This thread was started twice with a clone image, I have responded in the Science Communication group

Science Communication/Scientist-Scientist Communication/Evolutionism vs. Religious believes

It is extremely difficult to determine what is being asserted or denied in this thread. All I can say would be to urge men to exercise the four virtues: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment as it relates to these issues... and all other issues, as well.

Nice Bill

Using different words, my message is just about the same. As you said: "...would be to urge men to exercise the four virtues: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment as it relates to these issues... and all other issues, as well. Thanks Bill! - Enjoy the holly days! What is being scientific or not is just a mater of interpretation, likes, agreements and the rest... Science is not always observations under the microscope, nor knowing everything, nor always relating to bibliography or statistical data with repetitive samples and trial / errors but also an open window to the fact that not everything that is real it has been seen or touched. Keeping the windows open will allow fresh air in, but if it's too cold or too hot, one can close the window to keep the comfort of the environment is used to. I do not mean to make anybody feel uncomfortable but rather suggest an alternative: we don't know what we don't know, so let's search for the truth, open the window to the world...

I like what you said Adrian as you sugested, I think people should open their eyes and ears to see and listen so as to search for the truth.

Thanks Ibrahim. Perhaps you may like also the group, looking at your profile, http://www.researchgate.net/group/Ecology_Economics_and_Non-Monetary_Values_The_Roll_of_States_and_Governments/

It is a metaphor dear Alexander. Metaphors are often used in Philosophy type groups and else others ;-). Or... perhaps... Oh, will you bring your dog to a coming conference? Will be lovely ;-)

...open the window to the world... = "open mind or critical thinking" = "Keeping the windows open will allow fresh air in..."

It is interesting that you say that, because there are those that assume that thinking requires language, and the smartest dog on record could recognize but not speak 200 words.

I have limited myself to an animal model of consciousness so as not to get into the issue of thinking before we know more about how the brain works, the rest of my work being so controversial that although it is getting limited support, it is more that others are thinking similar thoughts than anyone is willing to accept mine.

For instance my short term memory model has taken a completely different turn than Estes Model that has been touted in many psychological journals in its newest configurations, and, I find myself, reading books that support the idea that the Ventro-Lateral PFC reflects the specialized cortex Modules of the brain, instead of being the location where everything is coded as was suggested when scientists continued to find neuron after neuron that coded for one thing or another, until someone pointed out that they were the same neurons just coding for different things because the mind was working in a different part of its memory.

I think that the problem is that "Think" has taken on too wide a meaning, we need to narrow it down some, so we know whether or not non-verbal animals can think. Consider what you just said, is evaluation and hesitation really a sign of thinking? I ask because I really don't know.

Dogs think a great deal, they can estimate possibilities, find the shorter and better ways to reach a point, are emotional, love, cry when lonely, dance on music....we don't know what is inside them, the communication language is much more limited between humans and other animals, other forms of life. Often humans have problems communicating but that is a different "soup" of thought. I love dogs Alexander.

After Teilhard de Chardin, there are not contradictions between religion and evolution.It will be very important to read his books.

Dogs are very expressive, and often let you know exactly what they want, without being able to use words.

That is not my point, my point, is, that without a consensus on what "thinking" is, we cannot really judge whether even "Humans" think. It makes it a little difficult to design a machine that everyone will say is thinking, if only because no one agrees what thinking is, except at a very unsophisticated level, and if they choose not to apply it to dogs, well, then by their definitions what dogs are doing is not thinking.

This is all made even more complicated by the assumptions of the past, as to what thinking is. If we stick to past historical concepts of thought, then we quickly learn that the human brain doesn't work that way. So we are left with the question, do humans actually think?

It's all tied in with the idea of Will. And Will Power. Personally I have great WONT power, I don't do many things I should, so forget getting me to do something I shouldn't. The whole subject of Will, is critical to the concept of thought, in that we assume conscious choice about the nature of the thoughts. Thinking directed by consciousness is called deliberation, and thinking caused by random uncontrolled reverie is not.

The assumption is that THOUGHT itself is a guilded element based on consciousness. One of the reasons that philosophers have a real problem with Libetts work, is that it suggests that Unconscious Mechanisms are much more involved in our mental processing, and conscious mechanisms much later in the processinng system than classically expected. As a result, the whole question of Conscious Direction of Thought, needs to be rethought. Where does the Unconscious leave off, and Conscious Direction start?

Could a dog, be able to Unconsciously express itself so well, or should we assume that consciousness has nothing to do with thought, except that it is associated to thought somehow, when we experience it. The boundaries are not clear, how much of what we label thought, is really unconscious processing done at a high level of sophistication, and how much is actual consciousness directed, or language connected.

Eisa, I understand your reluctance to embrace the animal nature of man.

While many humans are willing to see animals and even computers as acting like men, they are not willing to admit that men act like animals. The very idea that men could come from animals, or that their actions can be derived from the actions of animals, is repugnant. But partly this is a social and religious repugnance, not earned by the animals themselves, but implied by the call to Trogladytism that many belief systems use to try to control behavior of humans.

We are taught not to act like animals, under the misapprehension that animals act as badly as young children who have not yet learned, to act well. The teachings devolve to animals are THEM, and HUMANS are US. But the same logic applied to skin color or religion causes wars, that destroy the lives of millions of people. Here in North America, vast herds of Buffaloe were killed for their hides, because they were animals. The natives didn't do it unless they were starving, it was Western Civilization that demanded the hides, despite the cost to the native lifestyle. No one cared that they had destroyed the lively hood of hundreds of tribes of natives, because they were seen as savages, as "THEM" instead of "US". Essentially it was an indirect genocide, couched in the colonialism of the day, and cleaned up in the press to make it a positive thing.

So ask yourself which was the greater crime, the genocide of the Humans or the Genocide of the Buffaloe who still survive but in sub-optimal populations insufficient to feed the remaining population of natives. The answer is not quite as clear cut as it might seem, if we assume that Buffaloe are thinking animals. Are they? Define thinking, the natives thought they were, and asked for forgiveness for harvesting their meat to live off of. (They didn't ask forgiveness for stealing another indians pony, or for attacking their villiage, but that is another matter).

What most "True Believers object to, is the connection between humans and Simians. Well we can't choose our ancestors, but the spotty nature of archeological evidence is often touted as a good reason to think that there is no link between the species.

Unfortunately for that concept, there is Genetic Evidence that brings Chimpanzees within 1% of having the same DNA as us, and Macaque Monkeys even closer. They aren't our direct ancestors, instead we must look to the hominids for that, but their branch of the genetic tree lies much too close to our own, to be ignored. So the question becomes, Why are you so sure that GOD or Allah, didn't prototype before he got around to designing humans, and leave a few prototypes hanging around to evolve in tandem with us?

