics so I haven't spent much time on it.

ETA: there are a shedload on IEEE Explore which gives you free access to the abstracts at least

 

[doronshadmi]

'It' being?

Being in itself is not the sum of its multiple expressions, so by directly being aware of itself without any agent of multiplicity, a further discussion of the issue at hand may have actual foundation.

Without it, all we get is an endless blablabla... of the issue at hand.

 

[jimbob]

Does that have any semantic content?

 

[ynot]

Translation . . .

If there is a common source for multiplicity\diversity,

If there's a god that created everything.

then the first step is to directly be aware of it as the minimal determination for any further discussion.

Then the first step is to have evidence this god actually exists as the minimal determination for any further discussion

Yep, I agree with that.

 

[ynot]

Being in itself is not the sum of its multiple expressions, so by directly being aware of itself without any agent of multiplicity, a further discussion of the issue at hand may have actual foundation.

Sorry but that's a language I can't understand, let alone translate.

Without it, all we get is an endless blablabla... of the issue at hand.

Are you speaking in the language of "blablabla"?

 

[Magrat]

Sorry but that's a language I can't understand, let alone translate.


Are you speaking in the language of "blablabla"?

Like...word salad.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Translation . . .

If there's a god that created everything.


Then the first step is to have evidence this god actually exists as the minimal determination for any further discussion

Yep, I agree with that.

My first interpretation as well, but I had my doubts.

 

[ynot]

My first interpretation as well, but I had my doubts.

Translation is subject to confirmation .

 

[Navigator]

Yep, that's how it's explain in Gnosticism. However, if you think of everything as one giant something then logically good and evil would not have the same meaning in that context just like a mutated killer virus isn't really evil.

Even if one did think in those terms (the giant something) the aspects of that 'something' who are - as their own subjective experiences, individual beings and are required to group together as a means of survival in this particular environment and these groups are still sorting out the particulars re good and evil, because there is the obvious need to do so.
A mutated killer virus is not known to possess the same type of intelligence and self awareness as human beings. Therefore it is just doing what it does rather than being spurred on by some good or evil idea.

The "grand scheme" as I refer to it is simply the landscape for what exists with no implied specific purpose.

A landscape of itself has no specific purpose. All purpose comes from consciousness, intelligence and an acute sense of self awareness. Consciousness involved with the landscape is able to assign purpose in relation to that landscape and a knowledge of its own capabilities. It can be a loose purpose or a well defined purpose...it appears the more well defined it is, the more coherence is behind the definition.

Our perspective is limited and therefore might not be the correct interpretation of true reality.

We work with what we have available and within 'the grand scheme' there is large potential but what can be done is quite narrowly defined by the nature of that reality.

I'ld think about it on different levels and with mixed emotions. From our human perspective, a truly evil person is considered to be a psychopath, but even psychopaths can be some of the kindest people you'll ever meet if it is to their benefit.

Yes - so are you saying that you would not be able to 'make up your mind one way or another' on whether the act against you was evil or not? Generally speaking, psychopaths are not something which have proved to be overly helpful to the collective situation.

Technically, not "turning the other cheek" is evil.

Really? It seems to me that like 'forgiveness' it has more to do with maintaining of the good mental health of the victim rather than anything much to do with the victimizer.

So maybe the 'evil' aspect is in not wanting to forgive? Because the poison of the victimizers actions against the victim - can prompt to cause the victim to become a victimizer - not overly intentionally... but because the wrong has not been righted - and often isn't. No 'closure' and no 'justice' Thus the act of forgiveness can assist the victim in healing from the act of evil done against him/her in which the perpetrator 'got away with it', or perhaps was dealt with more leniently by the courts of law than the victim expected...etc...

Thinking bad thoughts is evil.

Perhaps such thinking can and does often lead to evil actions through the one thinking the thoughts.

We humans judge evil on a sliding scale but if good and evil really exist then this perception shouldn't apply.

'Taking the mote from ones eye' in relation to judging in a hypocritical manner. Sometimes there is no escaping evil actions and one has to surrender to whatever those actions dictate. The surrender isn't the acceptance of the evil actions, but because - short of fighting evil with evil, good has to choose to suffer the evil in the hope that in doing so - perhaps something will be learned by it eventually etc...

One evil thought would be equal to several evil acts.

It is only when the thought becomes the act that this occurs. The thing about good or evil thought is that in both cases, the acts usually follow, and yes - one evil thought can indeed evolve into several evil acts - same as for one good thought evolving into several good acts...

 

[Navigator]

Being in itself is not the sum of its multiple expressions, so by directly being aware of itself without any agent of multiplicity, a further discussion of the issue at hand may have actual foundation.

Multiplicity obviously come into existence as a result of interaction within this universe. There may have been no choice in the matter (it just happened for unknown reasons) or there may have been the choice (denoting reason for doing so) as-in "Purpose".

Multiply expressions are the result of not knowing, (ignorance) wanting to know, (having the ability to be less ignorant) and sometimes not wanting to know (ignorance as 'bliss') 'Further discussion' has a foundation with 'wanting to know' but to suggest that we somehow ought to know before 'discussion' can take place seems a bit redundant. After all we are the critter in the collective position of multiplicity. We don't know, perhaps can't ever truly know...but exactly how much do we need to surmise before we 'know' enough to proceed accordingly? Perhaps the main thing we need to agree to is that 'IT' is of itself 'not the sum of its multiple expressions' and keep it simple in relation to the present situation within the universe we are 'finding ourselves' within?

