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

Started by Greatest I am, April 06, 2018, 11:41:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 11:57:25 AM
I will let you get away with this deflection. I too will deflect.

Have you read what scriptures say of prophets and Rabbis?

Isaiah 56:11) "They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one" But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, "you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked" (Malachi 3:18)

That is why I think that the best religious form of Jewry are the Karaite Jews.

They are almost as worthy of praise as Gnostic Christians. :-)

Regards
DL

Yes, I have.  You know I am not Orthodox nor Orthopraxis ;-)  Prophets who tell you what you want to hear, are false prophets.

The clergy are always troublesome, but the laity need leadership.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  I am fortunate in falling outside that dialectic.  But I am not typical.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

trdsf

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:11:08 PM
"Specifically, does Gnostic Christianity still posit a deity of some sort and that Jeshua bar-Joseph either was, or was a part of, that deity?

That first clip shows how we see Jesus as an archetypal good man only and not as a deity. We use Jesus as mantra or meditation guide to enhance our focus. gaining access to your pineal gland and activating your right brain is the key to Gnosis.

I prefer to not reply to a video on the grounds that with staggering regularity, it leads to "Well, yes, it says that, but it really means...."

What my takeaway from this so far is that you believe that through meditation or something like it, humans can attain the godhead, is that a fair way to put it?

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:11:08 PM
To the rest.

You and I think along the same lines but I see local churches as useful to society in the tribal and fellowship way and that is why I call myself a Gnostic Christian and not just the usual agnostic.

I want to change the mainstream religions to the more atheist church type of organizations and not really destroy them altogether. That would go a long way to ending the homophobia and misogyny propagated by the mainstream religions.
If 'church' still means 'believing in things that cannot be independently demonstrated', then you can't really have an atheist church.  I would much prefer to see churches made unnecessary rather than merely made over.

I quite agree with the utility of the tribe, but let it be enlightened by reason without any fluff, frills or mummery.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:11:08 PM
"Is there still a belief in a soul or some other transcendent part of consciousness, an afterlife, any sort of eternal punishment?"

Soul, I define as life force.

We do not believe in eternal punishment as we do not see God as having to condemn his own creations. We fully believe in evolution and not a creator God. That is why we used to say creation from Yahweh was flawed, when speaking of the supernatural that we do not believe in, and why we wrote things like what follows.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

These days, I use this.

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

We are always at the best end, at all points in time. I call what I see evolving perfection. Always moving in time to a more perfect state, using U.S. English.
'Life force' is an awfully slippery thing.  Where's the line?  Are viruses and bacteriophages alive?  Are animals 'more alive' than plants?  Are humans by virtue of consciousness 'more alive' than animals?  It's also no more demonstrable than a putative soul is.

Further, you can't just point to a living thing and say it has a life force because it's alive.  You can say it has a life force when you can demonstrate a life force exists.  The closest we can get to a definition of life is that it has ongoing chemical processes fueled by the intake of material, and is in principle capable of reproduction.  Nothing in that indicates anything beyond chemical and biochemical processes.

As for being "demonstrable" that things cannot be other than what they areâ€"that is not demonstrated.  We have no basis on which to say that this is the best of all possible worlds.  The most that we can say is that it is a suitable world (and universe) for us to happen in.  Certainly we haven't any other habitable world to compare it to.

There's nothing inherent in this world, much less this universe, that commands we exist.  It wasn't created with us in mind, and just on the basis of the statistics of planetary geology and genetics, it's possible to imagine a world better suited for us (for example, one that can better withstand the environmental damage we're doing to it), or a species better suited to inhabit this world (perhaps amphibious to allow for colonization of bodies of water, or less demanding of nutritive resources).

This entire idea also goes away with the discovery of life elsewhere in the galaxy, or even just outside of the orbit of Marsâ€"material can and has transferred between Earth and Mars, so cross-contamination can be ruled out, but transferring material clear out to Jupiter and beyond appears not possible, so those can be considered pristine environmentsâ€"because unless we and they are absolutely identical, clearly this world, this *universe* is better suited to one over the other.

