Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Page 29 of 51 [ 801 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 51  Next

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

01 Mar 2021, 6:02 am

Phoenix20 wrote:
Personal responsibility should not apply to sufferers of Aspergers/Autism. There are too many obstacles in the way that prevent us from getting a job and we should have easier access to government welfare. Many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable.


I had to leave the USA to get a job. And, how do you know many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable? The reason I ask is so I can have written records I can throw back into conservative's face when they preach their BS.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

03 Mar 2021, 6:21 am

I would like to discuss why some aspects of personal responsibility is a crock.

I knew of someone who was 18 (male) at the time and was trying to get with a 15 (female) year old as in be boyfriend/girlfriend. He is only given a part of the story as to what a child molester and a pedophile is. In my state the age of consent 16. If you are a 18 and have sexual intercourse with a 15 year old that is considered statutory rape. If he does anything else it's considered child molestation. Even if he is 18 and she is 15 and there is a difference of 3 years. It's a minimum of 10 years in prison.

What do I mean he is only given part of the story. By both his parents and school programs like D.A.R.E. they make it seem like child molestation/pedophila is 30, 40, 50 year old's with young children age of six or so. This is true but there is more to it. The reason we're told this part as kids is to keep us safe. The kids know what to look for. Here is where the issue comes in. The 18 year old is ignorant of the full scope of what law actually says. He doesn't know that child molestation includes 18 year old/15 year old cases as well. He doesn't even realize a pedophile is one who is a person who is attracted to prepubescent children and not teenage children. This guy would be considered a child molester but not a pedophile.

His parents yell at him and berate him and in his mind his parents are making a deal of nothing. Yet, they're not and he doesn't realize it because he only sees the 3 year difference and what's the big deal? Why is there a big stink over this? Now, consider who this guy is. This is a socially awkward guy. He has a difficult time making friends, getting a girlfriend and years later it turns out this guy has Aspergers syndrome. And, his teenage hormones are still raging? He decides that what his parents were saying were BS and sets out to prove them wrong. And, the reasons why are a. There was a three year difference and b. he knew that for some crimes like murder the 15 year old girl can go to prison. D.A.R.E. in middle school told him this.

And, if she is adult enough to know the difference of right and wrong when it came to murder then she should know the difference between right and wrong to other things including sex and the consequences as well. He looks things up on the internet. Lo and behold they turned out to be right. He was so shocked and he does a 180 the whole thing seemed illogical and hypocritical.

I would love to ask these questions of D.A.R.E. and his parents.

Why wasn't he told the full scope of the laws in detail? Why wasn't he taught how to make friends and get a girlfriend? Why wasn't these social standards and laws ever covered and discussed? And, why can this 15 year old girl go to prison if she decided to kill this 18 year old male yet if this 18 year old male has sex with her he goes to prison? Why such inconsistent standards?

With the unknown disability he had at the time? With the knowledge he had of what child molestation and pedophila he had at the time and no one telling him the full scope of the law would it be reasonable to assume he could've derived the full scope himself and derive that he may be even missing information especially using the logic he was under and understood to be true? If this guy was caught for statutory rape and thank goodness nothing happened at all would it be reasonable to hold him accountable and responsible? Why or why not?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

03 Mar 2021, 7:49 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Phoenix20 wrote:
Personal responsibility should not apply to sufferers of Aspergers/Autism. There are too many obstacles in the way that prevent us from getting a job and we should have easier access to government welfare. Many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable.


I had to leave the USA to get a job. And, how do you know many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable? The reason I ask is so I can have written records I can throw back into conservative's face when they preach their BS.

I'm in the middle of giving quarterly exams, so I'm not able to respond the way I'd like to. The best response I'm able to give at the moment is that, at least speaking for myself as a conservative, obstacles such as intellectual and physical disabilities are reasonably understandable obstacles to employment. No reasonable person would deny that you need help when you CANNOT, as in physically impossible, do meaningful work to support yourself and/or any dependents. That's why establishment conservatives, while paying lip service to being opposed to most of welfare and wasteful spending, won't dare to actually do anything to roll it back. That would be political suicide, not to mention they KNOW taking away any vital lifelines that they or their loved ones might need would be disastrous. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. It's just about being a decent human being.

