Topic: Health and Religion - page 57. (Read 210987 times)

Do you know you keep saying the same thing? Let me break it down for you so it's easier to understand.
1. You are claiming Adam and Eve were perfect
2. You claim they made a mistake (Eating the fruit and disobeying god) which you claim made them imperfect

Here is the problem, you are defining a perfect being as someone who is able to make mistakes and transforms itself into an imperfect being. Maybe your definition of perfection is different than mine so I would like to read your definition because otherwise we talk in circles here.

For me a perfect being means someone who wont make mistakes, otherwise why would I call him perfect?

Did you ever try laughter yoga? I have experimented with some techniques, like one from Osho: raise both hands in the air and shout "YAHOO"! He recommends doing this for 3 hours.

You can also consider using "Plant Teachers":

Nutmeg Space Paste: "Exactly Like Pot", and it contains several of these Top 10 Herbs. I recommend using applesauce instead of maple syrup in the recipe.


Basic summary of the entheogen experience:
"I laughed, I cried, I EXPERIENCED THE DIVINE POWER WITHIN"!



Japanese companies hire people to make staff cry--It is supposed to help people bond

I think we could find videos that show that laughing is even better. I sure hope that Astargath finds God so that he can be laughing for eternity, rather than crying.

Crying is very therapeutic and helps one to get in touch with emotions. Trance music helped me to connect with my emotions; you can find a lot of "uplifting trance" music as well as "chillout music" for this purpose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uzk2v7WaPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDV0PMvhrB8

Except for one little detail. When Adam and Eve got their experience, it made them imperfect. How is imperfect better? But you. You have the knowledge of their experience to fall back on. And you still don't want perfection. What? Are you after more experience?

If you are perfect you don't need experience because that would mean that experience would make you better therefore you WOULDN'T BE PERFECT IF EXPERIENCE CAN MAKE YOU BETTER.

How in the world dense are you? A perfect clock doesn't have any experience. Yet it is perfect, and possibly perfect in a way that it will never become imperfect.

So why do you think experience has anything to do with perfection? Your definition doesn't have anything to do with improving or not improving, having experience or lack of experience.

What's the matter with you? You provide a definition that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. And you don't even realize it it. Your density reaches even beyond the gravity of that other thread.

Holy shit you are dense, aren't you? DO YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF PERFECT? OH WAIT, I JUST FUCKING QUOTED IT, LET ME QUOTE IT AGAIN ''definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement'' Do you understand what this means? BEYOND improvement? A perfect being wouldn't have lack of experience you dumbfuck, he wouldn't make mistakes, otherwise he wouldn't be fucking perfect.

When they put true, perfect AI in the car, and give it the choice to make itself imperfect, then your example will have something to do with what we are talking about.



EDIT: Lack of experience.

Please, stop. You can't say, this car is perfect but when it stops working it wont be perfect anymore. That would mean the car wasn't perfect to begin with. If you are perfect, even if you have the ability to do stupid things like becoming imperfect you wouldn't do it BECAUSE YOU ARE PERFECT, WHY WOULD A PERFECT BEING CHOOSE TO BECOME IMPERFECT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

You are making my eyes bleed, stop.

Being perfect involves not only having the ability to become imperfect, but also the not-using of this ability. And that is what Adam and Eve were before they used their ability and became imperfect. At the exact instant that they used their ability to become imperfect, their imperfection started. Before that they were still perfect, because they chose to not become imperfect even though they had that ability all along.

You are not a perfect being, but you are choosing to remain imperfect and go to Hell. You can choose otherwise, because God opened up the agreement to you, to His salvation by your accepting of Jesus.

As I said, you are judging perfection from an imperfect standpoint.

God is love. Love of God is most important. People were given a touch of God. God loves people as He loves Himself. In that love, He does what is good for them - offers them a way back into perfection. But also, in that love, God gives them Hell if that is what they want. What do you want?

The people don't know about the agreement until they find out about it. They don't make the agreement with God until they make it. Look up simple contract law. There must be a meeting of the minds before there can be a contract (agreement). If the people don't know, they won't have a meeting of the minds. The simple fact that God in His wisdom knows ahead of time who those people of the agreement will be, doesn't make the agreement to already have been consummated.

Look at yourself, for example. (It seems) you haven't made the salvation agreement with God, yet. If you haven't, God still knows whether or not you will. If you will, that doesn't mean you have done it, yet. How can God give you salvation when you are not agreeing to it? Agree to it, and be saved.