This is the same fallacy as the strong anthropic principle, or if you prefer, Douglas Adams' intelligent puddle:
Quote from: Douglas AdamsThis is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in â€" an interesting hole I find myself in â€" fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
You seem to want to make us as a species and as an intelligence somehow necessary, and the fact is, we're just not.  We happened, but we didn't need to happen.  Had we been otherwise, you could make all the exact same arguments as you have here, and they would be no more valid for they than we.

There is no demonstrable purpose to the universe other than to be, to follow the laws of physics and evolve in accordance with them.  It's not a "creation", it's just an existence.

Does humanity have a purpose?  None that it doesn't give itself.

And to be honest, I don't see anything put forward here that sounds much different from any other New Age-y self-actualization pop "psychology".

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:11:08 PM
As to "transcendent part of consciousness".

You will not believe what I say unless you give some credence to what this link shows of a cosmic consciousness. If you do, then I will show and tell.

In a nutshell, it posits that our magnetic shield is acting as a cosmic consciousness. If he was not a University prof and getting consistent results, I would likely not show his work.
 
A hint to my position is that I think I found what he did but without his machine. If you cannot give telepathy any credence then this topic dies here and you can concentrate on the rest.
Again, not interested in videos rather than direct explication and communication.  You can 'show and tell' on your own, and I can judge your evidence on its own merits.

Now, I am disinclined to accept the idea of Gaia or Galaxia or Universalia (to expand the idea of cosmic consciousness to its utmost), and it's not unheard of for university professors to be dead wrong, even for the best of reasons.

It stands to reason that were I connected to the rest of the universe, I should be able to tell on the basis of meditation alone where to look for radio signals from another intelligent species, where to look for stars with Earth-like planets, what lies within the permafrost of Mars and the ocean of Europa.  The only connection I have to the rest of the universe is atomic: that's where the atoms that make me up came from.  Except for the hydrogen, most of that came from Big Bang nucleosynthesis.  But that isn't a conscious, subconscious, or unconscious connection since atoms aren't conscious entities.

Telepathy and other alleged psychic abilities have failed again and again and again to meet the burden of proofâ€"and I have run some of the tests myself.  And I really wanted to believe such things were not only possible, but true.  But they didn't and still don't meet the burden of evidence, and wanting them to be so, or even saying that they're 'not impossible', doesn't make them so.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Greatest I am

Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2018, 01:29:38 PM
Yes, I have.  You know I am not Orthodox nor Orthopraxis ;-)  Prophets who tell you what you want to hear, are false prophets.

The clergy are always troublesome, but the laity need leadership.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  I am fortunate in falling outside that dialectic.  But I am not typical.

Neither am I and I would not have it any other way.

I am not sure that the laity need guidance. I see most religionists as just appeasing their tribal/fellowship needs, which are stronger than I realized since I have little of that, being a loner.

That and there are few positions available to give Joe public any power and churches tend to make their laity they have some, even if confined to the one church building they are in.

Regards
DL


Greatest I am

#78
Quote from: trdsf on April 12, 2018, 01:45:51 PM
I prefer to not reply to a video on the grounds that with staggering regularity, it leads to "Well, yes, it says that, but it really means...."

What my takeaway from this so far is that you believe that through meditation or something like it, humans can attain the godhead, is that a fair way to put it?

I could not get the split quote working so will do some splitting. Apologies.

That is a fair way to put it, yes. The Godhead being in your own head.

In Gnostic Christianity, when asked who our God is, we answer I am, and we really mean ourselves as we are autonomous entities and are in control of ourselves and not being controlled by outside forces unless we decide to let them control us.

If you cannot say that you have authority over yourself, you cannot be a Gnostic Christian.

--------

"If 'church' still means 'believing in things that cannot be independently demonstrated', then you can't really have an atheist church"

It does not seem to mean that to atheists and from what little I know, the word church is synonymous with meeting place. Unfortunately I could not find a reference to the older definition.


