So, is there proof of INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

[BreezeWood]

So this world, with all its pain and suffering was the best thing a perfect and good being could come up with? Your bar is very low.

That would be your take away from that. Ignore the overwhelming good and define the rule through exception.

So you want God to do magical stuff for you, eh?

There is no 'overwhelming' good, there is a continuum and everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, there are no exceptions. I have it really good, always have, but I know many who suffer every day. For some it is their bad choices, for some it is their bad luck.

As for the magical stuff? Yes! If God wants me to believe in him I think he owes me something that shows he is real. Moses got a burning bush. Jesus performed miracles. I don't ask for much, just something.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

.
what is made of existence is variable only the blind or disobedient pretend otherwise. the desert religions, political opportunist.

 

[alang1216]

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

Don't pity me, my existence is overwhelmingly good. Pity the 50,000 Americans that committed suicide last year.

 

[alang1216]

I think it is illogical that you think he owes you anything at all. Apparently you expect the creator of existence to be your show pony and personal servant. How silly is that?

Almost as silly as judging someone on whether they believe in your existance when you've hidden yourself for their entire lives.

 

[ding]

So this world, with all its pain and suffering was the best thing a perfect and good being could come up with? Your bar is very low.

That would be your take away from that. Ignore the overwhelming good and define the rule through exception.

So you want God to do magical stuff for you, eh?

There is no 'overwhelming' good, there is a continuum and everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, there are no exceptions. I have it really good, always have, but I know many who suffer every day. For some it is their bad choices, for some it is their bad luck.

As for the magical stuff? Yes! If God wants me to believe in him I think he owes me something that shows he is real. Moses got a burning bush. Jesus performed miracles. I don't ask for much, just something.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

.
what is made of existence is variable only the blind or disobedient pretend otherwise. the desert religions, political opportunist.

Maimonides replies...

Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance; the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, "and ye shall be like Elohim" (Gen. 3:5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence "and ye shall be like princes." Having pointed out the homonymity of the term "Elohim" we return to the question under consideration. "It would at first sight," said the objector, "appear from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil: but that Adam's disobedience to the command of God procured him that great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of distinguishing between good and evil-the noblest of all the faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race. It thus appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained previously. This is equivalent to saying that a certain man was rebellious and extremely wicked, wherefore his nature was changed for the better, and he was made to shine as a star in the heavens." Such was the purport and subject of the question, though not in the exact words of the inquirer. Now mark our reply, which was as follows:--"You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted to man as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him before his disobedience. With reference to this gift the Bible states that "man was created in the form and likeness of God." On account of this gift of intellect man was addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it is said: "And the Lord God commanded Adam" (Gen. 2:16)--for no commandments are given to the brute creation or to those who are devoid of understanding. Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent truths (morals), not in that of necessary truths, as, e.g., it is not correct to say, in reference to the proposition "the heavens are spherical," it is "good" or to declare the assertion that "the earth is flat" to be "bad": but we say of the one it is true, of the other it is false. Similarly our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms emet and sheker, of the morally right and the morally wrong, by tob and ra’. Thus it is the function of the intellect to discriminate between the true and the false--a distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual perception. When Adam was yet in a state of innocence, and was guided solely by reflection and reason--on account of which it is said: "Thou hast made him (man) little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:6)--he was not at all able to follow or to understand the principles of apparent truths; the most manifest impropriety, viz., to appear in a state of nudity, was nothing unbecoming according to his idea: he could not comprehend why it should be so. After man's disobedience, however, when he began to give way to desires which had their source in his imagination and to the gratification of his bodily appetites, as it is said, "And the wife saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes" (Gen. 3:6), he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed. He therefore transgressed a command with which he had been charged on the score of his reason; and having obtained a knowledge of the apparent truths, he was wholly absorbed in the study of what is proper and what improper. Then he fully understood the magnitude of the loss he had sustained, what he had forfeited, and in what situation he was thereby placed. Hence we read, "And ye shall be like elohim, knowing good and evil," and not "knowing" or "discerning the true and the false": while in necessary truths we can only apply the words "true and false," not "good and evil." Further observe the passage, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked" (Gen. 3:7): it is not said, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they saw"; for what the man had seen previously and what he saw after this circumstance was precisely the same: there had been no blindness which was now removed, but he received a new faculty whereby he found things wrong which previously he had not regarded as wrong. Besides, you must know that the Hebrew word pakaḥ used in this passage is exclusively employed in the figurative sense of receiving new sources of knowledge, not in that of regaining the sense of sight. Comp., "God opened her eyes" (Gen. 21:19). "Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened" (Isaiah 38:8). "Open ears, he heareth not" (ibid. 42:20), similar in sense to the verse, "Which have eyes to see, and see not" (Ezek. 12:2). When, however, Scripture says of Adam, "He changed his face (panav) and thou sentest him forth" Job 14:20), it must be understood in the following way: On account of the change of his original aim he was sent away. For panim, the Hebrew equivalent of face, is derived from the verb panah, "he turned," and signifies also "aim," because man generally turns his face towards the thing he desires. In accordance with this interpretation, our text suggests that Adam, as he altered his intention and directed his thoughts to the acquisition of what he was forbidden, he was banished from Paradise: this was his punishment; it was measure for measure. At first he had the privilege of tasting pleasure and happiness, and of enjoying repose and security; but as his appetites grew stronger, and he followed his desires and impulses, (as we have already stated above), and partook of the food he was forbidden to taste, he was deprived of everything, was doomed to subsist on the meanest kind of food, such as he never tasted before, and this even only after exertion and labour, as it is said, "Thorns and thistles shall grow up for thee" (Gen. 3:18), "By the sweat of thy brow," etc., and in explanation of this the text continues, "And the Lord God drove him from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he was taken." He was now with respect to food and many other requirements brought to the level of the lower animals: comp., "Thou shalt eat the grass of the field" (Gen. 3:18). Reflecting on his condition, the Psalmist says, "Adam unable to dwell in dignity, was brought to the level of the dumb beast" (Ps. 49:13)."May the Almighty be praised, whose design and wisdom cannot be fathomed."

 

[ding]

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

Don't pity me, my existence is overwhelmingly good. Pity the 50,000 Americans that committed suicide last year.

If that were the case you would view existence from your perspective which you have full knowledge of rather than an isolated understanding of the perspectives of others which you lack a full accounting of. So I can only assume you judging the whole of existence as bad, that that is your true view of existence and not the view of others which you really don't know.

 

[ding]

I think it is illogical that you think he owes you anything at all. Apparently you expect the creator of existence to be your show pony and personal servant. How silly is that?

Almost as silly as judging someone on whether they believe in your existance when you've hidden yourself for their entire lives.

Your error is in thinking he has hidden himself from you rather than you have hidden yourself from him.

He isn't going to beg you to come to him. You have to make the first step. With that said, he is going to continue to work in your life and if you can't see how he has worked in your life that's on you, not him.

 

[ding]

Maimonides responds to the claim that God has not made himself known....

WE have already stated, in one of the chapters of this treatise, that there is a great difference between bringing to view the existence of a thing and demonstrating its true essence. We can lead others to notice the existence of an object by pointing to its accidents, actions, or even most remote relations to other objects: e.g., if you wish to describe the king of a country to one of his subjects who does not know him, you can give a description and an account of his existence in many ways. You will either say to him, the tall man with a fair complexion and grey hair is the king, thus describing him by his accidents; or you will say, the king is the person round whom are seen a great multitude of men on horse and on foot, and soldiers with drawn swords, over whose head banners are waving, and before whom trumpets are sounded; or it is the person living in the palace in a particular region of a certain country: or it is the person who ordered the building of that wall, or the construction of that bridge; or by some other similar acts and things relating to him. His existence can be demonstrated in a still more indirect way, e.g., if you are asked whether this land has a king, you will undoubtedly answer in the affirmative. "What proof have you?" "The fact that this banker here, a weak and little person, stands before this large mass of gold pieces, and that poor man, tall and strong, who stands before him asking in vain for alms of the weight of a carob-grain, is rebuked and is compelled to go away by the mere force of words: for had he not feared the king, he would, without hesitation, have killed the banker, or pushed him away and taken as much of the money as he could." Consequently, this is a proof that this country has a ruler and his existence is proved by the well-regulated affairs of the country, on account of which the king is respected and the punishments decreed by him are feared. In this whole example nothing is mentioned that indicated his characteristics, and his essential properties, by virtue of which he is king. The same is the case with the information concerning the Creator given to the ordinary classes of men in all prophetical books and in the Law. For it was found necessary to teach all of them that God exists, and that He is in every respect the most perfect Being, that is to say, He exists not only in the sense in which the earth and the heavens exist, but He exists and possesses life, wisdom, power, activity, and all other properties which our belief in His existence must include, as will be shown below. That God exists was therefore shown to ordinary men by means of similes taken from physical bodies; that He is living, by a simile taken from motion, because ordinary men consider only the body as fully, truly, and undoubtedly existing; that which is connected with a body but is itself not a body, although believed to exist, has a lower degree of existence on account of its dependence on the body for existence. That, however, which is neither itself a body, nor a force within a body, is not existent according to man's first notions, and is above all excluded from the range of imagination. In the same manner motion is considered by the ordinary man as identical with life; what cannot move voluntarily from place to place has no life, although motion is not part of the definition of life, but an accident connected with it. The perception by the senses, especially by hearing and seeing, is best known to us; we have no idea or notion of any other mode of communication between the soul of one person and that of another than by means of speaking, i.e., by the sound produced by lips, tongue, and the other organs of speech. When, therefore, we are to be informed that God has a knowledge of things, and that communication is made by Him to the Prophets who convey it to us, they represent Him to us as seeing and hearing, i.e., as perceiving and knowing those things which can be seen and heard. They represent Him to us as speaking, i.e., that communications from Him reach the Prophets; that is to be understood by the term "prophecy," as will be fully explained. God is described as working, because we do not know any other mode of producing a thing except by direct touch. He is said to have a soul in the sense that He is living, because all living beings are generally supposed to have a soul; although the term soul is, as has been shown, a homonym.


Again, since we perform all these actions only by means of corporeal organs, we figuratively ascribe to God the organs of locomotion, as feet, and their soles; organs of hearing, seeing, and smelling, as ear, eye, and nose; organs and substance of speech, as mouth, tongue, and sound; organs for the performance of work, as hand, its fingers, its palm, and the arm. In short, these organs of the body are figuratively ascribed to God, who is above all imperfection, to express that He performs certain acts; and these acts are figuratively ascribed to Him to express that He possesses certain perfections different from those acts themselves. E.g., we say that He has eyes, ears, hands, a mouth, a tongue, to express that He sees, hears, acts, and speaks: but seeing and hearing are attributed to Him to indicate simply that He perceives. You thus find in Hebrew instances in which the perception of the one sense is named instead of the other; thus, "See the word of the Lord" (Jer. 2:31), in the same meaning as "Hear the word of the Lord," for the sense of the phrase is, "Perceive what He says"; similarly the phrase, "See the smell of my son" (Gen. 27:27) has the same meaning as "Smell the smell of my son," for it relates to the perception of the smell. In the same way are used the words, "And all the people saw the thunders and the lightnings" (Exod. 20:15), although the passage also contains the description of a prophetical vision, as is well known and understood among our people. Action and speech are likewise figuratively applied to God, to express that a certain influence has emanated from Him, as win be explained (chap. lxv and chap. lxvi.). The physical organs which are attributed to God in the writings of the Prophets are either organs of locomotion, indicating life; organs of sensation, indicating perception: organs of touch, indicating action: or organs of speech, indicating the divine inspiration of the Prophets, as will be explained.


The object of all these indications is to establish in our minds the notion of the existence of a living being, the Maker of everything, who also possesses a knowledge of the things which He has made. We shall explain, when we come to speak of the inadmissibility of Divine attributes, that all these various attributes convey but one notion, viz., that of the essence of God. The sole object of this chapter is to explain in what sense physical organs are ascribed to the Most Perfect Being, namely, that they are mere indications of the actions generally performed by means of these organs. Such actions being perfections respecting ourselves, are predicated of God, because we wish to express that He is most perfect in every respect, as we remarked above in explaining the Rabbinical phrase, "The language of the Torah is like the language of man." Instances of organs of locomotion being applied to the Creator occur as follows:--"My footstool" (Isa. 66:1); "the place of the soles of my feet" (Ezek. 43:7). For examples of organs of touch applied to God, comp. "the hand of the Lord" (Exod. 9:3); "with the finger of God" (ib. 31:18); "the work of thy fingers" (Ps. 8:4), "And thou hast laid thine hand upon me" (ib. 139:5); "The arm of the Lord" (Isa. 53:1); "Thy right hand, O Lord" (Exod. 15:6). In instances like the following, organs of speech are attributed to God: "The mouth of the Lord has spoken" (Isa. 1:20); "And He would open His lips against thee" (Job 11:5); "The voice of the Lord is powerful" (Ps. 29:4); "And his tongue as a devouring fire" (Isa. 30:27). Organs of sensation are attributed to God in instances like the following: "His eyes behold, His eyelids try" (Ps. 11:4); "The eyes of the Lord which run to and fro" (Zech. 4:10); "Bow down thine ear unto me, and hear" (2 Kings 19:16); "You have kindled a fire in my nostril" (Jer. 17:5). Of the inner parts of the human body only the heart is figuratively applied to God, because "heart" is a homonym, and denotes also "intellect"; it is besides the source of animal life. In phrases like "my bowels are troubled for him" (Jer. 31:20); "The sounding of thy bowels" (Isa. 63:15), the term "bowels" is used in the sense of "heart"; for the term "bowels" is used both in a general and in a specific meaning; it denotes specifically "bowels," but more generally it can be used as the name of any inner organ, including "heart." The correctness of this argument can be proved by the phrase "And thy law is within my bowels" (Ps. 40:9), which is identical with "And thy law is within my heart." For that reason the prophet employed in this verse the phrase "my bowels are troubled" (and "the sounding of thy bowels"); the verb hamah is in fact used more frequently in connection with "heart," than with any other organ; comp. "My heart maketh a noise (homeh) in me" (Jer. 4:19). Similarly, the shoulder is never used as a figure in reference to God, because it is known as a mere instrument of transport, and also comes into close contact with the thing which it carries. With far greater reason the organs of nutrition are never attributed to God: they are at once recognized as signs of imperfection. In fact all organs, both the external and the internal, are employed in the various actions of the soul: some, as e.g., all inner organs, are the means of preserving the individual for a certain time: others, as the organs of generation, are the means of preserving the species; others are the means of improving the condition of man and bringing his actions to perfection, as the hands, the feet, and the eyes, all of which tend to render motion, action, and perception more perfect. Animate beings require motion in order to be able to approach that which is conducive to their welfare, and to move away from the opposite: they require the senses in order to be able to discern what is injurious to them and what is beneficial. In addition, man requires various kinds of handiwork, to prepare his food, clothing, and dwelling; and he is compelled by his physical constitution to perform such work, namely, to prepare what is good for him. Some kinds of work also occur among certain animals, as far as such work is required by those animals. I do not believe that any man can doubt the correctness of the assertion that the Creator is not in need of anything for the continuance of His existence, or for the improvement of His condition. Therefore, God has no organs, or, what is the same, He is not corporeal; His actions are accomplished by His Essence, not by any organ, and as undoubtedly physical forces are connected with the organs, He does not possess any such forces, that is to say, He has, besides His Essence, nothing that could be the cause of His action, His knowledge, or His will, for attributes are nothing but forces under a different name. It is not my intention to discuss the question in this chapter. Our Sages laid down a general principle, by which the literal sense of the physical attributes of God mentioned by the prophets is rejected; a principle which evidently shows that our Sages were far from the belief in the corporeality of God, and that they did not think any person capable of misunderstanding it, or entertaining any doubt about it. For that reason they employ in the Talmud and the Midrashim phrases similar to those contained in the prophecies, without any circumlocution; they knew that there could not be any doubt about their metaphorical character, or any danger whatever of their being misunderstood; and that all such expressions would be understood as figurative [language], employed to communicate to the intellect the notion of His existence. Now, it was well known that in figurative language God is compared to a king who commands, cautions, punishes, and rewards, his subjects, and whose servants and attendants publish his orders, so that they might be acted upon, and they also execute whatever he wishes. Thus the Sages adopted that figure, used it frequently, and introduced such speech, consent, and refusal of a king, and other usual acts of kings, as became necessary by that figure. In all these instances they were sure that no doubt or confusion would arise from it. The general principle alluded to above is contained in the following saying of our Sages, mentioned in Bereshith Rabba (c. xxvii.), "Great was the power of the Prophets; they compared the creature to its Creator; comp. 'And over the resemblance of the throne was a resemblance like the appearance of man'" (Ezek. 1:26). They have thus plainly stated that all those images which the Prophets perceived, i.e. in prophetic visions, are images created by God. This is perfectly correct; for every image in our imagination has been created. How pregnant is the expression, "Great is their boldness!" They indicated by it, that they themselves found it very remarkable; for whenever they perceived a word or act difficult to explain, or apparently objectionable, they used that phrase; e.g., a certain Rabbi has performed the act (of "ḥali ah") with a slipper, alone and by night. Another Rabbi, thereupon exclaimed "How great is his boldness to have followed the opinion of the minority." The Chaldee phrase rab gubreh in the original of the latter quotation, and the Hebrew gadol koḥo in that of the former quotation, have the same meaning, viz., Great is the power of (or the boldness of). Hence, in the preceding quotation, the sense is, How remarkable is the language which the Prophets were obliged to use when they speak of God the Creator in terms signifying properties of beings created by Him. This deserves attention. Our Sages have thus stated in distinct and plain terms that they are far from believing in the corporeality of God; and in the figures and forms seen in a prophetical vision, though belonging to created beings, the Prophets, to use the words of our Sages, "compared the creature to its Creator." If, however, after these explanations, any one wishes out of malice to cavil at them, and to find fault with them, though their method is neither comprehended nor understood by him, the Sages oḅṃ. will sustain no injury by it.

 

[BreezeWood]

So this world, with all its pain and suffering was the best thing a perfect and good being could come up with? Your bar is very low.

That would be your take away from that. Ignore the overwhelming good and define the rule through exception.

So you want God to do magical stuff for you, eh?

There is no 'overwhelming' good, there is a continuum and everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, there are no exceptions. I have it really good, always have, but I know many who suffer every day. For some it is their bad choices, for some it is their bad luck.

As for the magical stuff? Yes! If God wants me to believe in him I think he owes me something that shows he is real. Moses got a burning bush. Jesus performed miracles. I don't ask for much, just something.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

.
what is made of existence is variable only the blind or disobedient pretend otherwise. the desert religions, political opportunist.

Maimonides replies...

Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance; the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, "and ye shall be like Elohim" (Gen. 3:5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence "and ye shall be like princes." Having pointed out the homonymity of the term "Elohim" we return to the question under consideration. "It would at first sight," said the objector, "appear from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil: but that Adam's disobedience to the command of God procured him that great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of distinguishing between good and evil-the noblest of all the faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race. It thus appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained previously. This is equivalent to saying that a certain man was rebellious and extremely wicked, wherefore his nature was changed for the better, and he was made to shine as a star in the heavens." Such was the purport and subject of the question, though not in the exact words of the inquirer. Now mark our reply, which was as follows:--"You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted to man as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him before his disobedience. With reference to this gift the Bible states that "man was created in the form and likeness of God." On account of this gift of intellect man was addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it is said: "And the Lord God commanded Adam" (Gen. 2:16)--for no commandments are given to the brute creation or to those who are devoid of understanding. Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent truths (morals), not in that of necessary truths, as, e.g., it is not correct to say, in reference to the proposition "the heavens are spherical," it is "good" or to declare the assertion that "the earth is flat" to be "bad": but we say of the one it is true, of the other it is false. Similarly our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms emet and sheker, of the morally right and the morally wrong, by tob and ra’. Thus it is the function of the intellect to discriminate between the true and the false--a distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual perception. When Adam was yet in a state of innocence, and was guided solely by reflection and reason--on account of which it is said: "Thou hast made him (man) little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:6)--he was not at all able to follow or to understand the principles of apparent truths; the most manifest impropriety, viz., to appear in a state of nudity, was nothing unbecoming according to his idea: he could not comprehend why it should be so. After man's disobedience, however, when he began to give way to desires which had their source in his imagination and to the gratification of his bodily appetites, as it is said, "And the wife saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes" (Gen. 3:6), he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed. He therefore transgressed a command with which he had been charged on the score of his reason; and having obtained a knowledge of the apparent truths, he was wholly absorbed in the study of what is proper and what improper. Then he fully understood the magnitude of the loss he had sustained, what he had forfeited, and in what situation he was thereby placed. Hence we read, "And ye shall be like elohim, knowing good and evil," and not "knowing" or "discerning the true and the false": while in necessary truths we can only apply the words "true and false," not "good and evil." Further observe the passage, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked" (Gen. 3:7): it is not said, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they saw"; for what the man had seen previously and what he saw after this circumstance was precisely the same: there had been no blindness which was now removed, but he received a new faculty whereby he found things wrong which previously he had not regarded as wrong. Besides, you must know that the Hebrew word pakaḥ used in this passage is exclusively employed in the figurative sense of receiving new sources of knowledge, not in that of regaining the sense of sight. Comp., "God opened her eyes" (Gen. 21:19). "Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened" (Isaiah 38:8). "Open ears, he heareth not" (ibid. 42:20), similar in sense to the verse, "Which have eyes to see, and see not" (Ezek. 12:2). When, however, Scripture says of Adam, "He changed his face (panav) and thou sentest him forth" Job 14:20), it must be understood in the following way: On account of the change of his original aim he was sent away. For panim, the Hebrew equivalent of face, is derived from the verb panah, "he turned," and signifies also "aim," because man generally turns his face towards the thing he desires. In accordance with this interpretation, our text suggests that Adam, as he altered his intention and directed his thoughts to the acquisition of what he was forbidden, he was banished from Paradise: this was his punishment; it was measure for measure. At first he had the privilege of tasting pleasure and happiness, and of enjoying repose and security; but as his appetites grew stronger, and he followed his desires and impulses, (as we have already stated above), and partook of the food he was forbidden to taste, he was deprived of everything, was doomed to subsist on the meanest kind of food, such as he never tasted before, and this even only after exertion and labour, as it is said, "Thorns and thistles shall grow up for thee" (Gen. 3:18), "By the sweat of thy brow," etc., and in explanation of this the text continues, "And the Lord God drove him from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he was taken." He was now with respect to food and many other requirements brought to the level of the lower animals: comp., "Thou shalt eat the grass of the field" (Gen. 3:18). Reflecting on his condition, the Psalmist says, "Adam unable to dwell in dignity, was brought to the level of the dumb beast" (Ps. 49:13)."May the Almighty be praised, whose design and wisdom cannot be fathomed."

Maimonides replies...

.
not that you are unable to reply yourself what is more disturbing is you rely on a book of forgeries and fallacies that proves the earlier statement - existence is variable - and certainly not the providence of the individual themselves but a collective consequence many times used by the disobedient for deleterious results. - bing the christian.

remove the forgeries, bing - those that wrote them would be most appreciative and for you a rewarding experience.

 

[alang1216]

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

Don't pity me, my existence is overwhelmingly good. Pity the 50,000 Americans that committed suicide last year.

If that were the case you would view existence from your perspective which you have full knowledge of rather than an isolated understanding of the perspectives of others which you lack a full accounting of. So I can only assume you judging the whole of existence as bad, that that is your true view of existence and not the view of others which you really don't know.

I think knowing 50K people believed their existence was not work continuing indicates to me there is both good and bad in world.

 

[alang1216]

I think it is illogical that you think he owes you anything at all. Apparently you expect the creator of existence to be your show pony and personal servant. How silly is that?

Almost as silly as judging someone on whether they believe in your existance when you've hidden yourself for their entire lives.

Your error is in thinking he has hidden himself from you rather than you have hidden yourself from him.

He isn't going to beg you to come to him. You have to make the first step. With that said, he is going to continue to work in your life and if you can't see how he has worked in your life that's on you, not him.

In my life, I've NEVER encountered anything obviously supernatural. I'm here in this chatroom, where is he? No, he has kept himself hidden from me.

 

[ding]

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

Don't pity me, my existence is overwhelmingly good. Pity the 50,000 Americans that committed suicide last year.

If that were the case you would view existence from your perspective which you have full knowledge of rather than an isolated understanding of the perspectives of others which you lack a full accounting of. So I can only assume you judging the whole of existence as bad, that that is your true view of existence and not the view of others which you really don't know.

I think knowing 50K people believed their existence was not work continuing indicates to me there is both good and bad in world.

The question was never is there good or bad in the world. The question is the distribution. The distribution is that existence is overwhelmingly good. This should be self evident.

 

[ding]

I think it is illogical that you think he owes you anything at all. Apparently you expect the creator of existence to be your show pony and personal servant. How silly is that?

Almost as silly as judging someone on whether they believe in your existance when you've hidden yourself for their entire lives.

Your error is in thinking he has hidden himself from you rather than you have hidden yourself from him.

He isn't going to beg you to come to him. You have to make the first step. With that said, he is going to continue to work in your life and if you can't see how he has worked in your life that's on you, not him.

In my life, I've NEVER encountered anything obviously supernatural. I'm here in this chatroom, where is he? No, he has kept himself hidden from me.

So you want to see some magic?

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

 

[ding]

So this world, with all its pain and suffering was the best thing a perfect and good being could come up with? Your bar is very low.

That would be your take away from that. Ignore the overwhelming good and define the rule through exception.

So you want God to do magical stuff for you, eh?

There is no 'overwhelming' good, there is a continuum and everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, there are no exceptions. I have it really good, always have, but I know many who suffer every day. For some it is their bad choices, for some it is their bad luck.

As for the magical stuff? Yes! If God wants me to believe in him I think he owes me something that shows he is real. Moses got a burning bush. Jesus performed miracles. I don't ask for much, just something.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

.
what is made of existence is variable only the blind or disobedient pretend otherwise. the desert religions, political opportunist.

Maimonides replies...

Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance; the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, "and ye shall be like Elohim" (Gen. 3:5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence "and ye shall be like princes." Having pointed out the homonymity of the term "Elohim" we return to the question under consideration. "It would at first sight," said the objector, "appear from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil: but that Adam's disobedience to the command of God procured him that great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of distinguishing between good and evil-the noblest of all the faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race. It thus appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained previously. This is equivalent to saying that a certain man was rebellious and extremely wicked, wherefore his nature was changed for the better, and he was made to shine as a star in the heavens." Such was the purport and subject of the question, though not in the exact words of the inquirer. Now mark our reply, which was as follows:--"You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted to man as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him before his disobedience. With reference to this gift the Bible states that "man was created in the form and likeness of God." On account of this gift of intellect man was addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it is said: "And the Lord God commanded Adam" (Gen. 2:16)--for no commandments are given to the brute creation or to those who are devoid of understanding. Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent truths (morals), not in that of necessary truths, as, e.g., it is not correct to say, in reference to the proposition "the heavens are spherical," it is "good" or to declare the assertion that "the earth is flat" to be "bad": but we say of the one it is true, of the other it is false. Similarly our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms emet and sheker, of the morally right and the morally wrong, by tob and ra’. Thus it is the function of the intellect to discriminate between the true and the false--a distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual perception. When Adam was yet in a state of innocence, and was guided solely by reflection and reason--on account of which it is said: "Thou hast made him (man) little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:6)--he was not at all able to follow or to understand the principles of apparent truths; the most manifest impropriety, viz., to appear in a state of nudity, was nothing unbecoming according to his idea: he could not comprehend why it should be so. After man's disobedience, however, when he began to give way to desires which had their source in his imagination and to the gratification of his bodily appetites, as it is said, "And the wife saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes" (Gen. 3:6), he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed. He therefore transgressed a command with which he had been charged on the score of his reason; and having obtained a knowledge of the apparent truths, he was wholly absorbed in the study of what is proper and what improper. Then he fully understood the magnitude of the loss he had sustained, what he had forfeited, and in what situation he was thereby placed. Hence we read, "And ye shall be like elohim, knowing good and evil," and not "knowing" or "discerning the true and the false": while in necessary truths we can only apply the words "true and false," not "good and evil." Further observe the passage, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked" (Gen. 3:7): it is not said, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they saw"; for what the man had seen previously and what he saw after this circumstance was precisely the same: there had been no blindness which was now removed, but he received a new faculty whereby he found things wrong which previously he had not regarded as wrong. Besides, you must know that the Hebrew word pakaḥ used in this passage is exclusively employed in the figurative sense of receiving new sources of knowledge, not in that of regaining the sense of sight. Comp., "God opened her eyes" (Gen. 21:19). "Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened" (Isaiah 38:8). "Open ears, he heareth not" (ibid. 42:20), similar in sense to the verse, "Which have eyes to see, and see not" (Ezek. 12:2). When, however, Scripture says of Adam, "He changed his face (panav) and thou sentest him forth" Job 14:20), it must be understood in the following way: On account of the change of his original aim he was sent away. For panim, the Hebrew equivalent of face, is derived from the verb panah, "he turned," and signifies also "aim," because man generally turns his face towards the thing he desires. In accordance with this interpretation, our text suggests that Adam, as he altered his intention and directed his thoughts to the acquisition of what he was forbidden, he was banished from Paradise: this was his punishment; it was measure for measure. At first he had the privilege of tasting pleasure and happiness, and of enjoying repose and security; but as his appetites grew stronger, and he followed his desires and impulses, (as we have already stated above), and partook of the food he was forbidden to taste, he was deprived of everything, was doomed to subsist on the meanest kind of food, such as he never tasted before, and this even only after exertion and labour, as it is said, "Thorns and thistles shall grow up for thee" (Gen. 3:18), "By the sweat of thy brow," etc., and in explanation of this the text continues, "And the Lord God drove him from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he was taken." He was now with respect to food and many other requirements brought to the level of the lower animals: comp., "Thou shalt eat the grass of the field" (Gen. 3:18). Reflecting on his condition, the Psalmist says, "Adam unable to dwell in dignity, was brought to the level of the dumb beast" (Ps. 49:13)."May the Almighty be praised, whose design and wisdom cannot be fathomed."

Maimonides replies...

.
not that you are unable to reply yourself what is more disturbing is you rely on a book of forgeries and fallacies that proves the earlier statement - existence is variable - and certainly not the providence of the individual themselves but a collective consequence many times used by the disobedient for deleterious results. - bing the christian.

remove the forgeries, bing - those that wrote them would be most appreciative and for you a rewarding experience.

The four principal dogmas upheld by the dominant religions were the creation ex nihilo, the Existence of God, His Incorporeality, and His Unity. By the philosophers the creation ex nihilo was rejected, but the Mutakallemim defended it, and founded upon it their proofs for the other three dogmas. Maimonides adopts the philosophical proofs for the Existence, Incorporeality, and Unity of
God, because they must be admitted even by those who deny the creation ex nihilo, the proofs being independent of this dogma.

 

[JoeMoma]

If our existence was but a coincidence, what might be the odds of such a coincidence?

Our existence has nothing to do with the odds of rolling 70 sixes in a row.

 

[alang1216]

The question was never is there good or bad in the world. The question is the distribution. The distribution is that existence is overwhelmingly good. This should be self evident.

It's not. Sitting here in my home with a full belly, healthy (thanks to modern medicine), and surrounded by family, life is indeed good. If I was in a different country or in a different time I might feel very different as did those 50K suicides did last year.

How do you determine 'overwhelmingly'? Where is the fulcrum?

 

[alang1216]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

 

[BreezeWood]

So this world, with all its pain and suffering was the best thing a perfect and good being could come up with? Your bar is very low.

That would be your take away from that. Ignore the overwhelming good and define the rule through exception.

So you want God to do magical stuff for you, eh?

There is no 'overwhelming' good, there is a continuum and everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, there are no exceptions. I have it really good, always have, but I know many who suffer every day. For some it is their bad choices, for some it is their bad luck.

As for the magical stuff? Yes! If God wants me to believe in him I think he owes me something that shows he is real. Moses got a burning bush. Jesus performed miracles. I don't ask for much, just something.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

I pity you if you believe existence isn't overwhelmingly good.

.
what is made of existence is variable only the blind or disobedient pretend otherwise. the desert religions, political opportunist.

Maimonides replies...

Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance; the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, "and ye shall be like Elohim" (Gen. 3:5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence "and ye shall be like princes." Having pointed out the homonymity of the term "Elohim" we return to the question under consideration. "It would at first sight," said the objector, "appear from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil: but that Adam's disobedience to the command of God procured him that great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of distinguishing between good and evil-the noblest of all the faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race. It thus appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained previously. This is equivalent to saying that a certain man was rebellious and extremely wicked, wherefore his nature was changed for the better, and he was made to shine as a star in the heavens." Such was the purport and subject of the question, though not in the exact words of the inquirer. Now mark our reply, which was as follows:--"You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted to man as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him before his disobedience. With reference to this gift the Bible states that "man was created in the form and likeness of God." On account of this gift of intellect man was addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it is said: "And the Lord God commanded Adam" (Gen. 2:16)--for no commandments are given to the brute creation or to those who are devoid of understanding. Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent truths (morals), not in that of necessary truths, as, e.g., it is not correct to say, in reference to the proposition "the heavens are spherical," it is "good" or to declare the assertion that "the earth is flat" to be "bad": but we say of the one it is true, of the other it is false. Similarly our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms emet and sheker, of the morally right and the morally wrong, by tob and ra’. Thus it is the function of the intellect to discriminate between the true and the false--a distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual perception. When Adam was yet in a state of innocence, and was guided solely by reflection and reason--on account of which it is said: "Thou hast made him (man) little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:6)--he was not at all able to follow or to understand the principles of apparent truths; the most manifest impropriety, viz., to appear in a state of nudity, was nothing unbecoming according to his idea: he could not comprehend why it should be so. After man's disobedience, however, when he began to give way to desires which had their source in his imagination and to the gratification of his bodily appetites, as it is said, "And the wife saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes" (Gen. 3:6), he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed. He therefore transgressed a command with which he had been charged on the score of his reason; and having obtained a knowledge of the apparent truths, he was wholly absorbed in the study of what is proper and what improper. Then he fully understood the magnitude of the loss he had sustained, what he had forfeited, and in what situation he was thereby placed. Hence we read, "And ye shall be like elohim, knowing good and evil," and not "knowing" or "discerning the true and the false": while in necessary truths we can only apply the words "true and false," not "good and evil." Further observe the passage, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked" (Gen. 3:7): it is not said, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they saw"; for what the man had seen previously and what he saw after this circumstance was precisely the same: there had been no blindness which was now removed, but he received a new faculty whereby he found things wrong which previously he had not regarded as wrong. Besides, you must know that the Hebrew word pakaḥ used in this passage is exclusively employed in the figurative sense of receiving new sources of knowledge, not in that of regaining the sense of sight. Comp., "God opened her eyes" (Gen. 21:19). "Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened" (Isaiah 38:8). "Open ears, he heareth not" (ibid. 42:20), similar in sense to the verse, "Which have eyes to see, and see not" (Ezek. 12:2). When, however, Scripture says of Adam, "He changed his face (panav) and thou sentest him forth" Job 14:20), it must be understood in the following way: On account of the change of his original aim he was sent away. For panim, the Hebrew equivalent of face, is derived from the verb panah, "he turned," and signifies also "aim," because man generally turns his face towards the thing he desires. In accordance with this interpretation, our text suggests that Adam, as he altered his intention and directed his thoughts to the acquisition of what he was forbidden, he was banished from Paradise: this was his punishment; it was measure for measure. At first he had the privilege of tasting pleasure and happiness, and of enjoying repose and security; but as his appetites grew stronger, and he followed his desires and impulses, (as we have already stated above), and partook of the food he was forbidden to taste, he was deprived of everything, was doomed to subsist on the meanest kind of food, such as he never tasted before, and this even only after exertion and labour, as it is said, "Thorns and thistles shall grow up for thee" (Gen. 3:18), "By the sweat of thy brow," etc., and in explanation of this the text continues, "And the Lord God drove him from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he was taken." He was now with respect to food and many other requirements brought to the level of the lower animals: comp., "Thou shalt eat the grass of the field" (Gen. 3:18). Reflecting on his condition, the Psalmist says, "Adam unable to dwell in dignity, was brought to the level of the dumb beast" (Ps. 49:13)."May the Almighty be praised, whose design and wisdom cannot be fathomed."

Maimonides replies...

.
not that you are unable to reply yourself what is more disturbing is you rely on a book of forgeries and fallacies that proves the earlier statement - existence is variable - and certainly not the providence of the individual themselves but a collective consequence many times used by the disobedient for deleterious results. - bing the christian.

remove the forgeries, bing - those that wrote them would be most appreciative and for you a rewarding experience.

The four principal dogmas upheld by the dominant religions were the creation ex nihilo, the Existence of God, His Incorporeality, and His Unity. By the philosophers the creation ex nihilo was rejected, but the Mutakallemim defended it, and founded upon it their proofs for the other three dogmas. Maimonides adopts the philosophical proofs for the Existence, Incorporeality, and Unity of
God, because they must be admitted even by those who deny the creation ex nihilo, the proofs being independent of this dogma.

- were the creation ex nihilo, the Existence of God, His their Incorporeality, and His their Unity ...

.
whatever happened to the plurality from the beginning of your book of forgeries ...


you use the fallacies of your christian bible to ascribe your interpretation of the metaphysical than what there is that actually does exist.

proven equally by your statements and of that book by the uninterrupted history of both.

 

[BreezeWood]

I think it is illogical that you think he owes you anything at all. Apparently you expect the creator of existence to be your show pony and personal servant. How silly is that?

Almost as silly as judging someone on whether they believe in your existance when you've hidden yourself for their entire lives.

Your error is in thinking he has hidden himself from you rather than you have hidden yourself from him.

He isn't going to beg you to come to him. You have to make the first step. With that said, he is going to continue to work in your life and if you can't see how he has worked in your life that's on you, not him.

In my life, I've NEVER encountered anything obviously supernatural. I'm here in this chatroom, where is he? No, he has kept himself hidden from me.

In my life, I've NEVER encountered anything obviously supernatural. I'm here in this chatroom, where is he ? No, he has kept himself hidden from me.

.
physiology is a metaphysical (supernatural) substance that disappears when the spiritual content is removed and neither are native to planet Earth.

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

 

[ding]

The question was never is there good or bad in the world. The question is the distribution. The distribution is that existence is overwhelmingly good. This should be self evident.

It's not. Sitting here in my home with a full belly, healthy (thanks to modern medicine), and surrounded by family, life is indeed good. If I was in a different country or in a different time I might feel very different as did those 50K suicides did last year.

How do you determine 'overwhelmingly'? Where is the fulcrum?

Who are you trying to convince? You have already provided yours.

Personally I think your measure is fucked up.