(November 12, 2018 at 1:52 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Is there some reason that the universe couldn't be in the same situation?  That in one form or another, it has always been and will always be?  Why do we need a meat fairy, but meat fairy doesn't need a fairy making fairy?

The actual answer would be the something it the universe at some point of time existed that lead to another state to another state. However the universe is changing.

I don't think it's a fallacy of composition to say whole chain is temporal and an effect, and so none of it is eternal and hence if you really think about it needs time.

Sometimes it's a fallacy of composition, but to me clearly is not the case, when in an infinite chain of effects, the whole thing is an effect, not of it is a sufficient cause.  The whole thing is an effect, just like billion effects in a chain of effects is an effect.

Like the whole thing you can draw it forever --------------------->

backwards, but it's still made out of those effects. 

The whole thing over all from beginning to end, is also temporal. At most you can say one part of it always existed, but which part is that?

That proves the whole thing is temporal and an effect in need of cause.

It takes some mindfulness to see this, but once you do.

You will see, it's a damn effect infinite backwards or not, it's a damn effect.

The natural explanation for pain and suffering is a bunch of mechanoreceptors all over your meat suit which alert to damage and release a flood of chemicals to your brain in order to get you, to get that meat suit, out of the way.

If meat fairy is the explanation for your meat suit..then this pain and suffering is your meat fairy's grand design.

Obviously, I have no need of reference to a meat fairy, since we have a meat suit either way.

(November 12, 2018 at 1:56 pm)Everena Wrote: Define natural in that context and then explain what this "natural" explanation is for pain and suffering, especially emotional pain like grief, loneliness, sadness, loss of spouse through divorce or break up, hurt feelings etc

You speak as though I'm referring to something outside of the realm of possibility. Natural is not outside of anything except your apologetic clinginess.

A quick look at a dictionary definition shall suffice.

You continue to disservice yourself. Sad.

(November 12, 2018 at 1:50 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(November 12, 2018 at 1:27 pm)Everena Wrote: I have not just had positive experiences. I have had incredible and undeniable.spiritual experiences (some mutual/shared experiences) and signs that have proven God to me beyond any and all doubt.

Intensely spiritual experiences prove nothing. "God" is but one possible interpretation of them. A Taoist may have the same experience and interpret the same phenomena differently. Some Mahayana Buddhists interpret such experiences as Avalokitesvara (the being)... yet others say that Avalokitesvara is merely a state of being and that the only being involved is the one having the experience-- or (more precisely) being itself.

The point is, "God" is merely an extrapolation. I'm not saying that any given experience of yours wasn't a genuine revelation. It might have been. All I'm saying is that it's your revelation that relates to your subjective existence. You are brutalizing any genuineness in the experience by taking as a cue to change the beliefs of others.

Fine, they prove nothing to someone like you. They have proven God to me and bilions and billions of others beyond any and all doubt.

(November 12, 2018 at 1:57 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(November 12, 2018 at 1:52 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Is there some reason that the universe couldn't be in the same situation?  That in one form or another, it has always been and will always be?  Why do we need a meat fairy, but meat fairy doesn't need a fairy making fairy?

The actual answer would be the something it the universe at some point of time existed that lead to another state to another state. However the universe is changing.

I don't think it's a fallacy of composition to say whole chain is temporal and an effect, and so none of it is eternal and hence if you really think about it needs time.

Sometimes it's a fallacy of composition, but to me clearly is not the case, when in an infinite chain of effects, the whole thing is an effect, not of it is a sufficient cause.  The whole thing is an effect, just like billion effects in a chain of effects is an effect.

Like the whole thing you can draw it forever --------------------->

backwards, but it's still made out of those effects. 

The whole thing over all from beginning to end, is also temporal. At most you can say one part of it always existed, but which part is that?

That proves the whole thing is temporal and an effect in need of cause.

It takes some mindfulness to see this, but once you do.

You will see, it's a damn effect infinite backwards or not, it's a damn effect.

Infinite series do not have a first member so they don't need a cause. Maybe if you reflected on shit that you actually understand you would be more successful.