----------

"'Life force' is an awfully slippery thing.  Where's the line?  Are viruses and bacteriophages alive?  Are animals 'more alive' than plants?  Are humans by virtue of consciousness 'more alive' than animals?

??

Can you not tell when you look at something if it lives or not? I can although I have to use a microscope sometimes for the smallest life.

The law of the excluded middle says that there is life in something or not.

It does not try to say there is more or less as something either has life or not.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

#79
Quote from: trdsf on April 12, 2018, 01:45:51 PM

As for being "demonstrable" that things cannot be other than what they areâ€"that is not demonstrated.  We have no basis on which to say that this is the best of all possible worlds.  The most that we can say is that it is a suitable world (and universe) for us to happen in. 

You can demonstrate it for yourself and to your own standards in the scientific sense.

If you think that things cannot be other than what they are, then show how, given all the past history of what you are looking at, it could somehow be other than what it is. Easy for you to deny what I put but now prove your position.

We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world. Sure we can imagine better, but that imagined world is not the real world. For the moment, this is the only possible world so it must be the best world possible.

------------

I have nothing to argue against in your scientific views of the universe.

I do for this.
" You seem to want to make us as a species and as an intelligence somehow necessary, and the fact is, we're just not."

You indicated above this and in this that I am saying the universe was created for us. I make no such claim. I think we are here by chance and science says that if a meteor had not wiped out the dinosaurs, we mammals would have never been able to compete against them and would likely not be here.

------------

"Telepathy and other alleged psychic abilities have failed again and again and again to meet the burden of proof"

I agree.

But it has not failed to me as I have a witness/victim of it, even though I cannot replicate it at will due to not having the conditions I think are required to replicate it.

Regards
DL

trdsf

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:03:04 PM
I could not get the split quote working so will do some splitting. Apologies.

That is a fair way to put it, yes. The Godhead being in your own head.

In Gnostic Christianity, when asked who our God is, we answer I am, and we really mean ourselves as we are autonomous entities and are in control of ourselves and not being controlled by outside forces unless we decide to let them control us.

If you cannot say that you have authority over yourself, you cannot be a Gnostic Christian.
Not a problem, you made it clear which sections you were responding to.

I guess my question then becomes: if it's all within you, why bother with a god concept at all?  How does it become necessary, other than as an ideal to aspire to and focus on?

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:03:04 PM
Quote from: trdsf
"If 'church' still means 'believing in things that cannot be independently demonstrated', then you can't really have an atheist church"
It does not seem to mean that to atheists and from what little I know, the word church is synonymous with meeting place. Unfortunately I could not find a reference to the older definition.
Sorry, I was referring to churches as institutions, in the same way one refers to 'the Catholic Church' to mean not a specific building, but the overall belief structure, hierarchy, and everything.

In the long run, though, it's probably not useful to refer to 'atheist churches', insofar as 'church' is generally understood to mean a place of worship, not merely a meeting place.  If I say "I'm going to church on Sunday", virtually everyone will assume that I mean I am going to church services on Sunday, for the purpose of taking part in a religious rite.  If I mean that I'm going to hear a recital of Bach organ pieces and not for a religious service, I really do need to specify that I'm going to a church for that purpose.

So 'church' is unto itself a loaded term regardless of any subsidiary definitions it may have, at least not without the word being reclaimed and taken into general use as meaning something other than a place for religious worship, which is something that's unlikely.  Personally, I don't want the word.  Do we need more atheist meeting halls?  Sure.  But I think we can do perfectly well without atheist "churches" (or "atheist" churches).


Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:03:04 PM
Quote from: trdsf
"'Life force' is an awfully slippery thing.  Where's the line?  Are viruses and bacteriophages alive?  Are animals 'more alive' than plants?  Are humans by virtue of consciousness 'more alive' than animals?
??

Can you not tell when you look at something if it lives or not? I can although I have to use a microscope sometimes for the smallest life.

The law of the excluded middle says that there is life in something or not.