One problem pertaining to the 'Holy Quran' goes back to the fact that it supposedly represents things which the Arabian Moon god directly communicated to the so-called 'Prophet,' Mohamed. Thus the original Arabic text is inherently prior to and superior to any interpretation of it.

Contrast such a position with that of Christianity, which says that the Bible was written by men who were inspired by god... yet always subject to the necessity for interpretation.

Thus Islam is locked into a Seventh Century understanding of the world.

Ok, Eisa, now I have you right where I want you.

Heh, heh,

If we look at it, in one sense Evolution is an automatic prototyping system, where populations of individuals create new recombinations each generation, and those recombinations are tested by entropy (survival) so only the sufficiently fit survive.

So, by the same logic that allows me to suggest that god prototyped humans before he made them, I can say with authority, that there is no reason why he had to get his hands dirty, and actually build the prototypes himself. Why do we insist that god design us directly when he has this wonderful prototyping system that he can program and let go, perhaps early in the formation of the Universe, and spend his sundays at the Golf Course?

I don't know about you, but personally I am really interested in the idea of being able to build my own home manufactoring capability based on RepRap technology. I might spend some time designing the odd trinket, but I am not going to build them myself with my dremel, I am going to use the RepRap to build them for me. Evolution is just this really basic robotic system that doesn't need constant fiddling because it can do it itself. I don't need to mill every piece of plastic I make into a trinket, if I have a robot to do it for me. So why shouldn't God have the same right with designing animals, and humans?

#H1-121. One of the things i like in this thread it's number of contributors and their diversity, even though the numbers are still below countable with our fingers.

I had been thinking Bill or David may design a taxonomy based threads policy, so that we can see if it can improve the situation. Taxonomy of themes may be adapted from the United nations or Library of Congress or whatever i don't know better, classifications. Some encyclopedia might have or some list of concepts/universals may be designed by them. David may be able to get some language based lists also. Can be tree type or simple alphabetic list. I have no reason why this structure is better than the present democratic/any-single-idea threads; it will help channelize newcomers and make their navigation to boil down their ideas easier.

I have taken the liberty to suggest, only i hope my contributions would conform to minimum standards. I would only clarify my style is wonder/question based, and my question marks may be declumsifiable in to full stops. However, even after so much preamble, my basic illiteracy better not become camouflaged.

First of all thanks for the gleanings I could make from you all.

1. Adrian Toader-Williams, Romania, Dec 16, 2010 12:08 am.

@. I take it that, ignorance kills/prevents the mental possibilities. as to it's contribution to ineffective care, that's also always there.

Ignorance is a word i like, and i could never fault people for their ignorance [that i insist the person may bcome better aware, is separate from this; it's like, so far ok, henceforth can go to higher levels where we any way will enjoy newer ignorances!][why get frustrated!].

________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Alexander Hellemans, Germany, Dec 16, 2010 8:59 am.

@*. I don't how come people want to doubt that. There is no need to limit thinking to language. If we are unable to comprehend how without language, then we have to find out what the animals do without. To limit thought or logic to humans, i think, is mere superiority complex, and overcompressing evolution.

True, language was invented by humans, I am prepared to accept even God when he created this universe say trillions of years ago [i know the age of the universe as estimated by the cosmologists, and i believe i accept their version] need not have known language as we speak, how English that many years back, any that even if the same English in some galaxy some billion years ago, it's not ours simply because it's not ours, and therefore say God should have known only, need not be learnt, only after ours.

True, even monkeys and whales don't use our kind of language. True language must have been a big quantum jump to the evolution. But we have to learn what was the quantum level just before. There must have been some previous physiological mechanism, that there is the animal pre-language physiological mechanism that enables, if we would, pre-thought, i don't know words referring to it, so for the sake of easiness i may in the interrugnum name them k-anguage and s-ought. I don't think our language or thought is independent of our physiology, and physiology was born along with life, and had made so far some 15 taxonomic phylum to order to genus quantum jumps to reach ResearchGate, then atleast in the latest taxonomic levels, there are precursors of language and thought. [Even if i a doubt it, i am not confident of ruling out even plants and insects. I think it may be prudent and fruitful to start from when saccharides and/or lipids and/or proteins became cellular geographies; life could not have begun without the birth of thought; or a-ought and a-anguage, if we will.]

[There is no over-difference between nucleic acids and proteins!].

__________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Graeme Smith, Canada, Dec 16, 2010 10:18 am.

>

@*. I don't say i do know. Certainly no science book has given me confidence i can come to learn if [animal] evaluation and hesitating is indeed thought. They have talked but instinct and programmedness or physiological or some necessity, but i do not know if they are the same as applicable to every activity an animal undertakes. In that case perhaps I do not know what i am doing when i am evaluating and hesitating. Hesitating, why i have a life time's experience of hesitating, some times i wonder if it's natural, my wife is very fond [!] of accusing this [well, some times i claim i ponder, but i know i suffer more than half of the times hesitation too]; if i had not been thinking what i had been doing when i was [am] hesitating? Yes, it is possible to hesitate without thoughts, can wait without reason/language/thought, but is not there an underlying "feel"; that feel does transact [say, worry, if evaluate is not], even when we hesitate/feel; we need to unveil what is this s-ought is [ie language less "feel". Others certainly know this "feel", they don't call it thought, and i also don't know what they call it as, you may know with your research background].

___________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Adrian, 1216101236.

@*. Their liveliness even [need i specify any further], even the street pigs [lazy?] have sufficiently surprised me. I have observed their behavior do have similarities to ourselves(humans) [how if not, both are mammals, minus language, we are any advanced than them?].

___________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Eisa Johali, Saudi Arabia, Dec 16, 2010 3:29 pm.

EJ: "the great Teilhard de Chardin are right, I hope Bill will read it."

I read Pierre Teilhard long ago.

GS: "So, by the same logic that allows me to suggest that god prototyped humans before he made them, I can say with authority, that there is no reason why he had to get his hands dirty, and actually build the prototypes himself. Why do we insist that god design us directly when he has this wonderful prototyping system that he can program and let go, perhaps early in the formation of the Universe, and spend his sundays at the Golf Course?"

Clearly, if god exists, then any evolution that has occurred is something predestined by god.

As I indicated above, if a god created the universe, then any evolution that occurs is clearly predestined... and therefore not the result of random processes.

AH: "Of course Catholic and other religious leaders will support Teilhard's ideas because they view them as ideas that reconcile science with religion."

Personally I reject Pierre Teilhard's ideas. He doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that if god created the universe then predestination rather than random processes are responsible for any evolution that may have been involved.

