The only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian. True or false?

[Greatest I am]

I have always had problems with the anthropic principle, in all but its weakest form.  I think the most we can say is that since we exist, we should not be surprised that we live in a part of a universe that can support our kind of life.  Even that's tautological since we're a product of the universe, and therefore necessarily a product of its structure, laws and contents.  Certainly I think cosmologists John Barrow and Frank Tipler go much too far in positing that we are somehow inherent in the universe, that something like us must arise eventually.  I don't have much more patience for John Wheeler's idea that we're necessary in order to have something to observe and therefore collapse quantum mechanical wave functions into events.

Fundamentally, we can only look at the conditions of the universe and conclude that we are merely possible.  This just happens to be a universe in which we happened.  If we hadn't, we wouldn't be here to remark upon it.

No argument on this.

If an asteroid had not rid the earth of dinosaurs, which allowed mammals to grow and thrive, mankind would not be here.

That does not mean that intelligent life would not have developed here or elsewhere. There might be many places in the universe where there is intelligence and we just would not know it as the speed of light would likely dissuade interstellar travel.

In an endless universe, every possibility becomes a probability. Perhaps even for a God, which I might put at a probability rating of .0000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Sweet that you could not refute my view of reality.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Candide was written as a satire to make fun of the idea that we live in the best of all possible worlds, so it wasn't being put forward as a serious concept. In fact, I'm pretty sure we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, since I can imagine worlds much better than this.

So can I, but that does not take away from the fact that "Once one dismisses The rest of all possible worlds, even your imaginary ones, One finds that this is The best of all possible worlds!"

This is the only possible world given our past and entropy.

I do recognize that it was satirically said, but it is still irrefutable.

I have been playing with this notion for a long time and most just give up on trying to refute it because they cannot.

If I was not sure of my view, I would not put it out here.

Regards
DL

[trdsf]

Sweet that you could not refute my view of reality.

Whoa, arrogant much?  All I was doing there was commenting on the Anthropic Principle.  I'm at work, so commenting on your videos is not feasible.  And in any case, I would rather hear your take on them than assume you let videos do your thinking for you.

[Mike Cl]

One can be good, with or without metaphysics.  What I doubt is "good".  It seems to be relative, not absolute.  It is better for me to not kill someone, usually ... than to kill them ... for example.  But better from who's perspective?  If I am hired as hit-man, it isn't good from the POV of the employer, and if I do kill someone, it usually isn't good from the perspective of the victim.  Since meaning and therefore "good" are relative, isn't "good" meaningless .. just a jargon for virtue signaling?

I do agree that 'good' is relative.  So is morality.  As for being meaningless--don't know; but it is very fuzzy.

[Baruch]

Jesus of the bible is a fiction--he never lived and therefore could not have spoken.  The entire bible is a metaphor and as such this passage simply states that the better you know yourself and your environment the better able you are to make positive choices for yourself.  The less you know yourself, the more impoverished (lacking of knowledge) your decisions will be.  Charles Fillmore wrote the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary in which he provides what he thinks all the metaphors of the bible (actually, the entire bible) are and how they pertain to everyday life.  It's an interesting read.  One does not need religion, or spirituality to figure this out.

But without metaphysics, you have no metaphors.  The meta- thing.  Try to justify metaphors on the basis of literalism please, that is the written version of justifying reality based on materialism.

[Baruch]

Webster's disagrees with you on that. They class it as a noun, and the vast majority use it that way.

Even most Jews disagree with you buddy. That is why they and you write G-d.

Why would/do you do that if it is just a verb. A verb is an action.

Tell us what you are doing when you G-d.

I do not know how to G-d and might enjoy it if it involves using certain body parts. ;-)

Regards
DL

Kabbalists/Hasidim know, the rabbis are parrots, same as all other clergy.  We understand metaphor, the rabbis are taught to parrot what they are taught.  A kosher parrot would make a good rabbi ;-)

[Baruch]

Don't agree with any of that.  The Green Bay Packers won the first Super Bowl--in hindsight that could be seen as not being possible to be any other way.  But, actually, the Oakland Raiders could have scored more points and won the game.  It was not a pre-ordained event.  In fact, nothing is pre-ordained--every event could have happened another way.  Nothing in this universe, or the universe itself, was 'created' by another a force other than happenstance and the right materials in the right amounts--it's all math.  There is no supernatural power that 'created' any of what we now have.  There is no 'best end' for nature.  Nature cares nothing for any end, good or bad.  If there is any 'best' it is only in our individual judgments that that is so.  In other words, it is we and we alone who give a purpose or meaning (or not) to life, our lives or the universe and all that is within.  I don't need any religious or spiritual person to tell me what those purposes are or should be.  I end up making up my own mind.  God is not needed--which is why god is a creation of humankind and not the other way around.