It does not try to say there is more or less as something either has life or not.
I don't think the 'excluded middle' applies here.  There seems to me to be a continuumâ€"it seems to me pretty clear that a bacterium is 'more alive' in a sense than a virus is, in that a bacterium has more complex processes than the virus, which only exists to mindlessly reproduce itself.  I think on some level you can say that we eukaryotes are 'more alive' than bacteria (and by extension, viruses) as we're able to internalize more processes than bacteria do.

But I don't know that I would say a virus is not aliveâ€"it fulfills the basic necessary process that makes it subject to evolution, that is, reproduction.  And viruses do evolve, otherwise your flu shot would be a one-time-ever deal.  Further, some classes of virus, particularly the phages, are quite complex, with multiple parts operating analogously to different organs.

In any case, it seems it must be that there is a continuum between 'alive' and 'not alive'.  The abiogenetic development of life wasn't a sharp line between 'not alive' and 'alive'; it must have begun with a molecule only capable of making crude copies of itself, and over deep time, as benevolent copying errors proliferated and malignant errors died out.  While somewhere along the line it crossed over from random chemical reactions to something we'd recognize as life, I'm confident that if you actually had a clear record of the chemical changes over time and took hundreds of biologists and asked them to mark the line between 'life' and 'not-life', you'd get hundreds of different answers.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

"We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world." ... quoting Leibniz, aka Dr Pangloss (Candide).

I simply can't agree to that, from an empirical POV.  Human experience empirically denies that human life is good (in an absolute way).  I can only have a relative good (yesterday is better than today, or tomorrow is better than today).  I have to ask, better or worse compared to what?  And once we include inevitable bias, we discover the distortion of optimism and pessimism.

I agree that there is only one world, but I think that the thought experiment "best of all possible X" to be empty, like calculating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin (but as an optimization problem).  This leaning comes about from the Greek idea of arete ... or excellence, which Greeks strived for, but could hardly apply to a gad-about like Zeus.

"If you cannot say that you have authority over yourself, you cannot be a Gnostic Christian." ... I agree.

"if it's all within you, why bother with a god concept at all?" ... is a false dichotomy.  It isn't just me vs god, but it could be god = me.  But clearly a demigod, like Augustus Caesar, not like the Christian Father god, more like the Christian Son god, which is what the Gospels are about, a fictionalized demigod.  Augustus as a demigod can't raise from the dead, and neither did Jesus.  But a dead hero like Julius Caesar, could be "translated" to the heavens, theologically, making Octavian (later Augustus) the son of a god while still alive.

This is no coincidence.  Savior was an official title of Augustus .. how could Jesus not also be a savior.  What pagan society most objected to in Christianity, is that it was originally democratic (ekklesia, the original Greek word for church, is the whole assembly of men, not just the quorum of the synagogue (aka minyan)).  Jesus in the Gospels says, that it only takes 2, not 10, to make an ekklesia.  This is where I break with GIA ... deity isn't really personal as it is relational.  But it takes two enlightened people to manifest objectively.

And originally, Christianity had the negative press of being Jewish.  Paul changed that forever.  Paul made social gnosticsm available for the masses, not just the elites, and for Gentiles, not for Jews.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Greatest I Am--Unity would approve of your use of 'I Am'; at one time so would I--well, at least sort of.  I ended up thinking that I Am is not really god, since there is no god (and not even Unity persuaded me into thinking or believing there was one), but one's best (or highest if one prefers) possible self.  And even then, the measuring would be done by one's self, based on self assessed values and ideals. 
As for this being the best possible universe because it is the only possible universe--I can see that if one is striving to 'live in the moment' or 'in the now'.  That can be a good state to achieve.  At one time I strove to do that.  What realization I came to was that it helped me appreciate what I was, where I was and all that I have and am.  But I realized that living in the now means the past has no value and the future is never going to come.  Only the 'now' exists.  I found that made it impossible for me to plan for the future or to use the past to evaluate what (if anything) I would like to work on changing or adding in my life.  So, it does not matter to me if this is the best possible universe or if this is the only possible universe there could be.  What matters to me is that I appreciate the 'now' and then use what happened to get me to that 'now' and what choices I can make to make my coming 'now' better than it is now.  If you think that now is the best possible and/or only possible universe, then good for you.  I don't think you are correct, but then that is my choice and not yours.
l
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on April 12, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
Not a problem, you made it clear which sections you were responding to.