Bill Overcamp, dear readers, dear writers. Who said that the universe was created by God? Many say so, they assume since we have no other answer. The Big Bang ? why and who is the "author" of it? Random? - from what? What was there before the Big bang?... and so on. Questions that keep us busy answers that makes us appear interesting and interested. Look no further but enjoy the life's path and the "dream" as you, all of you are the Universe, as you are part of God therefore you serve God (I will not say Him as I will not say Her). Perhaps the entire Universe is God. Why not? Sure we need spiritual leaders and churches to remind us of our purpose. many will have hard time to admit, but I believe, strongly believe that God learns from us, from each one of us, from our behavior and its outcomes. We are empowered to make decisions and take actions that affects us, affects all of us, affects nature, affects space, affects what I just named being God. And we do not need to embrace the randomness nor the predestination. The cause and effect is still valid I believe; valid at all levels. Identifying the effects, and finding their causes are the areas we make progress as the time goes by, during our discovery process. The more we get to know the more we find out how much we do not know. If you pray, let God in your hearth, acknowledge your empowerment the very purpose of life, you'll fell the power, the courage, the mission you have to enjoy life, let others to enjoy it too, help them to do so, feed them if they need or show them how to feed themselves, touch them with unconditional love to heal their pain and suffering, offer love to extinct loneliness, serve God, serve Life.

Inventing a supernatural being is not an answer dear Alexander, I did not say to invent. The Universe is natural, you studied physics.You are happy due to the fact that the Universe has not been invented, It is all real. It does exist, so you do, so your dog. And if you ask a priest more likely he will look at you and will confirm that you are there. But as you are a lovely person you do not need a priest to remind you, no, and you do not need to go to church. You serve God from home, from work.... as long as you don't take away from someone the same privilege you have. If you simply don't like the word God, is OK, but I see in your profile and you do serve God with all due respect. You are part of God, you are part of the Universe.

#H1-123. Ref Bill Overcamp 1218100117.

@*. It would be correct/necessary/in-order to say God could not violate his own laws, and before even his own laws, he would not claim himself above; it can even be believed, thus if he does NOT fall short of omnipotence in this way, he himself could not exist; because such existence would violate a "symmetry" called "fairness", no body is allowed to violate the simple "fairness"; my Universe or Creation, need not be omnipotent, at least after limiting laws been proclaimed/formed intentionally or some-consequentially; here, need not equals cannnot; that there is no proof for a non-omnipotent Absolute is no detriment; philosophy is the proof; belief in some thing not going to be known, is a form of reality$; i long back named it, the english simple "hope";or belief it self; or "additional reality", ie the reality added by us, since anyway for our moment there is going to be any disproof; how we would know in advance that the "not going to be known" if/is "going to be known", if we are going to know God shortly, or for that matter any similar every day context too$$.

$ and $$. "additionalisation to reality"; need not be atemporal; eg in the contexts where you(=i) cannot help it, say where fairness is violated in every day circumstances and you/i are not confident of averting it, then the consequences can be called "additionalisation to reality"; you/i believe fairness cannot be violated even by "God", but at some local level it get's violated, you/i don't want to allow your/my theory become tainted, and if it would not violate any other good/use, i call the undesirable consequences, unrequired by reality, are "added to" it.

After all this, i came to say, let God be omnipotent/omniscient, but i am not sure he did not intend un-predestination. As Graeme Smith says, He [?] could have even chosen to use "evolution". This non-predestiantion does/need/can not compromise His Position.

#H1-124. Ref Adrian, Alexander, and Adrian, 121810 0517 0532 0600.

@*. I don't think "God" need be anything more than the "moral science and physical science" we have invented; (good+purpose+materials);

(simple, because as of now i don't know i require more than that).

He/She/It could be/become the universe, could become/be personal, all these do not matter; i think a "conceptual composition" is must for all, God, good,purpose,materials" (probably some "concrete composition" too would, or some concept/concrete ergodic dualisibility).

So a SIMPLE God/NonGod$ concepts-composed of (g+p+m) is enough for me. (Even here i have tried to be democratic; otherwise, why mix up concept and concrete!).

$G/nG: at some [this!] level, any difference between them, nontrivial[!]?

[? declumsifiable into . may be not or may anyway be].

Dear Alexander, there is no "personal god" in my text, there is no "someone" in my text. You can read it again for sure. As far as: "The answer is simple, this situation is the consequence of the evolution of life on Earth (natural selection). Any other answer leads to absurdities (what do you have to think about a creator who allows children to be born with HIV). " I totally agree with you. HIV was not "allowed", is just like any other virus that is deadly, comes as a "package deal" naturally or fabricated, we are not sure, but is a product in this Universe regardless of is source. All than we enterprise is our decision. being part of the Universe, part of God. To make a difference between good and bad, we identify the good parts with actions of God and the bad parts of actions of Evil. We have a choice, embrace one or the other, action reflected by the outcomes. So again, the personification of God has been done in order to facilitate communication between people, writings, poems. Men being the head of the family and generally more aggressive, called God a "He, Him" instead of a "She, Her". It has been accepted due to the obedience of estrogen in front of testosterone ;-). Is just a personification that is found in different forms and under different names from culture to culture, from tribe to tribe. If you don't like the word God, be free and name [it] as you wish as long you'll not forget and as long others will understand what you are referring to. God will not get mad at you ;-) if your intention is good and the outcome does not hurt anyone. Important is that you do continue to serve zzz (God ?) and you will be served as well a few times more. Like the economic factor... an investment in a community will help the economy grow by 2 times to 4 times, average 3 times economic growth. You destroy / damage an investment (abusive consumption for example), that will reflect on an economic decline of the same magnitude, average 3 times. The bigger the community, the better stability. As you know from physics under the name of Inertia (mechanical, thermal).

ATW: "you are part of God."

If a god exists, he would be utterly simple, having no parts and no potency. I am composed of parts and have potency. Thus I am neither god nor any 'part of god.'

SN: "#H1-123. Ref Bill Overcamp 1218100117. @*. It would be correct/necessary/in-order to say God could not violate his own laws, and before even his own laws, he would not claim himself above; it can even be believed, thus if he does NOT fall short of omnipotence in this way, he himself could not exist; because such existence would violate a 'symmetry' called "fairness", no body is allowed to violate the simple 'fairness...'"

What is all this? It certainly has no connection with anything I wrote. Since when is the world fair? I really don't know what 'fairness' means. Do you mean 'justice?'

