General Musings

In response to:Paradise in the present

2008-10-17T16:06:55+02:00

China - Rising by stamping skulls of our fellow countryman who were mercilessly slaughtered
Are you aware that the news you are watching is interlaced with Communist China's propaganda,as
Communist China maps a realm of news with innocent lives?
Communist China is scheming a millennial terrorist activity by manipulating people's behaviors
through electromagnetic waves to contain criticism and harm innocent human lives.

1. The anomaly in community traffic of cars and motorcycles and drag racing,and reckless honking by
cars and motorcycles is exceeding an unprecedented level.
2. Communist China has the technology to scan the human brain waves through military satellite and
to discern and decipher their thoughts,scheming to instill individual interference focusing on
each individual in need using the satellite electromagnetic waves.
3. Deploying electromagnetic waves is poised to project onto the human brain with certain
sounds for the perception of grossly traumatizing or startling pain,or deploying the broadcast
of noise via electromagnetic waves in sleeping humans with edited clips of films or through
voice or image signals onto our brains or besiege our sensory functions with fabricated
audible and sensory illusions.
4. It manipulates one's moods,such as smiling,nervousness,disgust,panic,anger,sorrow,
desires,appetite,and so forth.
5. It interferes the human brain's thinking capability,memory or linguistic capability,to name a
few,causing spasms of muscles and fingers in the left and right hands,stinging aches
throughout the body,coughing,yawning,trembling,involuntary blinking of the eye,runny
nose and so forth.
6. Electromagnetic waves are deployed to hinder the motoring functions of the body and neck,
disrupt the heartbeat or respiration,manipulate dizziness,deprive one's sleep,spasm,saliva
gland,dental neural pain,etc.
7. Watch out that Communist China is infiltrating the news media by deploying electromagnetic
waves to besiege the broadcast media,map out viral disillusion or erroneous perception,and
investigate threats of brainwashing in viral spreading.
8. It further moved to deploy various symptoms in what one sees of media icons,gesture terms,
adding a skewed interpretation to one's cognitive awareness,misleading an individual to
hallucinate or suffer,such as the North Korean's rigid smile,which is a tactic Communist
China often deploys to counter the people.
9. By observing the resolution accuracy of Communist China's sound and image (scenario)
interference projected onto the human's brain,this can only be achieved with a certain level
of frequencies at the source of interference,hence there is no doubt that it has to be the
electromagnetic wave. Yet questions remain as to what range of frequencies the source of
interference deploys,or what kind of electromagnetic waves insulation chamber would suffice
to provide an insulation yield? Communist China might deploy specific metal alloys as small scale
molecular antennas, which are attached to the human brain in large number,creating
electromagnetic waves when the human brain is in function,where the current created by
Communist China's electromagnetic interference would poise to amplify in a staggering
number of multiplication,which Communist China can detect at all times to discern and
muscles would excel the generation of electrode,which in turn create a corresponding
electromagnetic wave within.
10. Some of Communist China's intimidation experiences in 2002:6.9 "Hey,are you tired of living?"
6.14 "We had concocted the bombing incident at the U.S. embassy in Pakistan"
"Jiang Zhemin ordered us to kill you,but without creating scenes"6.16 "The Pakistani
civilian troops confessed that they had schemed the bombing of the U.S. embassy in
Pakistan,which we had manipulated them to confess,so what are you going to do about it?"
6.19 "Hey,why don't you just go ahead and commit suicide""We are going to scheme
murder using the public bus"6.20 "Commit suicide by burning charcoal,get it?"6.25 "Jiang
Zhemin just does not like you,go hit your head against the wall".
11. I reckon that there are victims abound out in the street,no less alarming than wars,and those
not in the know or did not understand that Communist China's simple electromagnetic design
could easily turn people against each other,create moving incidents,little lese to say mislead
the youth to broach down the wrong path,suicidal prompting,design and fabrication of a host
of society news (which Communication China refers to as movie making),as Communist China has had a
