Welcome to Gaia! ::

dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.
dh8d1
In context they're bizarre.
The context itself they're in is bizarre.


The context itself is only bizarre because you do not believe in it. Thus, when it is taken out of context, by people who do not believe in such things, it will be bizarre. This is what I meant. One only believes that its bizarre, because they have not yet been brainwashed to believe that it isn't bizarre.

In what ways does it even matter if it is "bizarre"?

Quote:
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect) There is much more to the context, but I can leave it at that for now.


This is not necessarily true or bizarre to all people. One assumes that by obtaining perfection, that the desire of a God is to refrain from action.

Seeing how humans will never obtain the standard of "perfection" they claim that God has, there is no relevant data to conclude such things. We don't know what a perfect being would do. We don't know what their desire is. We don't know why God wants anything, or what its plans are.

To put it simply, nobody can determine what perfection actually means. The standard of perfection is impossible for anyone to actually determine, and is more hypothetical than solid fact.


Quote:
I am under the understanding that most of the teachings of most of the religions in the world are placebo. Afterlife, spirits, prayer, god(s) watching over you... these are all placebos.


Seeing how all religions cannot be true at the same time, I suppose one could consider religion to create a placebo effect. We cannot accuse any specific religions of this however.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Henry Hobo-Master
dh8d1
In context they're bizarre.
The context itself they're in is bizarre.


The context itself is only bizarre because you do not believe in it. Thus, when it is taken out of context, by people who do not believe in such things, it will be bizarre. This is what I meant. One only believes that its bizarre, because they have not yet been brainwashed to believe that it isn't bizarre.

In what ways does it even matter if it is "bizarre"?

It'd be more believable if it wasn't bizarre. And if it was proven.

Henry Hobo-Master

One assumes that by obtaining perfection, that the desire of a God is to refrain from action.
No. This is not assumption, this is by definition.

Henry Hobo-Master

Quote:
I am under the understanding that most of the teachings of most of the religions in the world are placebo. Afterlife, spirits, prayer, god(s) watching over you... these are all placebos.


Seeing how all religions cannot be true at the same time, I suppose one could consider religion to create a placebo effect. We cannot accuse any specific religions of this however.
We know that the tools used by specific religions are placebo. Prayer, afterlife, spirits, gods watching over you... those placebos are all used by many religions, mormonism is included.
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


It, then, would lack perfect unpredictability. That sounds hardly perfect.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Fermionic
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


It, then, would lack perfect unpredictability. That sounds hardly perfect.
If unpredictability is within the definition of 'perfect' then the concept is likely impossible in any reality. For if a god is unpredictable, it cannot be predictable, and predictability is also a facet of perfection. Therefore a perfect being is impossible, so believing in one is still bizarre and cannot have created the universe.
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


The analogy is perfect; either you maintain that creation cannot occur without desire - and hence endorse either clouds having desires, or rain not being a creation* - or you accept that creation can occur without desire - and hence reject that a perfect god, lacking desire, cannot create. The mind is a red-herring, as it were.
- ninja

*You may be limiting creation to intentional creation.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


The analogy is perfect; either you maintain that creation cannot occur without desire - and hence endorse either clouds having desires, or rain not being a creation* - or you accept that creation can occur without desire - and hence reject that a perfect god, lacking desire, cannot create. The mind is a red-herring, as it were.
- ninja

*You may be limiting creation to intentional creation.
The analogy is one of a being with a mind, AKA God. This is not present in clouds. The analogy is failed.
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


The analogy is perfect; either you maintain that creation cannot occur without desire - and hence endorse either clouds having desires, or rain not being a creation* - or you accept that creation can occur without desire - and hence reject that a perfect god, lacking desire, cannot create. The mind is a red-herring, as it were.
- ninja

*You may be limiting creation to intentional creation.
The analogy is one of a being with a mind, AKA God. This is not present in clouds. The analogy is failed.


The analogy is of a being creating, with or without a mind.
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


It, then, would lack perfect unpredictability. That sounds hardly perfect.
If unpredictability is within the definition of 'perfect' then the concept is likely impossible in any reality. For if a god is unpredictable, it cannot be predictable, and predictability is also a facet of perfection. Therefore a perfect being is impossible, so believing in one is still bizarre and cannot have created the universe.


Precisely, hence why the conversation is largely pointless.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


The analogy is perfect; either you maintain that creation cannot occur without desire - and hence endorse either clouds having desires, or rain not being a creation* - or you accept that creation can occur without desire - and hence reject that a perfect god, lacking desire, cannot create. The mind is a red-herring, as it were.
- ninja

*You may be limiting creation to intentional creation.
The analogy is one of a being with a mind, AKA God. This is not present in clouds. The analogy is failed.


The analogy is of a being creating, with or without a mind.
Then the analogy fails.
The analogy cannot be valid until it compares an entity with a mind.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect)


Does a cloud thus desire when it precipitates? Or is the creation of rain not an act?
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


It, then, would lack perfect unpredictability. That sounds hardly perfect.
If unpredictability is within the definition of 'perfect' then the concept is likely impossible in any reality. For if a god is unpredictable, it cannot be predictable, and predictability is also a facet of perfection. Therefore a perfect being is impossible, so believing in one is still bizarre and cannot have created the universe.


Precisely, hence why the conversation is largely pointless.
The point still remains that believing in a perfect creator is weird.
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
The analogy is perfect; either you maintain that creation cannot occur without desire - and hence endorse either clouds having desires, or rain not being a creation* - or you accept that creation can occur without desire - and hence reject that a perfect god, lacking desire, cannot create. The mind is a red-herring, as it were.
- ninja

*You may be limiting creation to intentional creation.
The analogy is one of a being with a mind, AKA God. This is not present in clouds. The analogy is failed.


The analogy is of a being creating, with or without a mind.
Then the analogy fails.
The analogy cannot be valid until it compares an entity with a mind.


That's like saying a red-herring is an invalid analogy of a diversion from the matter at hand since said diversion doesn't have gills.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
The analogy is perfect; either you maintain that creation cannot occur without desire - and hence endorse either clouds having desires, or rain not being a creation* - or you accept that creation can occur without desire - and hence reject that a perfect god, lacking desire, cannot create. The mind is a red-herring, as it were.
- ninja

*You may be limiting creation to intentional creation.
The analogy is one of a being with a mind, AKA God. This is not present in clouds. The analogy is failed.


The analogy is of a being creating, with or without a mind.
Then the analogy fails.
The analogy cannot be valid until it compares an entity with a mind.


That's like saying a red-herring is an invalid analogy of a diversion from the matter at hand since said diversion doesn't have gills.

That's an invalid analogy too. You're full of 'em.

Analogies must have specific commonalities.
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
dh8d1
The analogy is one of a being with a mind, AKA God. This is not present in clouds. The analogy is failed.


The analogy is of a being creating, with or without a mind.
Then the analogy fails.
The analogy cannot be valid until it compares an entity with a mind.


That's like saying a red-herring is an invalid analogy of a diversion from the matter at hand since said diversion doesn't have gills.

That's an invalid analogy too. You're full of 'em.


Red herring is perhaps the prototypical valid analogy.
- ninja

dh8d1
Analogies must have specific commonalities.


Yes - and the specific commonality here is creation; a perfect being creates, a cloud creates. That the latter lacks a mind in no way affects that*, just like not having gills in no way affects your bringing up of the lack of mind being (analogous to) a red herring.

*Again, unless you're referring specifically to the kind of creation that requires a mind i.e. intentional creation.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games