"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by Phranny
There are so many "gods" with eternal gifts. How do you decide which is the right god to worship? If this Judeo/Christian god actually existed as described in the Bible, it is so egotistical, that I cannot beleive It would not be reappearing to modern man, full blown. This god is portrayed as demanding not just being a good person and following Its laws, ...[text shortened]... oo. This just strikes me as aburd and full of human egotism that has been foisted on "god".

Well, if God actually is the Creator doesn't he deserve credit, and is it unreasonable to be jealous, if another is given the credit and praise instead?

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
You assume the existence of a "unique/immaterial being".

You are assuming dualism.

From the perspective of non-dualists (and science) no such "immaterial being" exists.

The non-dualist sees your mind, your thoughts and memories, as functions of your physical brain.

And so in the same way that when a computer hard-drive is physically destroyed ...[text shortened]... s and personality) they once held.

They do not "go" anywhere. They just cease to exist.

We are not assuming such a thing. Jesus tells us that there is such a thing. So we are simply believing Him.

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
Did you actually read my post? I mean at all??

"[i]Evolution is a natural process by which living things change and adapt to their environment over successive generations due to changes in frequency of genes in a population due to natural selection.

[b]It has no purpose, no direction, no goal.

In the same way that gravity leads to the format volution is a non-sentient and uncaring process that occurs to any and all known life forms.[/b]

The problem with the evolution theory is that there is no evidence that when mistakes are made that new beneficial information is introduced. The evidence shows just a shuffling around of the same information that was there in the beginning or loss of information. So no new kind of creature can be produced that way.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
One day [13.06.27-13.06.27+] there will be a cessation of your brain waves; that moment the physical death of your body will occur. Where will you [your unique/immaterial being; distinct personality; and vast storage of memories] go? --- Bob

Your hypothetical assumes that we have an 'immortal soul' of some kind and I am, for the sake of the discussion, allowing that. So your question here is also irrelevant.

So I ask you again, what prevents the other two logical possibilities that I presented:
- A temporary relationship
- Multiple temporary relationships

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Your hypothetical assumes that we have an 'immortal soul' of some kind and I am, for the sake of the discussion, allowing that. So your question here is also irrelevant.

So I ask you again, what prevents the other two logical possibilities that I presented:
- A temporary relationship
- Multiple temporary relationships

--- Penguin.

... temporary relationships with what or whom?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... temporary relationships with what or whom?

Good Grief!

From your OP:

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)

I am talking about your hypothetical entity that you proposed in your original post.

My answer to your OP is that it is NOT reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative to a permanent relationship since there are also the logical alternatives of a single temporary relationship or multiple temporary relationships.

I simply ask why these are not reasonable. So far you have asked at least 3 utterly irrelevant questions and failed to answer my completely relevant one.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... temporary relationships with what or whom?

Head ---> Desk ---> broken keyboard....

Edited for clarity here are your posts...

Your OP:

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)

Penguins response:

No, the possibilities here are clearly:

1. A permanent relationship
2. A temporary relationship
3. Multiple temporary relationships
4. A permanent separation

So YOU (gb) asked a question.
That question was... that if there was an eternal entity offering us all a 'gift' of a "permanent relationship" and we turned that offer down the "only viable alternative" would be "permanent separation".

Then Penguin responded by saying that there were other options such as "A temporary relationship" and "Multiple temporary relationships" as alternatives to either "A permanent relationship" or "A permanent separation"...

And Penguin is now asking this...

So I ask you again, what prevents the other two logical possibilities that I presented:
- A temporary relationship
- Multiple temporary relationships

In short Penguin is saying that you are presenting a false dichotomy and that there are more options than the ones you presented and is asking you to justify the two options you presented in the op as being the only two options.


I don't believe it probable enough to be worth considering that you can't understand this.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That does absolutely nothing to refute or even rebut my post.

All you just said is that their was an eternity of time before we existed,
a brief time when we did exist, and then an eternity afterwards.

Nothing that says that those eternities are not countable.

In fact for time to be passing it must in fact be measurable.

So unless your "ete o me where and how I (or anyone else) could possibly
be kept happy and sane for 3^^^3 years.

Out of interest, how does 3^^^3 compare to Graham's number in terms of size?

Bear in mind I know nothing about maths. But I watched a TV programme on it some time ago and it reminded me of it for some reason (well, for some reason other than it is a large number). I think it was to do with the notation.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Out of interest, how does 3^^^3 compare to Graham's number in terms of size?

Bear in mind I know nothing about maths. But I watched a TV programme on it some time ago and it reminded me of it for some reason (well, for some reason other than it is a large number). I think it was to do with the notation.

As astronomically ridiculously immense as 3^^^3 is...
Graham's number is stupendously bigger.