decade long of the technology,and has long abused its technological advantages to scheme up design
of abusing human lives by arranging fabricated news to poison and infiltrate the free
world,manipulate and misguide the contents of the media,and deploy brainwashing and malicious
spread of viruses,done with insinuation and riddles.The fact that Communist China's slaughtering
the innocent had been the result of a high level of calculation,and a high level of rationalization,
where the threats are in existence,and cannot be ignored of their detrimental severity.
12. Communist China often coerce people to watch news compiled by the reporter Lu Yuling of the cable
news in order for them to be saved,but few are aware that Communist China had merely deploy the
reporter to entrap many people. I do envision that those that turn to committing crime as framed
by Communist China,the extra sufferings by the ordinary people,and the deaths of many innocent
lives will not go unnoticed as hindered by a condoning attitude.
13. Nazi Hu Jintao, Jiang Zemin, Chinese Liberation Army, security police and armed police have committed suppression and massacre on their own civilians. Hu, Jiang and the other atrocious butchers owe these innocent civilians! More horrible and serious is that they are using mysterious killing technologies to cause harms to human brains around the world, making advantage of numerous international politicians and journalists to help them commit atrocities and beautify their actions, aiming to overturn and suppress those innocent people and cover up their terrorist acts and win fame by cheating the world. Securing in the knowledge that they have strong backing, these arrogant and shameless butchers have committed tortures and mass killing cruelly to those innocent ones around the world. Unfortunately, neither these politicians and nor journalists knowing what is what would dare to express their conscience.
14. The inhumane acts and atrocities committed by Nazi China are far more vicious than that of Nanjing massacre in China during WWII committed by Japanese army, as Chinese government is using mysterious technologies to commit massacres to masses of bare-handed civilians around the world as well as launch violence and terrorist activities to suppress these completely unarmed people’s freedom of speech. These demons, like Hu, Jinag and Chinese Liberation Army, despise the chastity, dignity and precious life of those innocent ones and suppress the emotions of their beloved. Meanwhile, relying on the condition that most of people in the world will not be able to witness their vicious acts of violence and behaviors they have committed unscrupulously and shamelessly, these Chinese Liberation Army enjoys using cruel ways to torture, massacre and trample on these innocent people, physically and mentally, in one free world. The arrogant Hu, Jiang and those jackals nurtured under such ferocious power treat themselves as the symbol of benevolence and hero, as they fail to learn their gutless and vicious acts to trample on those innocent people. If these demons, butchers and dregs of human, such as Hu, Jiang and Chinese Liberation Army who have become frenzied and conscienceless appeared in the site of Nanjing massacre in WWII, they definitely would be the leading roles to act atrocities!
15. We don’t want to see masses of innocent people to fall victim to the hell on earth built by red China where they will be susceptible to tortures and massacres for thousands of years.
16. Despite being even unable to fend for themselves in face of the high-tech detriments and attacks from China, we can not tolerate the fact that these politicians and journalists will become the accomplices to help China commit its terrorist acts and suppression on these innocent people in the current era or an unknown future.
17. In view of the notorious, vicious and sinister Hu, Jiang, Chinese Liberation Army with blood-stained hands, we just cast doubt over whether these greats of knowing what is what who have negotiated with these demons will show their conscience to save these innocent civilians or will act just for the sake of their profits, or are under the control of China. In this current drowned world, how will these innocent lives be treated in face of the atrocious acts committed by these diabolical figures, or when these innocent people will witness the practice of democracy in China? Will these phenomena turn out to be the joint efforts and endeavors achieved by China and those powerful figures in the world? Are we really dedicated to overturning such adversity? Our goal is to eliminate the vicious power one day with our strenuous efforts, and we absolutely will achieve it!

