hello i never gave you translation of same line [...]
Wrong. That is exactly what you did. Do not attempt to deny it.
it is said in oppose of god liking sacrifices
Wrong again. It is the exact reverse of what you claim.
As I said before "Role playing Game" [...]
So? We've been over this before. You seem to believe that quoting an arbitrary phrase will be sufficient support for your argument, where in reality it means nothing.
Why we are sent in this world? for sacrificing ourselves? or to do good works.
You answered this, yourself, when I asked why God would put humans on Earth:
[...] but to be precise I don't know [...]
If you don't know, you should not be making these assumptions.
How you can say my claim is baseless? I have given an example "Superstitiousness".
1 Very easily, considering that your claim "has no basis at all". 2 Superstitiousness is not an example. It is not even relevant.
No, I am saying it for those people who really have no humanity left in them.
Humanity is the state of being human. The people you describe are human. Therefore, the people you describe have humanity.
[quote]Yes, and your answer was not rational either.
How?[/quote]
By way of being meaningless.
We cannot say it is pre-predicated anything can happen anytime but at the same time some events are fixed. "A little change can be dangerous in the future."
My point: Change in the present does not change the future. Similarly, changing a history book does not change the past.
Now, back to the other topic:
Do you believe that God knows everything? Do you believe that God can do whatever He wants to do?
[quote]You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
[/quote]
No. According to me, what you said was irrelevant.
and also this means god doesn't like sacrifices, and what you said?
[quote]Wrong. That is exactly what you did. Do not attempt to deny it.
All the other line Say's so....[/quote]
They say so because they are nearly identical translations of the same line. Therefore that is exactly what you did. Therefore, you concede, whether you realize it or not. Therefore, I ask that you stop dancing around the subject and answer my questions:
Do you believe that God knows everything? Do you believe that God can do whatever He wants to do?
well yes, but the fact is the holy books in which they are written, means most of the books are saying the god doesn't like Sacrifices.
If that's all it takes, there are several thousand copies of Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, all of which state that God is dead, so your point is moot.
So? We've been over this before. You seem to believe that quoting an arbitrary phrase will be sufficient support for your argument, where in reality it means nothing.
You are taking it wrong. I have not quote this phrase from anywhere. Its an example for better understanding.
You answered this, yourself, when I asked why God would put humans on Earth:
To do good works.
1 Very easily, considering that your claim "has no basis at all". 2 Superstitiousness is not an example. It is not even relevant.
Sopersitiousness is the biggest and a live evidence for the question of sacrifice.
Humanity is the state of being human. The people you describe are human. Therefore, the people you describe have humanity.
In other words "Humanity is the feeling of being human". And the people I descirbed have very less humanity in them, almost neligable.
By way of being meaningless.
Explain.
My point: Change in the present does not change the future. Similarly, changing a history book does not change the past.
So, you are linking present with history books and future with past? If "yes" - past and future are totally different things because we know the past but not the future.
Now, back to the other topic:
Do you believe that God knows everything?
Do you believe that God can do whatever He wants to do?
1. Yes, but still we don't know that the god is in existence or not.
You are taking it wrong. I have not quote this phrase from anywhere. Its an example for better understanding.
No. Do not argue with me on this. It is plainly evident.
To do good works.
You don't know that.
Sopersitiousness is the biggest and a live evidence for the question of sacrifice.
Superstitiousness does not answer any of the questions that were asked. None of those questions were "Sacrifice" either.
In other words "Humanity is the feeling of being human". And the people I descirbed have very less humanity in them, almost neligable.
Wrong. state â feeling
[quote]By way of being meaningless.
Explain.[/quote]
The response you gave had no context. Therefore, it had no meaning. Therefore it was not rational.
So, you are linking present with history books and future with past?
No. I am telling you that the future does not change. To change something is to make it different from what it was before. The future was not anything "before". It didn't exist "before". For the future, "before" means the present and the past.
Can you change your mind before you make any decisions? No. Can you change your clothes before putting any on? No. Can you change directions before you start moving? No. Can you change a statement before you make it? No. Can you change the future before it happens? No.
The future never happens before the present. Therefore, you cannot change the future.
Do you believe that God created the universe and everything that was originally in it?
Do you believe that God could create perfect humans if He wanted to?