What actually qualifies as "disabled" is the real question.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

04 Mar 2021, 8:15 pm

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Phoenix20 wrote:
Personal responsibility should not apply to sufferers of Aspergers/Autism. There are too many obstacles in the way that prevent us from getting a job and we should have easier access to government welfare. Many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable.


I had to leave the USA to get a job. And, how do you know many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable? The reason I ask is so I can have written records I can throw back into conservative's face when they preach their BS.

I'm in the middle of giving quarterly exams, so I'm not able to respond the way I'd like to. The best response I'm able to give at the moment is that, at least speaking for myself as a conservative, obstacles such as intellectual and physical disabilities are reasonably understandable obstacles to employment. No reasonable person would deny that you need help when you CANNOT, as in physically impossible, do meaningful work to support yourself and/or any dependents. That's why establishment conservatives, while paying lip service to being opposed to most of welfare and wasteful spending, won't dare to actually do anything to roll it back. That would be political suicide, not to mention they KNOW taking away any vital lifelines that they or their loved ones might need would be disastrous. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. It's just about being a decent human being.

What actually qualifies as "disabled" is the real question.


So, these establishment conservatives are liars?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Mar 2021, 3:43 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Phoenix20 wrote:
Personal responsibility should not apply to sufferers of Aspergers/Autism. There are too many obstacles in the way that prevent us from getting a job and we should have easier access to government welfare. Many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable.


I had to leave the USA to get a job. And, how do you know many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable? The reason I ask is so I can have written records I can throw back into conservative's face when they preach their BS.

I'm in the middle of giving quarterly exams, so I'm not able to respond the way I'd like to. The best response I'm able to give at the moment is that, at least speaking for myself as a conservative, obstacles such as intellectual and physical disabilities are reasonably understandable obstacles to employment. No reasonable person would deny that you need help when you CANNOT, as in physically impossible, do meaningful work to support yourself and/or any dependents. That's why establishment conservatives, while paying lip service to being opposed to most of welfare and wasteful spending, won't dare to actually do anything to roll it back. That would be political suicide, not to mention they KNOW taking away any vital lifelines that they or their loved ones might need would be disastrous. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. It's just about being a decent human being.

What actually qualifies as "disabled" is the real question.


So, these establishment conservatives are liars?

Correction: It’s about making yourself look like a decent human being.

I don’t have any positive outlook on any establishment politician, at least not at this point in history. Think what you like about Donald Trump, but there was never any question about his ideas or intentions. Most politicians set themselves up as political chameleons.

Unless you run in these circles, which I sometimes do, you won’t understand that there’s a tremendous buddy system of old boys within both parties. It’s heavily frowned on when you primary against an incumbent from your own party. They know you don’t get votes that way and you risk the other party’s candidate getting elected since non-incumbents often fail to keep swing voters and independents. The result is these politicians end up having looooong careers in the legislature. In retrospect, Trump wasn’t elected because there really were that many more conservative voters back then. It was just that there was no way Clinton was ever going to get enough support from her own party to win. There were more never-Clintons back then than there were never-Trumpers, plus there were too many Democrats afraid to run against Clinton. You wouldn’t have known that given the media hype back then. But when you take all the negative stories run on conservative websites, the never-ending squalling from butthurt never-Trumpers since day one, and overall better performance of Biden among swing voters, there was no way establishment politicians were just going to stand back and let Trump have four more years. Trump’s conservative-side honesty made them look bad because he did a better job of representing conservatives than they did. They’d rather waste the next 8 years (I think you’re insane if you think Republicans have a conservative candidate that actually stands a chance at winning an election) as an opposition party rather than actually being EFFECTIVE as long as they keep winning their own elections and keeping their jobs. All they have to do is keep blaming Democrats for all the evils of this country and they can nap their way through endless congressional debates.

So do I think establishment conservatives are liars? You tell me!