Dear Bill, dear readers, dear contributors: Bill’s statement does not stand up... parts.... potency.... logic an connections that have no logic just connections that... You are on planet Earth that like most of planets (all?) are round shape, but you are not round so you are not on planet Earth... ??!! ... Fairness? Justice? For whom? In the evolution process, the competition of species, not all the players are winners at the micro level. At the macro level, even the so called losers are winners since they serve the purpose of God, selection / evolution, so the strong will sustain the weak has to go leave room for the strong to perpetuate the species. At all levels, bacteria, plants, animal kingdom, the species are regulated with little one exception...or perhaps this is the way it supposes to be. The actions driven by the human intelligence are conducting to disruptions in the Ecosystems, species extinction, etc. Perhaps that the way it suppose to be, perhaps not. Personally I believe that the human intelligence proved to be more destructive then constructive, conducting to the collapse of the human empire from outside in due to internal causes more then external. Remember the Roman Empire, Maia and Inca civilizations. There were only periods of "warm up" and warnings of the Human Civilization Total Collapse (HCTC). We still have time to prevent the destruction of human civilization and leave behind us our fossils and living bacteria if the planets will still have a bit of luck. If humanity will be less selfish and adopt the unconditional love approach, consume only what we need while reducing the needs, then perhaps God would be served better unless we aiming towards serving our evil forces. God is not simple, is rather sophisticated dear Bill. This is why is so hard to understand God and feel God, because it comes with a huge responsibility and humans run away from the responsibilities as much as possible. Humans prefer to spend hours and hours in front of computers, often with cola, potato chips, pizza building the way to obesity, diabetes, coronary problems due to sedentary activity, all justified by keeping virtual human relations in comfortable chairs for hours, for most of the day in many cases. It is all an experiment and we are in. God learns from our behavior but the outcome is not always comforting...this is the will of God, this is the Natural Selection, and this is the Evolution. Religions believes are mater of education, community and habits, interpretation, natural resources, evolution is a process that partially we are controlling and deeply depends upon our everyday decisions. Same is the case with the Ecosystem, the health of the planet and the Global Economy. All of us are responsible, all of us need to take a stand and God will be with us. Thanks! Adrian TW

ATW: "God is not simple, is rather sophisticated."

It is you who say it.

#H1-127. Ref Bill Overcamp, Dec 18, 2010 9:27 pm.

@*. How big a question. Regarding what i said, I hope it is not only i who say it.

But i read through my paragraphs again, and, it makes sense as per the culture I grew up with. Of course that paragraph appears like overcrowded writing, therefore to declumsify it:

1. the third paragraph first: ie "God" (or equivalent concept) 's omnipotence will not be affected even if universe is not "predestined".

2. He could have chosen to create evolution, instead of choosing to create predestination. Or He has.

3. But once he set in the laws of physics or the laws of biology, however insignificant they may be vis-a-vis Him, Laws become binding on him also, any violation by him would affect his own existence(=character) too (or nonviolating IS his omnipotence). ie the birth-giving Laws are deemed to be based on the perfect good, and therefore, cannot be violated. If God be the Cause, once effect given place to, then Causal Laws cannot be violated (for example, God cannot do "magic"; cannot violate good; cannot violate Law).

4. Non-violation of what is violable is fairness (ie not violating a law/norm when you can very well violate it if you want; every day examples like not cheating, not being partial to self, etc). Applicable both to God and all beings.

5. When i write about these things, i don't feel i think religion, i feel i think about the properties of physical laws, etc (Law; i usually capitalise so that i can understand what i refer to; "laws obeyed by the universe, and/or generating the universe, or at least the known world).

____________

EDITdone:

6. The other writing/ideas in the posting; i think they are straight forward. However, i shall clarify any specific sentence immediately when asked.

#H1-129. Ref Eisa Johali, Dec 19, 2010 9:35 am.

@*. Yes. Where is Bill.

@. Thank you for reading and responding. Thanks for your detailed response. Here below, i am giving my responses to some of your sentences. I may hold my beliefs, but i do not insist them. I do know (my/every) theory-s move through transient states, therefore even if you find me "adamant" in my responses, obviously you may infer i may still further learn. I hold my research, but don't claim it's readiness to be the only right. I even wonder, my aim is research, no finality of result.

I don't know how else to be. I choose not to able to claim I am right, if one other person has a different explanation for a question. When i say so, i am not interested in the correctness of knowledge, or whatever, only in the ineluctable reality that perceptions may appear to individuals uniquely. If then, how to judge in favor of right?

[The above is the private/natural me. Of course, professionally, i cannnot be such sentimental, i need to hold to my beliefs/learnings/duty, if at least in the discharge of responsibilities.]

1. By "magic" I meant something violating Laws put in operation by Him.

2. Why "insect"? the smallest Plank volume. We can not, that how i cannot agree.

3. "tree of the knowledge of good and evil">>: This means, in the beginning, man, was "innocent, and naturally good"; learning in to evil, is termed thus.

4. "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this!">> : What for, Why- will we ever know. Your/ scriptures view?

Dear readers, contributors, we try to explain a few phenomena under our capacity to understand and express today. Tomorrow will be different. The laws created by humans not only once have been proved in time as being wrong. Some were burned to death by other fellow humans for believes that later became reality, and so on. We are very limited at times as humans, the history reminds us. We evolve biologically as well as thinkers. Science demands to be open to possibilities. Dear Alexander, we are not "far away from our discussion" we are right on. "vs." does not always mean "conflict"; it means "in balance with" it means "proffering / understanding accepting to certain degree (low to high = gradual) one over another".... Planets with conditions similar to others are plenty so for sure there are other forms of life in the Universe. Some forms of life that go beyond our capacity to understand as well, in life conditions different that we are accustomed to such as temperature, humidity, air content... not to mention the thermodynamics involved as well as radiation and further more the element's transmutation and their roll in the living systems, cellular development and EVOLUTION. We do not need to look at humans as "some special beings" and sure we "evolve as animals". We are animals, we are humans, we are limited but our limits continuously expand.... more so if we allow ourselves to expand and that is the will of God... us to grow and teach God...God learns from us and is part of the evolution we are part of, as well as other forms of life. Living systems and God can't one without the other, interdependent and work in a synergistic fashion. Adrian TW.

Evolution is a must be and it Serves God, it serves nature, is the purpose of Nature. There is no design, it is an growing ever changing design, is in the forming process, we are part of it and we contribute to the process not only by being into it but by out power of intelligence with all the outcomes, good / bad relatively speaking.

Oh, the life spam increased, so hundred years back people were sick but they did not know, they were just dead in no time. There was no internet, no statistics, no press, media, and television to know.

Oh, yes, there are evolving viruses; it is part of the evolution process, including the man made. Human Intelligence is a product of God that serves God regardless that we like it or not.

Human intelligence is a capacity of the human mind strictly dependent on variety factors such as mental and body health of the person, education, nutrition, genetic predisposition, environment, social interactions and social climate. God made possible our thinking capacity so we can serve Him better. (so for communication purpose, I accept the masculine gender, Him, His, He if is ok with you ;-))) .

I am not looking for God's identity since is no need to. My questions stop to a certain limit since I feel God. I do not need to question such as: where is the Universe coming from, what was here before the Big bang, how far, how big.... answers that are within the questions and questions than never end such as the infinite Universe. It would be a waste of time. The perpetual motion and ever exchanging energies and transformations are all forming God.

The evolution is God and 'serves" God like it or not. Not all the players are winners in the survival of species. The weak will lose and that will serve God. The sustainable existence of living entities is achieved due to improvement of genetic information, adaptation to the ever-changing conditions. This is God.

The power of out intelligence proves what we are capable of and contributes to the ever changing conditions, good or bad, all relatively speaking.

I personally do not believe in a Super Natural Power floating above the cloud overlooking at us. No, It is as natural as possible, right inside Everyone of Us at different levels, inside all living things teaching and learning from. Constantly updating Itself, Himself ;-).

God is the Dark Energy and the Energy that governs all the transfers and changes.

We do not need to argue, we exchanging ideas, we learn from those dialogs. God is our capacity to think and communicate. Improving our communication skills and our visions improves Him, therefore All that exists [surely us too, I think I still around ;-) ]

Adrian Toader-Williams

Alexander, are you seating at the table [female gender] or at the desk? God has been used in language as male gender. my point of view as Him or Her... masculine / feminine gender has been explained above. Now, what gender will you prefer for dark energy ? It all depends upon your... preference, orientation, that is OK with me and with God as well.

You did study physics ? Well, why did you have to study chemistry and math in order to communicate physics? I do not communicate physics, I communicate life and by "accident"... you see dear Alexander, I may have to refer to physics from time to time, and believe me not to offend you or your female table.

Now, before physics, your parents gave you any education and did they teach you any manners ? Why will you get so offended and to the position to insult anyone / me ?

Obviously you are very young and.... evolution did not act in your neighborhood, talking about evolution. Is this male or female? What about Decency ? Education ? Gender has what gender ?

Alexander, go sleep, take your vitamins and protein, go workout and spend your Energy. Swimming, fitness... and I wish you very Happy Holidays to you and your family. Mary Christmas and Happy New Year with lots of health!

Alexander,

No, I do not view religion as an intellectual game, even so I like to play a lot ;-). I do not agree much with its forms of being institutionalized. Like I do not agree much with the institutionalization of love.... or of hate.

God is not perfect, Universe is not perfect, is in the perfection process [from our point of view as what perfection means.] Perfection is an "excuse" not to work on, not to search and "not to assume responsibilities".

Why Alan Turing killed himself? - for the same reason you din NOT kill yourself as of yet.... or me... Alan had a mixture of reasons, motives and feelings that one can decide to do so. Right ? Wrong ? relatively speaking. Anyway, it was driven by his mind's decisions. Who is Alan Turing? I don't know and perhaps I am not interested. Such "decision makers" hardly interest me.

Today we have in my city of 300.000 over 5 suicides / week. So....their choice and a way to run away from responsibilities. Life is a roller coaster, rollerskating, rollerblading, .... is a cycle ;-))

Do you consider killing yourself ? Have you though about it as of yet ? Anyway, it is just an option that personal I do not encourage.

In my opinion, the cowards, the weak or mentally ill persons take this avenue. God learns from this as well towards so called perfection.

Life is an evolution process [not only one] that God undergoes as well, no pun intended, no offense and with all due respect dear Eisa.

Thanks! Adrian TW

Alexander,

Thanks for info, Turing. Society induced suicide. Most of the reasons are society, back in history perhaps more nowadays. Sad! Homophobia is sick. Christianity committed more crimes perhaps then the WW II. Directly and/or indirectly. Islam extremism also, terrorism. I am not into organized religion, that is taking advantage of the peoples vulnerability and their limited capacity to understand. Religious organizations gained power, financial contributions, properties... and became abusive, manipulative. All that is against Nature, it serves God in the sense that God learns from such Human behavior.

like I said, God is not perfect is constantly learning (remember we are part of God, we are learning) and we update our believes, often draft legislation to communicate and impose.

Christianity needed the population to multiply so the taxes can be payed, the land have workforce, the army to be build. Manipulation of human brain. God learned from that.

Now we are too many on Earth and agricultural / food production potential is depleted, China limits NR. of children, In Romania maternity leave is reduced and gets lower pay, birth is discouraged. Manipulation at different levels.

I believe in God the way I mention before, I believe in Astrology, I see the connection God-Astrology-Big bang-Cosmic rays - Cell Physiology - DNA - Human behavior - Society - Laws - Church - Drugs... Economic crises, Ecological disasters. They are all interconnected.

The parents HIV positive should have not have children in my opinion. Also, if they are not capable from the economic point of view and / or from the skill / ability / patience / life stile / mental health / know how / point of view, should not bring in the world a heavy load for the upcoming generations.

The Pope? Is not God my dear Alexander. I agree with you and the use of condoms, for sure, I am into Life sciences. Even so the condoms are just like 30-40% effective, it means infinite more effective than "o" (zero).

Bush George? SR, Jr? Reagan? Rednecks ? Texas, Alabama?

The Church is not God, and I totally agree with you here and I understand you, this is why I continue the conversation even so you were rude earlier. You did not mean to attack me but the corrupted system we find ourselves. I do not embrace the system; I try to work with it and perhaps I can have my share to improve it. You want that too, I feel that, you have your ways and I appreciate it.

Here I invite you (and other members too), in time you'll find it interesting I promise. Subscribe to my group:

http://www.researchgate.net/group/Ecology_Economics_and_Non-Monetary_Values_The_Roll_of_States_and_Governments/

Thanks

AH: "Why did one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century, Alan Turing, kill himself? Can you answer that?"

Clearly he did not practice the four virtues... wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment.

Certainly he had wisdom. But wisdom is no guarantee of the other virtues. Many intelligent men ---- even geniuses --- think that mere wisdom will get them through in life. They are sadly mistaken.

Bill, some will kill themselves to make a statement, but not all of us would understand. This is no math, is just pain, suffering and feelings along with the desire to make a change. He did make a statement, obviously, we talk about him. Many like him committed suicide due to rednecks. Many teenagers too, just in 2010. Very sad.

Committing suicide perhaps is the result of the four virtues you name. An other virtue is to show some respect to the ones that give their life to make a statement, to make a change. That is the will of God as well without math, but by the numbers.

He did make a change like many others did. The change is here, like it or not: Gay marriage is more and more accepted as the rednecks, one by one become food for the ground. And that's no math, it is a fact. Google to find out the numbers please.

SN: "the third paragraph first: ie 'God' (or equivalent concept) 's omnipotence will not be affected even if universe is not 'predestined.'"

The notion that god is omnipotent must be understood properly. Typically people say god is all powerful. But 'power' is the same as 'potency.' And if a god exists, then god would have no potency, but be pure actuality. Thus one must understand the claim that god is omnipotent to mean that god creates all powers. For 'power' refers to the physical universe and not to any god.

