AGH!!!!!

Do you need to know sad to enjoy being happy? NO. That's the point. To appreciate being happy? Yeah, it would help to have been sad. But you can be happy without knowing about sad or happy. Done. I'm done. Read this everyone: I'm done talking about this.

Because you don't believe in tigers doesn't mean one can't eat you. Maybe that's why? Maybe because Christians believe that some have reason to fear hell?

How do you know what god wants you to do? A book written by men? If you had no bible to go on....what would be your point of reference for what god wants you to do? You would have to discern yourself a point of good and evil. Who is to say your discernation would be right and correct?

It absolutly changes the quality of the experience, it is about perception. If I only know 50 degree weather and do not know 70 degree or 0 degree I only have one frame of reference. Therefore I only know one thing and that is 50 degree.

I don't know how or why you have the ideas you have, but the sky in your world must be purple and the grass must be blue, as the concepts you express are not clear to anyone but yourself.

Yes, you absolutly do..... If you only know happy then you think happy is simply exsistance, not something to cherish, it is what it is and nothing more.

But if you believe that tigers are harmless, and where I live there are no tigers then for me tigers do not exsist. Therefor tigers cannot harm me or bite me.

YOu are comeing from the frame of mind that Christianity is the only school of thought, and that there is not other truth than your own... that's a sad exsistance.

That is imposing your judgement on others. To relate your god to a man eating tiger is quite interesting. I would have thought he would be a harmless dove or butterfly or something as equally loving, gentle. Or is that the hype to reel them in and then they lay the bomb on them that he is in fact a vengeful god full of discrimination and judgements? Who will love you only as long as you do his biding? Just a question

Strawman fallacy. I said "quality being experianced" not "quality of the experiance". A chinchilla is soft, even if you have never touched one. Even if you have never heard of a chinchilla, it's soft. If you have never touched any animal, other than a chinchilla, it is still soft. You might not appeciate it's softness, but it's still soft.



I guess I missed it when everyone voted you their spokesperson. How did you check with everyone else who posts here so quickly before you responded to my post? But oh well, I guess it's better to insult someone than to try to understand what is being said.

What does soft mean if you have no concept of its opposite?

WOW. Tigers exist...even if you haven't seen one. Tigers can bite you and harm you...even if you think they cannot.



No...strawman again. I know that many schools of belief exist, but I believe mine to be correct.

Here we go again. WOW. You guys just don't give up.

Strawman again. I releated HELL to a tiger. Please try to keep up, it's a deep subject and you can't skim the page and get the gist like you did in school.

...and the answer is?

From my point of view the idea that God can know the future was an idea that was supported by the classical physics of the Newtonian era. The world was believed to be like a giant clockworks and determinism appeared to be the way things were.

In today’s world that notion is no longer valid based on the observations of quantum physics.

Quantum physics tells us that the future is not knowable. It’s indeterminate and probabilistic only. In fact, there are indications that imply that our thoughts may very well shape how the universe is manifest, within the laws of physics of course.

The laws of physics do not change. At least not abruptly, and therefore the actual laws of the universe are not indeterminate. But how things are individually manifest is.

The universe herself does not know what will happen next, she can only know in terms of probabilities, and those probabilities become infinitely more complex the further into the future one attempts to predict. God cannot know the future because it is inherently not knowable. This is the way the universe is designed. This is the way that God made things to be. Even God herself cannot know the future. It simply isn’t knowable.

So if a person believes that God cannot know what isn’t true, then God cannot know the future because it hasn’t yet become truth.

Just because there is no time for God does not mean that God can know the future. The concept of time to God is completely different from the kind of time we experience. That would require a whole explanation of Relativity to show why this is true. But the idea that because for God there is no time, this means that God can know the future is a bogus idea. God cannot know the future. It’s not knowable by anyone, not even the universe itself. (i.e. not even by God herself)

Do you need to know what "soft" is to enjoy the feeling?

I’m going wherever God goes so any concept of hell is totally irrelevant to me.

I think the people who believe in hell, believe in it because they are living it day to day. They create their own hell and God allows them the free will to do it.

I’m not sure if they can be saved from their own negativity. If that’s what they choose to wallow in then perhaps they are enjoying it in a masochistic sort of way.

If there were no concept of hard and soft ... it would just 'be' ... How would I 'enjoy' something that always was without the possibility of anything else?

Ok spider, I said this:



You responded with this:



It makes all the sense in this universe spider.

I did not say good and evil, you did.

It is true enough though, that good and evil are descriptive words which place a value of 'ought' on any given notion, including a being.

It is impossible though, to believe in a divine being without the ability to recognize it's divinity. That comparitive value assessment requires the knowledge of both, what does, and what does not constitute divinity.




The question at hand is not can one live without making a value assessment. I have just explained the relevance of assessment when concerning divinity and evil.

I had said this:



To which you had replied as such:



What then would 'full' be, if there were no 'empty'? What value would 'good' have without 'bad'?




Once again the strawman is your argument, not mine... allow me to specify your absurdities spider...

How can you possible make this claim? You have most certainly have talked of choice. Just because the word itself may not have been written, does not mean that your storyline has not contained the repeated implications.

Allow me to remind you that your entire argument is contingient upon man's choice.

And I will quote you:



That requires choice.



That requires choice.



That requires choice.



That requires not only choice, but both of which to exist, and the ability to establish what constitutes either, in order to make the choice between the two.




Ok... here is what you did say:



Who created all things spider, man or 'God'?

My mistake, I thought god was the determiner of hell or heaven, which would make him the tiger as hell is not a living thing who can bite you. I misunderstood your analogy. So what you are saying then is hell can reach out and get you even if you do not believe in it? Okay. Well sounds kind of scifi-ish to me but your analogy not mine.

You work yourself up trying to make logic out of this illogical concept of religion, bible and god. There is no logic in it. It is a mind concept that takes a great leap of faith to believe. If you choose to take that leap of faith then you are accepting the concepts at a spiritual level but to make logic out of it cannot be done without a distorted sense of logic. This is where you struggle.

You and others are trying to give knowledge that you feel we do not have. I have as much knowledge as you do on religion and I do not make the leap of faith to take me to where you are. This does not make me wrong or hell bound. It makes me different from you. I will not be suffering any from my beliefs. I hope the same for you.

OMG yes a chinchilla is soft, but is it softer than a rock or softer than a cloud? YOU DON'T KNOW UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT THE OTHER TWO ARE.

I have tried to understand you on many occasions I have begged you to explain your point of view, I have also seen what others have said to you....and the consensus is that no one understands why you can't comprehend anyone else's point of view but your own...... That is fine to have what ever point of view you have...however if you are going to defend it...make sure someone but you understands it...otherwise it is a mute point.