What is hope...is there a difference between hope and faith

@hightor,

Quote:

You're not really that important.

Then please Feel free to ignore me.

It's not a blind guess Frank.
There is much evidence showing that there is a creator, interested in the creation.
However, you don't understand.
Hopefully, some time in the future, you will. Smile

3 Replies

@Jiggy,

I am more interested in the topic of the creator of the creator and so on ad infinity...
A god with a mind is a lesser god. In fact it falls on demi-god type category.
Nature is timeless and done and all that can possibly come to exist exists already.
There is no outside of everything including time. And things that walk talk and think do so because they are on a quest to learn troubleshooting the unpredictable environment.
Thinking is an act of searching forward. Thus the idea of a thinking god is just nonsensical!
Hence the best description of "god" is ratio and nature. Nothing more nothing less.

I know you don't see it now but maybe you will someday.

3 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Faith i a town un South Dakota. Its in the upper Cretacous sedimentary belt wherein have been found several complete T rex skeletons.
Hope is a name held by over 100 towns in the US.

Big Difference

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I am not one bit interested in playing Devil's advocate here, but was that an argument ad populum? Is it about statistics?
I hope you are getting my point but I have no faith you are interested.
It took me quite a while to unravel your Buddhist Cohen there, maybe I am getting old a little bit to soon.

PS - You guys have 75 million self acknowledge idiots up there...I bet that is a bunch load of towns.

1 Reply

@Jiggy,

I get the feeling that some people here don't understand what you are seeking to convey Jiggy.

Tell them about the Great Flood.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Nature is timeless and done and all that can possibly come to exist exists already.

So then there is no need for a middleman, an intermediary, a go-between, a creator. A creator is extraneous.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Agreed but...while the classical definition of God is a simple-minded not to transcendent projection of our own Anthropic condition, a fairy in the sky that recalls our infant need for a know it all fatherly figure, I still think there can be some use to the wording "God" which somehow encapsulates the sheer awe we experience with Reality and its complexity, its rationality and unity. For that matter alone I don't mind calling Nature, Reality, Being, "God". The kind of "God" a mathematician sees in the abstract world of numbers, a Physicist experiences in the equations that describe the motion of Galaxies Stars and particles, a "God" that has fractals planted all over in Geology and Bio-chemistry. A "God" that while in essence is an unconscious monolith allows Novels to be written in this world by incomplete conscious things with minds as us...in a word or two, such a thing represents total Unity and closure of that which no further can be thought about.

With all its tragedies and misfortunes and some brief joys Reality is good because it is awe inspiring beyond any Anthropic measure.
I buy the Spinoza and Einstein definition of "God", I still think it is useful in our lexicon.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

On a side note I am very mindful of Demi-Gods in the sense that I don't believe for a second Humanity is in the top food chain of IQ and EQ when it comes to Reality and the vastness of Space and Time... just by sheer statistical analysis regarding probabilities we should be in the middle, which differs very little from a rabbit to a semi ordered monkey when seen from above. These things can possibly exist and have incomplete computing minds like us with an agenda which as we do have a purpose in troubleshooting the limits of their own domain of interests and operations. Those things are dangerous in the sense that their Moral alignment thinks no more of us as we do from a snail or a worm. It is possible they can consider us irrational and not worth any care or concern...those old alien and sufficiently transcendent demi-gods are a potential grave risk/barrier to our future.
I don't see them coming in fancy big space ships announcing our demise...rather I see them redirect a Super Nova energy going through our Solar System because they have an architectural Mega project going on in the vicinity. The kind of thing that may unfold in thousands of years as their time frame of "life" may well be on a total different scale than the one we live in. It is possible we cross with such things without even recognizing they are alive and exist.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

On a final more optimistic remark, I would hope without much faith that A higher Demi-God of trivial Demi-Gods would pay attention to a vast array of domains going from the almost infinitesimal to the almost infinite in such way that the projects of trivial Demi-Gods would not undermine the existence and boundary flourish of things like Humanity. The causal speed limit of light might be one such a barrier if the Universe we live in is not the simulation project of a trivial Demi-God.

PS - Like Russian dolls, Domains don't belong to any Demi-God, as I said in my first post Reality as a whole owns all domains, including the fate and fortune of all trivial and non trivial Demi-Gods. Hopefully there is space for all kinds of creatures be it in this Universe or in a potential Multiverse with a variety of operational domains.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Then please Feel free to ignore me.

You're not that toxic. I don't mind reading what you post. I don't mind responding to your posts. But I am not about to obey you.

