Stephen Fry On God

Not sure that is the discussion. What are the ramifications?" First I've heard of any. You guys are claiming science when you say abrahamic religions consist of certain ideals and these are it, list list. I've got news for you all, the individual believers don't line up that way and there are many takes on each of the listed attributes depending on who you talk to or how they interpret a word or whether that person in particular regards the list as accurate. So are we talking science or not? Should we not be scientific of mind when studying religious thought?

No, you aren't following any tenants or reasoning but your own. What does the word omniscience mean?, all knowing. What is "total" omniscience, an animal of your own creation "He knows everything past, present, and future, otherwise his knowledge is not perfect," is extraneous reasoning provided by you and so is your further argument from that point. So let's stop neglecting the effects of our own contributions on the subject and stop suggesting you are just going by their rules. Your argument is essentially flawed as to your source material.

 

Not a notion unless you make it one. It is a plain fact. Is it scary that you be associated with the concept of god as a plain fact? You guys create monsters that cannot be found in fact and yet are terrified because you think they actually exist to the point that you choke on the word god. Who me I didn't say that word and I have no idea of my own what it means. Meaningless self denial there buddy.

 

On the all knowing issue. The universe is made of information. It is of itself every bit informed, all knowing. We are relatively informed but no less knowing being part of the every bit informed universe. Knowledge is being shared.

On omni benevolence good can be found anywhere at any time.

Shall I be required to go through the whole list for you to get the point?

What is preposterous is only the way you are framing the issue.

 

Same could be said for bad.

 

That is true and ever true that the source of those verdicts is in a persons own invocations or via his own measure.

 

Hmmm...There is a deterministic optimism I find appealing in your points, I'm not sure I find it the case though. Biological evolution seeks a niche, it wants to find it's environment where it can thrive. We build cities and isolate ourselves from the wild, land animals evolve and isolate themselves from ocean. Predator/prey dynamics inherently suggests some types of suppression. Do you think we retain the knowledge from all the mass extinction events that have occurred on Earth?

I don't really care to anthropomorphize particles and the far reaches of the cosmos but to touch on that, dark matter/energy is elusive, most particles/anti-particles annihilate each other, pulsars bathe all objects within their way with inhospitable radiation, black holes swallow stars, etc. These examples make it difficult for me to really lend much credence to the idea of the universe seeking to cumulatively 'discover itself.' I don't follow how alot of these examples of arbitrary formation lends itself to the notion of an absolute attribute on the universe.

I will admit however, certain ideas such as the anthropic principles certainly make me wonder.

 

There are 41,000 christian denominations. Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority and there are disagreements on substance between those as well there are the mystics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism, and the mystery school adherents, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Christianity.

 

BRILLIANT, I agree...and have always felt the same way.....

 

People express their rage against Voldermort although in their view He-Whom-Shall-Not-Be-Named does not exist.

 

If you see real people doing that in the same way certain atheists are doing that on here you must be at an elementary school.

 

Well you fill in the blanks there don't you with your referral? Like I said, your reasoning. You say an abrahamic god, Not the abrahamic god? What I find being clearly referenced here is a primitive cartoonish understanding of the subject and some of this lies with the questioner as well as the responder. The pearly gates is an informal name for the gateway to Heaven according to some christain denominations. New Jerusalem and the kingdom of heaven are not even the same animal. For you to put forth your reasoning and claim that is the reasoning of others is preposterous.

And he doesn't clarify what he means by his terms or how they are wrong.

All kind and all beneficent are not listed in the list of the attributes Guerillabedlam referred to. Something that Fry made up in his less than serious regard of the subject. So you surmise the correctly that the terms came from the video and are not representative of any christian presenter at all.

Yes I know. Now your belief becomes part of your reasoning. How are you to separate your beliefs about their beliefs from their beliefs? Fact is you can't speak for anyone's beliefs but your own.
Who are quoting as proof that your reasoning is not yours?
"The number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010."
During this time there has been much evolution of christain philosophy and new information age influence in terms of interfaith outreach and all sorts of other terms.

So yeah your arguments become relevant as you set the parameters but not when considering all sides.

And there are over 2 billion christians in the world. So you side with the catholic encyclopedia as basis for your reasoning, a source chosen by you. And yes it is extraneous when you say you believe this or that about.

If you want to demonstrate that this in not your reasoning on free will or christain belief etc. and how these things fit together then show me your own version of how you interpret these issues such as free will or even what the will is in a philosophical way. I really don't think it should come to that for you to recognize that you do not have the thoughts of some one else in your head. The only thoughts in your head are yours although you may share them with others.

Reminds me of when I was a kid and my sister would say fuck you to me as a way to satisfy herself in an argument and when I would object to the treatment as beyond reason she would reply, i'm just kidding i didn't really mean it. without addressing the fact that it remained a tactic of argument that did not genuinely settle the issue.

 

I was prompted to come up with attribute(s) different than the ones Fry speaks of on God...

 

Been attacked by a vicious flu, shall resume shortly. Hopefully. Quickly though, anthropist views are not my own. We're no more important than the worm at the bottom of the garden, but I think it's fairly safe to assume we are potentially more intelligent if we pay attention to our effects on the world around us.

 

I don't know what this report means but I was referring to this,
"Yes, a quick search of the Attributes of Christian God (which even stand on an editable site like wikipedia) will suggest Fry's and Relaxxx's grievances are justified to the particular depiction of God which is generally held by Christians. "

 

As far as anthropic principles I think everything can be observed in terms of function as distinct from hierarchical meaning. The question does the universe want to know itself doesn't concern me. Functionally I concern me and I am concerned in largest part with knowing or being in common with an estate. In general terms there is good for me and I must have it, specific terms are diverse. I think a useful definition of how information appears in general can be found in the idea that the universe if made of information. Not that the universe wants to be known but as it is, it contains all that is knowable and all that is coming to know. So knowledge is inherent in matter and knowledge is a continuing relationship between knowable and knowing or being shared.

 

And the relation of unknown to unknowable ? here-in Krisna is at play , incense arises