EnviroLink Forum

Let's not make it so convoluted.
Tens of thousands die every day from starvation. An omnibenevolent omnipotent entity, if such existed, could prevent that.
But it happens. But the supernatural entity, if such exists, doesn't.
Doesn't that call in question omnibenevolent?

If you saw a child about to dart into the road and get struck down by a vehicle would you just allow the child to do so if you could prevent that happening?
I wouldn't and I don't think you would either. Yet, we are mere mortals. We do what we can within the limitations of our capabilities. An omnipotent entity would not have such constraints.
Yet children get killed in RTAs. The omnipotent could prevent that. And any number of human and natural disasters. But they happen.
Droughts, floods, famine, wars, murders......
And the mythical big guy just lets them happen?



Just good solid supportable evidence would bolster your case no end. I have yet to see any from any source.



That puts believers in the position of believing in some supernatural entity that can neither be detected nor has evidence.

On that basis isn't it more logical to simply accept the logical?

I could protect my child in a way that she would never suffer so much as a scratch, much less starve, ever. That’s enough of a problem when they’re younger, much less when grown and gone their own way. Am I a bad parent because I don’t do all I could do to keep my child from faltering? Of course not.



From what I hear, he gave us brains and free will, which doesn't preclude humans from cruel acts, generally stupid stuff, or simply making mistakes.


Just good solid supportable evidence would bolster your case no end. I have yet to see any from any source.[/quote]

My case? What? If you’re talking about my beliefs, don’t hold your breath.


That puts believers in the position of believing in some supernatural entity that can neither be detected nor has evidence.[/quote]

You mean “has not” been detected. As for evidence, I’ve already said that I am willing to accept that outside of science in this case so long as it doesn’t run counter to science. If you are not, then I have none to offer. Non-believers, to me, are like children who have yet to experience love. There’s nothing wrong with them and they’re not necessarily bad people.

_________________
TANG SOO!

My case? What? If you’re talking about my beliefs, don’t hold your breath.


That puts believers in the position of believing in some supernatural entity that can neither be detected nor has evidence.[/quote]

You mean “has not” been detected. As for evidence, I’ve already said that I am willing to accept that outside of science in this case so long as it doesn’t run counter to science. If you are not, then I have none to offer. Non-believers, to me, are like children who have yet to experience love. There’s nothing wrong with them and they’re not necessarily bad people.[/quote]

Religion is a story as is science to some, but admittedly to a lesser degree.

There is no love in belief.

Science is just simply science. No need for belief. Although ethics is another conversation.
Non-believers, to me, are just a little closer to the truth.
If we can get over superstitions or the mind's capability of forming beliefs .... so much the better.

When done, what are we left with?

When there is no "daddy" over-seeing our actions and protecting us from ourselves .... we are left naked, (so to speak). From there/here ..... this is where responsibility really begins.

Once more, I'm not talking about religion, but rather personal faith.



I haven no idea what you mean by that.



I guess we're even then. Faith is faith, no need for science. That is, unless you're telling me not to believe at all, in which case I would respond by telling you not to be scientific.



To you, perhaps.



That would be your belief.



Responsibility for what, exactly?

_________________
TANG SOO!

[quote="Fosgate"
I could protect my child in a way that she would never suffer so much as a scratch, much less starve, ever. [/quote]
Maybe you could. But can you realistically claim that you can prevent all possible accidents?

At about four years old, my eldest daughter was in bed and asleep. She evidently awoke and danced around on her bed, fell and split her chin on the pine frame.
I knew nothing of this until the next morning when I went to wake her. Blood everywhere.
She'd evidently got over the trauma, if she ever had such, and all she wanted to do was to go to school.

Limit free will enough and sure, probably so. It might get illegal and if not, still adversely affect development.



Pleased to hear it. They are indeed resilient.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Quite so.
Ours are all grown and we now have grandchildren.
The closest is a 200 mile round trip but she stays with us for a few days at at a time.
Of course, like all grandchildren, she is a gem.
And she does a few things that surprise us.
When it's time to go to bed she just goes to bed.
"Do you want Nana or Granddad to take you upstairs?"
"No thanks."
And off she goes. Brushes her teeth. Changes. And gets into bed.
She knows where her bedroom is. Naturally we check on her but she does just fine.
This her having a discussion with Mrs B about what's at the bottom of her ice cream:



She was convinced that the bit at the bottom wasn't good.
She was right. It was a gum ball.

Amazing. I've yet to experience granchildren myself. With my parents only 4 hours away though, it's an easy weekend trip to see them beaming over my daughter and her cousins.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Thank you kindly. She is a very photogenic little girl.

Did I miss an image somewhere?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Did you see the cutie pie granddaughter with the ice cream cone?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No! But now I do notice a couple of boxes with a little red x in it. Will have to pull this up on my other computer.

_________________
TANG SOO!

There is no love in belief.



Okay, fair enough. Admittedly a bit cryptic. I mean that love is not of the mind while belief is. We can have ideas or beliefs about love, but those are of the brain/mind, while love is as mysterious as the universe. No idea or belief can pin it. It is not OF the mind. It is totally mysterious and as much as we intellectualize it or form beliefs about it .... none of that can come to any final answer. It's a matter of surrendering to a very profound mystery that can never really be known. So we may believe in love, but love is not of belief which is of the mind.

Science is just simply science. No need for belief.



Hmmm .... not sure about this one. Not sure what you are saying here.

Although ethics is another conversation.
Non-believers, to me, are just a little closer to the truth.



Well, ya. Faith is essentially belief. One could believe in many things and most belief is based on some kind of prior knowledge. So, faith in what? Where is there need for faith when life is all around us?

If we can get over superstitions or the mind's capability of forming beliefs .... so much the better.



I don't see any honesty here. To call it my belief? I have none. I've already said so. It's an opinion for sure, but not a belief!

When there is no "daddy" over-seeing our actions and protecting us from ourselves .... we are left naked, (so to speak). From there/here ..... this is where responsibility really begins.



Responsibilty for all of it. The state of the world. We can't take a back seat
to any of it when we take full responsibility for all of it ... each and every one of us. It's so easy to depend on, rely on, some outside authority, and then leave it to that authority. We may say, for instance, that "society" is responsible for the ills that plague us all. But the fact is that WE ARE SOCIETY. There is a huge sense of responsibility when one has done away with belief. There's nobody ... no over-seer, no daddy, and ultimately no authority who decides what is good or bad. It's done by us. We're it. The way we treat our neighbors, our children, our wives and husbands. There is nobody to depend or defend us. We ARE it. Once seen, it it is both a major responsibility as well as a major relief.

While some little ones would have decided that the bottom was nothing but yuminess, she decreed that the bottom wasn't good. And she was right because for the time, she gets to assert her wisdom ..... and she will be right until she goes to school.

Not to rain ..... she is gorgeous!

Actually, it very much is of the mind, along with any other emotion. Improving upon your statement, there is no love without the mind.



I'm saying that neither is needed in order for the other to exist but more importantly, that they do not necessarily oppose each other.



People make judgements, decisions, and draw conclusions based on anecdotal evidence provided by this very life and world surrounding them. As a scientist and believer, I have the ability to distinguish between that which is simply unexplainable and that which appears to be something else entirely. It's not something I would expect a non-believer to understand, for they have yet to experience that about which I am talking.



http://thesaurus.com/browse/opinion?s=t

Main Entry: opinion  [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA/əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: belief



Or not, if one *believes* that society is responsible. I *believe* what you're saying here is correct.



So, what's bad can actually be good (and vice versa) if we simply decide it is so? Now that I don't buy.

_________________
TANG SOO!