Chen,Shun-Chuan 2002.10.13* Republic of China (Taiwan)

In response to:Paradise in the present

2008-10-01T09:54:17+02:00

It's a theme many have tackled whether hope is necessary to existence. You dismiss the emotional (or spiritual) content of the world (which we experience everyday) as unecessary. First of all, there is as yet no evidence for this (though there might be one day) - either for a single person or an ideology of a number of people.
In that case, it is also not scientific to say that the idea of the afterlife is a fabrication made in order to act as a crutch to our weak minds. Again, there is no proof of this, it is a hypothesis based on your world view, but no evidence. However, existence of an afterlife, as you hinted at DOES have a precedent that we experience in our own lives - a sense of justice, immortality (i.e. energy) etc etc. I do not think that people came up with the idea of an afterlife simply because they were afraid of the alternative, but because it was a reasonable aassumption based upon what they had experienced. The fact that people still believe in an afterlife nowadays even after all that science has done shows how strong that instinct is. It is unfair, therefore to assume that fear is the driving force behind this conclusion.
Not sure if this argument is the most convincing however.

In response to:Paradise in the present

2008-10-01T01:20:34+02:00

Curiously enough, my father died tonight. I'll see his body tomorrow, and help bury him later.
Whether he's gone to a Christian heaven or not, I have no idea, and don't care much either.
But I do know that some spiritual traditions would see some common ground in how I see that his spirit will live on in those he left behind. As a result of the time he spent with them as children, as a result of how he nurtured them, as a result of how he planted memes of various sorts in their heads. This can also be explained biologically, in terms of memory and neurological development. However, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, nor the former explanation as a crutch for me to deal with my fear of death. Having worked for some years with bereaved children, I know that fear to be no more than a first hurdle. Belief in an afterlife, to be honest, is for beginners. Understanding how we are in the world, and how the world is in us, whatever the pain and loss and fear, and come death whatever the case, is the real challenge we face.

In response to:Paradise in the present

2008-10-01T00:41:02+02:00

I do not believe in an afterlife. As is common in my entries I think that a major reason that people believe in God, the afterlife and religious doctrines is because they are dissatisfied with the alternative. People fear death and find it hard to accept the harsh realties of existence. So they make up spiritual solutions. The afterlife is a spiritual solution to the problem that we fear death and have instincts of hatred to people who are bad and love to those who are good. People see no hope in a world where bad people die unpunished and where good people simply die. Everything a human being loves is dependant upon their existence. Therefore if one ceases to exist they loose absolutely everything that they love. Therefore human beings fear death and this fear is so strong that it leads people to reject the most evident conclusion that everything ends at death and replace it with a more hopeful outcome. Once we believe in an eternal afterlife this life becomes less precious.

Therefore the previous entry was not, in all, an attack on Christian conceptions of what the afterlife is like though I do still reject the idea that our place in the afterlife is judged by our finite lives. What I am really arguing about is that there is no reason to believe in an afterlife in the first place. I think it clear from previous posts that I find no rational reason to believe that there is an afterlife. I cannot prove that there is no afterlife but I can say that there appears to be no rational reason to believe in one. Fear of death and natural instincts towards final judgements lead us to fabricate an afterlife. We believe because we want to believe. But this is not a strong enough reason to believe.

Question: ‘Why do you believe in an afterlife?’
Answer: ‘because what hope is there if it all ends when our bodies die?’
Answer: ‘the universe owes us nothing. Why must there exist a hope of this nature? Such a hope is not necessary to existence, only to you feeling better about dying’

In response to:Paradise in the present

2008-09-30T23:40:23+02:00

You seem to be dealing mainly with Christian doctrines of heaven and hell, and especially those from the Middle Ages, but other perspectives, often in the eastern traditions, have a different view of an afterlife and a divine world of which it would be part. These perspectives often wholly reject any idea that our performance on Earth has a bearing on any reward in heaven. Another point to remember is that the Medieval world view worked at the time, for the people of the time, but we have moved on and many Christians today would have little truck with it. You seem to be correlating hierarchies and priestly castes, and their dogmas, with truth. The two have know necessary connection whatsoever, whatever the Pope and his like might claim.
I wonder have you had a look at Timothy Freke's website? I found the site itself was offputting at first, until I realised it was a parody. What he has to say though is thought provoking, especially as it's grounded in his own work in hospices with the seriously ill and the dying.

In response to:Paradise in the present

2008-09-30T19:51:12+02:00

Ok. Fair enough that the church and others made up ideas about circles of hell or the catholic church made up purgatory because lots of babies were dying of the black death. However the idea of bothering to separate people in the afterlife seems wrong to me. We should strive to make this world what we want it to be and if we go into another world after we die (which i do not believe that we do anyway) why would we not all go there together and try our best to keep on helping the wicked to be good and the good to be better. I have no interest in an afterlife organised on the merit of this life - 70 years of trying to change a murderer is not enough if they die unrepentant. So rather than give up on him i'd ask for as many more years as it takes in the afterlife for us to coincide in the struggle to keep on helping him. I want no final judgements for we all change on a daily basis; whether that change be small or momentous so long as there is existence in time there will be change.

We are all good to varying degrees. I like people who are better than me and people i deem to be worse than me and have no desire to be separated from them if there were to be a life after death. That's both on one level an easy option and on another an undesirable one.

In response to:Paradise in the present

2008-09-30T19:39:38+02:00

The black and white heaven and hell was approached in varying ways - by the concept of purgatory for instance, or limbo, or by the circles of hell, such as were depicted by Dante.

In response to:When I became an Atheist

2008-09-09T18:17:13+02:00

Cheers dude. Well, intially it seems that you loose meaning and purpose when you loose God. But on closer reflection you 'gain back this earth', learn to live for now and not in the hope of some paradisical afterlife. So you loose alot when you realise you don't believe in a God which, as you put, is daunting and a little saddening. But you soon realise that you gain so much more. A greater appreciation of man and his relation with the world. I mean, when you realise that the race of man is alone and must rely on itself you realise how i) amazing our achievments over time have been and ii) realise that its up to us to sort the world out. You gain alot of control over life and alot of purpose when you become an atheist.

p.s. i remember that song well

In response to:When I became an Atheist

2008-09-09T17:23:56+02:00

I looked on death once,
she smiled,
eyeless

I loved death once,
she fled,
mouthless

I knew death once,
She did not know me

The flower vanished

In response to:When I became an Atheist

2008-09-09T17:23:07+02:00

Chorus:
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.

Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colours,
He made their tiny wings.

Chorus

The purple-headed mountain,
The river running by,
The sunset and the morning,
That brightens up the sky;

Chorus

The cold wind in the winter,
The pleasant summer sun,
The ripe fruits in the garden,
He made them every one;

Chorus

The tall trees in the greenwood,
The meadows for our play,
The rushes by the water,
To gather every day;

Chorus

He gave us eyes to see them,
And lips that we might tell
How great is God Almighty,
Who has made all things well.

Chorus

---------------

Sorry about that, couldn't resist. Actually, it's a rather good poem. I can't quite tell, were you initially happy when you accepted atheism or was it a bit daunting?

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-07T14:26:51+02:00

Aaron
When I mention the contemplative, I'm not necessarily invoking the Judeo-Christian god, that hoary old goat. Most religions have their contemplatives and most would reject representation of the godhead, or ascribe to it much specificity.

But, like Einstein's straight line being bent by time until it meets, in the end, itself at the far side of the universe, so it seems my end of contemplation meets your determinism.

Your staunch standing up for your atheism, your almost fundamentalist belief in it, is a far stronger statement of faith than most contemplatives would contemplate. Theirs, in a way, is a lost world, beyond reason and evidence, and, quite possibly, in quest, as they must accept, of the non-existent. But, as if it led one to touching the charged void that is also, paradoxically, your determinism, it is real and rationally justifiable in the sense that it allows us to be, to exist, in a way that normally, in our daily lives, is not open to us.

But also, you say you have no faith in anything because faith is irrational. You've hit an important point with precision. Faith, the nub of it, is irrational. Yet our instinctual selves are also highly irrational. So, when you say you have no faith because it is irrational, that could be read as saying that you do not grasp, you do not have, your own irrationality. Your own instinctual self. Your own wayward imagination. Reason is a strong force, but unreason is wild and dangerous. It is that which makes the rationalist quail. For it takes faith to go there, to the wilder shores of the rule-less imagination, where your terrors, your memories, your overwhelming loss, your fantasy, your soul, wait below the onrushing waves.

And now? I'm off to 6 hours of a Messiaen opera fantasy at the Proms on the life of St Francis of Assisi. To the wilder shores of the imagination indeed.

Take care of yourself.
Rory

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-06T20:16:34+02:00

I promise you i am as staunch an atheist as they come. I do not believe in God for there is no reason to. The answers to the questions that lead people to God are either the wrong questions (what is the meaning of life or what hope is there without God) or have material answers. I believe that at the atomic level the universe is deterministic. Any voice in my head is simply a product of particals running their courses in accordance with the fixed laws of nature. I have no faith in anything for faith is irrational. I believe and know many things as well as anyone can know anything. I falsify my beliefs through material evidence and experience. The christian God cannot determine lives if he is as the bible describes as that takes away the free will he gives us. Therefore A judeo-christian conception of God and a belief in determinism are incompatible. I have the illusion of free will but i believe all things are determined by i)the state of the universe and all the particles in it at a given moment in time and ii)the laws of nature.