Graham's number is made up of a tower of numbers written in Knuth's up-arrow notation 64 high.
Where the number of arrows in each row is specified by the value of the number underneath...
And the bottom number is 3^^^^3 which corresponds to "3^3" 3^^^3 times... and thus is itself unimaginably larger than 3^^^3. and that's the number of up arrows in the next row up... Given that 3^3^3^3^3 is already a number so large that you couldn't express it digitally if you used every atom in the visible universe to do it, and that's just the first 5 exponents in the ~7.6 Trillion tall tower of exponents that make up 3^^^3 and that that number is the hight of the tower of exponents in 3^^^^3...

I just can't express how deeply ridiculously big Graham's number is...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number


However for our purposes 3^^^3 is plenty big enough for specifying an unimaginably immense period of time.

Originally posted by Penguin
Your hypothetical assumes that we have an 'immortal soul' of some kind and I am, for the sake of the discussion, allowing that. So your question here is also irrelevant.

So I ask you again, what prevents the other two logical possibilities that I presented:
- A temporary relationship
- Multiple temporary relationships

--- Penguin.

"... what prevents the other two logical possibilities that I presented: - A temporary relationship" [God and His work reflect flawless perfection. He created human beings with the self awareness, personality and self determination; characteristics He possess. Anyone promoting the notion of Disposable Souls fails to grasp the Immensity of His Omniscience; Omnipotence; Sovereignty; Justice; Veracity; and Immutability Attributes.] - "Multiple temporary relationships" [In context, redundant.]

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"... what prevents the other two logical possibilities that I presented: - A temporary relationship" [God and His work reflect flawless perfection. He created human beings with the self awareness, personality and self determination; characteristics He possess. Anyone promoting the notion of Disposable Souls fails to grasp the Immensity of His Omniscienc ...[text shortened]... and Immutability Attributes.] - "Multiple temporary relationships" [In context, redundant.]

Are you capable of answering questions simply and clearly?

Even the way you format your responses makes them hard to read and understand.

I don't know about penguin but I have no clue what that was supposed to mean.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Are you capable of answering questions simply and clearly?

Even the way you format your responses makes them hard to read and understand.

I don't know about penguin but I have no clue what that was supposed to mean.

... like this?

> "
Head ---> Desk ---> broken keyboard....

Edited for clarity here are your posts...

Your OP:

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)


Penguins response:


No, the possibilities here are clearly:

1. A permanent relationship
2. A temporary relationship
3. Multiple temporary relationships
4. A permanent separation




So YOU (gb) asked a question.
That question was... that if there was an eternal entity offering us all a 'gift' of a "permanent relationship" and we turned that offer down the "only viable alternative" would be "permanent separation".

Then Penguin responded by saying that there were other options such as "A temporary relationship" and "Multiple temporary relationships" as alternatives to either "A permanent relationship" or "A permanent separation"...

And Penguin is now asking this...


So I ask you again, what prevents the other two logical possibilities that I presented:
- A temporary relationship
- Multiple temporary relationships



In short Penguin is saying that you are presenting a false dichotomy and that there are more options than the ones you presented and is asking you to justify the two options you presented in the op as being the only two options.


I don't believe it probable enough to be worth considering that you can't understand this." (googlefudge)

... or this?

"As astronomically ridiculously immense as 3^^^3 is...
Graham's number is stupendously bigger.

Graham's number is made up of a tower of numbers written in Knuth's up-arrow notation 64 high.
Where the number of arrows in each row is specified by the value of the number underneath...
And the bottom number is 3^^^^3 which corresponds to "3^3" 3^^^3 times... and thus is itself unimaginably larger than 3^^^3. and that's the number of up arrows in the next row up... Given that 3^3^3^3^3 is already a number so large that you couldn't express it digitally if you used every atom in the visible universe to do it, and that's just the first 5 exponents in the ~7.6 Trillion tall tower of exponents that make up 3^^^3 and that that number is the hight of the tower of exponents in 3^^^^3...

I just can't express how deeply ridiculously big Graham's number is...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number


However for our purposes 3^^^3 is plenty big enough for specifying an unimaginably immense period of time." (googlefudge)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... like this?

> "
Head ---> Desk ---> broken keyboard....

Edited for clarity here are your posts...

Your OP:

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individual ...[text shortened]... ifying an unimaginably immense period of time." (googlefudge)

I do my best to make my posts clear.

If someone asks for clarification I give it.

If there is anything you think unclear about those two posts please say so and I will do my best to make them clearer.

All I ask is you for you to do likewise.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I do my best to make my posts clear.

If someone asks for clarification I give it.

If there is anything you think unclear about those two posts please say so and I will do my best to make them clearer.

All I ask is you for you to do likewise.

... as do I.

Question remains for all of us posting here: Do our posts stay within reasonable boundaries of the topic or do they succeed in conveying John Bright's sense of meaning in his memorable line, "He is a self-made man and worships his creator."