Originally posted by EpicurusThat condescends free-will. Nature chooses not to override free-will, preferring to sort things out through those who follow a purposeful task in life.
God was the one who determined what actions those would be. God also created Hell.
Misery is a choice, the past and the mistakes of others can only haunt you if you choose not to move on.
Originally posted by Oneness
That condescends free-will. Nature chooses not to override free-will, preferring to sort things out through those who follow a purposeful task in life.Misery is a choice, the past and the mistakes of others can only haunt you if you choose not to move on.
How do you know we even have free-will? If the present is the result of all the causes and effects of the past, then reality is like a movie, and free-will is only an illusion.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonFor the sheep.
How do you know we even have free-will? If the present is the result of all the causes and effects of the past, then reality is like a movie, and free-will is only an illusion.
There's only one Shepherd, and that Shepherd has to be obeyed.
That is a crucial choice that very, very few make.
Shepherd is a metaphor, imagine an intellect that knows how everyone could work together harmoniously to produce a world worth living in. There's an unfathomable quantity of probabilities of how select individual behaviors can result in benefiting society as a whole, nature has recalibrated all of them googols of times to accommodate obstinate choices.
In the end, to follow the guidance of the Shepherd is to follow one's own inner bliss. Interesting that most choose not to do so.
It is also interesting that as our needs our provided for we automatically seek to provide and nurture others around us, a moral behavior imprinted into our very DnA.
Suffice it to say, it is obvious there is a malevolent, extra-human mind at work to lead sheep astray.
"God"; as far as we know, isn't the end all be all like Vishnu would be. An end all be all, is not achievable as that implies infinite time for the universe to increase in complexity, and infinity is an upper asymptotic abstract by very definition.
In short, Biblical omnipotence would be a falsity, and a "satanic" abstraction would be outside of God's grasp and would also be the result of unplanned for scenarios.
But also, that Satan is as much a creation of God as we, and therefore it must also be a survivor the likes of which any man should envy. Surviving the wrath of God.
Although Jesus, must be even more ferocious.
Actually, God has no wrath because God is "omnibenevolent". Satan survived without God's love. Without God's love, existence is chaotic. Surviving the absence of God's love and therefore the absence of good. Satan lives in misery, lives in hell, and every moment of its existence is more miserable than the last. A lot of people don't realize this, and I've read what Digi had to say on the matter.
Satan has no help from God, in everything it does it must be totally self-sufficient. Though sin is generated, and it is far worse to endure the hatred of Satan than to endure an existence without God's grace.
More so than any individual human, Jesus was at the forefront, enduring a larger quantity of Satan's wrath specifically because God couldn't take to see his pets tortured by Satan anymore.
Jesus is the backbone, he's endured and in revelations he's predicted to improvise control over far more than any Angel like Satan, and overcome any obstacle with said control over this morsel of existence we believe to be the "universe". Purportedly, given God is the super being in which I describe.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not impressed. You are not even trying. How can there be free-will when every moment is dictated by the moment before?
By living in the moment, not the moment before. Don't do what you should, do what you want/need/feel. Its the closest thing you'll ever have to freewill.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonBecause I sit her and say to you; Buddha may have been wrong.
How do you know that you would always do that? How would you know that freewill isn't an illusion?
It is my choice to believe that Buddha had a less complete picture, and maybe more flawed answers, than Anthropological, scientifically literate, and philosophically diversified historians like Carl Sagan. However more recognized he may be for them currently.
Maybe causation isn't going to enlighten consciousness at the Omega Point because perhaps consciousness has no omega point. No supreme being, but an infinite hierarchy of superior beings.
There is some religion in the latter, as something out there, given QM, may as well be God to us.
Originally posted by Oneness
Because I sit her and say to you; Buddha may have been wrong.It is my choice to believe that Buddha had a less complete picture, and maybe more flawed answers, than Anthropological, scientifically literate, and philosophically diversified historians like Carl Sagan. However more recognized he may be for them currently.
Maybe causation isn't going to enlighten consciousness at the Omega Point because perhaps consciousness has no omega point. No supreme being, but an infinite hierarchy of superior beings.
There is some religion in the latter, as something out there, given QM, may as well be God to us.
