What would life be like if God/god/gods really existed?

Ionus: No, it's not circular at all. Inborn, starts at the beginning, ----that's it's initial point. It's in our DNA.
Babies are born trusting and loving everyone. They have to be taught not to trust and love everyone.
Why would love of other humans be mechanism of survival and evolution?
Shucks, baby, that's easy. The more of those really big people I can get to smile at me and make goo-goo faces, the more likely they are to protect me and feed me and get me to the point where I can make babies.
It's the basis of tribal life. We as humans have been doing it for about 100,000 years that we know of and probably about 2,000,000 years before that.
We cling to each other because we are humans.
Joe(Come here you big lug, I wanna hug you)Nation

No, but I do understand the concept of 'point-of-view defense' by shoving words like 'play' down other peoples' throat to achieve acceptance.

No one is playing here, it's just pointless arguing. It's just reading text, getting your panties in a wad and then blindly reacting by typing out what you think the text should have read.

If 'God' exists, then he does. If he doesn't, he doesn't. 'Playing' isn't going to change anything, nor will it provide the 'players' with any resolution. Take a look at the posts above and tell me if you honestly describe that as 'playing'?

With all due respect: HAH HAH HA HA HAHHH HA!
Miracles are always about breaking the laws of physics unless you regard walking on water and raising the death purely natural phenomenon.. My favorite (Christ Miracle) is the one nobody ever talks about....look up Capharum and how he escapes the crowd. "poof"
==
Monk who fly...yeah yeah yeah... I know some TM practitioners who on good days could float jUUUUsssttt a little (unless that was bouncing)
I have no doubt that there have been several remarkable individuals within our existence, what I want is a god who will let some remarkable someone to go the Holy Waters Waterfall. .

Joe(off you go, boyo)Nation

I think you should look into a study of what is called Transactional Analysis or TA. It is a sociological study of human behavior. The reason I think it would be relevant to you is because it deals with the ways people play games. In TA, your comments regarding "what is the point," "pointless arguing," and "playing" are your forms of game. So it is a bit ironic that you choose to be so critical of other's desire to engage, because it is exactly your desire. you simply do it in a different way.

That said, why not drop the pretense? Maybe there is a point, and maybe exercising arguments do have a meaning.

A
R
T

If you choose to perceive text on a computer screen under the name 'JPLosman0711' as 'playing games' then that's your doing. What gives you the audacity to think you know my desires?

What 'meaning' could arguing possibly have?

Before you answer that, I want you to give me the definition of 'meaning'.

What is 'meaning'?

It doesn't take audacity. Your game is to play contrarian, with a special niche for asserting that anyone playing is wasting their time. This, all the while you play, albeit your own game.


Meaning is a term that gets used in many ways. It requires some disambiguation. No matter what, you've implied that no meaning could be had in arguing. That said, if you wish for me to address what meaning arguing could have, how about you give me the definition you were using when you declared none could possibly be had. Then I can address your statement with further detail.

A
R
T

An argument is nothing more than each person defending their current point of view, what good could come of that for either party?

By arguing in the first place, you obviously seek some sort of resolution, otherwise you wouldn't have your panties in a wad to begin with, would you? How do you expect to find resolution when all you are doing is barking out your own view point?

I'm not asking in what way meaning gets used, I would like to know what 'meaning' is all by itself. In other words, not your thoughts on 'meaning', but what is 'meaning' on its own?

Opinions are based on our experience and vantage point. Conclusions are drawn from what we are exposed to. Engaging others expands our experience and exposes us to more. It also can challenge the premises which support a particular view.

I suppose if a person is not interested in having an opinion based on critical thinking, exposure to other view points would be unattractive.


You seek "resolution" by letting facts be known and challenging the foundations of the beliefs themselves. Even if at the end, the opinions do not change, both parties should have a greater understanding of what it would take to build a cogent case. This give rise to intellectual curiosity and the desire to accumulate more knowledge.


Unless you assert there is an objective definition of what meaning is, then you're just playing semantics.

A
R
T

I think that aspect of it is the worst, the constant rationalization about why "god" does the things "he" does. The Norse viewpoint eliminates the question altogether. We are venal, cruel, capricious--and if we are made in the image of the gods, the gods must be venal, cruel, capricious, etc. Recall the passage in the OT when your boy "god" says he is a jealous god--at least at that point in scriptural development, they were all working from the same playbook, and wrote honestly--the unrealistic public relations effort had not yet gotten under way.