Is the universe predestined? Clearly a god would not learn. For learning is opposed to the divine simplicity. Thus if god knows anything, it is as an effect coming from an intelligent cause. How can the effect fail to be what it is?

I do not deny the claims regarding evolution. I simply say that if god created evolution then it is as god created it... according to predestination.

SN: "But once he set in the laws of physics or the laws of biology, however insignificant they may be vis-a-vis Him, Laws become binding on him also."

How so?

SN: "Non-violation of what is violable is fairness (ie not violating a law/norm when you can very well violate it if you want; every day examples like not cheating, not being partial to self, etc). Applicable both to God and all beings."

But the world is not fair!

SN: "Yes. Where is Bill."

All is well. Perhaps I did not see the email message telling me that the thread had been updated?

ATW: "Committing suicide perhaps is the result of the four virtues you name."

You have a right to believe as you do. It is nonsense, nevertheless. Self-murder is clearly due to the lack of self-control, courage and sound judgment. It is all the worse in a 'genius.'

ATW: "the life spam increased, so hundred years back people were sick but they did not know, they were just dead in no time."

Not so fast... The increase in life expectancy is due almost entirely to a reduction in infant mortality. That increase is due largely to public sanitation, not to allopathic medicine, which has largely failed to extend man's lifetime. At least a quarter of all human deaths today in the USA are the result of reactions to drugs --- properly prescribed and administered according to norms approved by the FDA. Many health experts today expect a decrease in longevity in the future, due to increasing toxicity in the world about us... and to the poor lifestyles modern men have adopted.

AH: "Saying that a man who saved numerous lives because he played a decisive role in the outcome of WWII had no self control, courage and *sound judgement* is a bit strong. It is Christian homophobia that killed him."

It is you who say it.

Alexander, I was the one referring to WW II but I did not state the above. I said also: It is Christian homophobia that killed him. Am I missing... what ?

AH: "Who allows children to be born with HIV."

The best explanation I have heard for the origin of HIV is that it is the result of vaccine use in Africa. The medical community does not want to talk about this, of course. We are suppose to believe in the power of vaccines.

But it's probably the result of allopathic medicine run amuck.

ATW: "Evolution is a must be and it Serves God, it serves nature, is the purpose of Nature."

If god created evolution, then it clearly serves god. It is far from clear, however, that evolution does what is attributed to it. Certainly there is evidence of microevolution, but little support for the evolution of species. From what I understand the fossil record is marked with great stability. Species exist relatively unchanged for many millions of years. Occasionally a species dies out. Occasionally a new species appears. But there is no real evidence to support the claim that the new species evolved from what existed before.

As to evolution's being the 'purpose' of nature... you are engaging in a teleological argument of the sort that most scientists like to avoid. But since you have raised it, I would say that if evolution is real and serves god, and if nature has a purpose --- as you have stated --- then the conclusion would be that god's glory is the purpose of nature.

Bill, If the chair is under your "B" "behind" does not mean that you seat on the chair.

ATW: "Bill, If the chair is under your 'B' 'behind' does not mean that you seat on the chair."

I suppose I could interpret that as an 'ad hominem' comment. Whatever the intent, it seems irrelevant to any philosophical purpose.

#H1-146. Ref Bill O, 1222102239. @*. 1. I think, since fairness is the desired standard, the world is fair, until unfairness reaches atleast 50% of the population/characteristic of the world; that has not yet been reached.

2. God cannot violate physical and biological laws that he himself might have set, since democracy requires that. He cannot expect privileges that's not for the population. [simplicity: How is that something i may not myself imagine to make true, i may not be affected by books read, but when suggested in a conversation/discussion by a single person, i have a tendency to treat that something as acceptable?].

Fairness requires democracy.

Existence or I(!) or Innocence/Spontaenity or God requires fairness.

3. That God is simplicity is a new idea to me, thanks.

4. If a simple [uncomplicated] God can learn, i don't think such learning will violate/reduce his simplicity. You can't add to simplicity.

I think the simplicity of God is because for him nothing is complicated, all concepts completely abstracted into his simplicity. A rare state, all heterogeneity has been generalizable into homogeneity, that simplicity. Not just pre-heterogenuos but post-heterogeneous homogeneity/simplicity.

Thus, i would say God can learn, and it will not affect his simplicity. God is the one who can simplify all the known concepts to one simple simplicity, and in that case, addition of some new learning cannot add to the unsimplicity of Him;, for before it could so become, it would have become completely explained by the simplicity, and would have become unadding-but-constituent of the simplicity.

#H1-147. Adrian Toader-Williams, Dec 22, 2010 3:21 pm. >

@*. Another new idea about God: He need not be perfect, because we are part of Him, and we are not perfect.

I said in the previous post that God's simplicity cannot be affected by new learning. Always.

In this posting, the question is, can his imperfection/perfection be affected by new learning? That does too is unlikely. Hence, this quality of him at least also is atemporal. So God allows himself to be imperfect, so that there will be learning/creation?

Can we see if simplicity and imperfection can coexist? Or even, if simplicity and imperfection and perfection can coexist? New learnings "dissolve" in to simplicity; New learnings revise the imperfections.

If we say the simplicity is imperfect what will be meant by it? Nothing more than: the simplicity exhibits a duality by which even while new learnings become integrated/dissolved into it, it also allows us to see the changes it underwent. The changes may be specifically describable revision of imperfections, but the change is recognizable also but-only as a nearly-indistinguishable effect on the abstract simplicity.

I think i am becoming obscure. But to become simple and straight forwardly obvious, it requires hardwork; which, method, i may not know.

SN: "I think, since fairness is the desired standard, the world is fair, until unfairness reaches atleast 50% of the population/characteristic of the world; that has not yet been reached."

What do you mean by 'fairness?' You use the term without defining it. I really don't know what you mean.

SN: "God cannot violate physical and biological laws that he himself might have set, since democracy requires that."

Why imagine a god to be 'democratic?' Indeed, what does the word mean when applied to a god? Would a god give us a vote in deciding whether there should be a world? How could we vote if we didn't exit? It makes no sense.

SN: "Fairness requires democracy. Existence or I(!) or Innocence/Spontaenity or God requires fairness."

How so?

SN: "God can learn, i don't think such learning will violate/reduce his simplicity."

Learning is change. Change requires a difference between what was and what is to be. Thus it involves multiplicity, directly contrary to oneness and simplicity.

Thus if an absolutely simple, unchangeable god knows anything he knows it eternally.

SN: "He need not be perfect, because we are part of Him, and we are not perfect.'

A simple god has no parts. Thus we are not part of god.