Not really? Why would that be part of perfection? If you can become imperfect then you are not perfect, perfect doesn't mean to have the ability to do anything. In fact the definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement, meaning that it can't get any better, going from perfect to imperfect is stupid and makes no sense, a perfect being wouldn't pick to go to hell and wouldn't pick to be imperfect. If Adam and Eve were perfect they wouldn't have committed a sin and made whole humanity suffer, it's clear they were not perfect. God doesn't need to wait for anyone to be born, he can simply create more people, in fact he could create an infinite amount of people so I don't see the point of your comment there. People don't need to find God because he already knows who would make the agreement with him and who wouldn't, so again he wouldn't need to wait on anything. Your logic is flawed, quit saying stupid shit and go to bed.

You fail to understand even a little the greatness of God, and the greatness to which He is bringing His people. God is bringing people into God-ness. How in the world stupid are you trying to proclaim yourself to be? God doesn't coerce God. God doesn't want to coerce God. In other words, God has essentially made us in so great of a way that we have enough God-like qualities in us that He "can't" always tell exactly where we as individuals stand in our minds and spirits way down deep.

God is making perfect people. He made them when He made Adam and Eve. Part of perfection is the ability to choose anything, even to become imperfect. And that is what they chose. We would do the same. So why go through the trouble of making us all perfect from scratch? We are that deep, way down inside of ourselves.

I have made my Heaven-agreement with God. I did it by accepting Jesus-salvation. I will be made perfect withouit evil in the new universe. If you don't want to be made perfect, good ridance, because you and your evil won't be there. But if you want perfection and loss fo all evil, make your agreement with God for Jesus-salvation before it is too late for you, and you are locked into your evil by death... where you won't be able to make any more decisions.

Are you saying god can't make perfect people? Then why call him a god?

''So, He has devised a plan whereby he will get perfect people that don't have a hint of evil in them. He will let all people live for a short while - maybe 100 years or less - in their evil''

Why would an omniscient god need to wait if he already knows who is going to be evil and who is not, can't you see the stupidity in your sentence?

''During that time He will find those people who want to be made into good and perfect people''

An omniscient god doesn't need to find anything he already knows, just stop already, you are stupid.

To show you just how retarded you and Epicurus are/were...


All imperfection is evil, and plunges the sinner into further imperfection. Only continual perfection is good and righteous.

Since all people are evil - because none of them are perfect - if God used His almighty power to do away with them and their evil, there wouldn't be any people. But that isn't what He wants. He wants people to exist, but without evil.

So, He has devised a plan whereby he will get perfect people that don't have a hint of evil in them. He will let all people live for a short while - maybe 100 years or less - in their evil. During that time He will find those people who want to be made into good and perfect people. He will make an agreement with them - the promise of Heaven - so that He will ultimately have some people who will be willing to be made perfect, by their agreement to accept His perfection-making, evil-removing activity among them.

Those who are unwilling, God will let go their evil way, on to their destruction, since they don't want perfection, which is removal of all evil.

Then, those who have made their agreement with Him, God will make perfect in a new universe that can never have any imperfection or evil in it... Heaven.

Why does God do it this way? Because if He always destroyed evil, he would constantly be destroying all the people he would make over and over again from scratch. Why? Because they would ALL always convert from perfection to evil. At least with this plan, He will finally get some perfect, non-evil people like He is looking for.


You stupid joker. You and Epicurus are simply looking at simplisticness... and then playing with it. Haven't you figured out that the universe is a little more complex than you talk when you talk so simplistically?

I don't wish bad health for you in any way. But you are talking yourself into it, so I wouldn't have to wish it on you, even if I wanted to.



EDIT: You underestimate the power of God to the extreme. Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe took something like 13 to 14 billion years to go from its start to where it is today. God could make today's universe from complete scratch/nothing to what it is today with less than a snap of His spiritual fingers. And that would include even making the "nothing" itself.

the religion compleet the health my friends

Rofl I don't even know what to say but I guess that shows how smart you are. Anyways I really love this quote

And how do you know Perry Marshal is right? He is a business consultant and has a degree in electrical engineering. How did you determine that what he said is right? You people are amazing, you read 1 article on the internet from some random dude and you fully believe it just because it makes your belief correct.