I promise you that i am resolutely atheistic.

As always, thanks for your comments and debate. Please do not hesitate to keep them coming.
Aaron

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-06T18:49:20+02:00

Aaron
Your agnosticism, for that is how it sounds to me, and no more, feels as if it were crumbling. The contemplative would respond that the great determining force you allude to is none other than his or her god. And that such a godhead resides also within each of us. And that both, though seemingly of an illusion, are possibilities, and still nothing more, worth placing our faith in. You are more than your scepticism would allow.
Have you tried listening to the other side of silence?
Rory

In response to:Democracy: power to the people or power to the educated people?

2008-09-06T13:05:28+02:00

Fair comments. Though i think that what the people decide (when they have all the facts) is the right decision whatever that decision is in virtue of fairness and equality. I've already expressed in this blog that i do not believe in absolutes and am a moral relativist. The majority, when fully informed, will always seem to get it right for the majority will agree with the decision. On the same vein, the outcome does not become more likely in virtue of more people betting on it, rather, the number of people who bet on an outcome is proportional to the liklihood of the outcome.

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-06T12:58:28+02:00

I do not think the former path exists. The faculty of choice is an illusion. I appreciate your comments. I think there are strands being touched upon. The first is a feeling that your life is out of control and the second is knowing that your life is out of your control but feeling that it is under your control. I feel that i have free will and control over my life, it's just that when i have my philosophical hat on i accept that free will is an illusion, even if it is a nice one that suits me very well. I think that when we feel powerless over our lives we have to exercise our illusion of free will and tell ourselves that we do have power and try our best to steer our lives in the direction we want and not the one external, and often internal, influences seem to force us. Whatever happens is determined, but don't forget that you are a determining force (though you are determined to determine in whatever way you determine). Thanks for your post and i appreciate your comments Rory.

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-05T23:40:43+02:00

Mmm, it is intriguing what you say, but it still doesn't seem to add up. Here's another rebuttal: you seem to put determinism and choice into an either/or system. But what if they co-exist?
In other words, you can recreate a situation to the point of possible divergence. A subsequent path is then followed. This divergence is either under the control of the human agent involved, their choice, or under the control of the totality of forces and influences, the determinist position. The point is that the former can take either path, the latter can't. A human agent can choose to follow random chance theory and follow whichever it indicates, which will vary from time to time. Determinist forces will never vary.
However, your position could also be seen as a defence mecchanism against those feelings you mention. When we are overwhelmed by our instinctual self, we have a strong inkling towards determinism. It can easily make us feel we have no choice. In my case, I've been knocked senseless by my own feelings on suicide, sexuality and close relationships. My feeling of powerlessless has sometimes felt like I am prey to falling into a river that only ever flows in one direction. And I could join that flow. Although the subject of your feelings and worries will vary, it sounds as if you may also be struggling with a similar forcefulness that overwhelms. Why not share some of what troubles you? It might help.
Rory

In response to:Democracy: power to the people or power to the educated people?

2008-09-05T15:57:14+02:00

I agree with most of what you say, and it is a well written article.

In my view democracy does not exist in the interests of fairness. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been created he said a Republic, not a Democracy. If fairness was the main point in democracy, then voting is not necessary, one could for example be ruled by a fair king or oligarchy as indeed has happened over the centuries. The king's council were not so much advisors as checks on his power - it was these men who would raise the money and men to support an army. Democracy is not about fairness - there was no need for the Ancient Greeks to be fair afterall, neither did the Romans feel obliged to give people the vote, but they did.

Democracy exists because so far it has been found to be the best way of getting results. It is a belief in the strength of numbers - that if enough people are asked a question then the correct answer will prevail. This has been demostrated in numerous occassions over the years, prominent examples being:
*Chamberlain signing an appeasement with Hitler when the rest of the country knew it wouldn't stop him.
*The Abolition of Slavery, Child Labour and the achievement of Universal Suffrage that was lobbied for AGAINST the majority of government ministers.
*Most recently the invasion of Iraq where the govt had the information whereas the population who did not have the information did, in hindsight, make the correct choice.