Adrian is a pantheist. He believes that everything is god. The difference between pantheism and atheism is just a question of words. For if everything is god then nothing is god... pantheism reduces god to something meaningless.

SN: "I think i am becoming obscure."

It is you who say it.

#H1-150. Ref BO 1224102317.

@*. 1. i saw the WordNet3.0. Thankfully, my "fairness" can be substituted by the common "justness/ justice" without much loss of meaning.

I think,but, fairness is a bit more "secular" ie less easily treated "subjectively" ie less miscomprehended, and therefore easier widely applicable. Justice may be arrived at after difficult understanding, therefore, it may also be conceptually wider.

Shall i take some examples: (1) correcting the child: it may not be unjust, but it is unfair to cause injuries.

(2) war front: causing injury on enemy: may be neither unfair nor unjust.["no other go" situations. Here f/j analysis may even not be applicable/meaningful; some other concept may be required.]

(3) cheating: both unfair and unjust. the latter esp if some significant harm too caused.

(4) lying to your manager that you are working when you were not / white lies: may be neither. again assuming "no harm caused". As for anyway there would be loss due to any error, this may be wrong, but may or may not be unfair, but may not be unjust. "having to manage with too many demands, hence a whit lie; is some deviation from work is not some times required?".

From the foregoing it appears, i generally do not address legal limitations, but do address ethical limitations. If legal is defined as part of ethics, then that also will suffice.

#Have we last the capacity to understand long paragraphs? I have made above so many one-line paragraphs.

2. "democracy": i have used a grand wor-i-d-ea, when a simpler one could well have been used. I don't have any reason to doubt, after he created us, he decided not to give equal respect to OUR "good ideals".

If our good ideals is part of his-willed predestination, may be, but i do not have any reason to limit god's willingness to give us free will. I don't have any reason to he will/would have refused to give/predestine our choice. If god's knowledge is eternal, is he against freshness? Why should he be so limited? We would say he can predict everything like quantum mechanics claims or lagrange's demon claims, but i wouldn't say he denied our choice.

After giving us our choice, He certainly can not predict our first-done unjust choices. But could not he prevent progression of further unjust choices by us. That why he chooses not to preempt them, i do not know.

I do not know also why he has allowed evolution life-forms eating as food other life forms in order for them to survive. Here why he has not still found a way to correct, i am feeling, he has allowed "unfairness creep into his" characteristic. He has allowed "corruption creep into himself". This laziness, unfairness is unacceptable.

He would never allow himself be made better?

3. Fairness: I have already said: I require fairness! In this one thing, i don't require external testimony! The one thing discovered by me!

4. : is this a different culture?

I think you mean, [eternal], god must be exhaustive, eternal. he could very well be so; and at the same time admit change.

Now is the question: how an unchangebale/exhaustive thing can behave as if to accept change,accept additions. {Mathematics must already know?}

This would be contrary to simplicity; add multiplicity? I believe there will be explanations that it need not be so; but when not so?

When i say god can learn, it is not to dispute his know, but to not limit him to impossibility of fresh experimentation? Shouldn't he use future to start a yet new type of life or m-ife, which will be able to survive on inorganic food? I don't say now it is not or has not been in earth or in some other speck elsewhere. In earth such inorganic-food organisms are limited. Anyway, my concern is at animalia.

_______________________________________________________________________________

@ Ref BO, Dec 24, 2010 11:28 pm.

1. I think i am not interested in regimented gods. I accept an pantheistic god almost becomes superfluous, but his believers could/may never get the "hardwire" to not to limit so. There need to be truth, but if my neurology is such that i find it difficult to understand it in the particular way, where is the difference betwen what i beleive as truth and what the every-one-else believe as truth. That's why i pity pathopsychological conditions, but let me hasten to clarify, i have treated only a normal condition. Normality may not be reduced to singular.

2. God need not not have parts, need not be pantheistic? Why deny him "all possibilities" [except what i exclude!].

3. God is a beautiful idea because it is a belief of my mother, parents, grandparents, etc. May not be agnostic or blasphemous as mine, but definitely no idea of finding a scapegoat for human failings. Whether he preknew or willed or destined or condemned me to my wrong choices, i would not find it as exceeding him to claim and own responsibility for my wrong choices.

If free choice indeed liberates me from the care of god, let it. In this position, i support only self-care. Here the act of getting freedom of choice bestowed by god is more sanctified than the act of getting care bestowed by him. Hence self-care, enabling self-responsibility, I accept. [otherwise i detest; there are more useful things than s-c-!].

SN: "Justice may be arrived at after difficult understanding, therefore, it may also be conceptually wider."

Just the opposite. Justice at least has some definite meaning. Fairness is fairly meaningless. Life is unfair. So what?

SN: "correcting the child: it may not be unjust, but it is unfair to cause injuries."

Sticking one's hand onto a hot stove may cause injuries, as well. When a parent corrects a child who keeps sticking his hand onto the stove when it is not hot, punishes the child he protects the beloved little one from a greater injury. Is this not love --- even if the child thinks it unfair?

SN: "lying to your manager that you are working when you were not / white lies: may be neither. again assuming 'no harm caused'"

I'm willing to grant the employee some flexibility in such matters. Clearly the employer is to set the ground rules for the employee's behavior. The employee who has been given nothing to do can not be blamed if he does nothing. But is it right to lie? If I receive my wage, should I not do the work assigned? Is it not theft to do otherwise?

But yes, I grant the employee some flexibility. As long as the employer is happy with the employee, he will pay the wage. Thus the primary responsibility is with the employer.

SN: "'democracy:" i have used a grand wor-i-d-ea, when a simpler one could well have been used. I don't have any reason to doubt, after he created us, he decided not to give equal respect to OUR 'good ideals.' If our good ideals is part of his-willed predestination, may be, but i do not have any reason to limit god's willingness to give us free will. I don't have any reason to he will/would have refused to give/predestine our choice. If god's knowledge is eternal, is he against freshness? Why should he be so limited? We would say he can predict everything like quantum mechanics claims or lagrange's demon claims, but i wouldn't say he denied our choice."

I have never denied that men have free will. I simply say that the freedom would seem to be predestined.

SN: "When i say god can learn, it is not to dispute his know, but to not limit him to impossibility of fresh experimentation?"

What is the point of experimentation once one knows?

SN: "God need not not have parts, need not be pantheistic? Why deny him 'all possibilities' [except what i exclude!]."

I grant god something beyond mere possibility: pure actuality.

#H1-155. Ref Bill Overcamp, Dec 26, 2010 7:08 pm.

