Let's think this through ... God

You demonstrated it yourself: everybody is hurting everybody all the time, regardless of if they mean to, regardless of what they do or don’t do. All that means is that hurt (or your definition of it) is useless in determining the rightness or wrongness of our actions. Ought implies can.

This goes back to James’ couple posts about discipline… I asked him, “why don’t you discipline yourself to not hurt others or be hurt by them (if you’re so self righteous)?”

He ignored me.

Philosophic zombie universes are our ONLY option, and every second of every day is discipline for me to solve the only thing that makes our lives meaningful.

No, I just gave you the other option: reject your understanding of harm. That’s not an option for you, for obvious reasons, but it’s fine for the rest of us.

That’s not what you said but ok…

Let’s go with this from a person (you) with anti social personality disorder…

The BTK killer is now your friend, he LOVES you, says that to all his victims now!!!

And this is what you get for trying to reason with a hostile, mentally disabled man on the internet. When will I ever learn?

ecmandu,

I think that it is possible that if someone IS self-righteous, there might not be any true humility there and ergo there might be a lot of hurt on both sides unless the other party has thick skin and can easily detach.
Self-righteousness is certainly not necessarily moral or ethical…it can have its basis in egotism.

Even if we follow the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - that wouldn’t necessarily work either because many of us think and feel and interpret the world differently.
For instance, some like it when they are confronted in an honest way - others do not - so how would the golden rule work there. It would call for discernment and finesse and seeing the other person as he is ALSO.
Is it possible to never hurt others and at the same time not to hurt or de-value one-self or one’s own life?
That may call for compromise by a person who actually knows himself and who doesn’t feel less of a person or defeated by another’s treatment or estimation of him.
There are some times when feeling it necessary to give another “more” does not mean that the other person has more taken away from him.

We can “discipline” (teach) ourselves to try not to hurt others if it is humanly possible without sacrificing our own “real” needs IF we can do that but perhaps what you’re asking is that people become sacrificial lambs to spare others hurt or that they become sacrificial lambs in order that the party of the first part may always gain what he feels he needs and desires.
That thinking is just wishful thinking and is not based in reality and honestly, insofar as the golden rule is concerned, that kind of thinking breaks the back of the golden rule - since there is no “we” - only an “I” there.

See how complicated it can be in knowing how not to hurt others?
Is it possible that what you took as being ignored by him was his way of not hurting you?
We all think differently and sometimes we “project” onto others.
I’m not saying that was the case but it might have been.
The golden rule cannot always apply. Nothing is black and white.

Uccisore,

Hostile? You’re the most hostile person on ILP!!

That’s one thing APD’s never learn, when they talk about others they’re only mostly talking to themselves about themselves.

Uccisore, assuming I even am in the schizoid spectrum… Personality disorders are considered worse than the schizoid spectrum. You talk like Donald Trump, no wonder you think he is Jesus.

Here’s the deal Uccisore… You don’t TRY to make the world better, and when others do, you become enraged.

It’s actually hard trying to work out the details of philosophic zombie universes, on a scale you cannot comprehend.

He means this:

[b]

Yes, you could argue this; but my point above involves taking these generally abstract, scholastic assessments of the relationship between an omniscient God and mere mortals, and situating it out in the world of actual human interactions.

Omniscient: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

To argue then that an all-knowing God does not know whether Jane will abort or not about her unborn baby, or that Jack will or will not report her to the authorities, seems to ascribe the meaning of the word “omniscient” to God as but one more manifestation of His “mysterious ways”. And, of course, the faithful can always fall back on that to rationalize anything with respect to Him.

Similarly if a bat could only be as God intended it to be how could this omniscient God not know what it is like to be a bat? It is as though this all-powerful entity set life itself into motion such that it would evolve on its own into minds [ours] able to probe these questions self-consciously.

In other words, whatever that means.

And [thus] we are still back to square one: connecting all of these endless “intellectual” and “theoretical” speculations to an actual extant God.

A God, the God, your God.

And not theirs.

Or, sure, maybe it’s just me. My inability to reconcile the idea of an omniscient God able to be the “perfect predictor” with mere mortals able to choose behaviors that would be both “free” and wholly [necessarily] in sync with God’s prediction of what it will be.

And what then is the limit to that which mortals are able to think, feel and behave autonomously?

Are they able to prove the existence of God if God does not want His existence able to be proven? Are they able to teach themselves to behave in such a manner that God is not aware of it? Can they discover how to trick God? To defy God with impunity?

As long as there is a gap between what mere mortals think, feel and do and God’s awareness of this, it would seem to make this relationship considerably more problematic.

For example, am I “free” to not believe in God? Or, as some Christians [among others] insists, “free” or not, will my refusal [inability] to accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior result [necessarily] in eternal damnation?

And [of course] always this: with so much at stake how/why is it that God makes answering these crucial questions so seemingly elusive?[/b]

What say you, Uccisore?

He desperately WANTS for the world to be a better place. When he encounters one of those apparently making it worse despite his efforts to prevent it, his frustration turns to rage.

Sounds immature

Around here, who doesn’t?

Uccisore made my point more than anyone, and because of James’ comment to defend Uccisore, I also have had a really revealing look into James’ psychology.

When I had that post about not being able to do anything without hurting anyone, it’s not only perfectly logical, it’s also perfectly emotional …

What this reveals is that Uccisore and James have logical and emotional handicaps with real world consequences.

Uccisore blew it off by saying “you need to redefine hurt then”. Everyone who is sensitive knows that emotional pain is worse than physical pain, but apparently Uccisore doesn’t … Speaks volumes, upon volumes , upon volumes.

Obviously the creator would know it created a no win situation.

We can, like Uccisore, go on for days about what the creator doesn’t know, but this is so blatant and obvious, that it defies any possible explanation how bad can be good. Unless you as a human being, are bad to the core.

What about deism? In deism God exists but doesn’t inter-mingle in the Universe’s affairs. I am a variant of deism, specifically panendeism - which states that there is a God inside the Universe (but the Universe itself) that created the Universe but is natural and doesn’t or can’t interfere with our mortal affairs.

I also believe in henotheism. In my conception of henotheism, there are things inside the Universe that “glue” everything itself. I’m not talking about the Universal natural however, like the higgs-boson particle, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, or electromagnetism. I’m talking about the physical things that arose from those forces. Stars, galactic black holes, superclusters, that allows the existence of life and all we see fit in the Universe. This is why I venerate the Sun, for it directly involved for everything the Earth has.

So, in my conceptions of God, one God exists and there are many deities also inside the Universe. They are all very real.

What do you say to this?

Mackerni,

To that, I say simply, it is impossible to create the whole universe and not have an effect upon it.

Actually, you are the only effect upon it…

We’re talking about zero point here, not human creations.

What if the multiverse created the Universe, developed the natural forces of which it would work from, but then just after its creation left it to its own?

To that, I think you are trying to play word games.

Zero point creation would create not only the multiverse, but it’s ability to converge to a universe.

Remember, in zero point creation, you created everything!! Not just something.

What is"zero point" creation?

Creation ex nihilo, you created something that has never been before.

You do realize that deists believe that God did create everything inside the Universe, but left it alone to its own accord after it was made, right? Zero-point creationism still doesn’t mean the deity is directly personal in any way, just that it had a hand in the creation of the Universe. Annddd … believing in panendeism means that something natural created the Universe, not something that resembles an Abrahamic-God.

Let’s just agree to disagree, alright?

Is God “unnatural”? :evilfun: