Good to know there are like-minded individuals.
1 Like
I bet in any possible world some people would complain and some people would not. The complaining makes no difference.
For something to be perfect, you cannot overstep it, so in perfection youâd lose freedom. What would you want? Perfection or freedom? Iâd say lack of freedom would, in the end, entail a lack of consciousness. Thereâd be nobody in that universe.
This is already being discussed in itâs entirety within Some Thoughts on God
Im having a back and forth with @greenfuse exactly about this. Some Thoughts on God - #76 by Nausamedu
I do not know where the idea is coming from that this universe is based on the concept of love.
Love is part of this universe, but it is not based upon it, unless we have a very different understanding of the idea of love than our creator would, cause nobody who loves their children would put them in a universe based around eating eachother and trying to outfuck the extinction of your own species by⌠well yeah⌠pointless to repeat myself here, if you want, give the other thread a readâŚ
1 Like
Nor would the lack of complaining or compliance or resignation.
Seems like very speculative betting.
Is saying like betting? Or is it trying to get others to bet a certain way? Or something else?
The whole point of not complaining is that you arenât asking for anything to change.
Are you saying that you hate the world?
and your point being?
Thank you.
Itâs good to know there are more like-minded people.
My point being that pointing out that not complaining doesnât change anything is as revealing as saying that sitting don doesnât make it rain.
I hate young adults.
Thereâs older ones also.
Who would you be asking, tho?
Bellyachers always find someone.
Does ANY one even have or hold the idea that the Universe, Itself, is based on the concept of love.
In fact, is the Universe Itself based on the concept of absolutely ANY thing at all?
It appears that only âthis oneâ has introduced some idea about the Universe Itself is based on the concept of love, as a straw man, as this idea obviously falls down all by itself.
It was pointless to say what you did the first time, let alone repeating it.
So, âweâ have another one thinks or believes introducing straw man, and then arguing against that idea, is something worth noting here.
Oh, not this is a fairly common idea in religion and spirituality. That God is love, that the universe is run on love, that the universe is love embodied. You can find this in Sufism, New Age spiritualities, many facets of the conglomerate religions Hinduism and Christianity, Others include Sihkism, Jainism, Kabbalah based spiritualities, The Bahai faith, and more.
God as The Mind is less common.
Itâs not a strawman unless he has said a particular person or group has put forward that position. If he said you were saying that God is Love and the universe is run and guided by love, perhaps that is a strawman.
Noted.
Obviously, God, in the Spiritual sense, is about âloveâ, Itself, and âloveâ embodied, Just the Creator, the Universe, It Self, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with âloveâ, itself.
But, clearly, one would have to KNOW what âloveâ and God, are, exactly, first to understand any and all of this here.
And, you can find all sorts of things in all sorts of religions, take, for example, the scientific religion; in their texts you can find claims like the universe began. Which is the exact same claim in some other theological religious texts.
So, obviously, just because an idea is a fairly common idea among those religions and scientific religions, this in no way makes what is claimed even remotely close to being true.
So what?
âyouâ seem to have a thing with commonality. Anyway, what would it matter if it is less or more common. Either something is True or it is not.
The earth revolving around the sun was also so-called âless commonâ as well, In fact, it was so âless commonâ that at one stage only one only knew about it.
Okay, so it might not be a straw man, but it is a red herring. For example, claiming that âGod is a âheâ,â is something introduced to mislead, distract, or deflect attention from a primary issue, important question, or central plot.
That a red herring or just any other Truly other absurd idea and claim can be âtaken onâ, and then also become so-called âcommonâ, never makes them True nor Right.
Only if I was distorting an argument so as to make it easier to attack.
But, again, just because a belief, a perspective, or an idea is common never means it relates to what is Real, True, and/or Right, in Life.
Okay.
And then perhaps Il Nulla will wonder why the Creator did not create something that had nothing at all to do with âloveâ. Weâll see.
Right, but that wasnât my point, nor do I think it was Il Nullaâs. As far as I can tell he is very skeptical that it is true that the universe is guided by or runs on love or is love. I think that is part of his point.
I was responding to you reacting to Il Nulla as if he was simply making up a strawman. I pointed out that it was actually a very common belief and so he was not making up a strawman. Itâs a fairly common view. Thatâs all. You vague ad hom comment that I seem to have a thing with commonality is neither here nor there.
It could be a red herring in some specific argument with someone, for example here, with a specific position, but itâs not in this thread since he is reaction to that common position. He is reacting to a common belief with skepticism.
That a red herring or just any other Truly other absurd idea and claim can be âtaken onâ, and then also become so-called âcommonâ, never makes them True nor Right.
Well, I havenât said that nor has Il Nulla. In fact he clearly disagrees with the idea that the universe is love.
Yeah, youâve now said that three times to me in this post, even though it isnât relevant to my posts.
If âil_nullaâ does start wondering such a thing as this, and âil_nullaâ can think for âitselfâ, then âil_nullaâ might, one day, work out that the physical Universe is IN Creation, and the Creator of It Self, but like all physical matter the Universe It Self also does NOT consider nor wonder. âLoveâ exists in concept, and not in physical matter itself.
Again, matter is NOT guided by love, runs on love, nor is love. The Creator of the Universe is It Self, which is made up of matter, and âspaceâ, only. Any concept that the Universe It Self is guided by, runs on, or is âloveâ is just totally ridiculous. So, presenting âthat ideaâ, and then using âthat ideaâ to argue and fight against is also ridiculous. Claiming that the Universe which is creating Its Self is love, or runs on love, or is guided by love is like saying a lion creating a baby lion is love, or runs on love, or is guided by love as well. or that a tree creating a baby tree is also love, or runs on love, or is guided by love too, which are all ridiculous statements and claims.
Again, introducing this sort of idea and claim here, and then using Why did the Creator of the Universe not create a loving Universe is just a logical fallacy where âil_nullaâ is just distorting what others might be saying (no matter how many people there are) to just make what they are saying easier to attack.
I think that is part of âil_nullaâsâ point.
Distorting anotherâs arguments/words, to make it easier to attack, is making up a straw man.
This âweâ will have to wait and see. So, does ANY one here, is this forum, have or hold âthis beliefâ that âil_nullaâ is trying to attack and argue against?
If âil_nullaâ is making up a straw man or not will depend on what the other is saying or what their argument is, exactly.
Who is it, exactly, that âil_nullaâ is arguing against here?
ANY one can say and claim âthisâ is a fairly common view, and present their own version of some proposed âfairly common viewâ, and then attack and argue against âoneâs own version presented viewâ. But, obviously, if âyouâ do not have an actual opponent presenting their own views to argue against, then presenting your own version of what you claim is a âfairly common viewâ is âyouâ argue against âyour own presented versions of viewsâ.
Yet it is something you like to bring up commonly.
So, who are the people here in this forum with this proposed âcommon beliefâ that âil_nullaâ is âtrying toâ argue against here, exactly?
As far as I can tell, there is NO one here with the idea that the Universe is love.
So, again, one introducing âthis ideaâ âthemselfâ here, and then âtrying toâ argue against it, is literally arguing against âyourselfâ.
But it is a fairly common belief of yours.
Making or negating a case for something is independent of whether or not that case is part of your worldview. Itâs called arguingâŚin the technical or philosophical sense.
1 Like