@*. 1. **on justice and fairness**

Again a case of reversing some aspects of some concepts. I think, the way i reached each idea, is the reason how i got like that. If possible, let me cite the sourcing:

Justice is a concept originally i narrowed down (in 1984), when studying probability. I felt, if there should be probability of something happening and our accepting it, the event/act probablised shall carry some meaning/purpose/use. I thought,specifically,use. Then,it dawned on me, if it's use we are accepting, then do we accept all use. Or do we require any further. ie if use is generated, yes, we should also know how/why a use can be generated, if such knowledge is not there, we would not know how to generate use, that will be a pathetic situation, therefore use shall shall conform to meaning [ie how the use]. Believe me, this was done as a development of statistics, probability of probability, not through a few sentences, i think the graphs and sentences ran atleast 2 or 3 fullscap pages, semi-mathematical writing/working. Then, i found [this all through a single stream of thought/work ,may be half a day?], how all meaning will be acceptable [ie not be], and so thought meaning will be accepted as a probability of what. Meaning should conform to responsibility, or otherwise it's a travesty and devilish. So i accepted responsibility as the next level [of integer probability, ie hierarchy]. Similarly, responsibility only if it does not violate justice(ie as to what is the probability a responsible act is just). Let me not continue further.

I allowed the hierarchy of "meaning" [worst, "information"!] can co-exist,and in actual situations need not strictly conform to the probability distribution i wanted. [eg some responsible acts can be useless; but i said such happenings may better be "improved" so that both the qualities/levels are served. I still hold, only structures which equally satisfy all the levels U-M-R-J are the best/ should be the best [may i say even, acceptable,and then therefore, only, real?].

That's how i arrived at justice.

Fairness, i think it just grew with me. Now i don't have any papers for me to know when i first used the word. But, as i said, it grew with me. No particularising experiences. It's a commonsense understanding?

My justice ideation has to satisfy a wide range of requirements; but fairness ideation is as if just at hand. i wouldn't demand justice if it's constituent levels are not satisfied. But in fairness, i don't apply that much work; it is easy to identify, then why not wider use.

And if i insist on anything, it is that the world is fair. The world created our ideas, cannot be unfair.

Yes, the instance of unfairness i might have suffered, i would not want to overgeneralise from it. The cruelty committed by humans on fellow humans, i don't want to blind me that the majority of population is self-reconciling to their deprivations; i dont have use for intelligence here; they haven't chosen to be create further unfairness, it may be their weakness, but i don't think there does not participate higher intelligences like, say "fairness"--"commit no harm".

i have no answer only for [say] one question: what is this creation/evolution,animals have to badly kill one another in order for Food and live. I could not forgive the pain and blood, and waste of lively intentions and innocences, He need not have existed God. Do i find/think he will be using some higher intelligence for treating lives this way? [Even] if God/Actuality is Intelligence personification, i think that will be the Biggest let down. How can he violate justice? I think i will be never satisfied with any explanation physics or theology provides.

2. **correcting the child**:

@*. i have myself used the exact "hotness" example in real life, and i think both my boys well understood warnings are true. You are certainly right, it is love; but there is a tinge of disappointment in some corner of my thought/heart, if i could not get a better experiential method.

But, as you said, some times fairness may be rendered meaningless by certain teachers inflicting disproportionate punishment. How to mistake devils?

How to mistake devils = How we selected such teachers. [hope you don't reject "i and my structure".

3. **lie as theft**

@*. i meant only the situations, when the white lie was in the interest of some other work or post-fatigue rest.

**primary responsibility is with the employer**

@*. i never knew this. This definition of this particular responsibility, will affect my disposition.

4. **"free will" as predestined**:

@*. Does this render predestination superflous? We can as well use the first granted word.

5.

@*. Perhaps this would be the most interesting thing when-if we find out?

6. **attribute of god**

@*. When God, possibility and actuality are different. I some how feel they some-there dualise.

SN: "That's how i arrived at justice."

How curious!! Generally justice is understood as obedience to law, or equivalent custom in a given society, in accordance with wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment. A law or custom can be wrong, of course. That is why I qualified what I said by putting it into the greater context of wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment.

SN: "How can he violate justice?"

A god would be superior to any law or custom of society. Thus justice and injustice would not apply to a god. What court could stand in judgment over a god?

SN: "But, as you said, some times fairness may be rendered meaningless by certain teachers inflicting disproportionate punishment. How to mistake devils?"

I doubt that I said such a thing because I don't generally use the term 'fairness' in such a context. In any event, one can always look to the four virtues: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment. A "devil" will violate at least one of those principles. There are those who are so due to stupidity --- they do not know the difference between good and evil. There are some who lack self-control, giving in to some emotion, such as anger. There are those who, for example, mistake bravado for real courage. And there are those who simply lack sound judgment.

SN: "Does this render predestination superflous?"

As it seems to me, an act is free if it follows from one's knowledge of the deed one is doing. For example, a few minutes ago, I was shaking my refrigerator trying to get at some ice cubes. As I did this, an object sitting on top of the refrigerator fell onto my head. I didn't imagine that I was causing such a thing to happen so the fact that it fell on my head was simply an accident. But the act of shaking the refrigerator was a free act, since I knew I was doing it.

I see no contradiction between freedom, as I understand it and predestination. I am sure that if a god created the universe, then he predestined my shaking the refrigerator. A god, of course, would have fully understood the consequences of my action, including the fact that an object would fall on my head.

I have heard it said that freedom and predestination are a mystery too profound for men to understand. Perhaps it is so.

SN: "**attribute of god**"

In my humble opinion, a god would have no attributes, being perfectly simple in nature. Men, of course, are not able to understand such simplicity.

SN: "When God, possibility and actuality are different. I some how feel they some-there dualise."

In my humble opinion, a god would be pure act, without any potency or power whatsoever. Thus if we say that a god is all powerful, we must understand the term to mean that all powers are created by him.

#H1-161. BO Dec 28, 2010 10:34 pm.

@*. 1. i usually required mathematical-geographicalisation of all observations/conceptualisations, when i was young. If i observe something, where it fits in the relational scheme of things i know. Therefore the modelling of concepts as situated and related among "neighboring" concepts. Now i don't exactly remember.

2. My god would not claim to be superior or above law, or as non-subject to a court.

3. once again: you would not said, but i would have derived a train of thought after reading your words, comprehendingly or semi-comprehendingly read [how i would know!].

3. Nothing justifies injurious behavior. People are free to fail in any value, but not the principle of noninjury.

4. My predestination includes that God abandoned eternal knowledge on the happeniings under what freedom he gave to his creatures.

5. The idea that god is also simplicity, i shall assimilate.

6. SN: "When God, possibility and actuality are different. I some how feel they some-there dualise."

Did i mean, "are NOT different".

I think i may understand: god should be purity; not contaminated by any attribute; not even by attributions as to his action. I think my concept of Innocence comes somewhat near, not knowing/not desiring to know/self-unremembering but highest intelligence. Of course, these realms are indeed difficult to put into words.