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

06 Mar 2021, 7:55 am

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Phoenix20 wrote:
Personal responsibility should not apply to sufferers of Aspergers/Autism. There are too many obstacles in the way that prevent us from getting a job and we should have easier access to government welfare. Many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable.


I had to leave the USA to get a job. And, how do you know many employers regard people with Aspergers/Autism as unemployable? The reason I ask is so I can have written records I can throw back into conservative's face when they preach their BS.

I'm in the middle of giving quarterly exams, so I'm not able to respond the way I'd like to. The best response I'm able to give at the moment is that, at least speaking for myself as a conservative, obstacles such as intellectual and physical disabilities are reasonably understandable obstacles to employment. No reasonable person would deny that you need help when you CANNOT, as in physically impossible, do meaningful work to support yourself and/or any dependents. That's why establishment conservatives, while paying lip service to being opposed to most of welfare and wasteful spending, won't dare to actually do anything to roll it back. That would be political suicide, not to mention they KNOW taking away any vital lifelines that they or their loved ones might need would be disastrous. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. It's just about being a decent human being.

What actually qualifies as "disabled" is the real question.


So, these establishment conservatives are liars?

Correction: It’s about making yourself look like a decent human being.

I don’t have any positive outlook on any establishment politician, at least not at this point in history. Think what you like about Donald Trump, but there was never any question about his ideas or intentions. Most politicians set themselves up as political chameleons.

Unless you run in these circles, which I sometimes do, you won’t understand that there’s a tremendous buddy system of old boys within both parties. It’s heavily frowned on when you primary against an incumbent from your own party. They know you don’t get votes that way and you risk the other party’s candidate getting elected since non-incumbents often fail to keep swing voters and independents. The result is these politicians end up having looooong careers in the legislature. In retrospect, Trump wasn’t elected because there really were that many more conservative voters back then. It was just that there was no way Clinton was ever going to get enough support from her own party to win. There were more never-Clintons back then than there were never-Trumpers, plus there were too many Democrats afraid to run against Clinton. You wouldn’t have known that given the media hype back then. But when you take all the negative stories run on conservative websites, the never-ending squalling from butthurt never-Trumpers since day one, and overall better performance of Biden among swing voters, there was no way establishment politicians were just going to stand back and let Trump have four more years. Trump’s conservative-side honesty made them look bad because he did a better job of representing conservatives than they did. They’d rather waste the next 8 years (I think you’re insane if you think Republicans have a conservative candidate that actually stands a chance at winning an election) as an opposition party rather than actually being EFFECTIVE as long as they keep winning their own elections and keeping their jobs. All they have to do is keep blaming Democrats for all the evils of this country and they can nap their way through endless congressional debates.

So do I think establishment conservatives are liars? You tell me!


Personally the whole thing wants to make me vomit.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Mar 2021, 8:27 am

How can ANYBODY like Trump after the events of the Capitol? The whole concept is mind-boggling.....

What President would say he LOVED those who invaded the Capitol and vandalized it? This defies any sort of sense. Obviously, Trump does not value our country.

I feel even most conservatives love our country. They pay lip service to banning social services—it’s a political ruse. But when the crap hits the fan, logic takes over even amongst most conservatives.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Mar 2021, 9:00 am

if they really loved our country they'd love ALL of it and not just their white-privileged selves and to hell with the rest. if they were truly conservative in the best sense rather than the uniquely amuurican mercenary sense they'd realize that the ultimate conservatism is to look after the needs of ALL americans.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

06 Mar 2021, 10:27 pm

Quote:
Correction: It’s about making yourself look like a decent human being.


Is it about actually looking like a decent human being or being one?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Mar 2021, 10:48 pm

sometimes it is all a person can do to just look like a good person. i've had many of those days. and i've had many more where i couldn't even do that.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

07 Mar 2021, 4:05 am

Based upon the philosophy you have AngelRho I would never trust a word you say.

Here's why.

He would only be truthful only if it would be beneficial to him.

