Present Evidence Here II

[Mike Cl]

Okay, once again, I am just an uneducated hick. But I don't get it. Why do you guys insist on giving in, to this "alternate laws of physics" crap? Surely the mathematics are unchangeable. What is, results from what was, and all of the cause and effect relationships, all of their proportions and ratios, and uniform interactions, are the simple extension, of something basic, or the equivalent of 1+1=2. It just works that way. There are equations which work, and any which won't, never take shape. They can't exist.

We don't yet have all of the math to describe the earliest interactions perfectly, but that doesn't support the contention that God spoke it into existence. Such a premise requires a whole magnitude of greater complexity, ending in some very similar unresolved questions.

Yeah, I've wondered that myself.  I conclude that it is simply easier to not approach the math.  Math requires from most of us concentration and the application of our mind and attention that is not easy for us to achieve.  The more complex the '1 + 1=2" becomes, the easier it is to simply say, 'yeah, god did it' and go do something else.

[fencerider]

all psychopaths are sociopaths, but not all sociopaths are psycopaths. Sociopath is a less severe form of mental illness

Sociopath: inability to follow laws and social norms, deceitfullness for personal benefit, irritability, aggressiveness, impulsive, reckless, using or abusing other people with no ability for remorse for personal benefit, no ability to empathize.

what does that tell us about G-d? ;-)

.... so a demi-god is half human and half god; and this makes the entity sociopathic.

I suppose that if you are a full blooded god you have a superiority-complex, definitely arrogant. You would not have any remorse for injury to humans because they are below you. Maybe you feel like you have the right to use them any way you want...

I guess a god would show sociopathic behavior to humans in the same way that humans show sociopathic behavior toward chickens and cows.... briquettes warmin up the grill

[Baruch]

By the ancient definition of a demigod ... a demigod is a super-person, like Caesar Augustus etc ... we aren't talking Hercules here.  We still have that same definition, we worship the wealthy, powerful and famous, just like our Greco-Roman ancestors.  I just democratize it, not just priesthood of all believers, but demigods of all the demos.

[fencerider]

ahhh. I see. I'm still in the pion stage of existence. They all look the same to me. The difference between a god and a demi-god is non-existent from my perspective.

[Sorginak]

all psychopaths are sociopaths, but not all sociopaths are psycopaths. Sociopath is a less severe form of mental illness

I quite disagree with that.

Today, the terms “sociopath” and “psychopath” are used interchangeably â€" often as a nice way of avoiding “crazy” â€" yet in recent years the difference between “psychopath” and “sociopath” has become as widely pronounced as the scientific difference between shell shock and post-traumatic stress disorder, which is to say it’s massive.

Psychologists tend to break down the two groups by certain factors, and they have a lot in common. Both tend to be charming, despite being unable to empathize normally with others. They offer convincing systems of fear and disgust, but tend to lack both. Here’s the crux, though: Psychopaths cross the line. Sociopaths may hole up in their houses and remove themselves from society, while a psychopath is busy in his basement rigging shackles to his furnace.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/whats-difference-between-sociopath-and-psychopath-not-much-one-might-kill-you-270694

[fencerider]

well i actually looked it up because I didnt know the definition of those words. supposed to be from American Psychiatric Association or something like that. There was a definition of psychopath including the definition of a sociopath + some additional items.

In relation to Baruch's question "demi-gods are sociopathic what does that say about full blooded gods?", would you expect a full blooded god to be a psychopath, sociopath, or something else.

[Sorginak]

would you expect a full blooded god to be a psychopath, sociopath, or something else.

A full blooded god, or the god in question, especially after reading the atrocities he committed and commanded in the bible, would undoubtedly make him a psychopath of the worst nature.

Considering his current role in the world, the fact that he does not reveal himself as he supposedly did in the old testament, I would then classify that god as a sociopath. 

[Baruch]

Yes, demigods are awful people ... if one is empirically honest.  Setting up a non-existent ideal is a straw man.  You only believe in Santa Clause if he leaves you gifts, not a lump of coal?  G-d isn't less than a person, but something more ... just as a class of objects is different than the objects in that class.  This is necessary maths.  See Russell's Paradox.

[Sorginak]

Yes, demigods are awful people ... if one is empirically honest.  Setting up a non-existent ideal is a straw man.  You only believe in Santa Clause if he leaves you gifts, not a lump of coal?  G-d isn't less than a person, but something more ... just as a class of objects is different than the objects in that class.  This is necessary maths.  See Russell's Paradox.

That is quite the apologetic you have built for yourself there.  So according to your logic, god is real because he tortures you. 

I can introduce you to a battered women's home.

[Baruch]

That is quite the apologetic you have built for yourself there.  So according to your logic, god is real because he tortures you. 

I can introduce you to a battered women's home.

I am tortured, therefor I am ... "I am" being a theological title of G-d.  Sorry if you batter women ... do you use beer batter? (sarc).  So to be more specific, G-d is real, because G-d is the class which has demi-gods as elements of that class.  But no Russell's Paradox (Cretan Liar Paradox) because G-d and demigod aren't equivalent.  The logic is quite sound ... or at least the sound of a tree falling when nobody is around.

[Sorginak]

or at least the sound of a tree falling when nobody is around.

Precisely.

[Baruch]

Precisely.

Well that is a famous joke "the sound of a tree falling in a forest if nobody is around" ... but if people are god-like, if we are therefore omniscient-like ... then the falling tree is never alone.

[Mike Cl]

Well that is a famous joke "the sound of a tree falling in a forest if nobody is around" ... but if people are god-like, if we are therefore omniscient-like ... then the falling tree is never alone.

That saying about the falling tree is fairly absurd if one thinks about it.  The generation of sound has nothing to do with the receiver of sound, but the generator of sound. 

[Baruch]

That saying about the falling tree is fairly absurd if one thinks about it.  The generation of sound has nothing to do with the receiver of sound, but the generator of sound.

Prove it.  One can put a microphone in the forest to record the sound ... but that is merely a way of extending your ears.

[Blackleaf]

That saying about the falling tree is fairly absurd if one thinks about it.  The generation of sound has nothing to do with the receiver of sound, but the generator of sound.

The problem with the question is that it lumps two definitions of sound together. Sound waves exist whether or not someone is able to hear them. But sound is also something that we perceive. Our perceptions of sound don't require sound waves. We can hear music in our heads without a radio or band to play it for us.

So if the question is, "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make sound waves?" The answer is yes. If the question is, "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it cause someone to hear sound?" It answers itself.