Of course, in terms of the more miniscule aspects of running a beaurocratic system like our country most people are not skilled or interested enough in that field to make the correct decision. The general population ARE able to make decisions on bigger issues with clearer answers (e.g. should we go to war, should we adopt the euro).
This depends to two things which you mention above without which a democracy cannot function:

*A literate society

*A Free Press.

Without these no democracy can function.

It is difficult to tell whether or not the general public makes the right desicions all the time, but there are two things that make me believe it is the right position to take:
1. Governments rarely, if ever, get it right (no exaggeration there).
2. The public can be held accountable for their actions.
3. The public (IMO) generally get it right.

Our voting system is based upon the idea that a normal bloke can make these decisions, what with there being no actual difference between the politicians, it is left to the man's emotional response (or intuition) to decide. This intuition is to be trusted in my opinion.

Educated people can ensure the running and smooth execution of the country, but decisions must lie in the hands of the people, not as a result of the pursuit of equality and fairness, but because it produces the best results. Bookmakers are based entirely upon this subject, which is why odds improve the more people who put a bet on a particular outcome because that outcome ACTAULLY BECOME MORE LIKELY the more people who bet on it.

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-05T12:02:37+02:00

You sense right. This entry was, to a large extent, more diary than essay. But the fact still stands that i am still, philosophically, a hard determinist and do not believe in free will; only the illusion of it. Of course choice is not rational or ever made 'all POSSIBLE things considered'. But it is made 'all things available to you considered' in whatever way your being considers them. And if the same event were to be replayed your being would react/consider everything in the exact same way because all the variables are the same (i'm talking about e.g. a perfect match parallel universe where the same event plays out - it will always be the same-, or going back in time into your old body but once there you loose all memory of the future you have lived and to you, it appears you are simply living the event normally. The variables do not change so neither does the conclusion).

As always, thanks for reading and thanks very much for commenting.

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-04T22:35:48+02:00

The first half sounds like a classic early Christian heresy, if I only knew which one:-) I think the position fails on the grounds either that you are assuming that choice is rational and based on complete analysis, which it isn't, or that the occurence of a reaction once turns it into a cause should the instance reoccur, which sounds absurd although I wouldn't like to try to prove it.
However, I don't think that's the point. I sense in your text that you're trying to say something about yourself. Maybe that you feel powerless to stop feelings that you have and that you cannot rationally justify. Maybe not, but it's what I sense.
Rory

In response to:Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

2008-09-04T18:38:35+02:00

Absolutely to the first half. Realistic analysis. It might sound cynical but not overly so. All i'd say about the second half is that one should be very specific on their definition of purpose. Gravity has a function: it does what it does because it does it but has no intentional purpose. The universe and all that is in it exists in a certain way but there is no meta-narrative to its existence. It just is. Gravity has a function; it does what it does. We often attribute to gravity's function a purpose i.e. to keep the planets in orbits and stop us from floating away. But this could only be the purpose of gravity if the universe has a meta-narrative, a God that made it so that it held its function in order to achieve the result that that function achieves.

Life as a whole has many functions, therefore, but has no intentional purpose although conscious beings may shape things within the universe to serve purposes.

The only purpose to "LIFE" is that which we attribute to it.

Sorry if that was a bit repetative. And i'll try to remeber to hit reply to comment.

In response to:Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

2008-09-04T15:22:56+02:00

What you say is true. I suppose it comes down to a definition of perfection, which as you say is evolving.

If God is eternal, I'm not sure he can evolve as that would imply some passage of time or progression which would mean dividing infinity. Arrgh!

In my definition of God (above), I put him as eternal etc but did not include All Powerful deliberately, that is another discussion. God may have created the Universe, but in it's perfection (possibly one of many verses etc) he may not be able to change it. Cancer is as much a part of the Universe as is a super-nova, a honey bee or gravity. God may have simply created the Universe and had to let it go it's course.