This implies that truth to him is not something to be held precious and valued for its own sake but truth itself becomes a commodity. Truth is something that becomes relative. It is relative to what is for sale. And, this is the problem with business being in everything and money ruling over everything.

Should truth be in the marketplace or should the marketplace itself be subsumed to what is true and provable. Example, I think someone who claims to be psychic and can do tarot card readings should be made under scientific conditions to prove their claim of authenticity. And, if they can prove this claim they get a license. No one is allowed to be a tarot card reader without a license to do so.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

11 May 2021, 3:38 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Based upon the philosophy you have AngelRho I would never trust a word you say.

Here's why.

He would only be truthful only if it would be beneficial to him.

Now, that indeed is a crying shame. Telling the truth is almost always beneficial to all people who value truth. But the decision to always tell the truth is a multi-faceted one. For instance, did Israelite midwives in Egypt act deceptively just prior to Moses' birth? Maaaaaybe...and the Bible does not justify their deception as good and moral. But there's another tricky issue here, and that is given Pharaoh's desire to slaughter Hebrew children, did the Egyptians DESERVE the truth?

Another related question is if your enemy's goal is something that is ultimately self-destructive, should you act deceptively in order to save them from themselves? If, say, you know how to make a bomb from certain materials but the end result is too unstable to move, do you tell them how to make the bomb and let them blow themselves up before they reach their target? Or do you at least warn them and take your chances?

cubedemon6073 wrote:
This implies that truth to him is not something to be held precious and valued for its own sake but truth itself becomes a commodity. Truth is something that becomes relative. It is relative to what is for sale. And, this is the problem with business being in everything and money ruling over everything.

What kind of truth are talking about here? Truth that has value for its own sake is objective. It's based in reality. Truth expressed in relative terms is not and cannot possibly be truth in objective terms.

The idea of commodifying truth and making it relative isn't tenable in most situations. There are secrets, for instance, that are good secrets to have--the EXACT formula for building nuclear weapons, for example, is something that remains out of reach for, say, high school students. The exact formulas for all kinds of products are understandably secret, and there are laws in place (some of the very few regulatory laws that are actually beneficial) that protect IP's. Truths such as these are, after a fashion, "not for sale." Given that some secrets are beneficial for everyone--not just the producer, but the consumer as well in that consumers don't have to be worried about "fakes" and counterfeit (or even harmful) goods--does this mean that reality (reflected in absolute truth) flexes and becomes something else simply because some people know some things that others do not? Conversely, what about secrets that cause harm? Does reality warp and change because someone flavors a soft drink with arsenic and doesn't bother telling anyone? Or do we recognize harmful actions for what they are and prosecute criminals? Objective truth cannot possibly change because reality does not fundamentally change in nature and character (dynamics do not follow patterns that are impossible in nature. If they appear to do so, it is because we have discovered something previously unknown. The planets didn't magically begin orbiting the sun in concentric circles just because Galileo looked through a telescope, nor did they magically begin following elliptical paths just because someone else looked longer). If truth is relative, it cannot be commodified because it possesses no real value.

But commodifying truth and secrets (which are only hidden truth) are beneficial and really the only way to express truth in useful, beneficial terms. If truth is valuable, it CAN be traded--truth for truth, secret for secret. The only way to keep something hidden is to not trade it, and it is always in one's self-interest to trade. To not engage in trade at all is to have no values. So even though the human individual is free to NOT trade, it is one's self-interest that compels him to. The EXACT formula for Coca-Cola might be a company, trade secret, yet anyone can BUY small amounts of Coke and experience the taste of Coke. In order to keep Coke a secret, the product itself cannot be traded, which would mean the creator of Coke can't benefit from making it and consumers couldn't benefit from the pleasure of drinking it.

And that is my point here--that absolute, objective truth cannot be fully expressed without being commodified.

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Should truth be in the marketplace or should the marketplace itself be subsumed to what is true and provable. Example, I think someone who claims to be psychic and can do tarot card readings should be made under scientific conditions to prove their claim of authenticity. And, if they can prove this claim they get a license. No one is allowed to be a tarot card reader without a license to do so.

Well, I mean...that depends. The "truth" of mystics is not Truth.