I guess my question then becomes: if it's all within you, why bother with a god concept at all?  How does it become necessary, other than as an ideal to aspire to and focus on?
It does not seem to mean that to atheists and from what little I know, the word church is synonymous with meeting place. Unfortunately I could not find a reference to the older definition.

Sorry, I was referring to churches as institutions, in the same way one refers to 'the Catholic Church' to mean not a specific building, but the overall belief structure, hierarchy, and everything.

In the long run, though, it's probably not useful to refer to 'atheist churches', insofar as 'church' is generally understood to mean a place of worship, not merely a meeting place.  If I say "I'm going to church on Sunday", virtually everyone will assume that I mean I am going to church services on Sunday, for the purpose of taking part in a religious rite.  If I mean that I'm going to hear a recital of Bach organ pieces and not for a religious service, I really do need to specify that I'm going to a church for that purpose.

So 'church' is unto itself a loaded term regardless of any subsidiary definitions it may have, at least not without the word being reclaimed and taken into general use as meaning something other than a place for religious worship, which is something that's unlikely.  Personally, I don't want the word.  Do we need more atheist meeting halls?  Sure.  But I think we can do perfectly well without atheist "churches" (or "atheist" churches).

??

Can you not tell when you look at something if it lives or not? I can although I have to use a microscope sometimes for the smallest life.

The law of the excluded middle says that there is life in something or not.

It does not try to say there is more or less as something either has life or not.

I don't think the 'excluded middle' applies here.  There seems to me to be a continuumâ€"it seems to me pretty clear that a bacterium is 'more alive' in a sense than a virus is, in that a bacterium has more complex processes than the virus, which only exists to mindlessly reproduce itself.  I think on some level you can say that we eukaryotes are 'more alive' than bacteria (and by extension, viruses) as we're able to internalize more processes than bacteria do.

But I don't know that I would say a virus is not aliveâ€"it fulfills the basic necessary process that makes it subject to evolution, that is, reproduction.  And viruses do evolve, otherwise your flu shot would be a one-time-ever deal.  Further, some classes of virus, particularly the phages, are quite complex, with multiple parts operating analogously to different organs.

In any case, it seems it must be that there is a continuum between 'alive' and 'not alive'.  The abiogenetic development of life wasn't a sharp line between 'not alive' and 'alive'; it must have begun with a molecule only capable of making crude copies of itself, and over deep time, as benevolent copying errors proliferated and malignant errors died out.  While somewhere along the line it crossed over from random chemical reactions to something we'd recognize as life, I'm confident that if you actually had a clear record of the chemical changes over time and took hundreds of biologists and asked them to mark the line between 'life' and 'not-life', you'd get hundreds of different answers.

Seems to me that you are winning this discussion, though I don't care to join at this time.  I don't see an entry point that feels right for me.  Keep up the good replies though.  :)
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Mike CL ... you seem rather Buddhist tonight.  Have I forgotten that part of you?  Maybe.

Even if one is only an ape, one can be a hero among apes, a demigod ape.  Dr Zaius for instance.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2018, 09:56:58 PM
Mike CL ... you seem rather Buddhist tonight.  Have I forgotten that part of you?  Maybe.

Even if one is only an ape, one can be a hero among apes, a demigod ape.  Dr Zaius for instance.
Yeah, Baruch, that is a side of me you do seem to forget.  It is something that Unity strengthened--but it is a bit ironic an atheist finds a better way to view life and the universe through Fillmore's thoughts. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Cavebear

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 12, 2018, 11:11:46 PM
Yeah, Baruch, that is a side of me you do seem to forget.  It is something that Unity strengthened--but it is a bit ironic an atheist finds a better way to view life and the universe through Fillmore's thoughts.