If gods really existed life would be exactly as it is. Otherwise how could you believe?

"God", "The Universe", "Superman", "Bill Gates", or my "Boss"...what´s the definition for such a question ? Certainly not to keep at the Flying Spaghetti Monster crap all the Thread down...

...LAW suffices for description...now I wonder in turn...how would it be without it ?

It is a huge blind spot for us not to take in our 'vantage point' and merely pass it off as our 'opinions/beliefs/views'. A conclusion(fact) should never be drawn from any given situation, that would indicate the end of your questioning/thinking.

Other people cannot expose you to anymore than you allow them to, if you're stuck on your own 'experience and vantage point' it's not very likely that much is going to get through. The 'premise' as you put it, is always changing(regardless of an argument) also, regardless if the view/opinion/belief wants to 'go along with it'. This would be the 'point' in arguing, and attempt to make the other person decide for them whether or not they should change their 'views/opinions/beliefs', however the argument would not be necessary as the 'premise' is always changing anyway. It's just about being willing to 'move' on your own.

'Critical' thinking is a waste of your time, that's like saying a certain type of thought, or way of thought is better or of more significance than any other. This would also point again to point-of-view defense, or insecurity in the 'ground' you are standing on and thus a need to argue.

The 'premise' needs to be challenged, not the views. Having an argument is an attempt to make the other person prove/dis-prove their own views.

Here's something else you should recognize.

When I sit down to post on this forum and subsequently write out my 'thoughts', there is sort of a problem and it leads back to the original 'blind spot' I pointed out in the beginning of this post. In all honesty, I would say about only 10-15% of my ACTUAL thought gets conveyed due to the 'problem' of language(it's my fault, not language). However, due to this not only are you only getting at best 15% of my thoughts, but that 15% gets filtered through your own personal interpretation(point-of-view). Then as you go to reply, I imagine you would have the same 'difficulty' in accurately conveying your ACTUAL thoughts at the given moment due to the issue of point-of-view/language. Also, when I read your post(which as now been filtered to an enormous degree and is far off its original course) I have my own interpretations which makes the conversation just that much more 'diluted'.

This is also what makes an argument possible, and subsequently pointless. The 'premises'(view-points) are ever-changing but pretend to stay the same because of the 'external ties' each one has toward the other. The 'views' stay the same but pretend to change under the ever-changing ways of the 'premises'.

An argument is a 'comparing of notes' from each one to the other, each hoping to find security in his point-of-view. If it fails, well he can always say "I have the right to my opinion" and storm out of the room with his arms folded.

What's interesting about this forum is so many people want to defend so many different things.

Logic, facts, numbers, and now even arguing has been given a run for its money.

Arguing about arguing - LOL

It was known from the study in Bohemia of the ancient Hebrew texts that there were different authors/contributors to the Bible . What is less commonly known is it was also fairly well established that a lot of the Priestly version was written in a code that had several layers . There was the obvious layer for the dumb peasants but there was also a deeper layer, called the Midrash Code.

IF this was also the case in the New Testament, then when Jesus walked on water he was using the priests joke of walking out along the jetty, climbing into a boat and have the peasants wade out through the water to be baptised from the priest in the boat . What was alarming was not that Jesus walked on water, but that he was doing the job of a priest ! Also when Jesus turned water into wine, he was allowing the great unwashed to partake of the sacred part of communion, to have wine instead of water, something reserved for the Higher Religious Castes . He was constantly trying to make equals out of peasants and Upper Classes . Very alarming stuff .

Jesus could lay claim to being a priest as David had actually been the first priest before delegating authority to Abiathar . However the priests had nothing to do if the King was to have all the jobs . Shortly before being crucified (which he survived) Jesus achieved all the important positions and is described as having the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory , being King and High Priest . When he ascended into heaven, he was very much alive as that was the name for the Priests inner sanctum where God was present and only the upper class within the priesthood were allowed in .

I have several books I can recommend if you are further interested . It is just I have to get up and find them in my book collection

In the beginning there was pond scum . Under the theory of evolution, you need an explanation for why it evolved .

You have described a selfish motive . That is not quite an altruistic love of people . Pond scum did the same thing in growing together as multi cellular organisms .

Thank you Joe, right back atcha !