My question has more to do with Carl Sagan then Buddha. If the present is only the result of the past, where is free will? In other words, if the present is nothing but the effects of the causes in the past, how can there be something novel? In this case novelty would be free will.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonIt is precisely because of the fact that there's no singular personification of a supreme being, there's perhaps an endless hierarchy super beings but their reach may not extend far enough to make cause and effect a balanced and non-chaotic abstraction.
My question has more to do with Carl Sagan then Buddha. If the present is only the result of the past, where is free will? In other words, if the present is nothing but the effects of the causes in the past, how can there be something novel? In this case novelty would be free will.
Perhaps Buddhism is faith in chaos, and the only order comes from beings, inferior to superior.
Originally posted by Oneness
It is precisely because of the fact that there's no singular personification of a supreme being, there's perhaps an endless hierarchy super beings but their reach may not extend far enough to make cause and effect a balanced and non-chaotic abstraction.Perhaps Buddhism is faith in chaos, and the only order comes from beings, inferior to superior.
I'm not talking about supreme beings, or Buddhism.
1 + 1 = 2 and it will always be 2. It will never be 3 or 4. Free will leads you to believe that you have some say in what you do. But if reality is just a very large equation, how can you change it, any more then you can change 1 + 1 = 2?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonWho said reality wasn't totally chaotic.
I'm not talking about supreme beings, or Buddhism.1 + 1 = 2 and it will always be 2. It will never be 3 or 4. Free will leads you to believe that you have some say in what you do. But if reality is just a very large equation, how can you change it, any more then you can change 1 + 1 = 2?
Choice is the only novel thing there can be, consciousness is a thermodynamic miracle. That's why there's free will, reality isn't an equation, it spits back patterns chaotically and humans seem to be the only internal patterns that correct themselves.
Imagine something greater correcting humans, herding them along, or something malevolent and greater trying to lead them to ruin. All suffering would be averted without evil influence if there was a superior influence working upon us unimpeded.
Originally posted by Epicurus
Faulty premise. A system can be be governed by a set of constant rules, and still end up becoming chaotic. Chaos Theory also disagrees with you.
Really? You think that is what oneness was talking about? Let’s see what he said:
Originally posted by Oneness
Because I sit her and say to you; Buddha may have been wrong.
It is my choice to believe that Buddha had a less complete picture, and maybe more flawed answers, than Anthropological, scientifically literate, and philosophically diversified historians like Carl Sagan. However more recognized he may be for them currently.
Maybe causation isn't going to enlighten consciousness at the Omega Point because perhaps consciousness has no omega point. No supreme being, but an infinite hierarchy of superior beings.
There is some religion in the latter, as something out there, given QM, may as well be God to us.
Originally posted by Oneness
It is precisely because of the fact that there's no singular personification of a supreme being, there's perhaps an endless hierarchy super beings but their reach may not extend far enough to make cause and effect a balanced and non-chaotic abstraction.
Perhaps Buddhism is faith in chaos, and the only order comes from beings, inferior to superior.
Originally posted by Oneness
Who said reality wasn't totally chaotic.
Choice is the only novel thing there can be, consciousness is a thermodynamic miracle. That's why there's free will, reality isn't an equation, it spits back patterns chaotically and humans seem to be the only internal patterns that correct themselves.
Imagine something greater correcting humans, herding them along, or something malevolent and greater trying to lead them to ruin. All suffering would be averted without evil influence if there was a superior influence working upon us unimpeded.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI'm not stringing together abstractions, I'm relaying abstractions.
Really? You think that is what oneness was talking about? Let’s see what he said:So, you really think that Oneness was talking about Chaos Theory?! Shure, he used the word Chaos, but he also used the words, Buddha, Anthropological, Omega Point, singular personification, thermodynamic miracle, and let’s not forget, Carl Sagan.
He was NOT talking about Chaos Theory. He was just stringing words together. Chaos Theory is still a mathematical equation. There is no free will in Chaos Theory.
Chaos Theory included.
And whether or not you believe me, Epicurus is right; ipso facto, I'm right - you're wrong.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? You think that is what oneness was talking about? Let’s see what he said:
"If reality was Chaotic then there would be no rules of nature. "
Learn to differentiate.