Baruch is desperate to find associates here these days.  I spent over a year trying to connect to him before I gave up.  I've never been sure what his purpose here is (though I assume it has an honorable a purpose in his views), and that the discussions give him some personal pleasure I don't understand. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 01:44:53 AM
Baruch is desperate to find associates here these days.  I spent over a year trying to connect to him before I gave up.  I've never been sure what his purpose here is (though I assume it has an honorable a purpose in his views), and that the discussions give him some personal pleasure I don't understand.

I have my cats, same as you.  And I am still working.  I have more than enough companionship.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

trdsf

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
You can demonstrate it for yourself and to your own standards in the scientific sense.

If you think that things cannot be other than what they are, then show how, given all the past history of what you are looking at, it could somehow be other than what it is. Easy for you to deny what I put but now prove your position.

We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world. Sure we can imagine better, but that imagined world is not the real world. For the moment, this is the only possible world so it must be the best world possible.
I never said they can't be other than as they are, only that they aren't other than as they are, and that we cannot derive any special information about ourselves from that because anyone in any other reality that might have been could make the exact same claims for the exact same reasons.

Also, define 'best'.  And who decides it's best anyway?  Your 'best' could be my 'worst'.  My 'best' could be your 'worst'.

Regardless, statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that this is, in fact, the best of all possible worlds.  Just because it's the currently existing world doesn't mean it's the best possible one, and the principle of mediocrity means that when you have one data point, you assume it's more likely average than extremeâ€"and best (and worst) is an extreme by definition.

There are any number of ways that this world could be different that I think would be better.  It just takes one event happening (or not happening) when it shouldn't (or should) have.  Whether or not they would be demonstrably better had, say, the Library of Alexandria not been destroyed, or had Constantine chosen something other than Christianity to be his state religion, or more recently, had Gavrilo Princip failed to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand, there really is no way to say because those events didn't happen.

Regardless of the triggering event or events, though, I can certainly imagine better worlds than this one.  A world where population growth leveled off a few billion people ago, a world where the first warnings about climate change were heeded, a world where human exploration of our solar system didn't stop nearly fifty years agoâ€"I can assert that those would be better than this one with at least as much authority as you can assert that this is the best.

The fact that this world could be better means that it cannot be stated with certainty that this is the best of all possible worlds.  You cannot assert any more than that the world is what it is; otherwise, you are claiming knowledge that you cannot possibly have.

That doesn't mean that this world definitely isn't the best possible, because it could be.  It means only that we cannot say with any certainty that it is, because it could be that it's not.


Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
I have nothing to argue against in your scientific views of the universe.

I do for this.
"You seem to want to make us as a species and as an intelligence somehow necessary, and the fact is, we're just not."

You indicated above this and in this that I am saying the universe was created for us. I make no such claim. I think we are here by chance and science says that if a meteor had not wiped out the dinosaurs, we mammals would have never been able to compete against them and would likely not be here.
But when you assert that this is the best of all possible worlds, that does make a claim that it must be for us, since it's clearly not the best possible world for any theoretical intelligent dinosaurs, or dolphins, or any other species that might have risen to intelligence in our place.


Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
"Telepathy and other alleged psychic abilities have failed again and again and again to meet the burden of proof"

I agree.

But it has not failed to me as I have a witness/victim of it, even though I cannot replicate it at will due to not having the conditions I think are required to replicate it.
That's anectodal, however.  Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.  I've had events I can't explain happen to me.  D'you know what my explanation for them is?

It's "I don't know."

That's the only possible explanation for an unrepeatable event.  It simply cannot be extrapolated to any more than that, not with any legitimacy.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

"That's the only possible explanation for an unrepeatable event.  It simply cannot be extrapolated to any more than that, not with any legitimacy."

This is why the paranormal is irrelevant to me.  But I don't find ordinary experience to be ordinary, or common explanation to be persuasive.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.