---

(November 12, 2018 at 1:59 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 12, 2018 at 1:50 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Intensely spiritual experiences prove nothing. "God" is but one possible interpretation of them. A Taoist may have the same experience and interpret the same phenomena differently. Some Mahayana Buddhists interpret such experiences as Avalokitesvara (the being)... yet others say that Avalokitesvara is merely a state of being and that the only being involved is the one having the experience-- or (more precisely) being itself.

The point is, "God" is merely an extrapolation. I'm not saying that any given experience of yours wasn't a genuine revelation. It might have been. All I'm saying is that it's your revelation that relates to your subjective existence. You are brutalizing any genuineness in the experience by taking as a cue to change the beliefs of others.

Fine, they prove nothing to someone like you. They have proven God to me and bilions and billions of others beyond any and all doubt.

Actually I believe it was Lysistrata that proved it to Lee Strobel, and similar emotional based reactions in people like Neo and Mystic here.

(November 12, 2018 at 1:40 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 12, 2018 at 12:58 pm)Whateverist Wrote: "Whip up" .. "create", what verb do you prefer to refer to the linkage by which all that higher intelligence produced all the life we see?

I don't believe that higher intelligence created life. I believe higher intelligence created this planet (yes using chemicals that already existed) and our flesh, but all conscious life is eternal and we are just inhabiting these fleshly bodies.

Do you think all animals are similarly animated by an external factor that is eternal?  Or does the ethereal component only congeal to sapient critters?  If so I wonder if you think some particularly intelligent bonobos make the cut while some particularly dense humans miss out?

(November 12, 2018 at 1:57 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 12, 2018 at 1:01 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Still not seeing a point here.

Still waiting on that point.  

Really? You were upset because I said Krauss's bs hypotheses were not real science....... and so I said what I said to you in reply

(November 12, 2018 at 2:00 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 12, 2018 at 1:57 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The actual answer would be the something it the universe at some point of time existed that lead to another state to another state. However the universe is changing.

I don't think it's a fallacy of composition to say whole chain is temporal and an effect, and so none of it is eternal and hence if you really think about it needs time.

Sometimes it's a fallacy of composition, but to me clearly is not the case, when in an infinite chain of effects, the whole thing is an effect, not of it is a sufficient cause.  The whole thing is an effect, just like billion effects in a chain of effects is an effect.

Like the whole thing you can draw it forever --------------------->

backwards, but it's still made out of those effects. 

The whole thing over all from beginning to end, is also temporal. At most you can say one part of it always existed, but which part is that?

That proves the whole thing is temporal and an effect in need of cause.

It takes some mindfulness to see this, but once you do.

You will see, it's a damn effect infinite backwards or not, it's a damn effect.

Infinite series do not have a first member so they don't need a cause.  Maybe if you reflected on shit that you actually understand you would be more successful.

Nope the whole series if it exists all needs a cause... like for example show me one part of it that doesn't need a cause. Just one.  Like present state of it needed a past cause which needed a past cause.

So that claim is bunk.

I explained also how the whole thing is an effect still.

The fallacy composition doesn't apply to it.

Infinite series as in mathematical concept yes doesn't need a cause. Because it's imaginary.

(November 12, 2018 at 1:59 pm)Everena Wrote: Fine, they prove nothing to someone like you. They have proven God to me and bilions and billions of others beyond any and all doubt.

You may take solace in the fact that many people are just as silly as you are..but that fact doesn't make any of you less silly.

(November 12, 2018 at 1:59 pm)Kit Wrote:

(November 12, 2018 at 1:56 pm)Everena Wrote: Define natural in that context and then explain what this "natural" explanation is for pain and suffering, especially emotional pain like grief, loneliness, sadness, loss of spouse through divorce or break up, hurt feelings etc

You speak as though I'm referring to something outside of the realm of possibility.  Natural is not outside of anything except your apologetic clinginess.

A quick look at a dictionary definition shall suffice.

You continue to disservice yourself.  Sad.

No, I said you define natural in that context. Go ahead and try since it is your only explanation for literally everything. tick tock