First off, unlike many objectivists, I do believe that the existence of God is objective reality, and that's another argument for a different thread. Objectivism holds cause-effect as a self-evident truth which means, contrary to "classic" objectivism, one must accept the universe and reality as having been caused by a transcendent, eternal Creator. While it is not incumbent on any person to prove the non-existence of something, it is likewise not incumbent on someone to prove something that is self-evident or axiomatic. In order to know anything with objective certainty, in order to even have objective certainty, faith is required. All things that follow must require evidence. The faith from which one may derive scientific theories and proofs is not a mystic faith, but rather a faith that reality exists in such a form that can be understood. The reality of God's existence and all that follows from that whether arguing specific religions, math, science, quantum mechanics, other areas of physics, and anything/everything within reality is not something that can possibly be debated. It is simply not up for debate, in other words, and there's not argument that can defeat it, no premise against it that one can seriously accept.

Tarot card reading is not a simple game of chance for personal entertainment. The same transcendent argument regarding its efficacy from presupposition MIGHT be made, except with a dangerous twist. It is an attempt by human beings to assume sovereignty over supernatural forces to bend the spirit to human will in order to extract secret, hidden knowledge. If the Creator of the universe is not sovereign but rather places divine power over spiritual beings, including God Himself, then there is no objective, absolute reality and the practitioner of magic, be it Tarot or variants of witchcraft, has direct control over reality itself. This is not logically possible, first of all, and second, everything following faith requires evidence. It is NOT self-evident that Tarot reading is effective, nor has it been scientifically proven.

It SHOULD be illegal because of the spiritual dangers that it poses.

But at the same time, you have to let people make up their own minds. Will they make decisions based on reality or will they put their faith in mystics? It is up to the individual to decide whether to follow truth or allow themselves to be misled. Because Tarot cards and quartz crystals are the stuff of religion and mainly pose dangers to the individuals who indulge them, it is not up to the state as to whether these people can operate. The state must first recognize that divination poses a threat to the state as a whole and to its citizens whose duty it is the state's to protect before it can be regulated (metaphorically speaking). No license is required because no harm comes from it aside from what practitioners knowingly assume risk for. Either people have no spiritual values if they believe in spirits or they don't believe spirits (or souls) exist at all. So because there's no perceivable damage, people don't mind throwing money away. To them, it's just a game they play for fun. If they do take it somewhat seriously, it's either therapeutic, or they are at crossroads where any one of a number of possible choices is equally as valid as any other. I have no doubt that "true believers" exist, but in any case people who indulge mystics like these don't see a problem. It's only people who DON'T engage in these things who see it as harmful. If the people actually involved don't have a problem with it, if they believe they are getting value for what they put into it, exactly what CAN the government do? Realistically, not much, and when the government TRIES to step in and do things about it, it typically doesn't end well.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

15 May 2021, 10:15 pm

Quote:
First off, unlike many objectivists, I do believe that the existence of God is objective reality, and that's another argument for a different thread. Objectivism holds cause-effect as a self-evident truth which means, contrary to "classic" objectivism, one must accept the universe and reality as having been caused by a transcendent, eternal Creator.


1. Which creator and which God? Which of the 100s to 1000s of gods is the true and one god out of all the gods 100s to 1000s of past and present civilizations believe? How do we know?

2. And, if cause-effect is a self evident truth then how is it logically possible to have a transcendent, eternal creator with no beginning and no end?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

15 May 2021, 10:44 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Quote:
First off, unlike many objectivists, I do believe that the existence of God is objective reality, and that's another argument for a different thread. Objectivism holds cause-effect as a self-evident truth which means, contrary to "classic" objectivism, one must accept the universe and reality as having been caused by a transcendent, eternal Creator.


1. Which creator and which God? Which of the 100s to 1000s of gods is the true and one god out of all the gods 100s to 1000s of past and present civilizations believe? How do we know?

There’s only one, not 100s to 1000s. Any other besides is fiction. We know because God has revealed Himself to us.


cubedemon6073 wrote:
2. And, if cause-effect is a self evident truth then how is it logically possible to have a transcendent, eternal creator with no beginning and no end?