If you are referring to Lazarus, he was a close personal friend of Jesus and was buried alive by order of the Priests for some offence or other . Jesus raised him "from the dead" by ordering his release . Incidentally, Lazarus would have chosen to submit to this as the alternative would be to be stoned to death....at least this way they might release him after a couple of days.....maybe.....they had changed their minds before for important people after scaring them . When he was released, Jesus was warned not to go near Lazarus as he "stank" meaning he would not have performed the religious ablutions or prayed correctly . Jesus chose to embrace him anyway, thus Jesus would have to undergo prolonged "cleansing" himself .

I dont know that one .

That is very interesting to me. I've always been of the opinion that the bible is true, I mean it's there, you just have to dig a little to realize what it is the truth of.
There are many stories that come out this way, if you study a bit. I have never heard this one before. Kinda makes it a bit more realistic, which it should be. I'm not of the opinion that the bible is a fairy tale, I have noticed the layering in a lot of places.

One of the stunning discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls is the amount of variation in the one story . Several stories from the Old Testament have important differences . The aim was to discuss God's intent, no to slavishly follow every word literally . Fundamentalist Christians like to ignore these facts .

The intent is also absent from Fundamentalist Muslims . Muhammad wanted women to dress "sensibly" . This meant no make up, no revealing dresses but it was to differentiate a good woman from a prostitute . Arabs twisted this to mean a woman should wear a burka . Some women like to think of themselves as untouchable yet pursued, some like to hide fat, and some just like to hide so the burka is supported by some women . Some men, mainly frightened little dicks, also support the burka but it was never what Muhammad intended .

His youngest wife fell behind his caravan once, and when she caught up she was in the company of a handsome young Bedouin man who was seeing her safely to her husband . The older men immediately demanded she be stoned to death, but Muhammad refused saying nothing had happened . He then introduced a law saying you need witnesses to adultery, and not just opinion .

Muhammad was far more modern than a lot of Arabs would like . Jesus was far more tolerant than a lot of fundamentalists would like .

One must distinguish between false patterns and true patterns...Any recollection of texts so vastly known as the Bible is are always subjected to false positives when it comes to interpret what they address...one could do just the same with a doctor prescription and a bunch of would be philosophers...Da Vinci´s code is just the most recent perfect example on how these things can go wrong...

Well then if it's all playing, then there's no point in arguing. We argue because we think we are telling the truth, or being truthful and we want others to believe because think if will benefit them.

Capernaum.
I goofed the spelling and forgot to check before posting. Christ disappears in the middle of a crowd. poof just as they are about to toss his blaspheming ass over a cliff.

But you're missing the point of my inquiry. We know what life is like now, pond scum and all, (Hail, Cousin Algae! Hail, Brother Jellyfish!) but what I'm asking is how would life be different if God/god/gods were involved in the process. They clearly are not.

You keep trying to make this a retelling of the same completely unacceptable, at least to me, resume of the purported deity now running things so badly.
Okay. Maybe just a peek.
Just look at what a mess evolution is. Instead of just creating a couple of million species, all able to coexist with each other and changing conditions, the present supposed Lord and Master of the Universe has churned out multi-trillions of species which failed to thrive. It's a good thing General Motors doesn't run their new model division like that (or maybe they did for a few years)..... ah.
The guy just can't get it right, poor baby.

==
Oh and I've got to say that the whole Midrash thing is the worst part of all the Abrahamics. The conceit that there is some group who really GETS it while the rest of the rubes are, well, rubes pervades all three and it's just wrong.
There is no super secret code, no actual hoo-doo undermeanings, no recipe revealed for the special sauce. It's all made up. Making it more spookier doesn't make it any realer, if that is a word, more real, I guess.
That's the kind of thinking which killed William Tyndale. You remember him, right?
That boy wanted to print the bible in English instead of the sacred Latin. Whoa! Can't have the hoi poloi reading the inside information in their own language, can we now? King Henry VIII's men chased him all over Europe, got him, brought him back to England, slammed him in prison for his effrontery for a couple of years, then had him strangled and burned publicly. Wow! That'll teach him to cross the elites who had taught for 1000 years that scripture had to be in Latin. yeah boy.
So, what happened? Well, three years after Henry VIII set light to William Tyndale, he paid for a new edition of the Bible, THE GREAT BIBLE.

Yeah.......It was in English and they used nearly all of William Tyndale's supposedly blasphemous and sacrilegious translation. Nice guy that Henry, but he wanted to get into Ann Boleyn's pants and the old elite, the Roman Clergy and Church weren't going to stop him.
That's the kind of thing that goes on once people start separating out into we's and them's, us'uns and youse guys.

Joe(we are all the same: stardust and pond scum)Nation