What is our purpose in relation to that?

 

[ynot]

Multiplicity obviously come into existence as a result of interaction within this universe. There may have been no choice in the matter (it just happened for unknown reasons) or there may have been the choice (denoting reason for doing so) as-in "Purpose".

Multiply expressions are the result of not knowing, (ignorance) wanting to know, (having the ability to be less ignorant) and sometimes not wanting to know (ignorance as 'bliss') 'Further discussion' has a foundation with 'wanting to know' but to suggest that we somehow ought to know before 'discussion' can take place seems a bit redundant. After all we are the critter in the collective position of multiplicity. We don't know, perhaps can't ever truly know...but exactly how much do we need to surmise before we 'know' enough to proceed accordingly? Perhaps the main thing we need to agree to is that 'IT' is of itself 'not the sum of its multiple expressions' and keep it simple in relation to the present situation within the universe we are 'finding ourselves' within?

What is our purpose in relation to that?

Perhaps I might have to learn me this blablabla language. Wouldn't want to miss out on any pearls of wisdom.

 

[Magrat]

I don't know who write this, but it seemed like a good time to share it:
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the **** out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the **** out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the **** out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the Desk of Karl
1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the **** out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the **** out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the **** out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the **** out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

I will take sauerkraut with me to the GRAVE!

 

[Thor 2]

Hope you're not denying that . . .

The “Typical emotional response “ was yours.

The “strong theist in denial who hates atheists” is you.


Oh, you are denying that. How pathetic!

I would just like to say here that I do not hate theists but do have intense dislike of theism.

Oops, that sounds a bit like that Christian thing - love the sinner, hate the sin.

 

[ynot]

I don't know who write this, but it seemed like a good time to share it:
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I
<snipped to save page length>

I will take sauerkraut with me to the GRAVE!

Humour can be a good and effective way of getting at point across. Trouble is some people get neither the humour nor the point. Gave me a laugh, thanks.

 

[ynot]

I would just like to say here that I do not hate theists but do have intense dislike of theism.

Oops, that sounds a bit like that Christian thing - love the sinner, hate the sin.

Shouldn't you be saying that to someone else?

 

[Jodie]

Even if one did think in those terms (the giant something) the aspects of that 'something' who are - as their own subjective experiences, individual beings and are required to group together as a means of survival in this particular environment and these groups are still sorting out the particulars re good and evil, because there is the obvious need to do so.
A mutated killer virus is not known to possess the same type of intelligence and self awareness as human beings. Therefore it is just doing what it does rather than being spurred on by some good or evil idea.

You speak of evil so define it, what is evil? With very few exceptions, continuing assault as the example, most people have a reason for attacking or killing someone. The human is just doing what it needs to do to survive physically or emotionally.

A landscape of itself has no specific purpose. All purpose comes from consciousness, intelligence and an acute sense of self awareness. Consciousness involved with the landscape is able to assign purpose in relation to that landscape and a knowledge of its own capabilities. It can be a loose purpose or a well defined purpose...it appears the more well defined it is, the more coherence is behind the definition.

But that purpose might not have any relevance overall or be critical to the function of the whole.

We work with what we have available and within 'the grand scheme' there is large potential but what can be done is quite narrowly defined by the nature of that reality.

Yes, and if you aren't privy to that how do you know you've interpreted concepts like good and evil appropriately?

Yes - so are you saying that you would not be able to 'make up your mind one way or another' on whether the act against you was evil or not? Generally speaking, psychopaths are not something which have proved to be overly helpful to the collective situation.

It would depend on how fast I had to make the decision. If I had no time to consider it, the person is upon me and I can't evade them, then my choice is to kill them in self defense. His act might be considered evil depending on what motivated him to attack me in the first place. If he was mentally ill I doubt I would view this person as evil.

Really? It seems to me that like 'forgiveness' it has more to do with maintaining of the good mental health of the victim rather than anything much to do with the victimizer.

It has to do with not escalating a situation.

So maybe the 'evil' aspect is in not wanting to forgive? Because the poison of the victimizers actions against the victim - can prompt to cause the victim to become a victimizer - not overly intentionally... but because the wrong has not been righted - and often isn't. No 'closure' and no 'justice' Thus the act of forgiveness can assist the victim in healing from the act of evil done against him/her in which the perpetrator 'got away with it', or perhaps was dealt with more leniently by the courts of law than the victim expected...etc...

In cases of child abuse, yes, the victim often becomes the victimizer. One assault incident is more likely to leave the victim with PTSD and no amount of forgiveness fixes that.

Perhaps such thinking can and does often lead to evil actions through the one thinking the thoughts.

No, if you read Christ's teachings, he said thinking evil is considered to be as bad as actually committing the evil act.

'Taking the mote from ones eye' in relation to judging in a hypocritical manner. Sometimes there is no escaping evil actions and one has to surrender to whatever those actions dictate. The surrender isn't the acceptance of the evil actions, but because - short of fighting evil with evil, good has to choose to suffer the evil in the hope that in doing so - perhaps something will be learned by it eventually etc...

That's crap. Every action and reaction is a personal choice. I can't see what I anyone could learn from suffering as a result of an evill act.

It is only when the thought becomes the act that this occurs. The thing about good or evil thought is that in both cases, the acts usually follow, and yes - one evil thought can indeed evolve into several evil acts - same as for one good thought evolving into several good acts...

Not according to the bible, I'm just saying....do a google search or look through an online concordance for versus related to bad thoughts.