When you make up your own mind, you are making up G-d's mind ... his particular demigod mind which is in you.

[Baruch]

Two of my closest friends are a Christian married couple, who are simply wonderfully thoughtful and kind.  In addition, they take or give no credit for their kindness to themselves or to a deity, and least not publicly around me.  The subject has never come up.  It's just who they seem to be.  As such, they are atypical of most Christians I know, and I think of them as what Christians like to claim about themselves, even when their default state is to spew hatred and contempt.  I'm talking about both the ends of the extreme, obviously.

On the other hand, "Gnostic Christian" is probably better defined by looking the word gnostic up in a dictionary, rather than through videos and discussion.  I don't think "gnostic" has anything to do with the inner goodness of a person, be they theist or atheist.  It's a whole different discussion.

If you need Webster to do your thinking for you ...

[Baruch]

I agree that no creator God exists.

That does not take away from the fact that "Once one dismisses The rest of all possible worlds One finds that this is The best of all possible worlds!"

This is irrefutable given our history and the anthropic principle.

If you can refute that statement somehow, I am willing to read your argument.

Regards
DL

What is your ... anthropic principle?  Mine is ... we are demigods, because everyone is equal, and Augustus is a demigod.  A rock can't act on its own, a human being can.  That is the very basis of Semitic criticism of statue worship.

[Baruch]

Candide was written as a satire to make fun of the idea that we live in the best of all possible worlds, so it wasn't being put forward as a serious concept. In fact, I'm pretty sure we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, since I can imagine worlds much better than this.

Voltaire was making fun of Leibniz.  But Leibniz is having the last laugh ... Voltaire was a precursor to the French Revolution, and all the Leftist crap that came out of that.  The first "soy boy".  Voltaire leads us to the worst of all possible worlds ... the world of everyone making war against anyone who has even one dollar more than they do.  The absolute opposite of any social solidarity (the ancients called it "the evil eye").  Per ancient culture, the very definition of Satan .. anarchy as it would be run by humans.

[Baruch]

I do agree that 'good' is relative.  So is morality.  As for being meaningless--don't know; but it is very fuzzy.

Thuzzy Finking ... is jibberish ... so unless you can make sense of gibberish, it is meaningless.  However, your good, or my good, is good, even if we don't agree.  As demigods we have that power.  A rock does not.  Materialists have rocks for brains.

[Mike Cl]

But without metaphysics, you have no metaphors.  The meta- thing.  Try to justify metaphors on the basis of literalism please, that is the written version of justifying reality based on materialism.

Not sure what your point is.

[Mike Cl]

When you make up your own mind, you are making up G-d's mind ... his particular demigod mind which is in you.

Nope--I have the mind of Daffy Duck--or is it the roadrunner??--I keep forgetting which.

[SGOS]

If you need Webster to do your thinking for you ...

Webster doesn't think.  It only provides common reference points for clear communication.  You can make up your own definitions for commonly used words and go on communicating like crazy, and you might even clearly understand what you are saying, but no one else would without a common reference.

[Blackleaf]

Just so you do not just discard the whole brain idea, consider the Egyptian eye and Michelangelo's creation painting. Both of those are representation of our right hemisphere. God sit's on a brain background in the creation painting.

Most look at it and see God creating his concept in Adam.

I see it as Adam reaching up to his own mind to find his own Father Concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

Regards
DL

My concern is that you're subscribing to the myth that people only use 10% of their brains at a given time. I don't know if that is what you're implying, but it is completely untrue. We wouldn't be able to survive on 10% brain power. The brain has to monitor balance, movement (several brain areas govern specific types), perceptions, keeping your heart beating, keeping your lungs breathing, and all kinds of things you're not even consciously aware of. You're using all areas of your brain all the time. The degree to which it is being used varies, but more activity doesn't equal better. Seizures cause neurons to fire like crazy, but those are of course undesirable.