Back to the original questions if I'm allowed: - define intelligence. - define god. Prove god. Define best. - prove that god gave anything. - prove that god's intentions. - prove there are adequate use of power. - prove humans missuse power.
Now I'll take a big leap, and will theorise what you tried to mean, and give MY answers: - humans are the only known creatures potentially capable leaving this planet - it is important to be able to move and live on another planet, as the time Earth remains habitable for ANY kind of life (as we know it) is limited. - therefor humans are "intelligent", important, and unexchangable.
If this was not what you asked here, please start answering the above list.
For @FishPreferred Your questions have nothing to do with the definition I know for "intelligence" (what is IQ, what is capability of logical connection-recognising independent mostly from education in a considerably short time). BUT considering the basic behavior of life, and the universe in general, I say b) is preferred. Sooner or later something from outside will break your peaceful way of life (like it happened with the native americans), and will die out. This can be another nation, another life-form (eg. a new pathogen = illness), or some non-living phenomena (eg. the sun burning out). Therefor only if you're ready to move on, is preferable.
Your questions have nothing to do with the definition I know for "intelligence" (what is IQ, what is capability of logical connection-recognising independent mostly from education in a considerably short time).
Actually, it has plenty. We're also a ways past that now. The rest of your statement is unclear and seems to have little bearing upon the subject.
[quote]Your questions have nothing to do with the definition I know for "intelligence" (what is IQ, what is capability of logical connection-recognising independent mostly from education in a considerably short time).
Actually, it has plenty. We're also a ways past that now. The rest of your statement is unclear and seems to have little bearing upon the subject.[/quote]
I don't know what you don't understand.
You offer two ways of life: a) settled, not expanding tree-huggers b) ever-expanding, occasionally war-making bunch.
I state: On the question of intelligence both can come up with the very same inventions in the very same time-period through the very same way of thinking => they do not differ in intelligence. The only thing they differ in, is the chance of USING those inventions, what is the field of moral and ethics, and NOT intelligence.
I also state: - if you settle down, sooner or later something unexpected will eat you. - for the above reason I vote on the war-making way of life. Additionally to this I state: - the most hard to bear down problem is that Earth will be unable to sustain life after a period. ANY form of life. (under "life" I mean what we commonly recognise as life) - the only species what has the slightest chance to leave Earth and move to another planet is humans (as far as we know). - therefor humans are precious, and must be protected at all cost.
You offer two ways of life: a) settled, not expanding tree-huggers b) ever-expanding, occasionally war-making bunch. I state: On the question of intelligence both can come up with the very same inventions in the very same time-period through the very same way of thinking => they do not differ in intelligence. The only thing they differ in, is the chance of USING those inventions, what is the field of moral and ethics, and NOT intelligence.
It seems you entirely misunderstood my argument. I suggest that you read it over again in the absence of whatever anthropomorphic preconceptions led you to this conclusion.
- if you settle down, sooner or later something unexpected will eat you.
Irrelevant.
- the most hard to bear down problem is that Earth will be unable to sustain life after a period. ANY form of life. (under "life" I mean what we commonly recognise as life)
Irrelevant.
- the only species what has the slightest chance to leave Earth and move to another planet is humans (as far as we know).
Irrelevant.
- therefor humans are precious, and must be protected at all cost.
I think I caused a "little" misunderstanding. What I replyed on was on the first page (sry, quoted:
I ask you: Which is more intelligent? a) The species that maintains a constant or periodic-but stable population, needs only the basic requirements for life, has minimal impact on anything outside its niche, and does not attempt to extend its life span beyond its biological design. b) The species that invades nearly every large land mass on the planet, freely swells to globally unsustainable numbers, devises increasingly dangerous weapons, not only to kill, but to utterly destroy large regions and poison everything around, carelessly consumes whole ecosystems for its own short term benefit, and seeks to prolong the lives of its own members indefinitely, among other things.
Thus what I say is far from irrelevant.
Also not irrelevant on the opening-post.
--------------
On your post at Posted Mar 27, '14 at 1
No. I am telling you that the future does not change. To change something is to make it different from what it was before. The future was not anything "before". It didn't exist "before". For the future, "before" means the present and the past.
I disagree on your definition. To "change the future" the phrase refers to "the probability we count out/expect to happen if no thing changes". Also currently it is impossible to prove that the thing we call "future" does not exist already. But I have to call your attention, this doesn't matter, as this question is not related to Humanity.