1 Reply

In my mind these last few posts on which I wondered upon what is possible were not a debate about God or Demi-gods, rather a debate I would have with a PHD professor at Law School at University. A debate about Natural Law superseding the roots of Roman Law upon which modern Law is founded.
At University I always loved to see the jaw drop of my professors when I was asked to expose and explain my ideas...I got good grades with ententes like these but above all their faces on what I was going on about were priceless!

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

You're not that toxic. I don't mind reading what you post. I don't mind responding to your posts. But I am not about to obey you.

Cause and effect. You just did!
We all "obey" each other when we interact...

1 Reply

@Jiggy,

Jiggy wrote:

It's not a blind guess Frank.

If you are talking about the assertions, "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods"...both ARE blind guesses.

Quote:

There is much evidence showing that there is a creator, interested in the creation.
However, you don't understand.
Hopefully, some time in the future, you will.

There is absolutely NO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE IS A "CREATOR."

NONE!

I hope some day in the future you will be able to acknowledge that.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

We all "obey" each other when we interact...

No. That's not how "obey" is used. That's not what "obey" means. It's true that there's a cause and effect in play but there's nothing compulsory about it. Even Mr. Leadfoot himself told me I was "free" to ignore him. I simply refused.

Response isn't the same as obedience.

Quote:

verb (used with object)
1. to comply with or follow the commands, restrictions, wishes, or instructions of: to obey one's parents.
2. to comply with or follow (a command, restriction, wish, instruction, etc.).
3. (of things) to respond conformably in action to: The car obeyed the slightest touch of the steering wheel.
4. to submit or conform in action to (some guiding principle, impulse, one's conscience, etc.).

verb (used without object)
5. to be obedient: to agree to obey.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

I was being dismissively irrelevant thats all. Nothing "deeper" intended.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am more interested in the topic of the creator of the creator and so on ad infinity...

If you think there is a cause ad infinity, then I can't help you, sorry.

Quote:

A god with a mind is a lesser god. In fact it falls on demi-god type category.
Nature is timeless and done and all that can possibly come to exist exists already.
There is no outside of everything including time. And things that walk talk and think do so because they are on a quest to learn troubleshooting the unpredictable environment.
Thinking is an act of searching forward. Thus the idea of a thinking god is just nonsensical!
Hence the best description of "god" is ratio and nature. Nothing more nothing less.

Well if you know all that, it seems to me there is nothing you don't know. So the only thing left for you to do is go make a sun, and report back to me. Then we can talk about what you know.

Quote:

I know you don't see it now but maybe you will someday.

We'll see.

1 Reply

@knaivete,

Quote:

I get the feeling that some people here don't understand what you are seeking to convey Jiggy.

No. I think they do. I made it clear a number of times.
It's just that the science believers seem ashamed to discuss their faith.
I would be too, if I walked around claiming that science knows, when it's really a belief based on faith.
They just don't want to acknowledge that they have faith in what they believe. ...and they hope it's true.

Quote:

Tell them about the Great Flood.

What... and bury the topic of faith and hope, in an avalanche of 25, 000 posts of back and forth arguments on the Bible?
Why... That makes no sense, to me.
When I come on sites like these, and I look for a particular topic, and I see they are thousands of posts, I don't open them.
I think a post should address the topic, and not run helter skelter all over the place.
Why not start a new thread with that question.

0 Replies

@Jiggy,

Jiggy wrote:

If you think there is a cause ad infinity, then I can't help you, sorry.

How in the name of anything even approaching logic...can anyone suppose there has to be an INITIAL CAUSE?

We humans are simply not clever enough to figure out the REALITY of existence. At least, no yet.

But the notion of using "there has to be a cause for everything" is just ******* stupid...because it supposes its direct contradiction...a first cause that had no cause.

It is a self-contradictory argument.

Get off it, Jiggy. Get off supposing that your reasoning is superior to what is being said by everyone else.

I certainly do not KNOW what the REALITY of existence is...and there is no way I can make an informed guess about it. I cannot make an informed guess as to what IT HAS TO BE...nor what IT CANNOT BE.

I leave it at, I DO NOT KNOW...AND CANNOT MAKE AN INFORMED GUESS.

You, Jiggy, ARE making a blind guess...and then offering arguments that pretend to show that only your blind guess can be correct as to what is the REALITY.

You've got company. Lots of people here cannot stop at "I do not know...and cannot make an informed guess."

1 Reply

@hightor,

Oh common for fracks sake you got very well what I meant when I referred to the social superorganism we all belong to, hopefully you got that....if not I am so sorry for your inability to read in between the lines. Also the need to quote the definition is childish to put it mildly.
I won't even bother to debate your so called free will.
See you around hightor! Wink

1 Reply

What is hope...is there a difference between hope and faith

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know