Quote

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.
Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.


doesn't make sense if he really thinks about what he just said referenceing Godel. What does he mean by "coherent?" In the conventional useage, it means "understandable by most people," and in logical usage, it might mean exactly what Godel's theorum says is impossible: a closed logical loop, including all assumptions. Furthermore, not all descriptions of the universe that even postulate a "First Cause" find it necessary to invoke God, therefore that invokation is NOT 100% necessary. It may be for his particular version, and if that's the case, he's confusing himself between his favorite universal theory and all possible universal theories.

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):
•   There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

As discussed, GIT doesn't imply the existence of things outside of a system - simply that the system can ask questions about itself that it can't answer.

Quote from: ddickerson on Mar 26, 2011, 09:30PM

•   The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time

Bit of a dodgy (series of) assumption(s):
1) Even if you can't see any matter beyond a certain distance away, it doesn't mean that there isn't an infinite amount of empty space beyond that. Does the "groundsheet" of the universe extend outwards forever, just waiting for things to move onto it, or does it stop at some point? We don't know.
2) 13.7 billion years is the current age of the universe. The author has made the mistake of only considering past time, not future time. It is entirely possible that the universe will expand forever, resulting in so-called "heat death".

Quote from: ddickerson on Mar 26, 2011, 09:30PM

•   The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
•   The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself

Cannot do so completely. We've come a long way and will go a long way yet before we even have to think about consequences of GIT.

Quote from: ddickerson on Mar 26, 2011, 09:30PM

•   Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

Nope. You just draw an infinitely big circle. Trivial logical error induced by carrying the metaphor of drawing a circle too far. See Godel's second theorem, which implies that any system that can prove its own completeness is by definition incomplete.

You can read more problems here:
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php?topic=55839.0;imode

https://hozzaszolok.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/godels-incompleteness-theorem-or-what-perry-marshall-got-wrong/

You can also read the comments pointing out where his assumptions were simply wrong in his website and other websites where he published his garbage ''argument''.

He is simply wrong and just another religious guy attempting to prove god.

Sigh... ok if you insist.

Astargath you are both repeating yourself and making assertions that do not follow from your actual arguments.

Although I have not read the work of Torkel Franzén, or Ophelia Benson from your quote it seems like they are simply disagreeing with the extension of incompleteness theorems beyond mathematics and logic. The fact that these authorities your appeal to have "commented negatively on such extensions" is not an actual argument. Commenting negatively on an argument does not prove it false any more then my commenting positively proves it true.

Upthread I already noted that if you do not accept the fundamental premises of the Incompleteness argument (that the universe is rational, logical, and finite) then yes you can challenge Perry Marshal's conclusion.  

https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

You demonstrate your lack of a background in either logic or philosophy when you claim "Everything said in your article is plain wrong.", "This statement is simply wrong", and "No, no and no."

Repeating yourself three times does not turn an unsupported assertion into a logical argument.

To review:
The Incompleteness theory of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that when constructing a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is 100% logical

You seem to desperately want to feel that believing is God is entirely irrational. This seems to be an article of faith for you a "sacred truth" you insist on believing regardless of how torturous and unsubstantiated your arguments must become to defend it.

Your problem is that belief in God is entirely logical and rational so your arguments are growing increasingly inconclusive and incoherent.

Perhaps this link may be of use to you?

How to Make a Logical Argument
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.wikihow.com/Make-a-Logical-Argument%3Famp%3D1

Health and Religion, they are very very close friend. not only close friend they link each other, the embraces each other like Husband and Wife. that really very very love each other. that no one can separate. where ever they go and what ever they doing. i remember the one verse from the Bible, in the 3rd chapter Book of John. one of the shortest chapter from book of the Bible. He say's Beloved I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health. Just as you soul or (Spiritual life) prosper. Because when God created man, in His image and in His likeness. He form man from the dust of the ground, and breath into his nostrils the breath of life. And man became a living soul. according to (Geneses 2:7). Since a man created by His creator, absolutely he must worship his creator. and the very acceptable to worship to his God, is glorify his body thru good health. this is the only acceptable offering to worship Him. He instructed, and required, to His early people. (Israel.) note in he-brew word the original translation of the Bible, Israel means,,, Isra means people, El means God. so in other word people of God.) in their offering they must offer blameless spotless offering. therefore, Health and Religion they were not separated each other. thank you and you also prosper in health  just as  your soul prosper. May our God bless you and the company of bitcoin.