Cancer is not a by-product of the Creation, it is necessary to it. It's like you said previously when talking about determination - Cancer could not NOT exist in this Universe as that'd mean somewhere along the line something is not consistent. Besides, the things that we call evil in this world (excluding human behaviour for now) are merely our interpretation of them. A long period of drought may seem bad to us, but in fact the Earth is keeping in balance. An Earthquake may cause massive devastation, but without plate tectonics it is questionable whether life could have started on this planet. Cancer can be benign or hostile - the way our body reacts to it, well, that reaction would save our lives in other circumstances.
This may make me sound very clinical, but in fact that is the way the Universe must be viewed from a scientific point of view surely?

You assume that there is no meaning or purpose to life. An ASSUMPTION is reached however when no evidence is presented, i.e. there is no evidence to suggest that there is no purpose, equally there is no evidence to suggest there is one.
However, if I wanted to argue for the latter, I'd find it easier. To many people, the presence and order of the Universe DOES suggest a purpose and it would seem overly cynical to ASSUME that there wasn't one. It's an old argument, but our physical evidence shows that everything has a purpose (from an atom to gravity, they are interlinked by nature), so to assume that existence as a whole has NO purpose is actually counter to the human experience. Hmmm?

BTW, can you make sure that when you reply you click on the reply to comment link at the bottom, cos it notifies me of your response. I only came back here by chance, and also cos I noticed you doing it previously.

In response to:Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

2008-09-04T11:34:34+02:00

Yeah i see what you are saying. If God is the first and most intelligent being then he is, in a sense of the word, perfect and in a sense, all powerful. But he is still limit to the confines of his nature. That nature may have allowed him to create life and the universes but the life and universes he made may have been his best possible attempt, given all he knew. His best attempt, if he is the first and most intelligent being, is perfection relative to possibility i.e. this is the best possible world he could have created so any conception of a world better e.g. without cancer, is an impossibl world. If ur conception of perfection exceeds the possible it is unachievable, therefore if God is the extent of the possible then he is perfection. But God's perfection is limited to the possible i.e. to his nature.

Imagine that you make a race of robots. It does not follow that you know everythng that there is to know about that creation. There could be unforseen byproduct traits created. The robots may develop consciousness though you did not intend it and do not know what it was that you did that caused it. So your power to stop it and control it is limited to your current state of intelligence, which is limited.

Lets say God created life and an unforseen byproduct was cancerous disease. He is at at just as much of a loss as the robot maker is.

So. If God exists then he is perfect but that perfection is not limitless; it is confined to the realms of possibility which are, in turn, determined by his nature. And you can't say God's nature is perfect or limitless therefore the extent of his perfection is perfect or limitless as this would be a circular argument.

Also if evolution is the case then i am not sure that God's nature, such that it is, could not improve over time. Human nature, if it accelerated at a greater speed to God's nature could lead to man overtaking God. In this way God is no longer perfection for he has been surpassed. If God is eveloving then so would be th conception of perfection (if God were perfection) and so as always perfection is a relative term.

N.B I'm happy to assume that there is no single meaning or purpose to life. Why should there be?

In response to:Why do we assume that if there is a God that he is perfect?

2008-09-04T09:53:34+02:00

Here's one answer:
If you accept that there is perfection in the universe i.e., logic, maths, geometry and the laws of physics then one would have to accept that God (if he exists) was also perfect, as the creator of these laws.
Science is based on the idea that the Universe is knowable, consistant and understandable. The pursuit of science is based upon this principle, so in a sense, the universe is perfect. This being the case, God is also perfect.

Whether God can be proven to exist is not really the point, it is a world view held by many that God is the cause (and in a way the purpose) of the Universe.

You are familiar with the situation where one person bumps into an old friend and says "What are you doing here?" The facecious reply is often "Talking to you", or "My legs carried me." It is funny because it is not really answering the question.
I am at work. Previous to this I was in a cafe eating food. Prior to that I was walking across town, over a bridge. Before I had left my house I had a shower and got changed. This chain of events was triggered by my alarm clock going off. A scientist, with no other knowledge, observing from affar could then answer the question "Why Am I at work?" with "Because of his alarm clock 60 minutes before." What he would be describing is the chain of events leading to my arriving at work, but without describing WHY my alarm clock went off in the first place.