It’s not simply logically possible. It’s logically necessary. Everything that begins to exist must be caused to exist. The universe began to exist, therefore it must be caused to exist. Since something cannot come from nothing, a transcendent creator is necessary to primarily cause the universe to exist. An eternal creator that exists outside the universe does not logically require a cause to exist because His eternal nature (no beginning/end) means He cannot be caused. He is eternal, He always WAS, He never began to exist. The universe, otoh, is not infinite or eternal. It has to have been caused because it has a beginning. Because God has no beginning, it is impossible for Him to have been caused. But because God is self-aware, He can cause whatever He wants—including the universe.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

17 May 2021, 9:52 am

I have some faith myself. But, I don't see it like most people including yourself. My views of existence of reality and existence are similar to the book "The Time Ships." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Ships

I don't accept the idea of an uncaused caused but in a way I do. To me, it is self-evident that something can't simply be there. Yet, if everything must have a cause then so to must that cause including God. How can God simply just be. But if that is the case then one must accept an infinite amount of creators.

Imagine if you will you have the set of real numbers and the set of integers.

real numbers being (1, 1.5, 2.33, 33.2) and integers (0,1,2,3,4,5)

Look at the numbers between 1 and 2. How many numbers are in between 1 and 2? We have 1.2, 1.33, 1.544,...infinite). There are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2 just like there are an infinite amount of real numbers and integers.

Because there are an infinite amount of real numbers and based upon our definition of a real number and integer the amount of real numbers is infinitely greater then the infinite amount of integers.

Because we have an infinite set of real numbers and infinite one can never have an absolute complete set of numbers yet the amount of real numbers is more complete then the amount of integers.

Think of Godel's incompleteness theorems. One of them says that within a system this system can't both be complete and consistent.

Now imagine there is an infinite amount of planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies and universes in what we would call existence or a multiplicity. Imagine that God has domain over this multiplicity and he created everything in it. He has infinite knowledge and capacity within this multiplicity. Imagine you have an infinite amount of multiplicities within a multiplicity. Now, you have a multiplicity of an infinite amount of multiplicities each having an infinite amount of multiplicities to an infinite regression.

What if there are an infinite of creators who created an infinite amount of creators who created an infinite amount of multiplicities?

All of these infinite multiplicities can never be really done and complete.

Now, what if the creators have an infinite amount of knowledge of their multiplicity yet anything outside of that multiplicity is limited and unknown to them and they may not even know that they don't know.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

17 May 2021, 3:20 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
I have some faith myself. But, I don't see it like most people including yourself. My views of existence of reality and existence are similar to the book "The Time Ships." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Ships

I don't accept the idea of an uncaused caused but in a way I do. To me, it is self-evident that something can't simply be there. Yet, if everything must have a cause then so to must that cause including God.

Not EVERYTHING must have a cause. It's logically possible for things to not have a cause. It's NOT logically possible for something that is eternal to have a beginning. Therefore, only things that BEGIN to exist, i.e. things that are not by their nature eternal, are required to have a cause.


cubedemon6073 wrote:
How can God simply just be. But if that is the case then one must accept an infinite amount of creators...

Nope...just one.

You cannot assume that God must be explained first in order for God to exist. Elliptical orbits of planets around the sun don't make much sense to an earthbound observer whose only perception of the earth is a flat circle. I don't mean his religious idea of earth is that it's flat, but how the earth appears to someone without any means of demonstrating the quasi-spherical shape of it. Epicycles seem to make more sense when you are unable to observe the visible universe from any other perspective. It's only when you get a better view that you know there is a difference between what you see and how things are in reality.

Questions: Did the invention of the telescope magically cause the planets to orbit in perfect, concentric circles around the sun? And how did further explanations shift planetary orbits into elliptical paths?

The best answer is that it has always been so (for as long as the solar system has been in existence, anyway), and it is our understanding that has changed rather than reality. God doesn't require our understanding or an explanation to exist.