> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:32:37 GMT, lostnside
nexus.com> wrote:
>>>>The problem with all this is that the assumption that God is
>>>responsible for the suffering is wrong. God is not responsible for the
>>>suffering.
>
>>That's not what I'm assuming. I'm question the idea some people have
>>that God doesn't exist because, if he did, the various horrible things
>>that happen in the world today wouldn't happen.
>
> That is not true. God is responsible for one and only one thing:
> Existence. You cannot blame God for suffering because God does not
> cause suffering. Suffering is part of existence largely caused by
> govt.
>
> Don't blame God just because we are too cowardly to implement
> tyrannicide and stop most suffering and make what little happens
> naturally as minimal as we can.
>
> Quantum Mechanics teaches us that there are certain detailed
> quantities that are uncomputable, and therefore intrinsically
> unknowable. That means that not even God can know them in advance of
> their occurance in reality. Omniscience does not allow contradiction,
> which would be the case if God could know things that the material
> world does not disclose in advance of their occurance.
>
> Therefore even if God were responsible for preventing suffering, there
> is no way to know in advance that something is going to happen that
> results in suffering. And it is not God's job, at least not at this
> moment in our history, to intervene and obliterate govt, which is the
> real cause of suffering.
>
>>>There is no such thing as "infinity" in the real world. God is not
>>>infinite. Quantum Mechanics teaches us that although the world is
>>>determinictic in terms of the physical processes that occur, that
>>>there are certain quantities which are intrinsically uncomputable in
>>>any kind of detail. The specific time that a radioactive atom will
>>>decay is one of those intrinsically uncomputable quantities. That
>>>means they are intrinsically unknowable.
>
>>Well, you're assuming that physics can be applied to God, I'm not sure
>>if that's completely the case. I mean, if we're talking someone who
>>can create things just by speaking them into existence, I'm not sure
>>if the natural laws apply.
>
> You are citing theology. I do not accept theological statements. There
> is no reason to believe that "God speaks". There is only Pure Being -
> all the rest is fantasy of the subjective mind. Therefore the material
> world must be a component of Pure Being. That means the laws of the
> material world are derived from Pure Being. God cannot be expected to
> violate those laws because God is the source of those laws.
>
>>>Another problem is the assumption that God is supernatural. That is
>>>not correct. God is natural.
>
>>Well, then I'd argue God was a natural entity, then he isn't God (at
>>least, not the God as traditionally defined in a religous context.)
>
> I do not accept "religious context". It's all fantasy.
>
>>>We could, for example know what we are going to decide by calculating
>>>our decision in advance, and then when the moment comes to make the
>>>actual decision, decide to do the opposite, thereby creating a
>>>contradiction.
>
>>Well, I do get this weird feeling you're just pulling everyone's legs?
>
> Although I am a Jesuitical Heathen Troll, I do not pull anyone's legs.
>
>
> The statement I made above comes from a proof of the Turing Halting
> Problem. No one is pulling anyone's legs with that proof.
>
> Perhaps you should spend more time studying physics and not worrying
> why you can't understand it. Here some books to get you started,
> especially on the matter of uncomputability. After you have read these
> at least two times, see if I am pulling your legs.
>
> The Emperor's New Mind:
> Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics
> by Roger Penrose
> Paperback: 480 pages
> Publisher: Oxford University Press (October, 2002)
> ISBN: 0192861980
>
> Shadows of the Mind:
> A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (Paperback)
> by Roger Penrose
> Paperback: 480 pages
> Publisher: Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (May, 1996)
> ISBN: 0195106466
>
>>>If you study history critically you discover that it is govt that is
>>>the root of all evil. It is govt that causes man to suffer in general.
>>>Don't blame God if man worships at the false altar of the godless
>>>collectivist state. Don't blame God is man chooses to be a leftist
>>>pervert.
>
>>Now, you're just being silly.
>
> No, I am being realistic.
>
> The world is filled with leftist perverts, who operate on the basis
> that Good is evil and Evil is good. They make themselves known thru
> their politically correct perversions of common sense. You see them in
> every govt all over the world. One of them was just hanged by the neck
> until dead. One down, several more to go.
>
> Govt is the root of all evil, because govt allows criminals to amass
> absolute power, which leads to absolute corruption, which leads to
> global suffering. If we had the courage to implement tyrannicide, then
> we would devote our resources to alleviating the small amount of
> suffering that remains due to nature.
>
> For example we would make drugs available to anyone who is suffering
> from a serious condition. Why aren't these drugs available now?
> Because the criminals in govt want to profit from black market
> activity.
>
> We have the ability to conquer suffering but instead we live our lives
> of comfortable desperation wringing our hands over the manifest evil
> in the world and blame God for it because we are too impotent to
> eliminate it ourselves.
>
> "What is the State? The State is people - people who believe
> they have a right to rule others. These people are the thieving,
> murdering brutes responsible for war, conscription, taxation,
> massacres, slave camps, gas chambers, killing fields, nuclear
> missles, and endless death stretching back ten thousand years.
> Luckily for all, the State is only people. And, generally, the
> least competent of people. They are the ones who cannot innovate,
> only steal. They cannot reason, only kill. They are brutes who
> see the greatest efforts of mankind as loot to seize and control.
> Yet when they seize the creations of greater minds, the works
> crumble in their hands, for they cannot control what they are
> incapable of understanding."
> -- Victor Koman, "Kings of the High Frontier"
>
> --
>
> "You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
> --Robert A. Heinlein
You're the truest form of a Jeffersonian I've met in years... and I must
admit I like you. :) The problem with Jeffersonianism is it relies on... no,
it *requires* the best qualities of human nature to be exhibited by the vast
majority to work, a requirement which, historically, has proven to be in
very short supply.
I used to play an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game)
called Ultima Online. It began completely "wide-open", players could do
pretty much whatever they pleased. The concept of "policing" players'
actions was supposed to be left to the players themselves, much as in the
real world. In other words, it was a truly Jeffersonian set-up, and the
designers expected the players to generally behave in a civil manner. Boy!
were they ever wrong!
Until I played that game I was a die-hard Jeffersonian. I'm not anymore. Two
years of that anarchy, where constantly it proved to be the worst traits of
human nature that brought rewards, while the best human tendencies were
consistently punished, showed me what can become of decent tendencies when
there are no boundaries set by government.
Constantly, those who would have been decent people, if their bad actions
were threatened with punishment, became hoodlums, preying on the weak for
fun and profit. The only thing that saved the game from extinction was the
addition of an entire other world area where almost all antisocial behavior
was literally impossible.
Saying that, do I now love government in general as a result? No. I still
hate it... but I hate the alternative even more.
Be well - Pax