The God hypothesis was created in order to answer the question of the meaning or purpose behind our existence. The answer to the question "Why are we here" is not "Gravity and Electromagnetism" then... we do not know the answer. Some people choose to believe in a Creator, others not. As I said in the beginning, it is a world view. Science does not disproove God as that is something science cannot do, like measure beauty or goodness.
You have chosen to believe that there is no God - so the answer to the question "Why are we here" is either "I don't know" or "No reason at all." Some people don't like either of those.

If God IS the answer, then he must have the following properties:
Existence
Perfection
Eternal

What is included as being 'perfect' is also up for debate, we know that Descartes tried making out that perfection must mean that he exists, so therefore he exists, but I think he had got bored at that point.

As for the issue of an afterlife, interaction with the Creator, a continuous manipulation by the Creator (miracles, answering prayers etc) and a moral code... well that's another story.

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-03T17:24:52+02:00

Of course we strive to be whatever it is we want to. Our personal goals for ourselves are our personal aims of perfection. But perfection is only a relative term and i do not think we are obliged to seek it. I'm not limiting myself to my imperfections, just acknowledging that they do in fact limit me. As is say, i cannot stop how my body can affect my mind by the way it can make me feel but i think i do have some power to choose not to act upon these feelings even if i have no power to stop from feeling them.

But i think you are right that even if we have limits we should do our best to break them, even if they are unbreakable.

In response to:Matter over mind: the organic machine

2008-09-03T15:34:18+02:00

You can accept that your body will never be perfect, but the important thing is to strive towards perfection. The fact that we have a concept of perfection obliges us to persue it.

In response to:Faith: why do people think that it is ok to have it?

2008-09-02T20:37:37+02:00

I'll check it out mate. Cheers for debating. Fair point. Afterall if one dresses ones arguments with antagonism people will focus on that and ignor the debate. Take it easy.

In response to:Faith: why do people think that it is ok to have it?

2008-09-02T19:27:22+02:00

We can only know or believe to know that God exists if we have some evidence of that existence. If religious experience is not such evidence then what is? Explaining the experience in materialistic terms is vital as it tells us that such experiences cannot be used to prove God's existence.

God has no nature for he does not exist. Or at least why should we assume he exists if we have no evidence that he does?

In response to:Faith: why do people think that it is ok to have it?

2008-09-02T18:07:42+02:00

You say that the object of faith, for you, is god or the supernatural. And that scientific rather than spiritual explanations of this object are sufficient.
However, this introduces the question of the nature of god. And the infuriating kernel of many religious explanations is that gid is beyond understanding. So, if something like a personal experience of god is explainable by neurological science, then what has been explained is not, in the end, god, but the experience. God remains, as was, unreachable.
What would the nature of your god be?

In response to:Faith: why do people think that it is ok to have it?

2008-09-02T13:59:42+02:00

The "Absolutely Not" one I found closest to my view on the subject, third one down.

In response to:Faith: why do people think that it is ok to have it?

2008-09-02T13:38:52+02:00

Not sure I agree with you on the verifiable thing... we've achieved great things without all facts being verified and sometimes being downright mislead.

However, I concede that I am not currently matching your arguments here very well, it must be my flagging spirit ha ha. As a substitute for my weakened mind, why not visit here:
http://www.templeton.org/belief/
where different arguments, for and against theism are presented, but are not long and boring. They're not their to convert anyone, but I think you'll find them rewarding, even if it does merely reinforce your already strongly held views.

One thing though, and I say this to everyone I have this debate with... please refrain from speaking of 'believers' as if they're slightly stupid, moronic, thoughtless sheeple with no mind of their own. I know you didn't do it explicitly, but if you could encourage others to do the same. It is principally why I enter into these debate because I don't like the unchecked diatribes that athiests often feel they can unleash upon unsuspecting believers such as the one above. It has become so normal to cheerfully insult and offend at least 50% of the people on the planet and not only does it have a detrimental effect on the message (I don't want to be an athiest if it means regarding the rest of the human race with contempt), it also shows a lack of understanding of others and arrogance. Again, I am not attempting to chastise you on this point as you have been very fair, but as I say in other blogs, if you want the world to improve we need greater understanding and tolerance. If you want people to see the joys of athiesm, lead by example, otherwise we are left with exactly the same problems that religion is said to have caused.

I'll certainly visit your page again.