Seems like one big ol' contradiction
why is it contradictory?
And did you try to post this on the mises lounge to liven that place up?
It seems to be malfunctioning (or is it)
TelfordUS: Seems like one big ol' contradiction
Because he wanted you to exist. You're the main character.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
He was bored.
Because he wanted to. If you want more information, talk to a psychologist.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan: Because he wanted to. If you want more information, talk to a psychologist.
A felt unease! Duh!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:A felt unease! Duh!
a perfect being that feels unease?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
We'd have to ask him ourselves.
by angelmail or prayerpower?
I thought we were supposed to get to talk to him if we were good in life or something?
nirgrahamUK:a perfect being that feels unease?
Does Mark Harmon not feel unease?
I think it's too late to talk to him; he's dead.
Mark Harmon isn't dead....wikipedia says so.
Laughing Man: Mark Harmon isn't dead....wikipedia says so.
Oh I meant God (nietzsche bonus points)
But then again, Harmon's pretty godly
Ugh don't get me started with Nietzsche
Laughing Man: Ugh don't get me started with Nietzsche
:3
What's ur problem with Nietz? As you may have noticed I'm quite a fan, hence my picture
inb4 "Bawww social darwinism/Hitler/etc"
Because he knows what ye know not
auctionguy10: Because he knows what ye know not
Explain por favor
I believe The Creator caused the vast, incomprehensible Universe with us residing upon the tiniest speck of dust therein to teach a valuable lesson:
Government of the people, by the people, and by the people DOES NOT WORK.
Government of The Creator, by The Creator, and for the people DOES.
Choose the latter. Regards,
Samarami
Samarami: I believe The Creator caused the vast, incomprehensible Universe with us residing upon the tiniest speck of dust therein to teach a valuable lesson: Government of the people, by the people, and by the people DOES NOT WORK. Government of The Creator, by The Creator, and for the people DOES. Choose the latter. Regards, Samarami
The latter sounds like it draws the permanent line between the leaders and the followers, so would it be...
of the Fuhrer, by the Fuhrer, for the Germans?
TelfordUS: [The latter sounds like it draws the permanent line between the leaders and the followers, so would it be...
of the Fuhrer, by the Fuhrer, for the Germans?]
Nah. It simply means the man or woman who becomes a sovereign state residing within a tyranny must be governed by a set of laws which can be posted upon two tablets of stone. That is how one finds freedom in an unfree world. (Thanks, Harry Browne).
He's one bad Chuck Norris joke.
TelfordUS:Explain por favor
Well I find contradiction in much of what he says. Like in 'Thus spoke Zarathustra'
Samarami:Nah. It simply means the man or woman who becomes a sovereign state residing within a tyranny must be governed by a set of laws which can be posted upon two tablets of stone. That is how one finds freedom in an unfree world. (Thanks, Harry Browne).
Well while I agree with some of the Ten commandments such as do not steal and do not murder, the rest of them aren't 'liberating' dictates
42
I thought the idea was that god was lonely and wanted companionship?
You observe, but you do not see.
Justin Laws: I thought the idea was that god was lonely and wanted companionship?
If one takes God to be a trinity, three persons sharing one nature as historic Christianity does, then the lonliness and companionship reason has no foundation since he has been in perfect companionship throughout all eternity; and this is what we will partake in when we have union with Christ.
So it can't be the loneliness idea. I'd argue just because he wanted to. Now as I have argued earlier this does not imply any imperfection or uneasiness in God.
See here.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
I know not why but if asked how god would create the universe then it'd likely be what it is now.
I doubt he is an old man with a grey beard that really cares about humanity.
Perhaps the universe is god and we are just pieces of (him)?
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
Why do so many assume that god is male?
And what do you mean by asking why she created the universe? I don't think she created the universe, I think she organized the universe.
As to why she organized the universe, she was probably bored.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Does the creator of universe and its rules become subject to the universe it created?
Maybe it's possible to transcend beyond reason.
Spideynw: Why do so many assume that god is male?
In English, the only gender-neutral, third-person, singular pronoun, "it", when one uses it to refer to objects not inanimate, carries a negative connotation.
filc: 42
God is called He because I think it is supposed to express actuality as per aristotle: a man is more actual and a woman is potential so the woman is informed by the man who is the true cause of the baby. So God who creates everything is called He because of his supreme actuality.
God is, currently, a superstition. We need to find more information to examine these questions outside of philosophy.
Many anarchists, libertarians and those of us associated with Mises will tend to look at themselves as "atheists". My observation is that most of these folks don't reject Creation -- or for that matter they don't even so much reject the G-d of Chr-stianity. What they reject is Religion. It is religion that has sullied and made ridiculous the idea of Creation and a Creator. Or the idea of Law and an all-wise Lawgiver.
I would hate to venture a guess as to how many thousands upon thousands of beliefs, doctrines, philosophies, teachings, liturgies, or practices lay claim for their ideas to that all-time best selling Hebrew book called "The Bible". And many (most, actually) of those ideas are quite far fetched, as the writer of the post to which you link indicates. I think that's where this thread is leading.
The problem lies, I'm convinced, with the unfortunate association of the term "historic Christianity" with Creation or a Creator or a Creative Force -- whatever term best allays your fear of getting wrapped up in "religion" and all the negative feelings that elicits. We know that we need a set of morals or laws or rules or codes with which to live in order to have a true libertarian "society". And we know it would be nice if everybody in that society also lived by them.
But we (those of us who subscribe to the Mises thinking) also believe we have no authority or "right" to bring force to bear upon anybody to "conform". Our entire mantra is freedom -- freedom for everybody, even if they do some bad deeds and we have to defend our property and our person and those we love from "bad" folks.
I once again urge everybody to get a copy of the late Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" and put some study into it.
When I look out into the vastness of space I have no idea how it all came together. I just know it is incomprehensible -- beyond my earthbound mentality to attempt to understand. And I get the feeling that the answers to our quandaries over just how a "stateless society" or a "libertarian community" will at some point be accomplished might just be within the plans of the Sustainer Who keeps the whole thing in motion in such a way that we can live and breathe and think and feel and procreate here on this minuscule speck of dust we call the earth.
.
I don't believe God created the universe.
But if there is a God and he did, I imagine for the same reason one may create a fire cracker.
Giant_Joe: Does the creator of universe and its rules become subject to the universe it created?
The entire premise of a god is a contradictory one. God is a being of omnipotence and omniscience. It is limited by nothing, not even the natural sciences, and knows all. If you have a god that knows all and is existence itself, then the future is entirely predetermined. He is himself limited by determinism. Let us postulate that god is not limited by uncertainty. it would not act because choice is non existent as a result of the absence of uncertainty; ergo it shalt react to stimuli without a will of its own.
Giant_Joe: Maybe it's possible to transcend beyond reason.
No, that would be special pleading.
Samarami: When I look out into the vastness of space I have no idea how it all came together. I just know it is incomprehensible -- beyond my earthbound mentality to attempt to understand. And I get the feeling that the answers to our quandaries over just how a "stateless society" or a "libertarian community" will at some point be accomplished might just be within the plans of the Sustainer Who keeps the whole thing in motion in such a way that we can live and breathe and think and feel and procreate here on this minuscule speck of dust we call the earth. Samarami .
I applaud your transcendentalism.
Capital Pumper: Let us postulate that god is not limited by uncertainty.
If God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent what is to prevent Him from creating uncertainty?
Is not creating beings in His own image, with a will to reject Him and His image delegating the responsiblity of uncertainty?
When man rejects God and His image does He not allow such a condition to exist?
If God were 'good' ought He have created automatons?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Pumper: Giant_Joe: Maybe it's possible to transcend beyond reason. No, that would be special pleading.
What if to transcend is a gift given that one may only choose to reject?
The responsibility of reason is to discern.
Ought God to have created means without resultant ends?
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
G8R HED: If God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent what is to prevent Him from creating uncertainty?
You just answered your own question.
&
Aside from the fact that "creating uncertainty" is an oxymoron, action and choice would imply that there's already uncertainty.
G8R HED: Is not creating beings in His own image, with a will to reject Him and His image delegating the responsiblity of uncertainty?
Putting up some pretty phraseology wallpaper over determinism does not make it free will. Regardless, I've demonstrated that god isn't a logically workable concept with or without determinism.
G8R HED: What if to transcend
What if to transcend
To transcend reason would be to say that consciousness can transcend existence.
I see where this discussion is going though. Theists and friends will try to wish away reason to exempt god from contradictions.